Royal v. Barry

• Decision Date: 13 May 1960
• Docket Number: No. 1322,1322
• Citation: 91 R.I. 24,160 A.2d 572
• Parties: Louis M. ROYAL v. Peter J. BARRY et al. M. P.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 572

160 A.2d 572

91 R.I. 24

Louis M. ROYAL v. Peter J. BARRY et al.

M. P. No. 1322.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

May 13, 1960.

Corcoran, Foley & Flynn, Francis R. Foley, Pawtucket, for petitioner.

John A. O'Neill, City Sol., Harvey J. Ryan, Asst. City Sol., Pawtucket, for respondents.

POWERS, Justice.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the action of the school committee of the city of Pawtucket in suspending the petitioner as a teacher within the school system. The writ was issued and in compliance therewith the pertinent records have been certified to this court. Simultaneously with the issuance of the writ we ordered a stay of the suspension pending the hearing of the case on its merits.

It appears from the record that petitioner has been a mathematics teacher in the public schools of the city of Pawtucket for approximately thirty years and that, by letter dated October 16, 1959, he was requested by respondent Peter J. Barry, chairman of the school committee, 'to appear at a special executive meeting of the School Committee to be held on Friday, October 23, 1959 at 8:00 p. m. in the School Administration Building * * * to discuss the much publicized charges against you in connection with the addressing of envelopes by students in your homeroom at Tolman Senior High School.' Hereinafter respondent Barry will be referred to as the chairman.

On receipt of this communication petitioner consulted counsel who, by letter dated October 20, 1959, advised the committee through its chairman that General Laws 1956, § 16-13-4, entitled a teacher to a private hearing, if desired, and that unless the committee would assure petitioner that the proposed hearing on October 23 would not thereafter be made public, by advice of counsel he would not participate therein. Thereupon by letter dated October 22, 1959 the chairman advised petitioner that whereas the letter of October 16 had requested the latter's attendance at the executive meeting scheduled for October 23, he was now directed to appear.

The notes taken by the clerk at the meeting of October 23, which constitute the transcript, disclose that petitioner accompanied by his attorney attended the meeting. The following persons also were present: Three members of the Teachers' Alliance; Cornelius F. McGeough, assistant principal of the school to which petitioner was assigned; four persons who were parents and children allegedly having some knowledge of the incident giving rise to the hearing; counsel for the school committee; and representatives of the press. There were six members of the school committee in attendance. The chairman requested the newspaper men to leave, and in reply to a question from one of them stated that the letter to petitioner had given notice that the committee would meet in executive session. Thereupon the reporters withdrew.

Counsel for petitioner inquired if there were charges against Mr. Royal, to which the chairman replied, 'in a sense, yes,' whereupon he demanded a private hearing as required by law, citing G.L.1956, § 16-13-4. That section reads as follows: 'Statement of cause for dismissal shall be given the teacher in writing by the governing body of the schools at least one (1) month prior to the close of the school year. The teacher may, within fifteen (15) days of such notification, request in writing, a hearing before the full board. The hearing shall be public or private, in the discretion of the teacher. Both teacher and school board shall be entitled to be represented by counsel and to present witnesses. The board shall keep a complete record of the hearing and shall furnish the teacher with a copy. Any teacher aggrieved by the decision of the school board shall have right of appeal to the state department of education and shall have the right of further appeal to the superior court. Nothing in this section shall prevent the retirement of any teacher under a rule of the school committee affecting marriage.'

The petitioner's counsel then requested an assurance from the chariman that the proceedings would not thereafter be made public and further requested that the witnesses be excluded until called. It appears that the witnesses thus referred to were the parents and children who were present at the request of the school committee to aid in the inquiry of the circumstances relating to students in petitioner's home room addressing envelopes to their parents during school hours and at his direction. The envelopes thus addressed, which contained a political circular advancing the nomination in a forthcoming primary of certain persons as candidates for the school committee, apparently were then mailed to the addressees.

The chairman declared that he could give no such assurance, that there were no formal charges pending, and that the executive meeting then in session had been called for the purpose of inquiring about the incident in question. He added that no action had thus far been taken by the committee and that if action were taken after information had been gathered the petitioner might thereafter request a hearing as provided in G.L.1956, § 16-13-4.

Counsel for petitioner then stated that since there was no specification of charges nor any official charges made, and no assurance that the proceedings would be private as requested, on his advice petitioner would decline to answer questions put to him or otherwise participate in the meeting.

The committee recessed at 8:30 p. m. and reconvened at 8:45 p. m. At this point in the proceedings petitioner's counsel questioned whether the school committee was properly constituted, one of its members having moved from the city and no action having been taken to fill the vacancy as authorized by law. The committee again recessed at 8:50 p. m. presumably to deliberate this question in private. It reconvened at 8:55 p. m. and there ensued some discussion between the parties as to the legal status of the committee. Although petitioner has briefed and argued the alleged illegality of the committee's composition we do not consider it pertinent to the instant proceeding.

There then followed discussions between the chairman and petitioner's counsel relative to the nature of the meeting, the provisions of the law relating to teachers, and the applicability of the school committee rules providing for private hearings when 'personalities' are to be discussed. The chairman pointed out that the proceedings were an executive meeting and not a hearing. Although counsel for petitioner conceded that the school committee might properly inquire of a teacher regarding procedure during classes, he reiterated that for the reasons stated petitioner would decline to answer any questions.

Thereafter the chairman read into the record four signed statements, two by students and two by parents, the former stating that under the direction of petitioner they had...