School Dist. of City of Royal Oak v. Schulman, Docket No. 22876

• Citation: 68 Mich.App. 589,243 N.W.2d 673
• Decision Date: 26 April 1976
• Docket Number: Docket No. 22876
• Parties: SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF ROYAL OAK, a Public Body Corporate, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sidney SCHULMAN, Defendant-Appellant. 68 Mich.App. 589, 243 N.W.2d 673
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)

Page 673

243 N.W.2d 673

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF ROYAL OAK, a Public Body

Corporate, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sidney SCHULMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 22876.

68 Mich.App. 589, 243 N.W.2d 673

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

April 26, 1976.

Released for Publication July 16, 1976.

[68 MICHAPP 590] Levin, Levin, Garvett & Dill by Harvey I. Wax, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Burton R. Shifman, Southfield, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BASHARA, P.J., and KAUFMAN and WALSH, JJ.

BASHARA, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Oakland County Circuit Court reversing a decision of the Michigan Teachers' Tenure Commission. The commission had reinstated the previously discharged appellant.

Appellant has been a tenured teacher in the appellee school district since 1960. On April 19, 1973, pursuant to the Michigan teacher's tenure act, M.C.L.A. § 38.71 Et seq.; M.S.A. § 15.1971 Et seq., the principal at the school where appellant was employed filed charges with the appellee. The charges alleged unsatisfactory performance of professional services by the appellant. The appellee voted to proceed upon the allegations against the appellant.

The appellant requested a private hearing before the Royal Oak Board of Education. The hearing commenced on June 5, 1973, and continued periodically with the taking of testimony and exhibits. [68 MICHAPP 591] The board of education concluded the evidence gathering portion of the hearing on August 9, 1973. The board reached a decision on August 22, 1973, to dismiss the appellant. A copy of the decision was timely served upon the appellant.

The appellant filed a petition appealing his discharge to the tenure commission assigning as error, (1) the failure of the board of education to render its decision at a publicly noticed meeting, and (2) the dismissal was without reasonable and just cause. The tenure commission ruled the appellant was improperly dismissed because the meeting did not satisfy the public notice requirements. The appellant was reinstated and awarded back pay.

The appellee sought appeal to the Oakland County Circuit Court. The trial judge reversed the tenure commission and held that once the appellant elected a private hearing it encompassed the decision. The trial judge then remanded the case to determine whether the dismissal was for reasonable and just cause.

The issue presented on appeal is whether a board of education can take official and final action to discharge a teacher at a meeting called without prior notice as required by the public board meetings act. M.C.L.A. § 15.251 Et seq.; M.S.A. § 4.1800(1) Et seq., where the teacher has previously requested that hearings regarding his discharge be held privately.

Boards of education possess only those powers expressly or impliedly granted by statute. Jacox v. Board of Education of Van Buren Consolidated School District, 293 Mich. 126, 128, 291 N.W. 247 (1940). The board executes its powers at meetings lawfully called and held unless otherwise authorized by statute. McLaughlin v. Board of Education [68 MICHAPP 592] of Fordson School District of City of Dearborn, 255 Mich. 667, 670, 239 N.W. 374 (1931).

Generally, all authorized business of boards of education is required to be performed at public meetings. M.C.L.A. § 340.561; M.S.A. § 15.3561. The public board meetings act sets out the notice requirements for public meetings, M.C.L.A. § 15.253; M.S.A. § 4.1800(3), and such requirements apply to boards of education, M.C.L.A. § 15.251(1); M.S.A. § 4.1800(1).

The teacher's tenure act, M.C.L.A. § 38.71 Et seq.; M.S.A. § 15.1971 Et seq., grants the power to the board of education to conduct hearings on the dismissal or demotion of tenured teachers. M.C.L.A. § 38.104; M.S.A. § 15.2004, provides in relevant part:

'The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the following provisions:

'a. The hearing shall be public or private at the option of the teacher affected.

'f. Any hearing held for the dismissal or demotion of a teacher, as provided in this act, Must be concluded by a decision in writing, within 15 days After the termination of the hearing. A copy of such decision shall be furnished the teacher affected within 5 days after the decision is rendered.' (Emphasis supplied.)

The dismissal or demotion may be public or private at the election of the teacher. If the teacher requests a private hearing, the question arises as to whether the decision is part of the private hearing.

A statute is open to judicial construction where the language used in the statute is ambiguous or is susceptible to two or more constructions. City of Lansing v. Township of Lansing, 356 Mich. 641, 649, 97 N.W.2d 804 (1959). M.C.L.A. § 38.104; M.S.A. § 15.2004, is such a statute. It can be read to mean that the decision is part of the hearing because the hearing [68 MICHAPP 593] must be concluded by a decision in writing. It can also be read to mean that the decision is not part of the hearing, since there must be a decision within 15 days after...