Slattery v. School Committee of City of Cranston

• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PAOLINO; ROBERTS
• Citation: Slattery v. School Committee of City of Cranston, 354 A.2d 741, 116 R.I. 252 (R.I. 1976)
• Decision Date: 08 April 1976
• Docket Number: Nos. 73-253-A,s. 73-253-A
• Parties: Edward J. SLATTERY v. SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF the CITY OF CRANSTON et al. SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF the CITY OF CRANSTON v. BOARD OF REGENTS FOR EDUCATION. ppeal, 74-166-M.P.

Page 741

354 A.2d 741

116 R.I. 252

Edward J. SLATTERY v. SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF the CITY OF CRANSTON et al.

SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF the CITY OF CRANSTON v. BOARD OF REGENTS FOR EDUCATION.

Nos. 73-253-Appeal, 74-166-M.P.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

April 8, 1976.

[116 R.I. 263] Vincent J. Piccirilli, Providence, for School Committee of the City of Cranston.

Natale L. Urso, Westerly, for Bd. of Regents for Ed.

OPINION

PAOLINO, Justice.

This proceeding involves two actions. The first is an appeal by the defendants from an order entered in the Superior Court in Edward J. Slattery v. The School Committee of the City of Cranston et al., No. 73-253-A. The second is a petition for certiorari filed in this court in The School Committee of the City of Cranston v. Board of Regents for Education, No. 74-166 M.P. We ordered the two cases consolidated for hearing in this court. School Comm. v. Board of Regents for Educ., 113 R.I. 934, 322 A.2d 304 (1974).

This controversy has a long history. On May 2, 1972, plaintiff, Edward J. Slattery, filed a complaint in the Superior Court against the Cranston School Committee and Dr. Joseph Picano, the Superintendent of Schools for that city. He alleged that he was being dismissed as a principal in the Cranston school system in violation of his rights under the Teachers' Tenure Act, G.L.1956 (1969 Reenactment) chapter 13 of title 16. He sought injunctive relief ordering defendants to permit him to resume and continue his duties as principal and a declaratory judgment declaring that he had tenure as a principal under the Teachers' Tenure Act.

On May 23, 1972, a hearing was held before a justice of the Superior Court on plaintiff's prayer for a temporary injunction. The record discloses the following facts. The plaintiff had been employed by the Cranston School Department as a teacher from 1960 to 1962, as an assistant elementary school principal from 1962 to 1965 and as a principal from 1965 to 1972. As a result of Dr. Picano's feeling that plaintiff was not performing satisfactorily as a principal, plaintiff was not paid the full step on the salary scale of the statement of professional relations for the school years 1970-71 and 1971-72. He appealed the superintendent's action to the Commissioner of Education. In 1972 the latter ordered defendants to pay plaintiff the scheduled amount for the years in question. The defendants appealed the commissioner's decision to the Board of Regents for Education. On October 5, 1972, the Board of Regents rendered a decision sustaining the commissioner's decision.

During the interim plaintiff went out on extended sick leave for a period commencing September 27, 1971 and ending February 15, 1972. In January 1972, he had meetings with Dr. Picano culminating in a meeting on February 7, 1972, at which Dr. Picano discussed plaintiff's performance as principal in the Cranston School Department. The plaintiff was informed that he could resign his position as principal and assume duties as a teacher and that he could thereafter reapply for the position as principal. He found this to be unacceptable and so informed Dr. Picano. The plaintiff was notified on February 4, 1972, that if the option posed by Dr. Picano was not exercised by him, Dr. Picano would make these same recommendations to the school committee. A compromise was reached wherein plaintiff requested a leave of absence as a principal with the understanding that he be appointed to a teaching position for the duration of the leave of absence. Subsequently he was appointed a teacher in the Cranston school system.

Sometime after his appointment plaintiff learned that the school department had commenced procedures to select and appoint a successor to him as principal of the Stone Hill Elementary School, the school in which plaintiff had served as principal continuously from August 1965 until his leave of absence commenced on September 27, 1971. The plaintiff immediately advised Dr. Picano that he wished to terminate his leave of absence and return to his position as principal.

The plaintiff then commenced this action in the Superior Court. In his complaint he alleges that he asked defendants to give him a statement of charges and a hearing on the charges if they wished to dismiss him as principal, but defendants have refused to do so. The sum and substance of his complaint is that his dismissal without a statement of charges and a hearing is illegal.

After the hearing on plaintiff's prayer for a temporary injunction, the trial justice, on June 27, 1972, rendered a decision granting plaintiff's prayer. He found that plaintiff held the office of principal; that the office of principal is a public office and is separate and distinct from the office of teacher; and that plaintiff was not protected in his status as principal by the Teachers' Tenure Act. However, relying on Norton v. Adams, 24 R.I. 97, 52 A. 688 (1902), he held that plaintiff, being a public officer, could not be dismissed from his office without charges, notice and hearing. He concluded that in the absence of a hearing on written charges after notice, plaintiff continued to be a 'school principal.'

In accordance with his decision an order was entered in the Superior Court temporarily enjoining defendants, pending a final decree in this case, (1) from permanently filling the vacancy in the office of principal from which plaintiff now has a leave of absence, and (2) from taking any action to affect plaintiff's status in the Cranston school system except after charges, notice and hearing. On July 7, 1972, defendants appealed from this order.

Meanwhile, on June 29, 1972, defendant school committee, pursuant to the trial justice's decision, adopted a resolution reinstating plaintiff to the office of principal 'without prejudice to whatever further action this committee may take.'

On August 15, 1972, Dr. Picano notified plaintiff by mail that a recommendation calling for his dismissal as principal would be submitted to defendant school committee for its consideration at a special meeting on August 29, 1972. The letter also informed plaintiff of the reasons for the recommendation and invited him to be present at the meeting with his attorney.

The plaintiff appeared at the meeting with his attorney and requested and received a closed hearing on the charges. On September 20, 1972, defendant school committee voted at an open meeting to dismiss plaintiff as principal and to assign him to a teaching position. By letter dated September 21, 1972, defendant school committee informed plaintiff of its decision and of the reasons and basis for its action.

On October 17, 1972, plaintiff appealed the action of the school committee to the Commissioner of Education on the ground that the action was taken without according him the benefit of the procedure set forth in the Teachers' Tenure Act, § 16-13-4.

A de novo hearing was held by Dr. William P. Robinson, Jr., the Associate Commissioner of Education. On May 16, 1973, he rendered a decision affirming the action of defendant school committee in dismissing plaintiff as principal. After finding that plaintiff was a nonteaching principal, he held that as a nonteaching principal he was not covered by the Teachers' Tenure Act. The commissioner referred to our recent decision in Bryant v. Cunniff, 111 R.I. 211, 301 A.2d 84 (1973), where we held that a nonteaching principal was not covered by the Teachers' Tenure Act.

On May 29, 1973, plaintiff appealed from the commissioner's decision to the Board of Regents for Education.

On January 10, 1974, the board rendered a decision holding, in part, that '* * * cases such as this which involve personnel actions, the outcome of which must rest on the sufficiency of a school committee hearing should be the subject of review by the Commissioner rather than a hearing 'de novo. " Accordingly, the board remanded the case to the commissioner to determine the effect of the outstanding July 18, 1972 Superior Court order and to conduct a review of the hearing before the school committee in the light of that outstanding court order with consideration for the fact that an appeal had been claimed from that court order.

Upon remand, the commissioner disregarded the record compiled during the 8-day 'de novo' hearing before him and, instead, listened to the tape recording of the hearing held by defendant school committee. During the course of the hearing on remand, defendant attempted to introduce into evidence minutes taken by its clerk during the hearing before the school committee so as to assist the commissioner in his examination of the tapes. The commissioner refused to admit them.

In his decision he said:

'Tape recordings of the hearing accorded the appellant before the School Committee are purportedly the record of that hearing. These tape recordings were not considered by us in rendering our decision of May 16, 1973. Upon receipt of the Board's decision by us, we listened to the tapes and found them to be so lacking in clarity that we were unable to determine what transpired at that hearing and concluded, therefore, that there was no adequate or sufficient record of the hearing. We so advised counsel for both parties by letter dated January 30, 1974, in which they were offered an opportunity to present arguments on the matter remanded by the Board, which arguments we heard on February 12, 1974.'

He concluded that an essential element of due process, that is, the existence of an adequate record, was lacking in the hearing before defendant school committee. Then, accepting the trial justice's ruling that a public school principal is a public officer and as such is entitled to a hearing after notice, he went on to discuss the question of what constitutes an adequate hearing. He held in substance that at least a 'minimally adequate' record of a hearing is an essential element of procedural due process. He stated that:

'If a hearing is subject to review...