Spainhour v. Dover Public School Dist.
Decision Date | 15 January 1998 |
Docket Number | No. 97-533,97-533 |
Citation | 958 S.W.2d 528,331 Ark. 53 |
Parties | , 123 Ed. Law Rep. 959 Teresa SPAINHOUR, Appellant, v. DOVER PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Travis N. Creed, Little Rock, for Appellant.
David H. McCormick, Russellville, for Appellee.
Teresa Spainhour petitions for the review of the court of appeals' three-three decision, affirming the trial court's ruling that the Dover School District's action complied with the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act when the District voted not to renew Spainhour's teaching contract. See Spainhour v. Dover School Dist., 57 Ark.App. 195, 943 S.W.2d 610 (1997). We reverse the trial court's and court of appeals' decisions.
The facts are essentially undisputed, and are correctly set forth in the court of appeals' prevailing opinion. Our difference with the court of appeals' opinion is its erroneous reliance on Murray v. Altheimer-Sherrill Public Schools, 294 Ark. 403, 743 S.W.2d 789 (1988). We repeat only those facts needed to understand the court's misapplication of the Murray holding to Spainhour's situation.
In 1988, Spainhour was hired by the District, and was a Chapter One high school teacher and coordinator for the Dover School District's vocational educational program. The program was largely dependent upon the availability of federal funds. In 1993, the District's superintendent, Dr. Richard Paul, became aware that federal funds might be cut, and he notified Spainhour of his strong concerns that the Chapter One program might be eliminated. Later, by letter dated April 12, 1994, Paul informed Spainhour that, in accordance with Ark.Code Ann. § 6-17-1506 (Supp.1997) of the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, he was notifying her that his recommendation to the Board at its May 9, 1994 meeting would be not to renew her contract for the 1994-1995 school year. Paul's April 12 letter further related he was forced to make this recommendation because of the lack of sufficient funding of the Chapter One program, but advised further that, in the event an opening occurred within the district in an area for which she was qualified, Spainhour would be considered for any new position according to the terms of the district policy.
Although Ark.Code Ann. § 6-17-1509 (Repl.1993) of the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act provides that a teacher, receiving a notice of nonrenewal, has thirty days after its receipt to request a hearing, the Board here held its meeting on May 9th--less than thirty days after receipt--when it first decided not to renew Spainhour's contract. Spainhour timely requested a hearing by letter dated May 12, 1994, but the Board did not conduct that hearing until May 18, 1994, or after it had already accepted Dr. Paul's recommendation not to renew Spainhour's contract on May 9th.
By letter dated May 19, 1994, the Board formally notified Spainhour that the May 18th hearing had been conducted to consider Paul's original nonrenewal recommendation, and the Board's prior (May 9) decision to accept it. The Board's letter concluded that, after hearing testimony and reviewing the evidence, the Board again accepted Dr. Paul's recommendation.
Spainhour appealed the Board's decision to circuit court, claiming the Board's actions had violated the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. Upon reviewing the Board's May 18 proceedings and additional testimony presented on appeal, the trial court upheld the Board's ruling.
In her appeal to the court of appeals, Spainhour again argued that, notwithstanding the Board's statement at its May 18 meeting that it would reconsider its May 9 decision without any preconceived ideas, the Board clearly did not do so, since it did not renew Spainhour's contract even though she had been denied an opportunity to be heard as required by law. The court of appeals disagreed with Spainhour's argument that the Board failed to comply with the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. In doing so, the court of appeals relied on Murray, 294 Ark. 403, 743 S.W.2d 789, and concluded that the Board's May 18 hearing afforded Spainhour all of her rights under the Act and that the actions of the Board strictly complied with the Act. We must disagree.
The Murray decision was rendered in 1988 and, like the present case, the school board, upon recommendation of the superintendent, voted not to renew the teacher's (Billy J. Murray's) contract. Realizing that it had voted not to renew Murray's contract before affording notice and an opportunity to be heard, the school board met again and rescinded its earlier vote. The school board then granted Murray's subsequent request for a hearing and, at the conclusion of the hearing, voted again not to renew Murray's teaching contract. The trial court upheld the board's decision. Citing Green Forest Public Schools v. Herrington, 287 Ark. 43, 696 S.W.2d 714 (1985), the Murray court stated that, while the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act contemplates that notice and an opportunity to be heard be given a teacher before the school board votes not to renew the teacher's contract, the court held the board's rescission of its earlier vote on Murray's contract constituted "substantial compliance" with the Act. In sum, the court said that because the school board had formally rescinded its prior vote and its attorney had cautioned board members not to base their vote on any preconceived notions, the board's error had been cured.
Following the Murray decision, the General Assembly amended the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act by enacting Act 625 of 1989 [codified at Ark.Code Ann. § 6-17-1503 (Repl.1993) ]. Act 625 in relevant part...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Higginbotham v. Junction City School Dist.
...to require strict compliance with the termination procedures set forth in section 6-17-1507. Spainhour v. Dover Pub. Sch. Dist., 331 Ark. 53, 958 S.W.2d 528 [332 Ark. 565] (1998); Hannon v. Armorel Sch. Dist. # 9, 329 Ark. 267, 946 S.W.2d 950 (1997); Lester v. Mount Vernon-Enola Sch. Dist.,......
-
Olsen v. East End School Dist.
...the 1999-2000 school year, after the decision had been made not to renew her contract. The parties read Spainhour v. Dover Public School District, 331 Ark. 53, 958 S.W.2d 528 (1998), as requiring that a school board not have any preconceived notions when deciding whether or not to renew a t......
-
Robinette v. Dep't of Fin.
...cases within our jurisprudence, we have applied a strict-compliance standard to TFDA cases. See, e.g., Spainhour v. Dover Pub. Sch. Dist., 331 Ark. 53, 958 S.W.2d 528 (1998); Western Grove Sch. Dist. v. Terry, 318 Ark. 316, 885 S.W.2d 300 (1994). We did so because the General Assembly had p......