Stoddard v. District School Board for School Dist. No. 91 in Jackson County

• Decision Date: 07 June 1932
• Citation: 140 Or. 203,12 P.2d 309
• Parties: STODDARD v. DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD FOR SCHOOL DIST. NO. 91 in JACKSON COUNTY et al. [*] NEE v. SAME (two cases). HOOVER v. SAME.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

12 P.2d 309

140 Or. 203

STODDARD v. DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD FOR SCHOOL DIST. NO. 91 in JACKSON COUNTY et al. ^[*] NEE v. SAME (two cases). HOOVER v. SAME.

Supreme Court of Oregon

June 7, 1932

In Banc.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; H. D. Norton, Judge.

Consolidated actions by Leola Stoddard, William Joe Nee, Lena Gilbert Nee and Rhea Hoover, against the District School Board for School District No. 91, in Jackson County, Oregon, and others. From judgments for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Here four cases have been consolidated. The plaintiffs are school teachers, and the defendants are a school district and its officers. These actions were instituted to recover upon contracts for teaching. From respective judgments in favor of plaintiffs, respectively, defendants appeal.

Kelly &amp Kelly and Porter J. Neff, all of Medford, for appellants.

G. M Roberts, of Medford (Wm. M. McAllister, of Medford, on the brief), for respondents.

KELLY J.

When the contracts in suit were authorized by the defendant school board, the four plaintiffs herein were, for some time theretofore had been, and until said school ceased for its summer vacation continued to be, engaged in teaching in said school district No. 91. On or about May 16, 1930, the school closed for its summer vacation.

The cause of the controversy, giving rise to this litigation, is the difference of opinion between rival factions in the school district as to the amount which should be expended in conducting and maintaining said school. One faction sought to reduce expenses; the other opposed such reduction.

On November 21, 1929, at a meeting of the voters of the district, the budget theretofore prepared by the board of directors, was substantially reduced and a corresponding tax was levied.

At a meeting held November 30, 1929, the board by resolution declared the voters' meeting of November 21, 1929, illegal and void, and called another meeting of the voters to be held on December 16, 1929. This second meeting of the voters of the district was held at the time fixed, and the budget, as originally prepared, was adopted and a corresponding tax was levied.

On or about the 18th day of December, 1929, a petition was prepared by the three legal voters of the district asking the district boundary board to review and lower the tax so levied. The boundary board caused notice to be given that a hearing upon this petition would be had on January 3, 1930. When heard, the budget was reduced.

In the meantime, namely, on December 28, 1929, the same being the last Saturday of that month, the contracts in suit were authorized by the board of directors at a meeting attended by but two of the three directors; Director Courtright being absent. There was no call for this meeting and no notice of it was given other than that resulting from the action of the board fixing the time of regular meetings. Such action occurred on October 22, 1929, at a meeting attended by all three directors, at which time a resolution was offered changing the time for the regular meetings of the board from the first Wednesday in the month to the last Saturday in the month. Two members of the board voted for this resolution, and one member, Mr. Courtright, voted against it.

A change in the personnel of the board having occurred, thereafter, at a meeting held on May 5, 1930, a resolution was passed by the board declaring the contracts in suit to be invalid and illegal and providing that plaintiffs "be and they are hereby discharged at the termination of the present school term; and that the board proceed at once to employ new teachers at salaries in accordance with or under said revised budget in places of said discharged teachers, and to enter into contracts with such new teachers."

At said meeting of May 5, 1930, a further resolution was passed to the effect that certain persons therein named, constituting in number and usual teaching staff for said district, were thereby hired as teachers in said district for the term of nine months at salaries as stated in said resolution. None of plaintiffs were among those named in the last-mentioned resolution.

On May 19, 1930, charges were preferred against plaintiffs, and two other teachers, by the members of the board, which, in so far as they are pertinent to the issues herein, are as follows:

"Before the School Board of District No. 91.

"To Rhea Hoover, Hazel Taylor, William Joe Nee, Mrs. William Joe Nee, Mrs. N. B. Stoddard and Naomi VanGroos, Teachers in said District.-Notice.

"To the above named teachers:

"You and each of you will please take notice that the undersigned members of School Board of District #91 have filed the following charges against you as good cause for your dismissal in said District from the teaching staff of said District, said charges and grounds being outside of those involved in dismissing you for breach of your contracts with said School Board to-wit:

"1. That on or about the 21st day of November, 1929, at a duly and regularly called meeting, held in said District, for the purpose of voting for a budget for the year 1930-31, the said School District at said meeting, adopted a budget, fixing certain lower salaries for the teachers of said school district, and eliminating the position of music teacher.

"That thereafter you and each of you, entered into a conspiracy with one Elizabeth Simmerville, a pretended director of said School District, but who was in truth and in fact a resident of Lane County, Oregon, and not a qualified director of said school district, together with certain other persons, to overthrow said budget, by declaring the same illegal, and holding another election, in violation of law, and the usurpation of a function of the courts; and that thereafter prior to said election you went about said district soliciting and canvassing for votes for said higher budget, and that thereafter on the 16th day of December, 1929, at a pretended election, you procured one John Doe Skinner to be present at said meeting to qualify you as taxpayer voters at said election. That as a result of these political activities of yours, a budget retaining said music teacher, and your high salaries, was passed at said meeting.

"That thereafter three certain taxpayers of said District appealed said budget to the District Boundary Board of Jackson County, Oregon, and that pending said appeal and in derogation of the rights of said taxpayers and appellants, you entered into teachers contracts for year 1930-31, with the said Elizabeth Simmerville and one W. T. Roberts, notwithstanding the fact, that the school year had barely commenced, and you had existing contracts until June, 1930.

"That thereafter the District Boundary Board at a due and legal meeting, at which you appeared in person and by counsel, and after a full hearing upon the said budget, made and entered an order reducing the salaries of you and each of you, and fixing them for the year 1930-31 at greatly reduced amounts, and eliminating the position of music teacher.

"That thereafter you and each of you in violation of said budget revised by the County Boundary Board insisted on the registration of such contracts executed prior to said Boundary Board hearing, and after such appeal was taken, with the County Superintendent of schools of Jackson County, Oregon, in violation of law, in derogation of the rights of the taxpayers of said district, and in defiance of the findings of the County Boundary Board of Jackson County, Oregon, and without regard for the fact that such conduct would run said school district into debt.

"2. That at the present time you are guilty of unethical and improper conduct in soliciting votes for the coming annual election of said school district, and that during the past year you have solicited votes for the different matters coming before the votes of said district, at special meetings of said district. That as a result of your political activities, you have caused a division among the patrons of said school district, and aroused enmities therein. ***

"8. That by reason of said political activities and the defiant attitude of you and each of you toward the Boundary Board, and the taxpayers, the schools have become divided, and you and each of you are insubordinate to the present school board.

"9. That on June 2, 1930, Monday at 8:00 P. M., at the grade school in said district, the said charges will be heard, and you and each of you are hereby notified to appear at said time and answer the same.

"Dated at Butte Falls, Oregon, this 19th day of May, 1930."

In June, 1930, after a hearing thereupon, said charges were sustained by the board. Plaintiffs prosecuted an appeal to the county school superintendent from the order of the board upon said charges; and upon August 15, 1930, the county school superintendent rendered a decision thereon refusing to affirm or approve the said order of the board. No appeal was taken by the board from said order of the county superintendent.

Plaintiffs presented themselves and tendered their services as teachers at the opening of the school in September, 1930, and continued to present themselves for services each day during the school year, but were not permitted by the board to perform any service under their contract.

The defendants contend that plaintiffs' contracts with the school district, authorized by the board of directors at the meeting held on December 28, 1929, and which are the bases of these actions, are illegal and void for the following reasons:

(1) Because the meeting of the board, at which they were authorized, was not a legal meeting for any purpose for the reason that the same was not called pursuant to section 35-1101, Oregon Code 1930; no call...