Toothaker v. Sch. Comm. of Rockland

• Decision Date: 30 June 1926
• Parties: TOOTHAKER v. SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF ROCKLAND.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

256 Mass. 584

152 N.E. 743

TOOTHAKER

v.SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF ROCKLAND.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Plymouth.

June 30, 1926.

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Plymouth County.

Petition for mandamus by Oliver H. Toothaker against the School Committee of Rockland to compel petitioner's reinstatement as Superintendent of Schools. To order of a single justice denying the petition, petitioner excepts. Exceptions overruled. Order dismissing petition affirmed.

J. A. Tirrell, of Rockland, for petitioner.

Coughlan Bros., of Abington, for respondent.

CROSBY, J.

This is a petition for mandamus brought against the respondents, who are members of the school committee of the town of Rockland, to compel them to reinstate the petitioner as superintendent of schools of that town. The case was referred to an auditor, and afterwards was heard before a single justice of this court who as matter of discretion denied the petition. The petitioner presented to the auditor 88 requests for findings of fact, all of which so far as pertinent to the issues involved were dealt with by him. The petitioner also requested the auditor to make 27 rulings of law, which were passed upon except so far as they involved findings of fact. The petitioner excepted to the order of the single justice denying the petition, and to his findings and rulings.

The power given to school committees to dismiss public school teachers and superintendents is found in G. L. c. 71, § 42, as amended by St. 1921, c. 293. The rulings of the single justice, that the notice to the petitioner of the intention of the committee to vote on removal, and that the statute does not require that the terms of the vote be stated in the notice, were correct. While one member of the committee did not attend the meeting held on June 17, 1925, it appears that such member had due notice of the meeting, and that the other two members were present. The meeting so held was in compliance with the statute and the proceedings then taken were valid. The adjournment of this meeting to June 25, when final action was taken and by a two-thirds vote the petitioner as superintendent was dismissed, was within the power of the committee under the statute. The appearance of counsel for the committee at the meeting held on June 25 was not unlawful. It was not contrary to the terms of the statute (section 42) under which the meeting was held, and might have conduced to the regularity and validity of the action then taken. The reasons given by the committee for the dismissal of the petitioner, as stated in their letter to him dated June 17th, were as follows:

‘1. For the promotion of the general welfare of the schools of Rockland. The superintendent is under the law the executive officer of the school committee intrusted under the general direction of the committee with the care and supervision of the public schools. In our opinion the lack of harmony and co-operation between the committee and superintendent is detrimental to the welfare of the schools.

‘2. As the school committee has general charge of the public schools, it is our duty to have and maintain the highest possible standard in our school management and affairs, and we believe we can obtain and maintain a higher standard and one more satisfactory to the town with the assistance of...