Townshend v. Board of Educ. of County of Grant
Decision Date | 19 July 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 19170,19170 |
Citation | 396 S.E.2d 185,183 W.Va. 418 |
Parties | , 62 Ed. Law Rep. 1218 Alan H. TOWNSHEND v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the COUNTY OF GRANT. |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
2. A board of education policy that prohibits one spouse from supervising the other spouse within a county school system is a reasonable exercise of the board's supervisory authority to prevent favoritism, conflicts of interest or the appearance of either.
3. "County boards of education are bound by procedures they properly establish to conduct their affairs." Syllabus Point 2, Dillon v. Board of Education of County of Wyoming, --- W.Va. ----, 351 S.E.2d 58 (1986).
Daniel Staggers, Keyser, for The Bd. of Educ. of the County of Grant.
Dennis V. DiBenedetto, Pros. Atty., Petersburg, for Alan H. Townshend.
The Board of Education of the County of Grant appeals from a final order of the Circuit Court of Grant County requiring the Board of Education to rescind the transfer of Alan H. Townshend, thereby, allowing him to remain as a teacher in the school where his wife is principal. The Board of Education maintains that Mr. Townshend's transfer was required by the Board's policy prohibiting employment of immediate family members in an administrator-teacher relationship because of possible conflicts of interest and favoritism. Because the Board's conflict of interest policy is not an abuse of discretion and was exercised in the best interests of the schools, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court.
The facts in this case are undisputed. During the 1987-88 school year, Mr. Townshend was assigned to the Petersburg Elementary School as a special education teacher. In October 1987, Mrs. Townshend was appointed principal of Petersburg Elementary School. When Mrs. Townshend was offered the position, she was advised of the Board of Education's policy prohibiting employment of immediate family members in a direct supervisory relationship and in the event of a promotion, requiring the transfer of the other family member as soon as possible. 1 After consulting with her husband, Mrs. Townshend accepted the position. By letter dated 15 March 1988, Mr. Townshend was notified that he was to be transferred because of the Board's policy.
During the 1987-88 school year, the Board of Education arranged for Mr. Townshend to be formally evaluated by Mr. Cunningham, the co-operating principal at Petersburg Elementary School. Mr. Townshend was the only teacher at the school to be supervised and evaluated by Mr. Cunningham. Although Mr. Cunningham was present only for part of the school day and Mrs. Townshend was responsible for supervising all the staff the rest of the day, no problems arose during the school year. Mr. Townshend presented a petition signed by his co-workers attesting to the lack of problems. Mr. Townshend has been teaching at the Petersburg Elementary School since 1970 and in 1987-88 received a satisfactory evaluation that included several ratings of "commendable", the highest rating given.
After the Board upheld his transfer, Mr. Townshend filed a grievance with the West Virginia Education Employees Grievance Board. After a hearing, the hearing examiner denied the grievance and upheld Mr. Townshend's transfer. Mr. Townshend appealed to the Circuit Court of Grant County that held in Mr. Townshend's favor because it found "the Board violated its own policy" in appointing Mrs. Townshend principal and "must abide by its decision...." 2 Because we find that the Board of Education's conflict of interest policy was a reasonable exercise of its discretion and was not violated by its appointment of Mrs. Townshend, we reverse the circuit court and remand the case.
W.Va.Code, 18A-2-7 [1989], states in pertinent part that:
The superintendent, subject only to approval of the board, shall have authority to assign, transfer, promote, demote or suspend school personnel and to recommend their dismissal pursuant to provisions of this chapter.
We have repeatedly held that the power to transfer teachers must be exercised in a reasonable manner and in the best interests of the school. In Syllabus Point 3, Dillon v. Board of Education of County of Wyoming, --- W.Va. ----, 351 S.E.2d 58 (1986), we stated:
County boards of education have substantial discretion in matters relating to the hiring, assignment, transfer, and promotion of school personnel. Nevertheless, this discretion must be exercised reasonably, in the best interests of the schools, and in a manner which is not arbitrary and capricious.
Syllabus Point 2, State ex rel. Oser v. Haskins, --- W.Va. ----, 374 S.E.2d 184 (1988); Syllabus Point 2, Johnson v. Cassell, --- W.Va. ----, 387 S.E.2d 553 (1989); State ex rel. Hawkins v. Tyler County Board of Education, 166 W.Va. 363, 275 S.E.2d 908 (1980); Syllabus Point 2, Beverlin v. Board of Education of Lewis County, 158 W.Va. 1067, 216 S.E.2d 554 (1975); Syllabus, Neal v. Board of Education of Putnam County, 116 W.Va. 435, 181 S.E. 541 (1935).
In the present case, the Board of Education properly adopted a policy with a laudatory purpose: preventing conflicts of interest and favoritism. Conflicts of interest and favoritism are subversive of the Board's interest in providing a good education. Mr. Townshend argues that because the Board set up an extraordinary procedure to assure that no favoritism occurred before his transfer could be arranged, the Board should be required to continue that procedure. However even under the special procedure, Mrs. Townshend, as principal, has the responsibility for the functioning of the entire school. We do not imply that Mrs. Townshend would be less than fair-minded in her administration of the school. The Board's policy is concerned not only with the actual school administration, but also with the effect on the morale of the other teachers from an apparent conflict of interest. The mere existence of a wife-husband/administrator-teacher situation can have a deleterious effect on the morale of the faculty. We agree with the conclusion of the Eighth Circuit in Keckeisen v. Independent School District 612, 509 F.2d 1062, 1066 (8th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 833, 96 S.Ct. 57, 46 L.Ed.2d 51 (1975):
We have no doubt that in many cases where husbands and wives are employed in supervisor-supervisee capacities, the married couple make an exemplary effort to maintain fairness, but we cannot say that a policy based on the assumption that married couples are susceptible to the natural prejudices of their relationships is irrational, arbitrary or capricious.
We note that anti-nepotism rules are standard practice and date back to the turn of the Century. Today many private companies have anti-nepotism policies that restrict spouses from working under the same chain of command. A 1981 survey of 374 companies reported that of the 82 percent who would employ both husbands and wives, 74 percent restrict spouses from working in the same department or in the same function. A 1985 survey of 115 companies reported that 46 percent prohibit supervision by a relative. U. Sekaran, Dual-Career Families (1986) 120.
We hold that a board of education policy that prohibits one spouse from supervising the other spouse within a county school system is a reasonable exercise of the board's supervisory authority to prevent favoritism, conflicts of interest or the appearance of either.
Mr. Townshend argues that his transfer violates W.Va.Code, 18-29-2(m), -(o ) and 18A-4-8b and West Virginia Board of Education Policy No. 5300. Basically Mr. Townshend argues that he is discriminated against because of his marital status and that other faculty received more favorable treatment. 3 Mr. Townshend is being treated differently from other faculty members because he is subject to transfer and is not being evaluated by the principal, his wife, but Mr. Townshend's different treatment results from his personal relationship with the principal and not from discrimination or favoritism.
Mr. Townshend's argument that he is being discriminated against because of his marital status must be rejected because his marital status, the state of being married or single, is not the reason for his transfer. Rather Mr. Townshend is to be transferred because of his personal relationship with the newly appointed principal. We also note that the freedom to marry is recognized as a vital personal right. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967). However, the Board's policy does not deny Mr. Townshend the right to marry, but does deny him the right to be a teacher under the supervision of his wife. Mr. Townshend's allegation that other faculty members received more favorable treatment is not persuasive because the appointment of his wife to principal was the objective factor that triggered his transfer and the rest of the faculty was not similarly affected. The record also indicates that the Board of Education had allowed no exceptions to its anti-nepotism policy.
Mr. Townshend alleges that his transfer violates W.Va.Code, 18A-4-8b [1988], that requires in pertinent part:
A county board of education shall make decisions affecting promotion and filling of any classroom teacher's position occurring on the basis of qualifications.
Mr. Townshend argues that because of his long relationship with his special education students, he has special qualifications and should be allowed to continue in that same teaching position. However, the Board of Education has identified...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
76 Hawai'i 454, Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co. (Hawai'i) Ltd., Inc.
...115 companies reported that 46 percent prohibit supervision by a relative. U. Sekaran, Dual-Career Families (1986) 120. Townshend, 183 W.Va. at 421, 396 S.E.2d at 188. Against this backdrop, "[i]t is implausible 'that the Legislature would have struck a blow at [such] policies with nary a w......
-
Sharp v. Tulsa County Election Bd.
...favoritism, and avoidance of family conflicts. The policy, rationally related to the objectives, was upheld. Townshend v. Board of Education, 183 W.Va. 418, 396 S.E.2d 185 (1990), presented a challenge to the school board's policy prohibiting nepotism. Again, the plaintiffs claimed that the......
-
Magula v. Benton Franklin Title Co., Inc.
...Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia overstated the case when it called that decision "eccentric," Townshend v. Board of Educ., 183 W.Va. 418, 396 S.E.2d 185, 190 n. 4 (1990), Washington Water Power Co. is nevertheless quite distinguishable. Washington Water Power considered an employe......
-
Sioux City Police Officers' Ass'n v. City of Sioux City
...(no-nepotism policy upheld in right to marry constitutional challenge by teacher and superintendent); Townshend v. Board of Educ., 183 W.Va. 418, 422, 396 S.E.2d 185, 189 (1990) (no-spouse rule constitutional in challenge by married teacher and administrator). B. Overbreadth. The associatio......