Jones v. BD. OF EDUC., CTY. OF LINCOLN

294 S.E.2d 113, 170 W. Va. 310, 1982 W. Va. LEXIS 820
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
DecidedJune 30, 1982
DocketCC930
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 294 S.E.2d 113 (Jones v. BD. OF EDUC., CTY. OF LINCOLN) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jones v. BD. OF EDUC., CTY. OF LINCOLN, 294 S.E.2d 113, 170 W. Va. 310, 1982 W. Va. LEXIS 820 (W. Va. 1982).

Opinion

HARSHBARGER, Justice:

On January 23, 1981, the Lincoln County Superintendent of Schools notified Betty Jones, who had been employed by the Lincoln County Board of Education since 1966, and from 1970 to 1981 was principal of Hamlin Elementary School, that he was recommending her transfer and demotion to classroom teacher.

After a hearing the board approved his recommendation, and Jones appealed to State Superintendent of Schools Roy Tru-by. She alleged that the local board acted arbitrarily and capriciously; that its decision was not supported by evidence; and that its decision violated board policies, W.Va.Code, 18A-2-2, and the federal and state constitutions.

*311 State Superintendent Truby decided that the evidence presented did not support Jones’ demotion, but that she could be laterally transferred as a principal.

Jones petitioned for certiorari in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, which certified the following question to this Court:

Whether the State Superintendent of Schools of West Virginia has authority or jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeals of school employees from the decisions of county boards of education made pursuant to West Virginia Code, 1931, § 18A-2-2 and § 18A-2-8, as amended, and State Board of Education policies.

W.Va.Code, 18A-2-2 sets out procedures for terminating a teacher’s continuing contract:

The continuing contract of any teacher shall remain in full force and effect ... unless and until terminated (1) by a majority vote of the full membership of the board before April first of the then current year, after written notice, served upon the teacher, return receipt requested, stating cause or causes, and an opportunity to be heard at a meeting of the board prior to the board’s action thereon, or (2) by written resignation of the teacher before that date_ Provided, ... that this section shall not affect the powers of the school board to suspend or dismiss a principal or teacher pursuant to section eight [§ 18A-2-8] of this article

Code, 18A-2-8, referred to in Section 2 above, is entitled “Suspension and dismissal of school personnel by board”:

Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, a board may suspend or dismiss any person in its employment at any time for: Immorality, incompetency, cruelty, insubordination, intemperance or wilful neglect of duty, but the charges shall be stated in writing and the employee so affected shall be given an opportunity to be heard by the board upon not less than ten days’ written notice, which charges and notice shall be served upon the employee within five days of the presentation of the charges to the board. The hearing may be held at the next regular meeting of the board or at a special meeting called for that purpose; and in any case when the board is not unanimous in its decision to suspend or dismiss, the person so suspended or dismissed shall have the right of appeal to the state superintendent of schools. (Emphasis added.)

The Lincoln County Board of Education argued that because its action was a demotion/transfer, we should apply Code, 18A-2-7:

The superintendent, subject only to approval of the board, shall have authority to assign, transfer, promote, demote or suspeild school personnel and to recommend their dismissal pursuant to provisions of this chapter.

That section does not specifically authorize an appeal to the State Superintendent. 1

Kanawha County Circuit Court Judge MacQueen found the State Superintendent’s authority to hear appeals in our Constitution, and in Code, 18-3-4 and 18-3-6.

The West Virginia Constitution imposes responsibility for maintaining a “thorough and efficient system of free schools” on the Legislature. W.Va.Const. art. XII, §§ 1, 2. Recently, in Pauley v. Kelly, 162 W.Va. 672, 255 S.E.2d 859 (1979), we recognized that education was a fundamental right and that state government had a mandate to provide and maintain a high quality educational system.

Furthermore, the Constitution puts supervision of free schools upon the State Board of Education, and designates the State Superintendent to be the “chief school officer” with such powers and duties as prescribed by law. W.Va.Const. art. *312 XII, § 2. This provision was reiterated by our Legislature in W.Va.Code, 18-3-3. 2

Chapter 18 of the Code vests the State Superintendent’s powers. Code, 18-3-4 directs him to enforce general or special laws pertaining to the school system and also the state board’s rules or directions. 3 He is authorized to interpret school law and board rules by Code, 18-3-6. He also has any powers necessary to discharge duties assigned by the Legislature or the state board. Code, 18-3-10.

Our state board, by its authority granted in Code, 18-2-5, has promulgated procedures to resolve controversies between employees and county boards of education about school laws. Rule 1340, adopted in 1971, is prefaced by a policy statement:

Preface:
The enclosed “Rules of Procedure for Resolving Controversies and Disputes” are promulgated for the purpose of handling those problems arising in the state school system which have gone beyond the normal routine remedies which are available at the county level. Nothing herein should be interpreted in such manner as to give rise to a premature action on the part of any county school personnel; all remedies which are allowable by a county board of education or county school superintendent should be exhausted before appealing to the State Superintendent to hear a controversy. The State Superintendent shall use his discretion as to whether or not he may hear a controversy at any time; and it is hereby emphasized that under § 18 and § 19 of these Rules the State Superintendent may waive or relax such Rules when in his judgment justice is served.
Foreword:
The following rules prescribed by the State Superintendent of Schools, and approved by the State Board of Education, govern the hearing of appeals and the adjudication of controversies and disputes arising under school laws by the State Superintendent of Schools, pursuant to the power granted in Article XII of the Constitution of the State of West Virginia and by the West Virginia Code.

It gave the Superintendent authority 4 and provided for hearings, subpoenas, taking evidence, briefs, oral arguments, and written decisions.

In 1972, the state board adopted Rule 5301, 5 establishing a four-level grievance procedure for resolution of claims by employees about violations, misapplications, *313

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Smith v. Board of Educ. of County of Logan
341 S.E.2d 685 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1985)
Board of Educ., Lincoln County v. MacQueen
325 S.E.2d 355 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1985)
Bowers v. Bowyer
310 S.E.2d 474 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1983)
State ex rel. Board of Education v. State Superintendent of Schools, Inc.
300 S.E.2d 108 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1983)
State ex rel. Board of Education v. Truby
300 S.E.2d 109 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
294 S.E.2d 113, 170 W. Va. 310, 1982 W. Va. LEXIS 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-bd-of-educ-cty-of-lincoln-wva-1982.