Tom Glaze, Justice.
The appellant, the Springdale Board of Education, appeals from the Washington County Chancery Court’s interlocutory-mandatory injunction, which barred the Board and all personnel of the Springdale School District from enforcing the expulsion of appellee, Máchele Bowman, from her classes at Springdale High School. This court has jurisdiction of this appeal pursuant to Ark. R. App. P. 2(a)(6) and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 29(f).
This litigation ensued when the Board agreed with the Springdale school officials that Máchele Bowman had violated school policy by “receiving drugs on the school grounds” and that she should be expelled for having done so. Bowman filed a petition for mandatory injunction, alleging, among other things, that no illegal drugs were involved, that the Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, and that its action denied her access to the public school system as she is guaranteed by Ark. Stat. Ann. § 80-1501 (Supp. 1985).
The Board filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the chancery court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. Upon being denied that relief, it defended Bowman’s assertions stating the evidence was clearly sufficient to justify the Board’s decision to expel Bowman. The trial court ruled in Bowman’s favor, ordering the Board to readmit her into school. The Board promptly filed its motion with the supreme court to stay the lower court’s order until this case could be decided on appeal. We denied the Board’s motion, and Bowman has since completed her high school requirements. In fact, Bowman has since graduated, and she now seeks to dismiss this case for mootness. Because the issues raised in this matter are of public interest and practical importance, as well as are ones which are subject to repetition, we deny Bowman’s motion to dismiss the appeal. See Netherton v. Davis, 234 Ark. 936, 355 S.W.2d 609 (1962).
For its first point for reversal, the Board argues that the affirmative relief sought by Bowman was actually one of mandamus and that the chancery court had no jurisdiction to hear a mandamus action. See Springdale School District v. Jameson, 274 Ark. 78, 621 S.W.2d 860 (1981). In addition, the Board contends mandamus is the procedure by which courts review school board actions in the expulsion of students, and, to support this proposition, cites the cases of Williams v. Board of Education for Marianna School District, 274 Ark. 530, 626 S.W.2d 361 (1982) and Fortman v. Texarkana School District No. 7, 257 Ark. 130, 514 S.W.2d 720 (1974). We cannot agree with either of the Board’s arguments on this point.
The Williams and Fortman cases did involve situations where students were expelled, and the students sought mandamus relief in circuit court against the respective school districts requesting they be reinstated. Nevertheless, the trial court in each case denied such relief, and the supreme court affirmed. It is settled law that mandamus will not be used to control a public official in a discretionary act. Lewis v. Conlee, 258 Ark. 715, 529 S.W.2d 132 (1975). And, while such discretion is not unlimited, id. at 720, 529 S.W.2d at 135, the supreme court in the Williams and Fortman cases simply held that the school officials in those situations had not abused their discretion when expelling the students. Although the Williams and Fortman decisions are helpful in reviewing applicable law when considering school board actions in expelling students, those holdings in no way indicate that a mandamus action is the required remedy to measure the reasonableness of a board’s action in such cases. To the contrary, the Fortman court, quoting from Safferstone v. Tucker, 235 Ark. 70, 357 S.W.2d 3 (1962), said:
In this State a broad discretion is vested in the board of directors of each school district in the matter of directing the operation of the schools and a chancery court has no power to interfere with such boards in the exercise of that discretion unless there is a clear abuse of it and the burden is upon those charging such an abuse to prove it by clear and convincing evidence. (Emphasis supplied.)
The Safferstone case involved school patrons, from a certain school attendance area, who brought action in chancery court for an injunction to enjoin the Little Rock School Board from transferring students, who resided in the patrons’ area, to a school situated in another or adjacent area. Like in Safferstone, Bowman, in the instant case, tested the Board’s action in expelling her by filing a complaint for an injunction in chancery court, but the form or nature of relief requested differs here since she asked for an affirmative act instead of asking that an act be enjoined, viz., that the Board be compelled to readmit Bowman into high school.
The Board cites the case of Nethercutt v. Pulaski County Special School District, 248 Ark. 143, 450 S.W.2d 777 (1970) for the proposition that a mandamus action is not cognizable in chancery court. Of course, such a proposition is correct and is one with which we take no exception. The Nethercutt case involved two school teachers who sought both a mandatory injunction and a mandamus action to compel the execution of their annual contracts to restore them to their jobs and to pay them their salaries. The supreme court rejected the school teachers’ argument that the chancery court had power to issue their request for a writ of mandamus, and added it was settled that equity had no jurisdiction to enforce an executory contract for personal services since the remedy at law was adequate. In the instant case, Bowman sought an injunction, not a mandamus, and, unlike in Nethercutt, the parties had no contract between them which would require either of them to seek a remedy at law. The same can be said to distinguish the case of Jameson, 214 Ark. 78, 621 S.W.2d 860, cited in the dissent. The Jameson case, too, concerned a school teacher who sought reinstatement and pay from the school district, and this court found the teacher’s action was one based on a contract implied in law.
The real importance of Jameson to the facts here is found in the rule — first stated in Maddox, et al. v. Neal, et al., 45 Ark. 121 (1885) — that a writ of mandamus will issue whenever the directors of a school district fail or refuse to do an act which is plainly their duty to do. More specifically, a mandamus action enforces the performance of a legal right after it has been established; its purpose is not to establish a right. See Boone County v. Apex of Arkansas, Inc., 288 Ark. 152, 702 S.W.2d 795 (1986). There must be no discretion available to the ordered party to perform the act. Id., 288 Ark. at 154, 702 S.W.2d at 796.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Tom Glaze, Justice.
The appellant, the Springdale Board of Education, appeals from the Washington County Chancery Court’s interlocutory-mandatory injunction, which barred the Board and all personnel of the Springdale School District from enforcing the expulsion of appellee, Máchele Bowman, from her classes at Springdale High School. This court has jurisdiction of this appeal pursuant to Ark. R. App. P. 2(a)(6) and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 29(f).
This litigation ensued when the Board agreed with the Springdale school officials that Máchele Bowman had violated school policy by “receiving drugs on the school grounds” and that she should be expelled for having done so. Bowman filed a petition for mandatory injunction, alleging, among other things, that no illegal drugs were involved, that the Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, and that its action denied her access to the public school system as she is guaranteed by Ark. Stat. Ann. § 80-1501 (Supp. 1985).
The Board filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the chancery court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. Upon being denied that relief, it defended Bowman’s assertions stating the evidence was clearly sufficient to justify the Board’s decision to expel Bowman. The trial court ruled in Bowman’s favor, ordering the Board to readmit her into school. The Board promptly filed its motion with the supreme court to stay the lower court’s order until this case could be decided on appeal. We denied the Board’s motion, and Bowman has since completed her high school requirements. In fact, Bowman has since graduated, and she now seeks to dismiss this case for mootness. Because the issues raised in this matter are of public interest and practical importance, as well as are ones which are subject to repetition, we deny Bowman’s motion to dismiss the appeal. See Netherton v. Davis, 234 Ark. 936, 355 S.W.2d 609 (1962).
For its first point for reversal, the Board argues that the affirmative relief sought by Bowman was actually one of mandamus and that the chancery court had no jurisdiction to hear a mandamus action. See Springdale School District v. Jameson, 274 Ark. 78, 621 S.W.2d 860 (1981). In addition, the Board contends mandamus is the procedure by which courts review school board actions in the expulsion of students, and, to support this proposition, cites the cases of Williams v. Board of Education for Marianna School District, 274 Ark. 530, 626 S.W.2d 361 (1982) and Fortman v. Texarkana School District No. 7, 257 Ark. 130, 514 S.W.2d 720 (1974). We cannot agree with either of the Board’s arguments on this point.
The Williams and Fortman cases did involve situations where students were expelled, and the students sought mandamus relief in circuit court against the respective school districts requesting they be reinstated. Nevertheless, the trial court in each case denied such relief, and the supreme court affirmed. It is settled law that mandamus will not be used to control a public official in a discretionary act. Lewis v. Conlee, 258 Ark. 715, 529 S.W.2d 132 (1975). And, while such discretion is not unlimited, id. at 720, 529 S.W.2d at 135, the supreme court in the Williams and Fortman cases simply held that the school officials in those situations had not abused their discretion when expelling the students. Although the Williams and Fortman decisions are helpful in reviewing applicable law when considering school board actions in expelling students, those holdings in no way indicate that a mandamus action is the required remedy to measure the reasonableness of a board’s action in such cases. To the contrary, the Fortman court, quoting from Safferstone v. Tucker, 235 Ark. 70, 357 S.W.2d 3 (1962), said:
In this State a broad discretion is vested in the board of directors of each school district in the matter of directing the operation of the schools and a chancery court has no power to interfere with such boards in the exercise of that discretion unless there is a clear abuse of it and the burden is upon those charging such an abuse to prove it by clear and convincing evidence. (Emphasis supplied.)
The Safferstone case involved school patrons, from a certain school attendance area, who brought action in chancery court for an injunction to enjoin the Little Rock School Board from transferring students, who resided in the patrons’ area, to a school situated in another or adjacent area. Like in Safferstone, Bowman, in the instant case, tested the Board’s action in expelling her by filing a complaint for an injunction in chancery court, but the form or nature of relief requested differs here since she asked for an affirmative act instead of asking that an act be enjoined, viz., that the Board be compelled to readmit Bowman into high school.
The Board cites the case of Nethercutt v. Pulaski County Special School District, 248 Ark. 143, 450 S.W.2d 777 (1970) for the proposition that a mandamus action is not cognizable in chancery court. Of course, such a proposition is correct and is one with which we take no exception. The Nethercutt case involved two school teachers who sought both a mandatory injunction and a mandamus action to compel the execution of their annual contracts to restore them to their jobs and to pay them their salaries. The supreme court rejected the school teachers’ argument that the chancery court had power to issue their request for a writ of mandamus, and added it was settled that equity had no jurisdiction to enforce an executory contract for personal services since the remedy at law was adequate. In the instant case, Bowman sought an injunction, not a mandamus, and, unlike in Nethercutt, the parties had no contract between them which would require either of them to seek a remedy at law. The same can be said to distinguish the case of Jameson, 214 Ark. 78, 621 S.W.2d 860, cited in the dissent. The Jameson case, too, concerned a school teacher who sought reinstatement and pay from the school district, and this court found the teacher’s action was one based on a contract implied in law.
The real importance of Jameson to the facts here is found in the rule — first stated in Maddox, et al. v. Neal, et al., 45 Ark. 121 (1885) — that a writ of mandamus will issue whenever the directors of a school district fail or refuse to do an act which is plainly their duty to do. More specifically, a mandamus action enforces the performance of a legal right after it has been established; its purpose is not to establish a right. See Boone County v. Apex of Arkansas, Inc., 288 Ark. 152, 702 S.W.2d 795 (1986). There must be no discretion available to the ordered party to perform the act. Id., 288 Ark. at 154, 702 S.W.2d at 796.
In the instant case, Bowman had no clear or specific right to attend school if, indeed, she violated a valid school policy which authorized either her suspension or expulsion. The Board unquestionably had the discretion to enforce school policy, and whether Bowman violated that policy was a contested issue between the parties. Thus, Bowman’s recourse was to establish her right to continue in school by showing she did not violate the policy or the Board in some way acted arbitrarily, capriciously or contrary to law. Clearly, Arkansas law permits a person to apply for injunctive relief in a form which requires acts to be restrained or mandated, see ARCP Rule 65(e), and Bowman, in pursuing that relief in chancery, was entitled to establish her right to attend school by testing the Board’s actions in enforcing the school policy against her. Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, we have no hesitancy in holding the chancellor had jurisdiction to decide Bowman’s request for injunctive relief. Therefore, we affirm him in this respect.
While we agree the trial court possessed the power to hear and decide this cause, we are at the same time of the belief that it erred when ordering the Board to readmit Bowman into school. Once again, we look to the Fortman and Williams cases for guidance. In Fortman, the court spoke approvingly of what it called controlling principles stated by Professor Bolmeier in “The School in the Legal Structure,” § 16.17 (2d Ed. 1973). Although we need not recite all of the passages the court set forth in Fortman, we do believe the following parts are particularly instructive here:
The legal principle is also firmly established that school authorities may expel or suspend from school any pupil who disobeys a reasonable rule or regulation. School officials are clothed with considerable discretionary authority in determining whether or not a rule has been violated, and, in the event they conclude that a violation has occurred, they also have discretionary authority in determining the nature of the penalty to be imposed — providing it is not arbitrary or unreasonable.
* * *
The courts look somewhat askance at acts of suspension and particularly at expulsion, as methods for forcing pupils’ conformance to rules and regulations. Some incorrigible pupils violate school regulations for the very purpose of being removed from the school environment. It should be realized that when a pupil is denied school attendance, he is deprived of education designed for his betterment. Of course when a pupil’s misconduct or disobedience is of such a grave nature that his presence is disrupting to the school and detrimental to the morale of the student body, suspension, or even expulsion, is likely to be judicially condoned.
As stated earlier, our court has adhered to the rule that a chancery court has no power to interfere with school district boards in the exercise of their discretion when directing the operation of the schools unless the boards clearly abuse their discretion. The burden is upon those charging such an abuse to prove it by clear and convincing evidence. Fortman, 257 Ark. at 134, 514 S.W.2d 720. Stated in yet other terms, the court, in acknowledging a school board’s power to expel a student, has held it does not have the power to substitute its judgment for that of such a board and will do so only when the court determines the board’s judgment was arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. Williams, 274 Ark. at 533-34, 626 S.W.2d at 363. From our careful examination of the record before us, we cannot say the Board abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily, capriciously or in any way contrary to law. In so holding, we recount the evidence we believe supported the Board’s decision to expel Bowman.
The Board policy in issue was approved on October 9,1984, and it prohibited a student’s possession or use of controlled or uncontrolled substances alike without first obtaining the permission of proper school authorities and acting in accordance with the school district’s policy relative to medication and use of medicine. A violation of the policy carried sanctions of probation, as a minimum, and expulsion from school for one semester, as a maximum. The Board offered testimony that the policy was instituted to assist in the dispensement of medication to students so school officials can monitor the students’ health, and because the policy makes no distinction between illegal or lawful drugs, the Board is afforded a means by which it can control all drug use in the Springdale schools. Bowman never challenged the constitutionality or legality of the actual terms or limits contained within the policy.1
At trial, the Board offered substantial evidence which indicated that Bowman violated the Board’s drug policy. That evidence began with two Springdale High School coaches who became suspicious of the actions of four girl students who were standing by a jeep during lunch on March 6, 1987. The coaches’ surveillance and investigation resulted in their retrieving from the glove box of the jeep a plastic baggie containing three foil packets that contained approximately fifty pills which they described as “white crosses.” The jeep actually belonged to a fifth girl, Paige Harrison, whom the school authorities subsequently interviewed. The girls gave varying accounts concerning who had purchased or received the pills, but one girl, Kim Spencer, admitted to the school principal that she had agreed to sell a packet for $3.00 to three girls, one of whom was Bowman. When confronted by the principal, Bowman admitted that she had paid Harrison for the pills at a time and place away from school, but denied ever having received the pills. Spencer, however, said that she gave pills to Harrison who in turn was to deliver them to Bowman. Harrison related she made that delivery to Bowman on March 6, 1987, in the girls’ bathroom at school after 5th period. Although Bowman denied Harrison’s version of what occurred, she did concede in an affidavit that the pills she allegedly received were over-the-counter diet aids and were represented, as such, to her.
The Springdale school authorities, after considerable investigation, expelled Spencer and two other girls for the remainder of the semester because of their involvement in the selling and purchasing of the pills on school property. At first Harrison was only suspended for five days for her involvement, but after she admitted delivering the pills to Bowman, Harrison was also expelled for the rest of the semester. After further consideration of Bowman’s alleged involvement, the school authorities decided to believe Harrison’s statement that she gave the pills to Bowman at school, and they expelled Bowman for her participation in violating the school’s drug policy.
Unlike the trial court, we believe the school authorities proceeded reasonably in discharging their duties in enforcing the Board’s drug policy. The chancellor expressed his genuine concern that drug use should and must be controlled in the public schools, but he believed that the proof accumulated by school officials failed to show Bowman actually received drugs since no laboratory or other evaluation had been made of the pills. We fail to perceive that as a serious problem, especially in view of the policy adopted by the Board. Again, the policy’s terms were broad enough to cover all drugs, including so-called diet aids, which can be sold over the counter. Based upon the evidence, the Board could reasonably believe, and did, that Bowman paid for pills, covered under Board policy, and received them on school grounds. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s decision finding the Board’s actions in this matter were arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law.
Hickman, Purtle and Dudley, JJ., dissent.