Marshall County Board of Education v. State Tenure Commission Court Opinion

    2d SEBIES

rrt of Marshall County, Albertville
, with directions to that court 16it to the State Tenure Commissiel
:termination as to whether the ac.
he Marshall County Board of Edu.
n transferring Arthur Baugh, yxg
ly unjust or for political or per-
lsons, and if the Tenure Commis_
finds, stating the basis for 5uqh
from the evidence taken before

shall County Board of Education.
: 52, $ 357, Code of Alabama 1940.

,ed and remanded with directions.

IN, C. J., and MERRILL, HAR_
MADDOX, McCALL, FAULK_

IJONES, JJ., concur.

SHALL COUNTY BOARO OF ED.
ATION of Marrhall County,

Alabama

Y.

IENUBE COMMISSTON for Tho
State of Alabama.

I Dlv. 67.

of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

.Iune 27, tg73.

from Marshall Circuit Court, Al-
)ivision.

REMAND FROM SUPREME
f,URT OF ALABAMA

lS, Judge.

rr opinion of this court having
red and remanded with directions
reme court to this court, and in
with the supreme court's direc-
cause is now remanded to the
rt of Marshall County, Albert-
on, with directions to that court

UABSEALL COUNTY BOABD OI ED. v. STATE TENUBE OOUN
Clte ae 280 8o.2il 123

Ala. 123

.amand it to the State Tenure Commis- board of education but can include reasons
t:^:-;;; 

a determination as to whether the Personal to those advising the board, such

ll.'rir" "t the Marshall County Board of as the Superintendent of Education.

frucation, in transferring Arthur Baugh, 
Affirmed.

]-.s arbitrarily unjust or for political or

ilron"t reasons, and if the Tenure Com- Judgment reversd, 291 Ala. uil, 80
Irirr;on so finds, state the basis for such So.Zd 130.

iiralngt from the evidence taken before the

iirrrn",, countv Board of Education' 
^fl"., 

i'[3'rifflril'"'d' 
see 50 AIa'

Reversed and remanded with directions'

!. Schoola and School Dlgtrlcta @a14!(5)

Hearing before the State Tenure Com-

mission in reviewing transfers of teachers

or cancellation of teacher contracts is in
the nature of review and is not a trial de

novo. Code of Ala., Tit. 52, $ 361'

2. Estoppol @52.10(4)

A party to a civil action may waive
his rights or defenses insofar as they af-
fect him.

3. Appeal sn{ f17e1 @l$l
A trial court will not be put in error

unless the matter complained about on ap-

peal was called to its attention by objection
or by other appropriate method.

4. Schoola and School Dletrlctr @!41(5)

State Tenure Commission's action in
going outside record in contract termina-

tion proceedings and visiting office of
State Superintendent of Education and ex-

amining documents bearing on question of
whether contracting party's position was

one of administrator or principal was error
without injury where Commission could

have well made determination on question

of tenure from legally comPetent evidence

present on the record. Code of Ata., Tit.
52, S$ 358, 361; Supreme Court Rules, rule

45.

5. Echoola and Echool Dlrtrlcir G-l4l(4)

Purpose of statutory provision that a

teacher's contract may not be cancelled for
personal or political reasons is to prevent

cancellation on any basis other than pro-

WRIGHT, P. J., and BRADLEY, J',

concur.

T,ho MARSHALL COUNTY BOARD OF

EOUCATION of Marehall CountY'
Alabama

Y,

STATE TENURE COMMTSSION for the
Stato of Alabama.

8 DIY. 66'

Court ol Civil Appeals ol Alabama.

July 5, 1972.

Rehearlng Denled Aug. 23, 1972.

Proceeding on petition by board of ed-

ucation for writ of mandamus seeking re-

versal of holding of State Tenure Commis-

sion that discharge of high school principal

was in violation of law. The Circuit
Court, Marshall County, William C. Sulli-
van, Special Judge, denied writ, and peti-

tioner appealed. The Court of Civil Ap-
peals, Holmes, J., held that under statute
providing that board of education may can-

cel the contract of a tenured teacher for
specified reasons, except that cancellation
may not be for political or personal rea-

sons, "personat reasons" are not limited to
those reasons personal to members of the

+



124 Ala. 280 SOUTEEBN BEPOBTER, 2d SEBIES

and assistant coach in another

This action of the board was appealcd

the Alabama State Tenure

and in August of 1970 that bodY

an order declaring the action of the

fessional reasons. Code of Ala., Tit. 52, $

358.

6. Schoolr and School Olctrlctr €l4l(4)

Under statute providing that board of
education may cancel the contract of a ten-

ured teacher for specified reasons' except

that cancellation may not be for political

or personal reasons, "personal reasons" are

not limited to those reasons personal to

members of the board of education but can

include reasons personal to those advising

the board, such as the Superintendent of
Education. Code of Ala., Tit. 52' S 358'

7. Schools and School Dletrlctr el4l(5)

State Tenure Commission's ruling and

finding that administrator's contract was

not renewed because of political or Person-

al reasons was not unjust or not in compli-

ance with teacher tenure law, notwith-

standing that Commission made no finding

as to competency or insubordination' as

charged by board of education, where

Commission determined that primary cause

of dismissal was because of political or

personal reasons. Code of Ala', Tit' 52, $$

358,361.

T. J. Carnes, Albertville, for appellant'

Lusk & Lusk, Louis B. Lusk, SP' Asst'

Atty. Gen., Guntersville, for appellee'

Truman Hobbs, MontgomerY, for Ala'

Education Assn., amicus curiae.

HOLMES, Judge.

This is an aPPeal from a judgment of

the Circuit Court of Marshall County de-

nying appellant's petition for mandamus'

The record discloses that appellant, Mar-

shall County Board of Education, in May

of. 1970, transferred one Arthur Baugh

from the position of principal of Albert-
ville High School to the position of teacher

shall County Board of Education, as it i
lated to Arthur Baugh's transfer, null d
void. t

t
The Tenure Commission's order was il

subject of an appeal to this court, b'ei{

Nlarshall .County Board of Educatioa t
State Tenure Commission, 8 Div. d, I
Ala.App. 418, 280 So.2d 107. This col
has ruled in that case and many of the b
sues in the matter at hand are disposed d
in case No.67.

compiled 1958). The Tenure Commt

in its order, specifically fiade no rtrE

as to the comPetency or insubordinatid

After the State Tenure Commissicl

ruling regarding the transfer of ArtX
naugh the Marshalt County Board of Ef
catio=n, in August of. 1970, passed a resob

tion proposing to cancel the contract I
Arthur Baugh for reasons of incompet(
and insubordination. Mr. Baugh aprg|
the board's action to the Tenure Com4

sion and the commission found the b4
of education's action in canceling Ad{
Baugh's contract was motivated by-polio!

or personal reasons violative of Tit' 1;"
358, of the Code of Alabama of l9a0 0f,

r-----^ r-^^^is5

OOUII:IT BOABD OT E]

r€ferred to Tit.
Clte rB Z

52, $ 361, which

tl follows:

action of the state tonure com-

ion in reviewing transfers of teach-

6r cancellation of teachel' contracts,

lrdc in compliance with the Provi-
of this chapter and unless unjust,

be final and conclusive' Whether

actiori complies with the provisions

6ir chapter and whether such action

t ujust, may be reviewed bY Petition
mandamus filed in the circuit court

.tI thc county where said school system

bltcd."

assigns some twenty-seven as'

of error. This court, in tht
ion case, referred to herein above

dccided the majority of appellant':
ions contained in this appeal. Thi:
leels the dispositive issues of thr

It ber are: l. Was the Tenure Com.
action in considering evidencr

the record such error as to void thr
? 2. Can the Tr:nure Com

I order be said to be unjust and vi
of Tit. 52, $ 361, in tha! the recorr

tlrt support a conclusion that Arthu
Contract cancellation 'was for po

C personal reasons?

lo dispositive issue No. l, the recor,
tiat after arguments oI counsel fo

Mr. Baugh.

Tit. 52, $ 358, of the Code reads a!

lows:

"Cancellation of an emPloYme[t

tract with a teacher on continuing

'lhall County School Board an
for Arthur Baugh, and after th

ttaring of the slaie T'enure Conr
r lts concluded, the chairman of th
rcnure Commission adlised the ar

including appellant,s attorney, thr

ice status maY be made for incoroF

cy, insubordination, neglect ".f 
d:1:

morality, justifiable decrease in thc

ber of ieaching Positions, or other

and just cause; but cancellation ru

be made for Political or Persona

Elttlon proposed to go to the or
lDc State Superintenderrt of Educz
l.thc purpose of examining certai
la conn.ction *i,i iil,=*.

! 360, of the Code reads as fo

On petition for mandamus the i"

Court found the Tenure Commissior

tltl consider tt. ."r. (rn the recor

sons.

\-uul L luurrq lrr! ^ 
errur v vv-- 

-t

pti.a *i,t ChaPter 13 of Tit' 52 ano

Ptoceedings before the said boar



TEPORTEB, 2d SER,IES

the Alabama State Tenure

and assistant coach in anothct
This action of the board was a*

d

s After the State Tenure
ruling regarding the transfer of
Baugh the Marshall County Board of
cation, in August of. 1970, passed a

$ tion proposing to cancel the contls Arthur Baugh for reasons of incom;
e and insubordination. Mr. Baugh eie the board's action to the Tenure Or sion and the commission found the
$ of education's action in canceling 

,

Baugh's contract was motivated by
or personal reasons violative of TiL
358, of the Code of Alabama of I9{0
compiled 1958). The Tenure
in its order, specifically made no
as to the competency or in
Mr. Baugh.

Tit. 52, $ 358, of the Code reads $
lows:

"Cancellation of an employmcri
tract with a teacher on continuinj
ice status may be made for i
cy, insubordination, neglect of
morality, justifiable decrease in tb
ber of teaching positions, or othct

and just cause; but cancellation
be made for political or persontt

sons.t'

On petition for mandamus thc

Court found the Tenure Commi

COUNTY BOARD Or ED. v. STATE TENUBE COU'N Ala' L25
Cite as 280 So.2at 123

referred 
to Tit' 52, $ 361, which and the evidence as recorded at such

hearing. The commission shall by a ma-
jority vote determine the validity of the

action by the board, and shall render its

decision within five days after its hear-

ing. ."

tlJl As appellee admits, the principle

embodied in the above mentioned Code sec-

tion is that the Tenure Commission is to
consider the case on the record of the pro-

ceedings before the board and the evidence

as recorded at the hearing. The hearing,

again as appellee admits, before the Ten-
ure Commission is in the nature of review

and is not to be a trial de noao. No one

contends that the action of the Tenure

Commission was correct. Appellee does

contend that appellant raised no objection
to the Tenure Commission's action and

thereby waived his right to now object.
The record at page 23 reveals the follow-
ing stipulation:

..STIPULATION OF PARTIES

"It is stipulated and agreed by the par-

ties that Exhibit A attached hereto and

made a part hereof is a true and correct
copy of the minutes of the Alabama

State Tenure Commission of the meeting

of December 3, 1971,

"It is further stipulated and agreed by

the parties that following the arguments

on the question whether the Tenure

Commission had jurisdiction, the Chair-
man of the Commission advised the

attorney for Arthur Baugh and the at-

torney for the Marshall County Board of
Education in the hall outside the hearing

room after the parties had been dis-

missed from said room and the Commis-

sion had considered the question for
some minutes that the Commission pro-
posed to go to the office of the State

Superintendent of Education for the pur-
pose of examining certain records in
connection the with [sic] case and nei-

ther of said attorneys raised any objec-

rf
I-

rt

rl

e

o
n

b

f

void.

The Tenure Commission's order itioi comPties rlit| the ,:.""1:i?l:

and in August of 1970 that bod;:
an order declaring the action qf'U;
shall County Board of 

,Education,llated to Arthur Baugh's t."nrf.r, J

subject of an appeal to this court
Marshall County Board of Fa,.^].

rction of the state- tenure com-

in reviewing transfers of teach-

cencellation of teacher contracts,

Iin compliance with the Provi-

I f;:,'::'J ::,ll*,il] 
" "*i3,i'.1

.i.nt.t and whether such action

i. ,ry be reviewed bY Petition

#-,'l= *:'"t!:1#r"'t
H". "'j;, 

# 
j 

il'lil,, "jrrTJ, :" 1:J; :
fts ttr. disPositive issues of the

,ihr rr.t l. Was the Tenure Com-

State Tenure Commissio", S;;; filed in the circuit court

Ala.App. 418, 280 So.2d 107. Thir county where said school system

has ruled in that case and many of
sues in the matter at hand are digF

l,

in case No. 67. assigns some twenty-seven as-

-:,i+
'[l dispotitlre issue No. l, the record

ilt", after arguments of counsel for

l br*ratl CountY School Board and

3 tor Arthur Baugh, and after the

{f haring of the State Tenure Com-

5 t.t concluded, the chairman of the

ection in considering evidence

dte record such error as to void the

i fcnut. Commission advised the at-

including appellant's attorney, that
Dicsion proposed to go to the of-
tc State Superintendent of Educa-

the purpose of examining certain
connection with the case,

! 360, of the Code reads as fol-

On said appeal the commis-
consider the case on the record

plied with Chapter 13 of Tit. 52

before the said board



126 AIa. 280 SOUTEEBN REPOBTE& ZA SEBIES

tion to said proposal or made any state-
ment with reference thereto.

"/s/ T, J. Carnes
Attorney for Marshall
County Board of Edrrca-
tion

"/s/ Louis B. Lusk
Attorney for Arthur
Baugh

"/s/ Louis B. Lusk
Special Assistant Attor-
ney General

"/s/ W.C. S., Special Judge

"Filed in open court +22-71."

It is a well accepted principle that a party
to a civil action may waive his rights or
defenses insofar as they affect him. 28
Am.Jur.Zd, Estoppel & Waiver, $ 166. It
is a further well accepted principle that a
trial court will not be put in error unless
the matter complained about on appeal was
called to its attention by objection or by
other appropriate method. Rice v. Hill,
278 Ala. 342, 178 So.2d 168; State v.
Boyd, 271 Ala. 584, 126 So.2d 225;
Thompson v. Havard, 285 Ala. 718, 235
So.2d 853.

The stipulation signed by appellant clear-
ly reflects the appellant was adaised that
the commission proposed to go to the of-
fice of the State Superintendent of Educa-
tion. There was opportunity to object.

t4l It should be noted that the matter
considered by the Tenure Commission at
the office of the Superintendent of Educa-
tion was the High School Accreditation re-
port and the Institute list, both documents
bearing on the question of whether Arthur
Baugh's position was one of administrator
or principal. (T. page 24). This court, in
Marshall County Board of Education v.
State Tenure Commission for the State of
Alabama, 8 Div. 67, 50 Ala.Apg. 

-, 
N

So.2d, lZ2, the companion case of this mat-
ter, determined Arthur Baugh was the
principat of Albertville High Schoot. This

determination was made on evidence
presented by the record. The Tenurc
Commission could therefore have well
made its determination on the question of
tenure from legal competent evidence
presented to it. The commission's action
in going outside the record is error without
injury. Supreme Court Rule 45.

We now address ourselves to the second

dispositive issue. The record in this case

is voluminous; the witnesses numerous
and to detail their testimony would serve

no useful purpose.

After considering the testimony and ar-
guments of counsel, the State Tenure Com-
mission issued the following order:

..IN THE MATTER OF ARTHUR
BAUGH BEFORE THE STATE TEN.
URE COMMISSION

"A meeting of the State Tenure Com.
mission was held in Montgomery, on De-

cember 3, 1970, at 10:00 A.M. for the

purpose of hearing the above matter.

"After reviewing the record and hear-
ing the arguments of counsel, the Corn-

mission finds the foltowing:

"The Commission is of the opinion
that the cancellation of Mr. Arthur
Baugh's contract by the Marshall Countl
Board of Education as Principal of Al'
bertville High School was motivated bI

political or personal reasons, and is

therefore in conflict with Title 52, Sec'

tion 358, Code of Alabama 1940.

"The Commission makes no finding as

to the competency or incompetency of

Mr. Baugh, neither does the Commissio0
make any finding as to whether or not

Mr. Baugh was guilty of insubordination
as charged by the Board.

Done this 3rd day of December, 1970'

"/s/ I. T. Greene, Chairrnan
Alabama State Tenurc

Commission"

Appellant, in his assignment of errors, con'

tends that there is no evidence in thc

UABSEAI,L OOMTTT BO

rccord that the Board of Educa

ms politically motivated, only tl
tcndent of Education might hal
litically or personally motivated.

To accept appellant's content
regard is to totally ignore the
the situation.

Members of boards of educat
devote much of their time to
fairs. They meet usually oncr
and are not involved in the dail
and administration of the schr

and its individual schools. Th,
have little opportunity to obser'
tact the various teacher personl
necessity, they act to a large dr

the advice and recornmendation
chief executive officer, the Supr
of Education. The superintendr
cessity, to a large degree, acts ul
vice and recommendation of the
or administrators. Ordinarily, t

of the board result from recon
of the superintendent. The boar,
ly has no knowledge of the bas
recommendations other than wht
it by the superintendent.

_ tsl The purpose of the pro
Tit. 52, $ 358, supra, is clearly
cancellation of a teacher,s contri
basis other than professional rear
teacher's contract is cancelled fc
or political reasons. it is a viol
358. The issue is whether a tea
tur is changed for reasons other
lessional or the needs of the schor

As a rule, the board acts afl
Dendations of the superintender
lorms a teacher of its intent to t
cancel, stating thc reasons therr

rdhinistrative act c,f the boittacher may appear and cont
{toard sits in the hearrng as a ju<
to hear both sides of the case. 'I
tvidence upon such hearing indi<
lnc basis for the canceltation is 1
Dersonal reasons of persons o



,TEB, 2d SEBIES

termination was made on evidenn^
esented by the record. The t.nul
,mmission could therefore have ;:;
rde its determination on the qr..tion silure from legal competent euidenL
esented to it. The commisrion', 

".tio'lgoing outside the record is error *itt,oi,
ury. Supreme Court Rule 45.

ffe now address ourselves to the second
positive issue. The record in this casl
voluminous; the witnesses numerou!
I to detail their testimony would serfi
useful purpose.

{fter considering the testimony and ar.
nents of counsel, the State Tenure e64-
;sion issued the following order:

IN THE MATTER oF ARTHUR
}AUGH BEFORE THE STATE TEN.
IRE COMIUISSION

"A meeting of the State Tenure Com-
rission was held in Montgomery, on D6-
ember 3, 1970, at 10:00 A.M. for the
urpose of hearing the above matter.

"After reviewing the record and hear-
rg the arguments of counsei, the Com-
rission finds the following:

"The Commission is of the opinion
rat the cancellation of Mr, Arthur
augh's contract by the Marshall County
oard of Education as principal of Al-
:rtville High School was motivated by
rlitical or personal reasons, and is
ierefore in conflict with Title 52, Sec-
rn 358, Code of Alabama 1940.

"The Commission makes no finding as

the competency or incompetency of
r. Baugh, neither does the Commission
ake any finding as to whether or not
r. Baugh was guilty of insubordination
charged by the Board.

Done this 3rd day of December, 1970.

"/s/ !, T. Greene, Chairman
Alabama State Tenure
Commission',

:llant, in his assignment of errors, con-
; that there is no evidence in the

IIABSEAI,LooUNrYBoABDofED.Y.STATErEIruR,Eootrfi'N
Clte at 280 8o.2il 123

Ala. t27

-^rd that the Board of Education, itself, members of the board is not for considera-
r-"]notiti."ttv 

motivated, only the Superin- tion is an anomaly and clearly contrary to

Li.r, "i Eiucation might have been po- the intent of the statute'

riic.tty or personally motivated' This court believes the statement of Jus-

To accept appellant's contention in this tice Lawson in the case of State v' Board

,rrua tt io tot"tty ignore the realities of of Education of Fairfield, 252 Ala' 254, 40

li! ,itr"tion. So.2d 6gg, points out the meaning of chap-

Members or boards or education d: T, :Ll'rJ,iltl,ti;,li]l 
statement in perti-

dcvote much of their time to school ai-

ilrr. They meet usually once a month "Members of the board of education

,ra "r. 
not involved in the daily activities are not expected to devote their entire

]nd administration of the school system time to school affairs. From necessity,

lna ;tt individual schools. The members they act to a large degree upon the ad-

have little opportunity to observe or con- vice and recommendations of their chief

Lct the various teacher personnel' From executive officer, the Superintendent of

n....tity, they act to a large decree upon Education. Having adopted the rule

the advice and recommendations of their that all ctassroom teachers must take a

chi.f .*e.rtire officer, the Superintendent mental ability test, the board looked to

of Educatiot ' The superintendent, of ne- the Superintendent for the enforcement

,.rrity, to a large degree, acts upon the ad- of this rule. The members of the board

,ic. atd recommendation of the principals did not give the test and hence, ani in-

or administrators. Ordinarily, the actions formation which they received as to the

of the board result from recommendation conduct of Maenetta Steele in relation to

of the superintendent. The board ordinari- the test must have come from the Super-

ly has no knowledge of the basis of such intendent and it was, no doubt, upon his

recommendations other than what is given advice and recommendation that the

it by the superintendent. Soard adopted a resolution on April 25,

1917, to the effect that consideration

t5]Thepurposeoftheprovisionsofu,ouldlregivenonMay2T,l94T,tothe
Tii.-52, $ 35g, supra, is clearly to prevent cancellation of her contract on the

cancellation of a teacher's contract on any ground of insubordination. In passing

basis other than professional reasons' If a such a rcsolution the board acted in an

teacher's contract is cancelled for personal administrative capacity and not as a ju-

or political reasons, it is a violation of $ dicial tribunal. Such resolution was not

S5S. The issue is u,hether a teacher's sta- a finding that l\{aenetta Steele was

tus is changed for reasons other than pro- guilty of the conduct charged' Such a

fessional or the needs of the schools. finding could not be made until May 27,

19-17, and until a hearing had been held

As a rule, the board acts after recom- if reqtrested by \[aenetta Steele.

mendations of the superintendent and in-

forms a teacher of its intent to transfer or "As above pointed out, such a hearing

cancel, stating the reasons therefor. Tit. was requested and held' Although at

52, S 123, Code of Alabama. This is an this hearing N{aenetta Steele was entitled

administrative act of the board. The to prcsent evidence tending to refute the

teacher may appear and contest. The charge madc against her, such hearing'

board sits in the hearing as a judicial body was not solely for the benefit of the

to hear both sides of thr case. To say that teacher. It also served the purpose ol

cvidence upon such hearing indicating that enabling the board of education to hear

the basis for the cancellatiin is political or both sides of the case for, as beforc:

personal reasons of persons other than pointed out, their prior action could onll'



128 Ala.

have resulted f rom information frrr-
nished them by the Superinten:.n,. 

.

"The teacher, Maenetta Steele, sought
to show that the reason why the Super-
intendent permitted other teachers to
subsequently take the test and refused
her that privilege was because he had a
personal dislike for her due to her activ-
ity in the union. Although the Superin-
tendent made the statement that thc un-
ion had nothing to do with the test, yet
he refused to answer qtrestions pro-
pounded to him by counsel for Maenetta

Steele as to whether he approved of
teachers organizing into a teachers' un-
ion. Likewise he refused to answer
questions as to whether he had permitted
other teachers to take the test who had

either refused or failed to do so when it
was first given on March 25th.

"We think that, in view of the nature
of the other evidence presented at the
hearing, Maenetta Steele was entitled to
have the Superintendent answer these

questions. His answers thereto could
have materially affected the final deci-

sion of the board of education. We can-
not say that the board of education
would have cancelled Maenetta Steele's
contract if the Superintendent of Educa-
tion had admitted that he had subse-
quently permitted other teachers to take
the test and that he did disapprove of
teachers organizing into teachers' unions,
since the board might have found that
his refusal to grant Maenetta Steele's re-
quest to take the test was based on her
union activities. She was not charged
with having violated any rule or regula-
tion of the board of education purport-
ing to prohibit teachers engaging in union
activities. The charge was insubordina-
tion. We think the record tends to show
that Maenetta Steele was treated differ-
ently from other teachers and therefore
we feel that while Maenetta Steele was
permitted to give evidence at the hear-
ing, she was prevented from presenting
evidence tending to show that the pro-

280 SOUTEEBN BEPOR,TEB, 2d SEBIES

ceedings to cancel her contract were mo-

tivated by personal reasons. Section
356, Title 52, Code 1940, expressly pro-

vides that the cancellation of a teacher's
contract may not be made for political or
personal reasons." (252 Ala. at Pages
261 and262,10 So.2d at page 695.)

In other words, the superintendent is the

man "on the scene" and to effectively
function the board could, of necessity, ac-

cept the superintendent's recommendation.
This is not a criticism of this particular
board of education or of boards of educa-

tion in general, but is a fact of school ad-

ministration life.

t6l In Lamar County Board of Educa-
tion v. Steedley, 45 Ala.App. 672,236 So.2d

337, this court makes the following state-

ment:

"In the absence of a statutory defini-
tion of 'personal reasons,' it then be-

comes our duty to define the term. As
used in the context of Section 355, su-

pra, we define 'personal reasons' to be

those reasons personal to the Board
members themselves and not to anyone

else. The Board is given the authority
to transfer, hence it would be inconsist-

ent to say that the reasons for the trans-
fer would be other than personal to the

Board members." (45 Ala.App. at Page
680,236 So.2d at page 344.)

There is no indication in the Steedley case

that this court considered State v. Board
of Education of Fairfield, supra. The

statenrent from Steedle! goes too far and

should be recanted. To recant the state-

ment does not affect the decision in Sleed'
ley as it was declared to require reversal on

other grounds.

Appellant further argues that the com-
mission's action was contrary to the law in
that it did not consider or rule on the com-
petency or insubordination lodged against
Arthur Baugh. Appellant points out to
this court that a situation could arise
wherein a teacher and,/or a principal who

was unquestionably incompetent or insub-

UABSEALLOOUNIY BOARI)
c

ordinate and evidence was clearly pr

cd that he was so incomPetent or int

dinate, but because of political diffel

an incomPetent Person worrld be allov

continue his incompetency because

taint of political differences would pr

the proper authority from discharginl

We do not feel that aPPellant's cont

is appropriate in the case at hand'

utes of the commission meeting on

24,25, and 26 of the record clearlY I

that in the judgment of the commissi

primary cause of Arthur Baugh's dis

from his position as principal of tl
bertville High School rlas motival

political and/or personal reasons.

determination that the primary ca'

Arthur Baugh's dismissal was beca

political or personal reasons, it can <

concluded that the commission fe

this was the reason for his dismiss

not the charges of incompetency and

ordination, and therefore did not t
consider these charges' The minr
the Tenure Commission r(T' Page 2!

the following:

"After lengthy review and discus

the transcripts and other materi
cerning this case, Mr. Zeanah r

motion that the Tenure Commissi
only that the primary cause of dr

of Arthur from his Position as P

of Albertville High School bY tt
shall County Board of Educati
motivated by political and,/or 1

reasons and no effort was made
on the charge of incompetencY o
ordination. This motion was s

by Mrs. Childs and carried."

From a careful study of the te
and keeping in mind that the tril
had this testimony available, thi
cannot say that the State Tenure (

sion's action was unjust or in viol
the teacher tenure law. Tit. 52, S

Pra, is clear in its meaning that tt
of the State Tenure Commission, ir
ering cancellation of tcacher cont
final and conclusive unless suct
does not comply with the teache

280 So.2(F9



:EB, 2d SEBIES

eedings to cancet her contract were mo_
vated by personal reasons. Section
56, Title 52, Code 1940, expressly pro_
ides that the cancellation of a teacher,s
)ntract may not be made for political e1
:rsonal reasons." (252 Ala. at pages
il and,262,40 So.Zd at page 695.)

r other words, the superintendent is the
L "on the scene" and to effectively
:tion the board could, of necessity, aq-
the superintendent's recommendation.

i is not a criticism of this particular
d of education or of boards of educa-
in general, but is a fact of school ad-
stration life.

] In Lamar County Board of Educa_
v. Steedley, 45 Ala.App. 622,236 So.Zd
this court makes the following state-

'In the absence of a statutory defini-
n of 'personal reasons,, it then be-
nes our duty to define the term. As
:d in the context of Section 355, su-
l, we define 'personal reasons' to be
,se reasons personal to the Board
mbers themselves and not to anyone
:. The Board is given the authority
transfer, hence it would be inconsist_
to say that the reasons for the trans_
would be other than personal to the

rrd members." (45 Ala.App. at page
,236 So.2d at page 344.)

r is no indication in the Steedley case
his court considered State v. Board
lucation of Fairfield, supra. The
tent from Sleedley goes too far and
I be recanted. To recant the state-
loes not affect the decision in Steed-
it was declared to require reversal on
grounds,

ellant further argues that the com-
n's action was contrary to the law in
did not consider or rule on the com-
y or insubordination lodged against
' Baugh. Appellant points out to
ourt that a situation could arise
n a teacher and/or a principal who
tquestionably incompetent or insub-

UABSEALIT OOITNIY BOARD OF ED. Y. BTATE TENURE OOU'N
Ctte aB 280 8o.2il 123

ordinate and evidence was clearly Present-

ed that he was so incompetent or insubor-

dinate, but because of political differences

an incompetent person would be allowed to

continue his incompetency because any

taint of political differences would prevent

the proper authority from discharging him.

We do not feel that appellant's contention

is appropriate in the case at hand. Min-

utes of the commission meeting on pages

24,25, and 26 of the record clearly reflect

that in the judgment of the commission the

primary cause of Arthur Baugh's dismissal

from his position as principal of the Al-

bertville High School was motivated by

political and/or personal reasons. In its
determination that the primary cause of

Arthur Baugh's dismissal was because of
political or personal reasons, it can only be

concluded that the commission felt that

this was the reason for his dismissal and

not the charges of incompetency and insub-

ordination, and therefore did not have to

consider these charges. The minutes of
the Tenure Commission (T. page 25) state

the following:

"After lengthy review and discussion of
the transcripts and other material con-

cerning this case, Mr. Zeanah made a
motion that the Tenure Commission rule

only that the primary cause of dismissal

of Arthur from his position as principal
of Albertville High School by the Mar-
shall County Board of Education was

motivated by political and/or personal

reasons and no effort was made to rule

on the charge of incompetency or insub-

ordination. This motion was seconded

by Mrs. Childs and carried."

From a careful study of the testimony,
and keeping in mind that the trial judge

had this testimony available, this court
cannot say that the State Tenure Commis-

sion's action was unjust or in violation of
the teacher tenure law. Tit. 52, $ 361' su-

pra, is clear in its meaning that the action

of the State Tenure Commission, in consid-

ering cancellation of teacher contracts, is
final and conclusive unless such action
does not comply with the teacher tenure

280 So.2G-9

Ala. 129

law and unless unjust. As the Supreme

Court of Alabama has stated, it is clear that
the State Tenure Commission expresses the

intent of the legislature to protect the right
of tenure teachers and to preserve to them

a certain degree of academic freedom and

freedom from harassment that is some-

times caused by intra-community political
conflict, and at the same time reserve to

local authorities, through the local county

school boards and local school officials,
proper authority within the area of their
particular functioning. State Tenure Com-

mission v. Madison County Board of Edu-

cation, 282 Ala.568,213 5o.2d823.

As the court further stated in the Madi'
son Couttty Board of Education case, su-

pra:

"This appellate aspect of the tenure

teacher law, that is, the State Tenure'

Commission, to which a review maY be

had of decisions of local school boards,,

is a covenant made by the people of Ala-

bama with tenure school teachers' asi

expressed by legislative enactmenl:

. Thus, there now exists a 'ten-

ure' law and an independent appellate:

forum. The legislature, no doubt, felt il:
was necessary to have an appellate fo-

rum for tenure teachers, so that the)'

could be removed from the heat and the

aggressiveness and pressures sometimesi

generated in intracommunity or intra-

county politics' This 'tenure teacher'

law establishes a 'means' between twc'

extremes-the extreme of absolute locatr

control and the other extreme of abso-

lute freedom from any local control'"
(282 Ala. at Page 671,213 So.2d at page

833)

171 This court, with the above view in

mind, cannot say that the Alabama State

Tenure Commission's ruling and finding irr

the case at bar were unjust and not irl
compliance with the teacher tenure law'

The above and this court's holding in tht:

companion case, The Marshall Countl'

Board of Education v. State Tenure Com-



130 AIa.

mission for the State of Alabama, 8 Div.
67, 50 Ala.APP. 

-, 
28 So.Zd 122, being

dispositive of all assignments of error, this
court does hereby affirm the ruling of the
trial court.

Af firmed.

WRIGHT, P. J., and BRADLEY, J.,
concur.

ln rc MARSHALL COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCAT!ON

Y.

STATE TENURE COMMISSION for tho
Statc o, Alabama ct al.

Ex partc Marrhall County Board
of Educatlott.

sc I t0.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

feb. 8,1973.

Rehearlng f)enled March 8, 1973.

Proceedings on petition by board of
education for writ of mandamus seeking
reversal of holding of State Tenure Com-
mission that discharge of high school prin-
cipal was motivated by prohibited political
or personal reasons. The Circuit Court,
Marshall County, William C. Sullivan,
Special Judge, denied writ, and petitioner
appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals, 50

Ala.App. 427,'2& So.Zd 123, affirmed, and
petition for writ of certiorari was granted.

The Supreme Court, Merrill, J., held that
order of Tenure Commission holding that
board's cancellation of tenured school prin-
cipal's contract was motivated by political
or personal reasons, rather than on ground
of incompetency, as stated by board, but
that Commission made no finding as to
competency or incompetency or whether he

280 SOUTEEBN BEPOBIER,' 2d SEBIES

was guilty of insubordination as charged,

was inadequate; Commission should have

stated sufficient reasons founded in the ev-

idence to justify its action so that on final
review by the Supreme Court that court
could pass on the question of whether the

Commission's action was unjust.

Judgment of Court of Civil ApPeals

reversed and cause remanded.

Heflin, C. J., concurred in the result.

Maddox, J., concurred specially and

filed opinion.

For opinion after remand, see Ala.Civ'
APP., 50 Ala.APP. 

-,2N 
So.2d 139.

l. Schoolr and School Dlstrlctr @l4l(5)

Supreme Court's review of determina'

tion of Court of Civil Appeals on judicial

review of transfer or cancellation of con'

tract of tenured schoolteacher is by way of

certiorari, with mechanics of that limited
review applicable; thus, Supreme Court

does not review all the evidence taken be'

fore the county board of education. Code

of Ala., Tit. 52, $$ 355, 358; SuPreme

Court Rules, rule 39; Laws 1969, p. 1714.

2. Schooh and School Dlrtrlctr @l4l(5)

Only evidence properly before thc

Tenure Commission, on review of action of

board of education in transferring or can'

celling contract of tenured teacher, is that

which was taken before the board and in'
formation from no other source should be

sought or considered; Tenure Commission

does not have a broader scope of review

than is ordinarily permitted courts revieril'

ing decisions of administrative agencies'

Code of Ala., Tit. 52, SS 357, 358, 360.

3. School3 and School Dlrtrlctc Fl4l(4)

The "political reasons" the legislature
had in mind in enacting statutes providing
that cancellation of employment contract
with a teacher on continuing service status

cannot be made for political t."tons *.tt
that no tenured teacher could be trans'

IIAISEALL OOUNff BOABL OI
Clt€

fcrred or discharged on ground that

tcacher did not belong to same politi

prrty to which a majoritY of the bo

mcrnbers belonged, or that the teacher I

voted for a political opponent of the boa

or that the teacher had or had not P

fcssed a political preference in any pol

cat race, or that teacher had become a c

didate for public office, or for any sim

political activity not specifically m

tioned; the board cannot inrlirectly put

a teacher for that teacher's political act

ty or that teacher's refraining from po

cal activity. Code of Ala., Tit. 52, $ .

See publieation \Yords aud Phrages

for other judicial constructions and

definitions.

L Schoolc and School Dlrtrlctr €=l4l(4)

Fact that no tenured teacher can

transferred or discharged without a ma
ity vote of the board of education and
ruch holding cannot be affirmed or rej
cd by the Tenure Commission except
majority vote does not make either bo
rction "political" in the sense that wor
used in statute providing that contract,
tcaured teacher may not be cancelled
political reasons. Code of Ala., Tit. 5

358.

See publicatiou Words and Phrases
for other judlcial constnrctiong and
definitiong.

tr Schootr and Schoo! Dlstrtctr €=lal(4)

Word "personal" as used in statute
viding that contract of tenured sct
teacher may not be cancelled for pers
teasons denotes a personal bias, preju
ot antipathy on the part of one or mor
thc board members toward the teac
rnd when it influences a board mem
vote when that member is exercisir
{uasi-judicial function in voting o
trrnsfer or cancellation; personal i
cootrast with judicial, it characterize
rttitude of cxirajudicial origin. Cod
Ala., Tit. s2, $ 3sg.

See publicatlon Wortls antl Phrage
lor other judiclal couatructiong an
detinitions.



iTEB, 2d SEBIES

as guilty of insubordination as charsc,r
as inadequate; Commission should lia-r]
rted sufficient reasons founded in tt,..r-
ence to justify its action so that on final
view bf the Supreme Court that couit
uld pass on the question of whether dsrmmission's action was unjust.

Judgment of Court of Civil Appeals
rersed and cause remanded.

Heflin, C. J., concurred in the result.

Maddox, J., concurred specially x16
:d opinion.

For opinion after remand, see Ala.Civ.
r., 50 AIa.App. 

-, 
280 So.2d 139.

ichoolr and School Dletrlctr @l4l(S)
Supreme Court's review of determina-
of Court of Civil Appeals on judicial

ew of transfer or cancellation of con_
t of tenured schoolteacher is by way of
iorari, with mechanics of that limited
ew applicable; thus, Supreme Court
not review all the evidence taken be_
the county board of education. Code

\1a., Tit. 52, $S 355, 358; Supreme
't Rules, rule 39; Laws 1969, p. 1244.

hoots and School Dlotrlctr @=t4t(S)

)nly evidence properly before the
re Commission, on review of action of
I of education in transferring or can_
g contract of tenured teacher, is that
r was taken before the board and in_
rtion from no other source should be
rt or considered; Tenure Commission
not have a broader scope of review
is ordinarily permitted courts review_
ecisions of administrative agencies.
rf Ata., Tit. 52, $$ 357, 358, 360.

ools and Echool Dlstrlcts €14t(4)
he "political reasons,, the legislature
mind in enacting statutes providing

ancellation of emptoyment contract
teacher on continuing service status
be made for potitical reasons were

o tenured teacher could be trans_

plitical activity not specifically men-

tioned; the board cannot indirectly punish

a teacher for that teacher's political activi-

ty or that teacher's refraining from politi-

cal activity. Code of Ala., Tit. 52, $ 358.

See publication l/['ords and Phrases
for other juilicial constructione anal

definitions.

l, Schools and School Dlstrlcts €l4l(4)
Fact that no tenured teacher can be

transferred or discharged without a major-
ity vote of the board of education and that

such holding cannot be affirmed or reject-
ed by the Tenure Commission except by

majority vote does not make either body's

action "political" in the sense that word is
used in statute providing that contract of a

tenured teacher may not be cancelled for
political reasons. Code of Ala., Tit. 52, $

358.

See publication \Yorde and Plrrases
for other judicial eongtructions and
definitions.

5. Schools and School Dlctrlcic Fl4l(4)
Word "personal" as used in statute pro-

viding that contract of tenured school-
teacher ma)' not be cancelled for personal
reasons denotes a personal bias, prejudice,
or antipathy on the part of one or more of
the board members toward the teacher;
and when it influences a board member's
vote when that member is exercising a

quasi-judicial function in voting on a

transfer or cancellation; personal is in
contrast with judicial, it characterizes an
attitude of cxtrajudicial origin. Code of
Ala., Tit. 52, S 359.

See publication l/l'ords and Phrases
for other judiclal constructioDs and
definitions.

7. Schooli lnd School Dlstrlctt €=14l(4)

Words "but cancellation may not be

rpade for political or personal reasons" as

used in statute governing cancellation of
employment contract with a teacher on
continuing service status are not meaning-
less surplusage; the legislature put them
there for a purpose and they should be

considered and applied. Code of Ala., Tit.
52, $ 358.

8. Schoolr and School Dlstrlcts @=t4l(4)

In providing that lo tenured school-
teacher should have his contract cancelled
for political or personal reasons, the legis-
lature intended to proscribe termination or
cancellation exclusively or primarily for
political or personal reasons. Code of
Ala., Tit. 52, $ 358.

9. Schoole and School Dlstrlcta @l4l(2, 5)

Only the employing board of education
has the authority to cancel the contract of
a tenured teacher and that only after due

notice and a hearing. Code of Ala., Tit. 52,

S$ 62,351 et seq.,359, 360.

10. Schoole lnd School Dlrtrlcta @l4l(5)

Appeal to Tenure Commission from
decision of board of education cancelling
contract of tenured teachcr is not for a de

novo trial; only question for decision by
the Commission, in cases where board's ac-

tion is in compliance with chapter on

teacher's tenure, is whether the Board's ac-
tion was arbitrarily unjust. Code of Ala.,
Tit. 52, $$ 358, 360.

I l. Schoole and School Dlrtrlctr @=l4l(5)

Order of Tenure Commission holding
that board of education's cancellation of

UAX,SEAIJT OOUNTY BOARD Of ED. v. STATE TENUR.E OOUN Ala. 131
Clte ae 280 8o.2d 130

lerred or discharged on ground that the 6. Schoolr end School Dl.trlctt €D!41(4)

seacher did not belong to same political A tenured teacher, regardless of how
garty to which a majority of the board incompetent he may have become, may not
6rembers belonged, or that the teacher had annually publicly criticize actions of the
yeted for a political opponent of the board, school board and castigate integrity of
or that the teacher had or had not pro- board members and thereby avoid discharge
fessed a political preference in any politi- on ground that any attempt to get rid of
6al race, or that teacher had become a can- him was for prohibited ,,political and per-
didate for public office, or for any similar sonal reasons.,, Code of Ala., Tit. 52, $ 358.



l 2 Ala. 280 gouTEEBt{ BEPOETE& 2d SERTES

tenured school principal's contract was mo-

tivated by political or personal reasons

rather than on ground of incompetency' as

stated by board, but that Commission made

no finding as to competency or incompe-

tency or whether he was guilty of insubor-

dination as charged, was inadequate; Com-

mission should have stated sufficient rea-

sons founded in the evidence to justify its

action so that on final review by the Su-

preme Court that court could pass on the

question of whether the Commission's ac-

tion was unjust. Code of Ala., Tit. 52, $$

355, 358, 361.

12. Schoo!! and Schoolo Dlstrlctr €=14l(5)

Where Tenure Commission reverses a

determination of board of education can-

celling contract of tenured teacher, it is

imperative that some specificity be given

by the Commission; "personal or political

reasons" is too general and too indefinite
and does not give the court sufficient in-

formation to decide the case on its merits'

Code of Ala., Tit. 52, $S 355, 358, 361.

13. Schoolr and Schoo! Dlrtrlctr @133.8

Purpose of the teacher tenure law is

to insure teachers some measure of securi-

ty and to secure permanency in the teach-

ing force; tenure law is to be read into all

contracts entered into between school

boards and teachers. Code of Ala., Tit' 52,

s$ 355, 358, 360.

14. Schoolr and School Dlstrlctl €=l4l(5)

Where charge of incomPetencY of a

tenured teacher is sustained by board of ed-

ucation, a positive finding, one way or the

other, on that charge and the reasons why

should always be made bY the Tenure

Commission on appeal. Code of Ala', Tit'
52, $ 358.

T. J. Carnes, Albertville, for petitioner'

Lusk & Lusk, Guntersville, for respond-

ents.

Louis B. Lusk, Sp. Asst. Atty' Gen', for

the State Tenure Comm., respondent'

MERRILL, Justice.

Petitioner seeks a review by certiorari of

the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals

which affirmed a judgment of the circuit

court denying petitioner's petition for man'

damus.

This is a companion case and a sequel to

Marshall County Board of Education v.

State Tenure Commission, 291 Ala. 273,

280 So.2d 114, this day decided. In that

case, the Board of Education (here-

inafter called the Board) sought to trans-

fer Arther Baugh from the principalship

of Albertville High School to teacher and

coach of another high school in the county

under the transfer provisions of Tit. 52, $

355, Code 1940, as amended. Baugh aP-

pealed to the State Tenure Commission

(hereinafter called the Commission) and

the Commission held that the Board's ac-

tion was null and void on August 7, 1970'

On August 13, 1970, the Board Passed a

resolution to cancel Baugh's contract under

Tit. 52, $ 358, as amended, and after prop-

er notice and hearing, Baugh's contract

was cancelled. He appealed to the Com'

mission and it decided that the cancellation

was the result of political or personal rea'

sons. The Board sought review in the cir'
cuit court by mandamus; the relief sought

was denied; the Board appealed to the

Court of Civil Appeals, where the judg-

ment of the circuit court was affirmed.

I. SCOPE OF REVIEW

Petitioner cites cases in which this court

reviewed the evidence t"k.. b.fott th'
county board in transfer and cancellation

of contract cases. It is so stated in State

v. Board of Education of Fairfield, 252 Ala'.

251, 1O So'2d 689; AutrY v. Board of

Education of Randolph County, 285 Llo'

617,235 So.2d 651, and State Tenure Corn'

mission v. Madison County Board of Edu'

cation, 282 A1a.658,213 So.2d 823.

tll But all of those cases were decided

beiore the Court of Civil Appeals was cre-

ated, effective October l, 1969, by Act No'

987, Acts of Alabama 1969, p' 1744' That

IIABSEALL COUNTY BoABD
C

Act gives exclusive appellate jurisd

oi."t., like the instant one to the

of Civil APPeals ($ 3 of the Act) an<

of the Act and our SuPreme Court

39, as nmended, Provide for review i

court hy certiorari and the mechani

thet limited review. Therefore, we <

review all the evidence taken befor

county board in such cases' That d

now on the Court of Civil APPeals'

t2l While on the subject of scc

revierv, we answer a contention c

Tenure (lommission made in brief wl

is staterl, "we think there are good r'

for rllorving the Tenure Commiss

somcsltrt broader scope of review t

ordiurrrrll' permitted to L-ourts revi

decisi(ttlt of administrative agencies.'

Cantxlt ,tNree.

Thr l.cgislature set the scoPe of r
In tr;rrrrfer cases of tenured teacher

scopc of review bY the Commiss

"whcthcr such action was taken for
cll or ltrsonal reasons" and that

ues r\\t arbitrarily unjust. Tit. 52,

In cntrtllation of contract cases, tht
of rt\'rr'\Y is the same, $ 360, althou

"polrtir',rl or personal reasons"

rmenrlutcrtt to $ 358. No appellate <

court rrt this state has the right to b
tht srlr of review of the Comn
\tcir,rtt .160 states, "On said appe

conrmr.tion will consider the case

rtrrr.rl oi the proceedings before tl
bolrrl .rrd the evidence as recorded i

httrrrrl."

1111 rr the universal rule relating
perlnI this state where the case is
no\rr \l reviewed on the record n
tttt rrr*l below. The only evidence
[1 l"umission is that which war
tr16.11 the Board and information f
olhct s.urces should be sought or
rtra.

ll. I$LITICAL OR PERSOT\
REASONS

l.'i+ i2. $ 35g, as amended, pr
t\rcellation of an employme

trtr rrth a teacher on continuin