From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nathaniel v. Forrest City School Dist. No. 7

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Dec 4, 1989
780 S.W.2d 539 (Ark. 1989)

Summary

In Nathaniel v. Forrest City School Dist. No. 7, 300 Ark. 513, 780 S.W.2d 539 (1989), we interpreted the phrase "conducted by the teachers" to mean without any direction or interference from administration.

Summary of this case from Hope Educ. Ass'n v. Hope School Dist

Opinion

No. 89-113

Opinion delivered December 4, 1989

1. SCHOOLS SCHOOL DISTRICTS — WRITTEN PERSONNEL POLICY REQUIRED. — Each school district is required to have a written personnel policy. Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-201(a) (1987). 2. SCHOOLS SCHOOL DISTRICTS — PERSONNEL COMMITTEE PROPOSES PERSONNEL POLICY TO SCHOOL BOARD. — The personnel committee proposes personnel policy or the amendment of policy to the school board which, in turn, adopts, rejects, amends, or refers the proposals back to the committee for further study. Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-203 (1987). 3. SCHOOLS SCHOOL DISTRICTS — COMPOSITION OF PERSONNEL COMMITTEE — ELECTION IS TO BE CONDUCTED BY TEACHERS. — The personnel committee must be composed of no fewer than five classroom teachers and no more than three administrators; the classroom teacher members of each district's committee on personnel policies shall be elected by a majority of the classroom teachers voting by secret ballot, and the election shall be solely and exclusively conducted by the classroom teachers, including the distribution of ballots to all classroom teachers. Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-203 (1989 Supp.). 4. APPEAL ERROR — WHEN ONE ACT HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED BY A SECOND ACT, APPEAL FROM DECISION CONSTRUING FIRST ACT GENERALLY DISMISSED FOR MOOTNESS — MOOT ISSUE MAY BE DECIDED IF SUBJECT TO REPETITION. — When one act has been superseded by a second act, the appellate court generally dismisses for mootness an appeal from a declaratory judgment action construing the first act; however, when an issue is subject to repetition but tends to expire before review can be had, the court may decide a moot issue. 5. APPEAL ERROR — UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES, COURT CHOSE TO DECIDE MOOT ISSUE. — Where arguments by the appellee school district convinced the appellate court that the district was likely to repeat its actions; the election procedure case fit within that class of cases which are capable of repetition yet evade review, and, if appellee repeated its action, the election process would be completed before review could be had, the appellate court chose to hear the appeal. 6. SCHOOLS SCHOOL DISTRICTS — ELECTION OF COMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL POLICIES IS TO BE CONDUCTED BY TEACHERS WITHOUT INTERFERENCE. — The election of the committee on personnel policies is to be conducted by teachers without direction or interference from the administration.

Appeal from St. Francis Circuit Court; Harvey Yates, Judge; affirmed as modified.

Mitchell and Roachell, by: Marcia Barnes, for appellants.

Laser, Sharp, Mayes, Wilson, Bufford Watts, P.A., by: Dan F. Bufford and Brian Allen Brown, for appellee.


The appellants, forty-nine (49) Forrest City public school teachers, filed suit against appellee, Forrest City School District No. 7, seeking to invalidate the election of the members of the district's personnel policy committee and asking for a declaratory judgment construing Act 687 of 1987, 2, Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-203 (Supp. 1987). The trial judge invalidated the election for a reason not material to this opinion, but construed the act to allow the school administration to exercise control and supervision over the election of teachers to the personnel committee. We affirm the holding but modify it by construing the act to mean that the teachers must be allowed to elect their representatives to the committee without interference from the administration.

[1, 2] Each school district is required to have a written personnel policy. Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-201(a) (1987). The personnel committee proposes personnel policy or the amendment of policy to the school board which, in turn, adopts, rejects, amends, or refers the proposals back to the committee for further study. Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-203 (1987). The personnel committee must be composed of no fewer than five (5) classroom teachers and no more than three (3) administrators. In pertinent part, the 1987 act, Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-203(b), provided:

[T]he classroom teacher members of each district's committee on personnel policies shall be elected by a majority of the classroom teachers employed in the district by secret ballot in an election conducted by the teachers.

(Emphasis added.)

In the 1987-88 school year, the Forrest City school administration and school board somehow construed this provision to mean they could dictate that the teachers should elect only six (6) representatives, three (3) of whom would come from elementary schools, two (2) from high school, and one (1) from middle school; that the administration could set the date for nominations and select the manner of nominations; that the administration could fix the date of the election and decide which teachers would distribute and tabulate the ballots; and that the administration could decide whether the winners should be selected by run-off or by the largest vote.

The teachers asked the administration that they be allowed to conduct the election without interference. When the administration ignored their request and proceeded with the election as planned, the forty-nine (49) appellants filed this action for declaratory judgment. The trial court ruled that the district had substantially complied with the election requirements but invalidated the election for another reason. The teachers have appealed the trial court's construction of the act.

During the pendency of the appeal the General Assemble passed Act 56 of 1989, Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-203 (Supp. 1989), which amended the 1987 act to provide, in pertinent part: "The election shall be solely and exclusively conducted by the classroom teachers, including the distribution of ballots to all classroom teachers." The 1989 amendment made it unmistakable clear that the General Assembly intended for the election to be conducted by the teachers; not the administration, and not the teachers with the help of the administration.

[4, 5] When one act has been superseded by a second act, we generally dismiss for mootness an appeal from a declaratory judgment action construing the first act. Daniel v. City of Clarksville, 232 Ark. 31, 334 S.W.2d 645 (1960). We normally decide only cases and controversies which will actually affect the rights of litigants. First Nat'l Bank v. Massachusetts Gen. Life Ins. Co., 296 Ark. 28, 752 S.W.2d 1 (1988). However, when an issue is subject to repetition but tends to expire before review can be had, we may decide a moot issue. Springdale Bd. of Educ. v. Bowman, 294 Ark. 66, 740 S.W.2d 909 (1987). In this case, arguments by the appellee school district have convinced us that the district is likely to repeat its actions. Further, election procedure cases fit within that class of cases which are capable of repetition, yet evade review. Velasquez v. Clanton, 286 Ark. 317, 691 S.W.2d 849 (1985). If appellee repeats its action, the election process would be completed before review could be had. Thus, we choose to hear the appeal.

The meaning of the statute is clear. The election is to be "conducted by the teachers." The phrase "conducted by the teachers" does not mean that teachers are only allowed to vote. It means that they can conduct the election without direction or interference from the administration.

Affirmed as modified.

GLAZE, J., not participating.


Summaries of

Nathaniel v. Forrest City School Dist. No. 7

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Dec 4, 1989
780 S.W.2d 539 (Ark. 1989)

In Nathaniel v. Forrest City School Dist. No. 7, 300 Ark. 513, 780 S.W.2d 539 (1989), we interpreted the phrase "conducted by the teachers" to mean without any direction or interference from administration.

Summary of this case from Hope Educ. Ass'n v. Hope School Dist

In Nathaniel, the court rejected an attempt by the school administration and school board to dictate several matters involving the selection of the teacher members on the committee, including the manner of nominations.

Summary of this case from Opinion No. 2003-017

In Nathaniel, supra, the Arkansas Supreme Court rejected an attempt by the Forrest City school administration and school board to dictate several matters involving the selection of the teachers' representatives, including the manner of nominations and the conduct of the election.

Summary of this case from Opinion No. 1998-028
Case details for

Nathaniel v. Forrest City School Dist. No. 7

Case Details

Full title:Nevada NATHANIEL, et al. v. FORREST CITY SCHOOL DIST. NO. 7

Court:Supreme Court of Arkansas

Date published: Dec 4, 1989

Citations

780 S.W.2d 539 (Ark. 1989)
780 S.W.2d 539

Citing Cases

Opinion No. 2003-017

The Arkansas Supreme Court has interpreted § 6-17-203 as giving wide latitude to the classroom teachers in…

Opinion No. 1998-028

It is my opinion that irrespective of the board's denomination as "administration," the board may not be…