Vallejo High School District v. White

California Court of Appeal Sep 25, 1919 No. Civ. No. 2045.Published

Before: Ellison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the employment and dismissal of teachers are not municipal affairs, and therefore the state's Political Code controls over conflicting provisions in a city charter. Consequently, the superintendent lacked the authority to reinstate the principal because the principal was not re-employed under the state law.

Issues

Whether the employment and dismissal of teachers are 'municipal affairs' subject to city charter or matters subject to state law.
Whether the respondent had the authority to reinstate a principal whose employment had ceased under the Political Code.

Disposition. Writ of review granted; orders set aside.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The government of schools and the employment and discharge of teachers are not municipal affairs and, by virtue of the constitutional provision referred to, the state law controls whenever a conflict arises.”

“We hold that Nielsen was not re-employed for the fiscal year, beginning July 1, 1919; that at the time the appeal was taken he was not a teacher in the employ of the high school district”

Synopsis

PROCEEDING in Certiorari to review tbe action of the county superintendent of schools in reinstating a high school principal. Order for reinstatement set aside.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

[360]

ELLISON, P. J., pro tem.

The petition sets forth that the petitioner is a high school corporation; that the respondent is county superintendent of schools of Solano County, California; that the petitioner school district is composed of the city of Vallejo and adjacent territory of an area of approximately the same as the city of Vallejo; that prior to the year 1918 petitioner employed one Carl H. Nielsen, as principal of said high school, and he acted as such until the thirtieth day of June, 1919, at which time his employment ceased; that after the first day of June, and before the tenth day of June, 1919, petitioner, in writing, duly notified said Carl H. Nielsen that his services as principal of said high school would not be required after June 30, 1919, and that this notice was served upon him before the tenth day of June, 1919; that thereafter said Nielsen appealed to respondent as county superintendent of schools and asked that the action of the board of trustees of petitioner be reversed and he be reinstated as principal of said high school; that respondent, without notice to petitioner herein, reversed its action and reinstated said Nielsen as principal of said high school. Petitioner, claiming that respondent had no authority of law to entertain the appeal or make an order reinstating said Nielsen, applies to this court for a writ of review and asks that said action of said superintendent of schools in reinstating said Nielsen be annulled and set aside.

Respondent, by return of the writ, has set forth all his actions and proceedings as superintendent in connection therewith.

The controversy between petitioner and respondent grows out of the fact that the charter of the city of Vallejo contains different provisions on the subject of employment of teachers from that contained in the Political Code, and one of the questions submitted for decision is: Are the parties’ rights to be governed by the state law, as found in the Political Code, or by the provisions of the charter of the city of Vallejo? The' record shows that the petitioner received no notice that his services would not be needed after the current fiscal year, prior to the first day of May, 1919.

Section 1617 of the Political Code, under the heading of the powers and duties of trustees and boards of education in said school districts, provides: “ . . . except that teachers

Vallejo High School District v. White

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief