
    STATE ex rel. PARRISH v. CALCASIEU PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.
    No. 3852.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.
    June 21, 1954.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 6, 1954.
    Writ of Certiorari Denied Nov. 8, 1954.
    Griffin Hawkins, Dist. Atty., and Fred. C. Selby, Asst. Dist. Atty., Lake Charles, for appellant.
    Joe J. Tritico and I. V, Maurer, Lake Charles, for appellee.
   ELLIS, Judge.

Relator had been employed and as a result thereof enjoyed tenure as a principal in the school system of Calcasieu Parish up until 1950'when certain charges of misconduct were filed against him and! a hearing partially completed was discontinued and as a result of negotiations between relator, his attorney and the School Board an agreement was reached by which the charges were dropped and a new contract between relator and the School Board agreed upon.

There are certain provisions of the agreement between relator and the School Board which are not in dispute and admitted by both. It is agreed that the charges were dropped and the hearing discontinued and relator resigned as principal and accépted a position as a regular teacher and was to be given a contract, which was done, for three years for a consideration of $5,000 per year, which was the same salary he had been drawing as principal and which was above the salary of a regular teacher. At the expiration of the three year period covered by the contract given pursuant to the agreement, relator was offered a contract at the regular teacher pay (1953-1954 term) which amounted to $3,600 per year plus certain cost of living increases which had been granted by the State and the School Board since the 1950 contract. Relator signed this contract under protest and brought the present suit to compel the School Board to pay him for the school year 1953-1954 the salary of $5,000 per year plus certain cost of living increases that had been granted by the State.

Relator contended that the attempted reduction of his salary at the expiration of the three year period without written charges having been preferred against him and a hearing had thereon constituted a removal from office within the meaning of the Teacher Tenure Act, LSA-R.S. 17:441, 17:443. Further, that the School Board was prohibited by the Statute to have a salary reduced without a hearing of written charges against him.

The School Board maintained that the agreement which ended the charges and hearing and which resulted in a new contract between relator and the School Board contained an additional provision other than those admitted by both parties by which relator, should he continue teaching after the three year period for which he was to be paid $5,000 per year, would receive the same salary as every other regular teacher of like experience and status.

In the Lower Court the School Board offered that portion of the proceedings pertaining to the agreement as transcribed by the official stenographer at the hearing, to which counsel for relator objected on the ground that it “might tend to vary the terms and conditions of the written contract, settlement or compromise that was executed by the parties involved at the hearing.”

The District Judge allowed the introduction with a reservation of ruling and it is as follows:

“Q. I hand you a booklet here marked:
“Volume VI — Hearing before Cal-casieu Parish School Board at the Administration Building, 1624 Kirk-man Street, Lake Charles, Louisiana, beginning May 25, 1950. In re— Charges brought against E. D. Parrish.
“I ask you if this was the sixth volume or last volume of that testi- . mony or other evidence and proceedings taken? A. Yes, sir, that is.
“Q. That is the Volume VI? A. Yes.
“Q. Now, Mr. Norton, I am going to hand you this volume and ask that you turn to Page 2030 and read page 2030 and through the second paragraph of Page 2031, to the Court. Read it aloud to the Court.”
******
“Exhibit D-2:
“(Reconvened at 5:35 P.M. June 26th)
“Mr. Tritico: Gentlemen, I have two documents which I pass on to the school board for your consideration and action.
“Mr. Welsh: (Reads) ‘Calcasieu Parish School Board. Gentlemen: I hereby tender my resignation as principal in the Calcasieu Parish School System to become effective immediately. Also, tender resignation as teacher in the Marion School in order to accept a teaching position elsewhere in Cal-casieu Parish * * * Yours truly, E. D. Parrish.’
“Do I hear a motion to Accept?
“Moved, by Mr. House, seconded by Mr. Pate, that the resignation of Mr. Parrish be accepted. Any discussion?
“(Carried.)
“By Mr. Pate: - Mr. Welsh, I am going to move that Mr. Norton be empowered by resolution to re-employ Mr. Parrish in the parish school system as an employee.
“Mr. Norton: You are authorizing me to employ Mr. Parrish as a teacher at five thousand dollars a year for the next three years; thereafter, if he continues in the service, at the regular salary schedule ?
“Mr. Pate: That’s right.
“(Carried.)
“Mr. Welsh: There is no further business to come before the board. Before we adjourn, I want to say the school board appreciates everything you all have done. You have been very orderly. Maybe once in a while I got a little hard-boiled, but I didn’t mean it. I tried to be as fair as I could, and I think the agreement we have made is for the best,.' for the community at large out there. ■. (
“I hope you folks will get along with the new principal, do the best you can and we want to do the best1 we can. We have done the best we can so far and everybody is satisfied, as far as we qre concerned, with the outcome. We are sorry it all had to come, but these things happen and we just can’t help it.”

Also introduced by the School Board over the objection of counsel with final ruling reserved was a copy, of a letter which reads as follows:

“June 26, 1950
“Mr. E. D. Parrish,
“Lake Charles, La.
“Dear Sir:
“Your resignation as a principal in the Calcasieu Parish School System, dated June 26, 1950, is hereby accepted to become effective immediately.
“Your resignation as a teacher in the Marion school in order to accept a teaching position else where in Cal-casieu Parish is also accepted, and you are hereby assigned to the Cooley and Henry Heights Schools for the session 1950-1951; as soon as an . opening occurs in the Lagrange School, you will be assigned to that school.
“Attached hereto is a contract fixing your salary at $5,000.00' for the years 1950-1951, 1951-1952, 1952-1953. After the expiration of this three year period, your salary will return to the salary of a classroom teacher according to the adopted schedule in force at that time.
“Yours truly,
“H. A. Norton, Superintendent”

The District Court in its written reasons in ruling upon the objection to the introduction of the documents above set forth had the following to say:

“In view of the holding of our Supreme Court in the cases of Succession of Jurisich [224 La. 325], 69 So.2d 361, and Rosenthal v. Gauthier [224 La. 341], 69 So.2d 367, and Article 2276 of the[ LSA-] Civil Code of this State, the Court is of the opinion that the objection to parol testimony to explain or supplement or add to the contract was good, and for purposes of this decision, said evidence is excluded.”
* * * * * *
“A reading of the contract signed by the parties on June 26, 1950, marked p-4 and the minutes of the School Board authorizing the contract shows that the contract is for three years at $5,000.00 per year. There is nothing ambiguous about the contract of June 26, 1950. To admit the letter of June 26, 1950, would be to add to said contract. This is in direct contravention of Article 2276 of the [LSA-] Civil Code.
“Article 3071 of the [LSA-] • Civil Code provides that a compromise is an agreement or contract and must be reduced to writing. This was done in the case at bar.”

As a result of the exclusion of the documents in question the District Court under authority of LSA-R.S. 17:443 and State ex rel. Bass v. Vernon Parish School Board, La.App., 194 So. 74, and Andrews v. Union Parish School Board, 191 La. 90, 184 So. 552 rendered judgment in favor of relator and against the School Board fixing his salary for the 1953-1954 school year at $5,000.

The two cited cases in effect are authority for the proposition that one who had been actively engaged as a teacher in a parish for three or more years could not be changed from principal of a high school and assigned to a grade school at a substantial reduction of salary, without charges of any kind being preferred and without a hearing having been given for under such facts a teacher would be considered as “removed from office” within the prohibition of the Teacher Tenure Act.

It is from this judgment that the school board has appealed and the relator has answered the appeal praying that the judgment be increased to include an additional grant for the cost of living increases.

This case turns upon the proposition as to what constituted the complete agreement between the parties as the basis of the new contract to be entered into between them.

The written proceedings containing the agreement reached between relator and the School Board, supra, are the best evidence of the contract between relator and the School Board and were admissible. The record is clear that all parties were present when this recommendation was made and the proceedings stand unchallenged by the pleadings or the evidence. Unless and until the written proceedings were attacked by relator they are valid and binding upon him under the circumstances. A mere reading of the proceedings, supra, reveals the agreement reached at that time, viz., the letter of resignation as principal by relator, which was read, and a summary of the authorization of the School Board made by Mr. Norton as to his authorization of employment. This proceedings specifically shows Mr. Norton saying to the Board, “You are authorizing me to employ Mr. Parrish as a teacher at five thousand dollars a year for the next three years; thereafter, if he continues in the service, at the regular salary schedule?" (Emphasis aldd-ed.) To which Mr. Pate, a member of the Board and who had made the motion stated: “That’s right.” The relator and his attorney were both present at that time and there was no objection recorded. As a result of this agreement relator was given a contract for three years at $5,000 per year and it was not necessary that any mention be made in this particular portion of the new contract of employment as to his salary thereafter as the proceedings at the hearing, supra, were and are binding upon him until attacked.

Even if it be conceded for the sake of argument only that the written proceedings did not constitute a contract between relator and the school board, then we have the fact that Mr. Norton wisely attached the three year contract to the letter, a copy of which is quoted above. This letter reiterates the complete agreement reached at the hearing and should it be conceded that the written documents drawn pursuant to and as a result of the agreement reached at the hearing supersede the latter, then under not only the prepondérance of the’ testimony but that which we believe to be absolutely true, the resignation of relator' was read, the contract for $5,000 for three years was drawn, signed and read, and the letter of June 26, 1950 had also been written, signed by the Superintendent, read aloud in the presence of the Board and relator and his attorney, and the three year’ contract was attached thereto. The School Board members,- one after another, testified on the trial of this case, as well as the superintendent, without any hesitation, that relator and his attorney were present and the facts above enumerated were true and correct.

The only testimony offered to contradict that of the School Board members and Superintendent was that of the relator that the letter of June 26, 1950 was not attached' to the three year contract, and that of his attorney who did not remember having seen the letter but he did testify that there was a discussion as to what relator’s salary might be if he remained in the school system of Calcasieu Parish, after three years. The testimony further clearly reveals that the School Board thought and were lead to believe that relator would possibly resign at the end of three years but one member of the school board testified that relator told him he had changed his mind.

Therefore, while we believe that relator was bound by the agreement as shown by the written proceedings, supra, he is most assuredly bound by the terms of the three year contract and the letter of June 26, 1950, to which the three year contract was attached. These documents do not alter or vary the written contract reached in accordance with the proceedings before the School Board, in fact, they coincide and fully corroborate them in every respect.

For the above reasons, the judgment of the District Court is hereby reversed .and relator’s suit dismissed at his cost.

On Motion for Rehearing Rehearing denied.

CAVANAUGH, Judge

(dissenting).

Relator has filed an application in this case for a rehearing, in which he seriously contends that this Court erred in reversing the Trial Court, and dismissing his suit, even under our holding that the contract existed as contended by the defendant, and was binding on him after considering the letter and other evidence admitted on the trial of the case to modify the compromise agreement over his objection. The point was not urged in the Lower Court but which is clearly reflected by the record in the case is whether or not a school board, as a quasi judicial body, hearing charges against a teacher, has a right, after evidence has been adduced and heard on the charges, to enter into a compromise agreement with the teacher, wherein the teacher resigns his position in the public school system as a teacher in one particular school to accept employment elsewhere in the parish in that system and simultaneously enter into a contract with that teacher for a period of three years in a subordinate position from that which he formerly held, at the same salary he was receiving as a principal, and further conditioned that at the end of the three year period, he will be further demoted to a permanent status as a classroom teacher. That is exactly happened in this case.

LSA-R.S. 17:442 provides that:

“Each teacher shall serve a probationary term of three years to be reckoned from the date of his first appointment in the parish or city in which the teacher is serving his probation. During the probationary term the parish or city school board, as the case may be, may dismiss or discharge any probationary teacher upon the written recommendation of the parish or city superintendent of schools, as the case may be, accompanied by valid reasons therefor.
“Any teacher found unsatisfactory by the parish or city school board, as the case may be, at the expiration of the said probationary term, shall be notified in writing by the board that he has been discharged or dismissed; in the absence of such notification, such probationary teacher shall automatically become a regular and permanent teacher in the employ of the school board of the parish or city, as the case may be, in which he has successfully served his three year probationary term; all teachers in the employ of any parish or city school board as of July 31, 1946 who hold proper certificates and who have served satisfactorily as teachers in that parish or city for more than three consecutive years, are declared to be regular and permanent teachers in the employ of the school board of that parish or city.”

Section 443 provides that a teacher shall not be removed from office except on written and signed charges of wilful neglect of duty, or of incompetency, or dishonesty, and then only if found guilty after a hearing by the school board of the parish or city, as the case may be, which hearing may be private or public, at the option of the teacher.

This section further provides that if a permanent teacher is found guilty by the school board after due and legal hearing as provided in this section, on charges of wilful neglect of duty, or of incompetency, of dishonesty, and ordered removed from office, or disciplined by the board, the teacher may, not more than one year from the date of said finding, petition a court of competent jurisdiction for a full hearing to review the action of the school board. If the finding of the school board is reversed by the court the teacher is ordered reinstated and restored to duty, the teacher shall be entitled to full pay for loss of time or salary that she or he may have sustained by reason of the action of said school board.

LSA-R.S. 17:444 provides that nothing contained in the Revised Statutes of Louisiana shall be construed as conferring upon any parish or city school board the authority to make rules and regulations which may impair or nullify the provisions of this sub-part.

The record in this case shows that after more than two thousand pages of evidence was adduced and heard on the hearing of whether to sustain the charges brought against the relator, the matter terminated in a compromise agreement. Whether the compromise was initiated by relator or the school hoard is not reflected in the record. At its termination the compromise agreement between the hoard and relator was executed, providing that he would be given a salary of $5,000 per year for each of the school years of 1950-51, 1951-52, and 1952— 53, and under the condition that after that period of time he would return to the classification of a class room teacher and receive the regular salary for that work.

The law regulating the employment of teachers in the public school system of this state is governed exclusively by statute, and the above quoted provisions are read into every contract between a school board and the teacher and neither have the right to disregard the provisions of the law, and make a compromise agreement acceptable to them under terms and conditions different from that which is provided in the statute. The attempt of the school board and the relator to enter into a contract by compromise following the dismissal of the charges and his resignation, was clearly a rule or regulation, or a device, inhibited by LSA-R.S. 17:444 because it attempts to reduce relator’s salary by agreement at the end of three years. Under the statute, after a teacher has served his probationary period of three years he or she is then a permanent teacher and have tenure as to employment and salary. The very purpose of the Act was to give stability to the employment of teachers and security in their salary and any contract which in effect provides for a waiver or a reduction of salary, at some future time after a teacher has acquired tenure status is not to be sanctioned by the Court, as warranted under the law.

It is my opinion that when charges are made against a teacher who has tenured under the statute, they should be heard and the board’s findings recorded in its minutes. Both parties here stand on the compromise, their only difference is the stipulation reflected by the letter and an excerpt from the evidence of the board on the hearing, not contained in the contract. The entire record had on the hearing would show whether the action of the board was justified.

If we approve the practice inaugurated by the school board in this case, then every teacher against whom charges have been preferred by patrons of a school could be hailed before a board, a trial entered into but compromised before concluded to accomplish a result desired, but not warranted under the law. This was the very purpose of Section 444 to prevent the school board from resorting to such procedure as was had in this case. The above section of the law was first enacted in this State in Section 48 of Act No. 100 of 1922 and subsequently amended by Section 2 of Act No. 58 of 1936, Section 1 of Act No. 250, of 1944, and Section 2 of Act No. 297 of 1946.  