Alarcon v. Albuquerque Pub. Schs. Bd. of Educ.
413 P.3d 507
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2003 the New Mexico Legislature enacted House Bill 212 (the Public School Reform Act), redefining the roles of local school boards (policy-setting bodies) and local superintendents (chief executive officers) and enacting Section 22-5-14, which gives superintendents authority to employ, assign, fix salaries, and discharge employees.
- The School Personnel Act (§§ 22-10A-1 to -39) retained Section 22-10A-27 (formerly § 22-10-17), which prescribes a specific procedure for discharge of certified school employees: superintendent gives notice and recommendation, employee may demand a hearing before the local school board, the superintendent bears the burden to prove just cause, and the school board must issue a written decision.
- Alarcon v. Albuquerque Public Schools: APS scheduled a Section 27 discharge hearing before an assistant superintendent; teacher (Alarcon) sought a writ of mandamus insisting the hearing must be before the APS school board. The district court granted a permanent writ; APS appealed.
- Central Consolidated School District No. 22 v. Central Consolidated Education Association: a union filed PELRB complaints asserting (1) the school board improperly refused to process grievances under a negotiated CBA (appeal to Step 4, board review), and (2) the district unilaterally created/paid foreman stipends without bargaining. A hearing officer and the PELRB found violations; the district court affirmed; the School District appealed.
- The consolidated appeals center on whether the 2003 reforms divested school boards of authority over personnel matters (including discharge hearings and CBA grievance review) or whether statutory protections (Section 27 and the PEBA/CBA grievance process) remain operative and enforceable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 22-10A-27 discharge hearings for certified employees must be conducted by the local school board | Alarcon: Section 27 explicitly grants a certified employee the right to a discharge hearing before the local school board; superintendent must recommend and prove just cause; statutory procedures must be followed | APS: House Bill 212 (§ 22-5-14) vested exclusive authority over personnel (hire/fire) in the superintendent; thus discharge hearings may be held by the superintendent/designee | Court: Affirmed district court — Section 27 survives House Bill 212; discharge hearings for certified employees are before the local school board and APS had a clear legal duty to provide such a hearing; mandamus proper because administrative appeal would not restore the right to a board hearing |
| Whether a local school board may hear and decide Step 4 appeals under a negotiated grievance procedure (PEBA/CBA) | Union/PELRB/District Court: The school board is the appropriate governing (policy-making) body under PEBA and the CBA; Step 4 review is enforcement of contract/policy, not operational personnel micromanagement | School District: House Bill 212 transferred personnel authority to superintendents; allowing board to review superintendent decisions would nullify § 22-5-14 and make the reform a nullity | Court: Affirmed PELRB and district court — school boards are the public employer/policymaker under PEBA, properly signed the CBA, and may perform meaningful Step 4 review; board review is contract/policy adjudication, not impermissible personnel interference |
| Whether the School District committed prohibited practices by refusing to process grievances at Step 4 | Union: Board adopted a blanket policy returning grievances to superintendent and failed to provide written decisions — violating CBA and PEBA | School District: Claimed lack of authority (post-2003 statutory change) and later did not contest substance before district court | Court: Held the board violated the CBA and PEBA; PELRB’s findings were supported and not arbitrary |
| Whether the Union waived bargaining rights over new foreman stipends | School District: Past practice of unilaterally paying stipends (pre-merger) meant Union waived rights when units merged | Union/PELRB: No evidence Union was informed or had chance to bargain; no intentional relinquishment or sufficient acquiescence shown | Court: Affirmed that substantial evidence supports PELRB finding of no waiver; School District violated PEBA by not bargaining |
Key Cases Cited
- Weiss v. Bd. of Educ. of Santa Fe Pub. Sch., 336 P.3d 388 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014) (statutory construction standard; start with plain language)
- Miller v. Bank of Am. N.A., 352 P.3d 1162 (N.M. 2015) (avoid construing statutes to produce absurd results; harmonize related statutes)
- Aguilera v. Bd. of Educ., 132 P.3d 587 (N.M. 2006) (presumption legislature intends to change existing law when amending; continue to apply existing law absent clear directive)
- Daddow v. Carlsbad Mun. Sch. Dist., 898 P.2d 1235 (N.M. 1995) (pre-2003 law: school board had exclusive authority to make personnel decisions; superintendent could only recommend)
- Larsen v. Bd. of Educ., 242 P.3d 487 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010) (describing Section 27 discharge process)
- Franco v. Carlsbad Municipal Schools, 28 P.3d 531 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001) (mandamus available where district deprived employee of required statutory pre-termination process; exhaustion not required when employer thwarts administrative process)
- Sanchez v. Bd. of Educ., 362 P.2d 979 (N.M. 1961) (refusal to provide statutorily required dismissal hearing may warrant mandamus)
- Stapleton v. Huff, 173 P.2d 612 (N.M. 1946) (mandamus to enforce statutory hearing rights before educational boards)
- Brown v. Romero, 425 P.2d 310 (N.M. 1967) (mandamus available to test right to hearing when statutory process was denied)
- Regents of Univ. of N.M. v. Fed’n of Teachers, 962 P.2d 1236 (N.M. 1998) (agency review standards and applicability of administrative law framework)
Summary result: Both district-court judgments affirmed. The court held that House Bill 212 did not repeal or displace Section 22-10A-27’s statutory right to a school-board discharge hearing for certified employees, and that school boards retain authority under PEBA/CBA to perform meaningful grievance review (Step 4); the PELRB’s findings (including no waiver re: stipends) were upheld.