6 S.E.2d 485 | W. Va. | 1939
This is a statutory proceeding instituted under the provisions of Code,
The pertinent provisions of Code,
"Any person holding any county, magisterial district, independent school district, or municipal office, including the office of a member of a board of education, the term or tenure of which office is fixed by law, whether elected or appointed thereto, except a judge of a court of record, may be removed by the circuit court of the county wherein such officer or person resides, * * *."
Then follow provisions as to the manner in which charges shall be filed to effect such removal, the hearing thereon, with right of appeal to this court, and the section ends with this further provision:
"The method herein provided for the removal of any officer shall be in addition to any other methods provided by law. * * *"
The decisive question is whether, under existing law, a county superintendent holds a county office, and as such comes within the provisions of the statute quoted above. If not such office, then it is unnecessary to inquire into the effect of the provision that the method of removal under Code,
We are of the opinion that prior to the enactment of what is known as the County Unit Law, Chapter
The County Unit Law made wide and comprehensive changes in our school system. All magisterial and independent school districts, and the boards of education therefor, were abolished, and the county was set up as the school unit and as one school district. A Board of Education, elected from the county at large, was substituted, and that board was given full and complete powers of control over the schools of the county. As the law was originally enacted, it was provided that the county superintendent should be elected by the board of education, but his tenure was not fixed. It was provided that the board might, in its judgment and discretion, remove the superintendent for cause. Certain duties were assigned to the superintendent, most of which are purely ministerial, and, where they involve discretion, are generally required to be done subject to the approval of the board. By an amendment to this act, Chapter 34, Acts *770 Legislature, Regular Session 1937, it was provided that the county superintendent should be elected by the county board of education for a term of not more than four years, and the grounds upon which the board might remove a superintendent of schools were defined as "immorality, incompetency, insubordination, intemperance or wilful neglect of duty."
We cannot escape the conclusion that, whatever may have been the status of the county superintendent of schools under the old system, the present county superintendent is not a county officer within the meaning of the statute under which this proceeding was instituted. We regard him as the executive agent of the board of education, and the fact that the statute requires him to act as the chief executive officer of the board (Code,
It is suggested by counsel for the defendant in error that the county superintendent comes under the definition of a teacher, and that the decisions of this court, to the effect that a teacher in the free schools of this state is *771
not a public officer, apply. Heath v. Johnson,
Much authority has been cited from other jurisdictions, and it must be admitted that some of the cases cited are strongly persuasive in favor of the plaintiff in error. We think, however, that this case is one which should be decided on general principles and under our own statutes and decisions. As we view the case, the fundamental change in our educational system has removed from the county superintendent of schools, as he was designated under the old law, all the elements of power arising out of sovereignty which, under that law, were delegated to him, and he has been, by such change, removed from that class of officials who are permitted to exercise a part of the sovereign power of the state.
The case of Springer v. Board,
It will be noted that the county superintendent, under the present statute, is not required to be a citizen of this state, or a resident of the county in which he is appointed to serve, while, under Code 1931,
On the whole, we are of the opinion that the trial court did not err in sustaining the demurrer of Margaret Nicely, and its action in so doing is affirmed.
*773Affirmed.