Russ v. Board of Education of Brunswick County
59 S.E.2d 589
N.C.
1950
Check Treatment
EsviN, J.

Althоugh his office is filled by appointment of the county board of education, a school committeeman does not hold at the pleasure of the board, and is not removable at the will or caprice of that body. He holds for a definite term of two years. G.S. 115-354. Moreover, he can be removed only fоr cause in a proceeding conforming to G.S. 115-74.

This statute provides that “in case the county superintеndent or any member of the county board of education shall have sufficient evidence at any time that any member of any school committee is not capable of discharging, or is not discharging, the duties of his office, or is guilty of immoral or disreputable conduct, he shall bring the matter to the attention of the county board of education, which shall thoroughly investigate the charges, and shall remove such cоmmitteeman and appoint his successor if sufficient evidence shall be produced to warrant his removal and the best interests of the schools demand it.”

The law clearly contemplates that any sсhool committeeman against whom the statutory proceeding for removal is brought shall be given notiсe ‍‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‍of the proceeding, and of the charges against him, and afforded an opportunity to be hеard and to produce testimony in his defense, and *130 that the county board of education shall not remove him from his office unless it determines after a full and fair hearing on the merits that one or more of the sрecified causes for removal has been established by the evidence. This being true, the statutory prоceeding for the amotion of a school committeeman is judicial or gwasi-judicial in character, and for that reason an ousted committeeman is entitled to have the action of the cоunty board of education reviewed in the Superior Court. It is noted, in passing, that the board is required by law to kеep minutes of its meetings. G.S. 115-44.

The question arises as to how an ousted school committeeman is to obtаin the court review of the action of the county board of education in removing him from office. Although this court refrained from expressing any opinion on the point in Board of Education v. Anderson, 200 N.C. 57, 156 S.E. 153, there is nothing in the statutory laws relating to schools and school districts providing that an appeal may be taken to the court from the deсision of the county board of education ousting a school committeeman. ‍‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‍Besides, these laws dо not expressly or impliedly authorize the committeeman to seek a review of such proceeding by an independent action against the board under the provisions of G.S. 115-45.

G.S. 1-269 expressly stipulates that “writs of certiorari . . . are authorized as heretofore in use.” It is well settled in this jurisdiction that certiorari is the appropriate process to review the prоceedings of inferior courts and of bodies and officers exercising judicial or quasi- judicial functions in cases where ‍‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‍no appeal is provided by law. Warren v. Maxwell, 223 N.C. 604, 27 S.E. 2d 721; Belk’s Department Store, Inc., v. Guilford County, 222 N.C. 441, 23 S.E. 2d 897; Drug Co. v. R. R., 173 N.C. 87, 91 S.E. 606; Hillsboro v. Smith, 110 N.C. 417, 14 S.E. 972; Thompson v. Floyd, 47 N.C. 313; Commissioners v. Kane, 47 N.C. 288; Brooks v. Morgan, 27 N.C. 481; Collins v. Haughton, 26 N.C. 420; Matthews v. Matthews, 26 N.C. 155; Dougan v. Arnold, 15 N.C. 99; Allen v. Williams, 2 N.C. 17. Hence, we conclude that the Superior Court, whiсh is the highest court of original jurisdiction in this State, has the power to review by certiorari the action of a county board of education in removing a school committeeman from his office.

This decision finds full support in well considered cases in other states holding that when a governmental agency has power to remove a public ‍‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‍officer only for cause after a hearing, the ouster proceeding is judicial or grossi-judicial in its nature, and may be reviewed by certiorari. McCain v. Collins, 204 Ark. 521, 164 S.W. 2d 448; Warren v. McRae, 165 Ark. 436, 264 S.W. 940; Hall v. Bledsoe, 126 Ark. 125, 189 S.W. 1041; Sweetnam v. Board of Public Com’rs, 56 Cal. App. 644, 206 P. 102; Denver v. Darrow, 13 Colo. 460, 22 P. 784, 16 Am. St. Rep. 215; State v. Williams, 149 Fla. 48, 5 So. 2d 269; Blake v. Lindblom, 225 Ill. *131 555, 80 N.E. 252; Chicago v. Gillen, 222 Ill. 112, 78 N.E. 13; Kammann v. Chicago, 222 Ill. 63, 78 N.E. 16; Powell v. Bullis, 221 Ill. 379, 77 N.E. 575; People v. Allman, 314 Ill. App. 194, 40 N.E. 2d 812, affirmed in 382 Ill. 156, 46 N.E. 2d 974; People v. Burdett, 195 Ill. App. 255; People v. Bullis, 124 Ill. App. 7; Merrick v. Arbela Tp. Bd., 41 Mich. 630, 2 N.W. 922; McGregor v. Gladwin County, 37 Mich. 388; State v. Board of Education, 213 Minn. 550, 7 N.W. 2d 544; In re Mason, 147 Minn. 383, 181 N.W. 570; State v. Eberhart, 116 Minn. 313, 133 N.W. 857, 39 L.R.A. (N.S.) 788, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 785; State v. Duluth, 53 Minn. 238, 55 N.W. 118, 39 Am. St. Rep. 595; State v. Davidson, 310 Mo. 397, 276 S.W. 631; State v. Morehead, 256 Mo. 683, 165 S.W. 746; State v. Knott, 207 Mo. 167, 105 S.W. 1040; La Bonte v. Berlin, 85 N.H. 89, 154 A. 89; Loughran v. Jersey City, 86 N.J.L. 442, 92 A. 55; Daily v. Essex County, 58 N.J.L. 319, 33 A. 739; State, Fitzgerald, Prosecutor, v. New Brunswick, 47 N.J.L. 479, 1 A. 496, 54 Am. Rep. 182, affirmed in 48 N.J.L. 457, 8 A. 729; Bryan v. Town Board of Brighton, 133 Misc. 315, 232 N.Y.S. 18; State v. Welford, 65 N.D. 522, 260 N.W. 593; State v. Fargo, 63 N.D. 33, 245 N.W. 887; State v. Frazier, 47 N.D. 314, 182 N.W. 545; Garvin v. McCarthy, 39 R. I. 365, 97 A. 881; McCarthy v. Central Falls, 38 R.I. 385, 95 A. 921; McKee v. Board of Elections, 173 Tenn. 276, 116 S.W. 2d 1033, rehearing denied in 173 Tenn. 276, 117 S.W. 2d 755; Gilbert v. Salt Lake City Bd. of Police, 11 Utah 378, 40 P. 264; Browne v. Gear, 21 Wash. 147, 57 P. 359; State v. Martin, 112 W. Va. 174, 163 S.E. 850; Helmick v. Tucker County Court, 65 W. Va. 231, 64 S.E. 17; State v. Goodland, 159 Wis. 393, 150 N.W. 488; Loomis v. Dahlem, 37 Wyo. 498, 263 P. 708.

The verified application alleges facts sufficient to establish the right of the petitioner to have the Superior Court review on certiorari the action of the county board of education in ousting him from bis office as school committeeman, and contains a gеneral prayer for such remedy as the court shall deem meet and proper. Consequently, its validity as a pleading is not impaired by the fact that the petitioner does not specifically pray that the court issue a writ of certiorari commanding the county board of education to certify and ‍‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‍return to it the reсord in the removal proceedings. City of Nashville v. Mason, 11 Tenn. App. 344; Woodstock v. Gallup, 28 Vt. 587.

The ouster proceeding established by the statute codified аs G.S. 155-74 calls to mind words spoken by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in State v. Board of Education (213 Minn. 550, 7 N.W. 2d 544), supra: “Criticisms have often been made of tbe рhenomenon which permits an administrative body to serve in tbe triple capacity of complainant, prosecutor, and judge ... As a result of this combination of roles, its final adjudication often lacks that stamp of impartiality and of disinterested justice *132 which alone can give it weight and authority. This anomaly in procedure makes it vitally necessary that in reviewing administrative decisions courts zealously examine the record with a view to protecting the fundamental rights of the parties, lest the rule against arbitrarinеss and oppressiveness become a mere shibboleth. An appeal being denied, a review by certiorari оr other prerogative writ must not be permitted to degenerate into a mock ceremony. The least that the courts can do is to hold high the torch of 'fair play’ which the highest court of our land has made the guiding light to administrative justice. Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1, 58 S. Ct. 999, 82 L. Ed. 1129.”

For the reasons given, the judgment is

Affirmed.