by the board of directors in the manner prescribed by law. A contract of employment without such appointment, although executed in due form by the officers of the board, gave him no vested right to the position and to this extraordinary legal remedy for its enforcement." 27 Duty of school directors, to record the vote in employing school teachers. 591. In Burke vs. School District, the district attacked the validity of the contract, employing a teacher for the term of three years on the ground that the minutes of the school board did not contain "the names of the members voting both in the affirmative and the negative upon the question of her election," the minutes showing that "all members answered to the roll call," and that the report of the teachers' committee was adopted, "all members voting in the affirmative." In delivering the opinion of the Superior Court, Beaver J. said: "By the 4th section of the act of April 11, 1862, P. L. 471, it is provided that, inter alia, 'No teacher shall be appointed or dismissed, except by the affirmative votes of a majority of the whole number of the directors or controllers thereof, and, in each of said cases, the names of the members voting both in the affirmative and the negative, shall be entered on the minutes of the board by the secretary, etc. "This act of assembly has been construed many times, especially in Dennison School District vs. Padden, 89 Pa. 395, and in Dyberry School District vs. Mercer, 115 Pa. 559. In the latter case, it was said: "The refusal of the board to retain her as a teacher, after the expiration of the first four months, was not controverted; but it was denied that she had ever been employed for the last three months. It was, therefore, incumbent on her to prove that she had been so employed; and, for that purpose, testimony, consisting chiefly of loose declarations of members of the school board, was introduced and submitted to the jury. It is un 27. Heisey vs. Risser, 3 Pa. Superior Ct., 196, 1896. necessary to refer specially to the testimony on which she relied. There was nothing in the minutes of the school board to show that she had been duly appointed teacher for the three months in question." Later, Mr. Justice Sterrett, who delivered the opinion of the court, said: "In the case last cited (Dennison School District vs. Padden) we held, that, in the selection of school teachers, the provisions of this act must be strictly complied with; and we are not disposed to recede from that position. They are wise and wholesome provisions, intended to correct gross abuses which had gradually crept into the administration of our school system and hence it is not requiring too much to insist on a substantial compliance with the spirit, if not the very letter, of the act." "The objection here is not that the minutes of the school board do not show an employment nor that they do not show an affirmative vote by all the members of the board, but that the vote is not recorded by giving the names of those who voted in the affirmative and negative respectively." In the present case there were no negative votes. "All the members voted in the affirmative," all being present, as it affirmatively appears in the minutes that all answered to the roll call. Is this not a substantial compliance with the spirit of the act, though perhaps not with its very letter? We think it is. If there had been a division, it would have been necessary, in accordance with the terms of the act, to record the names of those who voted in the affirmative and of those who voted in the negative; but, there being no division and the names of the members of the school board being known, the record that all the members voted in the affirmative was a sufficient minute upon which to base the employment of the plaintiff, and, indeed, this has been prac tically decided in Tobin vs. Morgan, 70 Pa. 229, in which Mr. Justice Sharswood, delivering the opinion, says: "The minutes state that all the members were present and the resolution imposing the tax was passed unanimously. The act evidently contemplated that the ayes and nays should be recorded only when there were members voting both in the affirmative and negative." See also Genesee Twp. School District vs. McDonald, 98 Pa. 444; Comth. ex rel. Heisey vs. Risser, 3 Pa. Superior Ct. 196.28 School boards should not exclude women because of their sex. 592. Mr. Justice Williams said: "No woman should be excluded from any position she is competent to fill because of her sex, and if we may judge from the figures before us, showing the great majority of the teachers in Philadelphia to be women, we should conclude that the board of education were of the same opinion. No woman qualified for supervising principal should be refused appointment because of sex alone. In balancing the arguments for and against an appointment to a particular school, the board of education may, and they could not intelligently dispose of the question if they did not consider the sex and age of the pupils; the kind of treatment necessary to the enforcement of proper discipline; the measure of physical strength; the facility and experience in the management of pupils on the part of each of the applicants; and in so far as the sex of the applicant might seem likely to help, or to be in the way of success in the maintenance of the discipline necessary for the good of the school, it may be considered with the other qualifications, and help to determine the choice. Standing by itself it is neither a controlling qualification nor disqualification. It is a circumstance that may be helpful with some pupils, or in schools of a particular grade, and not helpful with other pupils or in other schools. The question of eligibility is one thing. The selection among a class of eligibles is quite another. Sex ought not affect the first, it may help under some circumstances to determine the last. The clause in the constitution, if applicable to this case, removes any barrier in the way of the selection of the plaintiff which her sex might otherwise have presented, so that she may apply for any office of control or management under the school laws, and be legally competent to hold it if appointed to it. It does not require that she shall be appointed if she becomes a candidate."29 28. Burke vs. School District, 28 Pa. Superior Ct. 16, 1905. 29. Sherry vs. Jenks, 154 Pa. 368, 1893. Teachers of stenography and typewriting. 593. It shall be lawful for the board of school directors or school controllers in any common school district in this Commonwealth, to employ teachers of stenography and typewriting, without requiring the person employed for this purpose to have a teacher's certificate from the county, city or borough superintendent of public instruction as now required by law; but no such person shall be permitted to teach any other branch than those herein expressly named, and no such employment shall be permitted until it shall have been approved in writing by the county, city or borough superintendent, as the case may be, and shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the state superintendent of public instruction.30 Right of patrons to petition for or against the appointment of a teacher. 594. Some of the patrons presented a remonstrance to the school board protesting the appointment of Jesse Lavery as teacher. The school board refused to elect him on account of the remonstrance, whereupon he instituted suit against all the signers of the petition for conspiracy. Mr. Justice Agnew said: "The paper signed by the defendants was a request to the school directors not to employ the plaintiff, under any circumstances, as a teacher in school No. 4 for the coming term. It preferred no charges and gave no reasons, and was a simple expression only of the wishes of the signers. It was the right of these citizens of the district thus to declare their desire. They had a right to express a preference or to declare their objection to any one applying for appointment. They were deeply interested, and had therefore a right to speak out. But we cannot recognize the position to which the argument of the plaintiffs in error leads, that such a right of expression can be made a channel through which men may gratify their malice and enmity. This would be the actual result of the argument that the right of petition is so sacred that the private purposes and motives of the actors cannot be in 30. Act June 23, 1897, Sec. 1, P. L. 193. quired into. If they cannot, and if the real purpose of the petition be the gratification of ill-will and malice without cause, then men may be borne down by the power of their enemies, especially in numbers and by combination, and their efforts in life to earn bread, and support those dependent on them, may be frustrated merely for the gratification of base and malevolent feelings. A groundless petition instigated only by malice cannot surely be the right of any citizen where it actually results in harm to the object of its malicious purpose." Minimum salary of school teacher. 595. The minimum salary of school teachers, teaching in the public schools of this Commonwealth, shall be thirtyfive dollars per month.32 It shall be the duty of the president and secretary of the school board, of each school district in this Commonwealth, to make report, under oath, to the superintendent of public instruction, that the requirements of this act have been fully complied with.33 Every school district of this Commonwealth failing to comply with the requirements of this act, shall forfeit its state appropriation for the whole time during which this act has been violated.34 Dismissal of teacher for immorality. Accused entitled to be heard. 596. The board of trustees of a state normal school passed a resolution convicting the principal of immoral conduct and dismissed him from office, without notice or hearing. The court held that the action of the trustees was irregular and unjust. A good character is a necessary part of the equipment of a teacher. Take this away, or blacken it, and the doors of professional employment are practically closed against him. Before this is done there should be at least a hearing, at which the accused may show that the things alleged are not true, or if true are susceptible of an 31. Vanarsdale vs. Laverty, 69 Pa. 103, 1871. 34. Act April 9, 1903, Sec. 3, P. L. 162. |