#025-R3-1089
DOCKET NO. 025-R3-1089
DEBORAH BOMAN and the
HARLANDALE TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION
--
+
+
+
+
+
+
V.
HARLANDALE INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT
BEFORE THE STATE
+
+
+
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
THE STATE OF TEXAS
DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER
Statement of the Case
Petitioners appeals Respondent's decision to decrease
the local salary supplement for the 1989-90 school year.
Petitioners contend they have an annual vested contractual
right to a local supplement for the 1989-90 school year
which could not be decreased after August 1, 1989 to an
amount lower than the same step and experience level on the
1988-89 salary schedule.
By agreement of the parties, this case is submitted for
decision based on cross motions for summary judgement. Oral
argument on the cross motions for summary judgment came on
for hearing on November 12, 1991 before Lorraine J. Yancey,
the Hearing Officer appointed by the Commissioner of
Education. Petitioners were represented by Dianne E.
Doggett, Attorney at Law, Austin, Texas. Respondent was
represented by Douglas A. Poneck and Pablo Escamilla,
Attorneys at Law, San Antonio, Texas.
Because Petitioners have no tenure or contractual right
to be paid what they were paid during the previous school
year and are not entitled to automatic extension of
supplemental payments to the following year, 1989-90, the
Hearing Officer issued a Proposal for Decision on February
24, 1992, that Petitioners' motion for summary judgment and
consequently, Petitioners' appeal be denied. Exceptions and
replies were timely filed.
Findings of Fact
After due consideration of the evidence and matters
officially noticed, in my capacity as State Commissioner of
Education, I make the following Findings of Fact:
1. Respondent is a continuing contract school district
pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Texas
Education Code. (Stip.).
2. At all relevant times, Petitioner Deborah Boman was
employed as a teacher by Respondent. (Stip.).
3. Petitioner Harlandale Teachers Association is a
non-profit organization whose members were teachers employed
by Respondent during the 1989-90 school year. (Stip.).
4. Approximately 994 teachers were employed by
Respondent for the 1989-90 school year. Teachers employed
by Respondent during the 1988-89 school year were required
to return their signed employment contracts for the 1989-90
school year to Respondent no later than May 31, 1989.
Petitioner Boman signed her continuing contract with
Respondent on May 3, 1989. (Stip.)
5. The 1989-90 salary schedule adopted by Respondent's
board of trustees on August 21, 1989, increased Petitioners'
gross salary at each step and experience level to an amount
equal to or higher than that of the same step and experience
level on the 1988-89 salary school; however, it reduced the
local supplement at each step and experience level to an
amount lower than that of the same step and experience level
on the 1988-89 salary schedule, except for two step and
experience levels. (Stip.).
6. Petitioner Boman received an increase in salary for
the 1989-90 school year. Petitioner earned $25,025.00, the
state minimum salary of $22,700 plus the local salary
supplement of $2,325 (salary schedule step five (5) with
twelve (12) years experience). During the 1988-89 school
year, Petitioner Boman earned $23,600, the state minimum
salary of $20,900 plus the local salary supplement of $2,700
(salary schedule step five (5) with eleven (11) years
experience). (Stip.).
7. Although the District expressly promised to pay
Petitioners a salary for the 1989-90 school year, the
contracts did indicate the amount of salary. Petitioners'
contracts for the 1989-90 school year contained the
following statement:
The salary is based on the present HISD salary
schedule with the experience factor adjusted to
reflect the step and experience changes on the
1989-90 state salary schedule and is subject to
revision with notification to the employee when
the 1989-90 salary schedule is adopted.
(Record).
8. Petitioners' employment contract for the 1989-90
school year contained no local supplement provisions.
(Record).
9. Respondent's board of trustees adopted a salary
schedule before the 1989-90 school year began and prior to
performance by Petitioners under their employment contracts
for the 1989-90 school year. (Record).
Discussion
Petitioners contend Respondent's decision to adopt a
1989-90 salary schedule which failed to provide at least as
large a local supplement as provided by the 1988-89 salary
schedule was (1) a breach of Petitioners' contracts, (2) an
impairment of the obligation of contract in violation of
Article I, Section 16 of the Texas Constitution, and (3) a
violation of Petitioners' due process rights because the
local supplement was reduced on August 21, 1989 after
Petitioners were bound to their employment contracts for the
1989-90 school year.
Petitioners' points of error are overruled. First,
Petitioner offers no statutory authority for the proposition
that Respondent is required to provide a local supplement.
The minimum base salary and increments for teaching
experience are enacted by the legislature and set forth in
subsection (c) of +16.056 of the Texas Education Code.
Respondent may not pay less than the salary the legislature
enacts, but may pay a greater amount than the minimum. In
the instant case, Respondent paid Petitioners an amount
greater than the minimum, but less than they expected.
When this appeal was filed in October, 1989, there were
several cases pending before the Commissioner of Education
in which the issue was whether a school district is bound to
pay the salary paid in the previous year, if the school
district has not set a determinable salary by August 1 of
the school year. 1Under Tex. Educ. Code +13.116, a teacher may resign his
or her position without penalty until August 1. After
August 1, a teacher may not resign without suffering a
year's suspension of the teacher's certificate.
That issue was resolved in Allen v. Lumberton
Independent School District, 746 S.W.2d 524
(Tex.App--Beaumont 1988), rev'd on other grounds sub nom.
Bowman v. Lumberton Independent School District, 801 S.W.2d
883 (Tex. 1990). The court in Allen held that teachers,
employees, and administrators, most of whom were continuing
contract personnel, did not have tenure right to be paid
what they had been paid during the previous school year.
Further, the fact that some teachers may have received
higher supplements in a preceding year does not constitute
an implied or de facto agreement by the school district to
continue the higher supplements. Id. at 526.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Respondent's
motion for summary judgment be granted and that Petitioners'
motion for summary judgment and appeal be Denied.
Conclusions of Law
After due consideration of the record, matters
officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact, in
my capacity as State Commissioner of Education, I make the
following Conclusions of Law:
1. The Commissioner of Education has jurisdiction over
this appeal under Tex. Educ. Code +11.13.
2. Respondent has no contractual obligation to pay
Petitioners the same local salary supplement for the 1989-90
school year as it paid Petitioners the previous, 1988-89,
school year.
3. Respondent's decision to decrease the local salary
supplements paid to Petitioners for the 1989-90 school year
was not a breach of an express or implied contract as the
terms of Petitioners' contracts clearly and unambiguously
contemplate modification of Respondent's salary schedule.
4. Respondent's adoption of a salary schedule on
August 21, 1989 which reduced Respondent's local supplement
to the 1989-90 salary schedule did not violate the due
process rights of Petitioners and does not constitute an
impairment of the obligation of contract.
5. Respondent's motion for summary judgment should be
GRANTED.
6. Petitioners' motion for summary judgment and,
consequently, Petitioners' appeal, in its entirety, should
be DENIED.
O R D E R
After due consideration of the record, matters
officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, in my capacity as State Commissioner of
Education, it is hereby
ORDERED that Respondent's motion for summary judgment
be, and is hereby, GRANTED.
FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioners' motion for summary
judgment and, consequently, Petitioners' appeal be, and is
hereby, DENIED.
SIGNED AND ISSUED this ___ day of _____________, 1992.
_____________________________
LIONEL R. MENO
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION