AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Two consolidated cases questioned whether changes to the Public School Code in 2003 granted local superintendents exclusive authority over all school personnel matters, excluding local school boards. In one case, a school district's superintendent conducted a discharge hearing for a certified school employee, which was traditionally a school board's responsibility. In another, a school board was required to hear and decide appeals from the superintendent's decisions under a collective bargaining agreement, which was challenged based on the 2003 legislative changes.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Issued a permanent writ of mandamus directing that a proposed discharge hearing be conducted by the Albuquerque Public Schools (APS) school board (para 12).
• District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the Public Employee Labor Relations Board (PELRB) order that the school board is required to hear and decide appeals from decisions of the school superintendent under the collective bargaining agreement (para 13).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (Alarcon case): Argued for the school board's responsibility to conduct the discharge hearing based on traditional practices and statutory interpretation (N/A).
• Respondents-Appellants (APS and Superintendent): Contended that the 2003 Public School Code revisions vested exclusive authority in the local superintendent over personnel matters, excluding the school board (N/A).
• Petitioner-Appellant (Central Consolidated School District): Argued that changes made to the Public School Code in 2003 divested school boards of all authority to act on any personnel matters, vesting exclusive authority in the local superintendent (N/A).
• Respondent-Appellee (Central Consolidated Education Association): Maintained that the school board is required to hear and decide appeals from decisions of the school superintendent under the collective bargaining agreement, as negotiated.

Legal Issues

• Whether the 2003 amendments to the Public School Code vest the local superintendent with exclusive authority over all school personnel matters, to the exclusion of the local school board (paras 1, 4).

Disposition

• The district court's issuance of a permanent writ of mandamus directing that a proposed discharge hearing be conducted by the APS school board was affirmed (para 78).
• The district court's memorandum opinion and order affirming the PELRB decision that the school board is required to hear and decide appeals from decisions of the school superintendent under the collective bargaining agreement was affirmed (para 79).

Reasons

• The court found that the 2003 amendments to the Public School Code and the Public Employee Bargaining Act (PEBA) did not divest local school boards of the authority to act on personnel matters or to engage in collective bargaining agreements that include grievance procedures involving the school board. The court interpreted the statutes to harmonize the roles of school boards and superintendents, with school boards retaining policy-setting roles, including matters related to personnel and collective bargaining agreements. The court rejected the argument that legislative changes made school boards' involvement in personnel matters and collective bargaining agreements unlawful or invalid, affirming the lower courts' decisions in both cases (paras 12-79).