CENTRE —  The Board of Education acted well within the law last summer when it reduced the contracts of nine career tech teachers by one month, according to a ruling last week from the chief administrative law judge in the office of Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange.

A group of nine teachers filed legal action in Cherokee County Civil Court on Sept. 20, 2011 claiming that their annual contracts were improperly reduced from 10 months to nine months (and from 12 months to 11, in one case) because of “personal and political bias against them” by Superintendent Brian Johnson and members of the Board of Education. The suit demanded a hearing before the Board to challenge their contract reductions.

But in a ruling handed down July 17, administrative law judge Julia Weller found no evidence that any type of personal conflict was the cause of the contract reductions. She said the Board acted correctly in denying the teachers a hearing.

“The evidence demonstrates that the Board acted within its authority in the reduction of the … contracts at issue,” Weller wrote near the end of her 12-page decision. “Thus … the action of the Board must be upheld.”

Additionally, Weller wrote that it was apparent to her that the primary reason for the cuts was “due to proration and a decrease in tax revenues” at the state level. As a result of the drop in collections, Weller wrote, “the Board faced a shortfall in 2011 of $700,000.”

Huntsville attorney J.R. Brooks, who specializes in education law and represents 13 school systems across Alabama – including Cherokee County's – said the issue was cut-and-dried from the beginning.

“Judge Weller found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the Board did not comply with the law,” he said. “For anyone to claim that the ruling is an indication the Board acted improperly is outrageous.”

The teachers named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit are James Mackey, Kim Nichols, Donna Oliver, Randy Rainey, Regina Stinson, William Talbot, Dennis Tierce, Larry Walker and James Witt. They sued Johnson and Board members Don Stowe, Mark Gossett, Lynn Rochester, Dewandee Neyman and Lisa McKissick only in their capacities as public officials.

The plaintiffs' legal action charged that Johnson had a vendetta against them stemming from a grudge he held against their direct superior, Career and Technology Center Principal Mitchell Guice. Guice challenged Johnson in two superintendent elections, in 2004 and 2008. He lost to Johnson both times.

In March, Johnson lost in the Democratic primary to Brett Keasler. Guice, who won the Republican primary, will face Keasler on the Nov. 6 General Election ballot.

The plaintiffs claimed that Johnson “routinely shuns and ignores Mr. Guice and refuses to shake his hand unless they are in a crowd.” They also charged that Stowe, the Board chairman, has animosity towards Guice because of “an ongoing personal litigation.”

The suit claimed these alleged incidents of personal animosity toward Guice were relevant because they comprised the true reason Johnson and the Board took action to relocate the career tech program to campuses around the county and reduce the contracts of the nine teachers named as plaintiffs.

“The plaintiffs are only collateral damage,” reads one passage in the lawsuit.
Brooks said Weller's ruling means the plaintiffs have to decide if they want to continue.

“It will be up to them whether or not they want to return to circuit court and pursue the matter any further,” he said.

When the personnel decisions in question were made last July, Johnson and the Board cited the reduction in state funding as the reason for firing several teachers and relocating the tech programs to campuses around the county.

Following a public uproar, the Cherokee County Commission passed a one-cent sales tax after securing a pledge from Johnson that the estimated $1.5 million in annual revenues would be used to keep the career tech campus in Centre open.

During that meeting, Johnson also told commissioners he would look at the prospect of restoring the teachers' contracts after taking a few months to determine how much revenue the tax, which went into effect on Oct. 1, 2011, would bring in.

It's that time frame that makes Stowe dubious of the nine teachers' true intentions.

“They didn't let us collect one penny of sales tax before they sued us,” Stowe told The Post. “And they were putting up signs encouraging people to vote for the tax because they said it was 'for the kids'. It seems that was not the case.”

Repeated attempts to contact the teachers' attorney, Kenneth Wilson of Berry & Associates in Guntersville, were unsuccessful by press time on Friday afternoon. Earlier in the week, WEIS Radio News reported that Wilson said if Board members would vote to reinstate the extra month's pay, his clients would drop their lawsuit.

Stowe, who lost his bid for reelection earlier this year, said as far as he is concerned the matter is settled now that Judge Weller has ruled.

“There are no legal documents anywhere stating that we will give them back their additional month of pay,” Stowe said Friday.