Page images
PDF
EPUB

Comptroller General McCarl to the President, Board of Commissioners, Digo trict of Columbia, April 19, 1923:

By letter dated March 27, 1923, decision is requested as to the rates of longevity pay to which principals of normal, high, and manualtraining high schools of the District of Columbia are entitled for the period from May 1, 1921, to the present time.

The District of Columbia appropriation act of June 5, 1920, 41 Stat., 850 and 851, contains the following provisions :

Principal of the Central High School, $3,500: Provided, That the principal of the Central High School shall be placed at a basic salary of $3,500 per annum and shall be entitled to an increase of $100 per annum for five years;

Principals of normal, high, manual-training high, and junior high schools, ten, at $2,700 each: Provided, That the principals of the normal, high, manualtraining high, and junior high schools other than the Central High School, now in the service of the public schools, or hereafter to be appointed shall be placed at a basic salary of $2,700 per annum and shall be entitled to an increase of $100 per annum for five years;

The salaries appropriated herein for teachers, clerks, and librarians, in an classes during the fiscal year 1921, shall be in lieu of the present basic or initial salaries for such classes, and the present rates of longevity increases of pay for the said classes shall apply to the basic or initial salaries appropriated herein: Provided, That for the year ending June 30, 1921, each of the teachers, clerks, and librarians in said classes shall receive placing in the class to which assigned, so that each teacher shall receive in addition to the basic salary herein provided a longevity increase which shall be equal to the longevity increase which is next above that received June 30, 1920.

LONGEVITY PAY: For longevity pay for director of intermediate instruction

principals of normal, high, manual-training high, and junior high schools,

teachers, clerks, librarians and clerks, and librarians to be paid in strict conformity with the provisions of the act entitled "An Act to fix and regulate the salaries of teachers, school officers, and other employees of the board of education of the District of Columbia,” approved Jane 20, 1906,

$520,000: These provisions became effective July 1, 1920, and it would appear to be the plain purpose and effect of said provisions to authorize payment to the principal of the Central High School of a basic salary of $3,500 per annum and to each of the 10 other principals of a basic salary of $2,700 per annum and to authorize payment to each of said 11 principals, in addition to the basic salary and as longevity pay, an increase at the rate of $100 a year for five years. With reference to the question as to whether the increase or longevity pay should be allowed for service rendered prior to July 1, 1920, or only for service rendered thereafter, consideration must be given to the provision hereinbefore quoted to the effect that the longevity increases “ shall apply to the basic or initial salaries appropriated herein " and the proviso that for the year ending June 30, 1921, “ each teacher shall receive in addition to the basic salary herein provided a longevity increase which shall be equal to the longevity increase which is

next above that received June 30, 1920.” This clearly establishes the longevity pay which the principals in question were to receive for the fiscal year 1921, at $100 in excess of that which each of them, respectively, was receiving at the end of the fiscal year 1920. Therefore, it becomes necessary to determine what longevity pay these principals were receiving at the end of the fiscal year 1920. As a matter of fact, they, with the possible exception of the principal of the Central High School, were receiving none. See 27 Comp. Dec., 346.

For the reasons hereinafter stated I am convinced of the correctness of the holding of the administrative officers of the District of Columbia and the Comptroller of the Treasury relative to the longevity pay status of these principals for the fiscal years 1917 to 1920, inclusive.

At no time since July 1, 1906, has there been a general law applicable to all teachers alike authorizing longevity pay. In the act of June 20, 1906, 34 Stat., 316, entitled "An act to fix and regulate the salaries of teachers, school officers, and other employees of the Board of Education of the District of Columbia,” provision is made for certain annual increases for a specified number of years, the amount of the increase and the number of years for which it was to be allowed to be different in different classes. The provision in said act, page 320, relative to principals of high schools was as follows:

Principals of normal, high and manual training schools shall receive a salary of two thousand dollars per annum, together with an annual increase of one hundred dollars for five years. All such principals shall be appointed at the minimum salary

This provision did not authorize payment of the increase on service theretofore rendered. It fixed the entire compensation for the fiscal year 1907 at $2,000 and provided that for each year's service thereafter, not exceeding five years, said compensation would be increased at the rate of $100 per annum.

For the fiscal year 1908, which was the first year for which the annual increase was payable, the basic salary, plus the increase, was appropriated for as salary at $2,100 per annum. Thereafter up to and including the fiscal year 1916 appropriation was made for salary at the basic rate only and a lump sum was appropriated for longevity pay for all teachers and others entitled thereto.

In the Book of Estimates of Appropriations for the fiscal year 1916 estimates were submitted for nine principals of high schools at a minimum salary of $2,000 each and for a lump sum for longevity pay in the usual terms.

The estimates as submitted to the District Commissioners by the Board of Education for said year included an increase for each prin

cipal to $2,500 regardless of former service, and a provision authorizing further increases for five years thereafter at the rate of $100 per annum. The appropriations as made for this fiscal year, however, made no provision for the increases submitted.

For the fiscal year 1917 estimates were submitted as follows: Principal of the Central High School (increase of $1,000 submitted) --- $3,000

Provided, That the principal of the Central High School now in the service of the public schools or hereafter to be appointed shall be placed at a basic salary of $3,000 per annum and shall be entitled to an increase of $100 per annum for five years: Provided further, That for the year ending June 30. 1917, the principal of the Central High School shall receive the salary in his class next above his present salary. Principals of the normal, high, and manual-training high schools, other

than the Central High School, 8, at a minimum salary of $2,500 each (increase of $500 each submitted) --

$20,000 Provided, That the principals of the normal, high, and manual-training high schools, other than the Central High School, now in the service of the public schools or hereafter to be appointed, shall be placed at a basic salary of $2,500 per annum, and shall be entitled to an increase of $100 per annum for five years: Provided further, That for the year ending June 30, 1917, each principal of the normal, high, and manual-training high schools, other than the Central High School, shall receive the salary next above his present salary.

In the detailed statement accompanying the estimate for longevity pay for this year no estimate was made for any longevity pay for principals of high schools. This detailed statement aggregated $511,655 from which was deducted $26,655, on account of estimated changes in personnel, etc., leaving the amount as submitted $485,000. The provision made by Congress for these principals in the appropriation act for the fiscal year 1917 was not in the language submitted by the commissioners, but was as follows, 39 Stat., 693:

Principal of the Central High School, $3,000: Provided, That the salary of the principal of the Central High School now in the service of the public schools or hereafter to be appointed shall be at the rate of $3,000 per annum ;

Principals of normal, high, and manual-training high schools, eight at $2,500 each: Provided, That the salaries of the principals of the normal, high, and manual-training high school, other than the Central High School, now in the service of the public schools or hereafter to be appointed, shall be at the rate of $2,500 per annum.

The amount appropriated for longevity pay for this year was $10,000 less than the amount of the estimate as hereinbefore set forth, 39 Stat., 694.

Reading the provisions just quoted in the light of the estimates on which they were based and considering also that the origina] provision in the act of 1906 did not authorize longevity pay to these principals after their compensation reached the maximum amount of $2,500, the conclusion reached by the District of Columbia authori. ties and by the Comptroller of the Treasury, that the salaries as fixed at $3,000 and $2,500 were the maximum amounts authorized and that no annual increases thereafter were authorized, would appear to be justified.

This construction is further supported by the notes which accompanied the estimates submitted by the Board of Education, page 1294 of the Estimates. The note with respect to the principal of the Central High School is that the increase is a promotion from $2,500 to $3,000. With reference to the eight other principals the note states: “Owing to the fact that most of these principals have already reached the maximum salary in their present class the actual increase of expense for 1917 over 1916 is only $1,300.” This shows clearly that it was not intended to give a $500 increase to each of these principals, but that it was intended to fix the total compensation at $3,000 and $2,500, respectively, per annum, and to discontinue the longevity increases.

In the estimates for 1918 provisions were submitted to give longevity pay to these 9 principals, the note by the Board of Education reading as follows:

This provision restores the principals of high and normal schools to the privi. lege of obtaining longevity pay for service. This privilege is enjoyed by all other teachers in the school system of the District of Columbia and was enjoyed by these principals previous to the fiscal year 1916–17. Page 997 of Estimates.

Like estimates and recommendations were submitted for the fiscal year 1919 with a like note by the Board of Education with reference to longevity, but again Congress appropriated for one at $3,000 and eight at $2,500 without making any provision as to longevity. 40 Stat., 932.

The estimates submitted by the Board of Education to the commissioners for the fiscal year 1920 provided for principal of the Central High School at $3,500 with an annual increase of $100 for five years and for the eight other principals at $3,000, with like increase for longevity, page 1044, but the estimates as submitted to Congress for said fiscal year were the same as for the fiscal year 1919.

In the appropriation act for fiscal year 1920, Congress again appropriated only $3,000 for the principal of the Central High School, but provided, 41 Stat., 80," that the present principal of the Central High School shall be placed at a basic salary of $3,000 per annum and shall be entitled to an increase of $100 per annum for five years.” No change was made in the law with reference to the eight other principals. They were appropriated for at $2,500 each without any provision for longevity. Therefore under the rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius the conclusion would appear to be irresistible that the purpose and effect of the provisions in the act of September 1, 1916, 39 Stat., 693 and 694, hereinbefore quoted, were to discontinue the longevity increases theretofore provided and that after the effective date of the act of July 11, 1919, only the “present principal of the Central High School ” was entitled to any longevity

989449052-

[merged small][ocr errors]

increase. Such was the state of the law at the time the provisions hereinbefore quoted from the act of June 5, 1920, were enacted.

From the facts herein set forth it is clear that although Congress was advised each year that the act of September 1, 1916, was being construed to deprive these principals of longevity pay and was urged oach

year to restore the longevity privilege, it declined to do so with respect to the principal of the Central High School until July 11, 1919, and with respect to the others until June 5, 1920.

The fact that the lump-sum appropriations made each year for longevity pay for teachers and others continued, during the period in question, to enumerate “principals of normal, high, and manualtraining schools ” along with the other teachers and employees is not controlling Such provisions in lump-sum appropriations authorize payment only when legally due.

The District of Columbia appropriations for the fiscal years 1922 and 1923 contain provisions practically identical with the provisions hereinbefore quoted from the act of June 5, 1920. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the principals referred to in your submission, namely, the principals of high schools other than the Central High School, were entitled, in addition to the basic salary of $2,700, to an increase for longevity at the rate of only $100 during the fiscal year 1921, $200 during the fiscal year 1922, and $300 during the fiscal

year 1923.

I understand that some of the principals involved filed suits in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia on or soon after April 30, 1921, for longevity pay alleged to have accrued to that date and obtained judgments which have been paid under an appropriation made in the deficiency appropriation act of March 4, 1923, 42 Stat., 1534. No written opinion appears to have been rendered in any of these cases and I am not advised as to the grounds upon which the judgments were based. No appeal was taken. The judgment of the court under such circumstances does not operate to relieve this office of the duty and responsibility imposed upon it by law in the matter of rendering decisions on questions properly presented to it involving payments under appropriations. Accordingly, I have to advise that the proposed payments to those principals of the difference between longevity pay at the maximum rate of $500 per annum and at the rates of $100, $200, and $300, respectively, for the fiscal years involved in the period from May 1, 1921, to the present time are not authorized

« PreviousContinue »