## Facts

- Oklahoma law required that a person serving as a public-school principal hold “not less than a standard master’s degree” as a condition for principal certification.  
- For the 1974–75 school year, the Vian School District’s board hired Scott Moxom as high school principal at a salary of $11,200 even though he did not yet have the required master’s degree.  
- The board hired Moxom after a representative of the Oklahoma State Department of Education (Ben Chapman) told the board the master’s-degree requirement would be waived for Moxom’s position.  
- The board faced time pressure to fill the principal position before the school year began, and Moxom was working toward his master’s degree.  
- Moxom served as principal for the year and received his master’s degree sometime afterward.  
- A taxpayer-elector (Roy C. Thompson), on behalf of local taxpayers, filed a taxpayer action in the District Court of Sequoyah County against the school-board members and Moxom, alleging the hiring was unlawful and that paying Moxom’s salary was a wrongful expenditure of school funds.  
- The taxpayers sought recovery of double the amount paid under 70 O.S. 1971 § 5-125 (a statute authorizing double recovery for money wrongfully paid, including payments on an unlawful school employment contract).  
- The trial court treated the “waiver” or “permission” as effective and entered judgment for the defendants. The taxpayers appealed.

## Issues

1. Did the State Board of Education (or a Department representative) have authority under 70 O.S. Supp. 1972 § 3-104(9) to waive the statutory master’s-degree requirement for principal certification?  
2. If the waiver was unauthorized and the contract was unlawful, were the school-board members liable for double damages under 70 O.S. 1971 § 5-125 when they hired Moxom in reliance on the Department representative’s assurance?

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court held the master’s-degree requirement for a principal certificate, stated as a legislative “provided further” proviso in § 3-104(9), could not be waived by the State Board of Education or its representatives.  
- The Court still affirmed the judgment for the defendants because § 5-125 is penal and must be strictly construed; on these facts, the evidence did not show the board members knowingly entered into an unlawful employment contract.  
- The board’s reliance on the Department representative’s statement that the requirement would be waived defeated the claim that the board knowingly violated the certification statute.

## Legal Principles

- When the Legislature sets a specific qualification for certification (here, a master’s degree for principals), an agency’s general authority over certification does not include power to set aside that express statutory requirement.  
- Statutes should be construed so that each part has effect; a specific proviso limiting agency authority is not read out of the statute by relying on broader general language.  
- A double-damages recovery statute such as 70 O.S. 1971 § 5-125 is penal in character and is construed narrowly against imposing the penalty.  
- Liability for the § 5-125 penalty requires a showing that the board knowingly engaged in the wrongful act (such as knowingly entering an unlawful employment contract or knowingly paying money unlawfully).  
- Good-faith reliance on a responsible state education official’s representation may defeat the “knowing” element needed to impose the penalty.

## Conclusion

The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the statutory master’s-degree requirement for principal certification could not be waived by the State Board of Education or a Department representative, but it affirmed judgment for the defendants because the double-damages remedy in § 5-125 is penal and did not apply absent proof that the board members knowingly hired an uncertified principal in violation of law.


State ex rel. Thompson v. Ekberg, 613 P.2d 466 (1980)