district, would save the district $12,000 per year, and concluded “that the Board properly abolished [petitioner’s] position of speech correctionist ‘for reasons of economy’ and thus did not violate her tenure rights.” Ibid. Our courts have recognized that a local board of education has the authority to reduce its teaching force as long as that reduction is genuinely “for reasons of economy.” E.g., In re Maywood Bd. of Educ., 168 N.J.Super. 45, 55, 401 A.2d 711 (App.Div.) (stating that “[Reductions in force, whether of tenured or nontenured teachers, if done for reasons of economy, is entirely within the authority of the board.”), certif. denied, 81 N.J. 292, 405 A.2d 836 (1979); see also Jamison v. Morris School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 198 N.J.Super. 411, 415, 487 A.2d 739 (App.Div.1985) (<HOLDING>); Klinger v. Bd. of Educ., 190 N.J.Super. 354,
holding that reasons of economy constitute just cause for abolishing a position recognizing that the board is not required to give reasons and bases for concluding that a medical examiner is competent unless the issue is raised by the veteran because doing otherwise would fault the board for failing to explain its reasoning on unraised issues recognizing reduction in force if done for reasons of economy is entirely within the authority of the board recognizing absolute immunity for attorneys and board members of the texas medical board recognizing absolute immunity for board members and the director of the mississippi state board of nursing