 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pavlik v. Chinle Unified School District No. 243/11/1999
lation, see Ward, 409 U.S. at 61-62, it may cause decisionmakers to exercise greater care in reviewing the facts and rendering a decision. Even the requirement that a board pay fees and costs -- the very provision that Pavlik alleges creates bias -- helps to ensure that teachers will be able to afford counsel to advise them and represent their interests. See A.R.S. § 15-542 (board must pay all expenses of hearing). Contrary to creating bias, the requirement that a board pay fees and costs should ensure that the board exercises care in its deliberations to come to a correct and supportable decision, even if only to prevent the imposition of additional fees should its decision be reversed on appeal. The statutory scheme, as a whole, promotes fair and impartial administrative adjudications.
Finally, that school board members are elected and therefore accountable to the voters helps to ensure that the board acts impartially, in a way that benefits the entire district and not just one school's administration. See Rouse, 156 Ariz. at 373- 74, 752 P.2d at 26-27; see also Hortonville, 426 U.S. at 495-96. The public's interest is best served by retaining and supporting qualified teachers, not by arbitrarily firing them.
Against the background presumptions of the constitutionality of statutes, see Samaritan Health Sys., 278 Ariz. Adv. Rep. at 29 21, and the honesty and integrity of decisionmakers, see Havasu Heights Ranch and Devp. Corp. v. Desert Valley Wood Prods., Inc., 167 Ariz. 383, 387, 807 P.2d 1119, 1123 (App. 1990) (citing Withrow, 421 U.S. at 47), we do not find supportable the trial court's Conclusion that Pavlik has proved that the statute requiring the Board to pay his fees and costs necessarily renders the Board members' interests direct, personal, and substantial. He has not shown that the Board members are actually biased against him or that he has not been accorded due process.
C. Placement on Paid Leave
Having decided that Pavlik did not show actual bias on the part of the Board, we must determine whether the District violated the law by placing Pavlik on administrative leave with pay for thirty days before providing him a statement of charges. The District claims that Pavlik waived this issue by not raising it at the administrative level. See Rouse, 156 Ariz. at 371, 752 P.2d at 24 (failure to raise issue in administrative proceeding waives it unless the issue is jurisdictional or is one that the tribunal is incompetent to hear). The District, however, never raised waiver as a defense in the trial court and, in failing to do so, waived its waiver argument. We will consider the matter on the merits.
The trial court believed that by placing Pavlik on paid leave without providing a statement of charges, the District violated A.R.S. section 15-540 (1991), which requires that a written statement of charges be provided to any teacher placed on leave for disciplinary purposes:
"§ 15-540. Suspension prior to dismissal of a certified teacher; written charges; salary"
"A. Upon a written statement of charges adopted by the governing board charging a certificated teacher of the school district with cause for suspension without pay or dismissal, the governing board may immediately place the teacher on administrative leave of absence."
"B. The notice of administrative leave of absence shall be in writing and be served upon the teacher personally or by United States registered mail addressed to the teacher at his last known address."
"C. Any teacher who is placed on administrative leave of absence pursuant to this section shall continue to be paid regular salary during the period of administrat
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Arizona Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|