 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Montgomery Independent School District v. Davis12/7/2000
On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District of Texas
Argued on April 5, 2000
Justice Hankinson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Phillips, Justice Enoch, Justice Baker, Justice O'Neill, and Justice Gonzales joined.
Justice Owen filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Hecht and Justice Abbott joined.
This teacher term-contract non-renewal case presents us with our first opportunity to interpret Education Code chapter 21, subchapter F, specifically, section 21.259. The Montgomery Independent School District Board of Trustees declined to renew Joanne Davis' contract. The Commissioner of Education affirmed the Board's decision. The trial court reversed the commissioner's decision, and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. 994 S.W.2d 435. We hold that, when reviewing a hearing examiner's recommendation under Education Code § 21.259, a school board cannot make additional findings of fact, but that subject to certain other statutory restrictions, the board retains the authority to make the ultimate policy decision of whether to renew a teacher's contract. In this case, however, because the school board's actions exceeded its statutory authority and its decision is not supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Joanne Davis taught science at Montgomery Junior High School under four one-year term contracts. Toward the end of her last one-year term, the Montgomery Independent School District's Board of Trustees accepted the district superintendent's proposal to not renew Davis' contract. The Board gave several reasons for proposing to not renew the contract, each of which was included in the district's employment policy as grounds for non-renewal. See Tex. Educ. Code § 21.203(b) (employment policies must contain reasons for not renewing teacher's contract at the end of a school year). Only one of the reasons, "failure to maintain an effective working relationship, or maintain good rapport with parents, the community, or colleagues," is at issue here.
After being notified of the proposed non-renewal, Davis requested a hearing under Education Code § 21.207(a). When a teacher requests a hearing after receiving notice of proposed non-renewal, the Legislature has given school boards a choice between two procedures: the board may conduct a hearing itself or opt to have a hearing examiner conduct the hearing. The procedure the board chooses determines the board's role in the hearing process. If the board chooses the first procedure, it conducts its own hearing under section 21.207(b), and renders a decision under section 21.208(b). A teacher aggrieved by the board's decision may appeal to the Commissioner of Education. Tex. Educ. Code § 21.209. The commissioner reviews the board's decision, and may not substitute his or her judgment for that of the board "unless the board's decision was arbitrary, capricious, unlawful, or not supported by substantial evidence." Id. § 21.209. Either party may then appeal the commissioner's decision to district court. Id. § 21.307.
Alternatively, instead of conducting a hearing on its own, under section 21.207(b) " he board may use the process established under Subchapter F," thereby requesting the Commissioner of Education to appoint an independent hearing examiner to conduct an evidentiary hearing and make findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation on the proposed non-renewal to the board. See Tex. Educ. Code § 21.257. If a school board chooses the hearing-examiner process, the board's role is then more like that of the commissioner's when the board conducts the hearing under
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Texas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|