 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hellmann v. Union School District8/23/2005
llowed.
Standard of Review
In an appeal of an administrative decision, we review the findings and decision of the administrative decision-maker, here, the Board, rather than the judgment of the circuit court. Gerig v. Board of Education of the Central School District R-III , 841 S.W.2d 731, 733 (Mo.App.E.D 1992). Our review is limited to whether the Board's findings and decision are supported by competent and substantial evidence based on the record as a whole. Id. We consider the evidence and view all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the Board. Id. at 732. We presume that the Board's decision is valid, and cannot reverse merely because we might have reached a different conclusion. Id. at 733. Moreover, the presumption in favor of the Board's decision is strong and can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or an abuse of discretion. Id.
We have more leeway when a school board's interpretation or application of law is challenged. In that case, we "may independently weigh the evidence and resolve factual issues, but in so doing ' shall give due weight to the opportunity of the agency to observe the witnesses, and to the expertness and experience of the particular agency.'" Lile v. Hancock Place School District , 701 S.W.2d 500, 504 (Mo.App.E.D. 1985) (citation omitted).
Discussion
In her first point on appeal, Ms. Hellmann contends that the Board erred in terminating her contract for incompetency, inefficiency and insubordination because the District failed to comply with the strictures of the Tenure Act. Specifically, Hellmann asserts that the District failed to meet and confer with Ms. Hellmann as required by Section 168.116.2. In response, the District asserts that it not only met, but exceeded, the requirements of the Tenure Act.
The Tenure Act sets forth the procedure for terminating a tenured teacher. Under the Tenure Act, a district cannot terminate a teacher on the grounds of incompetency, inefficiency or insubordination unless the district follows a detailed three-step procedure. Johnson v. Francis Howell R-3 Board of Education , 868 S.W.2d 191, 195 (Mo.App.E.D. 1994). We have described this procedure as "strictly defined" and not subject to evasion. Iven v. Hazelwood School District , 710 S.W.2d 462, 464 (Mo.App.E.D. 1986). The first procedural step requires the district to give the teacher a written warning specifically stating causes which if not removed may result in charges. Id. The second step requires the district's superintendent, or a designated representative, to "meet and confer" with the teacher to assist the teacher to improve the deficiencies. Id. The third step, which occurs if the deficiencies are not cured, requires issuance of "charges specifying with particularity the grounds alleged to exist for termination together with a notice of hearing on the charges." Id.
In this case, Ms. Hellmann asserts that the District failed to "meet and confer" with her in the manner required by Section 168.116.2. Specifically, Ms. Hellmann contends that the District improperly utilized a "hands-off" or "sink or swim" approach in lieu of meeting and conferring. In support of her contention, Hellmann relies solely on Iven v. Hazelwood, supra.
In In Iven , the district issued a formal notice of deficiencies to a tenured math teacher outlining "causes relating to competency in quality of performance and general responsibility." Iven , 710 S.W.2d at 464. Following the notice to the teacher, the district's designated representative observed four classes on three different days. None of the observations were scheduled. The
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Missouri Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|