FI FTH DI VI SI ON

M CFA DDEN, P. J.

, PI PKI N, J.

, and SENI OR A PPELLA TE JUDGE PHI PPS

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

D E A D LIN E S A R E N O LO N G E R TO LLE D IN T

H I S

C O U R T. A LL FILIN G S M U ST B E S U B M I TTE D WITH IN

TH E TIM E S S E T B Y

O U R C O U R T R U LE S

.

October 5, 2021



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 1 A0 75 3

. RABUN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION v

. RANDEL.

P H I P P S , Sen i o r Ap p el l at e J u d g e.

Fo l l o w i n g o u r g ran t o f i t s ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i on ary rev i ew, t h e Rab u n

Co u n t y Bo ard o f Ed u cat i o n (t h e “ Lo cal Bo ard ”) ap p eal s fro m a s u peri o r co u rt o rd er

rev ers i ng t h e deci s i o n o f t h e Geo rg i a Bo ard o f Ed ucat i o n (t h e “ St at e Bo ard ”)

u p h o l d i n g t h e t erm i n at i on o f ap p el l ee Bro n wy n Ran d el fro m her p os i t i o n as a h i g h

s ch o ol t each er. Th e L o c a l Bo ard co n t en d s t h at t h e s u p eri o r co u rt erred wh en i t

(a) co ncl ud ed th at Ran del was en t i t l ed to h av e a tri b un al ap p o in t ed t o h ear h er cas e

i n p l ace o f t h e L o cal Bo ard an d (b ) o n t h at b as i s

, rev ers ed t h e d eci s io n no t t o ren ew

Ran del ’ s t each in g co n t ract

. Fo r t h e reas o n s t h at fo l lo w, we ag ree, rev ers e t h e s u p eri o r

co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n , an d rem an d fo r fu rt h er p ro ceed i n g s

.Th e reco rd s h o ws th at

, i n M ay 2 0 18

, t h e Lo cal Bo ard ’ s s up eri n t en d en t n o t i fi ed

Ran del t h at h er t each i n g co n t ract wo u l d n o t b e ren ewed at t he en d o f t h e s ch o o l y ear.

Pu rs u an t t o t h e Geo rg i a Fai r Di s m i ss al Act

, OCGA § 2 0-2 -9 4 0 et s eq

., co u ns el fo r t h e

Lo cal Bo ard s u b s eq u en t l y i d en t i fi ed t he reas o n s fo r n on ren ewal as i n s ub o rd i n at i o n,

i n co m pet en ce, wi l l fu l neg l ect o f d u t y

, an d “ ot h er g o o d an d s u ffi ci en t cau s e.” 1 Ran d el

req u es t ed a h eari ng u n d er OCGA § 2 0 -2 -9 4 0 an d, o n No v em b er 1 2

, 20 1 8

– o n e d ay

b efo re th e sch ed u l ed h eari n g

– s o u g h t t h e ap p o in t m en t o f a t ri b u nal to h ear th e m at t er

i n p l ace o f t h e Lo cal Bo ard

, p urs u an t t o OCGA § 2 0-2 -9 4 0 (e) (1 ). 2 Sh e co n t en d ed

t h at d u e p ro ces s req u ired t h e ap p o i n t m en t o f a t ri bu n al b ecau s e s h e h ad fi l ed a ch arg e

o f d is cri m i n at i o n ag ai n s t t h e Lo cal Bo ard w i th t h e U. S. Eq u a l E m p l o y m en t

Op p o rt u n i ty Co m

m i s si o n (“ EEOC”) i n A p ri l 2 0 1 8

, as a res u l t o f wh i ch

, s h e cl ai m ed

,

1 Th e g ro u n d s u po n w h i ch an em p l o y ee h av i n g a co n t ract fo r a d efi n i t e term m ay b e

t erm i n at ed b y

a l ocal bo ard o f ed u cat i o n u n d er OCGA § 2 0 -2 -9 4 0 (a) are:

(1 ) In c o m

p et en cy ; (2 ) In s u b o rd i n at i o n ; (3 ) W i l lfu l n eg l ect o f du t i es ;

(4 ) Im m o ral i t y ; (5 ) In ci t i n g, en co urag i n g

, or c o u n s el i ng st u d en t s t o v i o l at e

an y v al i d s t at e l aw, m

u n i ci p al o rd i n an ce, o r p o l i cy o r ru l e o f t h e l o cal bo ard

o f ed u cat i o n ; (6 ) T o r e d u c e s t aff d u e t o l o s s of st ud en t s o r can cel l at i o n o f

p ro g ram s

. . . ; (7 ) F a i l u r e t o s ecu re an d m ai n t ai n neces s ary ed ucat i o n al

t rai n i n g ; o r (8 ) An y o t h er g o o d an d s u ffi ci en t cau s e.

2 O C G A § 20 -2 -9 4 0 (e) (1 ) req u i res a h eari ng b efo re th e l ocal b o ard or a bo a r d

d es i g n at ed t ri b un al

.

2t h e Lo cal Bo ard co u l d n o t b e i m p art i al i n t hes e p ro ceed i n g s

. 3 A h eari n g o ffi cer

– wh o

p res i ded o v er t h e Lo cal Bo ard h eari n g an d ap pears no t to h av e b een a m em b er o f t h e

Lo cal Bo ard 4

– den i ed Ran d el ’ s req u es t fo r t h e ap p o in t m en t o f a tri b u n al

, pri m ari l y

o n th e g ro u n d t h at t he Lo cal Bo ard ret ai n s t h e u l t i m at e d eci s io n -m ak i n g au th o ri t y as

t o t erm i nat i o n.

Fo l l owi n g t h e h eari n g

, t h e Lo cal Bo ard affi rm ed t h e s u peri n t en d en t ’ s

reco m m en d at i o n t h at Ran d el ’ s em p l o y m en t co n t ract n o t b e r en ewed

, an d th e St at e

Bo ard affi rm ed t h at d eci s io n o n ap p eal

. Ran del ap p eal ed t h e St at e Bo ard ’ s d eci s i o n

t o t h e s u peri o r co u rt

, wh i ch rev ers ed o n t h e g ro u n d t h at t h e Lo cal Bo ard v i o l a t ed

Ran del ’ s d u e p ro ces s ri gh t to an i m p art i al arb i t er b y fai l i n g t o ap p o i n t a t ri b u n al to

h ear h er cas e. Th i s ap p eal fo l l o wed

.

3 Ran d el am en d ed her EEOC ch arg e in M ay an d J u n e 2 0 18

. Al t h o u g h s h e d o es n o t

rep e a t t hi s co n t en ti o n o n ap p eal

, Ran d el as s ert ed i n h er req u es t fo r a t ri b u n al t h at i t s

ap p o i nt m en t “ wo u l d al lev i at e t h e b i as i s s u e s o l o n g as t h e [ Lo ca l Bo a rd

] a ccep t s t h e

d et er mi n at i o n s o

f t h e t r i b u n al

. ” (Em

p h as i s s u pp l ied .) Un d er t h e ap p l i cab l e s t at u t o ry

s c h em e, h o w ev er, an ap p o i n t ed t ri b u n al i s au th o ri zed o n l y “ to co n du ct t h e h e a r i n g a n d

s u b m i t i t s fi n d i n g s an d reco m m en d at i o n s t o t h e l o cal b o ard fo r i ts d eci s i o n t h ereo n .”

OCGA § 2 0 -2 -9 4 0 (e) (1 ) (em p h as i s s u p p l i ed ).

4 See OCGA § 2 0-2 -9 4 0 (e) (4 ) (“ [T] h e p art i es b y ag reem en t m ay s t i p ul at e t h at s o m e

d i s i n t eres ted m em

b er of t h e St at e Bar o f Geo rg i a s h al l deci d e al l q u es t io n s o f ev i d en ce an d

o t h er l eg al i s s u es ari s i n g b efo re t h e l o cal b o ard o r t ri b u nal .”).

31

. Un d er t h e Fai r Di s m is s al Act

, a h eari n g t o ad d res s th e p ro p o sed t erm i n at i o n

o f a t each er “ sh a l l b e co n d u ct ed b efo re t h e l o cal b o ard

, o r t h e l o c a l b o a r d ma y

d es i g n at e a t ri b un al t o co n s i s t o f n o t les s t han t h ree no r m o re t h an fi v e i m p art i al

p ers o n s po s s es s i n g acad em i c ex p ert i s e t o co n du ct t h e h eari n g an d s u b m i t it s fi n d i ng s

an d reco m

m en dat i o n s t o t h e l o cal b o ard fo r it s d eci s io n th ereo n .” OCGA § 2 0 -2 -9 4 0

(e) (1 ) (em

p h as es s up p l i ed ). Th e Lo cal Bo ard co n t en d s o n ap p eal t h at t h e s u p eri o r

co u rt m i s co n s t ru ed t hi s s t at u t e b y ru l i n g t h at d u e pro ces s req u i r e s a t r i bu n al t o b e

ap p oi n t ed t o h ear t h i s m at t er i n p l ace o f t h e Lo cal Bo ard

. W e ag ree.

Th i s ap p eal p res en t s a q ues t i o n o f l aw, wh ich w e rev i ew d e n ov o

. See In t h e

In t er es t o f P. N. , 2 91 Ga. Ap p . 5 1 2

, 5 1 2 (6 6 2 SE2 d 2 8 7 ) (2 0 0 8 ) (ad d res s i n g cl ai m s

t h at t h e tri al co u rt ’ s ru li n g s v io l at ed t h e ap p el l an t s’ d u e p ro ces s an d eq u al p ro t ect i o n

ri gh t s). In p ro ceed i n g s u n d er t h e Fai r Di s m i s s al Act

, “ [t ] h e s u peri o r co u rt s h o u l d n ot

i n t erfere wi t h a l o cal b o ard ’ s ad m i n i s t rat i o n o f i t s s ch oo l s u n les s t h e b o ard h as

g ro s s l y ab u s ed i ts d is cret i on o r act ed arb i trari l y o r co n t rary to l aw.

. . . W e p res u m e,

ab s en t cl ear ev i d en ce t o t h e co n t rary

, t h at th e act s o f a l o cal b o ard are no t arb i t rary

an d cap ri ci o u s .” Du kes -W a l t on v. At l a n t a In d

ep en d en t Sch o o l S

ys t em

, 3 36 Ga. Ap p.

1 7 5 , 1 7 6 (7 8 4 SE2 d 37 ) (2 0 1 6 ) (ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

4Si m i l arl y

, “ [t ] h e St at e Bo ard i s t h e g o v ern m en t al ag en cy ch arg ed b y l aw wi th

en fo rcem en t o f t he Fai r Di s m i s s al Act an d i t s i n terp ret at i o n o f t h e s t at u t e, t h o u g h n ot

co n cl u s i v e, is en t i tl ed t o g r e at wei g h t.” Du kes -W al t o n

, 3 36 Ga. A p p

. at 1 7 9 (1 )

(ci t at i o n an d p un ct u at i on o m i t t ed ); acco rd Mo u l d er v. Ba r t ow Co u n t

y Bd

. o f Ed

. , 2 6 7

Ga. Ap p

. 3 3 9

, 3 4 0 (5 9 9 SE2 d 4 9 5 ) (2 0 0 4 ). Th u s, “ [a] l th o u g h [an ] ap p el lat e co u rt i s

n o t bo u nd t o b l i n d l y fo l l o w an ag en cy ’ s i n t erp ret at i o n

, w e d e f e r t o an ag en cy ’ s

i n t erp ret at io n w h en i t refl ect s t he m ean i n g o f t h e s t at u t e an d co m p o rt s wi t h l eg i s l at ive

i n t en t .” M

o u l d er , 2 67 Ga. Ap p . at 3 4 1 (ci t at io n an d p u n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed ).

Fo r p ro ceed i n g s u n d er t h e Fai r Di s m i s s al Act t o co m p l y wi t h du e p ro ces s

, t h e

em pl o y ee m u s t b e affo rd ed n o ti ce, a “ m ean i n gfu l op p o rt u n it y t o b e h eard

, ” an d “ t h e

ri gh t t o b e h eard b y a tri b un al wh i ch p os s es ses s o m e acad em i c ex p ert is e an d an

ap p aren t i m

p art ial i t y t o w ard t h e ch arg es l ev el ed ag ai ns t ” t h e em pl o y ee. Ho l l ey v.

S emi n o l e Co u n t

y S ch o o l Di st

. , 7 5 5 F2 d 1 4 92

, 1 4 9 7 (II) (A) (1 1 t h Ci r. 1 9 8 5 ). 5 As to

t h e l at t er o f t h e s e req u i rem en t s

, d u e p ro ces s m ay req u i re an i n di v i d u al b o ard

5 Th e d u e p ro ces s cl au s e un d er o u r s tat e co n s ti t u t i on p ro v i d es t h e s am e p ro ced u ral

ri g h t s i n p u b l i c em

p l o y m en t cas es as t he fed eral d u e p ro ces s cl au s e. Bo a t r ig h t v. G l yn n

Co u n t y S ch o o l Di s t

. , 3 1 5 Ga. Ap p

. 4 6 8, 4 7 0 ( 1 ) (7 2 6 SE2 d 5 9 1 ) (2 0 1 2 ). An d wh i l e

El ev en t h Ci rcu i t d eci s i on s co n s t ru i n g fed eral l aw are n ot b i n d i n g o n t h is Co u rt , t h ey are

p ers u as i v e. See McKeen v. Fed

. Dep os i t In s

. Co rp

. , 2 7 4 Ga. 4 6, 4 8 , n . 1 (5 4 9 SE2 d 1 0 4 )

(2 0 0 1 ).

5m em

b er’ s recu s al fro m a s ch o o l b o ard em p l o y m en t p ro ceed i n g b as ed o n b i as wh en

,

fo r ex am p l e, t h e m em

b er h as b een p er

s on a l l y i n vo l ved i n cri t i ci zi n g an em p l o y ee’ s

p erfo rm an ce an d s eek i n g t h e em p l o y ee’ s rem ov al

. See Jo h n s o n v. Pu la s ki Co u n t y Bd

.

o f Ed

. , 2 3 1 Ga. Ap p

. 5 7 6 , 5 7 8-5 7 9 (4 ) (4 9 9 SE2 d 3 4 5) (1 99 8 ).

Here, we fi rs t n o t e t h at t h e s u p eri o r co u rt m is ap p li ed W r ig h t v. Mo n r o e Co u n t

y

Bd

. o f Ed

. , 1 4 8 Ga. Ap p

. 8 4 5 (2 5 3 SE2 d 2 1 0 ) (1 97 9 ), wh en i t d et erm i n ed t h at t h e

Co d e o f J u d i ci al Co n d u ct (“ CJ C”) ap p li es t o l o cal b o ard s o f e d u c a t i o n s i t t i n g i n a

ju d i ci al cap aci t y i n n on ren ewal m at t ers

. In W r i g h t

, w e m erel y as s u m ed

, wi t h o ut

d eci d i n g

, t h at t h i s was t h e cas e. See i d

. at 8 4 7

. W e n o w h o l d t hat t h e C J C d o es n ot

p er s e ap p l y

t o l o cal b o ard s , fo r t h e reas o n s t h at fo l l o w.

Th e CJ C ru le at i s s u e h ere p ro v i d es , i n rel ev an t p art :

J u d g es sh al l d i s q u al ify t h em s el v es i n an y p ro ceed i n g i n wh i ch t h ei r

i mp a r t i a l it

y m i g h t reas o n ab ly

b e q u es t i o n ed , o r i n wh i ch :

(1 ) Th e j u d ge h as a p ers o n al b i as o r p reju di ce co n cern i n g a p art y

o r a p art y ’ s l awy er, o r pers o n al kn o wl ed g e o f di s p ut ed ev i d en t i ary

fact s co n cern i n g an imp en di n g ma t t er or a pen d in g

p ro ceed i n g

.

CJ C Ru l e 2 .1 1 (A). Th e pl ai n t erm s o f t he Fai r Di sm i s s al Act

, h o w ev er, co nt em p l at e

t h at i n it i al p ro ceed i n g s u n d er t h e Act are t o b e h el d b efo re a l o cal b o ard

, wh i ch , b y

i t s very n at u re, i s l i k el y

t o h av e s o m e k n o wl ed g e o f d i s p u t ed ev i d en t iary fact s i n at

6l e a s t so m e (i f n o t m an y ) o f t h e cas es b ro u g h t b efo re it

. See OCGA § 20

- 2

- 9 4 0 ( e )

.

An d t h e s t at u t e gran t s each l o cal b o ard t h e d is cret i o n t o deci d e wh et h er t o ap p o i n t a

t ri b u nal t o h ear a m at ter i n i t s p lace. See OCGA § 2 0 -2 -9 4 0 (e) (1 ). Fo r th es e reas o n s

,

a wh o l es al e ap p li cat i o n o f t h e CJ C t o t h e p ro ceed i n g s at i ss u e h ere i s i n ap p ro p ri at e.

Nev ert h el es s

, we ag ree t h at

, as a m at t er o f d u e pro ces s

, t h e p ro p o s i t i o n

em bo d i ed by CJ C Ru l e 2 .1 1 (A) m ay req ui re t h e recu s al o f i n d i v i d u al l o cal b o ard

m em b ers wh o en t ert ai n pers on al o r fi n an ci al bi as es rel ev an t t o t h e s u b ject m at t er o f

a p ro cee d i n g

. 6 See Jo hn so n

, 2 3 1 Ga. Ap p

. at 5 7 8-5 7 9 (4 ); Ho l l ey

, 7 5 5 F2 d at 1 4 9 7

(II) (B). Ran d el has n o t s h o wn t h at s u ch i s th e cas e h ere

– in fact

, sh e has i d en t i fi ed

n o reco rd ev i d en ce i nd i cat in g t h at an y i n d i v i du al m em b ers o f t h e Lo cal Bo ard a r e

aware o f o r h av e an y

o p in i o n s reg ard i n g h er EEOC ch arg es

. 7

, 8

6 Ou r ru l i ng i n t h i s reg ard i s co n s i s t en t wi t h Ga r r et t v. At ki n s o n Co u n ty Bd

. o f Ed

. , Cas e No

. 1 9 8 0 -2 1 (Ga. SBE, No v

. 1 3

, 1 9 8 0 ), in wh i c h t h e St at e Bo ard h el d t h at d u e

p ro ces s req ui red t h e d i s q u al ifi cat i o n fro m a F a i r Di s m i s s al Act h eari n g o f an i n d i v id u al

l o cal b o ard m em

b er wh o s e wi fe was a m at eri al w i t nes s i n t h e cas e ag ai n s t t h e em p l o y ee.

Fo r t h e reas o n s di s cu s s ed ab o v e, ho wev er, we d i s ap p ro v e of t h e erro n eo u s as s ert i o n i n t h e

St at e Bo ard h eari n g o ffi cer’ s rep o rt i n Ga r r et t t h at t h i s Co u rt i n W r i g h t

, 1 4 8 Ga. Ap p

. 8 4 5

, h el d t hat t h e CJ C ap p l i es t o l o cal b o ard s “ s i t ti n g i n a ju d i ci a l c a p a c i t y c on cern i n g t h e

t erm i n at io n o f a t each er.” See Cas e No . 1 9 80 -2 1 , Rep o rt o f Heari n g Offi cer at 6

.

7 An d ev en i f s h e h ad

, w e d i s ag re e w i t h h er s u g g es t i o n t h at an y su ch k n o wl ed g e

n eces sari l y wo u l d w ei g h ag ai ns t h er i n her n o n ren ewal p ro ceed i n g s

, a s a n u n fav o rab l e

d eci s i o n i n th es e p ro ceed i n g s is as l i k el y as no t t o ad d s u p p ort t o h er E EOC d i s cri m i n at i o n

cl ai m

, wh ereas a d eci s i on b y t h e Lo cal Bo ard t o ex t en d Ran d el ’ s em p l o y m en t i n t h e face

7B e cau s e an ap p o i n t ed t ri b u n al m ay o n l y m ak e reco m m en d at i o n s t o a l o cal

b o ard an d t h u s h as n o fi n al deci s i o n -m ak i n g au th o ri t y

, s ee OCGA § 2 0 -2 -9 4 0 (e) (1 ),

(f), t h e fai l u re t o ap p oi nt an en t i rel y n ew t ri b u n al i s n o t o f co n s t i t u t i o n al m ag n i t u de,

at leas t wh ere

– as h ere

– t h e r e i s n o al l eg at i o n t hat o n e o r m o re in d i vi d u al b o ard

m em b ers wo u l d be req u i red t o recu s e fo r reas o n s p ers o n a l t o s u ch m em b ers

. 9 See

Ho l ley

, 7 5 5 F2 d at 1 4 9 7 (II) (B) (h o l d i n g t h at d u e p ro ces s was n o t vi o l at ed wh ere a

l o cal bo ard ’ s at t o rn ey s erv ed as t h e h eari n g ex am in er becau s e: (i ) ad m in i s t rat i v e

t ri b u n a l s m ay co n s i s t o f in d i v i d u al s wh o hav e p lay ed b o th i n v es t i gat i v e an d

ad ju d i cat o ry

ro l es ; an d (i i) n o “ act u al b i as ” b y t h e at t o rn ey was s h o wn ); i d

. at 1 4 9 8

o f t h e s u p eri n t en d en t’ s reco m m en d at i on t o t h e co n t rary p o ten t ial l y co u l d wei g h ag ai n s t a

fi n d i n g th at i t h ad d i s cri m i n at ed ag ai n s t h er, ev en i f i t wo ul d n o t b e co n cl u si v e i n t h at

reg ard

.

8 Ran d el ’ s rel at ed p as s i n g

, co n cl us o ry as s ert io n t h at t h e Lo cal Bo ard n ec e s s a ri l y

“ h ad a b ias ” fo r i t s s up eri n t en den t ’ s at t o rn ey i n th e i n s t an t p ro ceed in gs b ecau s e t h e s am e

at t o rn ey rep res en t s t h e Lo cal Bo ard i n t h e EEOC p ro ceed i n g s d o es no t warran t d i s cu s s i o n

,

as i t i s un s u p p o rt ed b y ci t at i o n t o t h e reco rd o r leg al au t h o ri ty an d m erel y as s u m es t h at

wh i ch i t s eek s t o es t ab l is h

. See g en eral l y Br i t t a in v. St a t e

, 3 2 9 Ga. Ap p. 6 8 9 , 7 0 4 (4 ) (a)

(7 6 6 SE2 d 1 0 6) (2 0 1 4 ) (“ [A] n ap p el l an t m u s t s u p p ort en u m erat i o ns o f erro r wi t h arg u m en t

an d ci t at i o n o f au t ho ri t y , an d m ere co ncl u s o ry s t at em en t s are n o t t h e t y pe o f m ean i n g fu l

arg u m en t co n t em

p l at ed b y o u r ru l es

. ”) (ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). Reg ard l es s

, wi t h o ut m o re, t h i s s cen ari o i s no d i fferen t t h an an y i n wh i ch a l o cal bo ard d eci d es a cas e

p res en t ed b y

an at t o rn ey

o r fi rm wi t h wh o m

(o r wh i ch ) i t i s fam i l i ar.

9 No t ab l y

, ev en act u al b i as

, s t a n d i n g al o n e, “ d oes n o t al way s ri se t o th e l ev el o f a

co n s t i t ut i on al i s s u e.” Ho l l ey

, 7 5 5 F2 d at 1 49 8 (II) (D) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i on o m i t ted ).

8(II) (C) (fi n d i ng no d u e p ro ces s v i o lat i o n wh ere t h e l o cal b o ard h eard t h e m a t t e r

i n s t ead o f r e f

e r r i n g i t t o an i n d ep en d en t co m m i s s i o n 1 0 b ecau s e: (i ) t he fo rm er

em pl o y ee’ s cl ai m o f “ p ol it i cal rep ri s al ” d i d n o t d i s t i n g u i s h h i s cas e fro m o t h ers in

wh i ch an ed u cat o r cl ai m e d t h at h i s d is m i s s al

, su s pen s i o n

, or d em o t i o n was

ret al i at o ry ; an d ( i i ) “ [ a ]d

ju d i cat i o n in fro n t o f t h e [i n dep en d en t co m m i s s i o n ] o r an

an al o g o us i n dep en den t ad ju di cat o ry bo d y i s cert ai nl y no t req u i red b y fed eral d u e

p ro ces s ”). In s o ru l i n g

, we ex p res s n o o p i n i o n on wh et h er t h e s tat u te i t s el f co m p li es

wi t h d u e p ro ces s i n th i s reg ard

, as n o cl ai m t o t h at effect was rai s ed o r ru l ed o n b el o w

o r rai sed b efo re t h i s Co u rt . See Pr i ce v. G r eh o fs ky

, 3 49 Ga. Ap p

. 2 1 4

, 2 2 2 (2 ) (8 2 5

SE2 d 59 4 ) (2 0 1 9 ) (“ [A] p p el l at e co u rt s wi ll n o t ru l e on a co n s t i t u t i o n al q u es t i o n

u n l es s i t cl earl y ap p ears i n t he reco rd th at t h e t ri al co u rt d i s ti n ct l y ru l ed o n t h e p o i n t

,

an d t he reco rd i n t he p res en t cas e co nt ai n s n o s u ch ru li n g .”) (ci t at i o n an d pu n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ).

1 0 Ho ll ey ad d res s ed a p ri o r v ers i o n o f OCGA § 20 -2 -9 4 0 (e) (1 ), u nd er wh i ch a l o cal

b o ard had t h e d i s cret io n t o refer t h e m a t t e r f o r a h eari ng b y a “ Pro fes s i on al Pract i ces

Co m m is s io n ,” wh i ch was an i n d ep en d en t co m m is s i o n co n s is ti n g o f t each ers , p ri n ci p al s

, l o cal s up eri n t en d en t s

, an d a rep res en t at i v e o f t h e Dep art m en t of E d u cat i o n

. See 7 5 5 F2 d

at 1 4 9 8 (II) (C). In a d eci s i o n ad d res s i n g t h at v ers i o n o f t h e s t at u t e, we n o t ed t h at

– as i s

t h e cas e wi t h t h e cu rren t s t at u te

– th e fo rm er s t at u te v es t ed t h e p o wer t o t erm in at e co n tract

em p l oy ees i n t h e lo cal b o ard

, wh ich was “ free t o ad op t o r i g n o re t h e reco m m en d at i o n ” o f

t h e co m m i s s i o n

. Ra b o n v. B r

ya n Co u n t

y Bd

. o f Ed

. , 1 7 3 Ga. A p p

. 5 07

, 5 0 8 (1 ) (3 2 6 SE2 d

5 7 7 ) (1 98 5 ).

9In co n cl u d i n g t h at no d u e p ro ces s v i o l at i o n o ccu rred o n t h e fact s o f t h i s cas e,

we no t e t h at we n eed n o t d eci d e wh et h e r a l o cal b oard i s v es t ed wi t h a b s o l u t e

d i s cret i o n in d eci d i n g wh et h er t o a p p o i n t a tri b un al

. It s u ffi ces t o s ay t h at a l o cal

b o ard ’ s di s cret i o n i n t h i s reg ard i s b ro ad en o u g h to p erm i t t h e d eci si o n n o t t o ap p o i nt

a t ri b un al o n t he s p eci fi c fact s p res en t ed h ere wi t h o ut ru n n in g afo u l o f d u e p ro ces s

p ri n ci p l es

. See gen eral ly Fer g u s o n v. Th oma s

, 4 3 0 F2 d 8 5 2

, 8 5 6 (5 t h Ci r. 1 9 7 0 )

(o b s erv i n g

, i n a cas e ad dres s in g t h e s u ffi ci en cy o f p ro ced u res s u rro u nd i n g a co l l eg e

p ro fes s o r’ s t erm in at i o n

, th at “ t h e s t an d ard s o f p ro ced u ral d u e p ro ces s are n ot wo o d en

ab s o lu t es ” a n d t h at “ [t ] h e s u ffi ci en cy o f p ro ced ures em p l oy ed i n an y p art i cu l ar

s i t u at i o n m

u s t b e ju dg ed in t h e l i g ht o f t h e part i es

, t h e s u b ject m at t er an d t h e

ci rcu m s t an ces i n v ol v ed ”). 1 1 W e t h erefo re rev ers e t h e s u p eri o r co u rt ’ s ru l i n g t h at t h e

fai l u re t o ap p o i n t a t ri b u n al h ere v i o l at ed Ran d el ’ s d u e p ro ces s ri g h t s

.

2

. Ran d el co n t en d s t h at w e m ay affi rm t h e su p eri o r co u rt ’ s d eci s io n o n s ev eral

al t ern at i v e b as es

. In t hat reg ard

, s h e m ai nt ai n s t h at t h e Lo cal an d S t a t e B o a r d s ’

d eci s i o n s ag ai n s t h er can n o t s t an d b ecau s e t he Lo cal Bo ard : (i ) fai l ed t o p ro v i d e h er

1 1 In Bo n n er v. Ci t

y o f Pr i ch a r d

, 6 6 1 F2 d 1 20 6

, 1 20 9 (II) (1 1 t h Ci r. 1 9 81 ) (en b an c),

t h e El ev en t h Ci rcu it ad op t ed as b in d i n g p reced en t al l deci s i o ns o f t h e Fi ft h Ci rcu i t i s s u ed

b efo re t h e cl o s e o f b u s i n es s o n Sep t em b er 30

, 19 8 1

. See Br o wn v. S t a t e

, 3 0 3 Ga. 1 5 8

, 1 6 3

(2 ), n . 2 (8 1 0 SE2 d 1 4 5 ) (2 0 1 8).

10wi t h ad eq u at e n o t ice of t h e ev i den ce ag ai n st h er; (i i ) vi ol at ed h er ri g h t s t o su b p o en a

wi t n es s es an d do cu m en t s; (i ii ) erro n eo u s l y d en i ed h er req u es t t o co n t i n ue t h e h eari n g

t o al l o w h er t o cal l two s u b p oen aed wi t n es s es wh o l eft b efo re t h ey were cal l ed ; an d

(i v) ad m i t t ed s ev eral cat eg o ri es o f i n ad m i s s i b l e ev i d en ce.

W e decl i n e t o ad d res s t h es e arg u m en t s i n l ig h t o f: (i ) t h e s t at ut o ry s ch em e t h at

v es t s th e s u p eri o r co u rt wi t h res p o n s i b il it y fo r t he i n i t i a l l ev el o f ap p el lat e rev i ew

fro m a St at e Bo ard d eci s i o n

, s ee OCGA § 2 0-2 -1 1 6 0 (c), an d m an d at es t h at fu rt h er

ap p el l at e rev iew b ey o nd t h e s u p eri or co u rt i s l i m i t e d b y t h e d i s cret io n ary ap p eal

s t at u te, OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (1 ), (b ); an d (i i ) t h e pro p o s i t i o n t h at we t y p i cal l y wi l l n ot

ad d res s i s s u es t hat hav e n o t been ru l ed o n b y t h e s u p eri o r co urt . See g en eral l y Ci t y

o f Ga i n es vi l l e v. D o d

d

, 2 7 5 Ga. 8 3 4

, 8 3 8 -8 3 9 (5 7 3 SE2 d 3 6 9) (2 0 0 2 ) (i n ap p eal s in

wh i ch “ t h ere m ay b e a v ari et y of g ro u nd s ad van ced

, wi t h d i s pu t es p ert i n en t t o t h o s e

g ro u nd s ,” ju d i ci al eco n o m y m ay b e m ax im ized b y ret urn i n g t h e cas e t o th e s u p eri o r

co u rt “ u p o n t h e ap p el l at e co u rt ’ s d i s co v ery t hat t he t ri al co u rt rel i ed o n an erro n eo u s

l eg al t heo ry

o r reas o n i ng ”). On rem an d , t h e s u p eri o r co u rt s ho u l d ad d res s each o f

11Ran del ’ s al t ern at i v e arg u m en t s – t o t h e ex t en t i t d et erm i n es t h at each h as b een

p ro p erl y p res erv ed

– i n t h e fi rs t i n s t an ce.

Ju d g men t r ever

s ed a n d ca s e r ema n d

ed wi th d i r ect i o n

. McFa d d en

, P. J., a n d

Pi p ki n , J., co ncu r

.

12