1 Ji m Ne ls on succeeded Mi

chael Moses as com

mi ssioner an d a ut o mat ica lly re pla ce s him in the styl e of the c ase . SeeTex . R. A

pp. P. 7.2 (a). 

### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

NO. 03-01-00323-CV

Kenneth Grif

fin, Appel

lant v. Jim Ne lso n, 1 Commiss ioner of E ducation and Van Independent School District, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126T H JUDICIAL DIST RICT NO. 98-07702, H ONORABLE LORA J. LIVING STON, JUDG E PRESIDING
Ken n eth Gri f f i n ap pe als th e d i str i ct c our t’s af f i rm an ce of th e C om

m i ss i one r of Educ ation’s affir man ce o f t he Va n I nd ep en de nt Sc ho o l Dis t r ict ’s r eje ct io n o f his gr iev an ce . Gr iffin contends t ha t t he dis t r ict co ur t sho uld ha ve co nd uc t ed a t r ial de novo re gar ding hi s grie van ce in stead of re v i ew i n g th at admini str ative reco rd for substant ial evidence suppo rt ing the Commi ssioner’s dec ision. He a lter nat ively cont ends t he judicial r eview s t at ut e is unc ons t itu t iona l. We aff irm the di str i ct c our t’s j udgm en t. Gr iffin was under

continui ng contract to direct VISD’s b andsi n 1 996 -97 . Ba se d on t he start o f b and practic e, he was prohi bi ted from un

il aterall y res ign in g on or after June 16, 1996. Though hi s sal ary i ncreased f rom $46,787 in

1995-96 to $47,000 in

1996-97, the raise was

sm al le r2 Thi s gap between the date Gr iff

in ha d t o c ommit t o t he sc hoo l distr ict a nd t he da t e t he school dis trict comm

itted to pay

in g hi m a particular sal ary wa s apparentl y a n an nual occurrence base d on the date tax rates a nd v al uati ons were s et. Demand inga comm itm ent to t each wi

thout giv in g a co rr esp ond ingcom

m i tme nt to pay a parti cul ar sa l ary i s ev i den tly not un i que to VISD . SeeWeslaco Fed ’n of Teachers v. Texas Educ. Agency , 27 S.W.3d 258, 261 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.); Bow man v. Lumbe

rton Inde p. Sch. Dist. , 801 S.W .2d 883 , 885 (Tex. 19 90).

2 than he expected. That year, Grif fi n’s state base pay

i nc re as ed

f rom $36 ,28 7 to $3 9,7 33, bu

t on Septembe r10, 1996, VISD reduced hi s ban d director’s stipen

d from $8500 to $5767 and h

is local in creme nt from $2000 to $1500. 2 Gr iffin fi le d a grievan ce with VISD regar din

g these reduct ions, termi

ng them a breach of co nt ra ct . T he sc hoo l boar d up held t he r edu ct ion o f the st ipend s. Th e Co mmi ssio ner and t he dis trict court in

turn found that substantial evi dence supported VISD’s deni al of the gri evan

ce. Gr iffinc onte

nds th at the di stri

ct c ourt a ppl i ed the i nc orre ct s cop e a

nd sta nd ard of re view. He c omp ar es t he st at ut e’s d esc ript ion o f the Com m i ss i one r’ s d utieswi th i ts d es cri ption of t he di stri ct court’s

duti es. Compare Tex. Educ. Code Ann . § 7.057(c) (West Supp. 200 2) (“t he co mm iss ione rshal l i ssue a decisi on based on a rev ie w of the record devel

oped at t he di strict le

vel un der a su bs tantial

evi den ce s tandard of

revi ew”) , with id. § 7 . 05 7( d) ( “[ a] t t r ial, t he co ur t sha ll det er mine al l i ssues of l aw an d f act”). Gr iffin c o nc lu des that this diff erence in terms requires a dif feren ce i n type of revi ew. He argues that, in order t o “d et er mine all i

ssu es o f law and fact ,” t he dis trict court mus

t condu c t a t r ial de novo . He argues al ternativel y f or a de novo re view o f the adm in is trat iv e record. We concl ude that the d

i stri ct court use d the

proper s cope a

nd s tandard of revi ew. The statut e does not specif

y a scope of revi

ew for the di strict court ; the i nstruction to resolve al

l i ssues3

of f act does not i nf orm the c ourt wha

t it m ay revi ew to perf

orm th at resol uti on. See id. § 7.057 (d). Because t he E duc at ion Co de d oe s no t define t he sc op e o f the judicial re view o f the Commi ssioner’s dec ision, the district cou rt must cond uct a subs tantial evi den ce revi ew. SeeTex. G ov’t Co de Ann. § 20 01 . 17 4 ( We st 20 00 ) . T his in terp reta ti onof t he sc op e and st anda rd of r eview o f the Commi ssioner’s deci si ons i s co nsis tent wi th previ ous i nterpretati ons of

the Ed ucati on Code . See, e.g., Havner v. Meno , 8 67 S .W. 2d 1 30, 132 (T ex. App. —Aus t in 199 3, no wri t). G ri f f i n d oesnot co nt end t hat t he dis

trict court im

properly conducted the substan

tial evi dence rev ie w. He has sh

own no error. Grif

fi n ne xt contends that substanti al evi dence reviewby

the dis trict court depriv

ed him of hi s r igh t t o du e p r o ce ss un de rt he fed er al C o nst it ut io n. Re vie w o f a d ue pr o ce ss cla i m proceeds in

two part s: ( 1) whet her a libert y or pr op er t y inter est is im plicat ed, ent itling t he co mplainant to due process protecti on; and (2) i

f so, what proces s i s due . Univer sity of Tex. Med. Sch. v. Than , 901 S.W .2d 926 , 929 (Tex. 19 95). A con sti tuti on al l y pr otected pr ope rty i n terest ex i sts if an i ndi vi dual has a l egi tim ate clai m of entitlem ent that is created, supported, or s ecure d by rul esor mut ua lly ex pli ci t unde rs t and i ngs . Strattonv. Austin Inde p. Sch. Dist. , 8 S. W.3 d 26 , 2 9 ( Te x. App.—A usti n 19 99, n o pet.). We co nc lud e t ha t Gr iffin ha s no t sho wn he wa s d ep r ive d o f a p r o pe r t y int er es t . Gr iffin contends tha

t he ha d a prop erty i nte res t i n m ai nta i ni ng the l evel of hi s l oca l su ppl em en ts i n a ddi ti on to t he incre ase d st at e bas e pa y. The Co mmi ssio ner may have re co gnized a pr op er t y right i n teach ers to keep th e p re v i ous

yea r’ s to tal sa l ar y i f th e s al ar y i s u n certai n wh en th e te ach er

i s n o l on ger f re e to resi gn uni l ateral l y . See Weslaco F

ed’n of Teachers v. Texas Educ. Agency , 27 S.W .3d 258 , 265 n .94

(T ex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.). We h av e f ound, h owev er, t hat t he pa yment o f a loca l supp lement f orseveral ye ars does not necessari

ly guarantee the pay

me nt of that sup p le

me nt the nex t year—at leastnotwhen

an i nc rea se i n th e s tateba se

sa l ary more th an of f sets th e re duc ti on i n th e l oc a l su pp l em en t. Id. at 266-6 7. Grif

fi n’s to tal sal ary i ncreased b ecause the i

ncrease i n hi s state base pay exceeded the

reduction i

n hi s l ocal suppl

em ents. Grif fi n contends that

he was ent itled t o r et ain the local supp l em en ts un der h i s con tin ui ng c ontract. See James v. Hitchcock Inde p. Sch
. Dist. , 742 S.W.2d 701, 7 06 ( Te x. Ap p. —Ho ust on [ 1st Dist .] 198 7, wr it d enied) . I n James , the teacher prod uc ed ev i de nc e that her c onti

nu i ng con tract wi th th e s ch ool dis trict guaranteed her 203 da y s of em pl oy men t; t he co ur t held t hat t he sc ho o l d ist r ict co ul d n o t un ilat er ally r ed uc e t he nu mbe ro f d ays a greed upon i n c ontract. Id. at 703-0 6. Here , Gri f f i n di d not m uster s i m i l ar su pport f or h i s con ten ti on t hat he wa s gu ar ant eed t he loc al sup plement s wo uld r emain uncha nged . T he Com m i ss i on er f oun d i n re sp on se to Gri f f i n ’s ex ce pti on to t he pr o po sa l fo rde cis io n t ha t Gr iffin d id not demo nst ra t e t hat t he bo ar d gu ar ant eed him the $8500 stipen d; Gri ff in apparently

did n ot fi le a si mi la rexcepti on arguin

g that t he b oard guaranteed hi m the $2000 l

ocal i nc re men

t. He doe s n ot argue her e t hat t he Co mmi ssio ner er re d by find

i ng he wa s n ot en ti tl ed to the sti pe nd an d doe s n ot argue t hat t he record

shows hi m e ntitled to t he l

ocal i ncrem ent. Grif fi n ha s thus f

ai le d to show us that he was de priv ed of property when

the local suppl em ents were reduced. Furth er, Gr iffin has no t de mo nst ra t ed a d ep riva t io n o f due pro cess. “Due proc ess requires b oth ti mel y n oti ce an d a n opp ortu n i ty f or a mea n i n gf ul h ea ri n g a pp rop riate

to the na ture of the case.” Id. at 706. Grif fi n si mpl y asserts that the grieva

ncepro ceeding was i

nsuf fi cien t because3 SeeTex. Const. art. I, § 13. 5

it “m erely [provided] t he r ight t o be hear d” a nd re quir ed o nly that t he sc hoo l boar d “st op , lo ok , a nd listen.” He has not shown that his heari ng bef ore t he board was inappropriate o r meani ngl ess. Fin ally, Gr iff

in has no t been d epr ived o f his right to open courts . A litigant co nt ending that a statut e vi

olates the open

co ur t s gu ar ant ee o f the Tex asConsti tution

3 must show that he has a co gn iza ble com

mon l aw ca use of a cti on tha t is be i ng r e st ricted unreas onabl

y or arbi traril y w hen bal anced aga inst t he pu rp os e and ba si s of the statute. See Trinity R iver Auth. v. URS Con sultants, Inc. , 889 S.W.2d 259, 262 (Tex. 1994) (quot in g Sax v. Votteler , 648 S.W .2d 661 , 666 (Tex. 19 83)). The le gis la

ture im posed deferen

tial standards of rev

ie w on the Comm

is si oner and the courts in

order to le t local school districts control thei r own pe rso nn el

deci sions. See Ysleta Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Meno , 933 S. W.2 d 74 8, 752 (T ex. App. —Aus t in 199 6, wr it d enied) . G riffin h as not s how

n h ow substantial

evi dence rev ie w un rea son ab l y orarbi traril y res tricts hi s abi

li ty to pursue his

compl ai nt that he i s bei ng pai d le ss than h

e was promised. W e a f f i rm th e j udgm

en t of th e d i str i ct c our t.

Jan P. Patterson, Justice Be f ore J us ti ce s K i dd, Ye ak el

an d Pa tters on Af fi rmed6

File d: February

14, 2002 Do No t Publis

h