T hr ougho ut t he co ur se of t he p r oceedi ngs b el ow, Shi r l ey N eel ey was t he T exas Com m i ssi onerof 1 Edu ca t i on . Dur i ng t hi s ap pe al , Rob er t Sc ot t a ss um ed t he p osi t i on o fCom m i ss i on er . Ac co r di ng l y , we s u b s ti tu te d S c o tt, th e c u rr e n t T e x a s C o m m i s s i o n e r o f E d u c a ti o n , a s a n a p p e l l e e i n th i s a p p e a l

. T EX . R. A PP . P. 7 .2 (a ). 

### NUM BER 13-06- 334- CV



## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
CH A RL ES MATT HEW S, A pp ellan t,
v . ROB ERTSC OTT , STA TE C OM M ISSION ER O F E D U C AT I O N AN D D AL L AS IND EPEN DEN T SCH OOL D ISTR ICT , A pp ellees . On ap pe al f rom th e 5 3rd Dist rict C ou rt o f T rav is C ou nty , T exas .



## O P I N I O N Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Be na v ide s

Opin ion b y

Ju stice B en av ide s Appel lan t, Cha rl es Ma tthews, appeal s t he tr ial cour t’ s order deny ing hi s a ppeal of a de cision by the Te x as Com mission er of Educa tion ( t h e “Comm issioner”). See T EX . 1M a tt h e w s w a s a ls o n o tif ie d t h a t th e b o a r d o ftr u s te e s w a s c o n s id e r in g s u s p e n d in g h im w ith o u t p a y. 2 A c e r tif ie d h e a r in g e x a m in e r l a t e r d e te r m in e d th a t t h is c o u r s e o fa c tio n w a s n o t a llo w e d u n d e r M a tt h e w s ’s cont r act wi t h t he di st r i ct

. T hi s pr oposed act i on i s not t he su bj ect of t hi s app eal , and we wi l l not di scuss t he f a c ts a d d u c e d b e lo w r e la tin g to th is p r o p o s a l. 2 E DUC . C OD E A NN . § 21. 307 ( Ver non 200 6)

. The Commi ss ion er uphel d the ter minat ion of Ma tthews’ s e mploy ment as su per int endent of t h e now -d efunct W il mer- Hut chi ns Indepen dent Scho ol Di str ict (“W HI SD ”) by a manag ement t eam appoi nted by the Commi ss ion er . See i

d. §§ 21. 3 0 1 , 2 1 .3 0 3 ( Ver non 200 6)

. The tr ial co urt t hen den ied Ma tthews’ s a ppeal from t he C o m mis si oner ’s dec is ion

. See i d. § 21. 307 . On ap pea l, Ma tthews a rg ues that (1 ) no acti on w as tak en to ter minat e hi s c ontractby ei ther the W HI SD board of tru ste es or the manag ement t eam appoi nted by the Commi ss ion er , and (2 ) the C ommis si one r’s d e cisi on w as not s uppor ted b y su bst anti al ev ide nce. See i d. § 21. 307 (e)-(g ). W e affi r m. I. Background Ma tthews w as hired as the superi ntenden t of W HI SD under a f iv e- y ear empl oy ment cont ra ct si g ned on Aug ust30, 2004. The c ontractprov ide d tha t t h e W HI SD b o ard of tr ust ees coul d di smi ss hi m at a ny ti me for g ood c a u se in acc ordance w it h the Tex as Educ ati on Cod e and the board’s pol icy . See i d. §§ 21. 211, 21.212( d) , 21. 156( a) ( Ver non 2006)

. W HI SD beg an s uffer ing financ ial di ff ic ult ie s, and on N ov ember 12, 2004, the Com mission er app ointe d a “ma nagem entteam ” to “direct the operatio ns of the district in
area s of una ccept able performa nce. ” See i d. §§ 3 9.131( a) (8 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 007) ; see als o id. § 39. 135 ( Ver non 200 6)

. The C o m m iss io n e r appoi nted Al ber t C . Bl ack , J r. and Mi chel le W il lhe lm t o s er v e as the manag ement t eam. On N ov ember

27, 2004, the W HI SD board of tr ust ees sentnoti ce to M atthe w s t hat i t woul d c onsi der

a proposa l to ter minat e hi s t er m cont ra ct. M atthe w s req uest ed a 2C ounsel fo r W H I SD re f er r ed G oodm an t o T exas Educat i on C ode sect i on 4 4. 002, whi ch pr ov i des, 3

“ O n orbef or e a dat e set byt he St at e Boar d of Educat i on, t he su per i nt enden t shal l pr epar e, orcause t o be pr epar ed, a pr oposed budge t cov er i ng al l est i m at ed r ev enue and pr oposed expe ndi t ur es of t he d i st r i ct f or t he fol l ow i ng fi s c al y ea r. ” T EX . E DUC
. C OD E A NN . § 4 4 .0 0 2 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 6 ). 3 hear ing before a c erti fied hear ing ex aminer , see id. § 21 .253( a) ( Ver non 2006 ), and the Commi ss ion er

appoi nted Fred Ahrens, an i ndependen t c erti fied hear ing ex aminer , t o presi de. See i

d. § 21 .254 (V er non 200 6)

. A hear ing w as hel d on F ebr uar y 16, 2005. See i

d. § 21.256 ( Ver non 2006). At the h e a ri n g, Ma t t h e ws a p p e a re d t h ro u gh co u n s e l. W HI S D p re s e n t e d t e s t im o n y f ro m two wit nesse s. First, W illiam Goo dm an te stif ied th at he had bee n hired b y W HISD in September

2004 to a ct as the i nter im b usi ness off ic er to hel p the di str ict resol v e i ts f inan cial problem s. Good ma n explained t hatthe sup erinte nde nt of a schoo l is respo nsible for s etti ng and manag ing the sc hool di str ict’ s b udg et. G oodman opi n e d t h at w hen a 3 schoo l district e n d s u p wi th a ne gativ e f und balan ce, th e sup erinte nde nt is ultima tely
re spons ibl e. Goodman sta ted that the budg et for the 2003- 2004 y ear

ov erest imat ed rev enue by $4 mi ll ion

. He tes ti fied that the dist ri ct budg eted ex pendi tures of $21 mil li on, b ut i t recei v ed
re v enues of onl y

$14 mil li on. The di str ict w as abl e to re duce ex pendi tures to approx imat ely $ 1 8 m ill io n . Thus, the d is tr ict w as operati ng at a $4 mil li on defic itfor t he 200 3-20 04 sch ool year. Goo dm an ex plaine d tha t due to this def icit, the district w as forced to borrow nea rly $4 m illion und er a one -y ear no te. T he n ote for th a tl o a n wa s d ue a nd p ayable in March 200 5. He not ed th at th ere w ere no chan ges in th e law t hatyear tha t w ould p rov ide m ore re v enues to the sc hool di str ict. Therefore, the d is tr ict s houl d hav e es ti mated rev enues for4

the 2004- 2005 scho ol y ear at approx imat ely

the same amount a s w ere recei v ed i n 2003- 2004, or $14 mil li on. Beca use of the pay ment due on the $4 mil li on l oan, the b udg et for the 200 4-20 05 ye a r shou ld have anticipa ted only $10 million available for expenditu res. Nev erthel ess , t he dist ri ct’ s budg et for the 2004- 2005 s chool y ear budg eted $ 21. 7 mi ll ion in re v enue an d pl anned e x penditu re s o f approx imat ely

the same a mount. Good man tes ti fied th at t hese est imat es w ere unreal is ti c g iv en th at there w ere no c hang es in the l aw that coul d hav e prov ide d addi ti onal st ate or loc al rev enue. Good man tes ti fied th at W HI SD had ac ces s t o i nformati on th at c oul d hav e prov ide d ac curate p ro jecti ons of the s chool dis tr ict’ s rev enues . Goodman tes ti fied th at w hen a sc hool di str ict f a ce s a budg et de fici t, the p ru dent
course of action is to reduce e x pen diture s on perso nne l, which is ty pically a scho ol district’s big g estex pense . He tes ti fied th at i n the sp rin g o f 2004, M atthe w s a nd th e board of tr ust ees dis cus sed re duci ng ex pendi tures; nev erthel ess , addit ion al personne l w ere hi re d. He als o tes ti fied that the school dist ri ct had budg eted for two new sc hool s t o be opened, inc lud ing an e x pensi v e perfo rmi ng ar ts sc hool

. He tes ti fied th at t his w as not a pr udent
course of acti on gi v en the budgetdef ic it

. Goodman stat ed that the di str ict had anti ci pated that a bond ini ti ati v e s chedu led for S eptember 2004 w oul d be adopted by the v oters i n the dis tr ict, prov idi ng addi ti onal rev enue. Good man st ated, how ev er , that it w as not p ru dent to bu dg et t he di str ict ex pense s b ased on th e unk now n w il l of the v oters i n the di str ict. Fi nal ly , G oodman not ed th at t he dist ri ct had proj ect ed an enroll ment inc re ase of 150 stud ent s. Th e en rollmen t for t he y ear 200 4-20 05 actu ally d ropp ed by 20 0 stud ent s. Th us, W HI SD had ov erest imat ed i ts employ ment nee ds for t h e ye a r, resul ti ng i n i ncreased expend itures tha t w ere un nece ssary . A d d it iona lly , Goo dm an te stif ied th at W HISD’s5

audi tors p ro

jected a n i ncrease in re v enues from the const ru cti on of approx imat ely

500 new hom es. Acc ordin g to Goodman, as a re sul t of the budg et probl ems, W HI SD w as unabl e to pa y i ts em pl oy ee s i n Au g us t 20 04 b ec au s e of a b ud g etd efi c i t. H e s ta te d th att he s am e prob lem occurred in Novemb e r 2004 . He fu rther op ined thatthe sam e prob lem w ould
occ ur ag ain i n M arch 2005 un les s d ra sti c meas ures w ere tak en. On c ro ss -exam in ati on, G oodman w as q uest ion ed abou t M atthe w s’ s e fforts to
re mediat e the probl e m s w it h W HI SD ’s financ es. G oodman s tated thathe metw it h Ma tthews i n October

2004 to di sc uss how

to re duce ex pendi tures dur ing the 2004- 2005
sc hool y ear . Ma tthews and Goodman ag re ed to decl are a fin anci al ex ig ency and then to impl ement a re duct ion i n force to reduce ex pendi tures. M atthe w s t hen recommended a re duct ion in force at an Oct ober 11, 2004 meeting of

the W HI SD board of tr ust ees. The boa rd o f t rustee s in structe d Matth ews to create a list of e mp loymentposition s thatcould be el imi nated; M atthe w s compl ied

. As a resu lt , W HI SD w as able to eli minat e ov er ei g hty posi ti ons. H ad th ese ter minat ion s o cc ur re d at the b eg inn ing of the sc hool y ear , t he
re sult in g s av ing s woul d hav e been approx imat ely $2.8 mil li on. How ev er , G oodman tes ti fied th at be caus e the reduct ion i n forc e di d not occ ur unti l after the s chool y ear beg an, the p otent ial sa v ing s w ere reduce d due to attor ney ’s fees, cour t repor te r e xpe n se s, and ot he r e x pe ns es a s s oc i at ed w i th t er mi na ti ng t ea c he rs ’ c on tracts i n mi d- te r m. Addi ti onal ly , G oodman t est ified thatM a tt h ew s recommended that the b oard of t ru s t e e s i m p o s e a m o ra t o ri u m o n n o n -e s s e n t ia l a n d n o n -p e rs o n n e l s p e n d in g. Ma t t h e ws also recom me nde d borrowing mo ney to cov er the one -y ear no te for $4 m illion thatw ould become due in Ma rc h 2005. Goodman tes ti fied that thes e firs t ste ps w ere a g ood s tar t t o6

re medy ing the financi al si tuati on, but he opi ned t hat t hese ste ps shoul d hav e been tak en f iv e to si x mo nth s earlier. In sum, Goodm an testif ied that M atth ews did not me e th is obl ig ati ons und e r the Tex as Educ ati on C ode t o operate t he di str ict i n a s ound fina nci al
ma nne r. Seco nd, J ames D amm, the appoi nted int er im s uper int endent, testi fied that W HI SD
w as en tan gled in a “v ery serious fina ncial crisis.” He testif ied that the schoo l district first
s u f fe re d a n e ga t ive f u n d b a la n c e d u ri n g t h e 2 0 0 2 -2 0 0 3 sc h o o l ye a r. W H I S D ’ s n e ga t ive fund bala nce became w orse dur ing th e 2003- 2004 s chool y ear . He opi ned t hat w hen a negative f und balan ce occu rs, the district sho uld imm edia tely decla re a f inan cial ex igency
a n d a d o p tc o s tr e d u c t io n m e a s u re s t o re m e d y t h e si t u a t io n , b e c a u s e ca rryin g a n e ga t ive f u n d b a la n c e vio la t e s t h e T e xa s E d u c a t io n Co d e . He t e s t if ie d t h a tW HI S D s h o u ld h a ve address e d the neg ati v e fund bal ance dur ing the 2003- 2004 s chool y ear , and i t i s t he superin te n dent’ s respon si bil ity to cal l the p ro ble ms t o the board of tr ust ees’ att enti on. Dam m sta ted thatMatt h e ws d id not tim ely not if y the bo ard of

trustee s of

a shortfall in
re v enues for t he 2003 -2 004 s chool y ear . Damm t est ified that the super int endent is re spons ibl e for prepar ing the budg et for th e d i s t r i c t

. H e t e s t i fi e d t h a tt h e 2 0 0 4
- 2 0 0 5 b u d g e tc o n t a i n e d u n re a l i s t i cr ev enue proje cti ons. Acco rd ing to Damm, W HI SD had ov ersta ted p ro jected rev enues by

$3 mi ll ion for th e 2004- 2005 scho ol y ear . Damm opined that the superi ntenden t w as res ponsi ble for repo rting accu rate informa tion to the b oard o f t rustee s regardin g the projecte d revenues. Dam m te stif ied ab outthe sou rce of the un dersta ted rev enu es fo r the district. He state d tha t af

ter tax app raisals are sen t to reside nts in Ap ril, there is an app eals proce ss tha t t a k e s p l a c e d u r i n g t h e s u mm e r mo n t h s . Th e s e a p p e a l s g e n e ra l l y re s u l t in a s ixto7

sev en percent re duct ion in apprais ed v alu es from w hat the preli minar y tax roll s e sti mate
as the revenu es f rom local taxes. He t estif ied th at th e prelim inary tax roll estima tes w ere used to c re ate the dis tr ict’ s budg et w it hout acc ounti ng for the adj ust ments that w oul d be made dur ing the appeal s p ro ces s. He said thatthe super int endent shoul d hav e ac count ed for th is reduct ion

. Damm s tated thatth e c a lcu la ti on of l ocal tax rev enues affect s t he calculat ion of

t he state revenu es tha t the d istrict would receiv e. T he sta te revenue s w ere ov ersta ted a s a resul t of the mis cal cul ati on. Damm al so t e s t i fi e d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t i s c o mp e n s a t e d b ythe sta te ba sed on an average daily

atte nda nce o f

stude nts, which is estim ate d at th e be ginning of t he y ear. He testif ied th at en rollmen t in the d istrict had de clined, w hile at th e sam e t im e, th e district’s employ ment had i ncreased

. Damm t e st if ie d tha t t he personne l inc re ase w as a maj or cont ributo r to the district’s f inan cial prob le m s , a nd h e op ined thatthe sup erinte nde nt is
re spons ibl e for the a ll ocat ion of sta ff

. Damm tes ti fied that Ma tthews had not operated the dis tr ict in a fisc all y sound
ma nne r. He state d tha t Matthe w s did nottimely i nform th e bo ard of trustee s of

the sho rtfall in the dis tr ict’ s rev enue for the 2004- 2005 scho ol y ear , becaus e no dis cl osure w as made unt il af ter Dam m w as hired in Se pte mb er 200 4 an d pe rforme d an ana ly sis of the district’s finance s. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , D amm w as als o q uest ion ed abou t t he s teps under tak en to
re medy the dis tr ict’ s f ina nci al probl ems. Damm desc ri bed the reducti on in force Goodman discusse d, an d he state d tha t three sch ools had b een clo sed to redu ce expend itures. He test if ie d that , und er the p lan ad opt ed, W HISD w as on track to reme dy the situatio n in approx imat ely

three y ears.R ober son’ s f i r st nam e i s not pr ov i ded i n t he r ecor d. 4 8 Matth ews the n test if ied in his own beh alf . He testif ied th at his revi ews by the boa rd of tru ste es had bee n ex emplar y . Hi s mai n ex p lanati on for the b udg et s hor tfall i n 2003- 2004 an d ag ain i n 2004- 2005 w as that the d is tr ict had to prepare for the st udent enroll ment inc re ase that they

anti ci pated. M atthe w s t est ified thathi s g oal for t he di str ict w as to br ing
more stu dents i nto t he di str ict, w hic h w oul d br ing i n addi ti onal st ate fundi ng. This , he
ex pla ine d, w as the reason for t he l arg e ex pendi tures on personne l and ope nin g new sc hool s i n the di str ict ev en th oug h the di str ict w as sufferin g financ ial probl ems. Ma tthews a dmitted t hat t he budg et w as his respon si bil ity , buthe ess enti all y bl amed his bud get ex pert and t he rest of h is m ana geme nt tea m for t he bud getaryp roblem s. He
ex pla ine d tha t t he budg et w as a “g ro up deci si on,” but he s tated thathi s b udg et ex per t, a “D r. R oberson, ” w as ult imat ely re sp o n sib le for es ti mati ng the potent ial rev enues for t he 4 next y ear. Matth ews adm itted , howev er, tha t w hen Ro berso n prese nte d his projectio ns, Matth ews question ed h im extensively and w as satisf ied w ith his resea rch

. On crosse xam in a tion, M atthe w s a dmitted t hat R oberson’ s e sti mates had bee n i nacc urate for the 2003- 2004 s chool y ear , butnev erthel ess , M atthe w s h ad recommended him for reemploy ment dur ing the 2004- 2005 s chool y ear . Ma tthews e x pla ine d that once he re v iewed the financi als w it h Damm in September 2004, he real iz ed th e probl ems t hat t he s chool di str ict w as hav ing and im m e dia tel y took act ion

. He tes ti fied th at he propose d a s taff reduct ion to the board of tr ust ees, but he w as sus pended from hi s p osi ti on before he coul d implementthe restof his pl an to remedy the district’s f inan cial situ ation

. He st ate d tha t the re was n o reaso n tha t he w ould be un able9

to al lev iat e the di str ict’ s fin anci al probl ems i f gi v en th e c hance

. On M arch 2, 20 05, t he c erti fied hear ing ex aminer iss ued his recommendat ion . The
e xam in e r m a d e th e fo llo wing re le van t fa ctf in d in gs: (1) “W HI SD di d no t h a ve e n o u gh
m o n e y to c o ver e m p lo yee pa ych e ck s in Au gus t 2 0 0 4 " ; (2 ) “W HI SD di d no t h a ve e n o u gh money to cov er the Nov ember

2004 pay ro ll on t he nor mal pay ro ll date” ; (3 ) “I n the F is cal Y ear 2004- 2005 W HI SD budg eted $21.7 m ill io n in rev enue an d ex pendi tures. I n fis cal y ear 2003- 2004 the actual rev enues w ere $14.1 mill ion and ex pendi tures w ere $18. 4. The
re v enue i ncrease for th e 2004- 2005 s chool y ear w as unreal is ti c” ; (4) “Matthews d id not infor m the Board in a ti mely fashi on of

the shor tfall in rev enue in rel ati on to the 2004- 2005 budg et” ; and ( 5) “ Ma tthews faile d to compet entl y per form the duti es as Super int endent [a]s set forth in th e T exas Educa tion Cod e an d/o r W HISD Policies.” The hear ing ex aminer

found th a t W HI SD est abl is hed g ood c ause to t er minat e Ma tth ew s. F irst, the hear ing ex aminer found thatthe 2004- 2005 bu dg et ov ersta ted proje cte d rev enue by

at lea st $3 mi ll ion

. He found that “ [t] his sh ortfall i n rev enue w as due in par t t o an infla ted e v alu ati on of proper ty tax es beca u se of the fail ure to factor i n the
re sul t of proper

ty -a pprais al appeal s and the unreal is ti c ass umpti on of an inc re ase in the stud entpop ulatio n of

2 50 stud ent s o v er t he 200 3-20 04 n um ber of stude nts.” Th e sho rtfall
w as attr ibu ted t o Matt hew s becaus e he present ed the budgetto the b oard of tr ust ees and
re commended it s a dopti on. Seco nd, the ex aminer found that Matthews did not adv is e the boa rd of trustee s of

these problem s w ith the bud get. He foun d tha t “[i]t w as Matth ews’ [s]
re spons ibi li ty

as su per int endent to k eep the Board infor med of the financ ial si tuati on of the Di strictand to for mulat e c or re cti v e acti ons for approv al and i mplement ati on.” Thi rd , t he
ex aminer

found that“ Ma tthews’ [s] financ ial mis manag ement of the Di str ict has ca used the10

Di str ict t o dec lare a fin anci al ex ig ency and has pla ced iti n a fis cal cr is is .” F inally, the examine r fo und thatMatthe w s failed to com pet ent ly perform his f inan cial respon sibilities. Acc ordin g ly , t he ex aminer found g ood c ause to t er minat e M atthe w s’ s c ontractand
re commended that the b oard of tr ust ees tak e s uch act ion

. On M arch 7, 2005, the W HI SD board of t ru ste es hel d an open hear ing to c onsi der the h ear ing ex aminer ’s recommendat ion thatthe board ter minat e M atthe w s’ s e mploy ment cont ra ct. See i

d. § 21. 215 8 (Verno n 200 6). T he ma nagem entt eam , W illhelm and Black,
w ere presentat the b oard meeti ng . The board of tru st e e s took noti ce of the hear ing
ex aminer ’s re commendat ion and the repor ter ’s record of the hear ing

. Ma tthews’ s c ounse l and W HI SD ’s co unsel w ere the n al low ed to presentarg ument. See i d. § 21. 2158( c)

. After both si des present ed arg uments , the board of tr ust ees del ibe ra ted i n a c los ed
ses si on. Upo n thei r re tur n, a board member mov ed that the board of tr ust ees not a cc ept the h ear ing ex aminer ’s re commendat ion

. That moti on w as sec onded. The moti on c ar ri ed by a t hree- to- one v ote. The manag ement t eam then i n terj ect ed, a nd th e foll ow ing
ex chang e oc cur re d: Mr. Black: —w ith t h e a uth oritythatthe T exas Educa tion Agency

has put o n the m a n a gem ent t eam, l et us note —not e that w e i ntend to, and w e are, ov er ri din g thatpar ti cul ar deci si on. Mr

. Edw ards: Oka y . Let the re cord re flect that the TEA manag ement

team i s o v er ri din g the deci si on th at’ s j ustbeen made by the B oard of Trus tees of the W il mer- Hut chi ns Indepen dent Scho ol Di str ict. On 10.5— M r . B l a c k : Mr . Pres ide nt, w il l y ou see kt h e a d v i c e o f c o u n sel

before you procee d w ith y our agend a so w e can make sure tha t ma tter’s in order? Mr

. E d wa rd s : O k a y.11

Mr . M oy e: I thi nk— Mr

. O’ Han lon , cor re ct me if I’ m w ro ng . I t hin k

that now y ou are—hav ing had the d irect ion from t he TEA manag ement t eam, I thi nk, procedu ra ll y , t he proper thi ng to do w oul d be for y ou to v ote a g ain and to acc ept t he recommendat ion of t he—of the i ndependen t hea ring examine r. Ms . Brew er : Mr . Presi dent— Mr. Edw ards: Ms. Brew er? Ms

. Brew er : —I mov e that on the ag enda it em 10.4. 1 that w e ac cept

the i ndependen t hea rin g ex aminer ’s recommendat ion of termin ating Dr. C harles Matt hews. M r . Ed w ards : Att he d i s c ret i on o f t he TE A ma na g em en t te am ? Mr . M oy e: At t he di re cti on. Mr . Ed w ards: At t he di re cti on. M s . Brew er : Att he d i recti on o f t he TE A ma na g em en t te am . Mr . Ed w ards: It’ s b een mov ed by M s. Brew er

on 1 0.4 o n the ca se of Dr . C har les M atthe w s, at t he direct ion of the TEA manag ement team, approv e the hear ing —i ndependen t hear ing ex aminer

repor t. R oll ca ll v ote.

. . . . Mr . Ed w ards: Mo ti on fail ed, 3

— Mr

. Bl ack : Ag ain , Mr. Pre sid e n t, w e ’re goin g to ove rr ide that

pa rti c ul ar

v ot e al s o and no t req ui re a v ot e att hi s t i me but i n—mov e to aff ir mati v e acti on. After thi s d is cus si on, B lac k a ddress ed th e board of trus tees and ask ed th em to v ote ag ain and to ac ceptthe hear ing ex aminer ’s recommendat ion

. Anothe r moti on w as made t o a d o p tt h e h e a ri n g e xa m in e r’ s re c o m m e n d a t io n , f in d in gs o f fa c t , a n d co n c lu s io n s o f la w. One b oard member

obj ect ed to hav ing the TEA manag ement t eam direct it s act ion s a ndShi r l ey N eel ey , t he C om m i ssi onerofE ducat i on a t t he t i m e of t he a dm i ni st r at i v e ap peal , desi gnat ed 5 C hi efD eput y C om m i ssi onerR ober t Scot t t o r ender a deci si on on her behal f

. T he par t i es do not di sput e he r aut hor i t y t o ha v e m ade such a n ap poi nt m ent

. As not ed, S cot t i s now t he Com m i ssi onerof Educat i on. For ea s e o f r efe ren c e, w e w i l l refer t o t hi s de c i s i on as t ha t of t he C om m i s s i on er. 12 all eg ed th at t he te am w as forci ng the board’s hand. The W HI SD attor ney then adv is ed th e board of tr ust ees that the mana g ement t eam had the a uthor ity to directthe board’s acti on under se ction 39.135 of the educ ati on c ode. The board of tr ust ees’ g eneral couns el advised tha t the boa rd uph old th e he aring ex am iner’s decision

. T he p residen t of the bo ard of t ru s t e e s t hen note d tha t a mo tion was on the f loor to ad optthe he aring ex am iner’s deci si on, a nd he ask ed for a s econd

. W hen non e w as made, t he motion died , and the meeti ng w as adj our ned. Sub sequen tly , Matthe w s w as advised tha t he had b een rem oved f rom the district’s payroll, alth ough the reco rd is note ntirely clear how th is o ccurred. Matthe w s app eale d his ter minat ion to the Commi ss ion er . See i d. § 21.301. On M ay

16, 2005, the C ommis si oner is sued a dec is ion deny ing M atthe w s’ s a ppea l. T he C ommis si oner i nter preted the 5 pr ov is i o n s i n t h e T e x a s E d u c a t i o n C o d e re l a t i n g t o t h e a p p o i n t me n ta n d a u t h o r i t y o f a manag e m e n t t eam, hol din g thatse cti on 39. 135( c) “ est abl is hes the a uthor ity of the manag ement t eam to ta ke act ion .” Sp eci fical ly , t he C ommis si oner hel d tha t “ [a] manag e m e n t te a m m a y d irectan a cti on to be t aken by the pr inc ipa l of a campus , t he super int endent o f

t h e di str ict, or

the board of tr ust ees of the di str ict and may approv e or dis approv e any

acti o n o f

t he pr inc ipa l of a campus , t he s uper int endent, or the board of tr ust ees of the di str ict.” I n the co ncl usi ons of law , t he C ommis si oner furth er co ncl uded as a matt er of law thatthe “mana g ement t eam ac cept ed th e recommendat ion of the c erti fied hear ing ex aminer to ter minat e [M atthe w s’ s] employ ment by dis approv ing the act ion of the13

board of tr ust ees to reje ct the recommendat ion .” The Co mmiss ion er

hel d tha t t here i s “ no s peci fic proc ess byw hic h a manag ement team t akes acti on to di re ct a board of tr ust ees or disa pprov e a b oard v ote.” The Commi ss ion er

note d tha t i t i s “ probl emati c” w hen a b o a rd of tr ust ees re fuses o r fails to tak e acti on req uired by the manag ement t eam. Beca use the mana g ement t eam ca nnot “req uire board m embers t o v ote i n a mann er co ntrar y to the members’ bel iefs, ” the Commi ss ion er hel d that the “mana g ement team has the author ity under Tex as Educ ati on Cod e s ect ion 39.1 35( c) to e f f e ct u ate i ts deter minat ion thata pa rt ic ula r act ion be t aken. ” For thi s p ro posi ti on, t he C ommis si oner ci ted Tex as Gov er nment Cod e s e cti on 311. 021, the C ode C onst ru cti on Act. See T EX . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 31 1.0 21 (Ve rnon 200 5). The Co mmiss ion er

then rev iew ed th e record and deter mined that the mana g ement team t ook act ion tw ic e reg ardin g the hear ing ex aminer ’s recommendat ion

. The Commi ss ion er

found thatthe b oard of tr ust ees ini ti all y v oted not t o ac ceptthe
re commendat ion of the c erti fied heari ng ex aminer , butdete rmi ned t hat t he manag ement tea m “pu rsuan t to its aut hority under T exas Educa t io n C o de se ction 3 9.1 35(c), dis approv ed th e v ote o f Res pondentboard of tr ust ees by ov er ri din g the v ote a nd, i n doi ng so, acted t o approv e or ac ceptthe re commendat ion of the c erti fied hear ing e x aminer to term inate [Matthe w s’s emp loyment ].” Specif ica ll y, t he Com mission er point ed to Black’s sta tement that “[w]i th t he aut hor ity thatthe Tex as Educ ati on Ag ency has put on th e manag ement t eam, l et us note —not e tha t w e i ntend to, and we ar e, ov er ri din g tha t par ticul ar decision

. ” Moreover, the Com mission er point ed to the bo ard presi d ent ’s
announc e me n t , “ l e tt h e re c o rd re fl e c tt h a tt h e T E Am a n a g e me n tt e a m i s o v e r r i d i n g the deci si on th at’ s j ustbeen made by the Board o f

T ru st ees of the W il mer- Hut chi ns14

Indepen dent Scho ol Di str ict.” The C ommis si oner hel d that “[w]hi le the manag ement t eam did not sta te s peci fical ly thati t ac cept ed or

adopt ed th e recommendat ion of the c ertified hear ing ex aminer , t he act of ov er ri din g or di sapprov ing the board’s v ote i n a s it uati on w h e re o n l y

o n e o f tw o th i n g s ca n ha p p e n , ei t h e r ad o p to r rej e c tt h e re c o mm e n d a t i o n , l e ft onl y one re sul t remaini ng .” Thus , the reco mmendati on of the cer ti fied hear ing ex aminer
w as adopted

. W it h re spect t o the board of tr ust ees’ se cond v ote, the C ommis si oner dete rmi ned that “[ t]he manag ement t eam, pursuantto it s a uthor ity under Tex as Edu ca ti on C ode
secti on 39. 135( c) , ov er ro de or di sapprov ed th e s econd v ote to acceptthe re commendat ion of t h e c e rt ified hear ing ex aminer to ter minat e [M atthe w s’ s] employ ment by mov ing the matter to aff ir mati v e a ct io n and in doi ng so , acted t o approv e or ac ceptthe
re commendat ion of the c erti fied hear ing ex aminer to ter minat e [M atthe w s’ s e mploy ment]. ” The Co mmiss ion er

pointed to the manage ment t eam’s st atements after the sec ond v ote faile d: “A g ain , M r. Presi dent, w e’re g oin g to ov er rid e t h a t p arti cul ar v ote a ls o and not t o re q uire a v ote a t t his ti me but in— m ove to af fi rm ati ve act

ion

. ” The C ommis si oner conc lud ed th at, as a resul t of thi s s tatement , th e manag ement t eam di sapprov ed or
ov ertur ned t he bo a rd ’ s vo te ag ain st adopti ng the hear ing ex aminer ’s recommendat ion , and thi s resul ted i n adopt ion of the recommendat ion to ter minat e M atthe w s’ s e mploy ment. Finally , the Com mission er held thatev en if the pro cedu re w as f law ed, any error did not l ead t o an er ro neous dec is ion by the board of

trus tees bec ause the recommendat ion of the cer

ti fied hear ing ex aminer w as suppo rt ed by

su bst anti al ev ide nce and w as not
ar bit ra ry , c apr ic iou s, or

unl awful. See T EX . E DUC . C OD E A NN . § 21.303 (V er non 200 6) ( “The commi ss ion er

may not re v erse a dec is ion of a board of tr ust e e s based on a procedu ra lA fte r th e s u i t w a s fi l e d , W H IS D w a s a n n e x e d i n to th e D a l l a s In d e p e n d e n t S c h o o l D i s tri c t. See T EX . 6 E DUC
. C OD E A NN . § 39

. 131( a) ( 10) ( A) ( Ver non 20 06 ) ( aut hor i z i ng a nnexat i on)

. W e sub sequen t l y gr ant ed D a l l a s In d e p e n d e n t S c h o o l D i s tri c t’ s m o ti o n to s u b s ti tu te i ts e l f a s th e a p p e l l e e i n th i s c a s e .

T he ca se was t r ansf er r ed t o t hi s C our t pur suant t o a docket equ al i z at i on o r deri ssued by t he 7 S u p re m e C o u rt o f T e x a s . See T EX . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 7 3.00 1 (V ern on 20 05 ). 15 ir re g ula ri ty

or er ro r by a he ar ing ex aminer , the board of tr ust ees, or a bo ard s ubcommi ttee unl ess the commi ss ion er dete rmi nes that the i rreg ula ri ty or er ro r w as li kel y

to hav e l ed to
an e rroneo u s d e c isio n by the boa rd or board subco mm ittee .”). The Comm issioner he ld t h a tt h e ce rt if ie d h e a ri n g e xa m in e r’ s f in d in gs we re su p p o rt e d in t h e re c o rd , a n d Ma t t h e ws faile d to ide nti fy any

findi ng of fact th at w as not s uppor ted b y su b st a nti al ev ide nce. Al thoug h M atthe w s a rg ued t hat h e w as attempt ing to re medy the sc hool dis tr ict’ s fin anci al probl ems atthe ti me of his ter minat ion , t he C ommis si oner found thathe w as not en ti tl ed to rem edia tion. According to the Com mission er, beca use Matt hews play ed a larg e role in creatin g the district’s fina ncial prob lem s, the re w as go od ca use to termin ate his employ ment. On M ay 22, 2005, Ma tthew s timely fil ed a moti on for re hear ing w it h the Commi ss ion er . See i

d. § 21 .3041( a) ( Ver non 200 6)

. That moti on w as ov er ru led by operati on of l aw

45 d ay s l ater

. See i

d. § 21.3 041 (c). On July 22, 200 5, Matth ews time ly f iled a pe tition i n the T rav is County Di strict Court seeking to ap pea l the Com mission er’s deci si on. Id. § 21. 307( a)

. He named th e C ommis si oner of Educa ti o n and W HI SD as d efend ant s. On April 19, 200 6, the partie s app eare d for a hea ring at w hic h Ma t t h e ws

6 offered th e record from the admini strati v e appeal int o ev ide nce. On Apri l 27, 2006, the t ri al
cour t i ss ued an order

aff ir ming the Commi ss ion er’s dec is ion

. This appeal ens ued. 7

II. St and ard o f Rev iew16

T he deci si on w e are aske d to re v iew is that of the Commi ss ion er of Educ ati on. See T EX . E DUC . C OD E A NN . § 21.307( a)

. “A courtcan rev erse the commis si oner 's decis ion on a tea cher's co ntra ct i f

t h e dec is ion i s n ot s uppor ted b y su bst anti al ev ide nce or i f the
com mission er's conclusio ns of law are errone ous. ” Montg om ery Inde p. Sch . Dist. v. Davis, 34 S. W .3d 559 , 562 (Tex. 2000 ). Matth ews had the burd en in the t rial cou rt to d em onst rate tha t the Comm issioner’s deci si on w as not s uppor ted b y su bst anti al ev ide nce. Mi ller v. Houston Indep. Sch. D is t., 5 1 S. W .3 d 67 6 , 6 8 0 (T e x. Ap p .– Ho u st o n [1 stDist .] 20 0 1 , p e t. de n ie d ) (ci ti n g Firem en's & Pol ic em en's Ci vi

l Ser v. Com m 'n v. Br

ink m eyer , 662 S.W .2d 953, 956 ( Tex . 198 4) ; Farris
v. For t Be nd In dep. Sch. D is t. , 27 S.W .3d 3 07, 311 (Tex . App.–H oust on [1st Di st. ] 200 0, no pet .) ). “ Subs tanti al ev ide nce means more than a mere s ci nti ll a; t hus, the ev ide nce may prep ond erate against the agency's decision , y et still am oun t to sub stan tial evi den ce.” Id. (ci ti n g Mi re les v. Tex. Dep't

of Pub. Safet

y, 9 S.W .3d 1 28, 1 31 ( Tex . 199 9) ). To uph old the Commi ss ion er ’s dec is ion , w e mustmerely find t hat reason abl e mi nds coul d hav e reache d the same conc lus ion as the C ommis si oner . Id. (cit in g Tex. Sta te Bd. o f Denta l Exa m ’ rs v. Sizem ore , 7 5 9 S

. W

. 2 d 1 1 4 , 1 1 6 ( Te x . 1988) ; Farris , 27 S.W .3d a t 311 ). “ The Com mission er's reaso ning for his decision is imm ate rial if his conclu sion is correct.” Id. (ci ti n g Tex. Employm ent Com m 'n v. Hays , 360 S.W .2d 525 , 527 (Tex. 1962 )). W hen t h e C o mm i s s i o n e r , i n h i s c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w , i s c a l l e d u p o n t o c o n s t r u e a s t a t u t e fo r wh ic h t h e T e xa s E d u c a t io n A ge n c y is c h a rg e d wit h e n fo rc e m e n t , we m u s tgi ve ser iou s c onsi derati on to that cons tr uct ion , “s o lon g as the cons tr uct ion i s reason abl e and does not cont ra dict the pla in lan g uag e of t he s tatut e." Id. at68 0 -8 1 (cit in g Dodd v . Meno ,17

870 S.W .2d 4, 7 (Tex

. 1994) ). Al thoug h the Tex as Educ ati on Cod e ’s e m p loy ment provisi ons a re reme dial and shou ld be construe d broa dly, "we are not inclined to rev erse the C ommis si oner 's reason abl e det e rmi nati on i n an area w here he [or sh e] po ss ess es cons ide ra ble auth or ity

and ex per

ti se. " Id. (quo ti n g Dodd , 870 S.W .2d at 7). III. Disc ussi on By two i ssu e s, M a tthew s a rg ues that the t ri al cour t er re d i n aff ir ming the Commi ss ion er ’s dec is ion to uphol d M atthe w s’ s t er minat ion

. A . Act io n by

M anag emen t Team By hi s first is sue, M atthe w s a rg ues that no acti on w as tak en ei ther by the b oard of tr ust ees or

the ma n a g ement t eam to ter minat e hi s c ontract

. Ma tthews a rg ues that the manag ement t eam’s onl y acti on w as to di sapprov e of t he board of tr ust ees’ dec is ion not to ad opt t he hear ing ex aminer ’s findi ng s and re commendat ion ; it did not d irectany acti on to be taken by the boa rd. T hus, no action w as take n by anyone to termina te Matth ews’ s cont ract. Beca use th e bo ard of trustee s is required to “an nou nce a d ecision” w ith respe ct to t he hear ing ex a m in e r’s recommendat ion w it hin the ti me per iod se t fort h i n Tex as Educati on C ode s ect ion 21.2 59, a nd nev er di d s o, he arg ues that he remains the super int endent of W HI SD and is enti tl ed to rein sta tement and bac k p ay . See T EX . E DUC . C OD E A NN . § 21. 259 ( Ver non 200 6)

. W e di sag re e. T he Com mission er of

Educa tion m ay imp ose sa nction s on districts w hen the district does not s ati sfyareas of accredi tati on c ri ter ia under educ ati on c ode s ect ion 39.0 71, t he acade mi cp e r

fo r ma n c e s t a n d a rd s u n d e r s e ct i o n 3 9

. 0 7 2 o f t h e c o d e , o r a n y fi n a n ci al
a c c o u n t a b i l i t y

s t a n d a rd a s d e t e r mi n e d b y c o mm i s s i o n e r

r u le. See i

d. §§ 3 9.071,18

39.072( a) , 39. 131 ( Ver non Su pp. 2007) . “At t he uppe r end of the av ail abl e s anct ion s, the Commi ss ion er

may “ appoi nt a manag ement t eam to direct the ope ration s of the district in
area s of una ccept able performa nce. ” Rob ins on v . Neeley, 1 9 2 S

. W

. 3 d 9 0 4 , 9 0 7 -0 8 (T e x. Ap p .– Da lla s 2 0 0 6 , p e t. de n ie d ) (e m p h a s i s ad d e d ) (ci ti n g T EX . E DUC . C OD E A NN . § 39. 131 (a)(8)). T e xas E d ucat ion C ode s ect ion 39.1 35( c) se ts forth the p ow ers t hat may be
ex erci sed by

a manag ement t eam appoi nted by the Commi ss ion er : (c) A conse rv ato r or ma nagem ent tea m, if directe d by the com mission er, shal l p re p a re a pl an for the i mplement ati on of act ion under Secti on 39 .1 31 ( a) ( 9) o r

( 10 )

. The c on s er

v at or o r ma na g em en t te am : (1) m ay dir

ect an a cti on to be take n by the principa l of a cam pus, the s uper int endent of the di str ict, or the board of tr ust ees of the d is tr ict; (2) m a y a p p ro ve o r dis appr ove any act

ion o f t h e p r i n c i p a l o f a campus , t h e s u p er int endent of the di str ict, or the board of tr ust ees of the di str ict;

. . . . T EX . E DUC . C OD E A NN . § 39

. 1 3 5 (c ) (e m pha sis adde d). Th e Com mission er held th at th is
secti on does not prov ide for a ny sp ecif ic p ro cedure or

proces s b y

w hic h a mana g ement team may

tak e acti on. W e ag re e. T he sta tute ’s plain language do es no t provide fo r or require any specif ic pr oce d u re — s o l o n g a s t h e ma n a g e me n t t e a m ma k e s i t s w i l l k n o w n a n d a c t s w it hin i ts sta tutor y di sc re ti on to dire ct, approv e, or di sapprov e an act ion by the board of tr ust ees, that is enoug h under

the st atute

. W e w il l not read w ords int o the st atute to re q uire a p arti cul ar procedu re w hen t he l eg is lat ure has not seen fit to do so it sel f. City of R ockwall v. H ughes , 246 S. W .2d 621, 631 (Tex . 2008) ( “[ C] hang ing the meanin g of the st atute by

addi ng w ords to i t, we b e li ev e, i s a l eg is lat iv e functi on, n ot a jud ic ial functi on.” ). Ac cordin g ly , w e defer19

to t he C ommis si oner ’s i nter pretati on of the sta tute, and his leg al conc lus ion thatthe sta tute doe s not require any specif ic procedu re is not errone ous. That does not end our i nq uir y. W e mustdete rmi ne w hat h appens w hen a manag ement t eam di sapprov es act ion or di re cts acti on by

the board of tr ust ees, but the tr ust ees re fus e t o acknow led g e s uch act ion

. Ma tthews a rg ues that in thi s s it uati on, t he ef fect is as if

no actio n w ere take n by any party; the refore, he w as no t term inate d an d is enti tl ed to bac k p ay

and re ins tatement

. The Co mmiss ion er noted thi s probl em but found that becau se the mana g ement t eam canno t “req uire board members to v ote in a manner cont ra ry to the members ’ bel iefs, ” the “ manag ement t eam has the author ity under Tex as Educ ati on C ode s ect ion 39.1 35( c) to effect uate it s d eter minat ion thata pa rt ic ula r act ion be ta ken. ” T EX . E DUC . C OD E A NN . § 39.135( c)

. The Commi ss ion er fo u n d th a t a n y o ther
cons tr uct ion w oul d render meani ng les s the prov is ion for appo int ing a manag ement t eam to di re ct act ion s. See T EX . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 311. 021. W e ag re e w it h the Commi ss ion er ’s i nter pretati on. The cl ear

i mportof the educa ti on code’ s mana g ement t eam prov is ion i s t o al low the Com mission er to rem edy problem s in districts that ha v e fallen sh ort of p e rf o rm ance measures in li mite d areas w here the c o n se q uence s t o the di str ict—a nd th e s tudent s atten d ing sc hool there—c oul d be dis ast ro us. See T EX . E DUC . C OD E A NN . §§ 39. 071, 39.072( a) , 39. 131( a) (8 ). I t woul d make no sens e to all ow the Commi ss ion er to ap poi nt a manag ement t eam to re medy a dis tr ict’ s prob lems , only to hav e that team be di sreg arded by the b o a rd of

tr ust ees. Su ch a c onst ru cti on w oul d render educ ati on c ode s ect ion s 39.131 and 39. 135 meani ng les s. See i d. §§ 39.131, 3 9.135; T EX . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 311.021

. Acc ordin g ly , i f t he re cord shows that the manag ement team took st eps to di re ct,20

approv e, or

di sapprove board act ion , t he board of tr ust ees’ acti ons thereafter canno t under mine the mana g ement t eam’s w il l. Unde r educa tion co de se ction 2 1

. 2 59, the bo ard of trustee s had tw o po ssible
courses of act ion w it h respect t o the hear ing ex aminer ’s recommendat ion —th e board of tr ust ees coul d ei ther

adoptthe re commendat ion or re ject the re commendat ion

. See T EX . E DUC . C OD E A NN . § 21. 259

. T he board of truste es mu st ann oun ce a decision w ith respe ct to t he heari ng ex aminer ’s recommendat ion thati ncl udes findi ng s o f factand conc lus ion s of l a w, a n d the board of tr ust ees mayadoptthe findi ng s o f the hear ing ex aminer

. Id. § 2 1 .2 5 9 (a ). If

th e bo a rd of

tru st e e s d isa gre e s with a f in d in g o f fa ct , itm a y reje ctor c h a n ge that findi ng onl y

i f the findi ng i s n ot s uppor ted b y su b st a n ti a l ev ide nce. Id. § 21.2 59(c). The board of tr ust ees mayac cept , reje ct, or ch ang e any

co ncl usi on of l aw

by the hear ing
ex aminer

. Id. § 21. 259( b)

. The board’s acti on mus t be in w ri ti ng onl y if act ion is tak en to
re ject t he recommendat ion or to re ject or ch ang e a fin din g or

concl usi on. Id. § 21 .25 9(d). W it h thi s i n mi nd, w e tur n to the record. T he C ommis si oner

rev iew ed th e record from t he hear ing of the b oard of tr ust ees a n d d e t e r mi n e d t h a t o n tw o s e p a ra t e o c c a s i o n s t h e ma n a g e me n t t e a m a c t e d o n the hear ing ex aminer ’s recommendat ion , findi ng s o f fact , and co ncl usi ons of law

. The Commi ss ion er

found thatthe manag ement t eam “di sapprov ed” the board of trus tees ’ v ote by ov er ri din g the v ote. The C ommis si oner hel d tha t by

doi ng so , t he manag ement t eam acte d to ap prove the certif ied he aring ex am i ne r ’ s rec om mend ation to term inate Matthe w s’s
em ploymen t and to ado pt th e f indings of f act an d con clusions o f law . Th is fin ding is suppo rt ed by

su bst anti al ev ide nce— Bl ack st ated at t he hear ing t hat “ [w]i th t he aut hor ity that the Tex as Educ ati on Ag ency has put on the manag ement team, let us note— note that21

w e i ntend to, and we ar

e, over ri din g tha t par

ticul ar decision

. ” ( em pha sis adde d). Moreover, the b o a rd of tr ust ees’ presi dent announc ed, “ letthe re cord reflectthatthe TEA manag ement team is ov er ri din g the deci si on that’ s jus t been made by the Board of Trus tees of the W il mer- Hut chi ns Indepen dent Scho ol Di str ict.” T he Com mission er held th at “[w]hile the ma nagem ent tea m did not sta te spe cif ically tha t it accep ted or ado pte d the recom me nda tion o f the certif ied he aring ex am iner, the act
o f ove rrid in g or d isa p p ro ving t h e bo a rd ’s vot e i n a s it u a ti o n wh e re on ly on e of two t h in gs can happen, ei ther

adoptor

reje ct th e recommendat ion , l eft onl y one re sul t remaini ng .” W e agree. Unde r the stat ute , the man agem entteam ’s statem entdisapp rov ing the boa rd of tru ste es’ d e cis io n to rej e ctth e he a rin g exa m in e r’s rec o m m e n d a ti o n co n st it u te d an ac ti on to ap prov e the ex aminer ’s recommendat ion and findi ng s. W it h respect t o the board of tr ust ees’ se cond v ote, the C ommis si oner dete rmi ned that the manag ement t eam ov er ro de or di sapprov ed th e s econd v ote t o ac ceptthe
re commendat ion of the c erti fied hear ing ex aminer to te rm in a te Matthews’ s e mploy ment by “ mov ing the matter

to aff ir mati v e acti on.” The C ommis si oner poi nted to t he
ma nagem entteam ’s statem ent s af ter the secon d v ote failed: “ Again, Mr. Presiden t, w e’re g oin g to ov er ri de th at pa rt ic ula r v ote a ls o and not t o req uire a v ote a t th is time bu t in— m ove to affi

rm ati ve ac tion. ” T he Com mission er conclud ed th at, a s a result of this sta tement, t he manag ement t eam di sapprov ed o r o verturned the v ote a g ain st adopti ng the h ear ing ex aminer ’s recommendat ion , and t h is res ult ed i n adopt ion of the
re commendat ion to ter minat e M atthe w s’ s e mploy men t. Ag ain , w e hol d tha t t he manag ement team’s statementdi sapprov ing the board of tr ust ees’ dec is ion to re ject t he hea ring examine r’s recom me nda tion co nsti tute d an action to app rov e the ex am iner’s22

re commendat ion

. Acc ordin g ly , M atthe w s’ s first is sue is ov er ru led

. B. “Good Cause” for Termination Al ter nati v ely , by

hi s s econd i ss ue, M atthe w s a rg ues that if hi s c ontractw as effect iv ely

ter minat ed, t he dec is ion that good caus e ex is ted to suppor t t he te rmi nati on w as not s uppor

ted b y su bst anti al ev ide nce. W e di sag re e. Asu perint end ent ’s term con tract m ay be te rmina ted for “g ood cause .” See i d. § 21. 211 . “Good cause ” is def ined a s “th e failure to me et the accep ted stand ards of cond uct for th e professi on as g enerall y recog niz ed and appl ied i n s imi lar ly si tuate d s chool di str icts in this state .” Id. § 21 .156( a)

. As detai led abov e, G oodman and Damm prov ide d subs tanti al tes ti mony outl ini ng W HI SD ’s financ ial “ cr is is .” M atthe w s conc edes thatthe dis tr ict s uffered s er iou s fin anci al p ro b l e ms . R a t h e r

t h a n c o n t e s tt h e e x i s t e n c e o f t he cri s i s , M a t t h e w s a t t e mp t s t o s h i ft bla me from hi msel f to hi s s ubordin ates , arg uin g that“ the mere fact that a s ubordin ate ( i. e. the b usi ness manag er ) makes a mi sta ke

. . . does not n eces sar il y j ust ify ter minat ion .” Matth ews provides no autho rity for this prop osition . Moreover, Goodm an’s an d Dam m’s testim ony estab lished M a tthe w s’s responsib ility for the b udget a nd to supe rv ise his subordin ates

. Fur

ther more, M atthe w s admitt ed th at he di d, i n fact, rev iew and approv e the b u d gets. Goodman and D amm both tes ti fied th at M atthe w s w as re spons ibl e for the f inan cial crisi s and did notact respo nsibly und er the circum stan ces. W e f in d t h at th is is
more than a s ci nti ll a of ev ide nce that g ood c ause ex is ted t o termi nate Ma tthews. See Mi ller , 51 S .W .3d a t 680

. Ma tthews fur

ther arg ues that at t he ti me he was ter minat ed, h e w as tak ing st eps toT he Aust i n Cour t of Appeal s r ej ect ed t hi s ar gum ent i n an unp ubl i shed opi ni on: 8 H o s k in s f in a lly c o n te n d s th a t h e s h o u ld h a v e b e e n a ff o r d e d r e m e d ia tio n . T o s u p p o r t th is ar gum ent , H oski ns ci t es a publ i shed ar t i cl e sug gest i ng t hat t each ers shoul d be gi v en t he oppor t uni t y f or r em edi at i on p r i or t o con t r act t er m i nat i on or nonr enewal

. T he ar t i cl e posi t s t hat school di st r i ct s shou l d en cour age “ r em edi at i on” as an a l t er nati ve t o t er m i nat i on o r nonr enewal when t eacher s hav e en gaged i n “ r em edi abl e” cond uct , byadv i si ng t hese te a c h e r s o fth e ir d e f ic ie n c ie s a n d a llo w in g th e m a r e a s o n a b l e o p p o r tu n ity to c o r r e c t t h e ir p r o b le m s . T h e a r tic le , h o w e v e r , c o r r e c tly r e c o g n iz e s th a t t h e r e is n o s ta tu te g o v e r n in g th is a lte r n a tiv e s o l u ti o n i n T e x a s . T h i s C o u rt i s g o v e rn e d b y th e E d u c a ti o n C o d e a n d th u s is l i m i te d to re v i e w i n g th e C o m m i s s i o n e r's d e c i s i o n u n d e r th e s u b s ta n ti a l -e v i d e n c e r u l e . W e h a v e h e l d th a t th e re i s s u b s ta n ti a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o rti n g th e fi n d i n g o f g o o d c a u s e to te rm i n a te H oski ns' s cont r act

. R egar dl ess oft he av ai l abi l i t y or desi r abi l i t y ofot herre m edi es, t hi s end s o u r in q u ir y. Sm i thvi ll e I ndep. Sch. D ist

. v. H oskins , N o . 0 3 -9 8 -5 6 1 -C V , 1 9 9 9 W L 7 1 6 6 6 5 , a t *9 (T e x . A p p .– A u s ti n S e p t. 1 6 , 1 9 9 9 , p e t. d i s m ’ d ) (n o t d e s i g n a te d fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ). 23 assi s tt h e d is trict in remed y ing W HISD’s fin ancia l problem s. He arg ues th at he shou ld hav e been afforded the ri g ht to remedi ate the probl em. Ma tthews ci tes no a uthor ity , nor can w e l ocat e any , for the p ro posi ti on th at a dis tr ict empl oy ee m ust be afforded an oppor tuni ty to c ure hi s o r her defecti v e per

formance before t he empl oy ee c an be ter minat ed. O ur

di sc re ti on i s limit ed to rev iew ing the Commi ss ion er ’s dec is ion for 8 subst ant ial e v iden ce—ha v ing do ne so, our inquiry is at an end . Accordingly , Matthe w s’s
sec ond i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. IV. Conclusion T he C om mission er’s decision is supp orted bysubsta ntial evidence , and his
conc lus ion s o f

l a w were not e rroneous . Acc ordin g ly , t he tr ial co urt proper ly deni ed Ma tthews’ s a ppeal of the C ommis si oner ’s dec is ion

. W e aff ir m.

_________

__________________ __ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Opinio n de liv ered and f iled this the 2 8th d ay

of Aug ust , 200 8.