The Commission properly allowed DSS to submit specific factual instances of Schroeder's misbehavior during those periods when she received satisfactory evaluations. Considering the entire record, we are not left with a firm and definite conviction the Commission was clearly erroneous in its findings about her work performance. After considering all the evidence, the Commission was in the best position to weigh competing testimony to arrive at this determination. We find no error. The employee disrupts the efficiency or morale of the Department.
Administrative regulations are subject to the same rules of construction as are statutes.
When regulatory language is clear, certain and unambiguous, our function is confined to declaring its meaning as clearly expressed. U.S. Communications v. Public Utilities Comm'n. Deciding whether an employee's acts constitute insubordination is a mixed question of fact and law. Schroeder's conduct toward her supervisors in regard to the work improvement plan was obstinate and argumentative. Because the Commission's legal conclusion of no insubordination contradicts the factual findings, it erred as a matter of law.