Petitioner testified on his own behalf and called Arnold Zeiger as a witness, who testified that he had requested petitioner's assistance, as his union representative, to obtain his paychecks from the district. In fact, petitioner only denied the fourth specification which alleged that he repeatedly shoved or pushed Ms. Laub away from the door of the principal's office, eventually causing her to stumble, and then ran away from the office with the checks. While considering petitioner's testimony and evidence, the panel found this charge to be amply supported by the testimony of the principal and two assistant principals who observed the incident. Petitioner contends that the district failed to prove the charges at the hearing. He also contends that the panel's decision is not supported by substantial evidence since it ignored the testimony of Mr. Zeiger, as well as evidence that withholding Mr. Zeiger's paychecks violated board policy and federal law.
Petitioner further contends that the penalty is disproportionately excessive.
Respondent cross appeals, claiming that the panel erred by not permitting introduction into evidence of a document authorized by petitioner which led to a disproportionately lenient penalty. Matter of Bd. of Educ. On the present record, I find no basis for substituting my judgment for that of the hearing panel on the finding of guilt. The record supports the panel's finding that, despite being informed by the principal that Mr. Zeiger's paychecks were being withheld until he complied with the mandatory close-out procedures, petitioner disregarded the procedures, grabbed all the checks on a table in the principal's office, delivered those checks issued to Mr. Zeiger, and later returned the other checks. Contrary to petitioner's contentions, the panel's decision includes a discussion of Mr. Zeiger's testimony, as well as petitioner's claim that the district improperly withheld Mr. Zeiger's paychecks.