However, the panel found that the teacher should not be disciplined for his off duty, alcohol-related driving problems. Instead the panel opined that there must be a nexus between a teacher's off-duty conduct and his actual teaching performance. The panel rejected the role model argument that students will follow the examples set by teachers. The panel found that petitioner had presented no evidence that showed the teacher's conduct affected his classroom performance or the behavior of his students. After reviewing specifications 1 through 8 of Charge 2 for the purpose of determining penalty, the panel reasoned that, based upon the above analysis, the conduct did not warrant any further penalty.
Petitioner appeals the panel's decision and seeks authorization to dismiss the teacher.
Petitioner contends that the panel chairman erred in finding specifications 3 and 5 of Charge 1 the subject of a prior grievance proceeding and in finding that the 1986 specifications were time barred. Petitioner contends that the penalty of reprimand is insufficient and seeks authorization to dismiss respondent. Respondent does not dispute the panel's findings or the penalty imposed. Petitioner initially challenges dismissal of specifications 3 and 5 of Charge 1. The record indicates that the same conduct was described in a counselling memorandum petitioner previously placed in respondent's file.