Opinion ID: 1856886
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Competent and substantial evidence.

Text: The plaintiff argues that in establishing his salary the board improperly referred to newspaper articles on salary adjustments by other compensation boards, compared his duties with other county attorneys, relied on a statement of a member of the board of supervisors on the adequacy of the compensation schedule, relied on general economic conditions, and relied on a compensation schedule that was one year out of date. The plaintiff concludes that because the board failed to verify any of this information, its decision was not based on substantial evidence. Chapter 340A does not limit the kind of evidence a compensation board may consider; thus, the plaintiff's argument that the board improperly considered secret, incompetent, or hearsay evidence, is without merit. The district court did not err in determining the board's decision was supported by substantial evidence.