Opinion ID: 884992
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Complaints, Criticism, and Rumors

Text: All complaints, criticism and rumors from the public shall follow either an informal inquiry to the superintendent using the attached Trustee Concern Form or the formal process for resolution as provided in policy # 4312. Constructive criticism which emanates from the board or a trustee shall be directed to the appropriate administrator only through the superintendent. The superintendent may process the concern using the review of services, an evaluation process, or a one-to-one review of the situation. Any concerns, complaints, criticism, or rumors that are of concern to the board will be pursued only through the superintendent in accordance with acceptable procedure. When a trustee or administrator knows that criticism, complaints, or rumors are unfounded, he/she has an ethical responsibility to provide complete, honest information to refute the allegation. When dealing with rumors, complaints or criticisms, due process will be followed. This includes following the chain of command in dealing with issues. Anonymous complaints will be ignored. ¶ 21 One of Quick's proposed findings of fact, submitted to the County Superintendent, would have found that the discussion between Butterfield and the principals was an evaluative discussion which occurred outside of professional channels. Even though the County Superintendent did not accept Quick's proposed finding, the District Court cited this proposed finding, apparently as a basis for its conclusion that it was `inappropriate' for District Administrators to meet outside the professional channels established for evaluation of school personnel and without due process ... being accorded. The Court further concluded that because the meeting took place outside of the normal evaluative channels, Quick was denied notice and an opportunity to be heard, thus depriving her of her due process rights. ¶ 22 The reviewing body may not substitute its judgment for that of the fact-finder as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. See § 2-4-704(2), MCA. The County Superintendent considered the evidence but did not find that an evaluative discussion within the meaning of Policy 1521(5) took place. The County Superintendent heard the testimony of those present at the meeting, and had an opportunity to witness their demeanor as witnesses. The District Court did not have the benefit of these and other intangible aspects of the testimony. Section 2-4-704(2)(b), MCA, provides that a reviewing body may reverse or modify an agency decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because findings of fact essential to the decision were not made although requested, but the District Court made no such analysis. Therefore, we conclude that the District Court exceeded the scope of its authority as a reviewing court, when it substituted its judgment for that of the County Superintendent regarding the weight of the evidence. ¶ 23 The District Court also concluded that Quick was deprived of her due process rights pursuant to Policy 1521(6); however, that policy applies on its face only to the way complaints made by a member of the general public should be handled, and we conclude that it is inapplicable to the instant case.