Opinion ID: 1172620
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Actions of the Hearing OfficerArbitrary or Erroneous?

Text: The District contends that HO improperly applied Haddock v. U.S.D. No. 462, 233 Kan. 66, 78, 661 P.2d 368 (1983) (A teacher ... is entitled to be judged solely on the reasons enunciated in the notice of nonrenewal.) in determining that the notice of renewal given by the District did not state that Robinson was being terminated for inefficient or incompetent service. Haddock involved the earlier statutory procedure in which the board of education had authority to decide whether to accept or reject the recommendation of the due process hearing committee. The reasons the board gave to the hearing committee for nonrenewal were not the same reasons the board gave in its final resolution to terminate Haddock; thus, Haddock's due process rights were violated. Here, the question is whether the District gave sufficient notice to Robinson of its reasons for nonrenewal so that Robinson had a fair opportunity to respond to them at the due process hearing, as required under Loewen v. U.S.D. No. 411, 15 Kan. App.2d 612, Syl. ¶ 3, 813 P.2d 385 (1991). The HO observed that the District presented opinion evidence that Robinson was a substandard or incompetent teacher, but those reasons were not stated as reasons for nonrenewal in the notice of nonrenewal the District gave to Robinson. The District contends that the HO improperly restricted the evidence considered to the reasons stated in the notice of nonrenewal. The District was free to supplement its reasons for nonrenewal by notifying Robinson of any additional reasons before the hearing, but did not do so. The Court of Appeals observed: The hearing officer appears to have concluded that because the notice of nonrenewal did not specifically claim that Robinson was a `substandard' or an `incompetent' teacher, any evidence of substandard teaching or incompetence would be ignored. 22 Kan. App.2d at 898. The Court of Appeals' conclusion is apparently based upon the following statement in the HO's opinion: 38. Whether, as some of the witnesses testified, Mrs. Robinson is a substandard teacher, is not to be considered. `A teacher who's [sic] contract is being nonrenewed is to be judged solely on the reasons enunciated in the notice of nonrenewal.' ( Loewen, 15 Kan. App.2d 612, 619). However, the HO's findings of fact refer to the opinions of various witnesses as to whether Robinson was a substandard teacher. Finding No. 60 stated in part: 60.... This examiner wants to make it clear that under the evidence presented, Mrs. Robinson does not appear to be an incompetent teacher. The evidence is conflicting as to whether or not she was a substandard teacher. Based on the evidence presented at this hearing, this examiner would not have found that Mrs. Robinson was a substandard teacher and if that reason would have been put forth by the board as a reason for nonrenewal, I would have made the same decision as I [am] making in this order. The Finding No. 60 statement shows that the HO did not ignore evidence of Robinson's substandard or incompetent teaching but instead considered it in connection with the grounds for nonrenewal stated in the District's notice (failure to satisfactorily plan and teach lessons and failure to provide an orderly teaching and learning climate). The terms substandard and incompetent are general terms that would have little meaning without evidence of specific actions showing substandard or incompetent teaching. We disagree with the Court of Appeals' application of the standard of review, although its statement of that standard is correct. We apply the administrative tribunal standard of review to the HO's decision. The judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the district court is reversed, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.