Opinion ID: 1759424
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Findings by the Circuit Court

Text: The circuit judge, in his written opinion and order issued May 15, 1991, asserted that: (1) his authority on Writ of Certiorari was limited to the correction of errors appearing on the face of the record of the proceedings before the EAB; and (2) the record in this context was limited to the moving papers and the written decision of the EAB because the court was not permitted to review the transcript of the proceedings to make an assessment of the substantiality of the evidence. The circuit judge also held that Rule 20(B) of the EAB Administrative Rules (July 1989) was controlling as to the scope of authority of the EAB and that in view of Rule 20(B), before the EAB may alter a decision or action of a state agency, it is necessary that the EAB make a finding that (1) the agency's personnel action was not allowed under the policy, rules and regulations of the SPB or that (2) the agency did not act in accordance with the published policies, rules and regulations of the SPB. The circuit judge concluded that the EAB applied an incorrect legal standard in that it relied upon the Sims definition of insubordination rather than relying upon the definition of insubordination found in the regulations of the SPB which the circuit court found to be applicable and controlling. According to the judge, the failure of the EAB to make a finding that the allegations involving Young's insubordination did not rise to the level of insubordination, as that term is defined in the rules and regulations of the SPB, was error. The circuit judge further held that even if the EAB found that the MSTC should have implemented a performance improvement plan, that finding was insufficient to warrant disturbing the decision of the MSTC inasmuch as the remaining Group Two Offenses, any two of which taken together, were sufficient grounds for termination.