Opinion ID: 1684540
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Hearing Officer's Use Of Instructions.

Text: The Board also raises issue with the hearing officer's decision to provide the tribunal members with jury-style instructions as to procedures, required factual findings, and legal conclusions. [40] As discussed already, the statute gives the tribunal the authority and responsibility for finding facts and determining the appropriate sanction, if any, to impose. The statute places responsibility for procedural matters in the hands of a hearing officer. The hearing officer rules on dispositive prehearing motions. [41] The hearing officer also presides over the hearing and has authority to rule on all procedural matters during the hearing. [42] Though KRS 161.790 does not expressly grant the hearing officer the authority to use instructions, it also does not prohibit the use of instructions. The statute's delegation of authority over procedural matters, however, disposes of this issue, especially in light of the directive in KRS 13B.080(1), which is applicable to the tribunal's hearing through KRS 161.790(4), that a hearing officer shall preside over the conduct of an administrative hearing and shall regulate the course of the proceedings in a manner which will promote the orderly and prompt conduct of the hearing. [43] Control over procedure includes the discretion to lay out the law and the responsibilities of the tribunal in deciding the case. As such, we agree with the Court of Appeals that [i]n light of the numerous charges and considerable quantity of testimony presented, the hearing officer exercised both diligence and common sense in preparing an outline of the issues. The giving of instructions to the tribunal was consistent with the discretion inherent in the limited authority granted to the hearing officer and was not error. The Board also claims that the instructions used by the hearing officer were improper because they were prejudicial to the board and because the tribunal did not actually fill out the verdict portion of the instructions. The instructions the hearing officer used were simple and straightforward. Totaling five pages, they instructed the tribunal that its decision required a majority vote and had to be in writing, that the hearing officer would not participate in deliberations except to answer any legal questions posed by the tribunal members, and that the burden of proof was on the Board to prove its allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. The instructions also recounted, verbatim, the tenure and cause definition in KRS 161.790(1)(a), (b), and (d); stated that the tribunal could find that ... any conduct by Cobb's may constitute one or more of the [cause] offenses; and defined teacher under Kentucky law. The instruction then posed a series of interrogatories to the tribunal. The first three interrogatories relate to the insubordination charge and ask whether Cobb was guilty of a given charge, whether the charge was supported by a written record in the termination packet, and, if so, what specific conduct supports a finding of guilty as to the charge. The next two interrogatories ask whether Cobb was guilty of conduct unbecoming a teacher and what conduct supports the finding of guilty as to the charge. The next two interrogatories ask whether Cobb was guilty of inefficiency, incompetency, or neglect of duty, whether these charges were supported by a written record, and, if so, what specific conduct supported the finding of guilty. The instructions then state that if the tribunal does not find Cobb guilty of any of the charges, then its deliberations are concluded and it shall issue an order reversing the termination decision. The last two interrogatories ask the tribunal what punishment it imposes for any violations Cobb was guilty of and what evidence the tribunal relied on in reaching its decision. Though the instructions were incorrect in that the tribunal's decision does not have to be in writing, [44] they contain an otherwise accurate reflection of the law and the charges alleged by the superintendent, and their content did not prejudice the Board. Nor did the tribunal's failure to fill out the instructions prejudice the Board because the tribunal rendered written findings of fact, conclusions of law, final order, and notice of right to appeal that were more than sufficient to satisfy its statutory obligations.