Opinion ID: 1578968
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sham Proceeding

Text: Coffer next asserts that the hearing before the designated hearing officer was a sham proceeding because the board declined to follow the hearing officer's findings and recommendation. The result, according to Coffer, is that he was denied his statutory right to a public hearing before the board. Section 84.600, RSMo 2000, sets forth the procedure by which the board may terminate an officer's employment. The statute provides that once a disciplinary complaint is made against an officer, the officer shall have the right to appear before the board at a public hearing.... After reviewing the evidence, the Board is authorized to determine what punishment, if any, shall be imposed. Id. Section 84.600 grants officers the right to appear before the board. As with any other statutory right, an officer can waive his or her right to appear before the board. See Shearlock v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 193 Mo.App. 430, 182 S.W. 89, 91 (1916) (holding that a statutory right may be waived); State v. Emery, 95 S.W.3d 98, 102-103 (Mo. banc 2003)(defendant waived statutory right to a jury-recommended sentence). By electing to have his case heard before a designated hearing officer, Coffer waived his right to a hearing before the board. Even though Coffer waived his right to a board hearing, section 84.600 specifically vests the board with authority to make the final determination regarding what employment action should be taken. Coffer's decision to waive his right to a hearing did not confer or eliminate any power that the board has under section 84.600. The board's decision to terminate is affirmed. The circuit court's judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for entry of judgment consistent with the board's recommendation. All concur.