Opinion ID: 2071168
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Walthart contends that the board's factual finding that she knew students were consuming alcohol at the party is not supported by a preponderance of the competent evidence in the record. A. Standard of review. On review, courts must determine whether a school board's decision is supported by a preponderance of the competent evidence in the record.... The court is limited on review to the record made before a school board. Bd. of Dirs. v. Banke, 498 N.W.2d 697, 701 (Iowa 1993). Review is for the correction of errors at law. Sheldon Cmty. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Dirs. v. Lundblad, 528 N.W.2d 593, 596 (Iowa 1995). B. Preponderance of the credible evidence. As in virtually every termination case, the controversy boils down to whether the record supports the board's conclusion that just cause exists to warrant [a teacher's] dismissal. That conclusion must be supported by more than just substantial evidence; a preponderance  or greater weight  of the competent proof is required. Id.; cf. Briggs v. Bd. of Dirs., 282 N.W.2d 740, 744 (Iowa 1979). The distinction between these two standards may be understood by considering the statutes and our cases explaining them. Substantial evidence means the quantity and quality of evidence that would be deemed sufficient by a neutral, detached, and reasonable person, to establish the fact at issue when the consequences resulting from the establishment of that fact are understood to be serious and of great importance. Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)( f )(1) (2003); accord Mosher v. Dep't of Inspections & Appeals, 671 N.W.2d 501, 508 (Iowa 2003). Thus, [a]n agency's decision does not lack substantial evidence because inconsistent conclusions may be drawn from the same evidence. Mosher, 671 N.W.2d at 508 (internal quotations omitted). On the other hand, a preponderance means superiority in weight, influence, or force. The evidence may preponderate, and yet leave the mind in doubt as to the very truth. In such cases the evidence does not fairly set the question at rest, but merely preponderates in favor of that side whereon the doubts have less weight. Ball v. Marquis, 92 N.W. 691, 692 (Iowa 1902) (not published in Iowa Reports). Thus, when reviewing a board's decision to terminate, the court's task is to examine the record and determine whether the board's factual findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence offered. Bd. of Dirs. v. Justmann, 476 N.W.2d 335, 338 (Iowa 1991). That is the test we apply here. C. Hearsay and witness credibility. In resolving the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence, two preliminary issues arise. The first relates to hearsay evidence and the second to the board's determination of witness credibility. 1. Hearsay. Hearsay is admissible in board hearings. Iowa Code § 279.16 (1999) (The board shall not be bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence....); accord Justmann, 476 N.W.2d at 337 (referring to hearsay evidence submitted at the board termination hearing); Fay v. Bd. of Dirs., 298 N.W.2d 345, 349 (Iowa Ct.App.1980) (explaining that hearsay testimony is clearly admissible in teacher-termination hearings). The more pertinent question is how much weight should the board or reviewing court accord hearsay testimony. We believe that the proper weight to be given to hearsay evidence in such a hearing will depend upon a myriad of factors  the circumstances of the case, the credibility of the witness, the credibility of the declarant, the circumstances in which the statement was made, the consistency of the statement with other corroborating evidence, and other factors as well. In this case, the board heard several witnesses whose testimony was based largely on hearsay. This testimony included that of the school superintendent, several peace officers, the school guidance counselor, and a basketball coach/science teacher. The adjudicator found that the board relied too heavily on hearsay testimony, stating that Iowa law requires that such hearsay evidence may not be relied upon, without further support in the record, to establish the truth of the matter asserted. We disagree with the adjudicator's characterization of the evidence. At least two of the students who attended the party testified that they believed Carol Walthart knew the students were drinking alcohol. The hearsay testimony was not the only basis for the board's decision; to the contrary, it was corroborative in nature and supported the students' testimony. Additionally, we believe the hearsay testimony in this case bore sufficient indicia of reliability. First, the statements were made by adolescent teens just days after the tragedy. As David Malausky, the school guidance counselor, testified, My experience has been you get very, very accurate information when kids are vulnerable. All their defense mechanisms are down and they just lay everything out there for you to work with. Second, these statements were often made in private to trusted officials (i.e., the guidance counselor and basketball coach), or to figures of authority (i.e., the superintendent and police officers). Third, the testimony from all of the hearsay witnesses seems consistent  they all recalled that, when asked if Carol Walthart knew of the student drinking, the majority of the students stated that she did. 2. Credibility of witnesses. Walthart challenges the board's findings with respect to witness credibility. The Code provides the starting point for the credibility analysis. In reviewing the board's decision,  especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, the court shall give weight to the fact findings of the board; but shall not be bound by them. Iowa Code § 279.18 (emphasis added); see also id. § 279.17 (providing the same directive to adjudicators). We have said that deference is especially appropriate on the witness-credibility issue because the board is uniquely situated to pass on the credibility of the various witnesses at the hearing. Justmann, 476 N.W.2d at 338; accord Libe v. Bd. of Educ., 350 N.W.2d 748, 750 (Iowa Ct.App.1984) (stating that the board is in the best position to adjudge credibility); cf. Claus v. Whyle, 526 N.W.2d 519, 524 (Iowa 1994) (Factual disputes depending heavily on credibility of witnesses are best resolved by the trial court, which has a better opportunity to evaluate credibility than do we.). The board made specific findings on credibility with respect to each of the witnesses. For the most part, the board found the testimony of witnesses supporting the superintendent's application to be credible  and those who resisted it to lack credibility  and the board gave specific reasons as to each witness with respect to its findings. Here, although some witnesses' testimony conflicted, we conclude that the board's credibility finding is amply supported in the record. D. Merits. Most of the facts are not disputed. On Saturday, September 30, 2000, Carol Walthart's son, Mark, and a number of his friends (all EDCO students) had a campout in a large field owned by Mark's family. The campout began around 2 p.m., but was not in full swing until 7 p.m. There was a fire, music, a tent, and alcohol brought by students. The record shows that neither Carol Walthart nor Dennis knew that alcohol was present at this time. The first time that Carol or Dennis could have acquired knowledge was when they drove down to the campsite at 10 p.m. At that time, they were returning from dinner at a friend's house, and they wanted to check in on Mark and see how the campout was going. They drove their car down to the site and pulled in approximately fifty feet from the campfire. Mark and his friend, Andy Althoff, walked over to the car to meet them. A conversation ensued, although there is some dispute as to its contents. Dennis and Carol then drove back to their house, which is roughly a mile from the site. The disputed facts in this case relate solely to whether Carol Walthart discovered that the students were drinking alcohol on her visits to the campsite that evening. The facts accepted by the board are as follows. When Walthart and her husband first visited the campsite at 10 p.m., they talked with Mark and Andy. Walthart's husband asked the boys, What kind of party is this? To this Andy replied it was a beer party and that drinking was taking place. Dennis and Carol then left. When Carol returned at 10:45 p.m. with food, she proceeded to take all of the car keys from the male students. When asked why, Carol said that she knew students were drinking, and she did not want anyone to get hurt driving around. As this exchange was taking place at the campsite, Andy and Mark returned to the Walthart residence, where Dennis Walthart had remained. Dennis, apparently suspecting that the boys had been drinking, asked, You boys aren't driving down to the campsite, are you? The boys replied that they would not drive and instead would let two girls, who were with them, drive the cars. When the boys returned to the campsite, Carol was just leaving. She asked Andy for his keys, and he gave them to her. This story is supported by the following testimony. Andy Althoff testified that he told Carol and Dennis, on their first trip to the campsite, that the students were drinking alcohol. His testimony is supported by several other witnesses. First, his coach, Dan Cassutt, testified that Andy confided in him just two days after the accident, telling him that the Waltharts knew about the drinking. Second, the superintendent testified that, about a week after the accident, Andy had told him the same thing. The board found Andy's testimony most credible. Another student, Brian Harbaugh, testified that he thought the Waltharts knew of the alcohol consumption. His testimony was supported by the superintendent and Officer Casey Snyder, both of whom interviewed Brian shortly after the incident. The statements Brian made at the hearing are also consistent with the statement he signed after his interview with Officer Snyder. The board found Brian's testimony to be credible. Another student, Carmen Krapfl, testified that, in her opinion, Dennis Walthart knew that Mark and Andy were drunk at some point during the evening because Dennis told the two boys that the girls should drive to the campfire. Carmen believed he made this request because he knew the boys had been drinking. The board found her testimony to be credible. The school guidance counselor also testified. Although he did not divulge names (due to confidentiality), he testified that he had talked extensively with a number of the students who attended the party. He stated that many of those students told him that Walthart knew they were drinking. The board found him credible and gave great weight to his testimony. Walthart's testimony presented quite a different picture. She offered undisputed evidence that she was a nondrinker and that alcohol was rarely present in her household. She claimed that several of the students at the campout had been to her house on other occasions and that alcohol was never a part of those events. She trusted those students and never suspected them of planning a drinking party. Regarding the events of the evening, she stated that she never saw any alcohol, nor was she told that any was present. When she and Dennis drove down to the site the first time, she spoke with Andy and Mark. She was surprised to see that there was no food, and Dennis asked, What kind of party is this without food? The boys said they were hungry. Carol said that she would go back to the house, make some snacks, and bring them back down. On her trip back to the site with the snacks, she saw a truck driving in a neighboring hay field, which contains dangerous, hidden sinkholes. Also, Dennis had just cut the hay a few days before, and she did not want the boys to damage his crop. She decided to take the keys from all of the boys' vehicles so that they could not drive in the field. She did not take the girls' keys because she did not want them to stay overnight, and she assumed they would not be inclined to drive their cars in a field, anyway. At no point did Walthart observe any drinking or unusual behavior from any of the students, according to her. Walthart's version is also supported by other evidence in the record. First, Carol and Dennis's testimony support their version of the facts. Second, Officer Steven Trumblee, the officer who interviewed the Waltharts after the accident, testified that he believed the Waltharts' story. In addition, a few students testified at the hearing that there was no way that Carol could have known about the alcohol. They claim they hid all of the evidence when Carol was present because she never would have approved. Further, these students supported Walthart's claim that she took the keys because of the danger of driving in the nearby field. However, the testimony from the students supporting Walthart's story is suspect for two reasons. First, the three students who were Walthart's strongest advocates were also good friends of her son Mark, having previously spent a lot of time at the Walthart residence. Second, several of these students initially gave statements to police or the superintendent stating that Walthart knew about the drinking, but then recanted those statements at the hearing. For example, Josh Amling (one of Mark's best friends) originally told the superintendent that Walthart took the keys because she knew that students were drinking. At the hearing, however, Josh stated that Walthart did not know about the drinking. Instead, he changed his testimony to fit Walthart's version  that she took the keys because she did not want the students driving in the nearby field. The board found Josh to be defensive throughout the hearing and determined that his testimony was not credible. Another such student is Nick Kirby. Shortly after the accident, he was interviewed by Officer Hermes. During that interview, he signed a statement, which read: Mark's parents didn't supply alcohol as far as I know. I think they knew about the drinking and thats [sic] why they took the keys. At the hearing, Officer Hermes recalled his interview with Nick: Q. Did [Nick] indicate to you whether or not Carol Walthart had knowledge that students were drinking at the party? A. Yes. He did indicate that to me. Q. What did he say? A. He said that he believes that Mrs. Walthart knew that they were drinking at the party and that's why they took the keys away. Q. Did he make a statement to you about alcohol being visible at the party? A. He stated to me at the time, and I think it was the second time Mrs. Walthart came, and that was with the food, that they were sitting around the fire at that time drinking beer, and said that there was beer available  I mean visible at that time. At the hearing, however, Nick's story changed dramatically. He testified that Walthart did not know about the drinking; in fact, he stated, [t]here was no way they could have known. Nick testified that his signed written statement did not accurately reflect what he had told Officer Hermes. He asserted that Officer Hermes told him to write the statement regarding Walthart's knowledge, even though Nick did not actually think it was true. At the end of his testimony, Nick claimed that he only agreed to the statement because he was in a hurry and had things to do that day. The board found Nick's testimony not credible.