Opinion ID: 887772
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: District Policies

Text: ¶ 11 Dupuis argues that the Board's decision to continue using the Chiefs and Maidens mascots, despite the objections of the IEC, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, and numerous Tribal members, violates District Polices 2450 and 4150. District Policy 2450 purports to recognize the distinct and unique cultural heritage of Native Americans and to commit the District to working in cooperation with Montana Tribes in implementing educational goals or adopting rules relating to the education of students in the District. District Policy 4150 requires that Indian children be allowed to participate on an equal basis in programs supported by certain federal funding, and that parents of Indian children be afforded an opportunity to present their views on such programs and activities. ¶ 12 To be appealable to the County Superintendent the policy decision at issue must be governed by a statute that grants an administrative hearing or an interest constitutionally protected by due process must be at stake. . . . When the Legislature intends to provide contested case proceedings it enacts a statute stating that there is a right to a hearing. Roos, ¶ 10, quoting Bland v. Libby School District (1993), OSPI 205-92, 12 Ed. Law 76. A mere disagreement with a school district does not automatically entitle an aggrieved party to a contested case hearing to resolve the disagreement. Roos, ¶ 10. ¶ 13 Even assuming that the District policies apply to the Board's decision on mascots, the policies by themselves do not confer jurisdiction on the County Superintendent to hear Dupuis's claims. The District policies require the Board to work cooperatively with Tribes and to consider input from Tribes and Indian parents. The Board held a public meeting and considered the opinions of the IEC, Tribal authorities, and many Indian parents. Although the Board ultimately did not heed these recommendations, disagreement with a Board's discretionary decision does not automatically give rise to a statutory or constitutional right to a hearing and therefore does not rise to the level of a contested case within the meaning of Rule 10.6.102(1), ARM. Roos, ¶ 10. Similarly, absent a contested case, the District policies do not grant the right to an appeal from an unfavorable decision.