Court Opinion

ID: 9690737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:39:08.583066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:03.097291
License: Public Domain

Jim Hannah, Chief Justice, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. The School District appeals, arguing that the notice of non-renewal substantially complies with Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-1506(b) (Repl. 1999). I write to express my concern that this court is adding terms to the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. Based on the majority opinion, it is now a requirement that a circuit court “examine a school district’s notice within the context of what actually occurred during the school board hearing.” A hearing is only held if requested by the teacher. Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-1509(a) (Supp. 2001). Further, the board may not consider at the hearing any reasons for nonrenewal other than those set out in the notice. Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-1509(c)(5) (Supp. 2001). How may one refer to a hearing that is confined to what is in the notice to determine whether the notice contained all it should have contained? Further, a transcript of the hearing is not required unless the board decides to make a transcript or the teacher complies with the requirements to request one. Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-1509(c)(4) (Supp. 2001). The practical effect of the majority opinion is to make hearings and transcripts mandatory in every case. The Act simply contains no such requirements. Russell testified that she examined the documents presented by the School District at the hearing, and that she was prepared to defend against all the issues that were raised at the hearing. I question what we or the circuit court could learn from the record when Russell indicates that she had all she needed. Is the circuit court to determine if Russell correctly asserted all defenses that she could assert? Obviously the notice served its purpose because she reviewed documents and was ready for the hearing. I also dissent because the notice substantially complied with the statute. Even a portion of the notice gives a good idea of the problems that caused the School District to decide not to renew Russell’s contract: 1. She was evasive with superiors; 2. She was argumentative with superiors rather than cooperative; and 3. She failed to improve after discussions with superiors about problems, receipt of memos on problems; reprimands, evaluations and individual improvement plans. ; Substantial compliance means there is no omission of essential elements. See, e.g., McKinley v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 311 Ark. 382, 844 S.W.2d 366 (1993). There is specific reference in the notice to memos, reprimands, evaluations, and individual improvement plans that set out the School District’s concerns. One must question what more is needed, unless the School District is required to set out specific dates and specific alleged misconduct on a day-by-day basis. That would be well beyond the requirements oft substantial compliance. In any event, through the memos, reprimands, and individual improvement plans Russell had a good idea of the problems before she ever received the letter giving notice of j non-renewal. This contradicts her representation that she was searching the documents trying to discern why her contract had not been renewed. Reversing this case and remanding it will only increase the work that the circuit court must do to no purpose, prolong this matter, and require this court to take the matter up anew at a future date. This case should be decided on the merits now. Gunter, J., joins.