Court Opinion

ID: 9505352
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:04:02.141715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:24.512632
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority acknowledges that judicial review of Teacher Tenure Act terminations are among the actions by "an administrative agency" governed by the provisions of our Trial Rule 52(A)(2). But it goes on to conclude that even though we use exactly the same expression in our Trial Rule 28(F), we mean to exclude judicial review of Teacher Tenure Act terminations by "an administrative agency" from its provisions.
I think judicial review of Teacher Tenure Act terminations is covered by the plain language of TR. 28(F) and should be. Judicial review of disputed issues of fact in a teacher termination proceeding is confined to the school board's record; the court does not try the cause de novo or substitute its judgment for that of the school board. Without the opportunity for discovery that TR. 28(F) provides, an accused teacher may not have the opportunity to place his or her side of the story in the record. In my view, T.R. 28(F) exists to assure that; in return for judicial deference to administrative agency factfinding, the parties will have a full and fair opportunity to develop the evidence that the administrative agency will consider. This is especially important where the administrative agency is the school board-which effectively operates as prosecutor, judge, *627and jury in teacher termination proceedings.
I recognize that the teacher here is charged with serious misconduct. But without a full and fair opportunity to develop his evidence, how will the school board-not to mention a court on judicial review-be able to tell whether this is a case of misconduct or a case of a strict but fair teacher falsely accused by a student who has been disciplined?
I would affirm the decision of the trial court.