Court Opinion

ID: 9711796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:39:31.638538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:07.547995
License: Public Domain

Connolly, J.,
dissenting.
I join the part of the majority opinion that holds that the term “misconduct” is not unconstitutionally vague. But I dissent because I believe Maxon’s carelessness in handling the surcharge amounted to misconduct. The majority opinion concludes that the term “misconduct” in the context of an employment relationship includes ‘“negligence which manifests culpability’.” This definition is well established within our unemployment benefits jurisprudence.
Negligence is commonly understood as the “failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation,”1 and culpability means “[bjlameworthiness.”2 Thus, I interpret “negligence which *658manifests culpability” as an ordinary negligence standard with a showing of blameworthiness. The majority opinion, however, asserts that “negligence which manifests culpability” is equivalent to “culpable negligence,” a term of art with a distinct legal definition. But in assuming that these terms are the same, I believe the majority opinion fails to give proper meaning to the selected words.
In construing a statute, words are to be given their ordinary and common meaning, unless they have acquired a technical or special legal meaning, or a different meaning is apparent from the context of the words.3 I believe the same principle applies when considering language, as developed by case law. It seems to me one would not understand the term “negligence which manifests culpability” (or blameworthiness) to require “‘more than negligence’ ” or conduct which is “ ‘ “more than ‘blameworthy,””” as the majority opinion holds. And the context of this phrase does not suggest that such a meaning is more appropriate than its common meaning. Because we have not used the term “culpable negligence” in defining misconduct, I believe that its technical and legal definition is inapplicable here.
In reviewing the decision of an administrative tribunal on a petition in error, both the district court and the appellate court review the decision of the tribunal to determine whether it acted within its jurisdiction and whether the decision of the tribunal is supported by sufficient relevant evidence.4 The evidence is sufficient, as a matter of law, if an administrative tribunal could reasonably find the facts as it did from the testimony and exhibits contained in the record before it.5 Stated another way, the evidence is “sufficient as a matter of law” if a judge could not, were the trial to a jury, direct a verdict.6 It is something less *659than the weight of the evidence and can be such as to permit the drawing of two inconsistent conclusions.7
The record shows that Maxon, the emergency management director for the City of Grand Island and Hall County, and a committee of the Hall County Board of Supervisors (County Board) recommended increasing the 911 surcharge from $.50 to $1 per access line per month at a County Board meeting on July 11, 2000. The County Board voted to table the recommendation because it needed more information. The County Board did not address the 911 surcharge again until November 13, 2001.
Maxon testified that he worked on the recommendation during 2001. Springer, the treasurer and finance director of the City of Grand Island, testified that he asked Maxon several times that year if everything was “on track” for the surcharge to be increased starting on January 1, 2002. Maxon assured him that it was and also assured him that he would notify Qwest Communications, Inc., the main service supplier, of the change. But Maxon testified he discovered, “at the last minute,” in 2001 that state law required notice to the telephone companies before a surcharge could be changed. The record, however, contains a letter from Qwest Communications, Inc., dated September 2000 that provided information that such notice was required.
Because the telephone companies did not receive proper notice, the 911 surcharge could not be put into effect for 2002 and was delayed until 2003. City officials estimated that Maxon’s department lost $100,000 to $180,000 in revenue because of the delay. Maxon claims that he was not responsible for the failure to implement the 911 surcharge increase by 2002 because he “did everything [he] could to facilitate that process.” Instead, he places the blame on the County Board for tabling the recommendation. But the testimony from city officials shows that Maxon was in charge of implementing the 911 surcharge. When asked why Maxon would be responsible for the delay and revenue loss, Springer testified, “[H]e was the director of the department. . . and he has the responsibility for that department for the revenues. He budgeted the revenue and he should *660have been following up on it.” And, as stated above, Maxon had assured Springer that he was on track.
Under our standard of review, I believe that sufficient evidence supports the city council’s decision to terminate Maxon’s employment because of his mishandling of the 911 surcharge implementation. Maxon was in charge of the 911 surcharge, and he repeatedly assured city officials that he would have it done in time to be implemented in 2002. Nearly VA years passed between the first time the surcharge was presented to the County Board and the next time it appeared on the County Board’s agenda. Yet, in all that time, Maxon neglected the notice requirements for the public hearing. And while he argues he was not at fault for the County Board’s delay, the evidence suggests otherwise.
Despite Maxon’s excuses, there was sufficient evidence to support that Maxon was negligent in implementing the 911 surcharge and that his negligence caused the city to lose significant revenue. I believe these facts fit the definition of misconduct as “negligence which manifests culpability.” Thus, I would affirm.
Wright, J., joins in this dissent.

 Black’s Law Dictionary 1061 (8th ed. 2004).

 Id. at 406.

 See 73 Am. Jur. 2d Statutes §§ 124 and 152 (2001). See, also, e.g., State v. County of Lancaster, 272 Neb. 376, 721 N.W.2d 644 (2006).

 Barnett v. City of Scottsbluff, 268 Neb. 555, 684 N.W.2d 553 (2004).

 Id.

 See Eshom v. Board of Ed. of Sch. Dist. No. 54, 219 Neb. 467, 471, 364 N.W.2d 7, 11 (1985).

 See id.