Court Opinion

ID: 9712504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:55:14.612295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:12.633341
License: Public Domain

RATLIFF, Chief Judge,
concurring.
In reviewing the decision of an administrative agency,1 our duty is two-fold. First, we must determine if the agency's findings support its decision, and, if so, our second determination is whether the evidence before the agency supports its find-mgs. In making these determinations, we always must keep in mind that the agency is the trier of fact, and we may not reweigh the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, or substitute our judgment for that of the agency. Holloway v. Madison-Grant United School Corporation (1983), Ind.App., 448 N.E.2d 27; Metropoliton School District of Martinsville v. Mason (1983), Ind.App., 451 N.E.2d 349, trans. denied.
In this case, if the teacher made the offending statement, the board, as the majority opinion holds, was justified in dismissing her. The board heard the evidence and found that in fact the teacher made the statement. Evidence before the board supports that finding. Under such cireum-stances, it was inappropriate for the trial judge to comment upon the weight or ecredi-bility of the evidence, and it is equally inappropriate for us to express any skepticism as to the proof, or to question the wisdom of the board's decision, for such clearly is not our function.
*1143Subject to the one exception which I have noted, I concur in the majority opinion. That opinion squarely adheres to our standard of review and properly applies that standard. The board's findings support its decision, and the evidence supports its findings. We need say no more.

. A school board hearing a charge against a permanent teacher is an administrative body. Scott County School District No. 2 v. Dietrich (1986), Ind.App., 496 N.E.2d 91.