Court Opinion

ID: 9551739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:58:28.673737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:27.908981
License: Public Domain

ROSE, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent because I cannot agree that appellant was granted his rights of procedural due process.
In my opinion, the appellant was not properly notified by the board with respect to the issues concerning which he was expected to defend himself at his termination hearing. In concluding that the notice was adequate, the majority of the court establish a standard that the notice requirements of § 9-4-107(a) and (b), W.S.1977, were satisfied by whatever places a party on “inquiry.” The majority say that once the party has been placed upon “inquiry,” the *541burden then shifts to him or her to ferret out the essence and the details of the charges. The court goes on to say that the appellant here did not satisfy this obligation in this case. For me, the holding flies in the face of past standards established by this court and I am therefore compelled to express my disagreement.
As noted by the majority, the central issue raised by appellant concerned his claim that the board had failed to adequately notify him of the charges upon which it relied in terminating his contract of employment. This issue is not new to this court.
In Glenn v. Board of County Commissioners, Sheridan County, Wyo., 440 P.2d 1 (1968), when confronted with a claim of insufficient notice, we said:
“The important question is whether or not the parties had fair notice of the issues involved.” (Emphasis added.) 440 P.2d at 4.
After posing the question, we held that the failure of the appellants to raise such an issue prior to or at the hearing before the board, precluded further review of their contentions.
We were faced with similar questions in Jergeson v. Board of Trustees of School District No. 7, Wyo., 476 P.2d 481 (1970). There we upheld a notice which had communicated the charges supporting the board’s institution of termination proceedings in a very general sort of way. However, the holding in that case revolved around the failure of appellant to request a more specific or detailed statement from the administration.
Then in Board of Trustees, Laramie County School District No. 1 v. Spiegel, Wyo., 549 P.2d 1161 (1976), we once again turned our attention to a challenge to the notice given to a teacher faced with termination proceedings. In Spiegel, the appel-lee was charged by the notice with employing teaching methods which were in conflict with the “philosophy” of the administration and board. The teacher asked the board to give him a more definite and detailed statement concerning the facts which were known to the board and which supported the charge, and this request was denied. In affirming the district court’s reversal of the board’s action, we held, as a matter of statutory and constitutional law, that the appellee had a right to more detail and the denial of appellant’s motion by the board required reversal. We said:
“The motion should have been granted. The appellee had a statutory and constitutional right to have it granted. For the contestant to have to defend against these vague and indefinite charges was a denial of not only his rights under the statute, but also a constitutional denial of due process.” 549 P.2d at 1171.
Finally, in Powell v. Board of Trustees, Crook County School District No. 1, Wyo., 550 P.2d 1112 (1976), we were faced with a situation where the appellant had been dismissed by the board on charges with respect to which he had received no notification. Before the hearing, appellant had been charged with violating various policies having to do with student discipline. However, after the hearing, the board based its decision on appellant’s inability to control student conduct. In reversing the board’s decision we said:
“In order to satisfy the minimum rights of the appellant he must have had adequate, specific notice of those things with which he was being charged. This is a due-process guarantee which allows him to prepare for his hearing.
“We said in Glenn v. Board of County Commissioners, Sheridan County, Wyo., 440 P.2d 1, 4 (1968)
“ ‘... The important question is whether or not the parties had fair notice of the issues involved ... ’
“Did Powell have fair notice that he could be found guilty of a student-discipline inadequacy (inability to control conduct), concerning which there had been no charges made, even though he were to successfully defend against the charge of failure to follow student-disciplinary policies of the Board? We hold that he did not.
*542“What is ‘fair notice’ under Glenn v. Board of County Commissioners, supra, as applied to this case? If Mr. Powell was going to be required to defend a student-disciplinary charge, it was necessary to specifically inform and notify him as contemplated by § 9-276.25(a) and (b)(4) and § 21.1-160(b), supra. He had a right to believe that the only student-discipline complaint was embraced in the charge of not following the Board’s discipline policy. According to the manner in which the issues were framed, there is no reason to believe he should have guessed that there might be additional dissatisfaction with his student-disciplinary methods over and above and outside the charge that he had failed to follow the District’s student-disciplinary policy.” 550 P.2d at 1117.
It is clear from the decisions that, as a matter of right, the appellant was entitled to specific notice of those things with which he was being charged, and, upon request for a more definite1 statement, the agency was required to communicate to appellant specific information supporting any claimed improprieties. With this standard in mind, I undertake a review of the relevant matters and will express my conclusions as to why I believe appellant was denied due process of law.
I will limit my inquiry to Charge No. 7 which was communicated to appellant on August 29, 1980. This charge stated:
“7. Soliciting and participating in relationships with students in a manner which is violative of generally accepted community standards.”
The reason for limiting inquiry to this charge is because, in dismissing appellant for his conduct on school band trips, the board relied on Charge No. 7 which had been included within the Notice of Reasons for Termination Recommendation and Notice of Hearing. Thus, the board determined that appellant’s alleged improper conduct was violative of “generally accepted community standards.” So the real question, for me, concerns whether or not appellant was given adequate notice by the board to the effect that he would be expected to defend against allegations surrounding his conduct on school band trips under Charge No. 7. I conclude that he was not and that the board’s failure to respond to his demands for a more detailed statement was reversible error under Spiegel and Powell, supra.
As noted previously, appellant was sent the Notice of Termination on August 29, 1980. Included within that notice was Charge No. 7. After receiving the above document, appellant requested that Dr. Slafter clarify and delineate the student-teacher relationships that he had allegedly violated. This request was forwarded on September 15,1980. On that same day, Dr. Slafter sent appellant a response which indicated that the administration had various letters from students, including the earlier one attached to the original notice, which indicated that appellant had solicited and participated in homosexual relationships *543with his students. At this point, on the administration’s own admission, the charge relating to impermissible relationships vio-lative of community standards (Charge No. 7) was narrowed to issues surrounding the alleged homosexual preference of the appellant. No mention or reference was made to any conduct on band trips. Notwithstanding this, on September 18, 1980, appellant once again requested further clarification concerning specific college policies on student-teacher relations which the administration believed he had violated. He received no response to this request.
Up to that time, the appellant had received no specific information concerning alcohol or drug use except for various copies of college regulations regarding the use of alcohol and drugs in college facilities. No specifics regarding appellant’s alleged activities with drugs or alcohol were ever communicated to him even though he made two requests for further clarification. The only specific notice he ever received concerning Charge No. 7 had to do with alleged homosexual relationships with students.
Given these facts, I can reach no other conclusion but that appellant was never given adequate notice of the specific charges which formed the basis of the board’s decision, even though he had made several requests for that information. Under Spiegel, supra, and Powell, supra, the facts clearly required reversal of the board’s decision since appellant’s statutory (§ 9-4-107(b)(iv)) and constitutional due-process rights were violated.
Specification of the issues is one of the basic elements of fair procedure and fairness dictates that a party to a contested case be apprised of the facts beforehand. Schwartz, Administrative Law, § 97, p. 274 (1976). Here, the board and college administration did not act fairly, and even if the evidence, in the final analysis, clearly supported appellant’s firing, the fact that appellant’s rights to due process were violated should not be ignored. In my judgment, the majority opinion disregards our prior case law which is directly in point, solely because of the overwhelming evidence actually supporting the board’s decision. I cannot, however, support their conclusions since I am convinced the procedures utilized to reach that result violated appellant’s minimal rights to due process of law.
For these reasons, I would have reversed.

. As the majority opinion notes, § 9-4-107(a) and (b) provides the standards applicable to giving a party notice in contested cases. That section reads in pertinent part:
“(a) Notice to be given; service of notice.— In any contested case, all parties shall be afforded an opportunity for hearing after reasonable notice served personally or by mail. Where the indispensable and necessary parties are composed of a large class, the notice shall be served upon a reasonable number thereof as representatives of the class or by giving notice by publication in the manner specified by the rules or an order of the agency.
“(b) Statement in notice. — The notice shall include a statement of:
“(i) The time, place and nature of the hearing;
“(ii) The legal authority and jurisdiction under which the hearing is to be held;
“(iii) The particular sections of the statutes and rules involved;
“(iv) A short and plain statement of the matters asserted. If the agency or other party is unable to state the matters in detail at the time the notice is served, the initial notice may be limited to a statement of the issues involved, and thereafter upon application a more definite and detailed statement shall be furnished.”