Appeal of School Administrative Unit 44
162 N.H. 79
N.H.2011Background
- McGann served as SAU 44 interim then terminated; hearing held across multiple evenings with witnesses; SAU hired a forensic auditor (Sullivan); McGann requested Sullivan’s file but SAU claimed no file existed; State Board of Education remanded to produce file; Board ultimately held lack of pre-hearing discovery did not violate due process per rule 204.01(b)(4); matter remanded to State Board for proceedings consistent with opinion.
- Notice of grounds for termination given before hearing included specific charges about neglecting time-and-effort requirements and using stipends from federal grants; subsequent adverse findings included additional or altered grounds.
- McGann argued due process protections were violated (pre-hearing discovery, changed grounds, reliance on extra-record facts, failure to cure); Board maintained procedures were adequate and notices sufficient.
- State Board’s discovery ruling: no pre-hearing production of Sullivan’s file required; decision reversed to remand.
- Final holding: due process satisfied overall; pre-hearing discovery not mandated; certain grounds were adequately disclosed; no reversible error from extra-record statements or lack of cure; remand for further proceedings consistent with holding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-hearing discovery of the expert file was required by due process | McGann argues discovery was necessary | SAU contends regulation 204.01(b)(4) only requires witness examination during hearing | No; pre-hearing discovery not required |
| Whether termination based on grounds not stated in notice violated due process | McGann asserts critical grounds were undisclosed or altered | Notice reasonably conveyed charges; no perfect notice required | No due process violation; notice adequate |
| Whether reliance on extra-record facts tainted due process | McGann claims deliberations included unsupported facts | Record shows grounds were supported by record; deliberations insufficiently prejudicial | No violation; no need for cure or notice of such facts |
| Whether there was an opportunity to cure before termination was required | McGann cites Barrows v. Boles as requiring cure | No contractual cure provision; not constitutionally required | No right to cure; no due process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. N.H. Dep't of Safety, 160 N.H. 474 (2010) (agency cannot add requirements by interpretation of a clear rule)
- State v. Veale, 158 N.H. 632 (2009) (balancing test for due process in administrative actions)
- Petition of Grimm, 138 N.H. 42 (1993) (administrative due process distinctions from judicial)
- In re Father, 155 N.H. 93 (2007) (state constitution governs due process substantive standard)
- Town of Bethlehem, 154 N.H. 314 (2006) (two-prong Mathews-style due process analysis)
- Duffley v. N.H. Interschol. Ath. Assoc., 122 N.H. 484 (1982) (due process safeguards in association adjudications)
- Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (government interest in integrity of hearings; protect fairness)