357 P.3d 1137
Wyo.2015Background
- Barry Scott, activities director for Fremont County School District #1, was arrested for DUI in Oct 2013; he previously had a 2011 DUI and prior discipline.
- Superintendent Bowman proposed termination; Scott requested a hearing under his contract and district rules.
- An independent hearing officer recommended termination after a hearing; she emailed the recommended findings to attorneys and mailed copies to board members on March 20, 2014.
- The Board adopted the hearing officer’s recommendation and entered a decision terminating Scott on April 10, 2014.
- Scott sought judicial review, arguing the Board’s written decision was issued 21 days after receipt of the recommendation and thus untimely under Board rules, depriving the Board of subject matter jurisdiction.
- The district court affirmed; the Supreme Court reviewed whether missing the 20-day rule stripped the Board of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board lost subject matter jurisdiction by issuing its decision more than 20 days after receipt of the hearing officer’s recommended findings | Scott: receipt occurred when the Board’s counsel (who participated in the hearing) received the emailed recommendation on March 20, so the Board’s April 10 decision was 21 days later and untimely, depriving the Board of jurisdiction | Board: counsel for the superintendent was not board counsel for this matter; the Board did not receive mailed copies until at least March 24, so its decision was within 20 days | Held: Missing the 20-day deadline did not divest the Board of subject matter jurisdiction because the rule provides no unequivocal sanction of loss of jurisdiction; remedies are motion for prompt action or judicial review to compel action |
Key Cases Cited
- Amoco Production Co. v. Wyoming State Bd. of Equalization, 7 P.3d 900 (explains subject matter jurisdiction concept for agencies)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Wyoming Dep’t of Revenue, 266 P.3d 944 (jurisdictional questions reviewed de novo)
- JA v. State (In re DSB), 176 P.3d 633 (failure to meet timing deadline did not deprive juvenile court of jurisdiction absent unequivocal statutory language)
- DB v. State of Wyo., Dep’t of Family Services, 860 P.2d 1140 (discusses required legislative clarity before finding loss of jurisdiction for missed deadlines)
- Kemira Fibres Oy v. United States, 61 F.3d 866 (federal line of cases refusing to infer loss of agency power for untimely action absent specified consequence)
- Central States Enterprises, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 780 F.2d 664 (agency’s untimely action does not necessarily strip jurisdiction when statute lacks sanction)
- Stricker v. Frauendienst, 669 P.2d 520 (agency/agency-receipt and agency principles cited by appellant)