Moulthrop v. State Board of Education, AC43781 Appendix

Background

Maria Moulthrop was principal of Hopeville Elementary (Waterbury) through Dec. 2011; spring 2011 Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) scores were anomalously high, prompting an investigation that determined schoolwide cheating occurred.
Multiple lines of evidence supported cheating: much lower September 2011 retest scores, expert statistical and erasure analyses (showing improbable answer changes), and investigator Frederick Dorsey’s interviews giving direct evidence.
The hearing officer (nine-day hearing; 179 findings) found Moulthrop personally involved and responsible: CMTs were kept in her locked office; she attended meetings where teachers received questions/vocabulary drawn from the CMT; she instructed teachers to review test items, give synonyms, and to tell students to “check your work” in ways students understood as prompts to change answers.
The State Board of Education adopted the hearing officer’s proposed decision but revoked both her initial and professional certificates; Moulthrop appealed under the UAPA (§ 4-183).
The trial court applied the UAPA substantial‑evidence standard, concluded the record supported the findings, upheld admission of Dorsey’s report and transcripts, rejected vagueness and penal‑statute challenges to § 10-145b(i)(2), and dismissed the appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether record contains substantial evidence that Moulthrop participated in or was responsible for schoolwide cheating on the 2011 CMT	Moulthrop denies personal involvement and disputes responsibility for the cheating	Board: hearing officer’s direct and circumstantial findings (instructions to teachers, control of test materials, office access, erasure/change evidence) show involvement/responsibility	Held: substantial evidence supports findings of personal participation, knowledge, and principal responsibility; court will not reweigh facts
Whether Dorsey’s investigative report and interview transcripts were improperly admitted and denied right to cross-examination	Admission violated evidentiary and confrontation principles and deprived Moulthrop of ability to cross-examine witnesses	Board: administrative hearings admit hearsay if reliable; investigator testified and was cross-examined; transcripts/recordings provided; plaintiff could subpoena witnesses but did not	Held: admissible in admin. context (reliability); no denial of due process—plaintiff had means to subpoena and had access to transcripts/recordings; objection not properly preserved
Whether Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-145b(i)(2) is penal, vague, or inapplicable to these facts	Statute is penal or impermissibly vague (phrases like “other due and sufficient cause” and “otherwise improperly breached the security”) and fails to guide remedy	Board: statute is civil (administrative), not penal; language reasonably ascertainable (E refers to reasons like A–D); “improperly” requires fault beyond negligence; statute applies to breaches of test security	Held: statute is civil, not unconstitutionally vague, and applies to Moulthrop’s conduct (breach of security; professionally unfit; other due and sufficient cause)
Whether revocation was an unreasonable or arbitrary remedy	Revocation is excessive and statute fails to limit remedies	Board: statute authorizes remedies up to revocation; conduct by a principal fostering schoolwide cheating justifies revocation	Held: revocation was within board’s discretionary range and not unreasonable given findings (breach of faith, loss of confidence, resources expended)

Key Cases Cited

Murphy v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 757 A.2d 561 (Conn. 2000) (standard of judicial review under UAPA; courts defer to agency factual findings)
Dept. of Public Safety v. Freedom of Information Commission, 6 A.3d 763 (Conn. 2010) (deference to agency statutory construction qualified where pure legal questions exist)
South Windsor v. South Windsor Police Union Local 1480, 750 A.2d 465 (Conn. App. 2000) (administrative hearings need not strictly follow judicial evidence rules)
Cassella v. Civil Service Commission, 494 A.2d 909 (Conn. App. 1985) (hearsay admissible in administrative proceedings if reliable)
Bialowas v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 692 A.2d 834 (Conn. App. 1997) (similar principle on admissibility in admin. hearings)
Hanes v. Board of Education, 783 A.2d 1 (Conn. App. 2001) (statutory grounds for certificate discipline not impermissibly vague)
diLeo v. Greenfield, 541 F.2d 949 (2d Cir. 1976) (interpretation of “other” clauses and related statutory construction)
Tucker v. Board of Education, 418 A.2d 933 (Conn. 1979) (administrative authority to discipline educators)
State v. Wilchinski, 700 A.2d 1 (Conn. 1997) (presumption of constitutionality for legislative enactments)