Quigg v. Georgia Professional Standards Commission.
809 S.E.2d 267
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Linda Jean Quigg, former Thomas County superintendent, was investigated by the Georgia Professional Standards Commission (Commission) for three ethics-related matters: a 2009–2010 one-year change to the district’s dual-enrollment reporting policy that benefitted her older daughter; removal of confidential student files from her work computer before leaving office; and a post-retirement transcript change substituting personal fitness credit for marching band on her younger daughter’s record.
- The new superintendent, George Kornegay, initiated review after discovering irregularities and sought Commission assistance; the Commission investigator (John Grant) began investigative activity before a formal written complaint was filed, though a written request and Commission authorization followed.
- The Commission found probable cause and sought a 90-day suspension; an ALJ held a two-day hearing, found violations but reduced the recommended suspension to 60 days; the Commission adopted the ALJ’s findings.
- Quigg sought judicial review in superior court, which affirmed; she appealed to the Court of Appeals following grant of discretionary review.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed (a) whether investigative procedural irregularities and any due-process violations warranted reversal, and (b) sufficiency of evidence for each alleged ethics violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural irregularity in initial investigation (APA grounds) | Quigg: investigator acted before formal written request and Commission approval, so process was unlawful/excess of authority | Commission: any early assistance was cured by later formal written request, authorization, probable-cause finding, and full ALJ hearing | Court: Even if initial steps were improper, Quigg failed to show prejudice to substantial rights; APA reversal not warranted |
| Due process (notice & hearing) | Quigg: investigatory lapse violated her due process rights | Commission: Quigg received detailed Statement of Matters Asserted and a full hearing with cross-examination | Court: Due process satisfied—adequate notice and opportunity to be heard; procedural lapses cured by later proceedings |
| Sufficiency of evidence — Dual-enrollment policy | Quigg: she did not orchestrate the policy change and lacked knowledge | Commission/ALJ: evidence showed she knew of the change, failed to enforce state regulation, and benefited her daughter | Court: Affirmed—evidence supports finding she knew of and permitted the violation; Standards 4 and 10 violations sustained |
| Sufficiency of evidence — Transcript personal-fitness credit | Quigg: after retirement she was not "in the course of professional practice," so Ethics Standard 4 does not apply | Commission: sanctioned under Standard 4 (did not respond to this specific legal point on appeal) | Court: Reversed as to this sanction—uncontroverted evidence showed the transcript alteration occurred after she left office, so Standard 4 inapplicable |
| Sufficiency of evidence — Removal of confidential files | Quigg: removing files did not breach professional standards absent misuse | Commission/ALJ: removal was "irregular/unusual" and inconsistent with professional norms | Court: Affirmed—testimony provided some evidence that removal violated Standard 10 |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowman v. Palmour, 209 Ga. App. 270 (1993) (standard of review: view evidence most favorably to agency)
- Ga. Public Svc. Comm. v. Southern Bell, 254 Ga. 244 (1985) (agency is factfinder and assesses credibility)
- Pryor Organization v. Stewart, 274 Ga. 487 (2001) (initial procedural violation may be cured by subsequent remedial procedures)
- Gee v. Professional Practices Comm., 268 Ga. 491 (1997) (suspension of professional license requires due process notice and hearing)
- Hall v. Nelson, 282 Ga. 441 (2007) (local superintendent must comply with state law in duties)
- Welker v. Ga. Dept. of Examiners of Psychologists, 340 Ga. App. 853 (2017) (courts examine agency conclusions of law drawn from factual findings)