*1 VI. The Board’s decision to terminate
appellee’s supported by pre- contract was
ponderance of the evidence in the record
when viewed as a whole. Her termination rule,
was violation of
policy or contract. It error
adjudicator and the district court to rule
otherwise. We therefore reverse those rul-
ings and remand to the district court with
directions to reinstate the Board’s decision appellee’s
to terminate contract.
REVERSED AND REMANDED. FAY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF the
NORTH-LINN COMMUNITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 2-64155. Appeals
Court of of Iowa.
Aug. 1980. *2 J., and DON-
Heard C. IELSON, SNELL, CARTER and JOHN- SON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, from dis- Pay, appeals reversing the trict court order appellee Board’s reinstating decision and teaching contract. his decision to terminate 1) decision was that the Board’s He supported by erroneously 2) court that district rather a substantial evidence standard used finding standard in than a contract, 3) that cause to terminate the given court should have more decision, 4), wеight to the to com- the Board’s fact failed that We af- ply statutory requirements. firm. em- grade
Petitioner was a sixth teacher Community Linn ployed by the North 1979, Super- District. On March School writing him in intendent Timmons notified that Timmons would recommend contract Board that recommenda- terminated. This notice and 279.15, The pursuant section given tion following reasons for listed the Code superintendent’s action: (1) with students. Unacceptable rapport (2) ability to motivate stu- Unacceptable dents. rela-
(3) Unacceptable parent/student tions.
(4) teaching methods. Unsuitable (5) Unacceptable self-control. private hearing requested then Petitioner hearing This was held on with the Board. 28-29, March 1979. just cause April 4th the Board found
On contract on the to terminate 1) knowledge of grounds prior he had that terminations, 2) the reasons for Dreher, Wilson, Sayre James L. Ad- reasonable, the ef- reasons were relative to ams, Jensen, Gribble, Sayre Moines, & Des district, 3) operation of the school ficient plaintiff-appellant. conducted, 4) investigation that a fair Dallas, Lynch, adequate presented Scott E. McLeod of evidence was Smith Harman, termination, Iowa, 5) that the Rapids, & Cedar for defend- substantiate his ant-appellee. process his duе proceedings did not’violate fact, parties stipulated been harmed because decision of the rights. up statutory requirements were followed all is: including to and the time of 1. In violation constitutional or statu- private hearing before the Board. provisions; tory or 2. excess of the Exercising prerogative under section his statutory authority the board or the *3 279.17, petitioner Board’s deci- appealed the adjudicator; or 3. In violation of a board 14, who, June adjudicator sion to an on contract; policy rule or or or 4. Made 1979, decision, reversed that found no or 5. upon procedure; unlawful Affected contract, petitioner’s cause to terminate law; by Unsupported other error of or 6. ordered the Board to offer him a contract by prepondеrance competent evi- year. for the 1979-80 school The Board dence in the record made before the and, rejected adjudicator’s pur- decision adjudicator when that rec- board and the 279.18, appealed suant to section whole; as a or 7. Unrea- ord is viewed Court, County Linn which reversed District sonable, or charac- arbitrary capricious or and reinstated the decision or a by terized an abuse discretion terminate Board’s decision to exercise of discre- clearly unwarranted appeal contract. This followed. tion. Scope peti I. of Review. Since adjudi- Here the court reversed the district employed by tioner had been the school decision, disagreeing with the lat- cator’s years, district for more than two he was a the Boаrd’s decision ter’s conclusion that teacher; therefore, nonprobationary the va by supported was not lidity gov of his contract termination is evidence. 279.15-279.18, by erned sections and .not section 279.19. the dis scope The of our review of governed by Board trict court’s decision involving Review of decisions in cases Community of Education of Fort Madison termination of teachers’ contraсts nonre- 677, Youel, v. 282 N.W.2d District School 279.17 governed by newal is- sections (Iowa 1979), the court held 679-80 where 279.17, a According and .18. to section appeal section 279.18 is at that an under may appeal to an teacher a board decision of errors under law for the correction who shall then re forth above. Our seven standards set reverse, modify grant any appro- . . . or grounds; our view is limited to those seven priate relief from the board action if sub- anew the determinations stantial of the teacher have been task is to “make prejudiced because the action is: 1. in section specified court of the district or policy In violation of a board rule or 279.18,” v. Board of Education Smith contract; Unsupported by prepon- or 2. District, Community Fort Madison School competent derаnce of the evidence 221, (Iowa 1980). If our 223 293 N.W.2d when that record made before the board with that of the district conclusion coincides whole; record is viewed as a or 3. Unrea- affirm; not, court, if it does reversal sonable, or charac- arbitrary capricious Briggs v. Board of may be in order. See or a terized an abuse of discretion Dis- Community School Directors Hinton clearly of discre- unwаrranted exercise trict, 740, (Iowa 1979). 743 N.W.2d tion. Preponderance the Evi case, II. adjudicator apparently In this er assignment of preponderant based his decision on a lack of dence. Petitioner’s first support evidence decision. to Board’s court erred in hold ror is that the district essence, the Board’s decision ing, in provided in section Further review is supported by a terminate his cоntract was 279.18, reject party which allows either competent evidence preponderance of the decision and seek review agree with the the record. We may grant in the district court. That court appropriate petitioner’s rights relief if have court. not in record extensive evidence dent was his class. On occasion
The contains petitioner’s teaching аbilities relating Mathre when observed relationships methods, the school admin- and his Mathre in front of petitioner told istration, Most of parents. students and doing were not his class that the students Mathre, information came from assigned also their work. Petitioner asked petition- principal. Mathre evaluated parents’ his class write down year teaching performance once each teacher; er’s thought of him as a Up including to 1979. to and from 1974 pressure a lot of thought place would favorable com- received on the students. Mathre, only problem being ments from results are not Although Basic test Skills an occasional strain in the teacher-student teachers, such to used as evaluate however, problem relationship. thought significant rapport ability His intensified. generally were students’ scores homeroom *4 “unaccepta- students were rated motivate sixth-grade other lower than those of the improvement” He received a “needs ble.” poorer per- this students. He attributed humanism, self-control, rating in tact and poor attitude as a formance to students’ In was public relations. 1979 he deemed class. being petitioner’s result in “unacceptable” categories, in two the latter with Mathre students emotional testified categories rapport as well as the with problems assigned not- or behavioral were ability to He was and motivate students. thought un- petitioner’s class since he was thought in improvement” also to “need his able to handle such students. Mathre also with the cooperation administration. petitioner’s classroom behavior at observed Mathre also testified before Board thought losing seemed to be times and he concerning pe- a number of about incidents control; was too much lectur- his self there titioner both in and of the classroom. out ing, harassing, reprimands. loud and 1978, petitioner his January, told class petitioner did not thought Mathre also that associate student not to with a certain at listen well and he tended to uncom- that sсhool because was a “bad influ- that inability to municative. Petitioner’s devel- upset ence.” The student and became told rapport thought op student was affect petitioner trying to Mathre that was take and his students’ schoolwork level away all his friends. The mother of Mathre concluded his achievement. with peti- petitioner’s students told Mathre thought petitioner appear did yelling gave tioner’s in her the classroom enjoy teaching very much and that his son headaches and her son frequently makeup, temperament, per- emotional and crying came home from school and nervous. sonality teaching. were unsuited to parent daughter Another said his disliked concerning school for the first while in Mathre also at- time testified his daughter very problems. class. A third said was tempts his to deal with nervous and became ill and that he later May spoke peti- Mathre On making concluded school her nervous suggested try petitioner tioner and to han- upset. girl and The father of one testified problems a more dle classroom on individu- help daughter get any that his did not from reprimanding basis stu- alized instead petitioner problem; when she had a she had class. dents in front of the entire A few petitionеr raised her hand told once but her earlier, response parental months com- down, put asking why never she had petitioner judg- he told not to make plaints, raised it. ments about students and not to tell other in the they students who should avoid class. petitioner The evidence showed forced 21,1979, February petition- sent On against building one student the school and reproving er a note the latter’s actions de- in the struck him face with his hand. He forcing concerning scribed above his a stu- of his later told student in front class (petitioner) against building striking struck dent him that he should have student harder and that the he wished stu- in the face. testimony before the Board was ficient problems
Other notice of the and incidents petitioner. alleged. favorable to He testified on his own behalf and his own version of the also Petitioner contends that most of incidents, alleged although he ad- various supporting the evidence action Board’s part. their occurrence for the most mitted Mathre, from large came who related to a parents high regard Three testified to their parents what extent and students had told and stated that either their him, that such unreliable hear enjoyed his or intended children class say testimony should be aсcorded little to enroll their children in his class in the weight. persuaded We are not by this ar future. First, gument. petitioner ignores Mathre’s some admitted of the students testimony based on his own observations of involved in the classroom incidents needed Second, classroom behavior. (one discipline mother even testified her son character of much of Mathre’s probably got what he peti- deserved from testimony is no bar to its consideration tioner), say petitioner’s but he could not provides the Board. 279.16 Section “[t]he disciplinary strict and harsh tactics were board shall not be bound common law or appropriate way most to handle statutory rules of evidence or formal rules such students. procedure, hearing but it shall hold light agree of such such manner as is best suited to ascertain the Board and the district court. When and conserve the substantial *5 whole, preponderance viewed as a the Third, parties.” giv much of the evidence competent evidence in the record made be- subject en in favor could be the adjudicator supports fore Board and the parents’ the same attacks that the testi the decision to terminate con- mony hearsay regarding contained tract. While there certainly is evidence high regard petitioner. children’s Fi teacher, showing pre- his abilities as a the nally, petitioner admitted the occurrence of
ponderance of the entire evidence indicates
incidents,
(if
all)
although
most
not
of the
he has
continuing problems
dealing
had
his own version of what occurred.
students,
with his
their parents and the
making procеss,
In its decision
the
administration,
school
as well as his teach-
weigh
Board must
the
and the
evidence
ing methods and lack of self control. What
credibility
only the
of the witnesses because
Youel,
was said in
referred to its objection no to its consideration prej- the board is the have been tial another state- He dismissed the board. unsupported the is udiced because action father a student’s ment made to competent evidence just ac- “Mathre following in the terms: added) (emphasis and went on ...” frivolous, state- cepted this unsubstantiated the evidence.” “preponderance define incompe- Fay’s ments as evidence [sic] These two references to the teacher, It clear incongruous.” is tence as a clearly test indicate the court’s awareness his own evaluation adjudicator made statutorily-re- of and adherence to the appаr- credibility of the witnesses Thus, no error was committed. quired test. weight, findings no ently gave the Board’s Adjudica Weight IV. Accorded 279.17. contrary to section Petitioner also claims that tor’s Decision. are the numerous disturbing Even more failing give any erred in district court against bias adjudicator’s indications of We decision. weight to) Rep- (if hostility Mathre. outright such error. find no “Perhaps include: resentative comments judicial rеview stat- Initially, we note the responsibilities as Mathre is overloaded 279.18) (section require does not ute Coggon Walker and Principal of both the weight give any particular district court to schools”; Mathre’s in- example of “another Rather, adjudicator. to the decision of the . . adequacy as an administrator “[i]t the court shall re- the statute states record that from the whole appаrent adjudica- the decision of the board or verse much time spent too school administration unsupported by tor when such decision is every parent please the whims of trying to finding necessary preponderance. improving educational and too little time justified by prepon- the Board’s action wholly techniques.” are Such statements derance, necessarily district court found duty аdjudicator’s narrow irrelevant to be contrary decision to the to determine whether in this case unsupported, requiring reversal of that thus petitioner’s contract Board’s termination of properly decision. The court thus *6 of supported by sec- statutory followed its mandate under to indicate a competent evidence and seem tion 279.18. administra- personal grudge against school particular. in Further, general tors in or Mathre the question we whether event, inappropriate any such comments are adjudicator’s decision in this case deserved adjudicator provide who is to an from an First, weight in event. much decisions. impartial review of school board apparent adjudicator the failed to follow statutory authority the in his review of the failing in The district court did not err required by Board’s decision as section 279.- adjudicator’s de- greater weight to the give “In provides: 17. That section also such cision. appeal adjudicator, especially when Findings Adequacy of Board’s V. witnesses, considering credibility the the urges district finally of Fact. Petitioner give weight shall to the fact failing hold the Board’s court error in board, findings of the but shall not be 279.16, be findings fact violated section bound them.” identify spe findings cause the fail to From our review de- of the in mak upon by cific facts relied the Board cision, weight he no conclude We find no violation of that ing is decision. findings. especially ap- the Board’s This is part, in as follows: provides, section which parent in wit- fact, his discussion of the various statutory “Findings of if set forth point seemingly nesses. At one dis- accompanied by a concise language, shall be statement, testimony worthy underlying missed all of Mathre’s as explicit and Youel, 282 findings.” of no consideration since it was and supporting facts level convincing required “unsupported by competent and N.W.2d at discussed above, However, specificity: testimony.” as indicated recently We have recommended that ad- Judge (dissenting). Chief agencies findings ministrative make suf- I given dissent. The reasons fоr termina- ficiently properly present detailed to supported tion were by preponderance not solution, (citation issues and their omit- of the evidence. complaints The were di- ted) We believe this is what the statute Fay’s reprimands rected towards to his stu- . . . intended assure. [§ 279.16] principal thought repri- dents. The these See also Erb v. Iowa Board of Public State loud, mands were too leсturesome and ha- Instruction, (Iowa 216 N.W.2d rassing. parents speculated Three 1974) (administrative findings fact “must children’s dislikes and tensions about school sufficiently reviewing certain to enable a by Fay. opin- were caused Differences of court to ascertain with reasonable certainty discipline ion as to methods legal the factual principle upon basis and equal unaccepta- thе administration do not body acted.”) which the administrative justify ble behavior to Nei- termination. speculative, We are satisfied that ther does second-hand testimo- Board’s fact findings satisfy ny parents. only both section 279.16 and the The valid reason for termination, principles findings namely, physical handling set forth above. The of a student, primarily explanation consist by Fay’s of summaries of the im- was met portant testimony given situation. before the Board. They highlight major areas of concern Fay apprised past complaints was not regarding petitioner’s teaching methods and they when occurred. This notification is
the various incidents in and outside his responsibility principal or admin- classroom. perhaps While these istration, require- notice meet stated, could have succinctly been more we ments, improve but to the teacher’s effec- apprise conclude are peti- sufficient to tiveness. As to the cumulative effect of tioner, adjudicator, court, the district isolated, previously the use of this court of the facts used unreported well termi- incidents could cause support Board to its decision to terminate many nations for fine teachers our state. petitioner’s contract. I would decision vacate district court’s
We find no error in the district court’s reinstate the determination. disposition of this case. The Board’s deci-
sion to terminate contract was
supported by of the com-
petent evidence when viewed as a whole.
We therefore affirm the district court.
AFFIRMED. Judges
All except concur C.
J., who dissents.