Jon Tom Staton v. James K. Mayes

HOLLOWAY, Before BARRETT and DOYLE, Judges. Circuit HOLLOWAY, Judge. Circuit rights challenges This suit civil dis- Staton, Dr. plaintiff, superin- missal Independent tendent of School District No. Muskogee County, Oklahoma, 20 of which is Mayes, Defendants meeting, proposed named defendant. board voted a dis- were three Moore members of plaintiff. Wade and missal of A letter was sent to Dr. board who the dis- caused next day the five-member Staton the him notifying February, following hear- proposed missal in dismissal on of willful grounds of willful duty and incompetence, and of a In April, 1973;this suit incompetence. scheduled February 19.1 alleging denial of brought was appeared Dr. Staton at the hearing with reinstatement, seeking expungement of and and 12 counsel witnesses. After the first action, damages and other re- the board’s by called support witness the board to the evidentiary the hearing lief. After an trial sworn, was charges began but before he to the rejected court constitutional claims and testify, plaintiffs attorney objected action, dismissed the and this appeal fol- of any testimony, introduction challenging lowed. proceedings grounds.2 the on several The dismissal, For some time the de- objections heard the board but went for- had against Moore voted renewing fendant the hearing, ward with which Dr. Staton plaintiff’s contract. Defendant Wade had had transcribed.3 not However, also voted once to renew. hearing was on conducted the eve- they plaintiff were outvoted and had been February nings of February and 20. On superintendent. continued as Shortly be- session, third 22 at a defendants Mayes, fore a school election January, and Wade voted Moore to dismiss Dr. Sta- majority a board voted for a renewal suspension ton effective March with of again plaintiff and a contract with extend- authority to until all his continue that date. to June approved. was Board member Matthews voted not to dis- In his election campaign plaintiff defendant and Mrs. miss Chandler was ab- Mayes would change stated he vote for a board’s sent. The action was reflected aas superintendent. He was elected and then minutes.4 part of its There were no further 5, 1973, took office February on or oral when written statements of findings on organized. board met and At same the dismissal. objected (1) The letter stated: counsel 2. Plaintiff’s that: the su- perintendent prior to dismissed the hear- February 6, 1973 contrary statutes; (2) ing, to the Oklahoma Muskogee, Oklahoma brought charges; to failed state who notice Dr. Jon Tom Staton the acts (3) charges what failed to state Broadway 4301 West incompetence or willful ne- alleged constituting Muskogee, Oklahoma were, duty committed, glect failing or of when Dear Dr. Staton: necessary defense; apprise (4) of matters Muskogee 1-20 School Board of District (one present board was not all the member was you Superintendent as of has voted to dismiss (5) absent); process; there of denial Schools for said District. jurisdiction (6) exceeding board was its of the Please be advised this is a notice hearing, having hold a served the teacher charges proposed and that dismissal charges of with a statement or identification duty neglect you against willful and are of accusers; (7) the board was of biased and by brought incompetency. These are procedure challenge no there was that bias. Board. this School be advised Please further that a record, transcript part 3. The of our Plaintiffs proposed dismissal shall be held 17, now R. IV. Ex. Center, Street, Education North 6th Mus- 19, 1973, February kogee, at 7:30 Oklahoma (R. Ill, 203): 4. The minutes stated P.M. you advised that are enti- Please be further of Dr. Jon Tom Staton 3. Dismissal by represented by Mayes present and counsel tled to be IT WAS MOVED Mr. and second- by Wade THAT JON at said ed Mr. DR. TOM STA- very truly, DISMISSED, Yours BE HIS DISMISSAL TON TO (signed) BE EFFECTIVE MARCH THE MIKE MOORE FIRST TWO WEEKS IN MARCH TO BE Muskogee of THE President USUAL CONSIDERED VACATION Board, District 1-20 THAT THE SUSPENSION ALL School AND OF RE- (Brief remaining of grounds alleged Appellant, 15). several

Although And he asserts that he deprivation had a rights of complaint, liberty the civil the basis and property stigma being issues, brand- trial was confined two ade- court incompetent guilty ed neglect willful notice quacy alleged of duty. board. The trial bias court’s memo- opinion against found plaintiff randum agree We must with both content grounds appeal and dismissed. On both ions.5 Plaintiff legitimate had a claim of arguments, principal makes these position entitlement derived from his claiming process: denial of procedural due Regents Roth, contracts. Board of (1) gave specifics the notice no acts 33 L.Ed.2d 548. Moreover, or deficiencies considered to to will- this proposed amount was a dismissal of ful duty incompetence, professional nor officer body for witnesses; willful (2) incompetence. of the adverse (cid:127) charges publicly These were made causing majority the dismissal had might seriously damage plaintiff’s standing or private made statements commit- and associations in his community and af plaintiff, a against showing ments biased good reputation.6 fect his name and See id. argues tribunal. Plaintiff that the adverse 2701; 573, at 92 Wellner v. Minnesota testimony no incompetence established or College Board, Junior 153, State 487 F.2d duty willful of it that dealt (8th Cir.); 155-56 Huntley v. Community only vague such with terms as “disharmo- Brooklyn, School Board of 543 F.2d 985 ny.” says any “disharmony” He that was (2d Cir.). Dismissal grounds on such would only integration system, reaction to an a likely have serious effect on his ability to program teacher evaluation and an annexa- advantage take of other employment,7 see all plan, tion of which the board had or- Powers v. Mancos District, School 539 F.2d implement. dered Dr. Staton to Plaintiff (10th Cir.), 43 being there pri no mere argues also findings by there were no vate grounds communication of the for dis hearing board after its adequate and no charge Bishop Wood, as in 426 U.S. by the court findings trial issues 347-348, 2074, 2079, 96 S.Ct. 48 L.Ed.2d 684. (Brief 15-16, Appellant, before it. of We are procedural convinced that the due 30, 37). process guarantee applied to insure the plaintiff fundamentally fair procedures in right procedural due process with connection these proceedings concern- predicate proposed discharge. his procedural As the for claim, plaintiff argues process he had that Adequacy of the notice property by interest virtue of his contracts been renewed to that had extend to June argues Plaintiff the mere notice of $25,000 30,1974, year, per years at with charges incompetence of and willful neglect l6/i2 SPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY CON- ings, with numerous witnesses to testi- present UNTIL TINUE SUCH DATE. meeting And the fy. where February Wade, Vote: Moore. No— Mayes, Yes — made decision was to dismiss was plaintiff also The motion was Matthews. declared carried attended of by representatives news media a three to one vote. (see guests 203). Minutes, R. Ill, Thus the argu- We do understand the defendants’ circumstances were unlike the commu- private ments deny “property” “liberty” reasons nication of for dismissal Bishop interests involved. U.S. Wood, 341, 347-348, 96 S.Ct. 2074, 2079, 48 L.Ed.2d 684. meeting 6. The where it was decided February should be notice dismissal proposed given 7. There was uncontradicted willful of expert testimony incompe- regular meeting to the was attended at trial as adverse effect on a tency repre- school media sentatives the news and a room full of of a dismissal official’s career based such guests (see hearings Ill, R. Minutes, 87-91). (R. I, 19 and 20 were also meet- February open specificity duty, mailing without as to acts or the notice and the itself. alleged, and without naming Not until the first witness at the hearing deficiencies witnesses, any objection amounted to a denial was called was made to adverse ade- (Brief 15, 28). quacy of the notice. process Appellant, objects Plaintiff to the trial court’s rea- minimum, At a the Due Process soning, citing Dunham v. Crosby, 435 F.2d Fourteenth Amendment re Clause (1st Cir.), reject which did a similar and an opportunity notice for hear quired argument request on lack of for a to the nature ing appropriate of the case The First Circuit held there that a teacher deprivation the liberty proper asserting from not barred a due plaintiff ty interests which have been hearing by claim of lack of a failure to Roth, supra, identified. See request We disagree- have no 2701; 576 n. 92 S.Ct. v. Lopez, Goss reasoning applied. ment with the there 565, 579, 581, 419 U.S. 725. These requirements L.Ed.2d basic here, however, We feel that since must be determined with consideration of given some notice both the nature of state function in reasonable time ahead of the scheduled private volved as well as of the interests objection hearing, an to the sufficiency of governmental affected action. Cafe not made the notice until commencement of and Restaurant McElroy, teria Workers v. fact, came too late. since his 367 U.S. 81 S.Ct. 6 L.Ed.2d objection counsel made the quite fully and possible 1230. And in connection with judi formally the testimony started, with no this, in interposition cial cases like we must request continuance, for a it is difficult for be mindful of the commitment in our Na to argue against ruling a of a public education to the tion of control of knowing waiver. Particulars of asserted and local Lopez, state authorities. Goss v. grounds for dismissal have been furnished 578, supra, 418 U.S. at cases, g., in similar e. Simard v. Board of Education of Groton, Town of 988, 473 F.2d rejected trial court argument (2d Cir.); 991 n.5 Blunt v. notice, Marion adequate pointing County lack of to the use Board, 951, School 515 F.2d (5th Cir.), the statutory in the letter of terms of and in the circumstances dismissal, us, we plaintiff’s for to the feel grounds fail- that the belated claim of particulars insufficiency a of ure to ask for bill or a of more notice does not notice, demonstrate a denial plaintiff’s and to of apparent definite process. due Cf. Grimes v. Nottoway of what was Coun realization involved as shown Board, ty School 462 F.2d (4th Cir.). preparedness his to meet the charges at Moreover, persuasive there is no showing impeded defense was by lack of that the charges It is true incompeten- of further details. Simard v. Board of Educa willful cy duty grounds of were Groton, tion of Town of supra at 994. provided in 70 of 6-103.8 O.S.A. § sum, In we cannot sustain the this, claim that agree However we cannot with- there was a defective notice which more, amount- meaningful out shows notice of what process. a ed to denial due must be prepared one to meet. We do agree any objection that the lack of The claim of a biased tribunal notice letter and the absence any request for more definite statement Plaintiff’s most substantial claim of deni- significant. charges are There was a rea- procedural al of is that time interval days sonable of 13 between was a board biased point tribunal. The pendent dismissal, 8. While no claim of failure to meet before a See Lovelace v. asserted, requirements notice State we note Ingram, (Okl.). course, 518 P.2d 1102 Of the Oklahoma Court has enforced a state requirements, addition to state federal due statutory requirement containing of notice process minimum standards must be observed. legal statement of causes related to a cause for background Association, of the ville Education requires examination U.S. system of and of the school administration 49 L.Ed.2d 1. involved. There is an obvious interest of the State particular procedure in the provided for re- body is an elective under Okla- board of school personnel. moval As the trial law. 70 5-107A. At homa O.S.A. § observed, court there is system of admin- dispute arose the board was the time this istration an elective board governs which empowered dismiss a only body superin- the affairs of the school district and em- willful or in- tendent for ploys superintendents and dismisses these competency.9 involving cases teachers. And as the Hortonville case, removal, grounds the board’s decision for the hearing when was held the board was was final. 70 6-103.10 O.S.A. § only body empowered to employ and provision hearing by No was made an dismiss. In such a case we have said that disqualification tribunal or for alternative disqualification necessity, out of will not be challenge of board members on a of bias permitted destroy only tribunal with prejudice. power act. Brinkley See v. Hassig, 83 At opening (10th Cir.). Staton, of Dr. several proposed dismissal hand, theOn other an individual like the objections proceeding going forward plaintiff has a profound interest in the fair- objection One was “to the bias made. ness of the hearing tribunal whose decision challenge procedure and no may jeopardize property his interest in his constituting deprivation that bias position and liberty interest of standing IV, (R. process.” reputation profession. in his See Board Roth, Regents v. start with a fundamental con We 92 S.Ct. 33 L.Ed.2d 548. In connec- principle: stitutional “A fair trial in a fair tion with the fairness appearance and the requirement proc tribunal is a basic of due board, of fairness of the we weigh must requires ess. Fairness of course absence these circumstances: of actual in the trial of In Re bias cases.” 623, Murchison, During U.S. 75 349 S.Ct. the month before the hearing, 942; 625, Goldberg also Mayes public 99 L.Ed. see v. defendant made statements in 254, 1011, 271, Kelly, campaign 397 90 25 U.S. S.Ct. for election to his the board con- 287; McGrath, Wong Sung v. Yang cerning L.Ed.2d Dr. Staton. newspaper advertis- 45-46, 50, 33, 445, Mayes 339 70 94 L.Ed. ing U.S. S.Ct. stated that defendants Moore however, process 616. Due itself is a term publicly and Wade had said that no “negates any concept pro that inflexible progress could be made with prob- school universally applicable every cedures to im until there was a superintendent, lems new he, aginable v. Mayes, situation.” Cafeteria Workers pledged that to seek a new 895, 886, 1743, McElroy, 367 81 top U.S. level schools, administration for the 6 L.Ed.2d 1230. In recent similar that from discussions with parents, teachers Supreme ease the Court stated that and citizens it had become apparent to him “[determining process what is due in a lay that the with superintend- trouble the setting given requires ent, the Court take that and he would vote to make the (See into the individual’s stake the necessary change. account in Plaintiff’s Exhibits decision at issue as well the inter appendix State’s 13 and 14 in the opin- this particular procedure in for making ion). Mayes trial, est it.” however, testified at that Hortonville Joint School District v. Horton not committed he had himself before hear- discussing disposition, procedures 9. As noted our this 10. 70 O.S.A. § 6-103 affords for the procedure changed appel- now and certain removal teachers. However 70 O.S.A. 1- § § may provides late now make the final on bodies decision that the definition aof “teacher” superintendents generally pur- removal after includes for poses of the Oklahoma school code. Hortonville, dis- supra, own plaintiff’s vote for circumstances. evidence the be based 492-493, had to the decision at 2314. Nor felt at and U.S. missal I, (R. 98- at the evidence a case of the simply instigation the on this moved for Mayes who It was a statement during and of them carrying by the votes dismissal, the motion investigatory phase by body that will (See note and Wade. Moore Mayes, charges. merits of decide the E. later supra). Larkin, 35, 52-55, v. Withrow g., U.S. 712; 43 L.Ed.2d at trial see Ken- testified 95 S.Ct. and defendants The other F.T.C., to the evidence he listened Copper Corp. said 467 F.2d Moore necott also. to be required proof hearing Cir.). (10th at 79-80 the evidence his decision and based there this Instead case involves statements on go- hearing. He admitted at the heard he by those who must make factual merits member, Mrs. with a board visit ing to on contested fact issues of determinations Chandler, possibility there was a saying incompetence and willful alleged leaving they and if could would be plaintiff finding where the fact is critical. duty, disrupt and not on the board together “be Schools, Finishing Career and Cinderella have board, we could continue to where F.T.C., U.S.App.D.C. Inc. children, all it would be best for school hearing 590-92. The involved the 102-03). (Id. at us.” of an erroneous and unfair factu- possibility that he based Wade testified Defendant Hortonville, which was absent in al decision prin- disruption between decision See, facts were where the basic admitted. community teachers and cipal, the at at 96 S.Ct. 2315. And the prime was the cause after plaintiff felt concerned ruling here factual decisions evidence, based his heard all the had he incompetence alleged and willful said he had not been on that. He decision hotly which both contest- —-issues plaintiff to terminate committed effect liberty of critical on the ed and saying the evidence. He admitted hearing plaintiff.11 interests of property 1972, after in late another Mrs. Chandler City, that Dr. Staton Oklahoma of the reference in the We are mindful (Id. 106-07). at got go.” “has testimony by opinion trial court’s they voted to dismiss each defendant The firm statements before presented on the evidence at based plaintiff hearing by Mayes defendant for the hearing, and that had Staton, and the of Dr. discussions that he was denied proce failed to establish Moore and Wade as admit by defendants process. While defendants dural ted, meeting reveal a tribunal not the de they required proof testified for a with of due mands hearing and decided on the basis of the appearance the of fairness. and fairness the evidence is uncontradicted on the proof, Schools, Finishing and Career Cinderella making public by of several statements de F.T.C., 152, 425 U.S.App.D.C. v. 138 Inc. Mayes plaintiff, for the of fendant 590-92; Texaco, F.T.C., 583, Inc. v. 118 F.2d by Moore and of unfavorable discussions 754, 366, 336 F.2d 759-60. U.S.App.D.C. as well. We are and Wade convinced that policy mere statements on a were not These circumstances left established no dispute, leaving the the these related to issue determination that there was a capable partic for a judging maker of a room decision tribunal, appear with the fairly by on the basis of its a fair controversy decision ular infirmity Due the we find in the board’s statement in the trial We have noted the 11. case, in the we need not decide wheth- opinion decision the record of memorandum that court’s supports the board action. It er the record hearing reveals evidence of short- board the note that the record shows no ad- suffices to comings plaintiff could amount of the which concerning set facts as were mitted of incompetence in of and a willful proof presented present in Hortonville. judgment the board. and discretion of problems. fact serious

915 ever, fairness, totality legislature in view of the of the Oklahoma has pro- anee now appeal Cinderella circumstances. Career and vided remedies after these a board deci- sion, Schools, F.T.C., Inc. v. with a full 138 Finishing U.S. and review on the 583, 152, by the (due 590-92 facts Professional App.D.C. 425 Practices Commis- appeal sion and further prior afforded in view of a not process State Board of Education. See by one 70 commission mem 6- O.S.Supp.1975, statement § 12 Murchison, 103. Thus means are now 133, In Re ber); see 349 U.S. available for an 942; solution 623, Texaco, equitable protecting 139, L.Ed. the right 75 99 Inc. to a S.Ct. fair F.T.C., U.S.App.D.C. 366, 118 336 F.2d v. 759-60;

754, Perlman v. Jun Shasta Joint disposition After our which will require Trustees, College District Board of 9 ior prior aside the setting decision, board if the 873, 563, Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. (3d 88 570 should determine that board it should pro- Dist.); Goldberg Kelly, and see v. 397 U.S. procedures against ceed with removal 1011, 25 90 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 287. On plaintiff, and a new removal decision as a whole we are left with the record entered, appeal remedies can be used this board firm conviction that decision can for a full review on the facts decision stand and that mistake was made in not tribunals, challenge other if a is made to denying process the due ruling claim. fairness tribunal and the new Corp. Hazeltine, 100,123, v. 395 Zenith U.S. decision. Cf. Gonzales v. Automatic Em- 1562, 23 89 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 90, Union, 101, Credit ployees 95 U.S. 289, 249; L.Ed.2d v. City Wilson say do that such We not statements Lavaca, 352, Port U.S. campaign an election or between mem in L.Ed.2d 636. We feel disposition this prop- improper. However, unlawful or were bers necessary er and to respect the constitution- principle is bent process a due too far when guarantee al fair persons are then called on to sit as such fact affecting to make a decision finders disposition Conclusion and liberty interests and property interests of standing profes reputation Only in his requires one’s one issue further dis Roth, of Regents Board sion. See 408 cussion. This is the by plaintiff claim that 92 S.Ct. 33 L.Ed.2d 548. U.S. the failure of the findings board make guarantee constitutional an When after amounted ato denial of hearing is impartial (Brief and fair invoked at process of Appellant, While stage, urged considerations the issue was not in court, the trial it Murchison, In Re prevail. may importance must See be proceed further ings 75 S.Ct. L.Ed. 942. it has due process implications justifying our consideration on the merits. We are also mindful of the fact Williams, Gomes 420 F.2d disqualification or alternate tribunal Cir.). (10th provided time hearing. We realize both board After the hearing, the board’s prob the trial court faced this was resolved decision minute that the rule necessity lem. There was also merely plaintiff’s noted removal on motion consider, applied a rule some circum Mayes, with defendant defendants permit proceed, tribunals to de Mayes, voting stances to Wade and Moore for remov problems. disqualification 4). Assuming Brink Ex. spite (Plaintiff’s See al. that such ley imply finding did supra, 357. How- action that the Hassig, undisputed proof by of earlier 12. There was state- and Wade in the record of Board by testimony members that Dr. Staton ments three Board (See of a former Board member. In should be removed. addition de- Hearing Transcript, p. which was made Mayes pub- his reference to earlier fendant plaintiffs Ex. and defendants’ Ex. The by defendants Moore and Wade lic statements proof by of these statements the three Board (see proof Appendix), there was of such state- disputed. members was during campaigns defendants Moore ments ary general charges pertinent on the of incom- part was based the state- ment read: willful in the petence and removal, proposed such conclu- notice of MIKE MOORE and MOODY WADE: were not sufficient to sustain sory terms only members of the present school process principles. action under with children in school have stated opinion progress full that no publicly there need be no or even While can be made problems with our school findings of fact and conclusions of until get formal we superintendent. new law, maker should state the the decision for the determination and the evi- reasons JIM MAYES: dentiary Goldberg basis relied on. See The candidate with a school, child in is Kelly, 397 U.S. pledged top to seek a new level adminis- 287; Kinsella v. L.Ed.2d Board of Educa- tration for our schools. With 2 members tion, F.Supp. (W.D.N.Y.). Such a member board who already of 5 feel the rudimentary statements of reasons are a way, superintendent a new same is now safeguard against a decision on parte ex possible. agree We must

evidence. that those funda- Plaintiff’s exhibit 13 is a campaign state- lacking here, mental elements and this Mayes ment of defendant appearing in a compounded difficulty of the has case. Muskogee newspaper on January statement of reasons A and fair indication part: which stated evidentiary basis relied on should be only thing you as a Muskogee citizen given in such a decision. can do now is to vote for the one candi- earlier, For reasons stated under Four- date for the board of education who process principles teenth Amendment due get pledges sound curriculum for the we must hold that the adverse determina- teachers, students get and to rid of charges against tion on the Dr. Staton an unsound administration for Muskogee. Accordingly, we judg- invalid. vacate the Plaintiff’s exhibit 14 was a campaign ment of the trial court and remand with Mayes statement defendant appearing on directions that the former determination January 1973 in a Muskogee newspaper, charges be declared that it invalid and part: which stated in expunged. should be FROM DISCUSSIONS WITH PAR- may The Board of the defendant District ENTS, TEACHERS, AND CONCERNED consider, wishes, then if it making a new CITIZENS THE DURING COURSE OF finding on the to determine wheth- THE CAMPAIGN IT HAS BECOME er the earlier removal on them proper. APPARENT TO ME THAT THE TROU- If a new decision on the charges is entered BLE WITHIN THE MUSKOGEE challenges made, the Board and to it are SYSTEM WITH SCHOOL LIES THE disposition by the court trial will be with- PRESENT SUPERINTENDENT AND permit completion any held ap- State THAT PROGRESS FOR EDUCATION peal proceedings. or review On IMPOSSIBLE A conclusion IS UNLESS CHANGE proceedings, IF of such trial MADE. ELECTED I WILL may court IS VOTE then consider whether MAKE THE equitable further TO NECESSARY compensatory may relief CHANGE. proper.13 be SIGNED

APPENDIX MAYES, K. JR. JAMES 12 is a copy Plaintiff’s exhibit of a cam- BARRETT, Judge, dissenting: Circuit paign Mayes ap- statement defendant pearing Muskogee newspaper in a on Janu- respectfully I dissent.

13. We have noted that the contracts between be held the administrative boards to deter- expired ruling against the board and the hence a reinstatement order would be have mine whether plaintiff earlier inappro- proper, may the trial court con- any priate. hearings may After appropriate. further which sider whether other relief is

917 the opinion recognizes validity taxing that at majority The of judges income hearing time the was held before the the heard in there was no appellate other board, available; member school Oklahoma law five tribunal Federal Trade Commis- provision proceeding no for a dismissal Institute, had sion v. Cement 333 U.S. or body other tribunal. (1948); L.Ed. 1010 Loughran v. Brinkley Hassig, (10th 83 F.2d 351 Cir. Commission, Federal Trade 1936) recognized the adopted we and so- (8th 1944); ex Cir. State rel. City Burns v. “rule We necessity.” there said: called 144 Mont. Livingston, 395 P.2d 971 (1964). of the board

some [members] such doubt- expressed prejudice, and had majority opinion cites to the recent . prejudiced. all in fact less Hortonville decision rendered the Su- very necessity the case has From the preme Court, Significantly, Court. the in disqualification the rule that will grown while not reversing, directly the discussing destroy only permitted be the tri- not Supreme Wisconsin Court’s decision to power premises. with in the . bunal remedy involving a alleged “fashion” bias Findings of administrative tribunals prejudice part on the and of school board cannot be overturned hearing in involving members a dismissal of long as it is reached from a [the result] teachers, nevertheless did lend any not com- pro- of substantial evidence consideration support fort or to the Court’s order that . (Empha- at the . . duced any teacher dissatisfied with the board’s supplied.) sis could decision obtain a de novo F.2d, pp. at 356-358. county before a court on all issues. The apply Supreme impliedly would the rule laid down in Court I rebuked the Wis- Brinkley in case “fashioning” remedy the before us. We noted in consin court for the Brinkley by stating (a) that such administrative tribunals referred that a decision- FTC, the ICC and state maker not disqualified as the Public Ser- is because has he investigate, Commissions file com- taken a position policy vice issue related to (and, submit, hearings conduct I plaints, dispute the manner of superintendent decide performance the ultimate issues in a school preferred controversy. policy We issue prejudice per did not find does involve insofar as board which, my concerned) (b) judgment, in is effect are se of members that state majority opinion government policy-making in law vests or case. Such this exclusively board; in prejudice and has function the school bias been determined not- withstanding guard against courts must challenged the three the federal alter- members, Mayes, Wade, statutory powers state Moore of a created process. before the district a matter of federal due testified court that their board as campaign statements and material 6-103, readily agree I that 70 O.S.A. § Superintendent critical Staton aimed at amendments, prior to the under which system the school from did not case, proceeded in the instant the board in them the decisional prejudice procedural and lacked both substantive due Furthermore, following so, process. Even in each case we must prejudice court found a lack of district fol- in the record order to look to ascertain lowing evidentiary hearing. fact, whether, complaining party has necessity” adequate “rule of has been provided invoked been fair notice of many presented proper opportunity heard, cases similar charges, be witnesses, These cases for the proposition appear stand with here. to confront counsel type prejudice of bias or significantly attributed and —most —whether adequate three board members in this ease findings board rendered of fact disqualify (or reasons) as to them from adequately such stated ulti- its Gore, Evans mate from matter. See: decision which state courts review, (1920) could, appeal 64 L.Ed. 887 where upon determine decision is whether board’s based on In my view the procedure above related evidence and is not arbitrary, substantial provides adequate due process guarantees. This, me, or unreasonable. capricious Regardless any pre-hearing bias or preju- concern be the sole of the courts. If should dice such as that Mayes, attributed to Wade legislative state respective bodies deter- Moore, the reviewing courts must ex- mine, has, provide substan- as Oklahoma complete amine record of the adminis- review, tially right more de novo or proceedings trative (a) and determine otherwise, that is a determination reserved procedural process whether was accord- the states. (b) ed and whether the justi- dismissal was on the fied merits based on cursory review substantial My applicable statutes evi- dence. Given the of our above related due process in the states Circuit indicates that (C.R.S.1973, protections which I those of Colorado Art. 22- believe person § occu- 63-117), (K.S.A., Supp., pying position Kansas 72- such as that Superin- §§ 72-5445, 301) through L.1974 Ch. entitled, tendent Staton I would not hesi- (Utah Anno.1953, Code Supp., Utah tate to apply follow and the rule we laid 5B, through 53-51-9) 53-51-1 likely Vol. §§ Brinkley, supra. down against muster” when “pass measured process majority opin- commands of the However, in the instant case.

ion the same appear true for the

does States of New Wyoming. statutory

Mexico and Both ar- (N.M.S.1953, Anno.,

rangements Supp., 77-8-17; through 77-8-12 Wyoming

§§

Statutes, 1957, 1975 Cum.Supp., Vol. through 21.1-164) provide 21.1-151 §§ CHICANO POLICE OFFICER’S ASSOCI- hearings board, school with pro- al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, et ATION cedural and substantive due re- quirements equal to prescribed those under Act, the model Administrative Procedure STOVER, Police, Robert V. Chief of with full review accorded. Supreme Albuquerque Department, Police et Courts of both states have held that there is al., Defendants-Appellees. deprivation no of due process, per se, result No. 74-1169.

ing from dismissal proceedings conducted very board which through one or Appeals, United States Court of more of its members or agent (a) has Tenth Circuit. given notice of the determination to dismiss March 1977. (b) before the submitted a statement of “cause” if a hearing should be Rehearing Rehearing En Banc requested by teacher, and thereafter April Denied heard and decided the issues presented.

Upon a required complete record of the

proceedings, appellate courts examine

to determine whether there is substantial support

evidence in findings board’s

and conclusions. If the courts determine

that the acted arbitrarily, capricious

ly unreasonably, the decision is set aside. Trustees, etc., Monahan

See: v. Board of Fremont,

County of (Wyo. P.2d 235

1971); Wickersham v. New Mexico State Education,

Board of 81 N.M. 464 P.2d (1970).

Case Details

Case Name: Jon Tom Staton v. James K. Mayes

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Date Published: May 9, 1977

Citation: 552 F.2d 908

Docket Number: 75-1332

Court Abbreviation: 10th Cir.