Shatting v. Dillingham City School District
617 P.2d 9
Alaska
1980
Check Treatment

*1 is nothing There in the stipulation indicating an intent relin

quish Rather, future claims costs.

appears designed merely to be to avoid hav

ing to seek party order each time a depose opponent’s

wished to an expert wit ness. We stipula therefore believe that the tion should have no party’s effect

ability recover as costs the expenses in deposing expert curred in witnesses. REVERSED REMANDED. Jay SHATTING, Appellant, DILLINGHAM CITY SCHOOL DIS

TRICT, Dillingham City School Board Alaska, Appellees.

and the State of No. 4240. Supreme Court of Alaska.

Sept. Strachan,

John Anchorage, appel- R. for lant. Bankston, Anchorage,

William M. ap- pellees Dillingham City School District and Dillingham Board. City School Jones, Carolyn Gen., E. Atty. Asst. An- Gross, chorage, Gen., Atty. Avrum M. Ju- neau, appellee of Alaska. State OPINION CONNOR, BOOCHEVER,*

Before JJ., MATTHEWS, DI BURKE MOND, Senior Justice.

*This case was submitted to the court for deci- resignation. prior Boochever’s sion to Justice *2 later, Shatting month filed decision. One

BURKE, Justice. appeal a notice of complaint both a and case, this a teacher chal- In non-tenured court, contending the Board’s superior a not to re- lenges school board’s decision illegal him was be- to retain decision not (cid:127) the new his contract. We conclude that capricious, and and cause was acted properly. school board good properly established not based on a was Jay Shatting, named Shatting’s suit as defendants cause. Dillingham City employed to teach in the (Dis- District City the School Dillingham during the 1975-76 and District School Board, trict), City Dillingham the School years. May In the 1976-77 school and the State of Alaska. (Board) in- Dillingham City School Board August, response the State’s mo- In he Shatting by letter that would formed pleadings the tion year.1 When following be retained for the 12(c), superior court dis- Rule the Civil cause, Shatting requested a statement of against be- Shatting’s suit the State missed 14.20.175(a),2the Board sent pursuant to AS party not a defendant. proper cause was setting a letter forth the follow- him second (1) were that grounds The for the decision its ing reasons for decision: of educational delegated it had control challenging 1. classes are not Your (2) Dillingham, City to the functions enough high ability. to students with the Shatting employee was not an 2. Your use of abusive when (3) to hire or authority and the had no State dealing students. Shatting. response In to a motion fire teaching. 3. Lack of interest dismiss, summary judg- granted the court the Dis- changing 4. Your moods in class- ment favor of the Board and the trict,3 after that the Board had rooms. statutory complied requirements with all Continually of classroom. 5. out Shatting’s constitutional and none hearing, like- Shatting requested then a This fol- rights had been violated. 14.20.175(a). pursuant The wise lowed. public hearing June Board held a Appeal of the District the Board 1. and testimony which sworn was taken. Shat- counsel, by who was filed ting represented by called The motion to dismiss that opposing specify witnesses and cross-examined and the Board did the District Following hearing, being witnesses. rule the motion under which court, however, Shatting, superior Board voted not retain and on treated made. The summary if it a June it sent him written notice of that the motion as were motion recognizes statutory dis- tion of employer Alaska’s scheme his contract for which adequate. tinction between and “dismiss- determines to be How- “nonretention” ever, request, provides pertinent part: al.” 14.20.207 at his the teacher is entitled to a written statement of cause for his non- chapter In §§ 10-210 this city borough retention. regional school at- districts educational (5) by “nonretention” means election provide by regulation tendance areas shall employer re-employ an a teacher for bylaw procedure under nonre- year immediately school term may, request, his tained teacher be heard following expiration of the teacher’s cur- informally by the board. contract; rent (6) termination “dismissal” means grounds alleged in mo- for dismissal 3.The of the contract services of (1) no tion were non-tenured teacher has during the time teacher’s contract review of a school board’s force, is in and termination to the him, (2) Shatting decision not to retain did not compensation due the teacher balance of allege any rights, violation constitutional under his contract. “arbitrary (3) Shatting protected was not 14.20.175(a) provides: 2. AS capricious” he had nonretention because Nonretention, constitutionally job, (a) protected in his no interest A teacher who has not jurisdic- acquired the court lacked matter tenure to nonreten- year following expira- tion for the school tion.

H jud Accordingly, Right we shall re to Judicial gment.4 Review applica its under the standards ruling view court concluded that of a for summa ble motion had no review of ry judgment. reaching Board’s decision. con *3 be determined are whether 14.20.205, issues to clusion the court on relied AS were issues of material genuine there fact a provides: which “If school board reaches and, nof, if the whether District and the a to decision unfavorable a the judgment Board were entitled to as a mat- is a de in teacher entitled to novo trial the R.Civ.P.; 56, of ter law. Rule Alaska However, superior court. a teacher who State, 1976). 8,15 (Alaska Moore v. 553 P.2d rights has attained not enti tenure is reaching our decision we must draw all judicial according tled to review to this Shatting, reasonable inferences in favor of section.” non-moving

the party. Clabaugh superior We the erred believe court Bottcher, 172, (Alaska 545 P.2d n.5 175 totally pre- that 14.20.205 AS 1976). judicial as cludes review cases such this. Although is apparently disagree there While the statute does not extend the ten- particular ment over whether events oc to a right ured teacher’s trial de novo to a Shatting’s curred in classroom whether Shatting, teacher such as nei- proper the District conducted a evaluation preclude ther a more form of does limited Shatting required by Department as of judicial review school of the board decision. Education facts regulations, these were not Shatting We therefore hold that had superior material to record, the court’s determina review, judicial to on the of the only tion this case. It is issues of materi Board’s decision.5 al fact preclude that the Shatting to Retain 3. Decision Not summary judgment. motion for See Carl Although the that superior court found 969, (Alaska son v. 972 n.5 Shatting did not have a to superior before the issues court decision, of the review Board’s the court (1) were: Shatting whether entitled did, fact, pro- the review record of the of the review Board’s decision not ceedings leading decision and deter- to that Board, retain on him and whether properly. had mined acted that Board it, presented basis of the information superior We of the affirm properly acted deciding retain court. Shatting. pertaining The material facts Thus, 14.20.175(a) these two were dispute. provides part: issues not in AS only left issue for our is acquired determination “A teacher who has not tenure whether the Board and ... the District were is to nonretention entitled to as matter of law. cause determines Although pleadings 4. When matters outside the a review on the record all that is is court, presented 12(b) 12(c), required, superior to the Rules in its discretion the court R.Civ.P., may grant Alaska authorize the to treat a trial novo. 22.10.020 de See AS 12(b)(6) (failure motions (“hearings judg- to dismiss under Rules from a final order claim) 12(c) (judgment to state a on the ment of a court or administrative subordinate pleadings) summary judgment superi- as motions for agency shall be on the record unless the court, discretion, novo, Civil Rule 56. The grants court in this in its de a trial it, pleadings, case had before in addition to the part”). in whole or in record, including entire administrative 14.20.175(a) provides that transcript hearing of the before Board and procedure shall establish under which a non- copies of the affidavits submitted to the Board. informally by retained teacher “be heard Director, Stuyvesant See Immigration Ins. Co. v. District that, although We board.” note this hear- Serv., & Naturalization United “informal,” ing may be it must be conducted Justice, Dep’t F.Supp. States record; otherwise teacher’s to a (N.D.Ill.1975) (filing administrative record con meaningless. review on the would be record verted motion dismiss to motion for summa ry judgment; applying 12(b)). Fed.R.Civ.P. Shatting also contends that its face this section be adequate.”6 On by the require unlimited is limited virtually to a school board grants Board’s discretion deny con whether to deciding capricious,8 discretion in arbitrary or that not be ment teach to non-tenured employment tinued required by the Board is apparently because of the Despite ers. broad give him a statement of 14.20.175(a)9 however, statute, board’s think that the we arguendo, Assuming, hearing. and a is to certain limitations. discretion correct, review our is clear, board that a school example, It Board’s record fails to convince us ato deny employment continued capri action in this case exercise because the teacher’s cious. See, Perry rights. g., first e. amendment has Supreme Court The United States Sindermann, 408 U.S. S.Ct. *4 teacher whose con- held that a school (1972). clearly, 570 Just as L.Ed.2d is has no constitutional tract not renewed employment not continued may deny board of cause. hearing to a or a statement right deprive to a if to so would do 569, 564, Regents, of 408 U.S. Roth Board that are rights guaranteed teacher of other 2705, 548, 2701, L.Ed.2d 556 See, Nich 92 33 by g., constitution or statute. e. S.Ct. therefore, Eckert, (Alaska 1973); 14.20.175(a), ols v. 504 P.2d 1359 in re- (1972). AS (declaring employment certain AS 18.80.220 oppor- of and an quiring statement cause unlawful). practices to be heard, tunity to exceeds constitutional be it is clear from the requirements. Since In addition to constitutional complied with fully Board record that limitations, contends statutory no requirements, there was statutory a school board’s discretion is or stat- violation the Alaska Constitution of stan by further limitation the evaluation reasons, For we conclude that utes. these Ed Department dards established of by entirely prop- was the action of the Board ucation, may and that a teacher be “non-re believe, we is holding, This consistent er.10 evalua only tained” failure meet the decisions, past we with our where have stat- on 4 tion standards.7 He relies AAC 19.010: rights as a meth ed that of a non-tenured evaluations shall serve “[FJormal “[t]he gathering simply od for relevant to subse retained at the data teacher who is not pertain quent employment status decisions period of his of are rela- employment end believe, ing person We evaluated.” constitutionally tively limited. He has no however, regulation, promulgated public employment.” protected interest by agency, oper cannot an administrative Borough Van Gorder v. Matanuska-Susitna ate limit the broad discretion that District, (Alaska 1095 513 P.2d School intentionally given to local school board’s legislature, and that is not to renew the contract of decision AFFIRMED. may any be non-tenured teacher “for which the determines to be ade RABINOWITZ, J.,

quate.” 14.20.175(a). participating. C. AS 14.20.175(a) performance quoted is full in note ees. The standards must be supra. measurable and relevant. Regents, 8. But see Roth v. Board of 408 U.S. provides: 7. 4 AAC 19.020 (1972). 33 L.Ed.2d 548 S.Ct. OF EVALUATION. SCOPE The evaluation emphasize teaching should such factors as 14.20.175(a) quoted supra. in note 2 9. is skills, processes tech- administrative niques students, relationships interpersonal conclusion, Having we reached this need not parents, peers supervisors, as address the State also the issue whether well as those which the additional factors be sued because actions of Board or school district considers relevant to the effec- tive performance professional employ- District. That issue is moot. now of its BOOCHEVER, Justice, impermissible not an invalid or concurring. one for the Shafting. nonretention agree I that there is a to review to retain a nontenured MATTHEWS, Justice, concurring. to a novo. that that is not trial de that a party having Our cases establish think, however, I that we should delineate obtain standing generally re- the nature of that to review more determination, view of administrative than particularly majority. does the purpose at for the least limited of ascertain- opinion, my review should first ing arbitrary, capri- whether or is not it statutory procedures cious, assure that have been or an discretion. abuse of Moore 1976); (Alaska & L clearly followed. This was the case far K as Distributors, Murkowski, Inc. v. 486 P.2d Shafting Second, as concerned. (Alaska 1971). is true even in the This review should determine that the reasons face statute which declares that set forth for nonretention not a subter- question is administrative decision reason, fuge impermissible for an as such review. K & L Distribu- one based the exercise of constitutional tors, presumption id. 357-59. rights guaranteed or in violation of reviewability which we have developed Third, by the I constitution. believe that mirrored other many decisions there should be some support evidence to courts, supported by and is Profes- strongly least *5 given one of reasons for dis- I sor Davis.1 Therefore have no hesitation case, charge. this In two of the reasons in to appellant that has a given the discharge for were that Shaf- capri- review the arbitrary, ting’s enough were not challenging classes cious, or abuse of discretion standard. high ability, to students and he had a course, very Of is not a this standard teaching. lack of interest There was one, strict school district which has sustaining evidence those reasons. An affi- teach- decided to renew a non-tenured Farmer, davit presented by Llewellyn ought er’s contract for valid reasons be taught who had team with Shat- However, easily. able to meet it to use ting. ap- Shafting She indicated that: quoted which we in K L Dis- & peared to be teaching interested if example, as an a school district tributors profession; approach he seemed to his class power, has its non-retention used manner; preparation in a perfunctory he (a) against person be- retaliate frequently “game days used and movie political cause of his views or days” primarily for entertainment rather (b) to bear on him reli- down for his than instruction. The affidavit indicated or gious views or his racial attitudes that a conference was held between Shaf- (c) get him out town so that the ting, principal and Ms. Farmer concern- amorous interests of Board member ing Shatting’s teaching lack of interest be might better served that, interest his students and after then the action violate the standard. would improvement, Shafting some reverted to at 355. former attitude. District, Drown Portsmouth School I agree therefore there that was ade- (1st 1971) apt F.2d 1106 contains an Cir. quate evidence to support meaning reason that was of the explanation of the Davis, Treatise, nation, inexplicably departed 1. See Law Administrative Ch. estab- (1970 Supp.), policies, there impermissible cases cited. Davis on an lished or rested states: basis ... or ... on other ‘considerations Congress make Judges could not have intended to qualified often are not to substitute ” [complex relevant.’ specialized] subject or Davis, Hang judges quoting Wong Wing generally qualified matter but id. are Service, Immigration determine the reasonableness of the adminis- Naturalization Judges inquire (2nd trative action. should wheth- F.2d Cir. expla- er the action was “without rational of a capricious standard the context or a non-

challenge to the non-retention of explains, As the court tenured teacher. arbitrary or be decision non-retain ways. (1) may It be capricious in three which are “unrelated based reasons working rela- process the educational institu- tionships within the educational tion”; (2) be based on reasons decision; justify too

are trivial to factu- may be on reasons which are based F.2d ally unsupported. 451 the Board’s appears case it arbitrary, decision to non-retain was not since the on reasons based on-the-job appellant’s

which are related trivial, performance, the reasons are not they factually supported. I there- concur fore in the decision reached majority. Rosie, Rosie, Whiting F. & Fair-

John banks, appellant/cross-appellee. Sheehan, Fairbanks, appel- W. Joseph *6 lee/cross-appellant. Jerry STANSEL, RABINOWITZ, J., Before C. and CON-

Appellant/Cross-Appellee, NOR, BOOCHEVER,* BURKE and MAT THEWS, JJ. CONSTRUCTION, PERINI ARCTIC

INC., Appellee/Cross-Appellant. OPINION

Nos. BURKE, Justice. Supreme Court of Alaska. The issue in is whether the a motion erred

Sept. summary Rule Alas- judgment. See

ka R.Civ.P. single piloting engine

While aircraft Cordova, flight Jer- on a Fairbanks from ry Stansel encountered weather conditions emergency make an that caused him to landing Camp, one of several Isabelle along the route of the camps construction landed Pipeline. Trans-Alaska Stansel connecting the safely camp on a road being away nearby pipeyard, after diverted camp’s Weil- airstrip Ronald V. * This case was submitted to the court for deci- prior resignation.

sion to Justice Boochever’s