*1 LINSTAD, Appellant, Evie DISTRICT, Appellee.
SITKA SCHOOL
No. S-4958.
Supreme of Alaska. Court
Nov. Brand, Baxter, Bruce,
Chrystal Sommers Juneau, Rodriguez, appellant. Brand & for Blasco, Robertson, Monagle P. Robert & P.C., Juneau, Eastaugh, appellee. *2 MOORE, C.J., so deficient that it affect Before [wa]s [he]r BURKE, WITZ, employment” MATTHEWS and continued with the District. RABINO COMPTON, The notice directed Linstad to discuss with JJ. superiors
her “remedial action to correct deficiency.” February In 1990 Coon OPINION gave very poor Linstad another evaluation COMPTON, Justice. and recommended that she not be retained of the rec- After an review following year. for school ord, upheld the decision accepted The District Coon’s recommen- retain District not to of the Sitka School gave dation and Linstad notice that she year. Linstad for the 1990-91 school Evie would not be retained for the 1990-91 Linstad, teacher, challenges sev- a tenured statute, year. school Pursuant the no- procedural rul- eral of the specified tice of nonretention ings final decision. We reverse. and its “incompetency” as non- “substantial compliance” poli- with state law and school AND FACTUAL PROCEDURAL I. (a cies. AS 14.20.175 tenured teacher BACKGROUND subject only incompe- is to nonretention (District) District em- tency, immorality, noncompli- The Sitka School substantial law, ployed special Evie Linstad as a education necessary ance with school or a reduc- Yearly staff). evalua- from 1977-1990. tion of The notice also contained a teaching performance particulars required by tions of Linstad’s as generally positive, they 180(a).3 but indicated were regarding her
longstanding problems abili- three-day The Board held a working rela- ty to maintain an effective April May for Linstad in and, tionship with fellow teachers to a less- 1990 the Board decided unanimous vote develop degree, ability er her clear and not to retain Linstad due to demonstrated plans. effective lesson performance incompetence Terry the principal comply In 1986 Coon became duties and substantial failure to supervisor. statutes, regulations poli- Linstad’s school and her and District with very poor sought evaluations Linstad received cies. After this Linstad judicial pursu- In 1989 Coon recommended Coon.1 review 14.20.205, part, that Linstad not be retained for 1989— ant to AS which Nonetheless, a decision year. 90 school Sitka a school board reaches “[i]f (Board) District Board of Education to a School unfavorable accept this recommendation and a de novo trial in the did not entitled to Linstad returned for the 1989-90 school court.”
year. pretrial hearing After a December Judge Larry Zervos
During year Superior Linstad’s Court the 1989-90 school they whether relationship highly parties ad- asked the decide with Coon became 1989, pursuant proceed with the matter as an to wished to versarial.2 December a de novo Judge appeal or Zervos Negotiated Agreement between the as proceed if the matter was to as a District and its Coon and District ruled that trial, “the school district de novo Superintendent Art Woodhouse notified [would] by the bill of “teaching performance that her bound [be] professional between Linstad and de- esteem 1. Coon included with the evaluation forms performance. critiques He tailed of Linstad’s Coon. problems punctuality and cited discipline, with classroom problems with as well as continued employer provides that shall 3.The statute "[a]n working relationships. planning lesson nonretention or include in a notification of ... teacher, a a tenured statement dismissal of contains numerous interoffice 2. The record complete particulars." AS bill cause and displaying commu- memoranda a breakdown of added). 14.20.180(a) (emphasis respect and a lack of mutual nication that had been filed the non-reten- II. DISCUSSION hearing.” tion The court stated: Alaska Statute 14.20.180 describes to allow the district to deviate procedure is utilized premised from the bill of was when a tenured teacher has been *3 on the fact that a trial de novo should notice 14.20.180; of nonretention. AS Cor- provide inqui- a forum for a full and final Educ., so v. Comm’n 563 P.2d 247 of ry into all the issues raised. Because of (Alaska 1977). n. 8 Pursuant to this stat- procedure provided the limited time and ute, a school provide board must a tenured by hearing process, the nonretention (1) teacher with “a statement of cause and issues, sides, some on both not have particulars” a bill of adequately developed. been Since the charges nonretention, (2) hearing. a trial, statute authorizes a 14.20.180(a)-(b). new it is the AS If the Board reaches a interpretation procedures that the decision unfavorable to a tenured in followed this case should the be same statutory the provides framework the procedures as in other civil case. an protection additional right —the to a de superior novo trial the court. AS argued Linstad that the denied her 14.20.205. fair notice and allowed the District to avoid argues Linstad that the court statutorily duty give its mandated her a interpretation erred in application its “complete particulars.” bill of Citing explicit section 205. the statutory 180(a). response, the court noted that guarantee review, of de novo Linstad ar- “[ajdequate discovery procedures and the gues that the trial forcing court erred in protect rules of evidence should Ms. Lin- her to elect between a de novo trial and a problems stad from the objec- raised her review the Board record. Linstad fur- preserving tion.” While objection argues ther that the court in holding erred rulings, these Linstad chose to have an that the Board could deviate from origi- the record, review of the rather nal bill of if Linstad chose to a than de novo trial. essence, have a de novo trial. In December 1991 the upheld court argues that the particulars require- Board’s nonretention decision. The court ment only binds the District not before the explicitly stated that it had “independently Board, but also before the court if reviewed the record before the school exercises her to a de novo board determine whether the decision to trial under AS 14.20.205.5 supported nonretain Linstad was by pre- a
ponderance of the evidence.”4 The
agree
We
that
concluded
the affirmative
ap-
and this
making
erred in
Linstad choose between a
peal
22.05.010(a);
followed. AS
Alaska
de novo trial and a review of the record.
202(a).
R.App.P.
The statute
tenured teachers the
4. Because Linstad
indepen-
"independent
elected to have an
review of the evidence before the
record,
dent review of the
the court limited the
school board.” The court conducted
finding
allegations
fact
based
its review to those
on the administrative record.
included
Dist.,
However,
Anchorage
particulars.
Asevedo v.
Sch.
noting
in the bill of
843 P.2d
(Alaska 1992) (describing
type
1209
of re-
dealing
Linstad herself had introduced evidence
part”).
view as a de novo trial "in
occurring
with events
before the 1989-90 school
year, the court did not limit its review to that
squarely
5. The District does not
address Lin-
Instead,
year alone.
it examined "all evidence
argument,
argues
stad’s
but
instead
presented
board at the
that re-
go beyond
court allowed the District to
the bill
allegations
lates to the
raised in the ‘Bill of
”
because Linstad had raised new
Particulars.’
allegations
wrongful
in her
termination action.
Linstad claims that the trial court erred in
simply
The District claims that the court
"re-
giving her an "intermediate level” of review.
If
jury
minded Linstad about how a
trial works
proper,
the election itself was
the court did
party
complaint
when a
files a civil
and what
giving
precise
err in
Linstad the
level
apply.”
of review
rules
The District mischaracterizes the
election,
requested
ruling.
which she
in her notice of
an
court's
Asevedo,
finding.
We must
hold that the bill of
therefore
We
Linstad was
to which
the de novo trial
oper
of
particulars provision of section 180
Asevedo,
discussed the de
we
entitled.
a
on the
of the de
ates as
limitation
most
14.20.205:
trial under AS
novo
205.8 Al
guaranteed
“[T]he
trial
section
trial
meaning
the term de novo
of
common
the
though- section 205 was enacted for
is both a new
teachers,
where there
proceeding
is a
protection of tenured
benefit and
fact find
hearing
original
evidentiary
interpretation
of AS
the
legislature
our view that
the
ing.
It is
actually work to a teacher’s
14.20.205could
enacting
proceeding
a
contemplated such
pro
The court’s
would
detriment.
ad
Asevedo did not
14.20.205.” Id.
AS
opportunity
a fresh
to
vide a district with
however,
dress,
Board could
whether the
decision, and would
its nonretention
bolster
original
from the
bill
deviate
have to
likely
make it
that a teacher would
superior court.
trial
the
time,
the
before
money to meet
spend more
effort and
first
question is one of
Accordingly, this
charges. Since the
additional
impression for this court.7
essentially supplants the Board and
court
case,
apply
the
it makes sense to
redecides
205,
supe
the
Pursuant to section
particulars limitation to the de
the bill of
Board’s nonretention
court reviews the
rior
court. Further
novo trial
novo, i.e.,
proceeding
if
“as
the
decision de
more,
poli
the
supported by
this decision
brought in the review
originally
had been
statutory frame
underlying
cies
both
ing
2 Am.Jur. Administrative
court.”
right
the teacher’s
to
generally, and
work
698,
(1962).
at 597
Consistent
Law 2d §
specifically.
de novo review
Asevedo,
new evi
this means that
with
importance
previously noted the
supe We have
presented and that the
may
dence
be
interest
the tenured teacher’s
engage
original
fact
of both
rior court must
undermine the de
requested
limitation does not
originally
de novo trial in
8.This
Despite
statutory right.
"A trial
court’s review.
accordance with
novo nature of the trial
however,
gave
request,
trying
court
hearing
this
the matter
means
'de novo’
trial and an
choice between a de novo
Linstad a
appeal
been heard
as if it had not
anew the same
made
the record.
the court
on
previously
no decision had been
before and as if
would be allowed to deviate
clear that the Board
Law
Administrative
rendered.”
2 Am.Jur.2d
particulars Linstad chose a de
the bill of
if
698,
may
(1962).
de novo trial
While a
at 597
§
doing,
In so
novo trial.
many respects from the
different in
be
14.20.205,and
the dictates of AS
failed to follow
aspect
hearing,
the essential
forego the
improperly
Linstad to
influenced
reviewing
authority of the
a trial is the
such
guaranteed by
right
to a de novo trial
independent judgment.
to
its
exercise
however,
suggest,
that an inde-
We
not
205.
pendent
do
words,
reviewing
autho-
court must be
other
inappro-
the record would be
review of
entirely independent determi-
to make an
rized
nation,
evidentiary
priate
is not
where a new
by any presumptions re-
unencumbered
sought.
Id. at 598.
garding
decision.
the administrative
today protects
essential ele-
this
statutory
decision
con-
Our
questions of law and
Because
here,
ap-
presented
this court will
are
ment.
struction
judgment
resolve the is-
ply
its
Stores, Inc.,
Safeway
P.2d
v.
sue. Forest
778,
(Alaska
780 n. 3
mandatory MAND for further proceedings
and the
consistent
nonretention
opinion.
with
right to
novo review of
decision:
to retain a tenured
The decision
BURKE, J.,
in part.
dissents
impact
an enormous
on
have
BURKE, Justice, dissenting
part.
career.
that teacher’s
This consideration
respectfully
part
I
dissent from that
weighed heavily in
must have
the minds
district,
today’s
limiting
decision
the school
granted
legislature
they
when
14.20.205,
in a de novo trial under
AS
right to trial de novo. There is
unusual
the nonretention
detailed
judicial body,
question
no
that a
often
included in the notice of
political pres-
further removed from the
pursuant
to Linstad
sures involved in a teacher nonretention
14.20.180.
AS
provide
objective
dispute, will
a more
Legislature clearly
The Alaska
intended
perspective
proceedings.
guarantee
fair treatment
for tenured
teachers
threatened with nonretention.1
Peninsula Borough
Jerrel
Kenai
Sch.
majority,
providing
bent on
maximum
Dist.,
(Alaska 1977).9
567 P.2d
protection to such
construes the
and 205
enacted
Because sections 180
were
provided
to a de novo trial
in AS
protection
for the benefit and
of tenured
including
14.20.205 as
to a trial
*5
interpret
we
these
to
sections
in
limited
to the
for nonre-
give
goal.
effect to this
tention
in the
described
bill of
by
mandated AS 14.20.180. Neither of the
III. CONCLUSION
sections,
two
nor the Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure,2 imposes such a limitation. Sec-
We hold that
court erred
totally
tion 14.20.205is
silent on the issue.
making
choose
between
de novo Although
requires
section 14.20.180
trial and
of the record.
review
we
particulars”
“complete bill of
in the notice
conclude that the court erred in
teacher,
of nonretention
to a tenured
the Board could deviate from the
purport
apply
require-
it
does
to
particulars if
ment,
bill of
Linstad chose de novo
other,
any
proceedings
nor
to
held
Accordingly,
we REVERSE and RE-
court.3 The Alaska Rules of
Lum,
(6th
1986);
Borough
Dictionary
In Matanuska-Susitna
below.” Black's Law
9.
ed.
(Alaska 1975),
Yepes-Prado
Immigration
we
P.2d 994
also noted several
see also
v. U.S.
& Nat
—Serv.,
394469,
underlying
policy
mandatory right
reasons
F.2d-
WL
uralization
example,
(9th
a de novo trial. For
we
to
stated that
at *2 n. 5
Cir. Oct.
composition
is well known that
"[i]t
many school boards is not
as
such
to endow
legislative power undoubtedly
3.The
state’s
in-
fact-finding expertise
them with
in matters of
power
governing
cludes the
to enact
rules
teacher nonretention."
Id. at 1001. We also
practices
procedures
district
and
school
noted that the teacher is faced with the loss of a
Const,
teacher nonretention cases. See Alaska
very important
teacher’s source of
—the
II,
Thus,
legislature
art.
is free to
§
income.
Id.
impose procedural requirements such as those
upon
contained in AS 14.20.180
school districts
only grounds
1. AS 14.20.175
trial, however,
and teachers. Linstad's
subject
a tenured teacher
which
to nonreten-
will be held in the
court. Section
requires
tion. AS 14.20.180
a school district to
pretend
regulate
14.20.180 does not even
include “a statement of cause and a
court,
practice
procedure
in the
particulars"
notice of nonretention
did,
Only
and if it
the statute would be invalid.
teacher,
given to a tenured
affords the
court,
court,
supreme
power
has the
to an
teacher the
promulgate
governing practice
“make and
rules
before the school board.
If the school board
procedure
in civil and criminal cases in
reaches an unfavorable
Const,
IV,
courts.” Alaska
art.
[the]
§
upon request, is entitled to a de novo trial in the
Thus,
govern
proceed-
all
the Alaska Civil Rules
superior court. See AS 14.20.205.
ings
legislature,
court. The
appears
“by
power
2. The limitation also
to conflict with
while it has the
such rules
is,
definition,
the fact that a de novo trial
two-thirds vote of the members elected to each
house,”
“[a]
Id.;
gone
power
trial ...
in which the whole case is
into as
has no
to make them.
Chan-
Bernhardt,
(Alas-
Flying,
if no trial whatever had been had in the court
nel
Inc. v.
terests as
ever, undoubtedly important and wor- while certainly no
thy protection, are more public’s interest in iden-
important than the eliminating incompetent teach-
tifying and
ers, “right” to receive a and the children’s in a conducive environ-
quality education
ment.4 given adequate long
As as a teacher is charges
notice of all to be considered his trial, opportunity and a fair
or her de novo against charges, defend those no sound
policy prevent reason exists to a school using
district from the available evidence
bearing upon the teacher’s to main- fitness teaching position, regardless
tain his or her in-
of whether the notice
cluded such evidence.5
In the MATTER DISCIPLINARY Stephen F.
INVOLVING
FROST, Respondent. S-5169,
Nos. S-5268.
Supreme Court of Alaska.
Nov. 1993. (Note: decision with new evidence. ka No such has been its nonretention unlikely, any applicable generally the teacher made in of the Civil Rules to this This seems since proceeding.) only party request trial. is the that can a de novo Op. at at If the district loses AS 14.20.205. hearing, there is no de novo pass judgment upon the school board I intend to Lin- do not Thus, put- upon an interest in performance the district has stad’s as a nor question ting the ad- of whether she is entitled to maintain forward all of its evidence teaching position. My hearing. remarks are directed had no incen- her only ministrative The district portion today's toward that decision evidence the de tive to withhold relevant until rate, limiting required light important of the de novo trial At novo trial. above, good AS 14.20.205. policy I see no reasons discussed that the district reason to restrict the evidence suggests present trial to the matters majority can at a de novo 5. The that the school district particulars. “disadvantage” by bolstering contained in the bill of could