Bogart v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 298 of Lincoln Cty.
Decision Date | 17 May 1977 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 74-178-C6. |
Parties | David BOGART, Plaintiff, v. UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 298 OF LINCOLN COUNTY, KANSAS, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Jim L. Lawing, Wichita, Kan., Philip R. Herzig, Salina, Kan., for plaintiff.
Daniel C. Bachmann, Wichita, Kan., for defendants.
This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the same was tried to the Court on February 17, 1977. Pursuant to such trial the Court has made certain Findings of Fact, as set out below:
1. For seven years prior to the 1973-1974 school year plaintiff Bogart taught high school industrial arts, plus an occasional chemistry class for Unified School District No. 298 ( ). During this time plaintiff's teaching performance was evaluated by the North Central Association and Kansas State Department of Education, and by the high school principal under whom plaintiff worked for six years. Both evaluations found Bogart to be a well-qualified instructor with excellent student rapport.
2. On July 29, 1973, plaintiff's son was arrested for drug violations, a search warrant was issued by the state against the home of plaintiff and his son, and certain incidents occurred which culminated in a charge of possession of marijuana being lodged against plaintiff by the County Attorney of Lincoln County, Kansas, on August 3, 1973.
3. On August 6, 1973, the Board of USD 298 held its regularly scheduled meeting. Minutes of the meeting disclosed
4. On August 8, 1973, plaintiff was informed by letter that at a meeting of the Board of USD 298 on August 6, 1973, "it was voted by the board that you be immediately suspended from duty as an instructor in the district pending a decision of the board as to whether you should be discharged and your contract for the 1973-74 academic year cancelled because of conduct unbecoming an instructor." Plaintiff was not informed of the specific conduct for which the Board was considering his dismissal. He was told he could request a hearing at which he could be represented by counsel, present evidence, and call and examine witnesses.
5. By letter dated August 15, 1973, plaintiff, by his counsel, requested a hearing before members of the Board of USD 298.
6. On August 17, 1973, plaintiff and his counsel received notice of a hearing before the Board of USD 298 as to plaintiff's suspension, which hearing was scheduled for August 21, 1973.
7. At the hearing of August 21, 1973, plaintiff was present with his attorney, his son Scott, and his married daughter Becky Cole. Although plaintiff had not yet been informed by the Board as to the specific acts of misconduct of which he was accused, he was told by the Board's attorney during the hearing that the School Board had suspended plaintiff because of the criminal charge placed against him.
8. Plaintiff informed the Board of the events of July 29, 1973, as follows:
9. Minutes of the August 21, 1973, meeting of the Board of USD 298 state in part:
10. By letter dated August 22, 1973, plaintiff was informed that "it was the decision of the board to continue the suspension until after the trial in Lincoln County District Court at which time a final decision of the board will be made."
11. By letter dated September 6, 1973, plaintiff, by his attorney, informed the Board that his case could not be tried in District Court until December 14, 1973, and again demanded immediate reinstatement.
12. On September 11, 1973, in a special meeting held without notice to plaintiff, the Board unanimously voted to reinstate Bogart pending trial.
13. On December 14, 1973, plaintiff testified at his trial on the charge of possession of marijuana. His testimony was essentially the same as that given before the Board on August 21, 1973, although he went into greater detail at the trial. Details given by plaintiff at his criminal trial which were not stated earlier before the Board were:
14. Sheriff Panzer, who testified against plaintiff at the December 14, 1973, trial, related essentially the same facts and conversations as those to which plaintiff testified both at trial and at the August 21 Board meeting.
15. On December 14, 1973, at the conclusion of the evidence, the jury found plaintiff Bogart guilty of possession of marijuana.
16. On January 7, 1974, the regular meeting of the Board of USD 298 was held without notice to plaintiff that his dismissal was a topic to be considered. The minutes reflect:
"After a lengthy discussion on the trial of David Bogart in which he was found guilty of the possession of marijuana by a jury of twelve, Jay Cromwell made a motion that David Bogart be dismissed from his contract on the basis of conduct unbecoming a teacher."
All members voted "yes" excepting Frank Cole, who abstained.
17. By letter dated January 8, 1974, plaintiff was informed that the Board had voted to terminate his contract effective January 11, 1974, "for conduct unbecoming an instructor, which conduct resulted in your conviction in the Lincoln County District Court of the offense of possession of marijuana."
18. By letter dated January 10, 1974, plaintiff, through his attorney, informed the Board of his pending Motion for New Trial and Motion to Set Aside the Verdict of the Jury. He also stated his intent to appeal his case to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gardner v. Schumacher
...Mission, 705 F.2d 368, 372 (10th Cir. 1983) (citing Staton v. Mayes, 552 F.2d 908, 913 (10th Cir. 1977) ; Bogart v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 298, 432 F. Supp. 895, 903 (D. Kan. 1977) ). An impartial tribunal "applies to administrative agencies which adjudicate as well as to courts" Withrow v.......
-
Blank v. Swan
...U.S. ___, 100 S.Ct. 712, 62 L.Ed.2d 674 (1980); Mazaleski v. Treusdell, 562 F.2d 701 (D.C.Cir. 1977); Bogart v. Unified School District 298 of Lincoln City, 432 F.Supp. 895 (D.Kan.1977), appear to adopt a contrary interpretation of Bishop. However, in light of the uncertainties in this reco......
-
Crane v. Mitchell County U.S.D. No. 273
...or unusual circumstances may exist requiring immediate suspension without a prior hearing. See Bogart v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 298 of Lincoln Cty., 432 F.Supp. 895, 904 (D.Kan.1977); Graham v. Knutzen, 351 F.Supp. 642, 665 (D.Neb.1972); Fielder v. Board of Ed. of Sch. Dist. of Winnebago, N......
-
Bowler v. Board of Trustees of School Dist. No. 392, Shoshone County, Mullan
...Mayes, 552 F.2d 908 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied 434 U.S. 907, 98 S.Ct. 309, 54 L.Ed.2d 195 (1977); Bogart v. Unified School Dist. No. 298 of Lincoln City, 432 F.Supp. 895 (D.Kan.1977); Powell v. Board of Public Instruction of Levy County, 229 So.2d 308 (Fla.App.1969); Morey v. School Boa......