Boss v. Fillmore County School Dist. No. 19
| Decision Date | 14 May 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. A-94-712,A-94-712 |
| Parties | , 109 Ed. Law Rep. 949 Rodney BOSS, Appellant, v. FILLMORE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 19, a political subdivision of the State of Nebraska, Appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Schools and School Districts: Evidence: Appeal and Error. In a proceeding in error, the task of the district court and of an appellate court is to determine whether the school board acted within its jurisdiction and whether there is sufficient evidence as a matter of law to support its decision.
2. Schools and School Districts: Evidence. Evidence is sufficient as a matter of law if the school board could reasonably find the facts as it did on the basis of the testimony and exhibits contained in the record before it.
3. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation is a matter of law, in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent, correct conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below.
4. Contracts: Appeal and Error. The construction of a contract is a matter of law, in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent, correct conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below.
5. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning. An appellate court will, if possible, try to avoid a construction which would lead to absurd, unconscionable, or unjust results.
6. Contracts. The terms of a contract are to be accorded their plain and ordinary meaning as ordinary, average, or reasonable persons would understand them.
7. Statutes: Legislature: Intent. The components of a series or collection of statutes pertaining to a certain subject matter may be conjunctively considered and construed to determine the intent of the Legislature so that different provisions of the act are consistent, harmonious, and sensible.
8. Schools and School Districts. Incompetency or neglect of duty is not measured in a vacuum or against a standard of perfection, but, instead, must be measured against the standard required of others performing the same or similar duties.
9. Appeal and Error. The purpose of a proceeding in error is to remove the record from an inferior to a superior tribunal so that the latter tribunal may determine if the judgment or final order of the inferior tribunal is in accordance with law.
10. Schools and School Districts: Employment Contracts. Unprofessional conduct of a superintendent under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 79-12,110 (Reissue 1994) and a contract of employment includes such conduct as is, by general opinion or, when necessary, by the opinion of appropriate professionals, immoral, dishonorable, unbecoming a member in good standing in the profession, or violative of professional codes of ethics or professional standards of behavior. It is conduct which indicates an unfitness to act as a public school superintendent.
11. Schools and School Districts. A superintendent is entitled to periodic evaluations twice during the first year of employment with the school district and at least once annually thereafter pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 79-12,111 (Reissue 1994).
12. Schools and School Districts: Employment Contracts. If the ground for cancellation is a deficiency in the performance of an employee which would have reasonably been observed and disclosed in the course of a periodic evaluation, then the failure to provide such evaluations must be considered in the overall assessment of the sufficiency of the evidence to support cancellation of the contract.
Beverly Evans Grenier, of Scudder Law Firm, P.C., Lincoln, for appellant.
Daniel J. Alberts, of DeMars, Gordon, Olson, Recknor & Shively, Lincoln, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a July 1994 judgment of the district court affirming a decision of the Fairmont Public Schools board of education canceling, after 1 year, a 3-year employment contract of superintendent Rodney Boss for school years 1992-93 to 1994-95.
Rodney Boss was hired as the superintendent for Fillmore County School District No. 19 on July 29, 1992. The Fairmont Public Schools board of education (Board) and Boss entered into a 3-year contract, with employment to commence on August 1, 1992, and terminate on June 30, 1995. By notification dated July 30, 1993, Boss was informed that the Board was considering cancellation of his contract, effective immediately. A hearing on the issue commenced August 24 at 7:36 p.m. and continued, with brief intermissions, to approximately 7:30 a.m. August 25. The record made at that hearing consists of 490 pages and 51 exhibits, with 28 witnesses testifying. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board voted to cancel Boss' employment contract. Boss filed a petition in error in district court on September 21. By a journal entry dated July 5, 1994, the Board's decision was affirmed by the district court. Boss then sought review by this court. Additional facts will be set forth below as necessary to our decision.
Boss asserts that the district court erred in affirming the Board's decision because the Board erred by (1) canceling Boss' contract for reasons beyond the scope of the notice provided Boss and for events which occurred subsequent thereto, in violation of Boss' due process rights; (2) failing to provide Boss a meaningful opportunity in which to respond, in violation of his due process rights, by virtue of the hearing officer's denial of his motion for a continuance; (3) failing to conduct periodic evaluations of Boss as required by Neb.Rev.Stat. § 79-12,111(2) (Reissue 1994); and (4) finding facts sufficient to warrant termination pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 79-12,110 (Reissue 1994).
Because this is a proceeding in error, the task of the district court was, as is ours, to determine whether the Board acted within its jurisdiction and whether there is sufficient evidence as a matter of law to support its decision. See, Drain v. Board of Ed. of Frontier Cty., 244 Neb. 551, 508 N.W.2d 255 (1993); Nuzum v. Board of Ed. of Sch. Dist. of Arnold, 227 Neb. 387, 417 N.W.2d 779 (1988). Evidence is sufficient as a matter of law if the Board could reasonably find the facts as it did on the basis of the testimony and exhibits contained in the record before it. See, Drain, supra; Nuzum, supra.
Section 79-12,110(1) confers upon the Board the authority to cancel the contract of any certificated employee, including a superintendent, by a majority vote of its members. Thus, the Board acted within its jurisdiction. We next address whether there is sufficient evidence as a matter of law to support the Board's decision, addressed by Boss in his fourth assignment of error, because resolution of this assigned error in Boss' favor effectively makes our analysis of his first three assigned errors unnecessary.
In his fourth assignment of error, Boss alleges that the Board erred by finding facts sufficient to warrant termination. There are two distinct methods by which teaching contracts may be terminated. See, e.g., Bickford v. Board of Ed. of Sch. Dist. #82, 214 Neb. 642, 336 N.W.2d 73 (1983). The first is in accordance with the applicable statutes and reasons set forth therein, while the second is by virtue of the teacher's contract for employment. Id. Section 79-12,110 sets forth the bases upon which a school board may rely when deciding to cancel a superintendent's contract. Consistent with the bases set forth in § 79-12,110, the Board determined that the cancellation of Boss' contract was warranted based on the following grounds: (1) neglect of duty, (2) incompetency, and (3) unprofessional conduct.
Like § 79-12,110, Boss' contract of employment in this case provides that he may be discharged if he commits any act which substantially inhibits his ability to discharge his duties, including but not limited to any act which displays incompetency, neglect of duty, or unprofessional conduct. Thus, whether we view the evidence as sufficient to support a breach of contract or sufficient to support one or more of the statutory grounds, the result is the same.
Statutory interpretation is a matter of law, in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent, correct conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below. State v. Cox, 247 Neb. 729, 529 N.W.2d 795 (1995); Anderson v. Nashua Corp., 246 Neb. 420, 519 N.W.2d 275 (1994). Similarly, the construction of a contract is a matter of law, in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent, correct conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below. Larsen v. First Bank, 245 Neb. 950, 515 N.W.2d 804 (1994); Rigel Corp. v. Cutchall, 245 Neb. 118, 511 N.W.2d 519 (1994). In this case, the interpretation of the statutory and contractual terms "neglect of duty," "incompetency," and "unprofessional conduct" presents questions of law. Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning. In addition, an appellate court will, if possible, try to avoid a construction which would lead to absurd, unconscionable, or unjust results. Nichols v. Busse, 243 Neb. 811, 503 N.W.2d 173 (1993); Coleman v. Chadron State College, 237 Neb. 491, 466 N.W.2d 526 (1991); State v. Bartlett, 3 Neb.App. 218, 525 N.W.2d 237 (1994). Similarly, the terms of a contract are to be accorded their plain and ordinary meaning as ordinary, average, or reasonable persons would understand them. Murphy v. City of Lincoln, 245 Neb. 707, 515 N.W.2d 413 (1994); Fritsch v. Hilton Land & Cattle Co., 245 Neb. 469, 513 N.W.2d 534 (1994).
We are required on appeal to determine whether Boss' actions constituted ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boss v. Fillmore County School Dist. No. 19
...periodic evaluations twice during his first year of employment and at least once annually thereafter. See Boss v. Fillmore Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 19, 4 Neb.App. 624, 548 N.W.2d 1 (1996). We On July 31, 1992, Boss entered into a 3-year employment contract with the district. The contract provide......
-
Wright v. County of Douglas, No. A-05-956 (Neb. App. 5/29/2007), A-05-956.
...to reach an independent, correct conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below. Boss v. Fillmore Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 19, 4 Neb. App. 624, 548 N.W.2d 1 (1996). Nebraska law clearly provides that a contract must be construed as a whole, and if possible, effect must be g......