Comstock Public Schools v. Wildfong, Docket No. 78-3472
| Decision Date | 05 September 1979 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 78-3472 |
| Citation | 92 Mich.App. 279,284 N.W.2d 527 |
| Parties | COMSTOCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Public Body Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leila WILDFONG, Defendant-Appellant. 92 Mich.App. 279, 284 N.W.2d 527 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[92 MICHAPP 281] Arthur R. Przybylowicz, Lansing, for defendant-appellant.
William A. Dornbos, Kalamazoo, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before WALSH, P. J., and KELLY and OPPLIGER, * JJ.
Defendant appeals the June 30, 1978, order of the Kalamazoo County Circuit Court reversing a May 14, 1976, decision of the State Tenure Commission. By a 3-2 vote, the Tenure Commission had reversed the May 23, 1974, decision of the Comstock School Board to discharge defendant, a tenured elementary school teacher. The Tenure Commission ordered that defendant be reinstated with back pay.
We find merit in only one of the several issues raised on appeal. Our discussion is limited to resolution of that issue. 1
Defendant had more than 13 years of teaching experience when, on February 18, 1974, four charges were brought against her by the principal of Comstock North Elementary School. The school [92 MICHAPP 282] board suspended defendant pending a hearing on the charges. In response to defendant's Motion for More Definite Statement, she received a list of 14 specifications. Extensive testimony was taken by the school board in April and May, 1974. In its unanimous decision, the board found that three of the four charges had been proven and that, based thereon, there was reasonable and just cause for the discharge of defendant. Specifically, the board found that the following charges had been proven:
The board found that the evidence did not support Charge IV:
"Has failed to competently discharge her professional duties, which failure is demonstrated by the respondent's failure or inability to establish rapport with students in an academic environment."
Defendant appealed to the State Tenure Commission. M.C.L. § 38.121; M.S.A. § 15.2021. Two members of the five-member commission signed an opinion in which the evidence produced at the school board hearing was reviewed and it was concluded [92 MICHAPP 283] that the board had failed to sustain its burden of proof and that, based on the evidence, there was no reasonable and just cause for dismissal of defendant. These two commissioners explained why they found the evidence against defendant unpersuasive. They noted, for example, discrepancies between satisfactory written evaluations of defendant's classroom performance and the testimony offered on behalf of the charging party. Another illustration of the analysis of these commissioners is their finding of discrepancy between the board's conclusions concerning charges I and IV. They found "basic contradictions" in the board's finding that defendant had a negative effect on her students' emotional development but that she did not fail to establish rapport with her students.
Two other members of the commission, in a written opinion, also reviewed the evidence. They found "compelling evidence" against defendant. They concluded that the school board had properly given substantial weight to the adverse testimony of the school superintendent and principal and that the board had given due weight to all other testimony.
Expressly declining to join in the reasoning of the two commissioners voting for reinstatement of defendant, the remaining commissioner filed an opinion in which he concurred in their result. Without expressly reviewing any of the evidence presented to the school board, this commissioner simply stated, "I concur in the result * * * as I feel that * * * the evidence does not support the conclusion of Appellee Board of Education that Appellant's performance as a classroom teacher justifies her dismissal."
On appeal to the Tenure Commission from the adverse decision of the controlling board, a tenured[92 MICHAPP 284] teacher is entitled to De novo review. Luther v. Board of Education of Alpena Public Schools, 62 Mich.App. 32, 35, 233 N.W.2d 173 (1975); Elgammal v. Macomb County Intermediate School District Board of Education, 83 Mich.App. 444, 448, 268 N.W.2d 679 (1978). As "board of review", the Tenure Commission is to review and consider the record made before the controlling board but may also take additional testimony. All questions of fact decided by the controlling board, as well as questions of law, are subject to review and De novo determination in an appeal to the Tenure Commission. Long v. Board of Education, District No. 1, Fractional, Royal Oak Township and City of Oak Park, 350 Mich. 324, 86 N.W.2d 275 (1957). The burden of proof remains with the school district; before both the board and the Tenure Commission, the school district bears the burden of showing reasonable and just cause for discharging the tenured teacher. Luther v. Alpena Board of Education, supra, 62 Mich.App. at 36-37; Sutherby v. Gobles Board of Education, 73 Mich.App. 506, 508, 252 N.W.2d 503 (1977), remanded 401 Mich. 833 (1977).
On appeal from decisions of the Tenure Commission, the power of reviewing courts is limited. Courts may not review and decide questions of fact decided by the commission. Long v. Board of Education, supra, 350 Mich. at 326, 86 N.W.2d 275; Freiberg v. Board of Education of Big Bay De Noc School District, 61 Mich.App. 404, 416, 232 N.W.2d 718 (1975). The sole function of reviewing courts is to determine from the record whether the proof received by the school board or the Tenure Commission, or both, supports the findings on which the Tenure Commission decided for or against the appealing teacher. Long v. Board of Education, supra, 350 Mich. at 326, 86 N.W.2d 275. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cona v. Avondale Sch. Dist., Docket No. 310893.
...discharge. Respondent had the burden of establishing a factual basis for discharging petitioner. See Comstock Pub. Sch. v. Wildfong, 92 Mich.App. 279, 284, 284 N.W.2d 527 (1979). As noted earlier, under the standard of MCL 38.101(1), as amended, a school district may discharge a teacher “on......
-
Lewis v. Bridgman Public Schools
...whole record. Beebee v. Haslett Pub. Schools (After Remand), 406 Mich. 224, 231, 278 N.W.2d 37 (1979); Comstock Pub. Schools v. Wildfong, 92 Mich.App. 279, 284-285, 284 N.W.2d 527 (1979). The task of the appellate court is "limited to a review of the record to determine whether there was co......
-
Plymouth-Canton Community Schools v. State Tenure Com'n
...continues to bear the burden of showing reasonable and just cause for the discipline imposed. Comstock Public Schools v. Wildfong, 92 Mich.App. 279, 284-285, 284 N.W.2d 527 (1979). If Kurtz prevails before the Tenure Commission on remand, back pay subject to mitigation under Shiffer, supra,......
-
Barcheski v. Board of Educ. of Grand Rapids Public Schools
...whole record. Const. 1963, art. 6, Sec. 28; M.C.L. Sec. 24.306(1)(d); M.S.A. Sec. 3.560(206)(1)(d); Comstock Public Schools v. Wildfong, 92 Mich.App. 279, 284-285, 284 N.W.2d 527 (1979); Miller v. Grand Haven Bd. of Ed., 151 Mich.App. 412, 422, 390 N.W.2d 255 (1986), lv. den. 426 Mich. 880 ......