Hattrick v. North Kitsap School Dist. No. 400, 42480
| Decision Date | 14 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 42480,42480 |
| Citation | 504 P.2d 302,81 Wn.2d 668 |
| Parties | William M. HATTRICK, Appellant, v. NORTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 400, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
William H. Fraser, Bremerton, for appellant.
Bishop & Cunningham, Gary A. Cunningham, Bremerton, for respondent.
Following a decision by the School Board of North Kitsap School District No. 400 not to renew the teaching contract of Mr. William Hattrick for the 1969--70 school year, Mr. Hattrick appealed to the Kitsap County Superior Court which rendered judgment in favor of the respondent school board. This is an appeal by Mr. Hattrick from that judgment.
The facts of the immediate controversy are as follows The appellant, William Hattrick, had been a teacher of Ninth Grade English at North Kitsap Junior High School for several years prior to April of 1969. On April 11, 1969, a Notice of Non-renewal of teacher's employment contract was served on Mr. Hattrick, pursuant to a prior decision of the school board. Thereafter, Mr. Hattrick gave a Notice of Appeal, and the school board held a series of hearings culminating in a decision by the school board on May 27, 1969, upholding their prior decision of non-renewal. Mr. Hattrick then filed notice of appeal with the superior court on June 23, 1969, and subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that a transcript of the hearings held before the school board had not been filed with the superior court as required by RCW 28.58.470 (now RCW 28A.58.470). This motion was heard and denied, and trial was held in the superior court in March of 1970. At the conclusion of this trial, the trial judge determined that, of seven charges leveled against Mr. Hattrick by the school board, most were not supported by the evidence but, nonetheless, 'in the Appellant's classes in Ninth Grade English discipline was more of a problem than with other teachers and it was necessary that the Appellant refer far more problems to the office than did other teachers within the Junior High School in which the Appellant taught.' Based upon this finding of fact, the trial judge held that the school board had sufficient cause to non-renew the appellant's contract, although the judge indicated that had he been making an independent determination, he would have reached the opposite conclusion and renewed the contract.
The major contentions of the appellant are (1) that, on appeal to the superior court, the school board was required by RCW 28A.58.470 to furnish a transcript of the hearing before it, and (2) that, pursuant to the trial De novo requirement of RCW 28A.58.480, the trial court must independently determine whether the sanction imposed by the school board was proper. We agree with both contentions.
Regarding the issue of furnishing a transcript of the hearing before the school board, RCW 28A.58.470 provides as follows:
The clerk of the superior court, within ten days of his receipt of the notice of appeal shall notify in writing the chairman of the school board of the taking of the appeal, and within twenty days thereafter The school board shall at its expense file the complete transcript of the evidence and the papers and exhibits relating to the decision complained of, all properly certified to be correct.
(Italics ours.) In the instant case, the school board filed only the papers and exhibits relating to its decision. The above statute, however, requires the filing of both exhibits and papers And a complete transcript. Although this legislative requirement that a complete...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wagle v. Murray
...board, and is to be based solely upon the evidence and testimony which the trial court receives." Hattrick v. North Kitsap School Dist., 81 Wash.2d 668, 670-71, 504 P.2d 302, 303 (1972). "(T)he trial court's determination must be its own, unhampered by the findings and conclusions of the sc......
-
Weems v. North Franklin School Dist.
...together with a stipulation as to the characterization of the testimony—satisfy that obligation. Dr. Weems relies on Hattrick v. North Kitsap School District No. 400 for the proposition that failure to provide the record requires reversal of the termination. Hattrick v. N. Kitsap Sch. Dist.......
-
Butler v. Lamont School Dist. No. 246
...inconsistency between Clark and prior case law has been adequately addressed: Clark relies principally on Hattrick v. North Kitsap Sch. Dist. 400, 81 Wn.2d 668, 504 P.2d 302 (1972), wherein the issue concerned the meaning of a trial de novo of a school district's action not to renew a teach......
-
Pierce v. Lake Stevens School Dist. No. 4, Snohomish County
...than others, were selected for nonrenewal. The hearing before the trial court in this case was de novo (Hattrick v. North Kitsap School Dist. 400, 81 Wash.2d 668, 504 P.2d 302 (1972)) and it is not denied that the appellants were given a full opportunity to contest the application of the cr......