Huffman v. Board of Ed. of Mobridge Independent School Dist. No. 13, Walworth County, 12068

• Decision Date: 27 April 1978
• Docket Number: No. 12068,12068
• Citation: 265 N.W.2d 262
• Parties: Clarence HUFFMAN, Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MOBRIDGE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 13, WALWORTH COUNTY, South Dakota, Respondent.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Page 262

265 N.W.2d 262

Clarence HUFFMAN, Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MOBRIDGE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

NO. 13, WALWORTH COUNTY, South Dakota,

Respondent.

No. 12068.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

April 27, 1978.

James Robbennolt, of Duncan, Olinger & Srstka, Pierre, for appellant.

Newell E. Krause, of Lakeman & Krause, Mobridge, for respondent.

WOLLMAN, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court that affirmed the decision of the Board of Education of Mobridge Independent School District No. 13 (the board) not to renew the teaching contract of Clarence Huffman (appellant). We reverse and remand.

Appellant was first employed by the board as a band instructor in 1967. His duties consisted of directing the senior high school concert band, the jazz ensemble, and the pep band. He was also responsible for individual and group lessons, team teaching, directing the elementary instrumental music program, administering the Region VI music contest, and administering All State Band auditions. In March of 1975, the board notified appellant of its intention not to renew his contract for the 1975-76 school year. At appellant's request, a hearing was held before the school board pursuant to SDCL 13-43-10.1. Appellant's request that a record be made of the evidence taken at that hearing and that the witnesses be sworn was denied. The board offered no testimony or evidence of any kind at the hearing. On April 17, 1975, the board issued its decision not to renew appellant's contract. Appellant appealed to the circuit court pursuant to SDCL 13-46-6, and in April of 1976 the matter was tried in the circuit court. The trial court found that the board's decision not to renew appellant's contract was based upon substantial evidence.

Before we proceed with our review of the evidence, we must determine what scope of review is proper in the light of the procedural aspects of this case. As noted above, the board submitted no evidence at the hearing afforded appellant pursuant to his request under SDCL 13-43-10.1. The board took the position, as it has on appeal that so long as the reasons it advanced for not renewing appellant's contract were not trivial it was not required to submit any evidence in support of its decision. The question now is what effect the failure of the board to offer any evidence at that hearing had upon the circuit court's scope of review of the board's decision and, correspondingly, upon our scope of review of the circuit court's findings. The question of the applicable scope of review is of more than academic interest, for the "clearly erroneous" standard of review gives a reviewing court greater latitude in reviewing a lower court's findings than does the "substantial evidence" test. K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 29.02 (1958). Professor Davis has categorized the several standards of review in the following terms:

"So when the 1970s began, the law was based upon the basic and universal understanding that of the three main formulas for review of findings of fact, the broadest judicial inquiry was under the clearly erroneous test, the next broadest was under the substantial evidence test, and the narrowest was under the arbitrary or capricious test." K. Davis, Administrative Law of the Seventies § 29.00, at 647 (1976).

In Mortweet v. Ethan Board of Education, S.D., 241 N.W.2d 580, and in Collins v. Wakonda Independent School District No. 1, S.D., 252 N.W.2d 646, we held that the trial de novo provided by SDCL 13-46-6 is not a trial de novo in the strictest sense of that term, but rather is a more limited type of hearing at which the circuit court hears evidence for the purpose of determining whether the school board was vested with discretion to make the decision considered on appeal, whether that discretion was exercised unreasonably or arbitrarily or was manifestly abused, and whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence.

We conclude that the trial court was free to make its own determination concerning the weight of the evidence and that we, in turn, may review the trial court's findings under the "clearly erroneous" test of SDCL 15-6-52(a) rather than under the more restrictive "substantial evidence" scope of review. This is the only conclusion that the Mortweet and Collins decisions admit of, for if we were to adopt the board's view that it was under no obligation to offer any evidence at the hearing held pursuant to SDCL 13-43-10.1, appellant would be subject to the restrictive "substantial evidence" scope of review on appeal to the circuit court under SDCL 13-46-6 when in fact the circuit court would not be reviewing evidence but would be considering it in a truly de novo manner. In essence, then, what the board contends for is the benefit of the limited scope of review established by the Mortweet and Collins cases without the concomitant burden that makes such review applicable. The board cannot have it both ways. Having elected to require the circuit court to afford appellant a trial de novo, it must now abide the consequences of having the trial court's findings reviewed under the more exacting standard of SDCL 15-6-52(a).

We turn, then, to a review of the evidence offered to justify the board's decision not to renew appellant's contract.

The board's decision was based upon the following reasons:

1. Low enrollment in the band program.

2. Poor instrumentation of the high school band.

3. Erratic pep band program for football, basketball and wrestling activities.

4. Improper use of junior high students in senior high band.

5. Poor attendance of students at regular band practices.

Notwithstanding this rather impressive list of deficiencies, the evidence submitted on behalf of the board was at best equivocal. For example, one would expect that a band director whose performance over the period of eight years had resulted in a list of transgressions as lengthy as that set forth above would be the subject of a concerted action on the part of school administrators to terminate his employment posthaste. The fact is, however, that neither the superintendent of schools nor the senior high school principal intended to recommend that appellant's contract not be renewed prior to March 11, 1975, the date of the meeting at which the board reached a tentative decision not to renew appellant's contract for the coming year. It is true that the superintendent had felt some dissatisfaction with the attendance of the pep band members at certain of the athletic contests at which the pep band was to perform and that he and the principal had met with appellant in February of 1974 for the purpose of discussing band attendance and enrollment problems, but the fact remains that neither of these officials recommended that appellant's contract not be renewed. The evidence revealed that the Mobridge band had received "One" ratings at band contests during six out of the eight years that appellant had served as director. In 1974-75 the band received the highest rating for instrumentation at contest competition.

The person who had served as senior high school principal from 1970 through 1974 characterized appellant as a "very fair man" who seemed to get along with band members and who seemed to have no specific disciplinary problems. This witness had recommended appellant for renewal during each of the years 1970-74. The senior high school principal who had worked with appellant during the 1974-75 school year testified that in his opinion appellant was a dedicated teacher who approached his job with enthusiasm and who tried hard to do a good job.

Much of the evidence submitted on behalf of the board consisted of the testimony of board members. Apart from their general dissatisfaction with what they considered to be inadequate band enrollment for a school of the size of Mobridge and their complaints regarding the poor attendance of the members of the pep band, the board members' principal complaint concerned their dissatisfaction with the pep band's style of play. One board member summarized his criticism of the pep band by saying, "there's just no pep." Other board members characterized the pep band as not being peppy enough. The board members also...