Jackson v. Board of Directors of the School District of Kansas City

• Decision Date: 11 January 2000
• Citation: Jackson v. Board of Directors of the School District of Kansas City, 9 S.W.3d 68 (Mo. App. 2000)
• Parties: (Mo.App. W.D. 2000) . Virdell Jackson, Respondent, v. Board of Directors of the School District of Kansas City, Missouri, Appellant. WD56565 Missouri Court of Appeals Western District Handdown Date: 0
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

9 S.W.3d 68 (Mo.App. W.D. 2000)

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Virdell Jackson, Respondent, v. Board of Directors of the School District of Kansas City, Missouri, Appellant.

WD56565

Missouri Court of Appeals Western District

Handdown Date: 01/11/2000

Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. William F. Mauer

Counsel for Appellant: Shirley Ward Keeler

Counsel for Respondent: Lloyd Koelker

Opinion Summary:

The Board of Directors of the School District of Kansas City, Missouri appeals from the circuit court's judgment overturning the decision of the board to terminate the contract of Virdell Jackson, a permanent teacher.The circuit court overturned the board's decision on the basis that a three-member committee of the board conducted the hearing in this case.The circuit court held that because the board may conduct business only when a quorum is present, the order terminating Jackson was not founded on lawful procedure and was void.

AFFIRMED.

Division Three holds: The board was required to conduct the hearing with a quorum of its members present.The duty to hold a hearing is not so burdensome as to prevent the board from discharging its other duties, nor is the act of holding a hearing ministerial.Furthermore, there is no express authority in the Teacher Tenure Act that would allow the board to delegate the duty of hearing the case to a committee of the board, and there is no reasonable basis for implication of the power to delegate.Under sections 168.118and162.511 RSMo 1994, the board did not have the authority to delegate its duty to conduct the hearing in this case to a committee.

Opinion Author: Victor C. Howard, Judge

Opinion Vote: Affirmed.Ulrich, P.J., and Smith, J., concur.

Opinion:

The Board of Directors of the School District of Kansas City, Missouri ("board") appeals from the circuit court's judgment overturning the decision of the board to terminate the contract of a permanent teacher, Virdell Jackson.The board contends that the trial court erred in overturning its termination of Jackson's contract as a permanent teacher because 1) the circuit court misinterpreted section 168.118¹ as requiring all board members to be physically present during presentation of oral testimony;² and 2) the board's determination was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

We affirm.

Facts

Virdell Jackson began working for the Kansas City, Missouri School District in 1991.In October 1997, Jackson was suspended by the district and the district notified Jackson of its intention to terminate his employment.Jackson requested a hearing under Chapter 168, which occurred on March 11, 1998.

In keeping with the board's policy, a three-member committee of the board was appointed to conduct the hearing in this case.The committee did not constitute a majority or a quorum of the entire board.At the beginning of the hearing, Jackson unsuccessfully objected to the hearing because less than a quorum of the board was participating.

On April 6, 1998, a majority of the board voted to terminate Jackson's contract.On April 13, 1998, the president of the board signed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order terminating Jackson's employment.

Jackson filed a petition for review of the board's decision with the circuit court.The circuit court reversed the board's decision and reinstated Jackson with back pay to the date of the March 11, 1998 hearing.The circuit court held that pursuant to section 162.511, the school board may only conduct business when a quorum is present, and therefore the order terminating Jackson was not founded on lawful procedure and was void.The board now appeals from the circuit court's judgment.

Standard of Review

"When reviewing an administrative decision the question is whether the board or tribunal acted within its authority and reached a conclusion supported by evidence and law.A court does not substitute its judgment for the judgment of an administrative agency acting within its powers."Hamm v. Poplar Bluff R-1 School Dist., 955 S.W.2d 27, 29(Mo.App. S.D.1997)."Determination of questions of law and interpretation of the meaning of the statutes are part of the judicial function vested in the appellate court."Baer v. Civilian Personnel Div., St. Louis Police Officers Ass'n, 747 S.W.2d 159, 160(Mo.App. W.D.1988).

Argument

In its first point on appeal, the board claims that the circuit court erred in overturning its termination of Jackson's contract as a permanent teacher because it misinterpreted section 168.118 as requiring all board members to be physically present during presentation of oral testimony.We disagree.

Sections 168.102 through 168.130 are known as the Teacher Tenure Act."The Teacher Tenure Act evidences a legislative intent to provide substantive and procedural safeguards with respect to tenured teachers.As we viewthe Act, its purpose is to establish strictly defined grounds and procedures for removing a permanent teacher which may not be evaded or other procedures substituted therefor."Lindbergh School Dist. v. Syrewicz, 516 S.W.2d 507, 512(Mo.App.1974).

Section 168.118 provides as follows:

If a hearing is requested on the termination of an indefinite contract it shall be conducted by the board of education in accordance with the following provisions:

(1) The hearing shall be public;

(2) Both the teacher and the person filing charges may be represented by counsel who may cross-examine witnesses;

(3) Testimony at hearings shall be on oath or affirmation administered by the president of the board of education, who for the purpose of hearings held under sections 168.102 to 168.130 shall have the authority to administer oaths;

(4) The school board shall have the power to subpoena witnesses and documentary evidence as provided in section 536.077, RSMo, and shall do so on its own motion or at the request of the teacher against whom charges have been made.The school board shall hear testimony of all witnesses named by the teacher; however, the school board may limit the number of witnesses to be subpoenaed on behalf of the teacher to not more than ten;

(5) The board of education shall employ a stenographer who shall make a full record of the proceedings of the hearings and who shall, within ten days after the conclusion thereof, furnish the board of education and the teacher, at no cost to the teacher, with a copy of the transcript of the record, which shall be certified by the stenographer to be complete and correct.The transcript shall not be open to public inspection, unless the hearing on the termination of the contract was an open hearing or if an appeal from the decision of the board is taken by the teacher;

(6) All costs of the hearing shall be paid by the school board except the cost of counsel for the teacher;

(7) The decision of the board of education resulting in the demotion of a permanent teacher or the termination of an indefinite contract shall be by a majority vote of the members of the board of education and the decision shall be made within seven days after the transcript is furnished them.A written copy of the decision shall be furnished the teacher within three days thereafter.

The board contends that it properly delegated its authority to conduct hearings to a three-member committee of the board.In support of its contention, the board cites Brown Group, Inc. v. Administrative Hearing Commission, 649 S.W.2d 874, 878(Mo. banc 1983), for the rule that "[t]he authority to subdelegate need not be expressed in the statute and may be implied if there is a reasonable basis for such implication."In Brown Group, the Director of the Department of Revenue delegated the authority to perform the ministerial act of signing certain tax assessments.Brown Group, 649 S.W.2d at 879.The court upheld the delegation as valid.Id.The court noted that the petitioner urged an interpretation of the statutes that would prove so burdensome that the director would be unable to perform required duties, and that the more reasonable interpretation of the statutes is that they permit the director to delegate certain authority so that efficient administration of the Department of Revenue may be achieved.Id. at 878.

In State ex rel. Rogers v. Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas City, 995 S.W.2d 1, 4(Mo.App. W.D.1999), this court stated as follows:

We do not find Brown controlling or, under our facts, persuasive.Here, there is no argument that the fact-finding duty is so burdensome as to prevent the Board from discharging its required duties.More importantly, we attach great importance to the duty of determining the facts and credibility, and do not view those responsibilities as a "ministerial act" as described in Brown.As the Board recognizes, there is no express authority in section 84.600 to delegate the duty of hearing the case to another, and we conclude that such delegation of authority may not be implied because "there is a reasonable basis for such implication."

(Citation omitted.)The reasoning we used to distinguish Brown Group from Rogers is also applicable in the case at bar.There is no argument that the duty of holding a hearing is so burdensome as to prevent the board from discharging its other duties.In addition, the act of holding a hearing is not a ministerial one.Furthermore, there is no express authority in the Teacher Tenure Act that would allow the board to delegate the duty of hearing the case to a committee of the board, and there is no reasonable basis for implication of the power to delegate here.

Citing Brown v. Weir, 675 S.W.2d 135, 139(Mo.App. E.D.1984), the board further contends that subject to statutory guidelines and due process considerations, boards of education have broad powers to delegate in the management of school affairs, including matters relating to the termination of employment.In Brown,...