Kelly v. Board of Ed. of Monticello Independent School Dist.

Decision Date04 November 1977
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals
PartiesWilliam A. KELLY, Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MONTICELLO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee.

Arthur L. Brooks, Brooks & Sullivan, Lexington, for appellant.

R. B. Bertram, David C. Hull, Bertram & Bertram, Monticello, for appellee.

Before HOGGE, HAYES and LESTER, JJ.

HOGGE, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Wayne Circuit Court upholding the action of the Board of Education of Monticello Independent School District in the dismissal of the appellant as a tenured teacher in the Monticello School System.

William A. Kelly was a certified classroom teacher employed by the Board of Education of Monticello, Kentucky under a "continuing service contract", as that term is used and defined in KRS 161.720. By letter dated May 11, 1976, signed by the chairman and the secretary of the Board of Education, Kelly was given notice that the Board was terminating his teaching contract, and informed that the notice was being sent to him to apprise him that the charges, as grounds for the termination, pursuant to KRS 161.790, were as follows:

1. Insubordination, by refusing to obey the rules relating to punishment of students, in particular, the beating of Kenney Catron and David Hicks with a stick on November 6, 1975.

2. Physical and mental disability, due to your repeated confinement in psychiatric wards and your frequent absences from classes. This includes the fact that you are presently under psychiatric treatment after being released from the psychiatric ward in Lexington, Kentucky, after having been discharged since your requested leave of absence.

3. Conduct unbecoming a teacher in losing control of your temper, as set out in No. 1 above.

4. Repeated alcohol and drug problems causing absences and inefficiency.

5. Neglect of your teaching duties.

A hearing before the Board on these charges was set for June 10, 1976, and within ten days of the receipt of the notice, Kelly made a written response to the Board that he intended to appear at said hearing. At the hearing, Kelly was represented by counsel and objected that the charges against him were not in sufficient detail and objected to the hearing being prosecuted by the Board's regular attorney. He conducted a voir dire examination of the individual members of the School Board to determine whether any of the members had formed an opinion as to the truth of the charges or an opinion otherwise against him. After this examination, Kelly, through counsel, asked each member of the Board to disqualify himself from considering the charges, since each member had stated that he believed Kelly to be guilty, in some degree, of the charges made against him. Each Board member refused to disqualify himself.

Evidence was presented to the Board by the attorney representing the Board, at the conclusion of which, counsel for Kelly moved to dismiss all charges for lack of substantial evidence. Kelly declined to testify or offer any additional evidence.

The proof on behalf of the Board at the hearing before the Board was a statement of Dr. John W. Simmons, which informed the Board that Kelly was unable to return to work until August 30, 1976, and then only on a part-time basis. Additionally, the superintendent testified as to a series of events that had transpired in which the appellant had been repeatedly absent from work. There was evidence that he had used some drugs, and that he had been under psychiatric care. The superintendent additionally testified that, on May 10, 1976, he telephoned the appellant's residence in order to determine whether Mr. Kelly would be able to resume his teaching duties. At that time, he was advised by Mr. Kelly's wife that Kelly was still a patient at the University of Kentucky Medical Center.

On June 15, 1976, the Board voted to terminate Kelly's teaching contract, and made written findings of fact in support of its decision, and found that he was physically and mentally unable to perform the duties of a full-time teacher.

Subsequently, an appeal of this termination of his contract was taken to the Wayne Circuit Court. A transcript of the evidence taken before the Board was filed, and the case was heard by the circuit court on August 30, 1976.

At that hearing, Kelly stated that he did not wish to introduce any additional evidence, and that the hearing should be based upon the transcribed hearing before the Board. Counsel for the Board, at the circuit court hearing, requested an opportunity to obtain additional medical evidence, by way of deposition, to which, Kelly objected. The court allowed the Board to take the medical deposition as they requested, but deferred a ruling on whether he would or would not consider such proof. The trial judge stated that, if he did decide to use such deposition as evidence, counsel for Kelly would be given an opportunity to take evidence by deposition to rebut this testimony.

On September 15, 1976, the Board took the deposition of Dr. David C. Jacobs, who had assisted in the treatment of Kelly while Kelly was a volunteer patient at the Medical Center during the month of April, 1976. The counsel for Kelly was present at the taking of this deposition.

The evidence of Dr. Jacobs, was to the effect that he had no opinion as to whether Kelly could return to his teaching duties in the fall of 1976, but he diagnosed his condition as a depressive reaction. Dr. Jacobs had also taken the history of Kelly, which showed that he had used the drug darvon excessively and had taken a leave of absence for the school year of 1975-1976, after it developed, in November of 1975, that the severity of his illnesses prevented him from continuing that year as a teacher. Dr. Simmons had said that Kelly suffered from chronic depression.

The appellant did not offer any other proof, nor did he ask to take any depositions to rebut the testimony of Dr. Jacobs. On appeal, the circuit court affirmed the School Board's determination that Kelly's contract be terminated because of physical and mental disability.

On this appeal, the appellant, Kelly, argues that procedural due process required more than notice of the charges...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Vaught v. Waites
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • October 18, 1989
    ...been held an adequate ground for discharge. Gadue v. Village of Essex Junction, 133 Vt. 282, 336 A.2d 182 (1975); Kelly v. Board of Education, 566 S.W.2d 165 (Ky.Ct.App.1977).5 The record contains excerpts from the depositions of Vaught and Broom. It also contains affidavits of Broom and Va......
  • In re JLD Properties of St. Albans, LLC
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • August 5, 2011
    ...prospect of receiving a fair hearing before a school board that had prejudged his case was "more illusory than real." 566 S.W.2d 165, 168 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979). Nevertheless, the court concluded that the appellant's right to a de novo evidentiary hearing in the circuit court was "sufficient t......
  • In re Jld Properties of St. Albans Llc.
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • August 5, 2011
    ...the appellant's prospect of receiving a fair hearing before a school board that had prejudged his case was “more illusory than real.” 566 S.W.2d 165, 168 (Ky.Ct.App.1977). Nevertheless, the court concluded that the appellant's right to a de novo evidentiary hearing in the circuit court was ......
  • Hilltop Basic Resources v. County of Boone
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • December 22, 2005
    ...Aluminum Co. v. Big Rivers Electric Corp., 785 S.W.2d 503, 515 (Ky.App. 1990); Kelly v. Board of Education of Monticello Independent School Dist., 566 S.W.2d 165, 167-68 (Ky.App. 1977); see also Kentucky Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Stephens, 897 S.W.2d 583, 590 (Ky. 1995) ("Procedural due proces......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT