Welch v. Board of Educ. of Chandler Unified School Dist. No. 80 of Maricopa County

• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: GREER; FROEB, P.J., and GRANT
• Citation: Welch v. Board of Educ. of Chandler Unified School Dist. No. 80 of Maricopa County, 667 P.2d 746, 136 Ariz. 552 (Ariz. App. 1983)
• Decision Date: 25 January 1983
• Docket Number: No. 1,CA-CIV,1
• Parties: , 12 Ed. Law Rep. 1290 Ronald J. WELCH, a married man, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CHANDLER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 80 OF MARICOPA COUNTY, Defendant-Appellant. 6506.

Page 746

667 P.2d 746

136 Ariz. 552, 12 Ed. Law Rep. 1290

Ronald J. WELCH, a married man, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CHANDLER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 80 OF MARICOPA COUNTY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CIV 6506.

Court of Appeals of Arizona Division 1, Department B.

Jan. 25, 1983.

Rehearing Denied Mar. 15, 1983.

Review Denied Apr. 5, 1983.

Bendheim, Mote & Monson, P.C. by Theodore D. Mote, Phoenix, for plaintiff-appellee.

DeConcini, McDonald, Brammer, Yetwin & Lacy, P.C. by John R. McDonald, Tucson, for defendant-appellant.

OPINION

GREER, Judge.

This appeal by the Board of Education (Board) is from a judgment reinstating appellee Ronald J. Welch as a teacher following a judicial review of his dismissal by the Board. The trial court held that the Board abused its discretion because there was no reasonable evidence that good cause existed for his dismissal. We reverse.

In the fall of 1980, Mr. Welch and Cindy Vardon, a seventeen year old Chandler High School student, developed a private, personal relationship, which eventually led to marriage. Ms. Vardon's parents were divorced. Her mother, with whom she lived, was aware of the relationship and gave her approval. School officials were first apprised of the situation when Ms. Vardon's father telephoned from Florida. He spoke with the school principal, and advised him of his concern that his daughter was dating Mr. Welch, spending considerable time at Mr. Welch's home, and possibly sexually involved with Mr. Welch.

In response to questioning by school officials on October 29, 1980, Mr. Welch specifically denied any personal involvement with Ms. Vardon. On October 30, 1980, school officials expressly directed Mr. Welch not to "maintain a social relationship with students which could be construed as an improper teacher/pupil relationship." Ms. Vardon withdrew from Chandler High School on November 7, 1980, and transferred to a different school district. The following day Mr. Welch and Ms. Vardon were married. On November 20, 1980, the school board suspended Mr. Welch because of his relationship with Ms. Vardon and his refusal to cooperate with the Board's investigation into the relationship.

On January 13, 1981, the Board filed eight charges of unprofessional conduct against Mr. Welch. Mr. Welch requested and was granted a hearing before a commission, appointed pursuant to A.R.S. § 15-541 (then A.R.S. § 15-262). ¹ Two of the charges were dismissed by the commission on May 1, 1981. After hearing evidence, the commission indicated that charges one through five did not appear to warrant consideration and suggested that attorneys for both sides submit written memoranda on the remaining three charges. Counsel for both Mr. Welch and the district agreed. Charges six, seven and eight stated:

6. In the spring and fall of 1980, Mr. Welch conducted an improper "dating" and "courtship" relationship with one of his students, Cindy Varden [sic].

7. On October 29, 1980, when officials of the District were investigating a complaint made by the father of student Cindy Varden [sic], Mr. Welch lied to the officials concerning his relationship with Ms. Varden [sic].

8. On October 30, 1980, Mr. Welch was ordered not to maintain a dating relationship with students and agreed to comply with that directive. Mr. Welch had no intention of complying with that directive and violated it repeatedly until November 6, 1980.

The commission found that a "special relationship" between Ms. Vardon and Mr. Welch had developed by the fall of 1980, at which time Ms. Vardon was not a student in Mr. Welch's classes. However, it concluded that because the relationship was carried on in a discreet manner with the knowledge of Ms. Vardon's custodial parent, was not exploitive in nature, and was not a disruptive influence in the school, such conduct did not demonstrate unfitness to teach.

The commission further found that Mr. Welch lied to school officials on October 29, 1980, regarding his relationship with Ms. Vardon. However, it concluded that Mr. Welch had been placed in an untenable position with questions directed to an intimate personal matter. It found that his refusal to disclose his relationship with Ms. Vardon was not indicative of any pattern of untrustworthiness and did not demonstrate unfitness to teach.

With respect to charge number eight, the commission concluded that Mr. Welch must have maintained a relationship with Ms Vardon after October 30, 1980, since he married her shortly thereafter. However, the commission was of the opinion that it was unreasonable to expect Mr. Welch to comply with a directive to refrain from associating with the person he intended to marry. The commission held that this behavior was likewise not indicative of unfitness to teach.

The School Board adopted the commission's findings of fact but rejected its recommendation to reinstate Mr. Welch. On August 7, 1981, by a vote of three to two, the Board dismissed Mr. Welch based upon all three charges of misconduct.

Mr. Welch appealed his dismissal to the Maricopa County Superior Court. The trial court reversed the Board's decision and ordered Mr. Welch reinstated effective April 1, 1982. The Board timely appealed on the grounds that the trial court erred by improperly substituting its judgment for that of the Board and by awarding attorney's fees to Mr. Welch for the appeal to superior court. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

School board decisions with respect to teacher dismissals are subject to limited review by the superior court. A.R.S. § 15-543 provides for a review in the same manner as decisions made in accordance with A.R.S. § 41-785. A.R.S². § 41-785(F) provides in relevant part:

The court shall review the hearing on the basis of the transcript and exhibits, except that in case of alleged irregularity and procedure by the ... board not shown by the transcript, the court may order further testimony. The court shall upon request by either party hear oral arguments and receive written briefs. The court may affirm the order of the ... board, remand the matter for further proceedings before the board, or reverse or modify the order.

The scope of this review has been further delineated by this court in Board of Education of Tempe Union High School District v. Lammle, 122 Ariz. 522, 526, 596 P.2d 48, 52 (App.1979):

[T]he superior court may not substitute its determination of good cause for that of the board and is limited to a determination of whether reasonable evidence supports the board's finding, and if so, whether the determination that good cause exists is arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion.

At this juncture it is important to define "good cause." In the context of the dismissal of a continuing teacher, it means a cause which bears a reasonable relationship to a teacher's unfitness to discharge the duties assigned or is in a reasonable sense detrimental to the students being taught. [citations omitted].

In the case at bar, the trial court found that the Board had abused its discretion because there was "no reasonable evidence" supporting its conclusion that "good cause" existed to dismiss Mr. Welch.

Both parties agree there is substantial evidence to support the findings of fact made by the commission and adopted by the Board. The parties also agree that the Board was free to accept the commission's finding of fact but reject its recommendation to reinstate Mr. Welch. See Fulton v. Dysart Unified School Dist. No. 89, 133 Ariz. 314, 651 P.2d 369 (1982). See also Blair v. Lovett, 196 Colo. 118, 582 P.2d 668 (1978); Petrino v. Board of Education, 179 Conn. 428, 426 A.2d 795 (1980). The parties disagree on whether the factual findings bear a reasonable relationship...