STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
12-488
RODNEY IRCHIRL
VERSUS
NATCHITOCHES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.
**********
APPEAL FROM THE TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF NATCHITOCHES, NO. 83,790 HONORABLE ERIC R. HARRINGTON, DISTRICT JUDGE
PHYLLIS M. KEATY JUDGE
Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Billy Howard Ezell, and Phyllis M. Keaty, Judges.
AFFIRMED.
Robert L. Hammonds Pamela Wescovich Dill Hammonds, Sills, Adkins & Guice Post Office Box 65236 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70896 (225) 923-3462 Counsel for Defendants/Appellees: Natchitoches Parish School Board Dr. Derwood Duke
Rodney Irchirl In Proper Person 256 Water Turkey Road Natchitoches, Louisiana 71457 (318) 357-7698 Plaintiff/Appellant KEATY, Judge.
Rodney Irchirl appeals from a trial court judgment affirming his termination
by the Natchitoches Parish School Board (Board). For the following reasons, we
affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Irchirl was a guidance counselor at Natchitoches Central High School (NCH)
during the 2008-09 school year. By letter dated June 5, 2009, School Board
Superintendent Dr. Edwina Murphy notified Irchirl that the Board had approved a
resolution setting a hearing for July 1, 2009, to consider charges brought against
him.1 The resolution was attached to the letter, along with a detailed listing of the
ten willful neglect of duty charges levied against him. 2 The hearing was continued
at Irchirl‟s request to August 1, 2009. The hearing eventually concluded on
September 30, 2009, after spanning over nine sessions and fifty hours of testimony.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board voted and found Irchirl guilty of
charges four, five, six, eight, nine, and ten. Those charges can be summarized as
follows:
Charge Number 4 – Failure to coordinate accurate records of student grades, including the verification and printing of report cards by: 1) failing to check for missing grades prior to printing report cards; 2) issuing report cards with missing grades and inaccurate grade point averages (GPAs); 3) unilaterally setting an unauthorized date for turning in senior grades; and 4) failing to obtain and post missing grades.
Charge Number 5 – Failure to coordinate accurate records of student grades, including maintaining and updating records related to graduation for one- third of the senior class by: 1) failing to timely verify students who would not graduate; 2) refusing and/or failing to post grades on seniors‟ transcripts and to timely prepare and print same.
1 The letter contains Irchirl‟s signature and a notation indicating that it was signed by him on June 11, 2009. 2 The letter was admitted into evidence as Supt. 1; the Board‟s resolution was admitted as Supt. 1-A; and the list of the ten neglect of duty charges waged against Irchirl were admitted as Supt. 1-B. Note: The Superintendent withdrew charge three before the tenure hearing began. Charge Number 6 – Failure to demonstrate respect for all individuals by establishing working relationships with colleagues and others, including engaging in respectful interaction and team work with other guidance counselors and teachers. Failure to perform his duties by engaging in the following unprofessional behaviors: 1) demonstrating disrespect to the department head on multiple occasions; 2) being insubordinate to his department head and principal by refusing to answer questions regarding, among other things, the posting of grades to seniors‟ transcripts and the providing of necessary information for graduation participation; and 3) regularly engaging in unacceptable, argumentative, confrontational, and/or disrespectful conduct toward his department head, other counselors, and teachers.
Charge Number 8 – Failure to adhere to the general policies and procedures applicable to him as a guidance counselor at NCH as follows: 1) refusing and/or failing to inform his department head, school administration, or other counselors of his location at all times during the school day and, thus, being unavailable and/or could not be located for significant periods of time; 2) absenting himself from his office regularly during the lunch period; and 3) failing to maintain and open door policy.
Charge Number 9 - Failure to adhere to the general policies and procedures applicable to him as a guidance counselor at NCH by resisting compliance and/or failing to comply with standard operating procedures with the guidance department, such as: 1) refusing to adhere to the division of students amongst the counselors; 2) changing the schedules of students not assigned to him; 3) improperly investigation a teacher; and 4) demonstrating a consistent inability to follow the directives of his department head and principal.
Charge Number 10 - Failure to adhere to the general policies and procedures applicable to him as a guidance counselor at NCH by resisting compliance and/or failing to comply with standard operating procedures with the guidance department, such as: 1) refusing to input custody information in ProComm; 2) inexplicably ordering large quantities of ACT waiver forms and refusing to voluntarily allow other counselors to use the ordered forms; 3) failing to effectively organize and implement a schedule for the ePortal exercise; and 4) demonstrating a consistent inability to follow the directives of his department head and principal.
On October 1, 2009, Irchirl was notified by certified letter that his employment had
been terminated.
Irchirl filed a timely appeal pursuant to La.R.S. 17:443 3 with the Tenth
Judicial District Court. After reviewing the exhibits and the briefs filed by the
parties, the trial court affirmed the Board‟s action, finding that there was
3 This statute is known as the Teacher Tenure Law (TTL). 2 substantial evidence to support the Board‟s finding of willful neglect of duty on
each of the six charges sustained against him. Irchirl, in proper person, now seeks
review in this court, alleging eight assignments of error which, as Irchirl agreed at
oral arguments, can be resolved by addressing the following issues: 1) whether the
Board complied with the statutory formalities under the TTL; and 2) whether the
Board‟s findings were supported by substantial evidence.
DISCUSSION
Louisiana Revised Statutes 17:443(A) governs the dismissal of tenured
teachers4 and provides, in pertinent part, that:
A permanent teacher shall not be removed from office except upon written and signed charges of willful neglect of duty, or incompetency, dishonesty, or immorality . . . and then only if found guilty after a hearing by the school board of the parish or city, as the case may be, which hearing may be private or public, at the option of the teacher. At least twenty days in advance of the date of the hearing, the superintendent with approval of the school board shall furnish the teacher with a copy of the written charges. Such statement of charges shall include a complete and detailed list of the specific reasons for such charges and shall include but not be limited to the following: date and place of alleged offense or offenses, names of individuals involved in or witnessing such offense or offenses, names of witnesses called or to be called to testify against the teacher at said hearing, and whether or not any such charges previously have been brought against the teacher. The teacher shall have the right to appear before the board with witnesses in his behalf and with counsel of his selection, all of whom shall be heard by the board at said hearing.
In Wise v. Bossier Parish School Board, 02-1525, pp. 5-7 (La. 6/27/03), 851
So.2d 1090, 1094-95 (citations omitted) (footnote omitted), the Louisiana Supreme
Court wrote:
[J]udicial review of tenure proceedings must be limited to an inquiry of whether the School Board complied with the statutory formalities under Louisiana‟s Teacher Tenure Law and whether the School Board‟s findings were supported by substantial evidence. “„Substantial evidence‟ has been defined as „evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions.‟” In 4 At the September 30, 2009 hearing, Irchirl, through counsel, stipulated that he was a tenured teacher under the TTL. 3 conducting such an examination, the district court must give great deference to the school board‟s findings of fact and credibility. Reasons for dismissal are largely in the sound discretion of the school board. Thus, the school board‟s judgment should not be reversed in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Generally, an abuse of discretion results from a conclusion reached capriciously or in an arbitrary manner. The word “arbitrary” implies a disregard of evidence or of the proper weight thereof. A conclusion is “capricious” when there is no substantial evidence to support it or the conclusion is contrary to substantiated competent evidence.
The district court may not substitute its judgment for that of the school board or interfere with the school board‟s good faith exercise of discretion. The district court‟s responsibility in such a case is to determine whether the school board‟s action was supported by substantial evidence, or conversely, constituted an arbitrary decision and thus an abuse of discretion. As with the district court, a court of appeal may not reverse the decision of a district court unless it finds the school board‟s termination proceedings failed to comply with statutory formalities and/or the school board‟s findings were not supported by substantial evidence.
Compliance with Teacher Tenure Law Irchirl complains that the Board failed to comply with the TTL in that: 1)
the Board failed to provide him with the specific dates of the alleged offenses; 2)
the charges against him lacked the details and specificities required by the statute;
3) the Board failed to comply with La.R.S. 17:3884(2) by failing to grant him a
pre-suspension opportunity to respond to discrepancies in his end-of-the-year
evaluation; 4) the Board erred in including charges under La.R.S. 17:444 in the
same document that charged him under La.R.S. 17:443; 5) the Board was allowed
to call an unlisted witness to testify against him; 6) the Board denied him an
opportunity to present relevant rebuttal evidence; and 7) his termination notice was
legally insufficient.
The Board counters that the trial court correctly held that none of Irchirl‟s
assigned errors had merit because the Board provided him with all the procedural
rights afforded by the TTL. More specifically, Irchirl was represented by counsel
at each of the nine hearing sessions and was given extreme latitude to present his
4 defense, he was allowed to testify at length in his own defense, and he was allowed
to call witnesses to testify on his behalf. Finally, the Board suggests that this court
disregard the issue regarding its alleged violation of La.R.S. 17:3884(2) because
Irchirl raised the issue for the first time on appeal.
“„[D]ue process is not a technical concept with a fixed content unrelated to
the time, place and circumstances.‟ Rather, it requires the implementation of
flexible rules which may yield to the demands of the particular situation.” Rubin v.
Lafayette Parish Sch. Bd., 93-473, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/14/94), 649 So.2d 1003,
1010-11 (quoting Wilson v. City of New Orleans, 479 So.2d 891 (La.1985)), writ
denied, 95-845 (La. 5/12/95), 654 So.2d 351. See also, Johns v. Jefferson Davis
Parish School Bd., 154 So.2d 581 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1963) (Statutory provision for
formal notice and hearing on charges against teacher contemplates reasonable and
substantial compliance with general principle of due process of law which requires
that teacher be given formal notice of charges against him made with sufficient
specificity that he may prepare any defense he may have.).
In concluding that the Board‟s actions “were in compliance with [La.R.S.
17:443],” the trial court noted that Irchirl received a letter from the superintendent
on June 11, 2009, notifying him that a hearing would be held on July 1, 2009,
regarding charges brought against him. The trial court described the document
attached to that letter which listed the charges against Irchirl as being “detailed.”
Noting that the hearing had been continued at Irchirl‟s request from July 1 to
August 1, 2009, and that the hearing had been held over nine separate days, the
trial court found that “Irchirl had the extended opportunity far beyond the 20 days
provided by the statute to prepare a defense against the allegations set forth in Supt.
1-B, which the court finds to be in compliance with the statute.”
5 After having read the entire record, including all of the exhibits and the
transcripts of the nine days of testimony received at the tenure hearing, we are
convinced that the Board fully complied with the mandates of the TTL. The list of
charges found in Supt. 1-B included the specific reasons for each charge and the
names of witnesses who might be called to testify in support of each charge.
While the Board listed the date of each alleged offense as “the 2008-2009 school
year” rather than as occurring on a particular date, the Board went into great detail
in providing the specific reasons for each charge in Supt. 1-B. In addition, the
Board backed up the charges with specific witness testimony pinpointing the time
frames relative to each of the charges. Given the continuing nature of the charges,
we concur with the trial court‟s finding that the Board complied with the TTL with
respect to providing Irchirl with detailed and specific charges.
With respect to Irchirl‟s claim that the Board failed to comply with La.R.S.
17:3884(2) by not granting him a pre-suspension opportunity to respond to
discrepancies in his end-of-the-year evaluation, we note that Irchirl disputes the
Board‟s assertion that he did not raise the issue before the trial court. Regardless
of whether he did so or not, we conclude that once Superintendent Murphy decided
to file written charges of neglect of duty against him and the Board had approved
those charges, La.R.S. 17:3884(2) was no longer applicable to the situation and the
Board was instead required to comply with the TTL, which, as we have found, it
did. Irchirl has not offered any specific jurisprudence to the contrary. The Board
did not err in not giving Irchirl an opportunity to respond to discrepancies in his
end-of-the-year evaluation before conducting the tenure hearing. Moreover, the
record indicates that although the 2009-10 school year commenced while the
charges were still pending against Irchirl, he continued to be paid by the Board
6 throughout the pendency of his tenure hearing even though he did not resume his
duties as a counselor at NCH.
Irchirl asserts that the Board erred in that the charges against him included
reasons for terminating both a promotional appointee, under La.R.S. 17:444, and a
tenured teacher, under La.R.S. 17:443. We disagree. The Board presented
evidence that, out of an abundance of caution, Superintendent Murphy included
language in the charges against Irchirl to include reasons to terminate him as a
teacher, i.e., for willful neglect of duty, and as a promotional employee, i.e., for
inefficiency and/or failure to comply with performance objectives. At the start of
the hearings, the Board attempted to get Irchirl‟s counsel to stipulate under which
statutory provision Irchirl wished to be adjudged. Although Irchirl‟s counsel did
eventually enter into a stipulation that his client was a teacher and wished to be
adjudged according to the TTL, he did not do so until the final session of the
hearing. Given the circumstances, we conclude that the Board did not err by
including alternative charges against Irchirl. Our conclusion is bolstered by the
fact that, under either statute, the bases of the charges against Irchirl were the exact
same alleged behavior.
Irchirl complains that the Board was improperly allowed to call an unlisted
witness to testify against him. The Board points out that the witness referred to,
Dennis Breland, was called as a rebuttal witness. In addition, on the first day of
the hearings, Irchirl named Mr. Breland as one of his “may call” witnesses.
Viewing the situation in that light, we conclude that Irchirl was not prejudiced by
and the Board did not violate the TTL by calling Mr. Breland as a witness.
Irchirl next asserts that the Board violated the TTL by denying him an
opportunity to present evidence that the two other guidance counselors at NCH
also turned in senior transcripts containing the same issues that he was being 7 punished for in these proceedings. The Board counters that it did not err in
excluding the evidence because the documents were offered to prove the
misconduct of other individuals. We conclude that the Board did not err in
excluding the documents sought to be offered by Irchirl in rebuttal as those
documents were wholly irrelevant to the whether Irchirl was guilty of the
complained of conduct.
Finally, relying on Serignet v. Livingston Parish School Board, 282 So.2d
761 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1973), Irchirl claims that the Board violated the TTL because
his October 1, 2009 termination notice was legally insufficient in that it failed to
include the specific reasons upon which the Board recommended his termination,
thereby making it impossible for him to mount an adequate appeal. The Board
counters that because Irchirl had been provided with the detailed charges against
him on June 11, 2009, and because he was present at all nine of the hearing
sessions when those charges were addressed, “he cannot credibly claim that he was
not fully aware of the „charges‟ to which the [termination] notice referred.”
Louisiana Revised Statutes 17:443(B) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
If a permanent teacher is found guilty by a school board, after due and legal hearing as provided herein, on charges of willful neglect of duty . . . and ordered removed from office, or disciplined by the board, the superintendent with approval of the board shall furnish to the teacher a written statement of recommendation of removal or discipline, which shall include but not be limited to the exact reason(s), offense(s), or instance(s) upon which the recommendation is based.
In Serignet, the school board was found to have violated La.R.S. 17:442,
which provides that a probationary teacher may be dismissed upon the written
recommendation of the superintendent accompanied by valid reasons therefor.
Serignet was dismissed after receiving a letter that informed him that he was being
dismissed for incompetency and willful neglect of duty. Attached to the letter was
8 a resolution of the school board which stated that at its April 5, 1971 meeting, it
had, upon the written recommendation of the superintendent, unanimously adopted
a resolution to discharge Serignet. The first circuit found that the charges
contained in the dismissal notice were mere conclusions and that no detailed
charges existed at the time of Serignet‟s discharge. Instead, the school board did
not provide Serignet with the reasons for his dismissal until he propounded
interrogatories to it in February of 1972 and long after his dismissal, requesting
“the detailing of specific acts constituting the alleged incompetency and willful
neglect of duty.” Id. at 762.
Here, Irchirl acknowledged that he received the charges against him on
June 11, 2009. As stated above, those charges were detailed and specific and
complied with the requirements of the TTL. When considered in conjunction with
the charges provided to him in June of 2009, we find that the October 2009
termination notice provided to Irchirl complied with the TTL.
In sum, Irchirl has failed to prove that the Board did not comply with the
TTL. Accordingly, we will now address Irchirl‟s claim that the Board erred in
finding sufficient evidence to support his termination.
Substantial Evidence
Irchirl claims that the Board‟s findings that he was guilty of six counts of
willful neglect of duty was not supported by substantial evidence and thus were
arbitrary and capricious. He further claims that the trial court erred in finding that
there was substantial evidence to constitute willful neglect of duty on his part. The
Board counters that the trial court was correct in its assessment of the evidence and
that it did not err in affirming the Board‟s termination of Irchirl. It submits that
Irchirl failed to prove that the Board‟s decision to terminate his employment was
9 an abuse of discretion or that it reached its decision in an arbitrary or capricious
manner.
The evidence produced at the tenure hearing showed that Irchirl was
assigned to counsel and advise the ninth graders at NCH. The tenth graders were
assigned to counselor Jeff Johnson and the eleventh graders were assigned to
counselor Wendy Byles. The senior class was divided equally amongst the three
counselors, with each assigned approximately ninety seniors. Irchirl also had the
responsibility of ensuring that the teachers at NCH timely entered grades, of
posting those grades in the computer, and of printing report cards.
In Charge Number 4, the superintendent alleged that Irchirl failed to
coordinate accurate records of student by: 1) failing to check for missing grades
prior to printing report cards; 2) issuing report cards with missing grades and
inaccurate GPA‟s; 3) unilaterally setting an unauthorized date for turning in senior
grades; and 4) failing to obtain and post missing grades.
Byles was the head of the guidance department at NCH. She testified that at
the beginning of the 2008-09 school year, she gave Irchirl charts to assist him in
monitoring when the teachers turned in their grades. She directed Irchirl to give
the completed chart to Principal David Elkins and he would handle the issue of
teachers who were late turning in grades. Byles testified that despite her
instructions, Irchirl did not use the charts. As a result, some report cards were
printed and disseminated in March of 2009 and again in May of 2009 with
incomplete and/or missing grades. Those incomplete and/or missing grades caused
the students‟ GPAs to be inaccurate. According to Byles, the problem was
exacerbated in March of 2009 because Irchirl scheduled himself to be out of town
doing professional development on three days during the time when grades were
due. 10 Byles stated that Irchirl was responsible for letting the school know which of
his one-third of the seniors were qualified to graduate in order for the graduation
ceremony to be properly planned. Byles said that Irchirl directed that the teachers
turn in senior grades on May 11, 2009 by two p.m., which she found problematic
because it impaired her ability to timely plan for the academic pep rally and the
graduation ceremony.
Adrienne Theus, a computer specialist and long-time employee of the Board
who worked at its central office, testified that when it was nearing time for senior
transcripts to be posted, she contacted Irchirl about getting the “incompletes”
removed. When Irchirl did not promptly address the problem, she contacted Elkins
who asked her for instructions on how to correct the problem and who made the
corrections himself. On another occasion, Byles contacted her about senior grades
that Irchirl said he had posted but that she could not find in the computer. Theus
checked the database, and no grades were posted. As a result, she walked Byles
through the process of posting those grades, even though that task should have
been completed by Irchirl. Theus later called Irchirl inquiring about whether he
had posted the grades, and he assured her that he had done so. Theus explained
that grades could be posted to NCH‟s database through two programs, either
Procomm or M.T.S. She and Byles decided that they would talk with Irchirl about
how he had entered the grades so that they could resolve any misunderstandings
about the posting of grades to prevent a similar situation from repeating in the
future. Theus recalled that during a conference call between her, Byles, and Irchirl,
Irchirl left Byles‟ office and refused to explain how he had posted the grades.
Elkins testified that as the counselor responsible for grade reporting, Irchirl
was supposed to make sure that every teacher had turned in their grades, and then
print report cards and ensure that they were distributed on schedule. If a teacher 11 had not timely turned in grades, Irchirl was to talk to the teacher. If that teacher
still did not turn in grades, Irchirl was to notify him. Elkins confirmed that Theus
called him in March about the missing grades at NCH. He printed a report
showing which students‟ grades were missing from which teachers. When he
showed the report to Irchirl, he did not seem to understand the report or what he
needed to do to resolve the problem, even though it was nearing the sixth grading
period of the school year. Elkins testified that the problem of missing grades
continued into the final grading period in May, and he was worried that the grades
would not be finalized before the teachers left for the summer. Because Irchirl had
not yet filled in the grades that were missing in the March report, Irchirl began to
get “snowed under” and Elkins had to help enter missing grades into the computer.
After thoroughly reviewing the record, we find there is substantial evidence
to support the Board‟s decision that Irchirl‟s failure to coordinate accurate records
of student grades, as well as his failure to verify and print accurate report cards,
amounted to willful neglect of duty on his part, thereby justifying its decision to
terminate Irchirl. Although Irchirl disputed much of the testimony against him, he
did not deny that he understood what was required of him with regard to his
responsibility for seeing that grades were properly reported at NCH. Moreover,
the law is clear that “the district court must give great deference to the school
board‟s findings of fact and credibility.” Wise, 851 So.2d at 1094 (citing Arriola v.
Orleans Parish Sch. Bd., 01-1878 (La. 2/26/02), 809 So.2d 932). Accordingly, the
trial court did not err in in upholding the Board‟s decision to terminate Irchirl.
Even where a school board files numerous charges of willful neglect of duty
against a teacher, neither the TTL nor the jurisprudence “mandate [that] all charges
must be proven before termination may be imposed. To the contrary, it is
sufficient to support termination if any one of the charges of willful neglect of duty 12 against the tenure teacher is sufficiently supported by the record.” Wise, 851 So.2d
at 1095. Because we find that Superintendent Murphy provided the Board with
substantial evidence to support Charge Number 4, we need not address the
remaining charges levied against him. Id.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court affirming the
decision of the Natchitoches Parish School Board to terminate Rodney Irchirl is
affirmed. All costs of this proceeding are assessed against Rodney Irchirl.