LOYAL DD READERS: TODAY’S THE DAY TO ZOOM WITH THE DAWG. 10:00. HOPE TO SEE YOU THERE!

The case in Harlingen started out as a proposed mid-year termination of a teacher who served under a probationary contract. It morphed into a termination as of the end of that probationary year. It’s not surprising that this happens periodically.

Here’s why: it takes a long time to terminate a contract in mid-year. When the district proposes termination in mid-year it must give the teacher notice of it. The teacher is entitled to an independent hearing before a hearing examiner appointed by T.E.A. The district bears the burden of proving that there was “good cause” sufficient to terminate the teacher’s employment. The hearing has to be conducted, the hearing examiner has some time to render a decision, and since lawyers are involved, things often get pushed back. Meanwhile, the district continues to pay the teacher.

In this case there were added complications. The Texas Teachers of Tomorrow alternative certification program had informed the district that the teacher had lost his certification status. Based on that, the board voted to terminate the man’s employment since the contract was void. The teacher appealed that to T.E.A. claiming that the TTT relied on a miscommunication from a district administrator.

All of a sudden it’s April and the parties are embroiled in an appeal to T.E.A. Hmmm. That’s when the district chose to cut the Gordian Knot and take a simpler approach. It rescinded the vote to declare the contract void, and voted instead to terminate the teacher’s employment as of the end of the contract term. This does not require a hearing, does not require proof of good cause, and is not appealable. Simpler. Less expensive.

However, it did still go to T.E.A. where the Commissioner ruled that he did not have jurisdiction to hear the teacher’s appeal. The teacher failed to allege any wrongful act by the board. He claimed that a district administrator gave incorrect information to TTT, which led to the “void contract” decision. The Commissioner pointed out that he has jurisdiction over school board decisions—not those of administrators:

The Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to review administrators’ actions unless a school board, by its action or decision as a body corporate (not an individual board member’s action), reviews and affirms the administrators’ actions. Typically, that occurs when an employee files a grievance about the administrators’ actions and the board decides the grievance. Petitioner did not file a grievance….

It's Campbell v. Harlingen ISD, Docket No. 021-R10-03-2022, decided by Commissioner Morath on August 17 2022. I’m pleased to let you know that our firm’s Rio Grande Valley office handled this case, with contributions from Elizabeth Neally, Leandra Ortiz and Priscilla de la Garza.

DAWG BONE: GOT A GRIPE WITH AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION? FILE A GRIEVANCE. GOT A GRIPE WITH THE BOARD’S DECISION? TAKE IT TO THE AGENCY.

Got a question or comment for the Dawg? Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com.

Tomorrow: my week in the behavior unit…