#059-PPC-1187
--
DOCKET NO 059-PPC-1187
JAMES PAPPAS
V.
HOWARD NEEB
BEFORE THE PROFESSIONAL
PRACTICES COMMISSION
OF TEXAS
+
+
BEFORE THE STATE
+
+
+
+
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
+
+
THE STATE OF TEXAS
DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER
Statement of the Case
Complainant James Pappas filed a complaint with the
Professional Practices Commission against Howard Neeb,
Respondent, alleging that Respondent violated Principle III,
Standard 2 of the Code of Ethics and Standard Practices for
Texas Educators, which states:
The Texas educator, in exemplifying ethical
relations with colleagues, shall accord just and
equitable treatment to all members of the
profession.
2. The educator shall not willfully make false
statements about a colleague or the school
system.
A hearing was conducted before a three member panel of
the Texas Teachers Professional Practices Commission and
Margaret O. Thompson, the Hearing Officer appointed by the
State Commissioner of Education, on February 25, 1988.
Janis Herd was subsequently appointed to be substitute
Hearing Officer.
Complainant appeared pro se. Respondent is represented
by Roger Lee, Attorney at Law, of Wichita Falls, Texas.
The Professional Practices Commission found that
Respondent violated both the Preamble to Principle III and
Standard 2 of Principle III and recommended that a reprimand
be placed on the face of Respondent's teaching certificate.
The Professional Practices Commission found no liability
under Principle III, Standard 1.
A Proposal for Decision was issued on August 8, 1989,
recommending that the Commissioner deny the complaint in its
entirety. No exceptions were filed.
Findings of Fact
After due consideration of the evidence and matters
officially noticed, in my capacity as State Commissioner of
Education, I make the following Findings of Fact:
1. Complainant James Pappas was employed by Windthorst
Independent School District as a math teacher for eight
years, beginning in August, 1979. (Tr. 13).
2. In addition to his teaching duties, Complainant
Pappas was given part-time principal duties at Windthorst
High School beginning with the 1985-86 school year. (Tr.
13-14).
3. During Complainant's tenure as principal, Coach
Leonard Schenk discussed raising the grades of failing
student athletes with at least three teachers, including
Complainant, Marjorie Harbour, and Karla Murphey. (Tr. 14,
16-17, 67-68, 196-199, 201-205; Ex. C-5, R-5, R-6).
4. On or about October 14, 1986, Complainant informed
Respondent Neeb that a teacher, Ronald Rushing, was raising
the grades of football players in exchange for spanking
them. Respondent instructed Rushing to cease this activity.
(Tr. 22-24, 143-144, 218; Ex. R-7).
5. As principal, Complainant lowered the grades of
Rushing's students to their former level, although he knew
Respondent opposed this action. Respondent subsequently
raised the grades again. (Tr. 23-24, 141-143).
6. On or about October 17, 1986, Respondent requested
that Complainant resign immediately, and Complainant
refused. (Tr. 24-25).
7. On October 20, 1986, Respondent suspended
Complainant with pay after a confrontation between the two
concerning a "Pappas stays" sign students had painted on the
school sidewalk. (Tr. 24-26, 146-147; Ex. C-6.)
8. Complainant returned to work on or about October
22, 1986, at the request of the Board of Trustees. (Tr.
26-27, 147-148.)
9. Complainant resigned in early November, 1986,
effective the end of the 1986-87 school year, citing as the
reason district improprieties relating to raising the grades
of student athletes. (Tr. 21-22; Ex. R-4).
10. UIL investigator B. J. Stamps met with Respondent,
Complainant, Coach Schenk, and teachers Harbour and Rushing
on November 4, 1986, and concluded that Schenk had pressured
Harbour in violation of Section 1201(b)(11) proscribing
coercing or intimidating teachers to modify a grade. (Tr.
27; Ex. C-5, C-12).
11. Respondent and Coach Schenk met with the UIL
Executive Committee for District 7-A Football on November
13, 1986 to discuss the issue of Schenk's coercion of
Harbour. Complainant and Harbour were not notified of this
meeting and did not attend. (Tr. 29; Ex. R-5).
12. The UIL Executive Committee advised that "Coach
Schenk be congratulated for the interest he takes in helping
young people in his school keep after their studies," and
that Respondent "conference with Marjorie Harbour about the
possibility of her getting Windthorst school in problems
with UIL--both athletic and academic." (Ex. R-5).
13. Respondent gave Coach Schenk what he termed a
"private reprimand" in a letter in which he referred to Ms.
Harbour as "overly sensitive" and instructed Schenk not to
discuss grading practices with her if only athletes were
involved. The letter also says, "I believe that you were
sincere in your motives that you were only trying to help
the students stay eligible....I commend you for this." (Ex.
R-6).
14. At the February 9, 1987, Windthorst Board of
Trustees meeting, a group of citizens presented petitions
signed by approximately 100 parents and 60 students,
requesting that Complainant be encouraged to continue his
employment with the district. (Tr. 30-31).
15. On March 16, 1987, following a disagreement
between the parties over how to record the absences of a
certain student, Respondent relieved Complainant of his
duties as principal but continued his teaching duties and
his former salary. (Tr. 32).
16. On May 12, 1987, Respondent's tape recorder was
found taped under the table where Complainant regularly ate
lunch. Respondent's two secretaries admitted placing it
there and Respondent suspended them for three days without
pay. (Tr. 38-39, 154).
17. Mr. and Mrs. Berend, parents in the district,
requested a meeting with Respondent and Connie Steinberger,
President of the Board of Trustees, to discuss the tape
recorder incident. The meeting was held at Respondent's
home at his request, on or about May 13, 1987. (Tr. 113;
Ex. C-11.)
18. In the meeting with the Berends, Steinberger
insinuated that Complainant and his wife were using drugs
and said she had learned from Alcoholics Anonymous meetings
that people with drug or alcohol problems have personality
changes. Respondent told the Berends that Complainant had
had a personality change. (Tr. 113-115, 181; Ex. C-11).
Discussion
The record is clear that Complainant James Pappas is a
fine educator, as evidenced by the UIL awards won by his
math students and the strong community support he received.
The record is also clear that his concerns about grading
improprieties in the Windthorst district were well-founded.
However, the record made before this Agency does not link
Respondent Howard Neeb to those and other improprieties with
sufficient certainty to support sanctions against him by the
Professional Practices Commission.
It is not enough that Trustee Steinberger and possibly
Respondent himself insinuated to parents that Complainant
was using drugs. It is not enough that some of Respondent's
employees behaved improperly with respect to athletes'
grades, as Respondent's own involvement in improper grading
has not been proven. He reprimanded Ronald Rushing for such
improprieties, and he at least technically reprimanded Coach
Schenk.
As for Respondent's alleged unfair treatment of
Marjorie Harbour, the record contains no evidence that he
personally humiliated or even reprimanded her for her
involvement in the UIL investigation. He testified that he
did not reprimand her, and she did not offer testimony or
other evidence in contradiction.
Furthermore, Complainant Pappas does not have standing
to assert a claim that Respondent treated Ms. Harbour and
Coach Schenk disparately. His standing is limited to the
right to assert that he personally received treatment that
was different from the treatment accorded another staff
member under the same or similar circumstances.
While it is outrageous that anyone would attempt to
record a teacher's lunchroom conversations, again the record
provides no evidence that Respondent was personally
responsible for his tape recorder being under the lunch
table.
It is recommended that the Commissioner enter an order
overruling the recommendation of the panel and that the
complaint be denied its entirety.
Conclusions of Law
After due consideration of the record, matters
officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact, in
my capacity as State Commissioner of Education, I make the
following Conclusions of Law:
1. Complainant failed to prove that Respondent failed
to accord members of his staff just and equitable treatment.
2. Complainant failed to prove that Respondent
revealed confidential information about a colleague or
willfully made false statements about a colleague.
3. Complainant's appeal should be denied.
O R D E R
After due consideration of the record, matters
officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, in my capacity as State Commissioner of
Education, it is hereby
ORDERED that the complaint against Respondent be, and
is hereby, DENIED.
SIGNED AND ISSUED this______day of ________, 1989.
_________________________________
W. N. KIRBY
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION