DOCKET NO. 011-R2-997
RAMIRO VILLEGAS
V.
RIO GRANDE CITY CONSOLIDATED
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
BEFORE THE
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
THE STATE OF TEXAS
DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER
Statement of the Case
Petitioner, Ramiro Villegas, appeals Respondent Rio Grande City Consolidated
Independent School District’s decision to terminate his term contract.
Christopher Maska was the Administrative Law Judge appointed by the
Commissioner of Education to preside over this cause. Petitioner was represented by
Brinkley L. Oxford, Attorney at Law, Edinberg, Texas. Respondent was represented by
Dennis J. Eichelbaum, Attorney at Law, Dallas, Texas.
Findings
After due consideration of the record and matters officially noticed, in my
capacity as Commissioner of Education, I make the following Findings:
1.
Respondent, Rio Grande City Consolidated Independent School District,
issued its decision discharging Petitioner, Ramiro Villegas, from his term contract on
August 26, 1997.
fact.
2.
Petitioner filed his Petition for Review on September 18, 1997.
3.
The Commissioner adopts, as if set out in full, Respondent’s findings of
Discussion and Further Findings
In the Petition for Review, Petitioner contends that his contract was terminated so
that a political ally of the superintendent could get his job. Petitioner contends that
Respondent decided to terminate Petitioner’s contract before Respondent voted to give
him a hearing. Petitioner also requested a hearing so that newly discovered evidence
could be presented and because he could not call two board members as witnesses.
Substantial Evidence
Petitioner’s first objection is a substantial evidence objection1. While Petitioner
did not use the term “substantial evidence," he did maintain that the board’s decision was
“contrary to the evidence presented as set forth herein.” Petitioner then goes on to allege
that Respondent terminated his contract to make room for a political ally of the
superintendent.
This is equivalent to saying that the decision is not supported by
substantial evidence in that the evidence conclusively proved that Petitioner was only
fired to make room for another. However, upon review of the record, there is substantial
evidence to support the findings that there is good cause to terminate Petitioner’s contract
because he conducted the Little Dribblers basketball camp in an improper manner.
Further, there is substantial evidence that Respondent did not propose the termination of
Petitioner’s contract in order to hire a friend of the superintendent.
Petitioner’s second objection is also a substantial evidence objection. Petitioner
contends that, based on the evidence, Respondent had to find that the board made a
In the Petition for Review the only reasons given for overturning the board’s decision are substantial
evidence objections. In addition, Petitioner asks to present additional evidence. As this request is denied,
the only issues that can be addressed are substantial evidence issues. The Petition for Review does not
specify any other legal error. The additional alleged legal errors pointed out in Petitioner’s brief are
waived. However, even if these arguments were addressed, Petitioner would not prevail.
1
#009-R2-997
-2-
decision to terminate his contract before it set a hearing. In the first place, this is not the
only reasonable reading of the testimony. If a reasonable reading of the testimony
supports the decision, the decision must be upheld. In the second place, even if Petitioner
were correct about the facts, he would not prevail. A board of trustees has a very slight
role in regard to making facts in a termination case. The case is heard by a certified
hearing examiner appointed by the Texas Education Agency. The certified hearing
examiner’s findings of fact can only be changed if they are not supported by substantial
evidence.
In this case, the certified hearing examiner found cause to terminate
Petitioner’s contract.
Respondent could not change this determination because it is
supported by substantial evidence. Even if Respondent’s board of trustees made up its
mind that Petitioner should be fired prior to proposing termination, Respondent could not
follow through on its decision. The certified hearing examiner made an independent
decision that Respondent could not change.
Missed Issues
Respondent points out that the certified hearing examiner did not reach some of
the reasons for proposed nonrenewal2. Respondent contends that substantial evidence
also supports these reasons for nonrenewal. However, Respondent cannot rely on the
missed issues. Respondent did not include them in its decision. If a certified hearing
examiner fails to rule on an issue raised in a notice of proposed termination or
nonrenewal, a board of trustees may make findings of fact and conclusions of law on the
issue that was missed. Because of the strict timelines mandated by statute, there is not
sufficient time to remand a case back to the certified hearing examiner. Further, there is
#009-R2-997
-3-
no statutory provision for such a remand. A board of trustees, after reviewing the record,
may make findings of fact and conclusions of law if an issue raised in the notice is not
addressed at all. It needs to be emphasized that the question is whether an issue is
addressed at all. If an issue is addressed at all, a board of trustees may only make
findings of fact concerning the issue if there is not substantial evidence to support the
certified hearing examiner’s findings.
New Hearing
Petitioner contends that he should be allowed to present additional evidence
because new evidence has been discovered and he could not call board members as
witnesses. The Education Code is very specific that in a contract termination case, the
Commissioner can only take new evidence as to procedural irregularities that are not
reflected in the local record. Texas Education Code §§21.301-21.302. Newly discovered
evidence does meet this criteria. Petitioner does allege that he could not call as witnesses
two board members. Petitioner, however, does not allege that a procedural irregularity
led to this result. It is not appropriate to take additional evidence in this case.
Conclusion
The decision of Respondent must be upheld3. The Petition for Review only
alleges a lack of substantial evidence as a reason for overturning the board’s decision.
The board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner’s appeal is denied.
2
While the certified hearing examiner did not rule on all the allegations in the notice, he is correct, based on
the allegations he reached, that there is good cause to terminate Petitioner’s contract.
3
A note needs to be made about the record in this case. Education Code §21.260 requires the hearings
before the certified hearing examiner and the school board to be recorded by a certified court reporter. In
this case, the court reporter recorded the hearing before the certified hearing examiner. However, the court
reporter transcribed a tape recording of the board meeting. This is not what the Education Code requires.
In this case, there is no dispute about the board hearing. Hence, any error is harmless. The Commissioner
#009-R2-997
-4-
Conclusions of Law
After due consideration of the record, matters officially noticed, and the foregoing
Findings, in my capacity as Commissioner of Education, I make the following
Conclusions of Law:
1.
The Commissioner of Education has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant
to Texas Education Code §21.301.
2.
The decision of Respondent terminating Petitioner’s employment is
supported by substantial evidence.
3.
If a certified hearing examiner fails to rule on an issue raised in a notice of
proposed termination or nonrenewal, a board of trustees may make findings of fact and
conclusions of law on the issue that was missed.
4.
No evidentiary hearing was held before the Commissioner because such a
hearing could only be held if there was an alleged procedural irregularity not reflected in
the record.
5.
The Commissioner adopts, as if set out in full, the conclusions of law of
Respondent.
6.
Petitioner’s appeal is denied.
ORDER
After due consideration of the record, matters officially noticed, and the foregoing
Findings and Conclusions of Law, in my capacity as Commissioner of Education, it is
hereby
cannot overturn a decision unless an error was likely to lead to an erroneous decision. Texas Education
Code §21.303.
#009-R2-997
-5-
ORDERED that Petitioner’s appeal be, and is hereby, DENIED.
SIGNED AND ISSUED this _______ day of ____________________________,
1997.
_______________________________________
MIKE MOSES
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
#009-R2-997
-6-