IN RE GIANFORTE No. 06-1368.
773 N.W.2d 540 (2009)
In the Matter of The College Community School District Board of Directors' Consideration of the Recommended Termination of the Teaching Contract of John GIANFORTE. John Gianforte, Appellee, v. Richard Whitehead and College Community School District, Appellants.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
October 9, 2009.
David W. Nelmark of Belin Lamson McCormick Zumbach Flynn, P.C., Des Moines, for amicus curiae Iowa Association of School Boards.
In this appeal from a district court order issued in response to a report by a school board of noncompliance by witnesses with subpoenas issued by the board in a teacher-termination proceeding, we are presented with two issues of prehearing discovery. First, we consider the use of a subpoena duces tecum by a teacher to obtain documents from the superintendent of the school district. Second, we consider whether the district court may order school board members to answer interrogatories propounded by the teacher to inquire into claims of prejudice and bias. On our review, we reverse the decision of the district court and remand the case for further proceedings before the school board.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
John Gianforte was a special education teacher employed by the College Community School District in Cedar Rapids. He taught at Prairie High School and was the head coach of the boys' basketball team. Richard Whitehead is the superintendent of the district.
On April 17, 2006, Gianforte was notified by Whitehead that he was making a recommendation to the College Community School District that his teaching contract be terminated. The written notice provided eight reasons for termination, including poor performance and inappropriate conduct as a teacher. The reasons did not relate to his performance as a coach. In
Gianforte responded to the notice and recommendation by requesting a private hearing before the school board. The hearing was set for May 10, 2006, but was continued on two occasions at Gianforte's request to Tuesday, June 6, 2006. Gianforte and Whitehead were at all relevant times represented by counsel.
On June 1, Whitehead furnished Gianforte the documentation he intended to present to the school board at the hearing, as well as a list of persons who would address the board in support of the recommendation to terminate Gianforte. On June 2, Gianforte requested the board issue a subpoena to Whitehead directing him to produce a host of documents identified by seventy-five separate categories. He also requested the board issue subpoenas for fifty-seven witnesses, including each member of the school board, to appear at the hearing.
In the afternoon of June 5, Gianforte furnished Whitehead with the documents he expected to present at the hearing and his list of witnesses. He also requested that Whitehead produce the documents subject to the subpoena he had requested from the board. Gianforte informed Whitehead the documents requested in the subpoena would be included as documents he expected to present at the hearing. The president of the school board issued the subpoenas and the subpoena duces tecum on June 6.
Whitehead objected to the subpoena duces tecum and to the method used by Gianforte to provide the documentation he expected to use at the hearing. The school board also objected to the subpoena of its members. As a result, the hearing was continued, and the matter was submitted to the district court without evidence offered by either party.
Many of the requests for documents described in the subpoena sought documentation dating back five or ten years and included such general subjects as "all documentation concerning the charges," as well as specific subjects such as lists and records of former students and all individual educational plans prepared by other teachers. Whitehead claimed most of the documents were not relevant to the grounds for termination. He also claimed that compliance with the subpoena duces tecum would require him to examine thousands, if not tens of thousands, of documents. The district court directed Whitehead to produce fifty-two of the seventy-five requests for documents. Essentially, the district court only quashed the subpoena duces tecum relating to the requests for documents concerning Gianforte's performance as a basketball coach.
The district court also quashed the subpoenas directed to the members of the board. Notwithstanding, the district court subsequently directed the board members to submit an answer to an interrogatory from Gianforte relating to any prior contacts
Whitehead and the board appealed the decision of the district court. The appeals were consolidated. Gianforte was suspended with pay pending the outcome of the termination proceeding and is not currently teaching at the high school.
Whitehead claims on appeal the district court abused its discretion by enforcing the subpoena duces tecum served on him the day of the scheduled hearing. He claims the subpoena duces tecum was untimely under the statutory scheme governing termination hearings. He also asserts the subpoena duces tecum was untimely because he did not have a reasonable time to comply with the production of documents. Finally, he claims the subpoena duces tecum was unduly burdensome. The board asserts the district court had no authority to subject its members to any form of discovery through the use of interrogatories.
II. Standard of Review.
The district court intervenes in a teacher-termination proceeding only to decide questions pertaining to the refusal of witnesses to comply with a subpoena. Iowa Code § 279.16(3) (2005). Normally, the district court is given discretion when deciding disputes that arise over the issuance of administrative subpoenas. See State ex rel. Miller v. Publishers Clearing House, Inc.,
Bousman, 630 N.W.2d at 796.
III. Overview of Statutory Termination Procedure.
Public school teachers in Iowa work during a school year under a written contract of employment with the board of directors of the school district. Iowa Code § 279.13(1). The term of the contract can cover the school year and is automatically renewed for subsequent school years, except when altered by mutual agreement or terminated by the board. See id. § 279.13(2). The termination of a contract by the board is governed by rules and regulations established by the legislature in chapter 279 of the Code. Generally, the process requires the superintendent of the school district, or a designee, to give the teacher written notice no later than April 30 of the school year that the superintendent will recommend to the school board at its next meeting, held no later than May 15, that the teacher's contract be terminated at the end of the current school year. Id. § 279.15(1). The termination notification and recommendation must contain "a short and plain statement of the reasons" to support just cause for the recommendation. Id. § 279.15(2).
Within five days after receipt of the notice, the teacher is permitted to request a private hearing with the school board. Id. If a request is made, the hearing must
The board must hold the hearing in a manner best suited to "ascertain and conserve the substantial rights of the parties." Id. § 279.16(4). However, the process and procedure is to be "as summary as reasonably" possible. Id. The board does not adhere to "technical or formal rules of procedure" and is not bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence. Id.
The evidence at the hearing is limited to the "specific reasons" stated in the termination notice and recommendation. Id. § 279.16(1). The superintendent presents evidence and argument on the issues presented. Id. The teacher is also permitted to present evidence and argument and may cross-examine witnesses. Id. The parties may also stipulate to evidence. Id.
The presiding officer of the board is authorized to administer oaths to witnesses and is required to issue subpoenas for witnesses and for the production of documents as the board or teacher "may designate." Id. § 279.16(2). If a subpoenaed witness refuses to attend the hearing or if the witness appears and refuses to testify or produce documents requested by a subpoena duces tecum, the board must report the matter to the district court. Id. § 279.16(3). On receipt of the report, the district court is required to resolve the matter as if it occurred in a proceeding before the court. Id.
IV. Production of Documents.
We first consider the issue of whether or not the district court abused its discretion by ordering the superintendent to produce the documents described in fifty-two of the seventy-five categories of production. We begin our resolution of this issue by examining the legislature's intent with regard to a teacher's ability to compel discovery of documents and information prior to the hearing. See Ayers v. Straight,
The preceding overview of the statutory framework governing the process of terminating the contract of a teacher reveals the legislature only provided the teacher with two opportunities to formally obtain documents and information prior to the hearing. First, the teacher's complete personnel file of employment with the school district, including all periodic evaluations, must be made available to the teacher during the proceeding. Iowa Code § 279.15(2). Second, the teacher is entitled to receive all documentation expected to be presented to the board by the superintendent at the hearing in support of the recommendation to terminate the contract. Id. No statutory provision specifically permits
While the documents and information made available under the statute to a teacher prior to the hearing may generally be adequate for the teacher to successfully argue against a recommendation of termination at a private hearing, we have recognized that additional documents and information may be needed in some cases to enable a teacher to conduct an adequate defense. See Smith v. Bd. of Educ.,
Although the statute does not describe a method for the teacher to obtain or discover additional documents prior to the hearing, the statute does allow the teacher to request the board to issue a subpoena to secure the presence of a witness at the hearing and for the witness to produce documents designated by the teacher.
In Smith, we observed the role of the board and the court in deciding if evidence not included in the prehearing exchange of information could nevertheless be accepted at the hearing. 293 N.W.2d at 225. In doing so, we held the board properly accepted testimony from a rebuttal witness who was not disclosed in the superintendent's prehearing list of witnesses. Id. We recognized the exchange-of-information deadline serves to provide a fair hearing
The approach we took in Smith in response to undisclosed witnesses is compatible with allowing a party to present undisclosed documents not included in the prehearing exchange of information. As with undisclosed witnesses, undisclosed documents may be accepted at the hearing when doing so does not offend the purposes of the requirement for the documents to be exchanged. Accordingly, we reject the superintendent's argument that the statutory exchange-of-information process precludes a teacher from seeking undisclosed documents from a superintendent by means of a subpoena. Instead, when the board issues a subpoena to a superintendent to produce undisclosed documents designated by the teacher, the superintendent is given the choice to comply with the subpoena or refuse to comply. Compliance will allow the hearing to proceed as scheduled, yet permit the superintendent to ask the board to reject the documents if the purposes of the requirements for pretrial disclosure are adversely impacted. Refusal to produce the documents transfers the matter to the district court and will likely delay the hearing until the dispute is resolved by the court.
The district court intervenes in a termination proceeding only when the subpoenaed witness fails to attend the hearing or, as in this case, refuses to produce the designated documents. Iowa Code § 279.16(3). When a subpoenaed witness refuses to produce the designated document, the issue turns to the reasons for the refusal, including noncompliance with the statutory disclosure deadlines. Consistent with our approach in Smith, the district court must not only consider a teacher's need for the documents and the reasonableness of the request, but also the ability of the board or the superintendent to timely produce the documents. A subpoena for the production of documents not included in the pretrial exchange of information is compatible with the statutory framework when the documents requested are necessary for the teacher to defend against the termination recommendation and are otherwise discoverable, but only if the board or the superintendent can comply with the subpoena consistent with the statutory goal of a prompt hearing.
In this case, the superintendent argues the directive in the subpoena to produce the seventy-five categories of documents was overly burdensome. He also argues he was not provided a reasonable time for compliance. See Iowa R. Civ. P.
In ordering the superintendent to produce the bulk of the requested documents, the district court focused narrowly on the reasons the teacher wanted to examine each category of documents and basically ordered the production of those documents that could potentially be helpful to the teacher in the preparation of his case. While the prehearing production of documents must be consistent with the goal of providing a teacher with a fair opportunity to challenge the termination recommendation and present a defense, this goal cannot be pursued to the exclusion of the other legislative goal of a prompt, informal and summary hearing. The termination process must not become mired in discovery expeditions, or otherwise slowed by the parties' prehearing conduct, inconsistent with the intended objectives of the legislature.
We conclude the district court abused its discretion in this case to order production of documents by failing to balance the legislative directive for a prompt, informal and summary hearing with the teacher's right to a fair hearing. Gianforte clearly failed to show he was attempting to obtain undisclosed documents while simultaneously respecting the statutory intent for a prompt, informal, and summary hearing. Even though some of the requests for documents may have related to relevant information, the timing and volume of the request, as well as the inclusion of requests for irrelevant documents, revealed the request was inconsistent with the statutory timeline for a hearing. This conclusion is supported by the circumstances presented in this case.
Gianforte was provided approximately six weeks to prepare for his hearing. He was timely provided with the documents and information required under the statute to prepare for the hearing. Yet, he did not engage in any informal discovery of additional documents during the course of the proceedings. He made no claim the superintendent refused to voluntarily produce the specific documents he needed to prepare for the hearing.
Instead, Gianforte essentially waited until the eve of the rescheduled hearing to request thousands of additional documents as part of a broad, sweeping discovery expedition. The production request left the superintendent with little or no opportunity to timely produce the documents, to sort through the specific requests with counsel to determine the nature and scope of the documents requested, or to formulate objections and other responses. The last minute production request virtually assured Gianforte of another delay in the hearing.
In the end, Gianforte effectively hijacked the termination process and imposed delays unrelated to the need to defend against the recommendation. Considering these circumstances, we conclude the district court abused its discretion to order the production of additional documents. The district court should have quashed the subpoena issued to the superintendent by the presiding officer of the board. Accordingly, we quash the subpoena and remand the case to the school board to proceed with a prompt hearing. On remand, the teacher shall not be precluded from requesting a new subpoena for the production of documents in a manner consistent with this opinion.
V. Interrogatories to School Board Members.
We next turn to the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion by ordering the board members to answer an interrogatory propounded by the teacher. The district court is only
Our law establishes a presumption that board members acting as adjudicators are objective. Bd. of Dirs. of Fairfield Community Sch. Dist. v. Justmann,
Although chapter 279 does not provide a procedure by which a teacher may raise claims of bias or prejudice, school board members are quasi-judicial officers when exercising their statutory duty to adjudicate teacher-termination proceedings. Courtright v. Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 203 Iowa 26, 30, 212 N.W. 368, 370 (1927). Generally, presiding judges and judicial officers are immune from testifying. See Iowa R. Evid. 5.605 (prohibiting presiding judges from testifying as witnesses); see also State v. Gardner,
Nevertheless, this immunity does not prevent claims of board member bias or prejudice from being raised and addressed. Board members are subject to "`the common-law rule of disqualification applicable to judges.'" Keith, 262 N.W.2d at 261 (quoting 1 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law § 63 (now substantially found at 2 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law § 38 (2004))) (further holding common-law rule "`extends to every tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions'"). We have generally described this rule as follows:
Bishop v. Keystone Area Educ. Agency No. 1,
The recusal and disqualification process reveals teachers are adequately protected from fears of bias or prejudice by board members just as litigants in civil proceedings are protected from fears of judicial bias or prejudice. These procedures justify the school board's general immunity from testifying or answering interrogatories, protect teachers from bias and prejudice, and support the limited role of the district court when intervening in termination proceedings.
We reverse the decision of the district court and remand the case to the school board to proceed with the termination hearing without further delay and without the production of additional documents pursuant to the subpoena issued to the superintendent.
All justices concur except WIGGINS, J., who takes no part.
- No Cases Found