No. 80-394
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981
TIM YANZICK,
Petitioner and Respondent,
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 23, LAKE COUNTY
MONTANA et al.,
Appellants and Respondents.
Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District,
In and for the County of Lewis and Clark.
Honorable Gordon Bennett, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants:
Garlington, Lohn and Robinson, Missoula, Montana
Sherman V. Lohn argued, Missoula, Montana
Boone, Karlberg and Haddon, Missoula, Montana
Sam Haddon argued, Missoula, Montana
Richard P. Heinz, County Attorney, Polson, Montana
For Respondents:
Datsopoulos, MacDonald and Lind, Missoula, Montana
Christopher Swartley argued, Missoula, Montana
For Amicus Curiae:
Smith Law Firm, Helena, Montana
Chadwick Smith argued,Mt. School Boards Assoc., Helena, Montani
John Larson argued, Superintendent of Public Instruction,
Helena, Montana
Emily Loring argued, Montana Education Association, Great
Falls, Montana
Submitted: September 16, 1981
Decided : FEB i m:
Ar
Clerk
M r . J u s t i c e F r e d J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e
Court .
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from t h e judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t o f t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Lewis and C l a r k County,
d a t e d August 22, 1 9 8 0 , u n d e r t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e
Act. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found f o r Tim Y a n z i c k , a t e n u r e d
s c h o o l t e a c h e r , r e v e r s i n g t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e S t a t e Superintendent
of P u b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n . The S u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f P u b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n
had a f f i r m e d t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e Lake County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t
o f S c h o o l s , who had a f f i r m e d t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h e Board
o f T r u s t e e s o f S c h o o l D i s t r i c t No. 23 n o t t o renew Y a n z i c k ' s
contract. W e r e v e r s e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and r e i n s t a t e t h e
d e c i s i o n s o f t h e S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t and t h e County S u p e r i n -
tendent.
The i s s u e s which w e f i n d t o b e d e t e r m i n a t i v e a r e :
(1) What i s t h e s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w which i s t o b e
a p p l i e d by t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t , t h e S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ,
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and t h i s C o u r t ?
(2) Did t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t , S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ,
and D i s t r i c t C o u r t e a c h a c t w i t h i n i t s a u t h o r i t y ?
(3) Based upon t h e t r a n s c r i p t and r e c o r d b e f o r e t h e r e v i e w i n
agency and c o u r t s , w a s t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e County S u p e r i n t e n -
d e n t c l e a r l y erroneous?
F o l l o w i n g a r e t h e p e r t i n e n t f a c t s d i s c l o s e d by t h e
r e c o r d b e f o r e t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t :
T i m Yanzick w a s a t e n u r e d t e a c h e r o f s e v e n t h g r a d e
s c i e n c e and math a t P o l s o n Middle S c h o o l i n Lake County,
Montana. H e had t a u g h t t h e r e f o r s e v e n y e a r s . In the f a l l
o f 1976 p r o b l e m s a r o s e w i t h r e g a r d t o Y a n z i c k ' s l i v i n g
a r r a n g e m e n t s w i t h S h a r o n S c o t t , a f e l l o w t e a c h e r , and w i t h
regard to various events taking place both in and out of the
classroom. These will be detailed in our review of the
findings of fact of the County Superintendent. In January,
1977, Dr. Christensen, Superintendent of School District No.
23, and Mr. Dupuis, the principal of Yanzick's school, met
with Yanzick. There were extensive discussions which will
be reviewed later. Following further conferences between
Yanzick and Christensen, and upon the recommendation of
Christensen, the Board of Trustees decided not to renew
Yanzick's contract for the school year 1977-78. Yanzick was
notified of the decision on March 15, 1977. Pursuant to
Yanzick's request, the specific reasons for the Board of
Trustees' decision were contained in the letter to Yanzick
dated March 24, 1977. The letter sets forth the following
reasons for non-renewal of Yanzick's contract as follows:
"1. The Board of Trustees believe that you
have demonstrated a lack of fitness for teach-
ing in the position in which you have been
employed and such a lack of fitness as indica-
ted in all statements made to your class of
Junior High School students between the ages
of 11 and 14 years, with the effect that your
'girlfriend' had to move out of your home be-
cause some people did not like your living
arrangements, which statements were made under
circumstances where it was common knowledge
to your students and some of their parents
that you and Miss Sharon Scott, a physical
education teacher in the Polson School
district, were living together at that time
in your home in Polson, Montana.
"2. The Board of Trustees believe you have
further demonstrated a lack of fitness for the
teaching position in which you have been em-
ployed by reason of your introduction of the
subject of abortion in your classroom, where-
in you inquired of the boys in your class,
ages 11 to 14, 'How many of you boys would
have your girlfriend get an abortion if she
were pregnant?'
"3. The Board further feels that you have
also demonstrated a lack of fitness for employ-
ment in the teaching position by a serious lack
of good judgment in permitting the use in your
c l a s s r o o m of human f e t u s e s b r o u g h t by one o f
your s t u d e n t s who had o b t a i n e d them w i t h o u t
a u t h o r i z a t i o n from S t . J o s e p h ' s H o s p i t a l Labora-
t o r y w i t h o u t t h e knowledge of t h e a d m i n i s t r a -
t i o n of t h a t h o s p i t a l o r of t h e owner o f t h e
specimens.
"4. The Board of T r u s t e e s f u r t h e r b e l i e v e t h a t
you have d e m o n s t r a t e d a l a c k of moral v a l u e s
by o p e n l y and n o t o r i o u s l y c o h a b i t a t i n g w i t h a
f e m a l e t e a c h e r , n o t your w i f e , w i t h i n t h e r e -
l a t i v e l y s m a l l community of P o l s o n , Montana,
which f a c t , and t h e knowledge of which f a c t
among your s t u d e n t s , h a s a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d
your performance a s a t e a c h e r .
"5. The Board i s of t h e o p i n i o n t h a t you
l a c k f i t n e s s f o r t h e classroom teaching posi-
t i o n i n which you have been employed b e c a u s e
of t h e l a c k of r e s p e c t f o r you a s a t e a c h e r
which h a s developed among your s t u d e n t s as a
consequence of t h e above-mentioned o c c u r r a n c e s . "
( H e r e a f t e r t h e above r e a s o n s a r e r e f e r r e d t o
a s r e a s o n s 1, 2 , 3 , 4 and 5 . )
Yanzick r e q u e s t e d a h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e Board of T r u s t e e s a s
p r o v i d e d i n s e c t i o n 20-4-204(3), MCA. H i s r e q u e s t was d e n i e d .
L i t i g a t i o n f o l l o w e d , c u l m i n a t i n g i n an o r d e r from t h e Montana
Supreme C o u r t r e q u i r i n g t h e Board of T r u s t e e s t o h o l d a
h e a r i n g and r e c o n s i d e r t h e i r d e c i s i o n . The h e a r i n g w a s h e l d
August 9 , 1978; t h e Board of T r u s t e e s a f f i r m e d t h e i r o r i g i n a l
d e c i s i o n n o t t o renew Y a n z i c k ' s c o n t r a c t . Yanzick t h e n
a p p e a l e d t o t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t . On August 24 and 25,
1978, t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of S c h o o l s h e l d a h e a r i n g
and e x t e n s i v e t e s t i m o n y w a s p r e s e n t e d . The County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t
u p h e l d t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e Board of T r u s t e e s n o t t o renew
t h e Yanzick c o n t r a c t . The p e r t i n e n t p o r t i o n s of t h e f i n d i n g s
of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law of t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t
are:
"FINDINGS O F FACT:
"7. T h a t t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n by t h e Board of
T r u s t e e s of School D i s t r i c t No. 23 f o r non-
r e n e w a l of t h e t e a c h i n g c o n t r a c t of A p p e l l a n t
f o r t h e s c h o o l y e a r 1977-78 and which w e r e re-
a f f i r m e d a f t e r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n h e a r i n g on
August 9, 1978 were as follows: (same five
reasons as previously set forth in the letter
to Yanzick dated March 24, 1977) . . .
"8. That during the school year 1976-77
Appellant was a seventh grade science and math
teacher at the Polson Middle School District
No. 23 and that his classes included approxi-
mately one hundred (100) students ranging in age
from eleven (11) to fourteen (14) years and of
an average age of twelve and one-half (12 1/2)
years.
"9. That on January 18, 1977, Appellant met with
Dr. Lee Christensen, Superintendent of Schools
of District No. 23, and Polson Middle School
Principal Darryl Dupuis and was asked why he had
moved Miss Sharon Scott into his house in the
city of Polson and openly lived together after
he had been previously admonished about public
knowledge of this living arrangement; that
Appellant admitted to Dr. Christensen and Darryl
Dupuis that he and Miss Sharon Scott were liv-
ing together without the benefit of marriage.
"10. That at said meeting of January 18, 1977,
Appellant further acknowledged that his students'
knowledge of his living situation was having an
adverse effect on his classroom teaching.
"11. That subsequent to the above mentioned
meeting of January 18, 1977, Appellant made a
statement to one of his classes regarding the
fact that complaints had been registered against
him by certain people in the community about
his living relationship with Miss Scott and
that she had moved out of his house.
"12. That Appellant has demonstrated a lack
of fitness as a teacher in that his living
arrangement with Miss Sharon Scott in this
community had an adverse effect upon his
performance as a teacher by reason that:
"a. Numerous parental complaints had been
registered against Appellant during the school
year with the District No. 23 Administration
which necessitated District Superintendent
Christensen's and Middle School Principal
Dupuis' counseling of Appellant on several
occasions during the 1976-77 school year;
that these parental complaints stemmed either
directly or indirectly from Appellant's liv-
ing situation with Miss Scott.
"b. Appellant's living arrangement with Miss
Scott had become a matter of public knowledge
within the school community and had become a
matter of discussion within his classroom there-
by fostering a lack of respect for Appellant
by his students.
" c . A p p e l l a n t ' s l i v i n g arrangement w i t h M i s s
S c o t t had a n e g a t i v e i n f l u e n c e upon t h e forma-
t i o n of moral judgements by h i s s t u d e n t s .
"14. T h a t A p p e l l a n t , by having made a s t a t e m e n t
w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t of h i s c l a s s e s on human re-
p r o d u c t i o n r e g a r d i n g a b o r t i o n and by h a v i n g
d i s p l a y e d human f e t u s e s t o h i s c l a s s e s on human
r e p r o d u c t i o n which were v o l u n t a r i l y f u r n i s h e d
t o him by a s t u d e n t whose f a t h e r was c h i e f l a b o r -
a t o r y technician a t t h e l o c a l h o s p i t a l , has not
p r o v i d e d t h e School Board w i t h an i n d e p e n d e n t
basis i n either instance for a finding t h a t
A p p e l l a n t was u n f i t t o be a t e a c h e r .
"15. T h a t , though s t a n d i n g a l o n e t h e above
mentioned a b o r t i o n s t a t e m e n t and d i s p l a y of
f e t u s e s a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t grounds f o r d i s m i s s a l ,
t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s e m a t t e r s had become s o u r c e s
of s e r i o u s p r o t e s t lodged by p a r e n t s and had
emerged as m o r a l i t y - o r i e n t e d i s s u e s i n t h e d i s -
m i s s a l o f A p p e l l a n t i s d i r e c t l y i n d i c a t i v e of
the f a c t t h a t Appellant's living relationship
w i t h M i s s Sharon S c o t t w a s h a v i n g a n a d v e r s e
e f f e c t upon h i s performance a s a t e a c h e r . "
P u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 20-4-204 ( 4 ) , Yanzick a p p e a l e d t o t h e
S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of P u b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n ( S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ) .
The S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t c o n s i d e r e d t h e r e c o r d w i t h o u t
taking o t h e r evidence. The S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t found t h e r e
was s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t t h e above
q u o t e d f i n d i n g s of f a c t s 9 , 1 0 , 1 and 1 2 , which i n t u r n
1
s u p p o r t e d r e a s o n s 1, 4 and 5 of t h e Board o f T r u s t e e s . The
S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t d i d n o t d i s c u s s r e a s o n s 2 and 3 .
The S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t upheld t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e County
S u p e r i n t e n d e n t t e r m i n a t i n g Yanzick a s a t e n u r e d t e a c h e r .
Yanzick p e t i t i o n e d f o r r e v i e w i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
under S e c t i o n s 2-4-702 ( A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e A c t ) and
20-3107(2) ( E d u c a t i o n T i t l e , S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of P u b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n
C o n t r o v e r s y A p p e a l ) , MCA. I n substance, t h e p e t i t i o n alleged
t h a t Yanzick was a g g r i e v e d by t h e o r d e r r e f u s i n g t o renew
h i s c o n t r a c t , and a l l e g e d t h a t Yanzick i s e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f
i n t h a t h i s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s have been p r e j u d i c e d b e c a u s e
the decision violates constitutional and statutory provisions,
and clearly is erroneous in view of the reliable, probative
and substantial evidence on the whole record. The petition
and the response to the petition do not delineate any specific
issues for consideration by the District Court.
In its memorandum and order dated August 22, 1980, the
~istrictCourt reversed the State Superintendent's order,
and remanded to the County Superintendent, with instructions
to revise the findings and conclusions in accordance with
the District Court opinion, and to order the Board of Trustees
to reinstate Yanzick and to determine his lost wages. The
District Court made an extensive review of the evidence and
concluded that the finding that Yanzick and Scott were
living together out of wedlock and the finding that this
arrangement was a matter of public knowledge is clearly
erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial
evidence. We find to the contrary. The District Court also
did not find sufficient evidence to support a finding that
Yanzick's alleged cohabitation and the students' knowledge
of it had an adverse effect upon his performance as a
teacher. We comment on this finding later.
School District No. 23 and the County Superintendent
appealed to this Court from the "final Order of the Court
entered in this action on August 22, 1980, reversing the
decision and order of the Superintendent of Public ~nstruction
not to renew the contract of Tim Yanzick, for the school
year 1977-1978." The Notice of Appeal does not delineate
any issues for consideration by this Court.
11.
The State Superintendent contends that the Montana
~dministrativeProcedure Act (MAPA) is not applicable. As
p r e v i o u s l y mentioned, t h e p r o c e d u r e f o l l o w e d i n t h e a p p e a l
t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was under MAPA. A c o n s i d e r a t i o n of
s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n s i n MAPA shows t h a t i t i s a p p l i c a b l e .
I n o r d e r f o r M P t o a p p l y , t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t
AA
and S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t must come under t h e d e f i n i t i o n of
"agency" a s d e f i n e d i n MAPA. S e c t i o n 2-4-102, MCA, d e f i n e s
"agency" by r e f e r e n c e t o s e c t i o n 2-3-102, MCA, which i n
pertinent part states:
" ( 1 ) 'Agency' means any b o a r d , . . .
authority,
o r o f f i c e r o f t h e s t a t e o r l o c a l government
a u t h o r i z e d by law t o make r u l e s , d e t e r m i n e
contested cases, o r e n t e r i n t o c o n t r a c t s except:
(exceptions not here a p p l i c a b l e ) . "
I t i s c l e a r from t h a t d e f i n i t i o n t h a t t h e t e r m "agency"
i n c l u d e s b o t h t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t and t h e S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e
Next we must d e t e r m i n e i f t h e p r e s e n t c a s e comes w i t h i n
t h e d e f i n i t i o n of " c o n t e s t e d c a s e " under MAPA. S e c t i o n 2-4-
1 0 2 , MCA, i n p a r t s t a t e s :
" ( 4 ) ' C o n t e s t e d c a s e ' means any p r o c e e d i n g
b e f o r e a n agency i n which a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of
l e g a l r i g h t s , d u t i e s , o r p r i v i l e g e s of a
p a r t y i s r e q u i r e d by law t o be made a f t e r a n
opportunity f o r hearing . . ."
W conclude t h a t t h e p r e s e n t controversy i s a c o n t e s t e d c a s e
e
a s d e f i n e d i n MAPA, making t h e M P code s e c t i o n s on C o n t e s t e d
AA
Cases ( s e c t i o n 2-4-601 t o 2-4-631, MCA) and J u d i c i a l Review
o f C o n t e s t e d Cases ( s e c t i o n 2-4-701 t o 2-4-711, MCA) a p p l i c a b l e .
The p a r t i e s f o l l o w e d t h e s e p r o c e d u r e s i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e .
W e d i s c u s s i s s u e (1) which i s t h e s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w
t o be a p p l i e d by t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t , S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ,
D i s t r i c t C o u r t and t h i s C o u r t . A s w e proceed t h r o u g h t h e
s t a t u t o r y s e c t i o n s , we w i l l comment on i s s u e ( 2 ) , whether
t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t , S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t , and D i s t r i c t
Court, each a c t e d w i t h i n i t s a u t h o r i t y .
A s f a r a s t e a c h e r t e n u r e i s concerned and t e r m i n a t i o n
of employment, M r . Yanzick meets t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n of a
t e n u r e d t e a c h e r a s d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 20-4-203, MCA:
"Whenever a t e a c h e r h a s been e l e c t e d by t h e
o f f e r and a c c e p t a n c e of a c o n t r a c t f o r t h e
f o u r t h c o n s e c u t i v e y e a r o f employment by a
d i s t r i c t i n a position requiring teacher
certification ... t h e t e a c h e r s h a l l be
deemed t o be r e e l e c t e d from y e a r t o y e a r
thereafter a s a tenure teacher . . ."
S e c t i o n 20-4-204, MCA, contains t h e provisions regarding
t e r m i n a t i o n of t e n u r e d t e a c h e r s ' s e r v i c e s . This i n c l u d e s
p r o v i s i o n s f o r n o t i f i c a t i o n of t h e t e a c h e r i n w r i t i n g by
c e r t i f i e d o r r e g i s t e r e d m a i l , i n c l u d i n g a p r i n t e d copy of
t h i s code s e c t i o n ; o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t h e t e n u r e d t e a c h e r t o
r e q u e s t a w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t d e c l a r i n g c l e a r l y and e x p l i c i t l y
t h e s p e c i f i c reasons f o r termination; with a hearing granted
upon r e q u e s t of t h e t e a c h e r b e f o r e t h e T r u s t e e s f o r r e c o n s i d e r a -
t i o n of t h e termination a c t i o n . A s described i n t h e f a c t s
previously o u t l i n e d , t h e foregoing procedures w e r e followed
i n t h e Yanzick c a s e . The p r o v i s i o n f o r a p p e a l of t h e T r u s t e e s '
d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t i s c o n t a i n e d i n
s e c t i o n 20-4-204, MCA, which s t a t e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :
"(3) . . . I f the trustees affirm t h e i r decision
t o t e r m i n a t e t h e t e a c h e r ' s employment, t h e t e n u r e
t e a c h e r may a p p e a l t h e i r d e c i s i o n t o t h e c o u n t y
s u p e r i n t e n d e n t who m a y . a p p o i n t a q u a l i f i e d
a t t o r n e y a t law a s l e g a l a d v i s o r who s h a l l
a s s i s t the superintendent i n preparing find-
i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law.
" ( 4 ) Subsequently, e i t h e r t h e teacher o r t h e
t r u s t e e s may a p p e a l t o t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of
p u b l i c i n s t r u c t i o n under t h e p r o v i s i o n f o r
t h e appeal of controversies i n t h i s t i t l e . "
The p r o c e d u r e i s b r i e f l y d e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n 20-3-210,
MCA, which a l s o d e s c r i b e s t h e u s e of a n a t t o r n e y as a l e g a l
a d v i s o r , and s t a t e s :
" (1) . . . [TIhe county superintendent shall
hear and decide all matters of controversy
arising . .. as a result of decisions of the
trustees of a district in the county. When
appeals are made under 20-4-204 relating to
the termination of services of a tenure
teacher or under 20-4-207 relating to the
dismissal of a teacher under contract, the
county superintendent may appoint a qualified
attorney at law to act as a legal advisor
who shall assist the superintendent in prepar-
ing findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Subsequently, either the teacher or trustees
may appeal to the superintendent of public
instruction under the provisions for appeal
of controversies in this title . ..
" (2) The county superintendent shall hear
the appeal and take testimony in order to
determine the facts related to the controversy
and may administer oaths to the witnesses that
testify at the hearing. He shall prepare a
written transcript of the hearing proceedings.
The decision on the matter of controversy which
is made by the county superintendent shall be
based upon the facts established at such hearing.
"(3) The decision of the county superintendent
may be appealed to the superintendent of public
instruction, .
. ."
This section requires the County Superintendent to hear and
decide controversies of the Yanzick type and to make the
decision based upon the facts established at the hearing.
In effect, this requires a hearing de novo before the County
Superintendent. The hearing provisions which apply to the
County Superintendent are set forth in MAPA section 2-4-612
which in pertinent part states:
"(1) Opportunity shall be afforded all parties
to respond and present evidence and argument
on all issues involved.
"(2) Except as otherwise provided by statute
relating directly to an agency, agencies shall
be bound by common law and statutory rules of
evidence. Objections to evidentiary offers
may be made and shall be noted in the record
"(4) All testimony shall be given under oath
or affirmation.
" ( 5 ) A party shall have the right to
conduct cross-examinations required for a
full and true disclosure of facts, . . .
"(7) The agency's experience, technical
competence, and specialized knowledge may be
utilized in the evaluation of evidence."
MAPA also sets forth the form of findings of fact and conclusions
of law, stating in section 2-4-623, MCA, as follows:
"(1) A final decision or order adverse to a
party in a contested case shall be in writing
or stated in the record. A final decision
shall include findings of fact and conclusions
of law, separately stated. Findings of fact,
if set forth in statutory language, shall be
accompanied by concise and explicit statement
of the underlying facts supporting the find-
ings.
"(2) Findings of fact shall be based exclusively
on the evidence and on matters officially noticed.
"(3) Each conclusion of law shall be supported
by authority or by a reasoned opinion. . ."
The foregoing statutes contain the procedure to be followed
by the County Superintendent in the de novo hearing before
her. The statutes do not contain a limitation on the decision-
making power of the County Superintendent. We find that the
County Superintendent followed the statutory procedure, and
acted within the scope of her authority.
So far as the State Superintendent is concerned, section
20-3-107, MCA, sets forth these essential elements for the
appeal of the controversy to the State Superintendent:
"(1) The superintendent of public instruc-
tion shall decide matters of controversy when
they are appealed from:
"(a) A decision of a county superintendent
rendered under the provisions of 20-3-210;
"(2) The superintendent of public instruction
shall make his decision on the basis of the
transcript of the fact-finding hearing conducted
by the county superintendent . .. and documents
presented a t t h e hearing. . . The d e c i s i o n o f
the superintendent ... s h a l l be f i n a l , s u b j e c t
t o t h e p r o p e r l e g a l remedies i n t h e s t a t e c o u r t s .
Such p r o c e e d i n g s s h a l l be commenced no l a t e r
t h a n 60 d a y s a f t e r t h e d a t e of t h e d e c i s i o n of
the superintendent. . ."
I n t h i s c a s e t h e S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t d i d make h e r d e c i s i o n
on t h e b a s i s of t h e t r a n s c r i p t of t h e h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e
County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t . The M P p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 2-4-
AA
623, MCA, r e q u i r i n g t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t be based
e x c l u s i v e l y on t h e e v i d e n c e and t h a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n s of law
be s u p p o r t e d by a u t h o r i t y , a r e a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e S t a t e
S u p e r i n t e n d e n t a s w e l l a s t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t . The
S t a t e Superintendent s t a t e d a s follows:
" B e a r i n g i n mind t h a t t h e c o u n t y s u p e r i n t e n -
d e n t i s p r o p e r l y t h e judge of t h e c r e d i b i l i t y
of t h e w i t n e s s e s , I f i n d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e
i n t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t f i n d i n g s of f a c t 9 ,
1 0 , 11, and 1 2 , which i n t u r n s u p p o r t t h e
r e a s o n s 1, 4 , and 5 g i v e n by t h e board t o
j u s t i f y a p p e l l a n t ' s termination."
The S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t t h e n a f f i r m e d t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e
County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t u p h o l d i n g t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of Yanzick
a s a tenured teacher. W e hold t h a t t h e procedure followed
by t h e S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t i n h e r d e t e r m i n a t i o n was c o r r e c t
under t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e s .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s s u b j e c t t o MAPA p r o v i s i o n s i n i t s
j u d i c i a l r e v i e w of c o n t e s t e d c a s e s . The s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w
a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 2-
4-704, MCA, i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t a s f o l l o w s :
"(1) The r e v i e w s h a l l be conducted by t h e
c o u r t w i t h o u t a j u r y and s h a l l be c o n f i n e d
t o t h e record. .. The c o u r t , upon r e q u e s t ,
s h a l l h e a r o r a l argument and r e c e i v e w r i t t e n
briefs. ( I n t h i s c a s e , t h e m a t t e r w a s sub-
m i t t e d upon b r i e f s . )
"(2) The c o u r t may n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment
f o r t h a t of t h e agency a s t o t h e w e i g h t of t h e
e v i d e n c e on q u e s t i o n s of f a c t . The c o u r t may
a f f i r m t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e agency o r remand t h e
c a s e f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. The c o u r t may
r e v e r s e o r modify t h e d e c i s i o n i f s u b s t a n t i a l
r i g h t s of t h e a p p e l l a n t have been p r e j u d i c e d
because t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f i n d i n g s , . . .
conclusions, . . . are:
" ( e ) C l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s i n view of t h e r e l i a b l e ,
p r o b a t i v e , and s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e on t h e whole
record; . . ."
Under t h i s s e c t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t may n o t s u b s t i t u t e
i t s judgment f o r t h a t of t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t a s t o
t h e w e i g h t of t h e e v i d e n c e on q u e s t i o n s of f a c t . Under t h i s
s e c t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was g i v e n t h e r i g h t t o r e v e r s e
t h e d e c i s i o n i f s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of Yanzick were p r e j u d i c e d
b e c a u s e t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s were
" c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s i n view of t h e r e l i a b l e , p r o b a t i v e , a n d
s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e on t h e whole r e c o r d . " The D i s t r i c t
Court properly followed t h a t procedure i n reaching i t s
conclusion i n t h e present case. While we d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e
c o n c l u s i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d a c t w i t h i n t h e s c o p e of i t s s t a t u t o r y
authority.
So f a r a s t h i s C o u r t i s c o n c e r n e d , t h e MAPA p r o c e d u r e s
a r e s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 2-4-711, MCA, which i n p e r t i n e n t
p a r t reads:
"An a g g r i e v e d p a r t y may o b t a i n r e v i e w of a
f i n a l judgment of a d i s t r i c t c o u r t under
t h i s p a r t by a p p e a l t o t h e supreme c o u r t
w i t h i n 6 0 d a y s a f t e r e n t r y of judgment. Such
a p p e a l s h a l l be t a k e n i n t h e manner p r o v i d e d
by law f o r a p p e a l s from d i s t r i c t c o u r t s i n
c i v i l cases . . ."
From t h e f o r e g o i n g , it i s a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e p r o c e d u r e i n
a p p e a l i n g t o t h i s C o u r t i s i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t used i n a n
a p p e a l from any o t h e r d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e c i s i o n . In this
p r o c e e d i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w a s n o t t h e t r i e r of f a c t . We
have h e r e an a p p e a l from a lower a p p e l l a n t t r i b u n a l which
i n t u r n based i t s c o n c l u s i o n s on a r e v i e w of t h e p r i n t e d
r e c o r d , w i t h o u t t h e b e n e f i t of l i s t e n i n g t o and o b s e r v i n g
t h e demeanor, c o n d u c t and t e s t i m o n y of w i t n e s s e s . W hold
e
t h a t t h i s Court s h o u l d n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t
of t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t a s t o t h e w e i g h t of t h e e v i d e n c e
on q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t and t h a t t h i s C o u r t may r e v e r s e o r
modify t h e d e c i s i o n i f s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of t h e a p p e l l a n t
have been p r e j u d i c e d b e c a u s e t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f i n d i n g s and
c o n c l u s i o n s a r e c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s i n view of t h e r e l i a b l e ,
p r o b a t i v e and s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e on t h e whole r e c o r d .
A s t h i s r e v i e w d e m o n s t r a t e s , h e r e w e have had t h e
following b a s i c procedure:
(1) An i n i t i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h e Board
of T r u s t e e s t h a t t h e Yanzick c o n t r a c t s h o u l d
n o t b e renewed.
( 2 ) A r e h e a r i n g a t t h e r e q u e s t of Yanzick
by t h e Board of T r u s t e e s which a f f i r m e d i t s
prior decision.
( 3 ) An a p p e a l t o t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t
which was a t r i a l d e novo w i t h w i t n e s s e s and
record evidence.
(4) An a p p e a l t o t h e S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t
based upon t h e r e c o r d .
( 5 ) A f u r t h e r appeal t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court
based upon t h e r e c o r d .
( 6 ) Last an appeal t o t h i s Court again in-
v o l v i n g a r e v i e w of t h e r e c o r d .
W e s u g g e s t t h a t t h e i n i t i a l h e a r i n g s f o l l o w e d by t h r e e
s e p a r a t e and i n p a r t d u p l i c a t i n g a p p e a l s d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o
be j u d i c i a l economy o r a n a p p r o p r i a t e manner of d i s p o s i n g of
a c o n t e s t e d c a s e under MAPA w i t h o u t d e l a y . W e suggest t h i s
i s an appropriate a r e a f o r l e g i s l a t i v e consideration.
IV.
The r e m a i n i n g i s s u e i s w h e t h e r , based upon t h e t r a n s c r i p t
and r e c o r d b e f o r e t h e r e v i e w i n g agency ( S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t )
and t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t s ( t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and t h i s C o u r t . ) ,
t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s d e c i s i o n was c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s .
I n c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t i s s u e , we must c o n s i d e r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
d e t e r m i n a t i o n s o f t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t and t h e S t a t e
S u p e r i n t e n d e n t a s w e l l a s t h e a p p e l l a t e d e c i s i o n of t h e
D i s t r i c t Court.
The g e n e r a l power of t h e T r u s t e e s of a s c h o o l d i s t r i c t
t o h i r e and f i r e t e a c h e r s i s s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 20-3-324,
MCA, which i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t s t a t e s :
". . . t h e t r u s t e e s of e a c h d i s t r i c t s h a l l have
t h e power and i t s h a l l be t h e i r d u t y t o p e r f o r m
t h e following d u t i e s o r a c t s :
" ( 1 ) employ o r d i s m i s s a t e a c h e r , p r i n c i p a l ,
o r o t h e r a s s i s t a n t upon t h e recommendation o f
t h e d i s t r i c t superintendent, t h e high school
p r i n c i p a l , o r o t h e r p r i n c i p a l a s t h e b o a r d may
deem n e c e s s a r y , a c c e p t i n g o r r e j e c t i n g such
recommendation a s t h e t r u s t e e s s h a l l i n t h e i r
s o l e d i s c r e t i o n determine, i n accordance with
t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e s c h o o l p e r s o n n e l p a r t
of t h i s t i t l e . " [Now ". . . i n accordance
w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s of T i t l e 20, C h a p t e r 4."
S e c t i o n 20-3-324, MCA, 1981.1
T h i s s e c t i o n shows t h a t t h e power and d u t i e s of t h e T r u s t e e s
i n c l u d e t h e employment and d i s m i s s a l of t e a c h e r s . That
s t a t u t e i s consistent with the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l provisions
r e g a r d i n g t h e c o n t r o l of s c h o o l s b e i n g v e s t e d i n e a c h s c h o o l
district. Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , A r t i c l e X , Section 8,
provides:
"The s u p e r v i s i o n and c o n t r o l of s c h o o l s i n
each school d i s t r i c t s h a l l be vested i n a
board of t r u s t e e s t o be e l e c t e d a s p r o v i d e d
by law. "
The l e g i s l a t u r e h a s i n d i c a t e d i t s d e s i r e t o p l a c e l o c a l
c o n t r o l of s c h o o l s i n t h e l o c a l s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s . I n School
D i s t r i c t No. 1 2 , P h i l l i p s County v . Hughes ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont.
267, 272-273, 552 P.2d 328, 331, t h i s C o u r t q u o t e d t h e
p r o c e e d i n g s of t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Convention i n
which t h e m a t t e r o f l o c a l c o n t r o l w a s d i s c u s s e d by d e l e g a t e s
who s t a t e d :
"I. . . no m a t t e r what w e s a y , p e r h a p s ,
t h e y ' d s t i l l have t h a t f e a r t h a t t h e l o c a l
s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s a r e g o i n g - -s e some
t o lo -
c o n t r o l ---
and some power. And i f you w i l l
n o t e i n m remarks when w e g e t t o n i n e , t e n
y
and e l e v e n , you w i l l n o t e t h a t we have e l i m i n a -
t e d t h e word, c o n t r o l i n t h e new p u b l i c board
of e d u c a t i o n where i t i s i n t h e o l d C o n s t i t u -
t i o n , and o n l y u s e t h e word, s u p e r v i s e . By
t h i s amendment t h e i n t e n t i s shown. I t h i n k .
t h a t t h i s body does want l o c a l c o n t r o l t o
--
remain w i t h t h e l o c a l s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s and I
- -
h e a r t i l y support i t . "
". . . I f e e l , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t w e should g i v e
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e c o g n i t i o n and s t a t u s t o t h e
l o c a l b o a r d s t o -- f i r s t of a l l , t o a l l a y t h e
f e a r s which have been e x p r e s s e d , which I
t h i n k a r e w e l l founded c o n c e r n i n g t h e p r e s e r -
v a t i o n - l o c a l autonomy
of ... I 11
I n c a s e s d e t e r m i n e d p r i o r t o t h e 1972 C o n s t i t u t i o n , t h i s
C o u r t a f f i r m e d t h e wide d i s c r e t i o n r e p o s e d i n t h e Board of
Trustees. I n Kelsey v . School D i s t r i c t No. 25 ( 1 9 2 9 ) , 84
Mont. 453, 458, 276 P . 26, 2 6 , t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d :
"A wide d i s c r e t i o n i s n e c e s s a r i l y r e p o s e d i n
t h e t r u s t e e s who composed t h e board. They a r e
e l e c t e d by p o p u l a r v o t e , a n d , presumably, a r e
chosen by r e a s o n of t h e i r s t a n d i n g i n t h e
community, sound judgment, and t h e i r i n t e r e s t
i n t h e e d u c a t i o n a l development o f t h e young
g e n e r a t i o n which i s s o soon t o t a k e t h e p l a c e
of t h e o l d . "
I n emphasizing t h a t a t e a c h e r ' s work i s a v e r y s e n s i t i v e
a r e a and t h a t s c h o o l a u t h o r i t i e s have t h e d u t y t o s c r e e n
t e a c h e r s a s t o t h e i r f i t n e s s t o m a i n t a i n t h e i n t e g r i t y of
s c h o o l s , i n A d l e r v . Board of E d u c a t i o n ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 342 U.S.
485, 493, 72 S.Ct. 380, 385, 96 L.Ed. 517, 524, t h e U n i t e d
S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t s a i d :
" A t e a c h e r works i n a s e n s i t i v e a r e a i n a
schoolroom. T h e r e he s h a p e s t h e a t t i t u d e
of young minds towards t h e s o c i e t y i n which
they l i v e . I n t h i s , t h e s t a t e has a v i t a l
concern. I t must p r e s e r v e t h e i n t e g r i t y of
t h e schools. That t h e school a u t h o r i t i e s
have t h e r i g h t and t h e d u t y t o s c r e e n t h e
o f f i c i a l s , t e a c h e r s , and employees a s t o
t h e i r f i t n e s s t o m a i n t a i n t h e i n t e g r i t y of
t h e s c h o o l s a s a p a r t of o r d e r e d s o c i e t y ,
c a n n o t b e doubted."
While i t i s t r u e t h a t t h e t r u s t e e s of a s c h o o l d i s t r i c t
do have t h e power and d u t y t o b o t h employ a t e a c h e r and
t e r m i n a t e a t e a c h e r under t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e
r i g h t s o f t h e t e a c h e r s must a l s o be k e p t c o n s t a n t l y i n
mind. The t e n u r e of a t e a c h e r i s c l e a r l y b o t h a v a l u a b l e
and a s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t which c a n n o t be t a k e n away e x c e p t
f o r good c a u s e . T h i s C o u r t s t a t e d i n S t a t e ex r e l . S a x t o r p h
v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t , F e r g u s County ( 1 9 5 4 ) , 128 Mont. 353, 361,
275 P.2d 209, 2 1 4 , a s f o l l o w s :
"The r i g h t of a s c h o o l t e a c h e r t o t e a c h i n
a s c h o o l , o r s c h o o l d i s t r i c t , from y e a r t o
y e a r , a f t e r having t a u g h t i n such s c h o o l o r
school d i s t r i c t f o r t h r e e consecutive years,
i s c a l l e d tenure. A teacher's tenure is a
s u b s t a n t i a l , v a l u a b l e and b e n e f i c i a l r i g h t ,
which c a n n o t be t a k e n away e x c e p t - - for good
cause. ( ~ m p h z i s upplied)
s .
". . . T h i s c o u r t s a i d ' t h e p u r p o s e of e n a c t -
i n g t h e Teacher Tenure Act ... i s n o t merely
t o i n s u r e t e a c h i n g employment b u t i t i s a l s o
t o i n s u r e t o t e a c h e r s who have h e l d t e a c h i n g
p o s i t i o n s f o r t h r e e o r more c o n s e c u t i v e y e a r s ,
s e c u r i t y i n t h e position, t h e grade o r t h e
s t a t u s which t h e y have t h u s a t t a i n e d . .. I II
I n t h i s c a s e , Y a n z i c k ' s t e n u r e i s a s u b s t a n t i a l and v a l u a b l e
r i g h t which can be t a k e n away by t h e Board o f T r u s t e e s o n l y
f o r good c a u s e .
S e c t i o n 20-4-204, MCA, s e t s f o r t h procedural requirements
which a p p l y upon t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of a t e n u r e d t e a c h e r ,
i n c l u d i n g t h e manner of g i v i n g n o t i c e , h e a r i n g , and a p p e a l .
The s e c t i o n d o e s n o t s e t f o r t h s p e c i f i c s t a n d a r d s which a
t e n u r e d t e a c h e r i s r e q u i r e d t o m e e t , o r p a r t i c u l a r grounds
which t h e T r u s t e e s a r e r e q u i r e d t o f i n d p r i o r t o t h e t e r m i n a t i o n
of a t e n u r e d t e a c h e r ' s s e r v i c e s .
Counsel f o r Yanzick c o n t e n d s t h a t s e c t i o n 20-4-207,
MCA, c o n t a i n s t h e s t a n d a r d s which a p p l y i n t h e e v e n t of
t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e s e r v i c e s of a t e n u r e d t e a c h e r . By i t s
t e r m s , t h a t s e c t i o n a p p l i e s t o t h e s i t u a t i o n where t r u s t e e s
s e e k t o d i s m i s s a t e a c h e r b e f o r e t h e e x p i r a t i o n of h i s
employment c o n t r a c t , t h a t i s , d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of a normal
school year. The T r u s t e e s h e r e d i d n o t a t t e m p t t o d i s m i s s
Yanzick d u r i n g t h e t e r m of h i s employment c o n t r a c t . They
c h o s e n o t t o renew h i s c o n t r a c t f o r a s u b s e q u e n t s c h o o l
year. W c o n c l u d e t h a t s e c t i o n 20-4-207,
e MCA, is not applicable
t o t h e Yanzick f a c t s i t u a t i o n . That i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h s e c t i o n 20-3-210(1), which r e f e r s t o a p p e a l s
made under s e c t i o n 20-4-204, MCA, r e l a t i n g t o t h e termination
of s e r v i c e s of a t e n u r e d t e a c h e r , and which a l s o r e f e r s t o
s e c t i o n 20-4-207 r e l a t i n g t o t h e d i s m i s s a l of a t e a c h e r
under c o n t r a c t . This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a l s o i s c o n s i s t e n t with
s e c t i o n 20-4-203(1), which p r o v i d e s t h a t t r u s t e e s by m a j o r i t y
v o t e may r e s o l v e t o t e r m i n a t e t h e s e r v i c e s of a t e n u r e d
t e a c h e r i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s of 20-4-204. We
h o l d t h a t s e c t i o n 20-4-207, MCA, which s e t s f o r t h t h e grounds
upon which t h e t r u s t e e s may d i s m i s s a t e a c h e r b e f o r e t h e
e x p i r a t i o n of h i s employment c o n t r a c t i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o
t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e s e r v i c e s of a t e n u r e t e a c h e r under
t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 20-4-203 and 20-4-204, MCA.
I n view o f o u r r e v e r s a l of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , i t i s
n e c e s s a r y t h a t w e r e v i e w t h e r e c o r d i n some d e t a i l . W e have
a l r e a d y i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e c o r d must show good c a u s e f o r
t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of a t e a c h e r ' s t e n u r e . I n addition, the
c o n d u c t of t h e t e a c h e r , i n c l u d i n g a c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n t h a t it
i s immoral, must b e such a s t o d i r e c t l y a f f e c t t h e performance
by t h e t e a c h e r of h i s d u t i e s a s a t e a c h e r . As stated i n
J e r r y v. Board of E d u c a t i o n of C i t y School D i s t r i c t of
S y r a c u s e ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 35 N . Y . 2d 534, , 364 N.Y.S.2d 440,
446, 324 N.E.2d 106, 1 1
1 :
"In our view what might otherwise be considered
private conduct beyond the scope of licit concern
of school officials ceases to be such in at least
either of two circumstances -- if the conduct
directly affects the performance of the profes-
sional responsibilities of the teacher, or if,
without contribution on the part of school
officials, the conduct has become the subject of
such public notoriety as significantly and reason-
ably to impair the capability of the particular
teacher to discharge the responsibilities of his
position. "
The District Court considered the California case of
Morrison v. State Board of Education (1969), 1 Cal.3d 214,
82 Gal-Rep. 175, 461 P.2d 375, and concluded that the
criteria set forth in Morrison should be applied to the
facts in the present case. The facts of the blorrison case
and its holding are not applicable here. Morrison was
accused of homosexual conduct which had taken place, over
a period of one week, in total privacy between him and
another teacher. Morrison's conduct did not come to light
until the involved teacher advised the school authorities.
Thereafter, the California board sought to revoke Morrison's
life diploma to teach, thereby completely eliminating his
ability to work in California as a teacher. There was no
suggestion in the Morrison case that the conduct of the
involved teacher in any way affected his performance as a
teacher. Yanzick's conduct was not some form of private
conduct unknown to the community, but as will subsequently
appear, was conduct broadly known throughout the community
and to the Board of Trustees, which the Board of Trustees
found adversely affected Yanzick's performance as a teacher.
In view of the factual difference, it is not appropriate to
apply the Morrison criteria to the present case.
W now r e v i e w t h e r e c o r d e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t r e a s o n s 1,
e
4 and 5 of t h e Board of T r u s t e e s . I n reason 1 t h e Trustees
concluded t h a t Yanzick h a s d e m o n s t r a t e d a l a c k of f i t n e s s
f o r t e a c h i n g i n s t a t e m e n t s made t o h i s j u n i o r h i g h s t u d e n t
c l a s s t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t h i s " g i r l f r i e n d " had t o move o u t o f
h i s house b e c a u s e some p e o p l e d i d n o t l i k e h i s l i v i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s
I n r e a s o n 4 , t h e T r u s t e e s concluded t h a t Yanzick had d e m o n s t r a t e d
a l a c k of moral v a l u e s by c o h a b i t i n g w i t h a f e m a l e t e a c h e r
n o t h i s w i f e i n P o l s o n which had a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d h i s
performance as a t e a c h e r . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t concluded t h a t
t h e f i n d i n g t h a t i t was a matter of p u b l i c knowledge t h a t
Yanzick and S c o t t were l i v i n g t o g e t h e r o u t of wedlock was
c l e a r l y erroneous. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t o t h e c o n t r a r y .
The r e c o r d shows t h a t D r . C h r i s t e n s e n , S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of
School D i s t r i c t No. 23, met w i t h Yanzick on a number of
o c c a s i o n s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e m a t t e r s c o v e r e d by r e a s o n s 1
and 4 . Dr. C h r i s t e n s e n d e s c r i b e d a p o r t i o n of one i n t e r v i e w
w i t h M r . Yanzick a s f o l l o w s :
"Q. What f u r t h e r t r a n s p i r e d a t t h i s m e e t i n g
on J a n u a r y 1 8 t h ?
"A. A t t h a t p o i n t , I s t a t e d t o him, ' I d i s -
t i n c t l y r e c a l l t a l k i n g t o you l a s t y e a r a b o u t
comments i n t h e community r e l a t i v e t o your
s h a c k i n g up w i t h M i s s S c o t t , t h e i n d i c a t o r b e i n g
your coming t o work a c r o s s t h e b r i d g e e v e r y
morning, sometimes t o g e t h e r . '
"And I asked him -- and t h i s i s v e r b a t i m --
'Why i n h e a v e n ' s name have you now moved h e r i n t o
your house and o p e n l y d e c i d e d t o l i v e t o g e t h e r ?
What p o s s e s s e d you t o e n t e r i n t o such a s i t u a t i o n . '
"Q. How d i d M r . Yanzick respond t o t h a t q u e s t i o n ?
"A. M r . Yanzick s t a t e d t h a t , ' I d e c i d e d t o do
t h i s because I w a s r e c e n t l y divorced. I didn't
want t o make t h e same m i s t a k e a g a i n . '
"He rambled on f o r a b o u t 20 m i n u t e s , p r e t t y much
uninterrupted. A t t i m e s , h e was e m o t i o n a l a b o u t
t h e s i t u a t i o n . He s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
w i t h M i s s S c o t t had s t a r t e d r o c k y , b u t had now
developed i n t o a b e a u t i f u l r e l a t i o n s h i p , ' o n e t h a t
means a g r e a t d e a l . ' I p o i n t e d o u t t o him t h a t
i t ' s o b v i o u s w i t h t h e s t u d e n t s i n h i s classes
p o s s e s s i n g f u l l knowledge of t h i s , t a l k i n g , jok-
i n g , e t c e t e r a , a b o u t i t , t h a t i t was h a v i n g a
d e t r i m e n t a l , a d v e r s e e f f e c t on h i s c l a s s r o o m
teaching. H e s t a t e d t h a t 'This appears t o be
t h e c a s e , and t h i s w o r r i e s me. I l i k e m job.
y
I f e e l t h a t I ' m a good t e a c h e r . '
"Q. Dr. C h r i s t e n s e n , l e t me i n t e r r u p t o n c e
again, there. D you i n d i c a t e t h o s e as b e i n g
o
a u d i t o r y r e s p o n s e s t o you, r a t h e r t h a n your
c o n c l u s i o n from any c o n c l u s i o n you m i g h t have
drawn from h i s a c t i o n o r s i l e n c e ?
"A. These were h i s s t a t e m e n t s . 'This appears
t o be t h e c a s e . T h i s w o r r i e s m e , b e c a u s e I
l i k e m j o b , and I f e e l I am a good t e a c h e r . '
y
He a s k e d what h e s h o u l d do. He concluded --
he formed h i s own c o n c l u s i o n . H e s a i d he f e l t
t h a t h e s h o u l d have M i s s S c o t t move o u t . "
I t i s important t o note t h a t M r . Yanzick a g r e e d t h a t h i s
c o n d u c t was h a v i n g a " d e t r i m e n t a l , a d v e r s e e f f e c t " on h i s
classroom teaching. While M r . Y a n z i c k ' s own t e s t i m o n y w a s
e n l i g h t e n i n g , i t d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e a d e n i a l of t h e S u p e r i n -
t e n d e n t ' s testimony. On h i s own d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n , M r .
Yanzick i n p a r t t e s t i f i e d :
"A. . . . He d i d a s k m e i f w e were l i v i n g t o -
g e t h e r , and I s a i d , 'Yes, you m i g h t s a y t h a t . '
But I n e v e r d i d go i n t o g r e a t d e t a i l t o e x p l a i n
that living arrangement.
"Q. What d i d you mean when you s a i d , 'Yes, you
might s a y t h a t 1 ?
"A. W e l l , when you r e f e r t o t h e t e r m , most
p e o p l e , I t h i n k -- o r , when D r . C h r i s t e n s e n
asked t h e q u e s t i o n , I ' m s u r e t h a t he meant
were we occupying t h a t house a s husband and
w i f e i n f u l l t e r m s of t h e s e n s e , p r o b a b l y , and
I d i d n o t mean t h a t by -- m c o n c e p t of l i v i n g
y
t o g e t h e r d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y i n c l u d e a l l of
those aspects.
" I t h i n k you c a n be l i v i n g w i t h someone w i t h o u t
s h a r i n g t h e bed w i t h them, n e c e s s a r i l y , a l l t h e
time. I w o n ' t deny t h a t I went w i t h M i s s S c o t t .
I w o n ' t deny o u r r e l a t i o n s h i p . But I was n o t
t e c h n i c a l l y l i v i n g i n t h a t house.''
With r e g a r d t o t h e d i s c u s s i o n b e f o r e h i s j u n i o r h i g h c l a s s
o f h i s g i r l f r i e n d moving o u t , S u p e r i n t e n d e n t C h r i s t e n s e n
further testified:
"Q. Did a n y t h i n g f u r t h e r c o n c e r n i n g M r . Yanzick
t h e n o c c u r r e l a t i v e t o c o m p l a i n t s of p a r e n t s o r
your d e a l i n g s w i t h him o v e r t h e s u b j e c t s you
had j u s t d i s c u s s e d w i t h him?
"A. Yes. On J a n u a r y 26th of 1977, I r e c e i v e d
a n o t h e r phone c a l l , a g a i n from M r s . H e r r e i d .
She was concerned b e c a u s e h e had made a s t a t e -
ment i n c l a s s t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t , 'My g i r l h a s
moved o u t b e c a u s e p e o p l e d i d n ' t approve of o u r
arrangement. '
" I went t o M r . D u p u i s ' s o f f i c e t h i s t i m e , and
i n M r . D u p u i s ' s p r e s e n c e once a g a i n asked him
i f h e had made t h a t s t a t e m e n t . H e said yes,
he had, t h a t i t was t o c l e a r t h e a i r . . ."
I t i s important t o note t h a t Superintendent Christensen
b e l i e v e d t h e l i v i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s and s t a t e m e n t s of M r .
Yanzick s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e y
a f f e c t e d h i s c l a s s r o o m performance. On t h i s a s p e c t , Super-
intendent Christensen t e s t i f i e d :
"A. I recommended t o t h e Board of T r u s t e e s a t
t h a t t i m e t h a t it was m o p i n i o n t h a t M r . Yanzick
y
had r e p e a t e d l y shown such a l a c k of judgment i n
a c t s a s w e l l a s s t a t e m e n t s made t o h i s c l a s s e s t o
make him u n f i t f o r c l a s s r o o m d u t y i n d e a l i n g s w i t h
young, immature t e e n a g e r s , who, I might a d d , a r e
a t a n i m p r e s s i o n a b l e s t a g e of development.
"Q. With r e s p e c t t o any moral i s s u e s o r q u e s t i o n s
i n v o l v e d , d i d you v e n t u r e a n o p i n i o n t o t h e Board
of T r u s t e e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o such i s s u e ?
"A. Yes, I did.
"Q. And what was t h a t o p i n i o n communicated t o
t h e Board?
"A. The c o n c e r n of t h e community and of t h e Board
about h i s l i v i n g arrangements. The q u e s t i o n was
r a i s e d and I i n t e r r u p t e d and p o i n t e d o u t t o t h e
Board t h a t h i s l i v i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s were r e a l l y
p r o b a b l y o f no c o n c e r n of o u r s , u n l e s s t h e s e l i v -
i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s became a n i s s u e i n h i s c l a s s r o o m
and were h a v i n g a d e m o n s t r a t e d a d v e r s e e f f e c t
on h i s c l a s s r o o m performance.
"The Board members, by and l a r g e , a g r e e d w i t h
t h a t , and s a i d yeah, t h a t was t r u e , and t h a t was
p r e t t y much t h e end of t h e d i s c u s s i o n r e g a r d i n g
h i s l i v i n g arrangements a s such."
The County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t was i n t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e
t r i e r o f f a c t , and s o was a b l e t o h e a r and e v a l u a t e t h e
testimony of t h e v a r i o u s witnesses. Some o f t h e e v i d e n c e
definitely is conflicting. Under s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e
conclusions of t h e t r i e r of f a c t deserve p a r t i c u l a r weight.
The County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t and t h e S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t b o t h
found t h a t T r u s t e e s ' r e a s o n s 1, 4 and 5 w e r e s u p p o r t e d by t h e
evidence. A p p l y i n g t h e s t a n d a r d o f s e c t i o n 2-4-704, MCA,
w e f i n d r e a s o n s 1, 4 and 5 a r e n o t c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s i n v i e w
o f t h e r e l i a b l e , p r o b a t i v e and s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e on t h e
whole r e c o r d .
The County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s f i n d i n g o f f a c t No. 1 5
s t a t e d t h a t , although t h e a b o r t i o n d i s c u s s i o n ( r e a s o n 2)
and t h e d i s p l a y o f f e t u s e s ( r e a s o n 3 ) w e r e n o t i n t h e m s e l v e s
s u f f i c i e n t grounds f o r d i s m i s s a l , t h e y , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e
r e s u l t a n t controversy, w e r e i n d i c a t i v e of t h e adverse impact
t h a t Yanzick's l i v i n g arrangement w i t h M i s s S c o t t w a s having
upon h i s t e a c h i n g . While t h e f i n d i n g i s n o t t o t a l l y c l e a r ,
it does a f f o r d a f a c t u a l b a s i s f o r t h i s Court t o consider
r e a s o n s 2 and 3.
I n r e a s o n 2, t h e T r u s t e e s c o n c l u d e d t h a t Yanzick had
demonstrated a l a c k of f i t n e s s f o r t e a c h i n g because of
i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e s u b j e c t o f a b o r t i o n i n t h e c l a s s r o o m
when h e i n q u i r e d o f t h e boys i n t h e c l a s s "How many o f you
boys would h a v e y o u r g i r l f r i e n d g e t a n a b o r t i o n i f s h e w e r e
pregnant?" The r e c o r d e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t of r e a s o n 2
i n c l u d e s t h e f o l l o w i n g t e s t i m o n y by S u p e r i n t e n d e n t C h r i s t e n s e n
a s t o s t a t e m e n t s made t o him by M r . Yanzick i n t h e p r e s e n c e
of t h e p r i n c i p a l :
"Q. Now, c o u l d you p l e a s e r e l a t e t o t h e Super-
i n t e n d e n t what t o o k p l a c e a t t h a t c o n f e r e n c e ,
what w a s s a i d t o M r . Y a n z i c k , and what h i s r e p l i e s
were? F i r s t o f a l l , you k e p t -- d i d you keep
t h e n o t e s t h a t you s a y you c u s t o m a r i l y keep re-
garding such?
"A. I was jotting down notes as we were talking,
yes. Mr. Yanzick admitted and stated, 'Yes, I
did say, "How many of you boys would urge your
girl to get an abortion if you got her in trouble?"
"Q. How was that done, Doctor, so far as you
can recollect?
"A. I related the quote to him, 'How many of you
boys would have your girl get an abortion if you
got her in trouble?' He said, 'Yes, I did say
that. '
"Q. In other words, he verbalized it?
"A. Yes. Well, he did not repeat it, but he
did say, 'I did say that.'
"Q. His response, then, was verbal and not
by a nod of the head or other indication?
"A. That is correct."
Superintendent Christensen concluded that this was an improper
approach to be taken with 11 to 14 year olds. Dr. Campbell,
a member of the Board of Trustees, and a pediatrician, was
asked whether or not the abortion question demonstrated a
lack of fitness as concluded by the Board of Trustees and
stated:
"Q. (By Mr. Heinz) Do you continue to support
that assertion as a demonstration of lack of
fitness for a teacher to continue in the dis-
trict's employ?
"A. I would. I would think it so inappropriate
that I had a hard time believing it of Mr. Yanzick."
After questioning to show his qualification as an expert to
testify concerning growth and development of children,
including physical and sexual development of children of the
ages of 11 to 14, the doctor testified that the particular
question would be very inappropriate for the age group 11 to
14.
In reason 3 the Trustees concluded that Yanzick had
demonstrated a lack of fitness for employment in a teaching
position by his lack of good judgment in the use of human
fetuses in the classroom. After receiving a complaint, with
regard to the use of fetuses in the classroom, Christensen
testified as follows:
"At seven fifteen, the morning of January 28th,
I went to Mr. Yanzick's room. I walked around
the room a couple of times; finally discovered
a white plastic bucket sitting at the front of
the room. I reached into the bucket and removed
the contents. It contained three bottles and
three plastic sacks. One of the sacks contain-
ed an identifiable human fetus of five or six
inches in length. I placed the items back in
the plastic bucket and took it to my office,
removed it from the school building . . .
"Q. What, if anything, then transpired between
Mr. Yanzick and yourself concerning the plastic
bucket?
"A. I asked Mr. Yanzick where the fetuses had
come from. He said that one of his students,
. . ., had asked to bring them. He had said
that -- Mr. Yanzick had said, 'Okay. Bring
them Wednesday morning.' That he had looked
at them, and that he had showed them to his
class on Thursday. . ."
In his testimony, Superintendent Christensen set forth
the opinions on his own part which he had related to the
Board of Trustees prior to the Trustees' decision with
regard to Mr. Yanzick. He testified to these opinions as
follows:
"A. Well, I just feel very strongly that 11
and 12 and 13 year old kids are at a really
highly impressionable stage of development.
Their maturity is not such that they can handle
shocking things like the public display of a
human body in a plastic bag. They cannot handle
statements to the effect, 'How many of you boys
would have your girlfriend get an abortion if
you got her pregnant?'
"I guess if Mr. Yanzick had been dealing with
17, 18 year old seniors, I probably would have
viewed some of the things he was saying as
certainly not being proper, but not having the
devastating effect that I felt they would have
at that age level."
The testimony of Superintendent Christensen, including his
conclusions, is confirmed by the testimony and conclusions
of the other board members who testified. In addition, it
is stipulated between the parties that all the balance of
the Board of Trustees would have testified in the same
manner had they been called as witnesses.
Under section 2-4-704, MCA, this Court may reverse or
modify the decision only if substantial rights of Mr. Yanzick
have been prejudiced because the administrative findings or
conclusions are clearly erroneous in view of the reliable,
probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.
After a careful review of the whole record, we do not find
that the administrative findings are clearly erroneous. We
find that the County Superindent's findings of fact 7 to 15,
inclusive, are supported by reliable, probative and substantial
evidence. As a result, we further conclude that the record
is sufficient to support the administrative conclusion that
Mr. Yanzick demonstrated a lack of fitness as a teacher,
and to establish good cause for the decision by the Board of
Trustees not to renew his contract.
We reverse the District Court. We reinstate the decisions
of the State Superintendent and the County Superintendent.
We Concur:
C x e f Justice f
Justices
Mr. Justice Shea dissents and will file a written dissent
later.
Mr. J u s t i c e Frank B. M o r r i s o n , J r . , d i s s e n t i n g :
I r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t from t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n .
The m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n d o e s n o t a d e q u a t e l y p r e s e n t t h e
record. The q u e s t i o n b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t i s whether t h e r e was
s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support a finding t h a t
Yanzick was u n f i t t o t e a c h . Yanzick was a t e n u r e d t e a c h e d
and i n t h e a b s e n c e of e v i d e n c e d e m o n s t r a t i n g h i s u n f i t n e s s
t e r m i n a t i o n was i m p e r m i s s i b l e .
The Board of T r u s t e e s gave i t s r e a s o n s f o r non-renewal
by l e t t e r d a t e d March 24, 1977:
" 1 . The Board of T r u s t e e s b e l i e v e t h a t you
have d e m o n s t r a t e d a l a c k of f i t n e s s f o r t e a c h -
i n g i n t h e p o s i t i o n i n which you have been
employed and such a l a c k of f i t n e s s a s i n d i c a -
t e d i n a l l s t a t e m e n t s made t o your c l a s s of
J u n i o r High School s t u d e n t s between t h e a g e s
of 1 and 1 4 y e a r s , w i t h t h e e f f e c t t h a t your
1
' g i r l f r i e n d ' had t o move o u t of your home be-
c a u s e some p e o p l e d i d n o t l i k e your l i v i n g
a r r a n g e m e n t s , which s t a t e m e n t s were made under
c i r c u m s t a n c e s where it w a s common knowledge
t o your s t u d e n t s and some of t h e i r p a r e n t s
t h a t you and M i s s Sharon S c o t t , a p h y s i c a l
e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r i n t h e P o l s o n School
d i s t r i c t , w e r e living together a t t h a t t i m e
i n your home i n P o l s o n , Montana.
" 2 . The Board of T r u s t e e s b e l i e v e you have
f u r t h e r d e m o n s t r a t e d a l a c k of f i t n e s s f o r t h e
t e a c h i n g p o s i t i o n i n which you have been em-
p l o y e d by r e a s o n of your i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e
s u b j e c t of a b o r t i o n i n your c l a s s r o o m , where-
i n you i n q u i r e d of t h e boys i n your c l a s s ,
a g e s 1 t o 1 4 , 'How many of you boys would
1
have y o u r g i r l f r i e n d g e t a n a b o r t i o n i f s h e
were p r e g n a n t ? '
" 3 . The Board f u r t h e r f e e l s t h a t you have
a l s o d e m o n s t r a t e d a l a c k of f i t n e s s f o r employ-
ment i n t h e t e a c h i n g p o s i t i o n by a s e r i o u s l a c k
of good judgment i n p e r m i t t i n g t h e u s e i n y o u r
c l a s s r o o m of human f e t u s e s b r o u g h t by one of
your s t u d e n t s who had o b t a i n e d them w i t h o u t
a u t h o r i z a t i o n from S t . J o s e p h ' s H o s p i t a l Labora-
t o r y w i t h o u t t h e knowledge of t h e a d m i n i s t r a -
t i o n of t h a t h o s p i t a l o r of t h e owner of t h e
specimens.
"4. The Board of Trustees further believe that
you have demonstrated a lack of moral values
by openly and notoriously cohabitating with a
female teacher, not your wife, within the re-
latively small community of Polson, Montana,
which fact, and the knowledge of which fact
among your students, has adversely affected
your performance as a teacher.
"5. The Board is of the opinion that you
lack fitness for the classroom teaching posi-
tion in which you have been employed because
of the lack of respect for you as a teacher
which has developed among your students as a
consequence of the above-mentioned occurrances."
Yanzick appealed the adverse recommendation by the
school board, to the County Superintendent of Schools. The
County Superintendent held a hearing. She concluded that
Yanzick had - demonstrated a lack of fitness by having
not
made the statement regarding abortion nor had lack of fitness
been demonstrated by showing that Yanzick displayed human
fetuses to his classes on human reproduction. However, the
County Superintendent did uphold the school board's determination
that Yanzick was unfit to teach because of his relationship
with a teacher to whom he was not married.
Yanzick then appealed to the Superintendent of Public
Instruction. She concluded that there was substantial
evidence to support the County Superintendent's reasons for
termination based upon Yanzick's living arrangement. The
issues of abortion and fetus demonstration were not discussed.
The decision of the State Superintendent was appealed
to the District Court. Judge Gordon Bennett reversed the
State Superintendent's decision and remanded the matter to
the County Superintendent for revision of her findings and
conclusions. Judge Bennett also ordered that Yanzick be
reinstated and paid lost wages.
Yanzick was a teacher of seventh grade science and
math at Polson Middle School and had taught there for seven
years. Some t i m e d u r i n g t h e 1975-76 s c h o o l y e a r , Yanzick
and a young woman began d a t i n g . A t t h a t t i m e t h e young
woman was l i v i n g on t h e w e s t s h o r e of F l a t h e a d Lake and
Yanzick was l i v i n g i n h i s camper. I n September of 1976, s h e
moved i n t o Y a n z i c k ' s house a s a r e n t - p a y i n g tenant. Yanzick
remained i n h i s camper which was p a r k e d w i t h i n 1 5 f e e t o f
t h e house. The problem of t h e l i v i n g a r r a n g e m e n t f i r s t came
t o t h e a t t e n t i o n of t h e School S u p e r i n t e n d e n t , D r . C h r i s t e n s e n ,
on J a n u a r y 1 8 , 1977, when h e r e c e i v e d a c a l l from M r s .
H e r r e i d , a p a r e n t , complaining a b o u t Yanzick and t h e young
woman's l i v i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p . She s t a t e d t h a t s h e had h e a r d
t h e school c h i l d r e n t a l k i n g about t h e i r l i v i n g arrangement.
T h a t same d a y , D r . C h r i s t e n s e n c a l l e d a m e e t i n g w i t h Yanzick
and M r . Dupuis, t h e s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l . They d i s c u s s e d t h e
l i v i n g a r r a n g e m e n t between Yanzick and t h e young woman. A
d i s c u s s i o n ensued which l e d t h e s c h o o l o f f i c i a l s t o b e l i e v e
t h a t t h e two w e r e a c t u a l l y l i v i n g t o g e t h e r . Yanzick was
concerned a b o u t s t u d e n t s t a l k i n g a b o u t h i s l i v i n g s i t u a t i o n
and d e c i d e d t o have t h e young woman move o u t of t h e h o u s e ,
which s h e d i d . On J a n u a r y 26, M r s . H e r r e i d c a l l e d D r .
C h r i s t e n s e n a g a i n complaining t h a t h e r son s t a t e d t h a t
Yanzick t o l d t h e c l a s s t h a t h i s g i r l f r i e n d moved o u t b e c a u s e
people o b j e c t e d t o t h e i r l i v i n g arrangement. On F e b r u a r y 2 ,
s h e c a l l e d a g a i n complaining t h a t Yanzick t o l d h e r s o n ' s
c l a s s t h a t "Nobody i s g o i n g t o t a k e cheap s h o t s a t me. I can
s l e e p and e a t wherever I p l e a s e . " Yanzick a d m i t t e d making
t h e s t a t e m e n t t o h i s c l a s s a b o u t h i s g i r l f r i e n d moving
o u t b e c a u s e of o b j e c t i o n s v o i c e d by o t h e r s , b u t d e n i e d
making t h e o t h e r s t a t e m e n t . T h e r e was no c o r r o b o r a t i o n f o r
Mrs. Herreid's testimony. Yanzick d i d respond t o a
s t u d e n t ' s q u e s t i o n a b o u t h i s p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p by t e l l i n g
t h e c l a s s t h a t h i s p e r s o n a l l i f e was n o t a s u b j e c t f o r
classroom d i s c u s s i o n . On March 1 0 , 1977, a n o t h e r p a r e n t had
a n i n f o r m a l d i s c u s s i o n w i t h D r . C h r i s t e n s e n , complaining
t h a t Y a n z i c k ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e young woman was a bad
i n f l u e n c e on h i s d a u g h t e r , who now f e l t t h a t l i v i n g w i t h a
man o u t of wedlock was a n a c c e p t a b l e way o f l i f e .
A t t h e h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t o n l y
o n e o t h e r p a r e n t t e s t i f i e d on b e h a l f of t h e s c h o o l b o a r d .
T h a t p e r s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s d a u g h t e r t o l d him t h a t Yanzick
s a i d t h e s u b j e c t of h i s p e r s o n a l l i f e was nobody e l s e ' s
business. The s c h o o l b o a r d d i d n o t have any s t u d e n t s t e s t i f y .
I n making f i n d i n g s of f a c t , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s a i d :
"The f i n d i n g t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r and M i s s S c o t t
were l i v i n g t o g e t h e r o u t of wedlock and t h a t
t h i s a r r a n g e m e n t was a m a t t e r of p u b l i c knowl-
edge i s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s i n view o f t h e
r e l i a b l e , p r o b a t i v e and s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e .
The e v i d e n c e t o t h e c o n t r a r y i s overwhelming.
M r . Yanzick t e s t i f i e d t h a t he n e v e r l i v e d w i t h
M i s s S c o t t b e f o r e t h e y were m a r r i e d ( t r . 2 3 0 ) .
M i s s S c o t t a l s o s o t e s t i f i e d ( t r . 3 8 8 ) . Four
r e n t c h e c k s p a i d by M i s s S c o t t t o t h e p e t i t i o n -
er f o r t h e months s h e l i v e d i n h i s house were
admitted i n t o evidence ( p e t i t i o n e r ' s e x h i b i t
E). T h r e e w i t n e s s e s , J i m Sturm, Clay H e r r i n
and Dennis Day t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y were f r i e n d s
of t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s , s p e n t t i m e w i t h him and
n e v e r o b s e r v e d him and M i s s S c o t t c o h a b i t a t i n g
( t r . 1 7 3 , 174, 346, 3 8 0 ) . Not o n e s i n g l e w i t -
n e s s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he knew t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n -
e r and M i s s S c o t t were i n f a c t l i v i n g t o g e t h e r .
Not a s i n g l e p a r e n t who t e s t i f i e d had any i d e a
a s t o t h e s o u r c e of t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n , o r t h e i r
childrens' information, about t h e l i v i n g arrange-
ment o r i t s b a s i s i n f a c t ( t r . 1 1 7 , 1 2 8 , 1 3 4 ,
187, 1 8 8 ) . T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p e t i -
t i o n e r ever t o l d h i s c l a s s e s t h a t he w a s l i v i n g
w i t h M i s s S c o t t . The e v i d e n c e on t h e r e c o r d
compels t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r and
M i s s S c o t t d i d not l i v e together during the
1976-77 s c h o o l y e a r . The ' p u b l i c knowledge
w i t h i n t h e s c h o o l community' was n o t h i n g b u t
rumor. T h e r e i s simply no b a s i s i n f a c t on
t h e r e c o r d t o r e a c h any o t h e r c o n c l u s i o n . It
i s evident t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r misled t h e
s c h o o l o f f i c i a l s a t t h e J a n u a r y 1 8 , 1977, m e e t -
i n g i n t o b e l i e v i n g t h a t h e was c o h a b i t i n g w i t h
Miss S c o t t (when asked i f t h e y were l i v i n g t o -
g e t h e r , h e r e p l i e d , 'You might s a y s o . ' ) ( t r .
2 3 2 ) , b u t we c e r t a i n l y c a n n o t a t t r i b u t e t h a t
m e e t i n g t o t h e s p r e a d of rumors i n t h e town.
No o n e can deny t h a t s m a l l towns u s u a l l y make
e x c e l l e n t b r e e d i n g grounds f o r rumors. The
town of P o l s o n i s e v i d e n t l y no e x c e p t i o n . A
year before t h i s controversy erupted D r .
C h r i s t e n s e n and M r . Funk, a n o t h e r board mem-
b e r , o b s e r v e d t h e p e t i t i o n e r and M i s s S c o t t
c r o s s i n g t h e P o l s o n b r i d g e t o g e t h e r a number
of t i m e s e a r l y i n t h e morning ( M i s s S c o t t l i v e d
on t h e w e s t s h o r e a t t h a t t i m e and c r o s s e d t h e
b r i d g e t o g e t i n t o t o w n ) . D r . C h r i s t e n s e n warn-
ed him a b o u t b e i n g more d i s c r e t e w i t h h i s r e l a -
t i o n s h i p w i t h M i s s S c o t t , a l t h o u g h he d i d n o t
i n q u i r e as t o t h e s t a t u s of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p
( t r . 50, 5 2 ) . T h i s b r i d g e c r o s s i n g i n c i d e n t
was a l s o d i s c u s s e d a t t h e J a n u a r y 1 8 t h m e e t i n g
( a y e a r l a t e r ) , a s c a u s i n g t a l k i n t h e community
( t r . 6 0 ) . The b r i d g e c r o s s i n g i s s u e was c l a r i -
f i e d , w i t h o u t c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e , by M i s s
S c o t t : (The p e t i t i o n e r d r o v e M i s s S c o t t t o
s c h o o l t h r e e t i m e s when s h e had c a r t r o u b l e )
( t r . 400, 4 0 1 ) . Thus, b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e
i n t h e r e c o r d , t h e 'common knowledge' of t h e
community was o n l y rumor w i t h a b s o l u t e l y no
proven b a s i s and f a c t . . ."
T h e r e i s some e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t a
f i n d i n g t h a t Yanzick and M i s s S c o t t c o h a b i t a t e d o u t of
wedlock. However, t h e o n l y b a s i s i s t h e a d m i s s i o n made by
Mr. Yanzick. I t i s n o t e n t i r e l y c l e a r from Y a n z i c k ' s t e s t i m o n y
whether h e was b e i n g f a c e t i o u s o r whether t h e y a c t u a l l y
c o h a b i t a t e d i n t h e s e n s e c h a r g e d by t h e s c h o o l b o a r d .
C o h a b i t a t i o n o u t of wedlock d o e s n o t r e n d e r one a n
u n f i t teacher. The problem w i t h t h i s case i s t h a t t h e r e i s
no " s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e " t o show t h a t Y a n z i c k ' s
p r i v a t e l i f e had a n a d v e r s e e f f e c t upon h i s t e a c h i n g . Any
such f i n d i n g by t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t was n e c e s s a r i l y
based upon h e a r s a y t e s t i m o n y . The h e a r i n g had t o be c o n d u c t e d
p u r s u a n t t o t h e s t a t u t o r y r u l e s of e v i d e n c e , s e c t i o n s 20-3-
210 ( 2 ) , 2-4-612 ( 2 ) , MCA. Hearsay t e s t i m o n y c o u l d n o t p r o v i d e
t h e b a s i s f o r a f i n d i n g t h a t Yanzick's p r i v a t e l i v i n g arrangements
adversely a f f e c t e d h i s teaching.
I n f a c t , t h e uncontradicted testimony i s t o t h e contrary.
The s c h o o l d i s t r i c t c o u l d n o t o f f e r any proof t o show d i m i n i s h e d
performance on t h e p a r t of Yanzick. The s c h o o l s u p e r i n t e n d e n t
and p r i n c i p a l b o t h f e l t t h a t he was a n a v e r a g e o r b e t t e r
teacher. Mr. Dupuis, h i s immediate s u p e r v i s o r , recommended
h i s b e i n g r e t a i n e d a s l a t e of March 1, 1977. Ralph Campbell,
a board member, n e v e r r e c e i v e d any c o m p l a i n t s a b o u t Yanzick
and t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e w a s a v e r y s k i l l e d t e a c h e r .
The law g o v e r n i n g t h e s c h o o l board i n t h i s m a t t e r was
s t a t e d by t h e Montana Supreme C o u r t i n Board of T r u s t e e s o f
School D i s t r i c t No. 9 , G l a c i e r County v. The S u p e r i n t e n d e n t
o f P u b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. 323, 327, wherein
t h e Court s a i d :
" ' W h i l e s c h o o l b o a r d s a r e n o t bound t o s t r i c t
c o n f o r m i t y w i t h c o u r t r u l e s and p r a c t i c e s ,
t h e y must, n e v e r t h e l e s s , o b s e r v e t h e elemen-
t a r y and fundamental p r i n c i p l e s o f j u d i c i a l
i n q u i r y . And a l t h o u g h a d e g r e e of i n f o r -
m a l i t y may a t t e n d t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e proceed-
ings, -- it must a p p e a r -- d i s m i s s a l i s
that the
based upon e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g t h e s p e c i f i c
c h a r g e o r c h a r g e s a g a i n s t t h e t e a c h e r and
- n o t h- - -
L
er evidence. * * * ' "
Such e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e s c h o o l board w a s l a c k i n g .
F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t
w e r e n o t i n f o r m a l and were bound by t h e s t a t u t o r y r u l e s of
evidence, a s previously indicated.
The r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e f a i l s t o r e v e a l a s i n g l e w i t n e s s
w i t h f i r s t hand knowledge which would s u b s t a n t i a t e a f i n d i n g
t h a t Yanzick was u n f i t t o t e a c h . While t h e r e may have been
e v i d e n c e h e was c o h a b i t a t i n g w i t h M i s s S c o t t , t h i s , i n and
of i t s e l f , would n o t p r o v i d e a s u f f i c i e n t b a s i s f o r h i s
termination.
I b e l i e v e t h a t s c h o o l b o a r d s s h o u l d be a f f o r d e d a g r e a t
d e a l of l a t i t u d e i n g o v e r n i n g l o c a l s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s .
However, i n m o p i n i o n , t h e C o u r t i s c o u n t e n a n c i n g a " w i t c h
y
hunt" i n t h i s case. The C o u r t i s condoning a l e g a l d e t e r -
m i n a t i o n b a s e d upon rumor and h e a r s a y . I n doing so, t h e
s e c u r i t y o f t e n u r e h a s been d e a l t a s e r i o u s blow. The
p r e c e d e n t i a l e f f e c t w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y d i m i n i s h academic
freedom i n Montana.
For t h e foregoing r e a s o n s , 1 x ; e g i s t e r a vigorous d i s s e n t .
Yanzick v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 23, ETC.
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Date filed: 1982-02-01
Citations: 641 P.2d 431, 196 Mont. 375
Copy CitationsCombined Opinion