Rodney Irchirl v. Natchitoches Parish School Board

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

12-488

RODNEY IRCHIRL

VERSUS

NATCHITOCHES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF NATCHITOCHES, NO. 83,790
HONORABLE ERIC R. HARRINGTON, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

PHYLLIS M. KEATY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Billy Howard Ezell, and Phyllis M. Keaty,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Robert L. Hammonds
Pamela Wescovich Dill
Hammonds, Sills, Adkins & Guice
Post Office Box 65236
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70896
(225) 923-3462
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees:
Natchitoches Parish School Board
Dr. Derwood Duke

Rodney Irchirl
In Proper Person
256 Water Turkey Road
Natchitoches, Louisiana 71457
(318) 357-7698
Plaintiff/Appellant

KEATY, Judge.

Rodney Irchirl appeals from a trial court judgment affirming his termination

by the Natchitoches Parish School Board (Board). For the following reasons, we

affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Irchirl was a guidance counselor at Natchitoches Central High School (NCH)

during the 2008-09 school year. By letter dated June 5, 2009, School Board

Superintendent Dr. Edwina Murphy notified Irchirl that the Board had approved a

resolution setting a hearing for July 1, 2009, to consider charges brought against

him.1 The resolution was attached to the letter, along with a detailed listing of the

ten willful neglect of duty charges levied against him. 2 The hearing was continued

at Irchirl‟s request to August 1, 2009. The hearing eventually concluded on

September 30, 2009, after spanning over nine sessions and fifty hours of testimony.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board voted and found Irchirl guilty of

charges four, five, six, eight, nine, and ten. Those charges can be summarized as

follows:

 Charge Number 4 – Failure to coordinate accurate records of student grades,
including the verification and printing of report cards by: 1) failing to check
for missing grades prior to printing report cards; 2) issuing report cards with
missing grades and inaccurate grade point averages (GPAs); 3) unilaterally
setting an unauthorized date for turning in senior grades; and 4) failing to
obtain and post missing grades.

 Charge Number 5 – Failure to coordinate accurate records of student grades,
including maintaining and updating records related to graduation for one-
third of the senior class by: 1) failing to timely verify students who would
not graduate; 2) refusing and/or failing to post grades on seniors‟ transcripts
and to timely prepare and print same.

1
The letter contains Irchirl‟s signature and a notation indicating that it was signed by him
on June 11, 2009.
2
The letter was admitted into evidence as Supt. 1; the Board‟s resolution was admitted as
Supt. 1-A; and the list of the ten neglect of duty charges waged against Irchirl were admitted as
Supt. 1-B. Note: The Superintendent withdrew charge three before the tenure hearing began.

 Charge Number 6 – Failure to demonstrate respect for all individuals by
establishing working relationships with colleagues and others, including
engaging in respectful interaction and team work with other guidance
counselors and teachers. Failure to perform his duties by engaging in the
following unprofessional behaviors: 1) demonstrating disrespect to the
department head on multiple occasions; 2) being insubordinate to his
department head and principal by refusing to answer questions regarding,
among other things, the posting of grades to seniors‟ transcripts and the
providing of necessary information for graduation participation; and 3)
regularly engaging in unacceptable, argumentative, confrontational, and/or
disrespectful conduct toward his department head, other counselors, and
teachers.

 Charge Number 8 – Failure to adhere to the general policies and procedures
applicable to him as a guidance counselor at NCH as follows: 1) refusing
and/or failing to inform his department head, school administration, or other
counselors of his location at all times during the school day and, thus, being
unavailable and/or could not be located for significant periods of time; 2)
absenting himself from his office regularly during the lunch period; and 3)
failing to maintain and open door policy.

 Charge Number 9 - Failure to adhere to the general policies and procedures
applicable to him as a guidance counselor at NCH by resisting compliance
and/or failing to comply with standard operating procedures with the
guidance department, such as: 1) refusing to adhere to the division of
students amongst the counselors; 2) changing the schedules of students not
assigned to him; 3) improperly investigation a teacher; and 4) demonstrating
a consistent inability to follow the directives of his department head and
principal.

 Charge Number 10 - Failure to adhere to the general policies and procedures
applicable to him as a guidance counselor at NCH by resisting compliance
and/or failing to comply with standard operating procedures with the
guidance department, such as: 1) refusing to input custody information in
ProComm; 2) inexplicably ordering large quantities of ACT waiver forms
and refusing to voluntarily allow other counselors to use the ordered forms;
3) failing to effectively organize and implement a schedule for the ePortal
exercise; and 4) demonstrating a consistent inability to follow the directives
of his department head and principal.

On October 1, 2009, Irchirl was notified by certified letter that his employment had

been terminated.

Irchirl filed a timely appeal pursuant to La.R.S. 17:443 3 with the Tenth

Judicial District Court. After reviewing the exhibits and the briefs filed by the

parties, the trial court affirmed the Board‟s action, finding that there was

3
This statute is known as the Teacher Tenure Law (TTL).
2

substantial evidence to support the Board‟s finding of willful neglect of duty on

each of the six charges sustained against him. Irchirl, in proper person, now seeks

review in this court, alleging eight assignments of error which, as Irchirl agreed at

oral arguments, can be resolved by addressing the following issues: 1) whether the

Board complied with the statutory formalities under the TTL; and 2) whether the

Board‟s findings were supported by substantial evidence.

DISCUSSION

Louisiana Revised Statutes 17:443(A) governs the dismissal of tenured

teachers4 and provides, in pertinent part, that:

A permanent teacher shall not be removed from office except
upon written and signed charges of willful neglect of duty, or
incompetency, dishonesty, or immorality . . . and then only if found
guilty after a hearing by the school board of the parish or city, as the
case may be, which hearing may be private or public, at the option of
the teacher. At least twenty days in advance of the date of the
hearing, the superintendent with approval of the school board shall
furnish the teacher with a copy of the written charges. Such statement
of charges shall include a complete and detailed list of the specific
reasons for such charges and shall include but not be limited to the
following: date and place of alleged offense or offenses, names of
individuals involved in or witnessing such offense or offenses, names
of witnesses called or to be called to testify against the teacher at said
hearing, and whether or not any such charges previously have been
brought against the teacher. The teacher shall have the right to appear
before the board with witnesses in his behalf and with counsel of his
selection, all of whom shall be heard by the board at said hearing.

In Wise v. Bossier Parish School Board, 02-1525, pp. 5-7 (La. 6/27/03), 851

So.2d 1090, 1094-95 (citations omitted) (footnote omitted), the Louisiana Supreme

Court wrote:

[J]udicial review of tenure proceedings must be limited to an inquiry
of whether the School Board complied with the statutory formalities
under Louisiana‟s Teacher Tenure Law and whether the School
Board‟s findings were supported by substantial evidence.
“„Substantial evidence‟ has been defined as „evidence of such quality
and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in exercise of
impartial judgment might reach different conclusions.‟” In
4
At the September 30, 2009 hearing, Irchirl, through counsel, stipulated that he was a
tenured teacher under the TTL.
3

conducting such an examination, the district court must give great
deference to the school board‟s findings of fact and credibility.
Reasons for dismissal are largely in the sound discretion of the school
board. Thus, the school board‟s judgment should not be reversed in
the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Generally, an
abuse of discretion results from a conclusion reached capriciously or
in an arbitrary manner. The word “arbitrary” implies a disregard of
evidence or of the proper weight thereof. A conclusion is
“capricious” when there is no substantial evidence to support it or the
conclusion is contrary to substantiated competent evidence.

The district court may not substitute its judgment for that of the
school board or interfere with the school board‟s good faith exercise
of discretion. The district court‟s responsibility in such a case is to
determine whether the school board‟s action was supported by
substantial evidence, or conversely, constituted an arbitrary decision
and thus an abuse of discretion. As with the district court, a court of
appeal may not reverse the decision of a district court unless it finds
the school board‟s termination proceedings failed to comply with
statutory formalities and/or the school board‟s findings were not
supported by substantial evidence.

Compliance with Teacher Tenure Law
Irchirl complains that the Board failed to comply with the TTL in that: 1)

the Board failed to provide him with the specific dates of the alleged offenses; 2)

the charges against him lacked the details and specificities required by the statute;

3) the Board failed to comply with La.R.S. 17:3884(2) by failing to grant him a

pre-suspension opportunity to respond to discrepancies in his end-of-the-year

evaluation; 4) the Board erred in including charges under La.R.S. 17:444 in the

same document that charged him under La.R.S. 17:443; 5) the Board was allowed

to call an unlisted witness to testify against him; 6) the Board denied him an

opportunity to present relevant rebuttal evidence; and 7) his termination notice was

legally insufficient.

The Board counters that the trial court correctly held that none of Irchirl‟s

assigned errors had merit because the Board provided him with all the procedural

rights afforded by the TTL. More specifically, Irchirl was represented by counsel

at each of the nine hearing sessions and was given extreme latitude to present his

4

defense, he was allowed to testify at length in his own defense, and he was allowed

to call witnesses to testify on his behalf. Finally, the Board suggests that this court

disregard the issue regarding its alleged violation of La.R.S. 17:3884(2) because

Irchirl raised the issue for the first time on appeal.

“„[D]ue process is not a technical concept with a fixed content unrelated to

the time, place and circumstances.‟ Rather, it requires the implementation of

flexible rules which may yield to the demands of the particular situation.” Rubin v.

Lafayette Parish Sch. Bd., 93-473, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/14/94), 649 So.2d 1003,

1010-11 (quoting Wilson v. City of New Orleans, 479 So.2d 891 (La.1985)), writ

denied, 95-845 (La. 5/12/95), 654 So.2d 351. See also, Johns v. Jefferson Davis

Parish School Bd., 154 So.2d 581 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1963) (Statutory provision for

formal notice and hearing on charges against teacher contemplates reasonable and

substantial compliance with general principle of due process of law which requires

that teacher be given formal notice of charges against him made with sufficient

specificity that he may prepare any defense he may have.).

In concluding that the Board‟s actions “were in compliance with [La.R.S.

17:443],” the trial court noted that Irchirl received a letter from the superintendent

on June 11, 2009, notifying him that a hearing would be held on July 1, 2009,

regarding charges brought against him. The trial court described the document

attached to that letter which listed the charges against Irchirl as being “detailed.”

Noting that the hearing had been continued at Irchirl‟s request from July 1 to

August 1, 2009, and that the hearing had been held over nine separate days, the

trial court found that “Irchirl had the extended opportunity far beyond the 20 days

provided by the statute to prepare a defense against the allegations set forth in Supt.

1-B, which the court finds to be in compliance with the statute.”

5

After having read the entire record, including all of the exhibits and the

transcripts of the nine days of testimony received at the tenure hearing, we are

convinced that the Board fully complied with the mandates of the TTL. The list of

charges found in Supt. 1-B included the specific reasons for each charge and the

names of witnesses who might be called to testify in support of each charge.

While the Board listed the date of each alleged offense as “the 2008-2009 school

year” rather than as occurring on a particular date, the Board went into great detail

in providing the specific reasons for each charge in Supt. 1-B. In addition, the

Board backed up the charges with specific witness testimony pinpointing the time

frames relative to each of the charges. Given the continuing nature of the charges,

we concur with the trial court‟s finding that the Board complied with the TTL with

respect to providing Irchirl with detailed and specific charges.

With respect to Irchirl‟s claim that the Board failed to comply with La.R.S.

17:3884(2) by not granting him a pre-suspension opportunity to respond to

discrepancies in his end-of-the-year evaluation, we note that Irchirl disputes the

Board‟s assertion that he did not raise the issue before the trial court. Regardless

of whether he did so or not, we conclude that once Superintendent Murphy decided

to file written charges of neglect of duty against him and the Board had approved

those charges, La.R.S. 17:3884(2) was no longer applicable to the situation and the

Board was instead required to comply with the TTL, which, as we have found, it

did. Irchirl has not offered any specific jurisprudence to the contrary. The Board

did not err in not giving Irchirl an opportunity to respond to discrepancies in his

end-of-the-year evaluation before conducting the tenure hearing. Moreover, the

record indicates that although the 2009-10 school year commenced while the

charges were still pending against Irchirl, he continued to be paid by the Board

6

throughout the pendency of his tenure hearing even though he did not resume his

duties as a counselor at NCH.

Irchirl asserts that the Board erred in that the charges against him included

reasons for terminating both a promotional appointee, under La.R.S. 17:444, and a

tenured teacher, under La.R.S. 17:443. We disagree. The Board presented

evidence that, out of an abundance of caution, Superintendent Murphy included

language in the charges against Irchirl to include reasons to terminate him as a

teacher, i.e., for willful neglect of duty, and as a promotional employee, i.e., for

inefficiency and/or failure to comply with performance objectives. At the start of

the hearings, the Board attempted to get Irchirl‟s counsel to stipulate under which

statutory provision Irchirl wished to be adjudged. Although Irchirl‟s counsel did

eventually enter into a stipulation that his client was a teacher and wished to be

adjudged according to the TTL, he did not do so until the final session of the

hearing. Given the circumstances, we conclude that the Board did not err by

including alternative charges against Irchirl. Our conclusion is bolstered by the

fact that, under either statute, the bases of the charges against Irchirl were the exact

same alleged behavior.

Irchirl complains that the Board was improperly allowed to call an unlisted

witness to testify against him. The Board points out that the witness referred to,

Dennis Breland, was called as a rebuttal witness. In addition, on the first day of

the hearings, Irchirl named Mr. Breland as one of his “may call” witnesses.

Viewing the situation in that light, we conclude that Irchirl was not prejudiced by

and the Board did not violate the TTL by calling Mr. Breland as a witness.

Irchirl next asserts that the Board violated the TTL by denying him an

opportunity to present evidence that the two other guidance counselors at NCH

also turned in senior transcripts containing the same issues that he was being
7

punished for in these proceedings. The Board counters that it did not err in

excluding the evidence because the documents were offered to prove the

misconduct of other individuals. We conclude that the Board did not err in

excluding the documents sought to be offered by Irchirl in rebuttal as those

documents were wholly irrelevant to the whether Irchirl was guilty of the

complained of conduct.

Finally, relying on Serignet v. Livingston Parish School Board, 282 So.2d

761 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1973), Irchirl claims that the Board violated the TTL because

his October 1, 2009 termination notice was legally insufficient in that it failed to

include the specific reasons upon which the Board recommended his termination,

thereby making it impossible for him to mount an adequate appeal. The Board

counters that because Irchirl had been provided with the detailed charges against

him on June 11, 2009, and because he was present at all nine of the hearing

sessions when those charges were addressed, “he cannot credibly claim that he was

not fully aware of the „charges‟ to which the [termination] notice referred.”

Louisiana Revised Statutes 17:443(B) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

If a permanent teacher is found guilty by a school board, after due and
legal hearing as provided herein, on charges of willful neglect of
duty . . . and ordered removed from office, or disciplined by the board,
the superintendent with approval of the board shall furnish to the
teacher a written statement of recommendation of removal or
discipline, which shall include but not be limited to the exact
reason(s), offense(s), or instance(s) upon which the recommendation
is based.

In Serignet, the school board was found to have violated La.R.S. 17:442,

which provides that a probationary teacher may be dismissed upon the written

recommendation of the superintendent accompanied by valid reasons therefor.

Serignet was dismissed after receiving a letter that informed him that he was being

dismissed for incompetency and willful neglect of duty. Attached to the letter was

8

a resolution of the school board which stated that at its April 5, 1971 meeting, it

had, upon the written recommendation of the superintendent, unanimously adopted

a resolution to discharge Serignet. The first circuit found that the charges

contained in the dismissal notice were mere conclusions and that no detailed

charges existed at the time of Serignet‟s discharge. Instead, the school board did

not provide Serignet with the reasons for his dismissal until he propounded

interrogatories to it in February of 1972 and long after his dismissal, requesting

“the detailing of specific acts constituting the alleged incompetency and willful

neglect of duty.” Id. at 762.

Here, Irchirl acknowledged that he received the charges against him on

June 11, 2009. As stated above, those charges were detailed and specific and

complied with the requirements of the TTL. When considered in conjunction with

the charges provided to him in June of 2009, we find that the October 2009

termination notice provided to Irchirl complied with the TTL.

In sum, Irchirl has failed to prove that the Board did not comply with the

TTL. Accordingly, we will now address Irchirl‟s claim that the Board erred in

finding sufficient evidence to support his termination.

Substantial Evidence

Irchirl claims that the Board‟s findings that he was guilty of six counts of

willful neglect of duty was not supported by substantial evidence and thus were

arbitrary and capricious. He further claims that the trial court erred in finding that

there was substantial evidence to constitute willful neglect of duty on his part. The

Board counters that the trial court was correct in its assessment of the evidence and

that it did not err in affirming the Board‟s termination of Irchirl. It submits that

Irchirl failed to prove that the Board‟s decision to terminate his employment was

9

an abuse of discretion or that it reached its decision in an arbitrary or capricious

manner.

The evidence produced at the tenure hearing showed that Irchirl was

assigned to counsel and advise the ninth graders at NCH. The tenth graders were

assigned to counselor Jeff Johnson and the eleventh graders were assigned to

counselor Wendy Byles. The senior class was divided equally amongst the three

counselors, with each assigned approximately ninety seniors. Irchirl also had the

responsibility of ensuring that the teachers at NCH timely entered grades, of

posting those grades in the computer, and of printing report cards.

In Charge Number 4, the superintendent alleged that Irchirl failed to

coordinate accurate records of student by: 1) failing to check for missing grades

prior to printing report cards; 2) issuing report cards with missing grades and

inaccurate GPA‟s; 3) unilaterally setting an unauthorized date for turning in senior

grades; and 4) failing to obtain and post missing grades.

Byles was the head of the guidance department at NCH. She testified that at

the beginning of the 2008-09 school year, she gave Irchirl charts to assist him in

monitoring when the teachers turned in their grades. She directed Irchirl to give

the completed chart to Principal David Elkins and he would handle the issue of

teachers who were late turning in grades. Byles testified that despite her

instructions, Irchirl did not use the charts. As a result, some report cards were

printed and disseminated in March of 2009 and again in May of 2009 with

incomplete and/or missing grades. Those incomplete and/or missing grades caused

the students‟ GPAs to be inaccurate. According to Byles, the problem was

exacerbated in March of 2009 because Irchirl scheduled himself to be out of town

doing professional development on three days during the time when grades were

due.
10

Byles stated that Irchirl was responsible for letting the school know which of

his one-third of the seniors were qualified to graduate in order for the graduation

ceremony to be properly planned. Byles said that Irchirl directed that the teachers

turn in senior grades on May 11, 2009 by two p.m., which she found problematic

because it impaired her ability to timely plan for the academic pep rally and the

graduation ceremony.

Adrienne Theus, a computer specialist and long-time employee of the Board

who worked at its central office, testified that when it was nearing time for senior

transcripts to be posted, she contacted Irchirl about getting the “incompletes”

removed. When Irchirl did not promptly address the problem, she contacted Elkins

who asked her for instructions on how to correct the problem and who made the

corrections himself. On another occasion, Byles contacted her about senior grades

that Irchirl said he had posted but that she could not find in the computer. Theus

checked the database, and no grades were posted. As a result, she walked Byles

through the process of posting those grades, even though that task should have

been completed by Irchirl. Theus later called Irchirl inquiring about whether he

had posted the grades, and he assured her that he had done so. Theus explained

that grades could be posted to NCH‟s database through two programs, either

Procomm or M.T.S. She and Byles decided that they would talk with Irchirl about

how he had entered the grades so that they could resolve any misunderstandings

about the posting of grades to prevent a similar situation from repeating in the

future. Theus recalled that during a conference call between her, Byles, and Irchirl,

Irchirl left Byles‟ office and refused to explain how he had posted the grades.

Elkins testified that as the counselor responsible for grade reporting, Irchirl

was supposed to make sure that every teacher had turned in their grades, and then

print report cards and ensure that they were distributed on schedule. If a teacher
11

had not timely turned in grades, Irchirl was to talk to the teacher. If that teacher

still did not turn in grades, Irchirl was to notify him. Elkins confirmed that Theus

called him in March about the missing grades at NCH. He printed a report

showing which students‟ grades were missing from which teachers. When he

showed the report to Irchirl, he did not seem to understand the report or what he

needed to do to resolve the problem, even though it was nearing the sixth grading

period of the school year. Elkins testified that the problem of missing grades

continued into the final grading period in May, and he was worried that the grades

would not be finalized before the teachers left for the summer. Because Irchirl had

not yet filled in the grades that were missing in the March report, Irchirl began to

get “snowed under” and Elkins had to help enter missing grades into the computer.

After thoroughly reviewing the record, we find there is substantial evidence

to support the Board‟s decision that Irchirl‟s failure to coordinate accurate records

of student grades, as well as his failure to verify and print accurate report cards,

amounted to willful neglect of duty on his part, thereby justifying its decision to

terminate Irchirl. Although Irchirl disputed much of the testimony against him, he

did not deny that he understood what was required of him with regard to his

responsibility for seeing that grades were properly reported at NCH. Moreover,

the law is clear that “the district court must give great deference to the school

board‟s findings of fact and credibility.” Wise, 851 So.2d at 1094 (citing Arriola v.

Orleans Parish Sch. Bd., 01-1878 (La. 2/26/02), 809 So.2d 932). Accordingly, the

trial court did not err in in upholding the Board‟s decision to terminate Irchirl.

Even where a school board files numerous charges of willful neglect of duty

against a teacher, neither the TTL nor the jurisprudence “mandate [that] all charges

must be proven before termination may be imposed. To the contrary, it is

sufficient to support termination if any one of the charges of willful neglect of duty
12

against the tenure teacher is sufficiently supported by the record.” Wise, 851 So.2d

at 1095. Because we find that Superintendent Murphy provided the Board with

substantial evidence to support Charge Number 4, we need not address the

remaining charges levied against him. Id.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court affirming the

decision of the Natchitoches Parish School Board to terminate Rodney Irchirl is

affirmed. All costs of this proceeding are assessed against Rodney Irchirl.

AFFIRMED.

13