Ritter.tea.state.tx.us



DOCKET NO. 138-LH-0509

GALVESTON INDEPENDENT ( BEFORE KYLE FRAZIER,

SCHOOL DISTRICT (

( TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY

(

V. ( CERTIFIED INDEPENDENT

(

MICHAEL SIMMONS ( HEARING EXAMINER

RECOMMENDATION OF CERTIFIED HEARING EXAMINER

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Mr. Michael Simmons ("Simmons") appeals the recommendation of Petitioner, Galveston Independent School District ("GISD"), to terminate his term contract of employment as an assistant principal because of a financial exigency declared by GISD.

The following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are based on the testimony heard and the exhibits presented during the administrative hearing conducted on July 23, 2009. Simmons was represented by Thomas J. Kerr. GISD was represented by Paul A. Lamp and J. Leanne Bram Lundy with Feldman, Rogers, Morris & Grover, L.L.P. Kyle Frazier is the certified hearing examiner appointed by the Texas Education Agency ("TEA") to hear this matter and submit this Recommendation.

The issue presented in this case is whether GISD has properly established valid reasons for the termination of Simmons( term contract in accordance with Section 21.211 of the Texas Education Code (the (Code() and GISD Board Policy DFF (Local).

FINDINGS OF FACT

After due consideration of the evidence and matters officially noticed, in my capacity as the Certified Hearing Examiner, I make the following Findings of Fact (citations to evidence are not exhaustive but are intended to indicate some of the basis for the particular Finding of Fact):

A. Procedural Facts

1. GISD employed Simmons as an assistant principal at GISD(s Ball High School ((Ball HS() for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years under a two-year term contract dated May 9, 2008. [GISD Exhibit 4].

2. During the 2008-2009 school year, the Principal at Ball HS was Mr. William Dean Blair ((Principal Blair(). The 2008-2009 school year was Principal Blair(s first year of service with GISD [Tr. 31, l. 23 - 32, l. 4].

3. In September 2008, Hurricane Ike struck the Texas gulf coast and caused significant damage to GISD(s facilities. During the 2008-2009 school year, GISD suffered financial losses which it concluded caused a financial exigency, as defined by GISD Board Policy DFF (Local), primarily due to the effects of Hurricane Ike on GISD. [GISD Ex. 2, GISD and Michael Simmons( Second Joint Stipulations of Fact, Nos. 1-2; Tr. 113-114; 171].

4. GISD is estimated to have suffered at least 65 million dollars in damage and has expended an estimated 30 million dollars to date to repair the damage. [Tr. 170-171]. Three GISD schools still remain closed. [Tr. 171]. At the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year student enrollment was approximately 8,000. [Tr. 171]. After Hurricane Ike, enrollment declined in the District by 25 percent. [Tr. 171]. GISD is estimated to have lost 2,000 students. [Tr. 171].

5. On January 14, 2009, GISD(s School Board voted in a public meeting to declare a financial exigency pursuant to GISD Board Policy DFF (Local). [GISD Ex. 2, GISD and Michael Simmons( Second Joint Stipulations of Fact, No. 3]. A financial exigency was declared due to a decline in GISD(s financial resources, a decline in enrollment that created a need to reduce expenditures for personnel, unanticipated expense or capital need, stemming from the destruction caused by Hurricane Ike. [Tr. 113-114, 170-171].

6. Financial exigency is defined in GISD Board Policy DFF (Local) as follows: ((Financial exigency( shall mean any event or occurrence that creates a need for the District to reduce financial expenditures for personnel including, but not limited to, a decline in the District(s financial resources, a decline in enrollment, a cut in funding, a decline in tax revenues, or an unanticipated expense or capital need.( [GISD Ex. 15].

7. GISD Board Policy DFF (Local) requires the Board of Trustees to select employment areas to be affected by a reduction in force ((RIF() and employees subject to the RIF. [GISD Ex. 15]. In January 2009, GISD determined various (employment areas( affected by the RIF, pursuant to GISD Board Policy DFF (Local), including elementary and secondary Assistant Principals at all grade levels. [GISD Ex. 2, GISD and Michael Simmons( Second Joint Stipulations of Fact, Nos. 5; Tr. 114-115, 172]. GISD Superintendent of Schools Lynne Cleveland ((Superintendent Cleveland() informed all of the principals in GISD of this fact in January 2009. [Tr. 184-185].

8. Ball HS had four (4) assistant principals during the 2008-2009 school year, including Michael Simmons. [GISD Ex. 2, GISD and Michael Simmons( Second Joint Stipulations of Fact, No. 6].

9. In the spring of 2009, GISD implemented a RIF pursuant to GISD Board Policy DFF (Local) because of the financial exigency it previously declared on January 14, 2009. [GISD Ex. 2, GISD and Michael Simmons( Second Joint Stipulations of Fact, Nos. 4-6].

10. As a result of the financial exigency, GISD determined it was necessary to have a reduction in force in many different types of positions throughout GISD. Part of that reduction was the elimination of three assistant principal positions.

11. At the time the financial exigency was declared and RIF became necessary, there were 15 assistant principals in GISD. At some point subsequent to the declaration of a financial exigency, one of these 15 assistant principals retired and one accepted another position in GISD, so only one assistant principal had to be discharged [Tr. 127-128].

12. Nine of the eleven assistant principals at the elementary and middle schools in GISD were evaluated between January 24, 2009 and February 9, 2009. One was evaluated on October 5, 2008 and one was evaluated on February 12, 2009. [GISD Ex. 9].

13. On or about February 11, 2009, Principal Blair evaluated the four assistant principals at GISD.

14. These evaluations were conducted by Principal Blair with his full knowledge that there was going to be a reduction in assistant principals in GISD and that his evaluations would have a direct bearing on who would be terminated by GISD.

15. On February 27, 2009, Simmons filed a grievance complaining of the February 2009 evaluation performed by Principal Blair. [GISD Ex. 2, GISD and Michael Simmons( Second Joint Stipulations of Fact, No. 11; Tr. 68].

16. Thereafter, Principal Blair held a Level I meeting with Simmons to discuss Simmons( grievance. On March 24, 2009, Principal Blair adjusted his evaluation of Simmons by changing some of the scores on Simmons( February 2009 evaluation. [Tr. 68-69, 123-124; 237]. After the adjustment, Simmons( numerical score was increased from 13 to 16, still leaving him as the low performer of all GISD assistant principals. [GISD Ex. 6; Tr. 125]. Principal Blair did not change any of the comments on Simmons( March 2009 evaluation, and it was his intent that the comments from the February 2009 evaluation carry forward. [Tr. 70-71].

17. GISD did not update GISD Exhbit 9 - GISD(s summary of the criteria used to evaluate the assistant principals - to reflect that Simmons( score had increased to 16.

18. On or about April 6, 2009, Simmons appealed Principal Blair(s Level I decision and a Level II hearing was held on April 20, 2009. [Tr. 165]. Simmons was not granted any additional relief at the Level II hearing. [Tr. 165]. The grievance process is separate from the RIF process in GISD Board Policy DFF (Local). [Tr. 182].

19. On March 25, 2009 - one day after Principal Blair adjusted Simmons( evaluation and increased his score to 16 - GISD(s Board of Trustees voted to propose the discharge of Simmons( employment contract with GISD because of a financial exigency that required a reduction in GISD(s personnel. Simmons( contract was proposed for discharge because the February 2009 evaluation completed by Principal Blair numerically ranked Simmons as the lowest performing assistant principal in GISD. [GISD Ex. 2, GISD and Michael Simmons( Second Joint Stipulations of Fact, No. 7].

20. By letter dated April 9, 2009, GISD notified Simmons of the proposal to terminate his employment contract based on GISD Board policy DFF (Local). [GISD Ex. 1].

21. On April 15, 2009, Simmons received GISD(s April 9 letter proposing the termination of his term contract on the basis of a financial exigency which required a reduction in personnel. [GISD Ex. 2, GISD and Michael Simmons( Second Joint Stipulations of Fact, No. 8; Tr. 187].

22. The last day of instruction for GISD during the 2008-2009 school year was June 4, 2009. [GISD Ex. 13; Tr. 34]. The forty-fifth day before the last day of instruction for the 2008-2009 school year was April 20, 2009. [GISD Ex. 13; Tr. 191]. GISD gave a timely notice to Simmons regarding the proposed discharge of his contract.

23. On April 27, 2009, Simmons properly and timely requested a hearing before the Commissioner of Education pursuant to GISD Board Policy as outlined in the April 9, 2009 letter. [GISD Ex. 2, GISD and Michael Simmons( Second Joint Stipulations of Fact, No. 10, GISD Ex. 14].

24. On April 28, 2009, the undersigned was appointed as the hearing examiner in this matter.

B. Background information on Simmons

25. Simmons has been employed by GISD for twenty-eight years (the last twenty-four consecutively). [GISD Ex. 4; GISD and Michael Simmons( First Joint Stipulations of Fact, Nos. 1, 9].

26. Simmons attended Ball HS himself and has worked at Ball HS for the majority of his professional life.

27. Simmons has served as a teacher and, for the last twelve years, as an assistant principal at Ball HS.

28. As evidenced by at least 45 individuals who submitted written letters of recommendation and/or support after learning of GISD(s proposed action, including two former head principals of Ball HS who supervised him in his role as assistant principal, Simmons is held in high regard and has substantial support at Ball HS and in the Galveston community. By all accounts, Simmons is well-liked among the students, teachers and some of his fellow administrators at Ball HS and he is very well-liked and active in the Galveston community. [Simmons Ex. 17].

29. Simmons is a very dedicated, loyal, caring and reliable member of the Ball HS faculty/administration, rarely missing a single day of work in his entire tenure at Ball HS.

30. GISD developed a pool participation form that was distributed to all GISD employees affected by the RIF. [Tr. 126-127]. The pool participation form requested specific information regarding whether employees were interested in applying for other positions in GISD for which they are qualified. [Tr. 126]. Simmons received this document but did not complete it and return it to HR. [Tr. 127].

C. Implementation of the criteria in GISD Board Policy DFF (Local)

31. According to GISD(s RIF policy, criteria to consider for identifying employees subject to the RIF are, in order of importance, as follows: certification, performance, professional background and seniority. The superintendent is required to apply them sequentially to the extent necessary to identify the employees who least satisfy the criteria and therefore are subject to a reduction in force. If all necessary reductions can be accomplished by applying the (certification( criterion, then it is not necessary to apply the (performance( criterion, and so on. [GISD Ex. 15; Tr. 116-117].

32. GISD applied the RIF criteria to all of the District(s 15 assistant principals. [Tr. 116-117; 176]. All of the assistant principals who could be affected by the RIF held the appropriate certification(s), which is the first criterion to consider. [GISD Ex. 9]. Therefore, the second criterion - performance - was considered and ended up being determinative. [GISD Ex. 9; Tr. 117]. The third and fourth criteria, professional background and seniority - were not considered. [Tr. 125].

33. According to GISD Board Policy DFF (Local) (performance( means ([e]ffectiveness as reflected by appraisal records and other written evaluative information.( GISD decided that only the evaluations during the 2008-2009 school year would be considered in comparing the (performance( of the assistant principals in GISD.

34. DFF (Local) provides that (if the Superintendent at his or her discretion decides that the documented performance differences between two or more reduction-in-force prospects are too insubstantial to rely upon, he or she may proceed to apply criterion 3 and, thereafter and to the extent needed, criterion 4. Superintendent Cleveland decided that the performance differences that GISD had documented between Simmons and those ranked just above him, as reflected solely by the 2008-2009 evaluations, were substantial enough to rely upon and it was not necessary to consider criterion 3 or 4. [GISD Ex. 9].

35. The GISD assistant principals were supervised by their respective principals at the campus to which they were assigned. [Tr. 173]. The GISD principals evaluated their respective assistant principal(s), and GISD relied on the judgment and discretion of their principals in doing so. [Tr. 126].

36. All principals used a standardized form in the evaluations of the assistant principals. [Tr. 141].

37. Superintendent Cleveland could not have completed written evaluations of all GISD(s assistant principals. [Tr. 174]. Superintendent Cleveland does not work with the assistant principals on a daily or weekly basis. [Tr. 174]. Historically, principals in GISD are the individuals who evaluate their respective assistant principals. [Tr. 175].

D. GISD(s evaluation of assistant principals at Ball HS

38. Principal Blair has at least seventeen (17) years of experience as a school administrator(four (4) years as an assistant principal and twelve (12) years as a principal in other districts. [Tr. 30-32]. Principal Blair has received training on how to evaluate professional school district employees, and Principal Blair has given such training to other school administrators. [Tr. 30-31].

39. Principal Blair had never met the four assistant principals at Ball HS prior to his assignment at the Principal at Ball HS for the 2008-2009 school year(the 2008-2009 school year was Principal Blair(s first year to work in GISD. [Tr. 31-32, 68]. The four Ball HS assistant principals during the 2008-2009 school year were Michael Simmons, Jocelyn Goins, Holland Beafneaux, and Salvador Chapa. [Tr. 31-33]. During the 2008-2009 school year, the Ball HS assistant principals reported to Principal Blair, and he worked directly with the four Ball HS assistant principals during the 2008-2009 school year and had an opportunity to observe the work performed by the Ball HS assistant principals. [Tr. 33, 35].

40. Principal Blair conducted the evaluations of the four Ball HS assistant principals in February 2009 and evaluated them based on their performance for approximately six months - from the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year in August 2008 through the date of completion of the evaluations in February 2009. [GISD Ex. 9; Tr. 36-37].

41. Principal Blair used the same form to complete Simmons( evaluation that he used to complete the evaluations of the other three Ball HS assistant principals. [Tr. 36].

42. Principal Blair was not involved in the preparation of the evaluations of any other assistant principals at GISD and does not have any personal knowledge of the work performance of any other assistant principals at GISD or the manner in which the other principals completed the evaluations of their respective assistant principals. [Tr. 67-68, 96-101, 105].

43. When Principal Blair evaluated Simmons in February 2009, Principal Blair assigned marks to Simmons based on the performance that Principal Blair observed during the first six months of the 2008-2009 school year. [Tr. 37-38]. Principal Blair believed that there was a need to include comments on Simmons( evaluation as well as all of the other Ball HS assistant principals. [Tr. 38-39]. The observations in the comments that Principal Blair provided to Simmons on his evaluation were, for the most part, based on Principal Blair(s personal observations, and they factored into the low scores that Simmons received. [Tr. 59]. The scores in Simmons( evaluation were low due to deficiencies in Simmons( job performance as pointed out by Principal Blair to Simmons in the evaluation marks and comments. [Tr. 39-59; 93-94]. The overall numerical score that Simmons received on his February 2009 evaluation was 13. [GISD Ex. 5, 9; Tr. 122].

44. Principal Blair did not give Simmons a single rating in any category of (exceeds expectations( or (clearly outstanding.(

45. All of the evaluations of Simmons for the eleven prior years that he served as assistant principal at Ball HS were generally very positive and, with the exception of the 2003-04 school year, nearly all of his ranking in specific performance areas were either (exceeds expectations( or (clearly outstanding.( For the two immediately preceding school years - 2006-07 and 2007-08 - Simmons received scores of 35 and 40 respectively (on a scale of 0-40) and all of his rankings were either (exceeds expectations( or (clearly outstanding.(

46. The observations in the comments that Principal Blair noted on Simmons( evaluation were primarily negative comments and direct criticism of specific incidents. There were no directives to Simmons on how he could improve his performance in the future.

47. Simmons( served as the text book custodian at Ball HS for a number of years prior to the current school year and his performance of this function was at least satisfactory. His comment at the end of the second paragraph regarding the text book situation was not based on his personal knowledge of the stated facts, since he was not employed by GISD in the summer of 2008, and appears to be an unfair criticism of Simmons.

48. Principal Blair also completed an evaluation for Ball HS assistant principal Salvador Chapa ((Chapa() based on Principal Blair(s personal observations of Chapa(s work performance during the first six months of the 2008-2009 school year. [Tr. 63-64]. Principal Blair included comments on Chapa(s evaluation which factored into the marks that Chapa received on his evaluation. [Tr. 65]. The observations in the comments that Principal Blair noted on Chapa(s evaluation were extremely positive. Based on Principal Blair(s personal observations, Principal Blair believes that Chapa(s work performance during the 2008-2009 school year was better than Simmons( work performance during the 2008-2009 school year. [Tr. 64]. The overall numerical score that Chapa received on his February 2009 evaluation was 30. [GISD Ex. 9; Tr. 122].

49. Principal Blair completed an evaluation for Ball HS assistant principal Holland Beafneaux ((Beafneaux() based on Principal Blair(s personal observations of Beafneaux(s work performance during the first six months of the 2008-2009 school year. [Tr. 65]. Principal Blair included comments on Beafneaux(s evaluation which factored into the marks that Beafneaux received on his evaluation. The observations in the comments that Principal Blair noted on Beafneaux(s evaluation were generally positive and contained specific and broad directives for the future. Based on Principal Blair(s personal observations, Principal Blair believes that Beafneaux(s work performance during the 2008-2009 school year was better than Simmons( work performance during the 2008-2009 school year. [Tr. 65-66]. The overall numerical score that Beafneaux received on his February 2009 evaluation was 22. [GISD Ex. 9; Tr. 122].

50. Principal Blair completed an evaluation for Ball HS assistant principal Jocelyn Goins ((Goins() based on Principal Blair(s personal observations of Goins( work performance during the first six months of the 2008-2009 school year. [Tr. 66]. Principal Blair included comments on Goins( evaluation which factored into the marks that Goins received on the evaluation. The observations in the comments that Principal Blair noted on Goins( evaluation were generally positive and contained three clear directives to improve her future performance. [Tr. 66]. Based on Principal Blair(s personal observations, Principal Blair believes that Goins( work performance during the 2008-2009 school year was better than Simmons( work performance during the 2008-2009 school year. [Tr. 67]. The overall numerical score that Goins received on her February 2009 evaluation was 18. [GISD Ex. 9; Tr. 122].

51. There is a difference in the nature of the comments that Simmons received from Principal Blair compared to the other assistant principals at Ball HS.

52. Principal Blair issued only one single (clearly outstanding( rating to any of his four assistant principals in any single area on the evaluation form. The highest evaluation score issued by Principal Blair was 30 out of 40, or 75% of the total possible points. All of the other principals in GISD issued (clearly outstanding( ratings to all of their assistant principals in nearly every area. The lowest score issued by any of the other principals in GISD was 36 out of 40, or 90% of the total possible points.

53. Principal Blair rated his assistant principals on a tougher scale than the other principals in GISD.

E. GISD(s Implementation of the RIF

As part of its function, the GISD Human Resources Department ((HR() and Executive Director of Human Resources Dyann Polzin ((Polzin() prepared a spreadsheet with the RIF criteria to present to Superintendent Cleveland and the GISD Board of Trustees. [Tr. 117-118]. After applying the first criterion in DFF (Local) - (certification( - it was determined that all assistant principals had the proper certification. [Tr. 118]. Therefore, (performance( was considered next and was the determining factor in deciding whose contract would be discharged. [Tr. 125].

54. In order to quantify the performance of the assistant principals, the 2008-2009 evaluations were all assigned a numerical value. [Tr. 121-122]. The 2008-2009 evaluations contained in GISD Exhibit 9 were used in determining the evaluation numbers in the spreadsheet. [Tr. 119]. GISD only considered the most recent performance evaluations because the District believed that using the employees( most recent evaluations was the most equitable and meaningful performance information to consider for the RIF. [Tr. 120].

55. The HR department took steps to ensure that the results of the evaluations were accurately tabulated. [Tr. 129-130]. Polzin met with Superintendent Cleveland to discuss the assistant principal ratings. [Tr. 129]. Polzin discussed Simmons( revised evaluation score with Cleveland . [Tr. 175].

56. Superintendent Cleveland ultimately made the recommendation to the Board that Simmons( contract be terminated because of a financial exigency that required a reduction in personnel. [Tr. 176-178].

DISCUSSION

Simmons bears the burden to show that GISD(s implementation of the RIF as set forth in Board Policy DFF (Local) was done in an arbitrary or capricious manner. See Carr v. Petersburg Indep. Sch. Dist., TEA Dkt. No. 108-R2-299 (Comm(r 1999) (upholding termination from RIF where the petitioner failed to show school district(s termination decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious); Clifton v. Rocksprings Indep. Sch. Dist., TEA Dkt. No. 127-R1-698 (Comm(r 1998) (same). While the preponderance of the evidence leads to the conclusion that GISD did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner, something does not seem right about the result.

Simmons is a well-respected, long-time senior administrator who apparently hardly ever missed a day of school in 28 years. He enjoys substantial support within the Galveston and GISD communities. In the eleven years prior to the 2008-2009 school year, Simmons was evaluated by four different principals and received very positive, highly-scored evaluations on every single review, receiving marks of (exceeds expectations( or (clearly outstanding( in nearly every area of review. Simmons received scores of 40 and 35 in the immediately two prior years and very good scores in the nine years prior to that. Two of three principals who evaluated Simmons during that nine-year period have submitted written recommendations supporting Mr. Simmons. Then a brand new principal comes to Ball HS for the 2008-2009 school year. Principal Blair appears to be a credible witness who simply graded on a much tougher scale than the other principals in GISD. After a little more than six months on the job he evaluates all four principals at Ball HS and Simmons receives a score of 13 (later adjusted to 16). In his evaluation of Simmons, Principal Blair did not issue a single score of (exceeds expectations( or (clearly outstanding( in any single category.

None of the information from prior years was ever considered by Superintendent Cleveland, since GISD elected to consider only the single evaluations during the 2008-2009 school year in applying the (performance( criterion. Even after considering only the 2008-2009 evaluation results, Superintendent Cleveland could have considered those prior evaluations had she determined that the difference between Simmons( score of 16 and Goins( score of 18 was too insubstantial to rely upon. She declined to do so. Superintendent Cleveland could have factored in the apparent difference in standards applied by Principal Blair compared to the other principals in GISD. She declined to do so.

While the preponderance of the evidence does not indicate that GISD acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, I urge the Board to very carefully consider the Criteria for Decision set forth in GISD Board Policy DFF (Local). It appears possible that the Board was not even made aware that Simmons( evaluation score had been adjusted up to 16. Perhaps this adjustment would have warranted a consideration of criterion 3 and 4? While GISD had the right to come up with their system of evaluation, it is apparent that Principal Blair graded on a much tougher scale than the principals of the other schools within GISD for the 2008-2009 year. Every other assistant principal in GISD received 90% of the possible points on their evaluations by their principals. All four of the assistant principals at Ball HS received scores of 75% or lower on their evaluations by Principal Blair. Mr. Simmons initial score was only 33% of the possible points. It does not appear that Simmons performance was that much worse than all the other assistant principals in GISD. Had two of the assistant principals in GISD not voluntarily exercised other options and effectively taken themselves out of the pool, then three of the four assistant principals at Ball HS would have been removed as a result of the method employed by Superintendent Cleveland to evaluate the assistant principals. Something does not seem right about that either. I urge the board of trustees to carefully consider their actions. Simmons appears to be a valuable member of the Ball HS community. There is very little negative information in the record about Simmons during a 28 year career in GISD. Something does seem right about him losing his job based on one evaluation during a single six-month period of time.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

After due consideration of the record, matters officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact, in my capacity as Certified Hearing Examiner, I make the following Conclusions of Law:

The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to Chapter 21, Subchapter F, of the Code.

Simmons is a "teacher" as defined in Chapter 21, Subchapter E, (21.201 of the Code.

Simmons was employed as a teacher by GISD pursuant to a term contract under Subchapter E, (21.204 of the Code.

GISD properly notified Simmons of the proposed discharge of Simmons(s term contract in accordance with the provisions of (21.211(a)(2) of the Code and GISD Board Policy DFF (Local).

The appeal by Simmons was conducted pursuant to Chapter 21, Subchapter F, (21.256 of the Code, and the standard of review in determining the findings of fact was based on the "preponderance of the evidence."

GISD(s decision to terminate the employment of Simmons under a reduction in force was not arbitrary or capricious, but was based on the procedure set out in GISD(s Board Policies in determining that Simmons( position should be eliminated as part of a reduction in force.

Good cause exists to support GISD(s decision to terminate the employment of Simmons under a reduction in force.

Any conclusion of law deemed to be a finding of fact is hereby adopted as such.

PROPOSAL FOR GRANTING RELIEF

After due consideration of the record, matters officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in my capacity as Certified Hearing Examiner, I respectfully recommend that the GISD Board of Trustees adopt the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

Simmons(s appeal of the recommended discharge of his Contract is hereby denied and GISD(s proposed discharge is upheld.

SIGNED AND ISSUED this 17th day of August, 2009.

____________________________________

Kyle Frazier

Certified Hearing Examiner

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download