Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Morelli v. Board of Education

OPINION FILED OCTOBER 25, 1976.

RAY L. MORELLI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v.

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, PEKIN COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 303, TAZEWELL COUNTY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.



APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Tazewell County; the Hon. ROBERT E. HUNT, Judge, presiding.

MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE STOUDER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

This appeal is from the judgment of the circuit court of Tazewell County affirming the administrative decision of the defendant, board of education, dismissing plaintiff, Ray L. Morelli, from his position as principal and teacher.

Pekin High School is divided into two campuses with the freshmen and sophomores going to the West Campus and juniors and seniors going to the East Campus. Each campus has its own principal and prior to his dismissal, plaintiff was principal of the West Campus. Mr. Art Keller is the East Campus principal and both principals are under the supervision of the superintendent, Mr. William Holman. Mr. Holman is responsible only to the defendant board of education.

The unusual facts of this case unfortunately require a somewhat lengthy recitation of the events which culminated in the dismissal of plaintiff. It was determined in a Columbia University report that Pekin High School was having a serious drug problem. Sometime during the middle of 1974, Lt. Biswell of the Pekin Police Department contacted the plaintiff seeking help in placing a drug informant on the West Campus. Plaintiff agreed to help provide information about the school, schedules, and also a means of obtaining the informant's admission to the school. With the help of local authorities, a 22-year-old woman named Susan Gidner, who had been a heroin addict, was selected to be the informant.

Ms. Gidner testified she first met with plaintiff in September, 1974, in a meeting at a truck stop and Lt. Biswell and a member of the school board, Charles Burson, were also present. It was their general consensus that Ms. Gidner did not appear young enough to pass as a student among the 14- and 15-year old freshmen and sophomores on the West Campus. It was agreed she would fit in on the East Campus. Ms. Gidner testified that plaintiff helped to prepare her class schedules and helped her work on a rough draft of a false transcript that would be used to get Ms. Gidner into Pekin High School. The false transcript was prepared at Bloomington High School by an assistant principal that the plaintiff was acquainted with and Ms. Gidner was eventually enrolled on October 3, 1974. The assistance of Quincy High School in preparing the transcript had previously been sought by plaintiff, but Quincy had refused to provide any assistance. Neither the principal of the East Campus nor the superintendent or the defendant board of education were ever consulted or informed about the foregoing facts until November 18. Although two board members knew of the plan, the board was never officially consulted. All of the foregoing facts were substantially uncontroverted at the hearing.

Ms. Gidner also testified that during the series of meetings which took place prior to her enrollment on the East Campus, plaintiff had made certain statements about various members of the faculty and the principal of the East Campus. Plaintiff denied making these statements and the testimony of other individuals present at some of the meetings agreed with plaintiff's version of the facts. According to Ms. Gidner, plaintiff stated the names of three teachers and two coaches that he was sure were selling drugs to students. She was also told by plaintiff that one of these teachers was teaching deviate sexual practices and that a couple of others were "blatantly teaching communism and other left-wing points of view" in the classrooms. Plaintiff asked her to "take notes in class on things that were said by these teachers relating to these subjects, and hold them for him." Plaintiff also stated that June Keller, daughter of the principal of the East Campus, was involved in drugs and "that it would be to the advantage of the school system if both were dismissed." All of the foregoing statements were denied by plaintiff. Ms. Gidner quickly became dissatisfied with the job and finally quit on October 22, 1974. On November 18, 1974, the superintendent learned of the entire incident from Mr. Keller, principal of the East Campus. Mr. Keller had been informed of the incident on the same day by a teacher that Ms. Gidner had talked to several days earlier.

On December 19, 1974, the board of education adopted a resolution dismissing plaintiff from his employment and informing plaintiff of the charges against him. Plaintiff requested and was provided with a bill of particulars. After a hearing from January 21, 1975, to January 29, 1975, the board of education found that each of the charges had been proved by the evidence, that plaintiff's actions were irremediable, and confirmed plaintiff's dismissal. Plaintiff appealed then under the provisions of the Administrative Review Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110, pars. 264-279.) The trial court affirmed the action of the board and this appeal followed.

A myriad of contentions are raised by plaintiff on this appeal. He first urges error because the charges of the board are against the manifest weight of evidence and the competent evidence fails to support a finding of irremediability. Four charges were lodged against the plaintiff by the defendant board as follows: one, he actively and wilfully participated in securing the enrollment of a person under false and forged credentials in classes of certain teachers at the East Campus of the school, without informing the principal of the East Campus, superintendent, or the board of education, and did so for purposes not disclosed to the principal of the East Campus, superintendent, or board of education; two, he actively and wilfully, with intent to discredit, caused, by word and deed, false accusations and suspicions to be directed toward certain teaching and administrative personnel to the effect that they were involved with or condoned drugs and drug usage in said school, thereby causing an adverse affect on the morale of the teachers and a breakdown in the confidence and respect for himself by the professional staff of said school, with which he is associated; three, he failed to maintain proper rapport with the superintendent and other members of the administrative staff of the said school and failed to carry out administrative policies and suggestions over a period of the past several months; four, his involvement in the matters above referred to in paragraphs one and two were outside his areas of responsibility and said activities and other activities outside his areas of responsibility have adversely affected his effectiveness in his primary assignment as principal of the West Campus. We disagree with plaintiff's contention that certain of the foregoing charges do not find any support in the evidence. Competent evidence was introduced to support each of the foregoing charges, but that does not dispose of the issue, since we must determine if the board's ultimate decision was against the manifest weight of evidence.

• 1 The courts of this State have consistently held that the decisions of an administrative agency will be set aside only if manifestly against the weight of evidence or without substantial support in the record. (Keyes v. Board of Education, 20 Ill. App.2d 504, 156 N.E.2d 763; Pearson v. Board of Education, 12 Ill. App.2d 44, 138 N.E.2d 326.) It would unduly lengthen this opinion to set out each of the alleged evidentiary insufficiencies that plaintiff claims supports his position that the board's decision was against the manifest weight of evidence. Suffice it to say that substantial amounts of testimony were introduced during the eight-day hearing at which both parties were represented by competent counsel. Independent counsel was engaged to act as a hearing officer to insure that only competent evidence was admitted. As was previously noted, some of the facts substantiating the board's charges were strongly contested and the record is replete with instances of conflicting testimony. The procedure set forth in section 24-12 of the School Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 122, par. 24-12) places the responsibility for determining the facts with the board of education. In such a quasi-judicial roll, it is the board, in the first instance, who must weigh the evidence presented and after due consideration to matters affecting credibility, decide whether sufficient evidence exists to support the charge. Our function as a court of review is limited to determining whether the decision of the board finds support in the evidence. (Keyes v. Board of Education, 20 Ill. App.2d 504, 156 N.E.2d 763.) Given the nature of the charges, the uncontroverted as well as the conflicting evidence, we cannot say that the decision of the defendant confirming plaintiff's dismissal is against the manifest weight of evidence.

Nor can we say, as defendant urges us to do, that the board's finding of irremediability is not supported by the evidence. If the consequences of the conduct giving rise to the charges are remediable, a teacher is entitled to notice and an opportunity to correct the complained of conduct. (Hauswald v. Board of Education, 20 Ill. App.2d 49, 155 N.E.2d 319.) An administrative determination by a board of education as to irremediability involves an exercise of judgment and the finding of the board will be reversed by a court only if against the manifest weight of evidence. (Fender v. School District No. 25, 37 Ill. App.3d 736, 347 N.E.2d 270; Waller v. Board of Education, 13 Ill. App.3d 1056, 302 N.E.2d 190.) The finding of irremediability by the board was well within the range of competent evidence and we will not disturb it.

Defendant also contends that the bill of particulars was inadequate in two respects. First, he claims that the bill of particulars was not prepared by the board as required by statute. Second, the bill of particulars does not relate to charge number four of the resolution of dismissal. We do not find the bill of particulars lacking in either respect. The first alleged deficiency in the bill of particulars stems from its preparation and submission to plaintiff by the board's attorney, Harold Kuhfuss, who had been the board's primary attorney for many years. The only specific authority given to Mr. Kuhfuss in this matter was contained in a resolution expressly authorizing him to present evidence sustaining the charges. Section 24-12 of the School Code provides:

"If so requested, a bill of particulars shall be delivered to the teacher, within 5 days after receipt of the request." Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 122, par. 24-12.

We do not find any express statement in the statute cited above requiring the board to formally pass upon the precise content of the bill of particulars. Nor do we believe that the drafting of a bill of particulars involves the degree of judgment and discretion which requires formal action by the board. In specifying the facts supporting each of the charges, the bill of particulars only set out facts upon which the board's earlier decision was based. Any slight deficiency which existed in the procedure was cured by the board's later denial of plaintiff's motion directed at questioning the authority of Mr. Kuhfuss to prepare and submit the bill of particulars.

• 2 Plaintiff's claim that the bill of particulars does not relate to charge number four of the resolution of dismissal is likewise incorrect. The bill of particulars, in expanding on charge number four, stated: plaintiff had an excessive number of absences due to activities outside of school; despite repeated warnings the absences continued; plaintiff failed to provide certain required reports; and the attendance at a voluntary psychological clinic had decreased due to the increasing lack of student confidence in administrative personnel as a result of the informant incident. While this segment of the bill of particulars perhaps was not a model of clarity, it did apprise the plaintiff of the basis ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.