Printable Format72-2254. Same; commencement of hearing, when; procedural requirements. The hearing provided for under K.S.A. 72-2253, and amendments thereto, shall commence within 45 calendar days after the hearing officer is selected unless the hearing officer grants an extension of time. The hearing shall afford procedural due process, including the following:
(a) The right of each party to have counsel of such party's own choice present and to receive the advice of such counsel or other person whom such party may select;
(b) the right of each party or such party's counsel to cross-examine any person who provides information for the consideration of the hearing officer, except those persons whose testimony is presented by affidavit;
(c) the right of each party to present such party's own witnesses in person, or their testimony by affidavit or deposition, except that testimony of a witness by affidavit may be presented only if such witness lives more than 100 miles from the location of the technical college, institute of technology at Washburn university or community college, or is absent from the state, or is unable to appear because of age, illness, infirmity or imprisonment. When testimony is presented by affidavit the same shall be served upon the board of control, the secretary of the board of trustees or the agent of the board and upon the teacher in person or by first-class mail to the address of the teacher which is on file with the board not less than 10 calendar days prior to presentation to the hearing officer;
(d) the right of the teacher to testify in the teacher's own behalf and give reasons for the teacher's conduct, and the right of the board to present its testimony through such persons as the board may call to testify in its behalf and to give reasons for its actions, rulings or policies;
(e) the right of the parties to have an orderly hearing; and
(f) the right of the teacher to a fair and impartial decision based on substantial evidence.
History: L. 1974, ch. 301, § 4; L. 1975, ch. 373, § 4; L. 1976, ch. 315, § 4; L. 1991, ch. 224, § 2; L. 1992, ch. 185, § 3; L. 2014, ch. 93, § 52; July 1.
Source or Prior Law:
72-5439.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Mentioned in reversing district court's finding that substantial evidence sufficient to establish good cause for nonrenewal of teacher contract not present. Gillett v. U.S.D. No. 276, 227 Kan. 71, 76, 77, 605 P.2d 105.
2. Board may have members testify in its behalf and to give reasons for its actions, rulings or policies. U.S.D. No. 461 v. Dice, 228 Kan. 40, 49, 612 P.2d 1203.
3. Inquiry into improper conduct of board members is proper to determine due process violations. Haddock v. U.S.D. No. 462, 233 Kan. 66, 69, 78, 661 P.2d 368 (1983).
4. School board's appointment of board's attorney to due process hearing committee violates requirement of fundamental fairness. Coats v. U.S.D. No. 353, 233 Kan. 394, 402, 662 P.2d 1279 (1983).
5. Tenured teacher entitled to due process upon involuntary renewal. Swager v. Board of Education, U.S.D. No. 412, 9 Kan. App. 2d 648, 651, 688 P.2d 270 (1984).
6. Cited; failure to seek judicial review of employment termination precludes complaint under discrimination act (K.S.A. 44-1001 et seq.). Neunzig v. Seaman U.S.D. No. 345, 239 Kan. 654, 662, 722 P.2d 569 (1986).
7. Cited; rights of tenured versus nontenured teachers examined. Burk v. Unified School Dist. No. 329, Wabaunsee Cty., 646 F. Supp. 1557, 1561, 1562 (1986).
8. Cited; rebuttable presumption of qualification represented by teaching certificate, tenured teacher's rights in reduction of force situation examined. Bauer v. U.S.D. No. 452, 244 Kan. 6, 8, 765 P.2d 1129 (1988).
9. Superintendent's involvement in executive session and advance preparation of resolution reflecting expected action not due process violation. O'Hair v. U.S.D. No. 300, 15 Kan. App. 2d 52, 65, 66, 805 P.2d 40 (1991).
10. School board's role in reviewing decision of hearing committee on nonrenewal of tenured teacher examined. Loewen v. U.S.D. No. 411, 15 Kan. App. 2d 612, 616, 813 P.2d 385 (1991).
11. Mandamus appropriate remedy for tenured teacher to pursue for salary pending resolution of due process proceedings. McMillen v. U.S.D. No. 380, 253 Kan. 259, 267, 855 P.2d 896 (1993).
12. Whether hearing committee's termination of tenured teacher's contract was supported by substantial evidence examined. U.S.D. No. 434 v. Hubbard, 19 Kan. App. 2d 323, 325, 329, 868 P.2d 1240 (1994).
13. Teacher denied due process in termination proceedings reinstated and awarded back pay. Walker v. U.S.D. No. 499, 21 Kan. App. 2d 341, 343, 900 P.2d 850 (1995).
14. Appropriate standard of review for hearing officer's decision on termination considered. U.S.D. No. 500 v. Robinson, 262 Kan. 357, 360, 940 P.2d 1 (1997).