Jake Kinnard v. Morgan Independent School District and Mike Moses, Commissioner of Education of the State of Texas--Appeal from 220th District Court of Bosque County

Annotate this Case

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-01-065-CV

 

JAKE KINNARD,

Appellant

v.

 

MORGAN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL

DISTRICT AND MIKE MOSES,

COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

OF THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellees

 

From the 220th District Court

Bosque County, Texas

Trial Court # 99-08-19199-BCCV

O P I N I O N

Jake Kinnard filed suit against Morgan Independent School District (the District ) for nonrenewal of his employment contract. The Commissioner of Education (the Commissioner ) affirmed the decision of the District. The trial court affirmed the Commissioner s decision. In two points, Kinnard argues: 1) that the trial court erred because the Board failed to consider Kinnard s evaluations before proposing nonrenewal; and 2) the Commissioner s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and the Commissioner s conclusions of law are erroneous.

Background

Kinnard was employed by the District as a teacher beginning in 1995. He was employed under a one-year term contract for the 1998-99 school year. On March 25, 1999, the District s Board of Trustees (the Board ) met to discuss the superintendent s recommendation for nonrenewal of Kinnard s teaching contract. The District proposed nonrenewal of Kinnard s one-year term contract the following day. The District cited three independent reasons for proposing nonrenewal: 1) falsification of documents; 2) failure to follow official directives; or 3) failure to maintain discipline in the classroom. Kinnard requested a hearing. An independent hearing examiner found that the District proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Kinnard falsified documents and failed to follow administrative directives. // The District accepted the hearing examiner s proposed nonrenewal of Kinnard s contract on June 7, 1999. On appeal, the Commissioner found the District s decision to nonrenew Kinnard s contract was supported by substantial evidence. The District Court upheld the Commissioner s decision.

The Evaluations

In his first point, Kinnard argues that the Board failed to consider Kinnard s evaluations before proposing nonrenewal as required by local District policy.

The District argues 1) that the Board did, in fact, consider the evaluations in proposing nonrenewal, and 2) in the alternative, any error by the Board in not considering the evaluations is merely procedural error requiring showing of harm to overturn the decision of the Commissioner. See McGilvray v. Moses, 8 S.W.3d 761 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1999 pet. denied).

The local Board policy cited by Kinnard states:

The Superintendent shall prepare lists of employees whose contracts are recommended for renewal or proposed nonrenewal by the Board. Copies of written evaluations, other supporting documentation, if any, and reasons for the recommendation shall be submitted for each employee recommended for nonrenewal. The Board shall consider such information, as appropriate, in support of recommendations for proposed nonrenewal and shall then act on all recommendations.

 

First, contrary to Kinnard s contentions, the local policy does not require the Board to consider all evaluations in order to proceed with nonrenewal of the employment contract. The plain language of the local policy states The Board shall consider such information [evaluations], as appropriate, in support of recommendations for proposed nonrenewal (emphasis added). Under local policy, the Board was not required to review all materials prior to proposing nonrenewal, but allowed to consider the evaluations as appropriate.

Second, we find substantial evidence that the Board did consider the most recent evaluation prior to the final decision on nonrenewal as required by law. See Tex. Educ. Code Ann. 21.203 (Vernon 1996). The record clearly shows that the Board considered Kinnard s most recent evaluation prior to the June 7, 1999, decision to nonrenew. //

Finally, even assuming that the local policy required the Board to consider the evaluations, we find any failure to consider the evaluations merely procedural in nature. // See McGilvray, 8 S.W.3d at 765. Thus, the Commissioner was precluded from reversing the Board s decision to nonrenew Kinnard s contract unless the error likely led to an erroneous decision. Id.; Tex. Educ. Code Ann. 21.307 (Vernon 1996). In light of the evidence presented to the Commissioner that Kinnard falsified documents and failed to follow administrative directives, we find that the Board s alleged failure to review the evaluations had no effect on the outcome and was harmless. Id.

For the foregoing reasons we overrule point one.

Substantial Evidence to Support Nonrenewal

In point two, Kinnard argues that the Commissioner s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and his conclusions of law were erroneous. See Tex. Educ. Code Ann. 21.307(e), (f) (Vernon 1996); Farris v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., 27 S.W.3d 307, 310 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). Kinnard bears the burden of demonstrating a lack of substantial evidence. See Texas v. Public Util. Comm n, 883 S.W.2d 190, 204 (Tex. 1994); Farris, 27 S.W.3d at 310-11. A court applying the substantial evidence standard of review may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency. See Mireles v. Tex. Dep t of Public Safety, 9 S.W.3d 128, 131 (Tex. 1999); see also Tex. Gov t Code 2001.174. Courts must affirm administrative findings in contested cases if there is more than a mere scintilla of evidence to support them. Id. The true test is not whether the agency reached the correct conclusion, but whether some reasonable basis exists in the record for the action taken by the agency. Id.

The Commissioner rejected Kinnard s argument and found that the District considered Kinnard s evaluations before acting on the superintendent s recommendation for nonrenewal. The record of the July hearing shows some evidence that Board members had previously seen Kinnard s past evaluations at their March meeting. The record is also clear that the Board considered his most recent evaluation before the final decision not to renew. Furthermore, substantial evidence supporting nonrenewal that Kinnard falsified documents and failed to follow official directives was before the Commissioner. Kinnard has not met his burden to show that the Commissioner s decision was unsupported by substantial evidence or that his conclusions of law were erroneous. Accordingly, point two is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

 

REX D. DAVIS

Chief Justice

 

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Gray

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed May 29, 2002

Do not publish

[CV06]

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.