Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Esq.
Henry M. Hills, III, Esq.
Attorney General
Crandall, Pyles, Haviland & Turner
Kelli D. Talbott, Esq.
Logan, West Virginia
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Attorney for Appellee
Charleston, West Virginia
Attorneys for Appellant
The Opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM.
JUSTICES STARCHER and ALBRIGHT dissent and reserve the right to file dissenting
opinions.
JUSTICE DAVIS concurs and reserves the right to file a concurring opinion.
“The 'clearly wrong' and the 'arbitrary and capricious' standards of review are deferential ones which presume an agency's actions are valid as long as the decision is supported by substantial evidence or by a rational basis.” Syllabus Point 3, In re Queen, 196 W.Va. 442, 473 S.E.2d 483 (1996).
Per Curiam:
This case is before this
Court upon appeal of a final order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County
entered on July 13, 2000. Pursuant to that order, the circuit court upheld
a decision of the appellant and respondent below, the West Virginia Department
of Education (hereinafter “Department of Education”), suspending
the appellee and petitioner below, Jimmy Dale Adkins, a school teacher, for
untruthfulness on a certification application. However, the circuit court
found the two-year suspension imposed by the Department of Education to be
arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion, and thus, ordered that
the suspension be reduced to one year. In this appeal, the Department of Education
contends that the circuit court clearly erred by reducing the suspension.
This Court has before it
the petition for appeal, the entire record, and the briefs and argument of
counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the final order of the circuit court
is reversed.
Jimmy Dale Adkins began
his teaching career in 1973. On July 11, 1977, while employed as an elementary
school teacher in Clay County, Mr. Adkins was convicted of two counts of delivery
of cocaine, a felony, in the Circuit Court of Nicholas County. As a result
of his convictions, Mr. Adkins lost his job and served one year in prison
followed by five years of probation.
In 1983, Mr. Adkins decided
to return to teaching and applied for a substitute teaching permit from the
Department of Education. On his application, Mr. Adkins indicated that he
had been convicted of a felony in this state. Without investigation, the Department
of Education issued the certification. Soon after, Mr. Adkins was employed
by the Braxton County Board of Education which was aware of his felony convictions.
In 1989, Mr. Adkins filed
an application with the Department of Education for the conversion of his
provisional professional teaching certificate to a professional teaching certificate
valid for five years. On the application, Mr. Adkins answered “no”
to the following question: “Have you ever been convicted of or are you
currently under indictment for a felony?” His application was approved.
On another certification application filed in 1994, Mr. Adkins again indicated
that he had not been convicted of a felony. However, when Mr. Adkins sought
a permanent teaching certificate in 1999, he correctly answered “yes”
to the question regarding prior felony convictions. Upon receipt of this application,
the Department of Education began an investigation and requested that Mr.
Adkins provide documentation of his convictions.
Thereafter, the Department
of Education discovered that Mr. Adkins was untruthful on the certification
applications he filed in 1989 and 1994. It was also discovered that no investigation
had occurred when Mr. Adkins applied for a substitute teaching permit in 1983,
even though at that time he was truthful about his prior convictions. On September
8, 1999, the Department of Education denied Mr. Adkins' application for a
permanent teaching certification and further notified him that his teaching
certificate would not be renewed for a period of at least two years after
the date of his most recent application.
On September 24, 1999, Mr.
Adkins requested a hearing regarding the non- renewal of his certification.
Accordingly, a hearing was held before the Professional Practice Panel (hereinafter
“Panel”) of the Department of Education.
(See footnote 1) On December 15, 1999, the
Panel issued its recommendation that Mr. Adkins' certification be suspended
for a minimum of two years, beginning on the date of entry of the suspension
order. On December 21, 1999, the Department of Education adopted the Panel's
recommendation and ordered that Mr. Adkins' teaching certification be suspended
for two years beginning on that date.
Mr. Adkins challenged his
suspension by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Circuit Court
of Kanawha County. After briefing and oral argument, the circuit court entered
an order upholding the Department of Education's finding that Mr. Adkins was
intentionally untruthful on his 1989 and 1994 certification applications.
However, the circuit court found that the two-year suspension imposed by the
Department of Education was arbitrary and capricious and constituted an abuse
of discretion. Consequently, the circuit court ordered that Mr. Adkins' suspension
be reduced to a one- year period beginning on December 21, 1999 and ending
on December 21, 2000. This appeal followed.
(See footnote 2)
The sole issue in this case is whether the circuit court erred by reducing Mr. Adkins' two-year suspension imposed by the Department of Education to one year. As noted above, the record reflects that Mr. Adkins sought review of the Department of Education's decision by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to W.Va. Code §§ 53-3-1 to -6 (1923). This Court has recognized that “school personnel may also seek review of school board actions by writ of certiorari in circuit court under West Virginia Code § 53-3-2 (1981 Replacement Vol.), which provides, in pertinent part, that certiorari lies 'in every case, matter or proceeding before a[n] ... inferior tribunal ... after a judgment or final order therein....'” Board of Educ. of Lincoln County v. MacQueen, 174 W.Va. 338, 340, 325 S.E.2d 355, 357 (1984). In Beverlin v. Board of Educ. of Lewis County, 158 W.Va. 1067, 216 S.E.2d 554 (1975), this Court “established that on a writ of certiorari the court may review the action of the lower tribunal to determine if it acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and if it did, its action will be reversed.” North v. West Virginia Bd. of Regents, 160 W.Va. 248, 260, 233 S.E.2d 411, 418-19 (1977). (See footnote 3)
In this case, the circuit
court determined that “the tribunal below was not arbitrary and capricious
in regard to its finding that Jimmy D. Adkins' 1989 and 1994 certification
application forms were submitted by him with improper information and that
such information was intentionally placed on the forms.” However, the
circuit court went on to state in its final order that “the two-year
suspension imposed by the State Department of Education in this matter is
arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion, in that the two-year
suspension does not fit the misconduct demonstrated by the Department and
the evidence set forth on the record by Mr. Adkins.” Accordingly, the
circuit court reduced the suspension to one year.
This Court has advised that
a circuit court may not reverse a decision of an administrative agency simply
because it would have decided the case differently. Berlow v. West Virginia
Bd. of Medicine, 193 W.Va. 666, 672, 458 S.E.2d 469, 475 (1995). As we
explained in Syllabus Point 3 of In re Queen, 196 W.Va. 442, 473 S.E.2d
483 (1996), “the 'clearly wrong' and the 'arbitrary and capricious' standards
of review are deferential ones which presume an agency's actions are valid
as long as the decision is supported by substantial evidence or by a rational
basis.” Thus, “[t]he scope of review under the arbitrary and capricious
standard is narrow, and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that
of the hearing examiner.” Martin v. Randolph County Bd. of Educ.,
195 W.Va. 297, 304, 465 S.E.2d 399, 406 (1995).
Having
reviewed the record in this case, we find that the circuit court erred in
reducing Mr. Adkins' suspension from two years to one year. Pursuant to W.Va.
Code § 18A-3-6 (1969), The record in this case
shows that the Department of Education's decision to suspend Mr. Adkins' certification
for two years was based primarily on his untruthfulness regarding his felony
convictions on his 1989 and 1994 certification applications. However, it is
clear that the Department of Education also considered the fact that Mr. Adkins'
felony convictions should have precluded his certification in the first instance
in 1983. The Department of Education also noted that Mr. Adkins had continued
to teach without certification but with the permission of the Braxton County
school system after he was given notice that this certification would not
be renewed. Finally, the Department of Education weighed in the fact that
errors were made in discovering the inconsistent information Mr. Adkins provided.
Given these facts and given the authority afforded the State Superintendent
by W.Va. Code § 18A-3-6 and 126 C.S.R. § 4-4-10.1, the decision
of the Department of Education cannot be characterized as arbitrary or capricious,
nor does it constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, for the reasons
set forth above, the final order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County entered
on July 13, 2000, is reversed, and the December 21, 1999 decision of the Department
of Education suspending the teaching license of Mr. Adkins for two years is
reinstated.
The state superintendent may,
after ten days' notice and upon proper evidence, revoke the certificates of
any teacher for drunkenness, untruthfulness, immorality, or for any physical,
mental or moral defect which would render him unfit for the proper performance
of his duties as a teacher, or for any neglect of duty or refusal to perform
the same, or for using fraudulent, unapproved, or insufficient credit, or
for any other cause which would have justified the withholding of a certificate
when the same was issued.
Likewise, 126 C.S.R. § 4-4.10.1 (1999) provides that “[t]he Superintendent
shall have authority to revoke, suspend, or restrict the teaching certificate.”
In addition, the State Superintendent
may make corrections with regard to errors in the certification process. W.Va.
Code § 18A-3-6 further provides that “[i]f a certificate has been
granted through an error, oversight, or misinformation, the state superintendent
of schools shall have authority to recall the certificate and make such corrections
as will conform to the requirements of law and the state board of education.”
Reversed.
Footnote: 1