JAMES SAVILLA,
Grievant,
v. Docket No. 00-40-058
PUTNAM COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Respondent,
and,
PATRICIA BURLINGAME,
Intervenor.
DECISION
This grievance was initiated by Grievant James Savilla against Respondent Putnam
County Board of Education, when he was not selected for the extracurricular position of
Student Council Sponsor at Poca High School. Grievant believes he is more qualified than
the successful applicant, and that the selection was made in an arbitrary and capricious
manner. Grievant requested instatement into the position and back pay.
(See footnote 1)
The following Findings of Fact are made based upon the evidence presented at
Level II.
Findings of Fact
1. Grievant has been employed by the Putnam County Board of Education
("PBOE") as a teacher at Poca High School for 29 years. He teaches social studies.
2. On August 25, 1999, PBOE posted an extracurricular position of Student
Council Sponsor at Poca High School. Four teachers applied for the position, including
Grievant. All applicants were PBOE employees at Poca High School.
3. It is PBOE's policy that the school principal make a recommendation for filling
extracurricular assignments. John Cunningham, Principal at Poca High School, appointed
a panel to conduct interviews, consisting of Assistant Principal Vic Donaldson, and two
Faculty Senate officers, Charles McCormick and Rebecca Meadows. Principal
Cunningham also participated in the interviews.
4. With the input of the panel members, Principal Cunningham developed five
questions, and each applicant was asked these same questions. Each answer was rated
by each panel member and Principal Cunningham on a scale of 1 to 10. The questions
were:
Why are you interested in the Student Council sponsorship?
Give us your vision on how the Student Council should function and your
role in that function.
How would you propose to get more student involvement and student
activities?
What strengths or abilities do you bring that would place you above others
for this position?
As a Student Council sponsor, it would be necessary to provide constant
leadership and supervision for students. Are you prepared to spend the
extra time to provide direction and support to the Student Council?
5. The panel considered the seniority of the applicants. The most senior
applicant, Grievant, was given a score of 10 in this category, the next most senior received
a 9, the next most senior an 8, and the least senior, Ms. Burlingame, a 7.
6. After the interviews the panel met and tallied their individual ratings.
Grievant received scores of 55, 53, 56, and 50, for a total of 214 points. The panel gave
Patricia Burlingame the highest rating of the applicants, with scores of 56.7, 57, 55, and
55, for 223.7 total points. The other two applicants received 216.5 and 214.1 points,
respectively. Principal Cunningham recommended that Ms. Burlingame be awarded the
position. His recommendation was accepted by the Superintendent and PBOE.
7. Grievant was Student Council Sponsor and Co-sponsor for about 10 years,
and also helped out as a volunteer for a number of years. Ms. Burlingame had no
experience as Student Council Sponsor, although she did assist the previous Sponsor on
a volunteer basis when she needed help.
8. Ms. Burlingame has been a teacher at Poca High School for six years and
teaches math. She has experience in Girl Scout Council, as a church youth leader, as a
director of summer church day camp, has held an office in Beta Sigma Phi sorority, and
has participated in other volunteer activities. She was a member of Student Council in
high school, and was Student Council Vice President in junior high school.
Discussion
Grievant bears the burden of proving each element of his grievance by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Conner v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-29-
476 (Mar. 28, 1996). The parties agreed that the posted position was an extracurricular
assignment. Grievant argued he was the best qualified applicant for the position, and the
decision to award the position to Ms. Burlingame was arbitrary and capricious. Grievant
believed he was uniquely qualified because he had taught American government and had
years of experience with Student Council. He believed he should have been awarded the
position based upon his seniority, and had asked Principal Cunningham why interviews
were necessary as he was the most senior applicant. PBOE and Intervenor denied that
the action was arbitrary and capricious.
This Grievance Board has previously determined that the provisions of
W. Va.
Code § 18A-4-7a are not applicable in the selection of professional personnel for
extracurricular assignments.
Hall v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ. Docket No. 95-29-529
(Mar. 28, 1996);
Foley v. Mineral County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 93-28-255 (Oct. 29,
1993);
Smith v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-23-040 (July 31, 1991). Thus,
'the appropriate standard of review for decisions concerning selection of professional
personnel to fill [extracurricular] assignments is abuse of discretion.'
McCoy v. Kanawha
County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 94-20-141 (Oct. 13, 1994), citing
Pockl v. Ohio County
Bd. of Educ., 185 W. Va. 256, 406 S.E.2d 687 (1991);
Foley,
supra;
See Dillon v. Bd. of
Educ., 177 W. Va. 145, 351 S.E.2d 58 (1986);
Jackson v. Grant County Bd. of Educ.,
Docket No. 97-12-224 (Oct.16, 1997).
Lusher v. Putnam County Bd. of Educ., Docket No.99-40-061 (May 7, 1999). Contrary to Grievant's belief, seniority is not the determining
factor in the selection of professional personnel for an extracurricular assignment.
The arbitrary and capricious standard of review requires a searching and careful
inquiry into the facts; however, the scope of review is narrow, and the undersigned may
not substitute her judgement for that of the decision-maker.
See generally,
Harrison v.
Ginsberg, 169 W. Va. 162, 286 S.E.2d 276 (1982). Generally, an action is arbitrary and
capricious if the decision-maker did not rely on factors that were intended to be
considered, entirely ignored important aspects of the problem, explained its decision in a
manner contrary to the evidence before it, or reached a decision that is so implausible that
it cannot be ascribed to a difference of view.
Bedford County Memorial Hosp. v. Health
and Human Serv., 769 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1985).
Principal Cunningham testified he had four quality applicants for the position, each
of whom would have done an excellent job. He stated he felt the interview was necessary
to determine who was best qualified. He selected three people to serve with him on the
panel in an effort to remove personalities from the selection process.
The job description for the position reads as follows:
As the organization sponsor, serve as a liaison with faculty and
administration; develop knowledge of all aspects of the organization;
coordinate all activit[i]es between the organization and administration;
organize the necessary functions of the organization to broaden the
students' educ[a]tional experience; where applicable prepare students for
state and national competition; organize membersjo[ [sic] selection pursuant
to organizational bylaws or requirement; attend and supervise regularly
scheduled organizational meeting; organize and supervise fund-raisin[g]
activities; keep the school administration informed about all organizational
activit[i]es; secure permission from the school administration for all
organizational activities; prepare a tentative calendar of events oforganizational activities; assist in developing organizational records; assi[s]t
students in maintaining and developing menbership [sic] and financial
records; assist students in developing historical records for the organization;
and make provisions for student attendance at state, regional, and national
conferences.
Grievant suggested that the interview questions should have been developed from the job
description. While that is certainly one way the questions could have been developed, the
questions asked of the applicants were relevant to the job duties and important.
Certainly Grievant was highly qualified for the position. However, he did not
demonstrate that the selection could not be based primarily upon scores assigned in the
interview, or that the scores he received were inappropriate. The interview questions were
relevant, and the process used to select the successful applicant was reasonable.
Grievant has not demonstrated PBOE acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner or
otherwise abused its substantial discretion in selecting Ms. Burlingame for the position.
The following Conclusions of Law support the Decision reached.
Conclusions of Law
1. Grievant bears the burden of proving each element of his grievance by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Conner v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-29-
476 (Mar. 28, 1996).
2. County boards of education have substantial discretion in matters relating
to the assignment of school personnel, so long as they act reasonably, in the best interests
of the school, and in a manner which is not arbitrary and capricious.
See Hyre v. Upshur
County Bd. of Educ., 186 W. Va. 267, 412 S.E.2d 265 (1991). 3. The provisions of
W. Va. Code § 18A-4-7a are not applicable in the
selection of professional personnel for extracurricular assignments.
Hall v. Mingo County
Bd. of Educ. Docket No. 95-29-529 (Mar. 28, 1996);
Foley v. Mineral County Bd. of Educ.,
Docket No. 93-28-255 (Oct. 29, 1993);
Smith v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No.
91-23-040 (July 31, 1991).
Lusher v. Putnam County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 99-40-061
(May 7, 1999).
4. "'The appropriate standard of review for decisions concerning selection of
professional personnel to fill [extracurricular] assignments is abuse of discretion.'
McCoy
v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 94-20-141 (Oct. 13, 1994), citing
Pockl v.
Ohio County Bd. of Educ., 185 W. Va. 256, 406 S.E.2d 687 (1991);
Foley, supra.
See
Dillon v. Bd. of Educ., 177 W. Va. 145, 351 S.E.2d 58 (1986);
Jackson v. Grant County
Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-12-224 (Oct.16, 1997).
Lusher,
supra.
5. The use of a selection panel, with each member rating each relevant
question on a scale of 1 to 10, then tallying the scores, including the seniority score, and
selecting the applicant with the highest score, is a reasonable method of choosing the
successful applicant for an extracurricular position such as this.
6. Grievant did not demonstrate he was entitled to the position at issue, or that
PBOE acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner or otherwise abused its substantial
discretion.
Accordingly, this grievance is DENIED.
Any party may appeal this Decision to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County or to
the Circuit Court of Putnam County. Any such appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days
of receipt of this decision. W. Va. Code §18-29-7. Neither the West Virginia Education
and State Employees Grievance Board nor any of its Administrative Law Judges is a party
to such appeal, and should not be so named. However, the appealing party is required
by W. Va. Code § 29A-5-4(b) to serve a copy of the appeal petition upon the Grievance
Board. The appealing party must also provide the Grievance Board with the civil action
number so that the record can be prepared and transmitted to the circuit court.
BRENDA L. GOULD
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: April 7, 2000
Footnote: 1