Mayberry v. Board of Education

HOLLANDER, Judge. This appeal has its genesis in an opinion and order issued by the Board of Education of Anne Arundel County (the “Local Board”), appellee, affirming the decision of the Superintendent of the Anne Arundel County Public Schools (the “Superintendent”) to suspend Hudson Mayberry, III (“Hud ⁶⁹¹ son” or “Chucky”), appellant, a high school student. Thereafter, the Maryland State Board of Education (the. “State Board”) summarily affirmed the Local Board’s order. Appellant subsequently sought review in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, which upheld the State Board’s decision.

Hudson then noted an appeal to this Court and presents three questions for our review, which we have rephrased and reordered: I. Did the State Board deprive appellant of his right to a hearing under COMAR 13A.01.01.03?

II

Did the Superintendent violate the requirements of Md.Code (1978, 1999 Repl.Vol.), § 7-305(c) of the Education Article (“E.A.”) by “approving” a subordinate’s actions?

III

Did the circuit court err by failing to articulate specific reasons for its ruling? For the reasons that follow we shall affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In January 1997, Chucky began attending Northeast Senior High School in Pasadena, pursuant to a “Conditional Reinstatement Contract” dated January 23, 1997 (the “Contract”). 1 The Contract was framed as a letter from Leslie Mobray, the Director of Student Services for the Anne Arundel County Public Schools, to appellant’s father, Hudson Mayberry, Jr. (“Mr. Mayberry”). It read, in part: ⁶⁹² I have agreed to readmit [Hudson] to school at the Northeast High School for second semester under the following conditions: 1.

Hudson will go to school each day that there is not a legal excuse for an absence. 2. Hudson will attend every class to which he is assigned unless excused by the teacher. 3. Hudson will complete and turn in all classwork and homework assigned to the best of his ability. 4. Hudson will pass a majority of courses attempted. 5.

Hudson will be familiar with and obey all school rules at all times. Failure to abide by these rules will result in Hudson’s expulsion from the Anne Arundel County Public Schools____ Both Hudson and Mr. Mayberry signed the Contract. On Friday, April 4, 1997, appellant was involved in a verbal altercation with his physical education instructor, Brandt Schanberger. Roy Skiles, Northeast’s principal, wrote a letter dated April 7, 1997 addressed to Mr. Mayberry.

Mr. Mayberry testified at the hearing before the Local Board that he never received this letter. Nevertheless, the letter stated, in part: [Hudson] has been placed on temporary suspension from school because he verbally assaulted a teacher on April 4, 1997. This is a violation of Board of Education policy 902.17 Assaults by Students and is also a violation of his Conditional Reinstatement Contract.... My investigation of this incident indicates that this is a serious matter.

Therefore, I am submitting a request to the Superintendent of Schools that Hudson be expelled from Northeast Senior High School. Pursuant to [E.A. §] 7-305, the period of suspension begins on April 7, 1997 and continues until the Superintendent’s designated representative concludes the investigation of this request. This process will include a conference with, ⁶⁹³ Leon Washington, Special Assistant [for Student Discipline] to the Superintendent which will take place on Monday, April 14, 1997 at 1:00 p.m. Although this conference is not a hearing, it will be an opportunity for you and your child to present any information or evidence which you believe to be relevant to the allegation against them [sic].

You may bring an advocate or other representative with you to assist you at the conference. Skiles read the policy into the record at the Local Board hearing: For the purposes of this policy, the term assault means any unprovoked attack upon or malicious act of violence against another person, any attempt to commit such an act or any threat to commit such an act, if that threat could reasonably cause the other person to believe he or she is in imminent danger of serious physical harm. Thereafter, by letter dated April 17, 1997, Skiles asked the Superintendent to approve an “extended suspension” 2 for appellant, pending the completion of Washington’s investigation. On April 25, 1997, Skiles sent the Superintendent a second letter that read, in part: Mr. Washington concluded his investigation and met with Hudson Mayberry and Mr. Mayberry on April 25, 1997.

Mr. Washington determined that Board of Education policy 902.17 was not violated by Hudson Mayberry. However, Mr. Washington found that Hudson Mayberry was in clear violation of his [Contract]. An extended suspension is requested pending the start of home teaching which will be Hudson’s educational program for the remainder of the school year. An alternative educational placement for Hudson Mayberry for the 1997-98 school year is requested. ⁶⁹⁴ In a report dated April 28, 1997, Washington summarized the information he collected based on: (1) interviewing two adult witnesses and sixty-five student witnesses to the incident; (2) reviewing Hudson’s academic and disciplinary files; and (3) holding a conference with Hudson, Mr. Mayberry, Hudson’s grandmother, and Hudson’s attorney.

Based on his findings, Washington indicated that he concurred with SMles’s recommendation that Hudson’s extended suspension continue until a home teaching program could be initiated. Washington further suggested that Hudson “seek outside counseling to assist him with anger management issues.” 0 In accordance with Skiles’s request for an extended suspension and Washington’s recommendation, Mobray issued a letter to Mr. Mayberry on April 28, 1997 (the “Mobray Letter”), which stated, in pertinent part: This is to inform you that the Superintendent has approved Mr. Skiles’ request. Accordingly, effective this date, Hudson is placed on extended suspension from Northeast High School pending the start of home teaching. Hudson will remain on home teaching until the end of the 1996-97 school term.

An alternative placement will be sought for Hudson prior to the start of the 1997-98 school term. As noted, Hudson appealed this decision to the Local Board. What follows is a brief summary of the evidence adduced at a hearing before a four-member panel of the Local Board on June 11,1997. On direct examination by the Superintendent’s counsel, Schanberger was asked to recount the events that led up to the incident.

According to Schanberger, appellant approached him on Wednesday, April 2, 1997, to inquire about appellant’s grade in Schanberger’s weight training class. Schanberger replied that appellant currently had a “D-.” Hudson then asked if there were any way that he could improve his grade. Schanberger told Hudson that if he did all the work that was expected of him between then and the end of the marking period, he would give Hudson a “C.” Hudson agreed. ⁶⁹⁵ Schanberger testified that Chucky failed to perform as promised. On Friday, April 4, 1997, when appellant again approached Schanberger to ask about his grade, Schanberger told appellant that because he had not fulfilled his end of the bargain, he would receive a “D” in the class.

Hudson then “stormed out of the room.” Sometime thereafter, Hudson returned to class and subsequently joined a number of other students in the gymnasium’s lobby to await dismissal. Schanberger stated that appellant began “talking very loudly” to another student, complaining about how Schanberger had reneged on his deal. Schanber-ger, who was between ten and fifteen feet away from appellant, told Hudson to give the other student “all the facts.” Schanberger’s description of what followed is illuminating: [SCHANBERGER:] ... [Appellant] started getting verbally abusive with me. I can’t remember the exact words he was saying, but he was saying things like, shut your mouth, mind your own business.

A little later on he said something like, well, I’m going to beat you up and then the whole time I was talking in a normal manner. I wasn’t being loud or anything, but I was saying, Chucky, tell him what the real facts are, tell him what the deal is. Oh, just shut up, you know in that type of manner. And then when he said the last time that he was going to beat me up, you know, go ahead, if that’s what you want to do, but tell him the facts.

And then he stood up, threw his jacket off and stood right in front of me and kept saying, go ahead push me, why don’t you hit me. Well, this whole time I was standing there with my hands in my pockets. I said, I’m not going to do that, Chucky, I have no reason to do that. [SUPERINTENDENT’S COUNSEL:] What was the distance, if you can remember, between you and Chucky? [SCHANBERGER:] Once he stood up, probably about a foot, foot and a half. And the whole time he kept saying things like, come on, old man, push me, you’re afraid.

You have no heart. And I kept repeating, and the whole time ⁶⁹⁶ with my hands in my pocket in a normal voice, I said/ Chucky, I’m not going to do that. And he kept saying that, and eventually he said, I know where you live, I’ll get you.... Hudson testified that he believed he had completed all the requirements for Schanberger’s class as of April 4, 1997.

Consequently, he was dissatisfied with ’Schanberger’s statement indicating that he would receive a “D.” Appellant stated that after he heard his revised grade, he left class and attempted to speak to Craig Reynolds, Northeast’s assistant principal, about the matter. Because Reynolds was evidently “too busy” to talk to appellant, Hudson then sought out Skiles. At Skiles’s instruction, appellant said that he returned to class. Appellant’s recitation of what happened in the lobby of the gymnasium is relevant: ■ [APPELLANT:] ... [A]ll of a sudden Mr. Schanberger turns around to me and, I didn’t say anything to him, he turns around to me and starts a conflict and starts yelling and talking about if I’m going to talk about something, talk about it right and this and that, and I told him that I wasn’t' talking to him, I’m talking to a friend, could you please leave me alone. [APPELLANT:] ...

And he still is going on, and he tells me that if I think Pm all big and bad, why don’t I get up and do something, so I told him if he put his hands on me or give me a reason to do something, then I will and— [APPELLANT’S COUNSEL:] What did he say to you? [APPELLANT:] After I told him to put his hands on me that I will, he said, my job is not worth ... losing over you and if you were in the streets I could show you something, or something like that. And I told him again that if he gives me a reason or puts his hands on me then I’ll defend myself because I wasn’t going to get kicked out of school for him, I knew I was under contract. ⁶⁹⁷ [APPELLANT:] ... [H]e kept saying stuff to me and kept egging me on, telling me, come on, come on, and everybody, all the kids around laughing. [APPELLANT’S COUNSEL:] Where are his hands at this time? [APPELLANT:] He’s — so he’s talking and I’m talking. [APPELLANT’S COUNSEL:] Are his hands in his pockets? [APPELLANT:] No, his hand is not in his pocket. [APPELLANT’S COUNSEL:] Where are his hands? [APPELLANT:] Actually he had a clipboard in his hand, so his hand couldn’t be in his pocket, and every gym teacher in that school carries a clipboard. [APPELLANT’S COUNSEL:] And what are his hands doing? [APPELLANT:] I mean, he’s talking. He’s kind of upset so he’s like he’s directing, I mean, he’s just talking, you know, when you talk sometimes you just, you know, like move your hands and you talk and that’s what he’s doing. His face is all red, he’s made, he’s angry at me because I’m talking to another student, telling the student that he lied and he didn’t uphold what he told me he was going to do.

He didn’t stay by the deal. On direct examination by the Superintendent’s counsel, Skiles testified that Hudson had come to his office shortly before the incident. According to Skiles, appellant complained that there was a problem with his grade in Schanberger’s class. Skiles told Hudson that he would schedule a conference with Schanberger and Hudson’s parent, but told Hudson that he should return to class.

Approximately twenty minutes later, Skiles was advised that there was a disturbance in the gymnasium lobby. When he arrived in the lobby, he found a mass of nearly seventy students. Skiles testified that Hudson was identified as having been involved in the disturbance. Skiles quickly located appellant and advised him to go to the school’s administrative ⁶⁹⁸ offices.

Additionally, he asked Reynolds to begin collecting witness statements. At appellant’s request, Skiles agreed to postpone interviewing Hudson until Mr. Mayberry could attend. Skiles and Reynolds met with appellant and his father on Monday, April 7, 1997. The following colloquy is relevant: [SUPERINTENDENT’S COUNSEL:] ...

At that conference ... did you, in any way, discuss with them potential disciplinary action, potential allegations, or allegations, did you explain anything about what was going on in this case to the Mayberries [sic]? [SKILES:] ... I indicated to the Mayberries [sic] that there were serious allegations of misbehavior, that their son had committed a serious act that could be constituted as verbal assault and that that was in violation of, his manner ' was in violation of his [C]ontract ..., and I went through and proceeded to try to summarize for them the information that I had gotten from the teachers. I read to them several, without using names, of the statements from the witnesses that I had, and then I gave them an opportunity to respond to those allegations. [SUPERINTENDENT’S COUNSEL:] Them being the Mayberries [sic]? [SKILES:] The Mayberries [sic] and Chucky in particular, to tell his side of the story and I took notes to try to capture, as best I could, what he had to tell me. At the conclusion of that, okay, I made the decision that there certainly was cause, that a serious discipline infraction had occurred, that it could well constitute verbal assault and by policy, a verbal assault is cause for a recommendation by the Superintendent for expulsion, and at that time, I placed — I gave them notice that he was going to be temporarily suspended from school for verbal assault in violation of his [Contract].

That, because this is a serious matter, our Board operates and has a separate investigation [by] the Special Assistant ⁶⁹⁹ to the Superintendent, that they would come out, that they would continue this investigation and continue the gathering of the information process, that they would have a hearing with the Special Assistant and that we would go from there.... When asked about the April 7, 1997, meeting with Mr. Mayberry and his son, Reynolds responded that Skiles reviewed a number of witness statements with the Mayberrys and allowed both Hudson and Mr. Mayberry an opportunity to speak. Additionally, Reynolds said that Skiles explained to the Mayberrys that Hudson’s conduct violated the Contract. In an opinion and order dated August 27, 1997, the Local Board concluded that the Superintendent was justified in her decision to suspend Chucky.

Hudson filed an appeal with the State Board on or about September 26, 1997. The Local Board subsequently moved for summary affirmance. By opinion dated March 25, 1998, and without a hearing, the State Board granted the Local Board’s motion. Appellant petitioned for review in the circuit court on April 24, 1998.

Argument was heard on May 4, 1999, and the court affirmed the State Board by order filed May 19,1999. We will include additional facts in our discussion. DISCUSSION I. Several important statutory principles arise in the adjudication of disputes within the public school education system. As to the powers and duties of the counties’ superintendents, we refer to E.A. § 4-205(c)(l).

That section states that, “[s]ub-ject to the authority of the State Board under [E.A. § 2-205(e)], each county superintendent shall explain the true intent and meaning of: (i) The school law; and (ii) The applicable bylaws of the State Board.” A party that is dissatisfied with a county superintendent’s decision, as appellant was in this case, may appeal to the county board of ⁷⁰⁰ education and, thereafter, to the State Board. See E.A. § 4-205(c)(3). As intimated by E.A. § 4-205(c)(l), E.A. § 2-205(e) enumerates some of the State Board’s powers. It provides: (1) Without charge and with the advice of the Attorney General, the State Board shall explain the true intent and meaning of the provisions of: (i) [The Education Article] that are within its jurisdiction; and (ii) The bylaws, rules, and regulations adopted by the Board.

(2) The Board shall decide all controversies and disputes under these provisions. (3) The decision of the Board is final. Accordingly, our courts have recognized that the State Board generally has the last word on matters concerning the public school system. See Board of Educ. v. Hubbard, 305 Md. 774, 788 , 506 A.2d 625 (1986); Zeitschel v. Board of Educ., 274 Md. 69, 80 , 332 A.2d 906 (1975); Hurl v. Board of Educ., 107 Md.App. 286, 298 , 667 A.2d 970 (1995).

Moreover, it is well-established that judicial deference to the State Board’s interpretation and application of statutes within its jurisdiction is appropriate. The Court of Appeals has observed: While administrative agencies generally may interpret statutes, as well as rule upon other legal issues, and while an agency’s interpretation of a statute which it administers is entitled to weight, the paramount role of the State Board of Education in interpreting the public education law sets it apart from most administrative agencies. Hubbard, 305 Md. at 790-91 , 506 A.2d 625 (footnote omitted); see Montgomery County Educ. Ass’n v. Board of Educ., 311 Md. 303, 309-10 , 534 A.2d 980 (1987).

Our role in reviewing a decision of the State Board, as with any administrative agency, is identical to that of the circuit court. Thus, “we must review the administrative decision itself.” Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Callahan, 105 Md. ⁷⁰¹ App. 25, 32, 658 A.2d 1112 (1995); accord Wisniewski v. Department of Labor, Licensing & Regulation, 117 Md.App. 506, 515 , 700 A.2d 860 (1997). An administrative agency’s decisions are prima facie correct, and carry the presumption of validity.

Catonsville Nursing Home, Inc. v. Loveman, 349 Md. 560, 569 , 709 A.2d 749 (1998); see Giant Food, Inc. v. Department of Labor, Licensing & Regulation, 356 Md. 180, 185 , 738 A.2d 856 (1999); Wisniewski 117 Md.App. at 516 , 700 A.2d 860 . We view those decisions in the light most favorable to the agency. Giant Food, 356 Md. at 185 , 738 A.2d 856 ; Catonsville Nursing Home, 349 Md. at 569 , 709 A.2d 749 ; Wisniewski 117 Md.App. at 516 , 700 A.2d 860 . In sum, we need only determine: (1) whether the agency applied the correct legal principles, and (2) whether its findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Giant Food, 356 Md. at 185 , 738 A.2d 856 ; Wisniewski, 117 Md.App. at 516 , 700 A.2d 860 . “The test for determining whether the [agency’s] findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence is whether reasoning minds could reach the same conclusion from the facts relied upon by the [agency].” Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation v. Hider, 349 Md. 71, 78 , 706 A.2d 1073 (1998); see Department of Labor, Licensing & Regulation v. Woodie, 128 Md.App. 398, 406 , 738 A.2d 334 (1999); Hernandez v. Department of Labor, Licensing & Regulation, 122 Md.App. 19, 24 , 711 A.2d 243 (1998); Wisniewski, 117 Md. App. at 517 , 700 A.2d 860 . If the agency’s determination is reasonably supported by the evidence in the record, we must uphold the agency’s determination although we may have come to a different result. See Bulluck v. Pelham Wood Apartments, 283 Md. 505, 515-16 , 390 A.2d 1119 (1978); Wisniewski, 117 Md.App. at 517 , 700 A.2d 860 . When an agency’s decision is based on an erroneous legal conclusion, however, we will substitute our own judgment for that of the agency.

See Caucus Distributors, Inc. v. Maryland Securities Comm’r, 320 Md. 313, 324 , 577 A.2d 783 (1990); Carriage Hill Cabin John, Inc. v. Maryland ⁷⁰² Health Resources Planning Comm’n, 125 Md.App. 183, 213-14 , 724 A.2d 745 (1999); see also Perini Services, Inc. v. Maryland Health Resources Planning Comm’n, 67 Md.App. 189, 201 , 506 A.2d 1207 (“When the issues in an action primarily involve questions of law, this Court must substitute its judgment for that of the agency if our interpretation of the applicable legal principles is different.”), cert. denied, 307 Md. 261 , 513 A.2d 314 (1986). Notwithstanding our deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute or regulation, the “substituted judgment standard” applies to the agency’s statutory interpretation. Carriage Hill, 125 Md.App. at 214 , 724 A.2d 745 ; Rossville Vending Mach. Corp. v. Comptroller, 97 Md.App. 305, 311-12 , 629 A.2d 1283 , cert. denied, 333 Md. 201 , 634 A.2d 62 (1993); see Perini Servs., 67 Md.App. at 201 , 506 A.2d 1207 (acknowledging that the standard applies to CO-MAR).

Here, appellant contests the State Board’s decision, alleging that the State Board “merely rubber-stamped” the Local Board’s opinion and order. He argues that the State Board improperly denied him a hearing, in contravention of COMAR 13A.01.01.03. The Local Board posits that appellant is precluded from raising this issue because he failed to do so in the circuit court. Alternatively, the Local Board avers that the State Board’s decision to rule in the absence of a hearing did not violate COMAR 13A.01.01.03.

It appears that appellee’s preservation claim has merit. Under Md. Rule 8-131, we will not ordinarily decide an issue “unless it plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the trial court.” We find ourselves unable to determine conclusively, however, whether this issue was raised in or decided by the circuit court. Appellant did not file with his appeal a transcript of the May 4, 1999, hearing before the circuit court. Consequently, this Court issued an order, dated October 22, 1999, instructing appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dis ⁷⁰³ missed pursuant to Md. Rule 8-411. 3 Appellant’s answer to the show cause order was filed on November 5,1999.

In it, he pointed to the inclusion in the record of the transcript from the Local Board hearing. Additionally, he indicated that a transcript of the circuit court hearing was not prepared because the parties did not present additional evidence at that hearing. Rather, appellant explained that the hearing “consisted of oral argument only in support of memoranda filed by the respective parties.” We subsequently ordered the appeal to proceed. Appellant’s allegations of error as to this issue are not contained in the memoranda filed in the circuit court, however.

Moreover, the court’s order of May 19, 1999, affirming the decision of the State Board, does not establish whether the issue was raised or decided. Assuming, arguendo, that the issue has been preserved, we perceive no error in the State Board’s summary affirmance of the Local Board’s decision without a hearing. We explain. COMAR 13A.01.01.03, which governs appeals to the State Board, provides in relevant part: E. Standard of Review.

(1) Decisions. (a) Decisions of a county board involving a local policy or a controversy and dispute regarding the rules and regulations of the county board