ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Roughly two weeks later and after an investigation, Bell was notified by the
superintendent that the following charges were being filed against him:
1. Violation of Board Regulation No. 2740--failure to take reasonable precautions to
ensure the well-being of students
for field trips.
2. Violation of Board Regulation No. 6218--failure to secure parental permission forms
A hearing was held in regard to the charges and on December 5, 1984, where the board
unanimously agreed to suspend Bell without pay for the remainder of the 1984-1985 school year.
Bell petitioned the local court for review which affirmed the board decision. This appeal
followed.
Issues: (1) Were, as Bell argued, Regulations 2740 and 6218 “unconstitutionally” vague?
(2) Did the board unfairly impose a salary reduction by suspending him? (3) Did the board have
sufficient evidence to suspend Bell? (4) Did the board abuse its authority in its suspension of
Bell?
Holding: The court held in affirmance on each issue with the trial court’s finding that
Bell’s suspension was legal and reasonable.
Reasoning: Bell’s assertion that Regulations 2740 and 6218 were unconstitutionally
vague hinged on the notion that he was unaware of what was required of him in regard to the
regulations. Regulation No. 2740 stated that it is the principal’s obligation to take reasonable
measures to ensure the safety of students. Bell argued that he was unsure as to what might
constitute reasonable measures. This argument was not well-taken. The point of the regulation
was to induce “common sense” approaches, according to the court. Because the board could not
90