ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

5451. If administrators were provided procedural due process that included a “hearing” where
evidence could be presented and examined, then Brown’s initial appeal to the district court
would have been a valid petition. However, because administrators are only privy to a
“meeting,” which was much less formal in nature and required no public record, there was no
basis for it to be considered “judicial” or “quasi-judicial.” As the court noted, K. S. A. 72-5451
sets forth that an administrator facing non-renewal shall have the opportunity to “meet” with the
board in executive session to hear the reason for non-renewal and respond to the reason. No
further action was mandated. Thus, the meeting was not “judicial” or “quasi-judicial” in nature.
Disposition: The Supreme Court of Kansas reversed and remanded the case back to the
district court with orders to dismiss the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction according to K. S. A.
72-5451.
1997
Citation: Brandt v. Cortines, 236 A.D.2D 202, (1997 N.Y. App. Div.).
Key Facts: Brandt was terminated during his probationary period as a principal in New
York City School District by Cortines. Brandt’s termination was preceded by a refusal of the
community school board to terminate his probationary service. This refusal came in the wake of
a report by the Board of Education School Under Registration Review team (SURR). SURR
cited the school for numerous failures such as severely deficient leadership and little focus on
instructional leadership.
Issues: (1) Did Cortines, the school district chancellor, violate statutory limitations?
Holding: The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed the district
court’s finding.
158