[ back ]
DEVELOPMENTS IN VERMONT LAW
(by By Kimberly B. Cheney - July 30, 2008)
Education Department Rebuked for Denying Due Process of Law
Education Department Rebuked for Denying Due Process of Law
Education Department Rebuked for Denying Due Process of Law
In April of 2005, JH, a high school principal, learned that an 8th grade student had received death threats from another student. She suspected MT, a 7th grader, of being the culprit. JH interrogated MT, including a two hour interview with police present. The next day MT threatened suicide with a note. JH immediately queried MT again. This time JH was heard screaming and using profanity at MT, who then confessed. MT later retracted the confession.
The Superintendent recommended the Commissioner of Education suspend MTÕs license for inflicting emotional harm on a student. By law, a professional license is property which cannot be taken without due process of law. Nevertheless the education establishment began a long period of unlawful bureaucratic muddle.
First, the Commissioner, recommended that the State Board of Education (SBE) suspend JHÕs license for five months. However, by SBE Rules, JH was entitled to a review by the Vermont Standards Board for Professional Educators (VSBPE). While that review as pending, JHÕs license expired by its terms on June 30, 2005. Because of the pending charges, the Commissioner refused to give JH a license. Thereafter the VSBPE voted 8 to 6 not to punish JH.
The Commissioner then referred the case to the SBE, which appointed a hearing officer to take evidence and make recommendations. The hearing officer found JH guilty of misconduct, but because the Department had wrongfully refused to give JH a license using pending charges as evidence of guilt, recommended no further license suspension. But the SBE disagreed and imposed an additional 5 month license suspension.
In a stern ruling, the Supreme Court vacated the State BoardÕs action. It noted that JH had been unlawfully without a license for fourteen months because she had not been found guilty after a hearing and an opportunity to contest the charges. Not only was the finding of guilt vacated, but so was any license suspension. Here the Supreme Court has applied in a civil law case, a familiar principle of criminal law: that if “The State” seeks to punish an individual but violates the constitution in doing so, it is better to let one presumptively guilty person off, than to permit government to subvert an individualÕs constitutional rights. Another good example of the “Rule of Law.”
In Re Licensing Appeal of J.H. 2008 VT. 97.
For other columns see www.CheneyColumn.com
[ back ]
