Ronnie Sykes v. Robbie Richardson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

July 9, 2002 Session

RONNIE SYKES v. ROBBIE RICHARDSON, ET AL.

A Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Smith County

No. 6265 The Honorable Don R. Ash, Judge

No. M2001-02097-COA-R3-CV - Filed August 13, 2002

Tenured teacher filed a petition for review of board of education action discharging him from

his teaching position. The trial court, the Honorable Don R. Ash, presiding by interchange, upheld

the decision by the board of education. Petitioner appeals. We affirm.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed

W. FRANK CRAWFORD , P.J., W.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which DAVID R. FARMER ,J.

and HOLLY KIRBY LILLARD, J., joined.

John H. Baker, III of Murfreesboro for Appellant, Ronnie Sykes

Robert G. Wheeler, Jr., Nashville, for Appellees, Robbie Richardson and the Smith County Board

of Education

OPINION

This case arises under the Tennessee Teachers’ Tenure Act, T.C.A. § 49-5-501, et seq. (1996)

(“TTA”). Appellant/Petitioner, Ronnie Sykes (“Mr. Sykes”), was a tenured teacher in the Smith

County Schools. Until his suspension in October of 1997, Mr. Sykes had most recently taught

Vocational Agriculture at Smith County High School. The record indicates that Mr. Sykes received

favorable performance reviews and had served as principal for several schools during his 28 years

with the Smith County school system.

Mr. Sykes dismissal was precipitated by events which occurred on October 22, 1997

concerning Mr. Sykes’ fiancé, Christine Price (“Ms. Price”), his roommate, Michael Velosic (“Mr.

Velosic”), and C.P., a fifteen year-old girl who had run away from a State juvenile facility in Bradley

County, Tennessee. On that date, police pulled over Ms. Price, Mr. Velosic, and C.P. following a

tip that the group was passing forged checks in Mr. Sykes’ name. After learning that Ms. Price and

Mr. Velosic lived with Mr. Sykes and used illegal drugs, the police brought Mr. Sykes in for

questioning regarding the checks and alleged drug use in his home. During his interview with

police, Mr. Sykes executed a consent form allowing the police to search his home. When asked what

they might find, Mr. Sykes informed the police that he was aware of a marijuana pipe in the

bathroom of his home.

During their search of Mr. Sykes’ home, police found drug paraphernalia, including: posters

promoting the use of illegal drugs; a marijuana pipe; a plate with drug residue on it; a homemade

drug pipe; a spoon used for cooking crack cocaine; rolling papers; and a rolling machine. According

to police testimony presented at the Board of Education hearing on Mr. Sykes’ termination, the

paraphernalia “was scattered. . . throughout the house.” Michael Thompson, the Director of the

115th Judicial District Drug Task Force, one of the officers who conducted the search, testified that

Mr. Sykes’ house “was typical of a house that was pretty much running rampant in drugs.”

During their investigation, the police learned that C.P. was a runaway from a State juvenile

facility, and had been living in Mr. Sykes’ home for approximately 10 days. Mr. Sykes testified that,

although he suspected C.P. had run away from the juvenile facility, he did not report her

whereabouts to the proper authorities because she had recently given birth to a baby she was not able

to keep, and he felt badly for her.1 Based upon their investigation, the police issued two criminal

warrants against Mr. Sykes for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and possession of drug

paraphernalia on October 22, 1997. Mr. Sykes was subsequently suspended from his teaching and

bus driving duties on October 23, 1997. On November 11, 1997, Robby Richardson, Superintendent

of the Smith County Board of Education sent a memorandum to Mr. Sykes, charging him with

conduct unbecoming to a member of the teaching profession as defined in T.C.A. 49-5-511(a)(3).

On January 17, 1998, Mr. Sykes accepted pretrial diversion on both of the criminal charges.

The Smith County Board of Education (the “Board”) held a hearing to determine whether

Mr. Sykes should be dismissed from his tenured teaching position. At the end of the hearing, the

Board voted five to two in favor of a finding that the charges against Mr. Sykes were proven by a

preponderance of the evidence, and five to one, with one member abstaining, to dismiss Mr Sykes

immediately.

Mr. Sykes filed a “Complaint and Petition for Writ of Certiorari” with the Chancery Court

of Smith County on April 6, 1998. which the trial court granted on April 22, 1998. At a hearing held

on June 20, 2001, the trial court stated that the Board’s decision would be affirmed. On July 24,

2001, the trial court entered an order sustaining the decision of the Board. Attached to, and

incorporated into, that Order were the trial court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed

on July 23, 2001, providing:

1

The record indicates that C.P. had previously lived with Mr. Sykes and Ms. Price in October of 1997 with the

approval of the D epartment of H uma n Services and C.P.’s mo ther.

-2-

In 1997, Chief Lewis of the Carthage police department

interviewed Mr. Ronnie Sykes in the course and scope of their

investigation of worthless checks being passed around the Carthage

area by three individuals, Christine Price, Michael Velosic, and C.P..

During the course of their investigation, Mr. Sykes told Chief Lewis

C.P. had recently begun to reside with him and Ms. Price. He was

aware that C.P. was a runaway. In fact, C.P. was an escapee from a

juvenile facility in another county.

When asked if the police could search his residence, Mr.

Sykes gave consent. He did disclose to Chief Lewis they would find

a marijuana pipe in the bathroom area of the house. Upon inspection

of Mr. Sykes home, Detective Mike Thompson and Chief Lewis

recovered various drug paraphernalia including rolling papers,

measuring scales, a cooking spoon, medical hemostats, razor blades

used for crack cocaine, a rolling machine, a homemade pipe for

smoking crack cocaine, as well as the previously mentioned

marijuana pipe. Many of these items were recovered from the master

bedroom of the home.

Evidence presented by the Police Department at trial indicated

that in their opinion the home appeared as though it was “running

rampant in drugs” and was “common with individuals using crack

cocaine as a drug house.” Mr. Sykes was eventually charged with

contributing to the delinquency of a minor and possession of drug

paraphernalia. Ms. Price and Mr. Velosic were also charged with

possession of drug paraphernalia and each pled guilty. Mr. Sykes was

granted pre-trial diversion on both charges.

At the time of his arrest, Mr. Sykes was a fifty-year old

teacher at Smith County High School. After the conclusion of the

criminal cases, a school board hearing was held on whether to

continue the tenure of Mr. Sykes. Mr. Sykes testified while he

recognized it is unlawful to possess drug paraphernalia, he did not

know of any unlawful drug usage in his home. In fact, he knew his

fiancee, Christine Price, to be a crack cocaine addict although

testifying Ms. Price had never used drugs in his presence.

Though he stated he knew for what activity the drug

paraphernalia was used, he had only seen paraphernalia in his home

on a few occasions. Mr. Sykes further testified he knew it was

unlawful to harbor an escaped minor, but did not report C.P. to the

-3-

authorities even though she lived in the Sykes residence for 10 to 11

days.

On November 11, 1997, Superintendent Richardson advised

the Smith County Board of Education he had suspended Mr. Sykes

without pay. Richardson also notified Mr. Sykes he was being

charged with the cause for dismissal of a tenured teacher known as

“conduct unbecoming to a member of the teaching profession.” The

basis for the charges against Mr. Sykes and the recommendation for

dismissal by Mr. Richardson was the result of the two criminal

warrants being filed against Mr. Sykes. On November 19, 1997, Mr.

Sykes was notified the Smith County School Board had certified the

charges against him on the grounds of unprofessional conduct or

conduct unbecoming to a member of the teaching profession. He was

given a statement of his procedural rights issued by the Tennessee

Department of Education per T.C.A. 94-5-511.

Smith County High School Principal Roger Lewis testified the

school had numerous programs aimed at educating children against

drug use. He further testified the School Board has a policy

prohibiting paraphernalia by students and Mr. Sykes’ actions are

counter to what he, as principal, is trying to accomplish in

discouraging students from using drugs.

Smith County School Superintendent Robbie Richardson

recommended Mr. Sykes’ dismissal as a tenured teacher because the

conduct displayed by Mr. Sykes was unbecoming as a member of the

teaching profession and was in direct violation of the job description

of a secondary school teacher. The job description reads, in part,

“[the job] was to represent the school and community in a positive

manner.” Mr. Richardson did not have that authority at the time of

this hearing to fire Mr. Sykes. He occupied his office by way of

election and only had the power and authority to recommend the

dismissal of the Plaintiff Sykes.

Testimony was also presented regarding the “immoral

activities” in Mr. Sykes’ relationship with his financée Christine

Price.

THE LAW

This case comes before this court on a writ of certiorari

(T.C.A. 49-5-5139(a)). The standard by which this matter is

-4-

reviewed is de novo with no presumption of correctness attaching to

the School Board’s finding of fact, and this Court is required to

determine all issues as if no prior determination had been made;

substituting judgment for that of the school board. (Henderson v.

Members of the Benton County Board of Education, 2000 Tenn. App.

LEXIS 223). The burden of proof to be considered is a

preponderance of the evidence that the facts in the record exist that

meet one of the statutory causes for dismissal of a tenured teacher.

(Williams v. Pittard, 604 S.W.2d 845 (1980).

Five elements may be considered by this court when

determining the termination of a tenured teacher in the State of

Tennessee when charged with “conduct unbecoming a member of the

teaching community.” They include but are not limited to, a)

immorality; b) conviction of a felony or a crime involving moral

turpitude; c) dishonesty, unreliability, continued willful failure or

refusal to pay one’s just and honest debts; d) disregard of the Code of

Ethics of the Tennessee Education Association in such a manner as

to make one obnoxious as a member of the profession; or e) improper

use of narcotics or intoxicants. (T.C.A. 49-5-501(3)). It appears Mr.

Sykes was given clear notice of the charges against him as well as a

statement of his procedural rights issued by the Tennessee

Department of Education per T.C.A. 49-5-511.

A significant question here is whether or not there is a rational

nexus between Mr. Sykes’ charges, whether convicted or not, and his

ability to teach and influence young people in Smith County. Based

upon the record, the question must be answered in the affirmative.

This Court finds the “immoral activities” between Mr. Sykes

and Ms. Price were irrelevant and the focus of the School Board’s

decision encompassed the charges of drug paraphernalia and the

contributing to the delinquency of a minor. It is also apparent to this

court that the action of the Smith County School Board against Mr.

Sykes was not “arbitrary and capricious.” Based upon the facts and

the existing laws, it is the opinion of this Court that the decision of

the Smith County Board of Education be affirmed. Costs shall be

assessed to Mr. Sykes. Mr. Wheeler shall draw the Order.

Mr. Sykes appeals the Order of the Smith County Chancery Court and presents the following

four issues for our review: (1) Whether the Board denied Appellant his statutory and due process

rights to a full and fair hearing by considering matters which were not included in the notice of

charges provided to Appellant; (2) Whether the Board incorrectly determined that service of two

-5-

criminal warrants was sufficient grounds for termination of a tenured teacher; (3) Whether the

Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious because the Board improperly reasoned that, because

drug paraphernalia was found in Appellant’s home, Appellant must be guilty of illegal possession

of drug paraphernalia; and (4) Whether there was material evidence to support the Board’s finding

that Appellant should be terminated from his tenured teaching position. For the following reasons,

we affirm the trial court’s order.

Judicial review of teacher tenure cases is controlled by T.C.A. § 49-5-513 which, as pertinent

to the issue before us, provides:

(a) A teacher under “permanent tenure” or “limited tenure” status

who is dismissed or suspended by action of the board may petition for

a writ of certiorari from the chancery court of the county where the

teacher is employed.

(b) The petition shall be filed within thirty (30) days from the receipt

by the teacher of notice of the decision of the board. The petition

shall state briefly the issues involved in the cause, the substance of

the order of the board, or the respects in which the petitioner claims

the order of the board is erroneous, and praying for an accordant

review. The petition shall be addressed to the presiding chancellor

and shall name as defendants the members of the board and such

other parties of record, if such, as were involved in the hearing before

the board.

* * *

(f) All defendants named in the petition, desiring to make defense,

shall do so by answer (in which grounds of demurrer shall be

incorporated) to the petition within thirty (30) days from the date of

the filing of the petition, unless the time be extended by the court. .

..

(g) The cause shall stand for trial and shall be heard and determined

at the earliest practical date, as one having precedence over other

litigation, except suits involving state, county or municipal revenue.

The review of the court shall be limited to the written record of the

hearing before the board and any evidence or exhibits submitted at

such hearing. Additional evidence or testimony shall not be admitted

except as to establish arbitrary or capricious action or violation of

statutory or constitutional rights by the board.

-6-

This Court, in Winkler v. Tipton County Bd. of Educ., 63 S.W.3d 376, 381 (Tenn. Ct. App.

2001), noted the appropriate standard of review for cases under the TTA:

Judicial review of a teacher dismissal case pursuant to T.C.A.

§ 49-5-513 requires the chancery court to review the transcript of the

hearing before the board in order to determine whether there was any

material evidence to support the board's decision. If there is, it is

the responsibility of the trial court to affirm. On the question of

whether the Board acted arbitrarily, capriciously or illegally, the trial

court may hear new evidence and must make independent findings in

this regard. Our scope of review on appeal from chancery court is no

greater than that court's review of the Board decision. See Goodwin

v. Metropolitan Board of Health, 656 S.W.2d 383, 387 (Tenn. Ct.

App.1983).

Id. (quoting Wallace v. Mitchell, No. W1999-01487-COA-R3-CV, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 558,

at *6-7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug.16, 2000) (emphasis added).

We first address Mr. Syke’s contention that the Board failed to provide him with adequate

due process. Specifically, it appears from the record that Mr. Sykes is alleging that the Board denied

him due process by: (1) failing to adequately describe the nature of the charges against him; and (2)

by considering other, uncharged conduct, in arriving at its decision to dismiss. him.

There is no question but that Mr. Sykes is entitled to notice and a hearing under the TTA.

See T.C.A. §§ 49-5-512, 513 (1996). The TTA provides that, “When charges are made to the board

of education against a teacher, charging the teacher with offenses which would justify dismissal of

the teacher under the terms of this part, the charges shall be made in writing, specifically stating the

offenses which are charged.” T.C.A. § 49-5-512 (1996). Similarly, the TTA provides that, once a

teacher receives notice of charges, he has the right to a hearing before the school board, at which

time he may present witnesses and evidence in his defense. See T.C.A. § 49-4-513 (1996). In this

regard, the Tennessee Supreme Court has recognized that:

While the Tennessee Teachers' Tenure Act may not provide

tenure teachers the full range of procedural safeguards that are

mandated for criminal defendants by our state and federal

constitutions, the Act does make it clear that, at a minimum, notice

and a hearing are required. It has further been established that a

tenure teacher is entitled to a "due process" hearing prior to

deprivation of the significant property interest which a teacher obtains

upon being granted tenure. See, e. g., Sullivan v. Brown, 544 F.2d

279, 284 (6th Cir. 1976).

Williams v. Pittard, 604 S.W.2d 845, 849 (Tenn. 1980).

-7-

In reviewing the record in this case, we cannot say that Mr. Sykes was denied due process

based upon the manner in which he was notified of the charges against him. The Board, on

November 11, 1997, advised Mr. Sykes that it was charging him with “unprofessional

conduct/conduct unbecoming a member of the teaching profession” and “criminal warrants filed on

October 22, 1997,” specifically: (1) “contributing to the delinquency of a minor” and (2) “possession

of drug paraphernalia.” While counsel for Mr. Sykes argues that these charges were too vague to

afford Mr. Sykes an opportunity to adequately defend himself at the Board hearing, the record

indicates that Mr. Sykes was aware of the fact that the charges related to his housing C.P. and to the

drug paraphernalia found in his home. Specifically, the record of the Board hearing contains the

following exchange:

Q (Mr. Wheeler): And when these charges on this School Board

came down and said, refer to contributing to

the delinquency of a minor, you knew that it

had to do with C.P., didn’t you?

A (Mr. Sykes): Yes.

Q: That wasn’t a surprise?

A: No.

***********

Q: So with regard to contributing to the

delinquency of a minor and possession of drug

paraphernalia that was written up and referred

to in these charges in November, you knew

that they were the things that have been

discussed at length here tonight, didn’t you?

A: Yes.

As to Mr. Sykes’ allegation regarding the introduction of evidence regarding other, uncharged

matters, we agree with the trial court that these matters were irrelevant. The Board should not have

permitted testimony relating to alleged “immoral activities” between Mr. Sykes and Ms. Price, or

regarding Ms. Price’s choice of profession. In spite of this conclusion, we believe that the

presentation of any such evidence was harmless error, in that the Board based its decision to

terminate Mr. Sykes’ employment upon the other, specified charges addressed above. For these

reasons, we hold that Mr. Sykes was provided proper process notice and hearing.

Since the next three issues Mr. Sykes presents on appeal all concern whether the evidence

presented at the Board hearing was sufficient to terminate Mr. Sykes, we will address them together.

-8-

The TTA provides that a tenured teacher may be dismissed from his position for

“unprofessional conduct”. See T.C.A. § 599-5-511 (1996). T.C.A. § 59-5-501, under the term,

“conduct unbecoming a member of the teaching profession,”2 defines such conduct as:

(3) "Conduct unbecoming to a member of the teaching profession"

may consist of, but not be limited to, one (1) or more of the

following:

(A) Immorality;

(B) Conviction of a felony or a crime involving moral

turpitude;

(C) Dishonesty, unreliability, continued willful failure or

refusal to pay one's just and honest debts;

(D) Disregard of the code of ethics of the Tennessee

Education Association in such manner as to make one obnoxious as

a member of the profession; or

(E) Improper use of narcotics or intoxicants. . .

Id. (emphasis added). As we have noted above in boldface, this list is not exhaustive. This Court,

in Baltrip v. Norris, explained that “[u]nprofessional conduct" has been defined as “conduct that

violates the rules or the ethical code of a profession or that is unbecoming a member of a profession

in good standing, or which indicates a teacher's unfitness to teach.” 23 S.W.3d 336, 340 (Tenn. Ct.

App. 2000), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 2000)(quoting Morris v. Clarksville-Montgomery

County Consol. Bd. of Educ., 867 S.W.2d 324, 329 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993)).

In the case at bar, the trial court found that, “A significant question here is whether or not

there is a rational nexus between Mr. Sykes’ charges, whether convicted or not, and his ability to

teach and influence young people in Smith County. Based upon the record, the question must be

answered in the affirmative.” We agree with the trial court’s assessment of Mr. Sykes’ conduct.

Regarding the two criminal warrants, counsel for Mr. Sykes argues that, since Mr. Sykes was

never convicted of any offense, evidence of these warrants was insufficient to merit a dismissal by

the Board. While we agree that the warrants, and Mr. Sykes’ subsequent pretrial diversion

agreements, do not constitute “convictions” under T.C.A. § 49-5-501(a)(3)(B), we believe that Mr.

Sykes’ actions, however well-intentioned, could be considered “unprofessional” by the Board.

The record indicates that Mr. Sykes had, with C.P.’s mother’s permission, taken care of the

minor before, and that C.P. had a close, fatherly relationship with Mr. Sykes. However, when C.P.

showed up at his door this time, Mr. Sykes clearly understood that C.P. was not supposed to be there.

2

We note that the TTA u ses the terms “unprofessional conduct” and “conduct unbecoming a m ember of the

teaching profession” interchangeably.

-9-

Mr. Sykes testified at the Board hearing that C.P. “never told me she was a runaway, but the

assumption was there.” Mr. Sykes also testified that the night C.P., Ms. Price and Mr. Velosic were

picked up by the police, he arrived home around 9:00 p.m. and no one was there. Although he

testified that, when the three still had not returned around 11:00 p.m., he “started getting worried,”

Mr. Sykes did nothing. When he received a call from the sheriff’s office informing him that C.P.,

Ms. Price and Mr. Velosic “had been picked up and were in custody,” Mr. Sykes “went to sleep.”

It was not until sometime the next morning, when he was handcuffed and brought to the Carthage

Police Station, that Mr. Sykes found out what had happened the night before. Mr. Sykes also

indicated that he felt that he should have reported C.P.’s whereabouts to the proper authorities, but

felt “compassion” for her. Based upon Mr. Sykes’ own testimony on the issue of the contributing

to the delinquency of a minor charge, we believe there was ample, material evidence for the Board

to find that Mr. Sykes’ behavior was “unprofessional.”

Regarding the drug paraphernalia charges, counsel for Mr. Sykes argues that the Board

“shifted the burden of proof” to Mr. Sykes at the Board hearing when the Board “presumed as a

matter of law” that Mr. Sykes was guilty of the charges. We believe this argument is misplaced. Mr.

Sykes was found guilty of the charge of unprofessional conduct. The Board could certainly find such

unprofessional conduct based upon Mr. Sykes’ own admission that he “knew of drug paraphernalia

in [his] house.” The Board presented testimony at the hearing regarding the Smith County Schools’

commitment to discouraging students from using drugs and alcohol, and it is reasonable to infer that

a teacher whose home is found to contain many drug-related items, and who has knowledge of his

roommates’ drug abuse, but allows those roommates to remain in his home, may be considered unfit

to teach.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the trial court upholding the decision of the

Smith County Board of Education to terminate Mr. Sykes’ employment. This case is remanded to

the trial court for any further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs of this appeal are

assessed to the Appellant, Ronnie Sykes, and his sureties.

__________________________________________

W. FRANK CRAWFORD, PRESIDING JUDGE, W.S.

-10-