Decided October 6, 1982. Without explicitly stating which prong it was basing its decision on, the State board concluded that the superintendent exceeded his authority in suspending McCrumb without a board hearing and the county board's affirmance of his actions could not stand.
The State board, having acted lawfully, reasonably and not in an arbitrary or capricious fashion, did not exceed that power in concluding that, under the totality of the circumstances, McCrumb's use of the term "assholes" did not constitute cause for suspension.
While the court disagreed with the State board's conclusion that the summary procedure followed by the superintendent exceeded his authority, it sustained the board's conclusion that "while Mr. Hebron High School, was witness to a potentially explosive scene between predominantly white students of Mt.
On Nctober 3, the first working day after the incident, the Superintendent of Schools for Howard County, after orally advising McCrumb of the charges against him, gave him written notice that he was forthwith suspended without pay for five days because of his admitted "use of inappropriate language in the presence of students and parents.
Clearly the modification of a penalty imposed on personnel by a local board of education is within the State board's broad powers. The board, in its opinion, reasoned that any "further hearing" would have been superfluous in that it "could not have produced more light on the central issue of the statement made which was admitted to by Mr.
After a hearing on the matter, the board, in its final decision and order issued September 25, 1978, made these findings of fact: As accurately stated many years ago by the Court of Appeals in Wiley v.
McCrumb and testified to by all present at the incident, and was the basis for the suspension. Charles A.
Kennedy, 416 U. Our inquiry, like that of the circuit court, is limited to ascertaining whether the final action of the State Board of Education was arbitrary or capricious. Barbano, 45 Md. McCrumb Annotate this Case.
Other Databases. Section 114 authorizes the county board of education "on the recommendation of the county superintendent of schools [to] suspend or dismiss any teacher, principal, supervisor, assistant superintendent, or other professional assistant for [among other things] misconduct in office... Although the first decision was reaffirmed in all respects, the board noted an additional issue, in light of a recent Attorney General's Opinion, of the adequacy of a "hearing" before the superintendent.
On October 1, 1977, James R. Find a Lawyer. US Federal Law. McCrumb's use of a vulgar expression was not appropriate, it [did] not call for the penalty of suspension. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.
Investors Funding, 270 Md. As to the remaining issues, the examiner concluded that any deprivation of due process not satisfied by McCrumb's meeting with the superintendent was subsequently "cured" by the de novo hearing before the county board of education and that there was no evidence that suspension without pay was an inappropriate penalty.