Human Resources Academy II for Community College Districts

in closed session, unless the employee requests that they be considered in open session.  Governing Board Agenda item : An item should be inserted in the Closed Session portion of the Board Meeting agenda to reflect “Discipline of a Public Employee.”  Statement of Decision to Dismiss with Statement of Charges attached : The Board should consider the recommendations and evaluations in closed session (unless the employee has requested that the charges be considered in open session) and act in its normal manner to adopt the resolution, also in closed session. The Board members then sign a resolution in the appropriate place, depending on their votes. If action is taken in closed session, the action is not reported out because it does not constitute a final action of the board.  Notice of Decision : The College President signs and dates a Statement of Decision to Dismiss, after the Board Action. It should be accompanied by (1) a “Statement of Decision to Dismiss with Statement of Charges,” (2) copies of Sections 11506, 11507.5, 11507.6 and 11507.7 of the Government Code, (3) copies of sections 87666-87683 and 87732 of the Education Code, and (4) “Notice of Objection to Decision.” respective attachments must be personally served or sent by registered (not certified) mail. 43 It is advisable to both personally serve and send by registered mail. The Notice should be accompanied by a “Proof of Service,” completed by the person who personally serves the faculty member with the Notice of Decision to Dismiss.  Proof of Service : The Notice to Dismiss or Notice to Suspend and

G. T HE F OUR -Y EAR R ULE Education Code sections 87675 and 87680 provide that no testimony may be offered, or evidence introduced, relating to matters which occurred more than four years prior to the filing date for the Statement of Charges, and that no decision relating to the dismissal or suspension of a faculty member can be made based on charges or evidence relating to matters occurring more than four years prior to the filing of the notice. In Fontana Unified School District v. Burman , 44 the California Supreme Court seemed to suggest that this four year rule was simply an evidentiary “bar against the use of stale information to buttress a current charge” and not an absolute statutory limitation on a district’s ability to act. Clarifying that the “four-year time limitation is not absolute,” the California Supreme Court in Atwater Elementary School District v. Department of General Services 45 interpreted the parallel language applying to K-12 Districts (Ed. Code, § 44944) to allow the application of equitable estoppel principles. The Court explained that equitable estoppel is “wholly independent of the limitations period itself and takes its life from the equitable principle that no man may profit from his own wrongdoing in a court of justice.” 46

Human Resources Academy II for Community College Districts ©2019 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 35