A Wisconsin appeals court has affirmed a lower court, finding that the University of Wisconsin—Oshkosh (UWO) had sufficient grounds not to renew the employment contract of its long-time baseball coach.
Lechnir’s affiliation with UWO’s baseball program spanned 35 years, first as a student player, then assistant coach, then 25 years as head coach. His employment largely was governed by a three-year “rolling-horizon” contract, which provided for automatic yearly extensions without a formal renewal process.
In 2002, UWO began work on the Oshkosh Sports Complex (OSC), a facility that would serve several UWO sports programs. Baseball was not one of them. Lechnir offered to head up funding a baseball stadium, “Alumni Stadium,” that would be financially independent of the OSC. UWO agreed. In addition, the UWO Foundation agreed to cover the “carrying costs,” or capitalized interest.
In April 2010, UWO Chancellor Richard Wells advised Lechnir that his rolling-horizon contract arrangement would end on June 30, 2013, with the expiration of his then-existing contract, but he would be subject to contract renewal in the May 2012 renewal cycle. Wells told Lechnir the reason was “the significant debt created in the expansion and renovation of Alumni Stadium.” The contract-change decision was not subject to appeal or grievance.
In May 2012, Wells informed Lechnir that, for “reasons … derived from a review by your supervisor,” UWO would not be offering him a new contract. Pursuant to Lechnir’s written request, Wells explained that the nonrenewal was due to Lechnir’s inadequate performance in four areas: fundraising, student athlete retention and academic success, administrative duties, and community relations and engagement.
Lechnir appealed. UWO Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Petra Roter reiterated that his contract was not being renewed for the reasons set forth by Chancellor Wells. She told Lechnir, however, that UWO would “recommend to the Academic Staff Senate that it provide an ad hoc process allowing for a peer review of this decision … using the framework of the established rules for an appeal of a non-renewal, as outlined in [UWO] faculty and academic staff handbook ACS 8.4.”
UWO named a three-member ad hoc academic staff committee to review Lechnir’s claim that the alleged deficiencies did not warrant nonrenewal. After a hearing, the committee found that he failed to meet his burden of persuasion in two of the areas: fundraising and administrative duties. It concluded that it was “not able to determine whether those two bases standing alone are sufficient reason to refuse to grant an additional contract of employment to Mr. Lechnir,” and deferred the decision to Chancellor Wells.
Wells concluded that the committee’s findings provided “ample and sufficient substantiation” for the nonrenewal decision. Wells informed Lechnir that he could petition for judicial review under Wis. Stat. § 227.53(1)(a)(2m). (2013-14). The circuit court affirmed the chancellor’s decision as supported by sufficient evidence.
Lechnir appealed.
The appeals court focused on the decision of the administrative agency, with the caveat that a “court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on any disputed finding of fact,” so long as the fact is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Wis. Stat. § 227.57(6); Advance Die Casting Co. v. LIRC, 154 Wis. 2d 239, 249, 453 N.W.2d 487 (Ct. App. 1989).
“Wells advised Lechnir that he failed to make meaningful inroads on the approximately $285,000 debt remaining on the baseball stadium and to follow through on particular efforts such as selling outfield signage and stadium naming rights, securing sponsorship of the batter’s eye, and holding annual phone-a-thons,” wrote the court.
“The record establishes that Lechnir told the committee that he wanted to ‘take the lead on building and gifting the university a baseball stadium;’ that UWO’s only financial contribution would be the UWO Foundation’s assistance with carrying costs; that UWO held Lechnir responsible for the approximately $285,000 debt; that, while all contractors had been paid, UWO had paid a number of the bills and sought reimbursement from Lechnir for those it had covered; and that the fundraising plan spelled out specific ways for him to work to reduce the debt.
“Lechnir responds that he provided evidence that the total construction cost was less than UWO’s claimed figure; that he was unaware that the construction involved loans, as he thought it would proceed only as funds arrived to pay for it; and that he believed all bills had been paid. He also complains that the points in the fundraising plan were not said to be solely his responsibility. He directs us to no efforts he made in those areas, however.
“The committee unanimously found that Lechnir did not persuade it that the administration’s claim of a debt owing on the project was based on unfounded, arbitrary or irrelevant assumptions of fact. The fundraising shortcomings described in the record amply support Lechnir’s nonrenewal. We may not substitute our judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on any disputed finding of fact. Wis. Stat. § 227.57(6); Coulee Catholic Sch. v. LIRC, 2009 WI 88, ¶31, 320 Wis. 2d 275, 768 N.W.2d 868. Accordingly, we need not address the sufficiency of the evidence supporting either the alleged administrative duties deficiencies or other miscellaneous misconduct claims.”
Thomas Lechnir v. University Of Wisconsin-Oshkosh; Ct. App. Wisc. Dist. 2; Appeal No. 2014AP1114, 2015 Wisc. App. LEXIS 191; 3/11/15
Attorneys of Record: (for petitioners) William R. Wooton, Esq., Wooton & Wooton, Beckley, WV. (for respondents) James G. Bordas, Jr., Esq., Michelle Marinacci, Esq., Bordas & Bordas, PLLC., Wheeling, WV.
