Nick was suspended for an incident that occurred on February 5, 2001, in the boys' locker room. Nick allegedly urinated in the shower, which eventually was not an uncommon practice, and on a fellow athlete. Accounts of the students who witnessed the incident were conflicting whether the contact was accidental or intentional. Josh,the other student, had an older stepbrother who was the District's wrestling coach and was present in the locker room. He did not witness the incident but heard Nick swearing after he was accused of urinating on Josh.

The next day the principal taped recorded only the witnesses that supported Josh and not those that supported Nick. Also, the principal sent a letter to Nick's parents, which was received by the Guthries on February 7th. Ms. Guthrie requested a copy of the agenda, which indicated that there would be a board meeting and the expulsion hearing on February 12, 2001. The Guthries never received a notice of the hearing or their rights at the hearing. The principal presented the Board a copy of Nick's past disciplinary record and when Ms. Guthrie tried to address this issue, the Board president would not allow her to do so.

In this case, the evidence is undisputed that the District provided no written notice to the Guthries regarding the expulsion hearing. The District provided only the agenda, policies and records that the Guthries requested themselves. We conclude that the notice procedures before the February 12, 2001, expulsion hearing were a violation of the due process rights of Appellant. Written notice containing all the requirements must be given to the student to allow the student to prepare a meaningful defense. This is not a case where the student admitted the accusations of the expulsion proceeding. Nick denied that his conduct was intentional. In this appeal, the lack of written notice to the Guthries that they had a right to legal counsel at the expulsion hearing prejudiced their rights to prepare a meaningful defense. They testified that although they tried to get advice from two attorneys about what their rights were, they were unable to get that advice. They testified, therefore, that they still did not know they had a right to counsel at the expulsion hearing.The District's lack of notice was also prejudicial because the Guthries never received a summary of charges to be used at the expulsion hearing with sufficient specificity to prepare a defense.

It is incumbent on the State Board to look at the combination of circumstances in this case. The combination of circumstances shows clearly that the Guthries were prejudiced by the lack of written notice. Prior to the hearing, Principal Traughber's letter gave only the urination incident and profanity incident on February 5th and 6th as the basis for the suspension and possible expulsion. When the Guthries came to the expulsion hearing on February 12, their reasonable expectation would have been that only those two incidents would be used as a basis for expulsion. The Board, however, considered Nick's entire prior disciplinary record. The State Board guidelines clearly state that the student is entitled to written notice containing a summary of the charges written with sufficient specificity to enable the student to prepare a defense. The guidelines also state that inherent in this right is the fact that no new charges will be brought up at the expulsion hearing that were not in the notice. Nick's disciplinary record prior to February 5th were new charges brought up at the expulsion hearing that were not in a written notice to the Guthries. We therefore conclude that the lack of written notice of the expulsion hearing violated the Guthries' due process rights as interpreted by previous State Board decisions. For the above reasons, the Board's decision to expel Nick is reversed for due process violations due to lack of written notice and deficient hearing procedures. The Guthries simply had no notice that the Board would be presented with Nick's entire disciplinary record for its consideration at the expulsion hearing. They could not, therefore, prepare a meaningful defense to the entire disciplinary record. Without notice, they did not have "the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner," as due process requires.

Although the decision to expel Nick for the remainder of the school year has been reversed, we would like to take this opportunity to restate the State Board's position that a local board must have heightened concerns for the safety of its students and staff. Clearly, a responsible local district must act quickly in responding to situations that disrupt the school environment. The response taken must be consistent with constitutional due process rights. A board's failure to observe these rights before depriving a student of the opportunity to attend its school permanently will expose the board to reversal upon appeal.

That the decisions of the Okoboji Community School District Board of Education, made on February 12, 2001, and April 16, 2001, expelling Nick Guthrie from the Okoboji Community School, school activities home or away, school premises, and participation in graduation ceremony, was reversed.