Appellant based her appeal on two broad arguments. First, Colby did not commit the alleged violation and secondly, that Colby did not receive all process due to him. Mrs. Gibson does not dispute the punishment nor does she dispute that Colby's alleged misconduct,if proven, would be a violation of the good conduct rule. A school employee "assumed" that Colby had called her a "bitch." She admitted that she had turned her back to Colby, but she was standing by Colby at the time she heard the offending word spoken.

Five students were interviewed by the superintendent and principal. These students stated they either did not know who spoke the word or that they had heard nothing. The principal admitted that he prejudged Colby's culpability before speaking to any witnesses other than the employee because of prior experiences where Colby had been less than truthful. Inasmuch as the District did not choose to elaborate on any of these prior experiences, the administrative law judge gave this little weight. It was found that not following the District's own procedures in this case did not deprive Colby of any process due to him because of the practical effect of the District's failure was that Colby merely appealed directly to the superintendent and then to his local board.

That the decision of the Board of Directors of the Lisbon Community School District made on April 23, 2003 was affirmed.