re: "We do not believe that the IHL Board was justified in its decision"

quote:

---

The Board shall have the
power and authority to terminate any such contract at any time for malfeasance,
inefficiency, or contumacious conduct, but never for political reasons.

---

Does this mean the Board has to reelect Jones if there is no evidence of "malfeasance, inefficiency, or contumacious conduct?" Or does it only mean the Board can fire him at any time for those reasons? For what it's worth, "contumacious conduct" means "willfully stubborn and disobedient conduct" that is "commonly punishable as contempt of court."

There is also another provision to consider. The Board "shall...reelect [all officials] during the period of satisfactory service." Does that mean the Board can fire Jones if they find that his service is unsatisfactory?

Unless the IHL review setup is somehow different than other administrative bodies (I can't imagine how it could be, but I just don't know), I think this will end up being resolved in court. The question is which standard applies: the "malfeasance, inefficiency, or contumacious conduct" standard, or the "satisfactory service" standard? I think it has to be the first standard. The second one is too vague and subjective. If that's how it ends up, Jones will probably have a pretty good argument that the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence.