A former Hagerman superintendent is seeking compensation from the state after he was disciplined for showering at school.
James “Jim” Brown last month filed a tort claim against the Professional Standards Commission (PSC), after a panel ruled that he violated the state’s educator code of ethics when he repeatedly used showers at Hagerman’s junior/senior high school — at the risk of being seen naked by students.
The tort claim alleges that the PSC improperly applied an ethical principle and relied on “hearsay” evidence before issuing a reprimand and requiring that Brown complete two ethics training courses. Brown has demanded an unspecified amount of money for damages, including “severe emotional distress,” suffered by himself and his wife.
The tort claim is the latest episode of a drawn-out controversy in Hagerman — a town of about 1,000 people west of Twin Falls — over Jim Brown’s use of the showers. It has attracted significant attention from local media, and a state senator last year moderated a town hall where district teachers and parents alleged that students saw Brown in the showers.
But Brown has maintained that he didn’t shower in front of students, and that he didn’t violate a law or school district policy. The gymnasium, locker room and showers were open to the public after instructional hours, per district policy at the time, and Brown has argued that he wasn’t acting as superintendent when he used the facilities after hours.
“Some may disagree with the district’s decision to operate a community gym program, but that is irrelevant,” said Edit Szanto, Brown’s attorney. “Regardless of how one feels about Dr. Brown participating in the community gym program, all Idaho educators should be concerned about the Professional Standards Commission properly applying the Code of Ethics in all disciplinary proceedings.”
The tort claim also names the Idaho Department of Education (IDE), which supports the PSC, and the attorney general’s office, which provides legal counsel to the PSC.
An IDE spokesperson declined to comment on the tort claim.
A tort claim is not a lawsuit, but it’s a precursor to filing a civil lawsuit against a public agency. In addition to the tort claim, Brown plans to file a petition for judicial review of the PSC’s decision, Szanto said.
The PSC is an 18-member volunteer board that enforces the “Code of Ethics for Idaho Professional Educators.” It has the authority to suspend or revoke certificates held by teachers and administrators and to require training.
Shower controversy ‘split the community’
The PSC received a complaint about Brown on Jan. 8, 2024, according to the tort claim.
That was less than a week after Sen. Glenneda Zuiderveld, R-Twin Falls, hosted a town hall where teachers, parents and community members spoke out against Brown’s use of the school showers.
The Twin Falls Times-News reported that Brown — who holds a doctorate in educational leadership — was so well-known for using the school showers that students had nicknamed him “Dr. Shower.”
Zuiderveld, a second-term lawmaker, told parents at the town hall that she knew a lawyer if they wanted to pursue charges against Brown, the Times-News reported.
By that time, the Gooding County Sheriff’s Office had investigated Brown’s use of the school showers, and a local prosecutor declined to pursue charges, the Times-News reported.
In a statement to Idaho Education News last week, Szanto said that Brown occasionally used the school showers following workouts. But the controversy was a “just a pretext,” used by people who wanted him removed as superintendent for other reasons, she said. Brown faced “a concerted effort” to have him fired ”long before” the shower allegations, the tort claim says.
“Dr. Brown was targeted for personnel and curricular decisions he made as superintendent,” Szanto said by email. “He was mobbed for doing his job.”
Brown is no longer superintendent in Hagerman. After the shower allegations were publicized in January 2024, school trustees placed Brown on paid leave, according to the tort claim. Fourteen months later, in March of this year, Brown agreed to resign, according to Szanto. Brown previously had a three-year contract, expiring in 2026, and he earned a $126,461 annual salary, according to the tort claim.
The PSC’s hearing panel, which considered the ethics complaint, concluded that the shower controversy has been a “tragic event that split the community.”
Evidence unclear on what students saw but ‘risk was enough’
In April, the PSC convened a three-person panel to hear from witnesses and to weigh the ethics complaint against Brown.
Panel members included Anne Ritter, a trustee at Meridian Medical Arts Charter High School and past president of the Idaho School Boards Association; Jeff Blaser, Bruneau-Grand View School District superintendent; and Lisa Roberts, Boise School District superintendent.
At an April 25 hearing in Mountain Home, Brown asked the panel to dismiss the ethics complaint, but members unanimously declined. Dismissal “had the potential to somewhat rehabilitate Dr. Brown’s reputation,” the tort claim says. The panel also overruled Brown’s objections to witnesses and an exhibit, according to the panel’s final order on the complaint, which includes a summary of the hearing.
Four witnesses — a teacher and three parents — testified about Brown’s use of the shower, according to the final order. Hagerman teacher Leslie Priebe told the panel that a student approached her about seeing Brown naked in the showers and locker room. Priebe testified that “it was disturbing to the student” and they “immediately stopped an after-school activity to avoid having to use the locker room.”
Three parents — Natasha Rowley, Tonya Watkins and Daniel Knapp — testified “in relation to their children seeing (Brown) using the school shower and locker room,” the final order said. “They further testified to their children’s emotional and behavioral reactions.”
Bryan Whitmarsh, former chairman of the Hagerman school board, testified that there were no prior complaints about Brown and he didn’t violate district policy, the final order said.
Brown, meanwhile, told the panel that he never saw a student while he used the showers, and he “immediately stopped” after he learned there was a complaint. Brown “continuously testified” that working out in the school gym and using the showers was “outside the scope of his superintendent duties.”
The hearing panel disagreed. A superintendent’s job is “24/7,” and Brown was “seen as a person of authority at all times,” the final order said. And while the panel acknowledged that it “was not clear from the evidence what the students saw … the risk was enough.”
Brown “did not use his best judgment when he decided to use the shared facilities as (he) had other options,” the order said.
The panel decided that Brown “willfully” violated Principle II of the ethics code, which requires maintaining professional relationships with students.
The panel issued a reprimand letter and required that Brown complete two ethics training courses.
Tort claim seeks ‘all available remedies’
Brown filed his tort claim on June 23. The document includes a raft of allegations, including that:
- Brown was the victim of a “brutal character assassination” at the hands of a “mob” that spread “lies, half-truths, rumors, and innuendos” about his use of the school showers.
- The PSC exceeded its statutory authority by disciplining Brown for allegations unrelated to his superintendent’s duties.
- The PSC relied on “hearsay” evidence, from witnesses who lacked credibility, to conclude that students could have seen Brown in the shower. No students testified that they had seen Brown in the shower.
Brown’s career, future employment opportunities, future income, professional reputation and professional relationships were damaged by the PSC decision, the claim alleges. Meanwhile, Brown and his wife, Leah Brown, suffered “severe emotional distress.”
“This has been extremely hard for their entire family,” the tort claim says.
The claim seeks “all available remedies under the law,” including monetary damages, for Jim and Leah Brown, but it doesn’t specify a dollar amount. Damages “are expected to exceed any applicable caps under Idaho law (over $1,000,000),” the claim says.