OPINION
Catherine Daddow appeals from a judgment dismissing her complaint in favor of the Carlsbad Municipal School District and the Carlsbad Municipal Board of Education (hereinafter collectively called “the District”). Daddow brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988), alleging denial of due process and stating a cause of action for breach of employment contract and wrongful termination. After a bench trial, the court concluded that the District could not be sued under § 1983, that the District did not breach Daddow’s employment contract by wrongfully terminating her, and that even if a cause of action under § 1983 did exist, Daddow was afforded all process that the Constitution requires both before and after her termination.
The District filed a cross-claim alleging that as a result of Daddow’s negligent and wrongful acts, the federal government required the District to reimburse over $60,000 to the United States Department of Agriculture. The District requested an award of damages for this loss. The court found that Daddow’s failure to comply with federal regulations resulted in the loss to the District, that Daddow failed to correct deficiencies noted by the federal auditor, and that Daddow’s failure to properly do her job was just cause for her termination. The court refused to award damages to the District, however, because the District could not show that Daddow directly benefitted from her malfeasance. The court ruled that the District’s only recourse against Daddow was to terminate her employment. The District cross-appeals from this decision.
We conclude that the District, the Board, and its members are not absolutely immune from suit under § 1983. On the merits, the District showed that Daddow received due process and is therefore entitled to recover its costs in defending the suit. We further conclude that the District cannot recover the reimbursements from Daddow. We reverse in part but affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. Local school boards and their members acting in their official capacities are “persons” for purposes of actions based on § 1983. Section 1983 states, in part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
The trial court dismissed Daddow’s cause of action under § 1983 because it believed that school boards and their members are absolutely immune from suit due to the holding in Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). The District offers the following analysis in support of the trial court’s dismissal. Under Will, neither the State nor state officers sued in their official capacities are “persons” under § 1983 except in an action for injunctive relief.1 491 U.S. at 71 & n. 10, 109 S.Ct. at 2312 & n. 10. Will based this holding, in part, upon the fact that a state is protected from suit for money damages in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment and the inference that Congress must not have intended different treatment in state court. Id. at 66-67, 109 S.Ct. at 2309-10. The Tenth Circuit has held that New Mexico school boards are “arms of the state” for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. See Martinez v. Board of Educ., 748 F.2d 1393, 1396 (10th Cir.1984). Therefore, neither school boards nor school board mem*100bers acting in their official capacities may be sued for money damages under § 1983 in either state or federal court. After carefully analyzing our constitutional provisions and statutes, the relevant cases that have examined both the characterization of school boards and the application of § 1983, and the purpose of § 1983, we conclude that the Tenth Circuit decision is erroneous and that our local school districts and their boards are “persons” under § 1983.
A. The purpose of § 1983 according to Monell. The question before the Court in Monell v. Department of Social Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), was “[w]hether local governmental officials and/or local independent school boards are ‘persons’ within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when equitable relief in the nature of back pay is sought against them in their official capacities.” Id. at 662, 98 S.Ct. at 2021. In answering that question affirmatively, the Court examined the precursor to § 1983, the Civil Rights Act of 1871. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 669, 98 S.Ct. at 2024-25. The Court first determined that the word “persons” covered more than natural persons, and was intended to cover legal persons as well. Id. at 683, 98 S.Ct. at 2032. The Court also noted that the meaning of the word “person” was applied “to bodies politic and corporate ... unless the context shows that such words were intended to be used in a more limited sense,” and that a municipality is a “body politic and corporate.” Id. at 688, 98 S.Ct. at 2034-35 (quoting Act of Feb. 25, 1871, § 2, 16 Stat. 431 (the Dictionary Act)). In looking at the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act, the Court stated that the Act was “intended to give a broad remedy for violations of federally-protected civil rights.” Id. at 685, 98 S.Ct. at 2033. Therefore, the Court concluded, “since municipalities through their official acts could, equally with natural persons, create the harms intended to be remedied by [the Civil Rights Act], and, further, since Congress intended [the Act] to be broadly construed, there is no reason to suppose that municipal corporations would have been excluded from the sweep of [the Act].” Id. at 685-86, 98 S.Ct. at 2033.
Congress did intend municipalities and other local government units to be
included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies. Local governing bodies, therefore, can be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief where ... the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers.
Id. at 690, 98 S.Ct. at 2035-36. The Monell Court also overruled Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 191-92, 81 S.Ct. 473, 486-87, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961), in which the Court had previously held that municipalities were not “persons” under § 1983. Monell, 436 U.S. at 701, 98 S.Ct. at 2041. However, the Monell Court pointed out that even under the more restrictive Monroe approach, school boards had always been “persons” for the purposes of § 1983. Id. at 696-97, 98 S.Ct. at 2038-39. The Court noted that both municipalities and school boards are “instrumentalities of state administration.” Monell, 436 U.S. at 696, 98 S.Ct. at 2038. It also emphasized that Congress had “rejected efforts to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over school boards.” Id. We interpret Monell’s broad holding that all “local governing bodies” are subject to suit under § 1983 to create a presumption that local school boards are included within the meaning of “person.” See Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 376, 110 S.Ct. 2430, 2443, 110 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990) (stating that state courts must adhere to the Supreme Court’s interpretation that local governing bodies are “persons” under § 1983); John E. Nowak et al., Constitutional Law 55 (2d ed. 1983) (“Municipal corporations, counties and school boards may be sued in federal court without raising an eleventh amendment issue.” (footnotes omitted)). This presumption, based on § 1983’s strong protective purposes, can be overcome only by conclusive evidence that a local school board is legally only a state agency subject to the state’s control. We must determine whether our local school boards are local governing bodies.
*101 B. The Mt. Healthy test. We find guidance for determining whether an entity is a local governing body from Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280, 97 S.Ct. 568, 572-73, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). Mt. Healthy held that an Ohio school board was not immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. 429 U.S. at 280, 97 S.Ct. at 572-73. In its analysis, the Court examined “the nature of the entity created by state law.” Id. The Court gave several reasons for deciding that the school board was not an “arm of the state.” These reasons included the facts that (1) under state law, the term “state” did not encompass “political subdivisions” such as local school districts, (2) even' though the boards received guidance and significant money from the state, local boards had extensive powers to issue bonds and to levy taxes within restrictions, and (3) a board was more like a county or city than it was like an “arm of the state.” Id. Accordingly, under Mt. Healthy, the local school board was not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity even though it was entitled to state governmental immunity in the same degree as the state in state tort suits. A determination of whether an entity is a local governing body depends upon state law.
C. Will did not limit Monell. We previously noted in dicta that Will “made it clear that the [Bernalillo Board of Education] and its members in their official capacities were not subject to suit for money damages under § 1983.” Carrillo v. Rostro, 114 N.M. 607, 610, 845 P.2d 130, 133 (1992). Despite this sweeping statement, however, Will actually stands only for the more limited proposition that “a State is not a person within the meaning of § 1983.” Will, 491 U.S. at 64, 109 S.Ct. at 2308. The Will Court stated that § 1983 provides a “federal forum to remedy many deprivations of civil liberties, but it does not provide a federal forum for litigants who seek a remedy against a State for alleged deprivations of civil liberties. The Eleventh Amendment bars such suits unless the State has waived its immunity.” Id. at 66, 109 S.Ct. at 2309. The Court emphasized, however, that the scope of the Eleventh Amendment and that of § 1983 were separate issues, id., and concluded that § 1983 was not intended “to disregard the well-established immunity of a State from being sued without its consent.” Id. at 67, 109 S.Ct. at 2310. The Court stated that Monell was fully consistent with its reasoning because “[b]y the end of the 19th century, courts regularly held that in imposing a specific duty on the municipality either in its charter or by statute, the State had impliedly withdrawn the city’s immunity from liability for the nonperformance or misperformance of its obligation.” Id. at 68-69 n. 7, 109 S.Ct. at 2310 n. 7 (quoting Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 646, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 1413, 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980)). In contrast to Monell, in which the Court noted that Congress intended school boards to be subject to actions under § 1983, Monell, 436 U.S. at 696, 98 S.Ct. at 2038-39, in Will the Court stated that it could find nothing substantial in the Civil Rights Act’s legislative history to convince it that Congress intended the word “person” to include the “States of the Union,” Will, 491 U.S. at 69, 109 S.Ct. at 2311. The Court also noted that the phrase “body politic and corporate” did not include the States. Id.
D. A local board of education in New Mexico is not an “arm of the state. ” The Will Court noted that Monell limited its holding “to local government units which are not considered part of the State for Eleventh Amendment purposes,” Will, 491 U.S. at 70, 109 S.Ct. at 2312 (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 690 n. 54, 98 S.Ct. at 2035 n. 54), and limited its own holding to “States or governmental entities that are considered to be ‘arms of the State’ for Eleventh Amendment purposes.” Id. (citing to Mt. Healthy, 429 U.S. at 280, 97 S.Ct. at 572-73). Monell held that “person” applies to “bodies politic and corporate” notwithstanding state Eleventh Amendment protection. 436 U.S. at 669, 98 S.Ct. at 2024-25; see also Will, 491 U.S. at 77, 109 S.Ct. at 2315-16 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (stating that in a “case brought in state court, the Eleventh Amendment can *102hardly be ‘a consideration,’ ... in a suit to which it does not apply”). If an entity is a “person,” as Will noted, the state has waived any immunity it might otherwise have had under the Eleventh Amendment. Harmonizing Monell and Will, we see that if an entity is a local governing body with specific discretionary powers and duties, it is not a true “arm of the state” and is not entitled to the state’s Eleventh Amendment protections.
1. Martinez did not consider whether a local hoard is a “person” under § 1983. In a case based upon a school board’s alleged violation of an employee’s First Amendment rights, the Tenth Circuit held that in New Mexico a local board of education is an “arm of the state” for Eleventh Amendment immunity purposes, and that the federal trial court correctly dismissed the board and its members sued in their official capacities from liability under the § 1983 suit. Martinez, 748 F.2d at 1396. The court did not determine if a local board was a “person” under Monell. Martinez cited to Article XII, Section 6 of the New Mexico Constitution as support for its finding that the State Board of Education has pervasive control of all local boards. That Article provides that the State Board has “control, management and direction of all public schools, pursuant to authority and powers provided by law.” N.M. Const, art. XII, § 6. We have previously concluded, however, that Section 6 is not self-executing, Amador v. New Mexico State Bd. of Educ., 80 N.M. 336, 337, 455 P.2d 840, 841 (1969), and the State Board’s control is limited to its statutory powers enumerated under NMSA 1978, Sections 22-2-1 and 22-2-2 (Repl.Pamp.1993). The Legislature has given local boards exclusive power over employment and discharge of school employees. Section 22-5-4(D). Thus, the State Board does not have even supervisory control in that area. See Bourne v. Board of Educ., 46 N.M. 310, 315, 128 P.2d 733, 736 (1942).
Under the second prong of Mt. Healthy, the Martinez court also found that the State Board fully controls the fiscal-budgetary matters of all schools, that the taxing method for the schools is statewide, and that the funds from the state are applied on a formula to equalize funding. Martinez, 748 F.2d at 1396. Because its focus was on the Eleventh Amendment, the court did not consider whether the state may have waived immunity by also giving its local school boards specific duties and powers such that they are local governing bodies. See Will, 491 U.S. at 68-69 n. 7, 109 S.Ct. at 2310-11 n. 7. The Tenth Circuit failed to consider the Monell principle that there is no “basis for concluding that the Eleventh Amendment is a bar to municipal [and by implication, local school board] liability,” see 436 U.S. at 690 n. 54, 98 S.Ct. at 2035 n. 54.
The Supreme Court in Howlett, 496 U.S. at 375, 110 S.Ct. at 2442, concluded that any decision holding that “governmental entities subject to § 1983 liability enjoy an immunity over and above those already provided in § 1983” would violate federal law. Id. at 375, 110 S.Ct. at 2442. It further stated that since the Supreme Court “has held that municipal corporations and similar governmental entities are ‘persons’ ... a state court entertaining a § 1983 action must adhere to that interpretation.” Id. at 376, 110 S.Ct. at 2443 (citing Monell, Will, and Mt. Healthy). A court need not re-examine whether a particular local school board is a “person” each time a different school district is sued unless there is a real question under state law of whether local school boards are political subdivisions. In California, for example, local boards are indivisible agencies of the state. Thus, in Belanger v. Madera Unified School District, 963 F.2d 248, 251 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 919, 113 S.Ct. 1280, 122 L.Ed.2d 674 (1993), the court held that local California school boards were “arms of the state.” It based this holding upon three factors: first, any judgment against a school district would be satisfied out of state funds; second, under California law, school districts are state agencies; and third, school districts perform central government functions. Id. In California, the state government even dictates when a student may be expelled. Id. at 253.
The Howlett Court stated that “by including municipalities within the class of ‘persons’ *103subject to liability for violations of the Federal Constitution and laws, Congress ... abolished whatever vestige of the State’s sovereign immunity the municipality possessed.” Howlett, 496 U.S. at 376, 110 S.Ct. at 2443 (quoting Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 647-48, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 1413, 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980)). While Howlett focused on state sovereign immunity rather than Eleventh Amendment immunity, the implication of that statement is that Eleventh Amendment immunity also does not apply to a political subdivision in a § 1983 action. See Bolden v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth., 953 F.2d 807, 813 (3d Cir.1991) (en banc) (stating that “political subdivisions are not ‘State[s]’ under the Eleventh Amendment”), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 943, 112 S.Ct. 2281, 119 L.Ed.2d 206 (1992).
2. Martinez did not consider all of the Mt. Healthy factors. The Martinez court failed to fully consider some key aspects regarding a local school board’s autonomy and also did not take all of the Mt. Healthy factors into consideration. As mentioned above, there are three factors to consider under Mt. Healthy: 1) what the state law calls the entity; 2) whether the entity has political and financial autonomy; and 3) whether the entity operates like a political subdivision.
a. Local school boards are statutorily defined as “local public bodies. ” The Martinez court did not examine the first factor or acknowledge that in New Mexico, the term “state” or “state agency” is defined for purposes of governmental immunity as “the state of New Mexico or any of its branches, agencies, departments, boards, instrumentalities or institutions,” NMSA 1978, § 41-4-3(G) (Repl.Pamp.1989), while a “local public body” is defined as “all political subdivisions of the state and their agencies, instrumentalities and institutions____” Section 41-4-3(C). Therefore, while the State School Board is a state agency, a local school board is a “local public body.” This factor is crucial because, as stated above, in Will the Court acknowledged that when a state imposes a specific duty on a political subdivision, the state implicitly revokes immunity for suits involving that duty. 491 U.S. at 68-69 n. 7, 109 S.Ct. at 2310-11 n. 7. Further, under the New Mexico Constitution, a local school district is not designated as a state educational institution. See N.M. Const, art. XII, § 11. Under the first Mt. Healthy factor, our local school boards are local governing bodies, not “arms of the state.”
b. Local school boards have significant political and financial autonomy. New Mexico local school boards have been given several exclusive powers with which to carry out their duty to locally “supervise and control all public schools within the school district and all property belonging to or in the possession of the school district.” Section 22-5-4(A). For example, local boards may “contract, lease, purchase and sell for the school district,” Section 22-5-4(G); and may “issue general obligation bonds of the school district,” Section 22-5-4(K).
“A central concern in assessing the financial autonomy factor is whether an entity has the power to levy taxes and issue bonds, in order that a judgment may be payed without resort to the general revenues of the state.” Board of Trustees v. Landry, 638 N.E.2d 1261, 1264 (Ind.Ct.App.1994). The fact that our local school boards may issue bonds weighs heavily in favor of their autonomy and against their characterization as “arms of the state.”
The Martinez court found that the State Board had pervasive financial control over all school districts because the Public School Finance Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 22-8-1 to -42 (Repl.Pamp.1993), provides that the State Board conduct budget-making with the local board. 748 F.2d at 1395. The court did not consider, however, that the local board determines priorities for spending and has discretion in spending funds generated under the Act as long as special needs programs are met. Section 22-8-17.
Critically, we note that under Section 22-19-16, no obligation issued by a local school board may be charged against or become a *104debt of the state or any of its political subdivisions. A local school board may also “adopt regulations pertaining to the administration of all [its] powers or duties.” Section 22-5-4(0). Although the Martinez court opined that the state has “pervasive” control, management, and direction of public schools, this control is only in the form of guidance by regulation, not by actual physical control of the entities. As the Tenth Circuit stated, even broad supervisory power is “still ‘supervisory’ and not ‘control.’ ” Unified Sch. Dist. No. 480 v. Epperson, 583 F.2d 1118, 1123 (10th Cir.1978).
Finally, the New Mexico Constitution provides that judgments rendered against a city, county, school district, or board of education “shall be paid out of the proceeds of a tax levy as other liabilities ... and when so collected shall be paid by the county treasurer to the judgment creditor.” N.M. Const, art. VIII, § 7. The Martinez court found NMSA 1978, Section 7-37-7(0(3) (Repl. Pamp.1993) to be the implementing statute for that provision, and stated that the provision was limited to judgments arising from tort or contract actions. Martinez, 748 F.2d at 1395. The court determined that constitutional violations were not torts; thus a judgment arising from such a violation would not be paid out of such levies. Id. The court then concluded that because federal district courts had previously held that .judgments for § 1983 actions would be paid out of state funds, the boards were “arms of the state.” We agree with the Tenth Circuit’s later statement that “[t]he proper analysis focuses on whether the damage award would be paid directly by the state treasury, rather than indirectly through commingled state and local funds or state indemnification provisions.” Ambus v. Granite Bd. of Educ., 995 F.2d 992, 996 (10th Cir.1993) (en banc).
Section 41-4-20 of the Tort Claims Act requires that all “local public bod[ies] ... purchase insurance, establish reserves or provide a combination of insurance and reserves or provide insurance in any other manner authorized by law” for liabilities not covered under the Act. NMSA 1978, § 41-4-20(A)(l)(e) (Repl.Pamp.1989). The Martinez court noted this statute, Martinez, 748 F.2d at 1395, but focused only on the “reserves” aspect of that requirement. It concluded that if a board elected to establish reserves, the reserves would be funded with state funds. Once funding has been allocated to a local district, however, it becomes local district reserves and no longer is part of the state treasury.
We do not answer the question of whether Section 7-37-7(0(3) applies to judgments arising from constitutional violations, but we note that whether it does or does not, Section 41-4-20 ensures that such liabilities will not be imposed upon the state treasury. See Garcia v. Board of Educ., 777 F.2d 1403, 1416 (10th Cir.1985) (McKay, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part) (explaining why Section 7-37-7(0(3) should be interpreted to include civil rights judgments). Section 7 of Article VIII, Section 7-37-7(0(3), and Section 41-4-20 show that, generally, school district liabilities are not paid directly from state funds. Our local boards, like those described in Mt. Healthy, Epperson, and Landry, maintain significant managerial and fiscal autonomy.
c. Local school boards operate like other political subdivisions. We further believe that in an “arm of the state” analysis for purposes of a § 1983 action, the courts are to analyze the general nature of an entity. Local board members are elected by popular vote from residents of the counties or precincts that form the particular district. Section 22-5-1. The boards may “acquire and dispose of property,” Section 22-5-4(H); and also “have the capacity to sue and be sued,” Section 22-5-4(1). We recognize that the sale of school district property valued at more than $5000 must be approved by the state department of public education, but we also note that other local public bodies (except for municipalities) must also obtain approval for the sale of their property from the local government division of the department of finance and administration. NMSA 1978, § 13-6-2 (Repl.Pamp.1992). Significantly, *105the legislature defined “school districts” for the purposes of this statute as “those political subdivisions of the state established for the administration of public schools.” Section 13-6-4(D) (emphasis added). Obviously, the requirement for state approval does not make a political subdivision an “arm of the state.” School districts operate independently, like counties and municipalities.
Our analysis of the three Mt. Healthy factors leads to the conclusion that New Mexico school districts and their boards are political subdivisions and not “arms of the state.” See Garcia, 777 F.2d at 1411-17 (McKay, J., dissenting) (stating that an application of all of the Mt. Healthy factors leads to the conclusion that New Mexico school boards are not “arms of the state”); cf. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 667 n. 12, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1358 n. 12, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974) (stating that a county does not occupy the same Eleventh Amendment position as a state notwithstanding that a county’s actions are state action for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment); Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 718-20, 93 S.Ct. 1785, 1800-01, 36 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973) (holding that a county was a “citizen” for jurisdictional purposes because it was given corporate powers; was a body corporate and politic; could sue and be sued; was deemed to be a local public entity in contrast to the state and its agencies; could sell, hold, or deal in property; and could issue bonds that created no obligation on the part of the state); Landry, 638 N.E.2d at 1264-66 (determining that Indiana school districts are not “arms of the state” by using a similar analysis); Elder v. Highlands County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 497 So.2d 1334, 1336 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986) (stating that a county’s “effort to remove itself from Monell and the reach of section 1983 by claiming status as a subdivision of the state [and protection under Eleventh Amendment immunity] originates in a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court’s comment that ‘[o]ur holding today is, of course, limited to local government units which are not considered part of the State for Eleventh Amendment purposes,’” and holding that a county was not protected by the Eleventh Amendment).
S. Martinez is inconsistent with the majority of school board cases. The overwhelming majority of courts have held that local school boards are not “arms of the states.” See Monell, 436 U.S. at 663 & n. 5, 98 S.Ct. at 2021-22 & n. 5 (citing a dozen Supreme Court cases brought under § 1983 in which the principal defendant was a school board); Ambus, 995 F.2d at 994-95 (listing ten cases in which courts have found no Eleventh Amendment immunity); Landry, 638 N.E.2d at 1266 (holding that Indiana school districts are subject to suit under § 1983). It seems that the Martinez opinion is an anomaly to Tenth Circuit application of the Mt. Healthy factors. In the Ambus opinion, the court noted that it had denied immunity to school districts in Kansas and Wyoming, assuming that Mt. Healthy had resolved the issue in the Wyoming case. 995 F.2d at 994: The Ambus court also found no Eleventh Amendment immunity for a local school board in Utah. Id. at 997. Utah, like New Mexico, characterizes its local boards as political subdivisions, id. at 995; grants its State Board governing authority but not local authority, id. at 996; funds its school districts with public funds, id.; and requires its boards to obtain insurance against adverse judgments, id. at 997. Because New Mexico’s local school boards are so similar to those of Utah, Kansas, and Wyoming, we are hard-pressed to understand the different result arrived at in Martinez. We conclude that Martinez reached its conclusion because it neither recognized the Monell presumption nor considered all of the Mt. Healthy factors, and we decline to regard that case as persuasive authority.
We conclude that Monell requires that local school boards be considered “persons” for the purposes of § 1983 unless they are in fact state agencies or “arms,” and that under Howlett, a § 1983 action against a political subdivision of the state is not barred in New Mexico by any statutory governmental immunity. We find, under Mt. Healthy, that our local school boards are local governing bodies with political and fiscal autonomy. Our local school boards are indeed “persons” *106subject to liability under § 1983. We therefore hold that the trial court improperly dismissed Daddow’s § 1983 action. This holding, however, does not mean that Daddow should have prevailed on the merits of her action.
II. Daddow received due process. The trial court alternatively ruled that if Daddow could have brought a § 1983 action against the District alleging failure to extend due process, that claim would fail on its merits because the District fired Daddow for just cause (deficient job performance) and in a manner conforming with due process. The unchallenged findings and an examination of the record support this conclusion. See Wood v. Citizens Standard Life Ins. Co., 82 N.M. 271, 273, 480 P.2d 161, 163 (1971) (findings not directly attacked are binding on this Court); Entertainment Corp. of Am. v. Halberg, 69 N.M. 104, 105, 364 P.2d 358, 359 (1961) (findings supported by substantial evidence will be sustained on appeal). It is uncontroverted that the District offered Daddow a post-termination hearing, at which she declined to appear. The trial court also found that Daddow had opportunities prior to termination to address the allegations against her. When an employee who may be terminated only for just cause is fired, due process requires “oral or written notice of the charges against [the employee], an explanation of the employer’s evidence, and an opportunity to present [the employee’s] side of the story.” Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 1495, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985). Daddow received due process.
III. The trial court properly interpreted NMSA1978, Section 22-5-¿.(D) (Cum. Supp.1992). At the meeting in which Daddow was terminated, the Carlsbad superintendent of schools recommended that Daddow’s employment be continued instead of terminated. Section 22-5-4(D), which governs termination of school employees, states, in part:
A local school board shall have the following powers or duties: ... (D) subject to the provisions of law, approve or disapprove the ... termination or discharge of all employees ... upon a recommendation of ... termination or discharge by the superintendent of schools. Any ... termination or discharge without the prior recommendation of the superintendent is void
Daddow interprets this statute to mean that a school board may not terminate an employee unless the superintendent positively recommends that termination. The Board, however, is the only entity with the power to terminate employees. Gallegos v. Los Lunas Consol. Sch. Bd. of Educ., 95 N.M. 160, 161-62, 619 P.2d 836, 837-38 (Ct.App.), cert. quashed, 95 N.M. 299 (1980). “Recommendation refers to an action which is advisory in nature rather than one having any binding effect.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1272 (6th ed. 1990). We agree with the District that the purpose of this statute is to require input of a superintendent before a personnel decision is made, and not to render a board powerless to act except in accordance with the recommendation of its superintendent. Had the Legislature intended to give a superintendent the absolute power over hiring and termination, it could easily have required the superintendent’s “approval” of the board’s actions instead of requiring only a “recommendation”.
IV. The trial court correctly awarded costs to the District as the prevailing party. Under SCRA 1986, 1-054(E) (Repl.Pamp.1992), “costs shall be allowed as a matter of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.” A ruling on costs will not be disturbed absent a finding of abuse of discretion. Pioneer Sav. & Trust v. Rue, 109 N.M. 228, 231, 784 P.2d 415, 418 (1989). Although the trial court characterized its judgment as a dismissal of Daddow’s complaint, because the dismissal was made after a full trial on the merits, it is treated as a judgment on the merits. Herbert v. Sandia Savs. & Loan Ass’n, 82 N.M. 656, 657, 486 P.2d 65, 66 (1971). The “prevailing party” is the one that wins the suit. South v. Lucero, 92 N.M. 798, 804, 595 P.2d *107768, 774 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 92 N.M. 675, 598 P.2d 1078 (1979). The District won the suit and therefore was entitled to costs; Daddow presented no cogent argument explaining how the court abused its discretion in awarding them.
V. The District is not entitled to reimbursement from an employee of federal monies lost due to the negligence of that employee. The District alleges error in the trial court’s ruling that it could not recover damages resulting from Daddow’s failure to comply with federal regulations. The court found that although Daddow was negligent in her job performance, the District was not entitled to recover that loss unless it could show that Daddow directly benefitted from her failures. The District presented its claim in terms of common-law negligence, but we see it as a request to hold an employee liable for indemnification.
It is the general rule that an employer may bring an action for negligence against its employee for “whatever ... damage is occasioned by the employee’s failure to exercise reasonable care and diligence.” See 53 Am.Jur.2d Master & Servant § 108 (1970). We note, however, that the legislature has statutorily altered this rule for government employees. NMSA 1978, Section 41-4-17 (Repl.Pamp.1989) provides that “a governmental entity ... shall have no right to contribution, indemnity or subrogation against a public employee unless the public employee has been found to have acted fraudulently or with actual intentional malice causing the ... property damage ... resulting in the settlement or final judgment.” While this provision may not directly address the District’s claim, it does provide us with guidance in reviewing the trial court’s decision. In light of the legislature’s reluctance to require indemnity in the absence of fraud or intentional malice, and given the facts of this case, we find that the trial court properly exercised its equitable powers to bar recovery on a finding of only negligent behavior.
Daddow presented evidence that Daddow’s supervisor, the Superintendent, believed that the losses the District suffered were not entirely Daddow’s fault, and that she should not be terminated. Other evidence showed that Daddow was more than likely inept. An “employer’s remedy is to fire the employee for ineptness or lack of diligence.” Fried v. Aftec, Inc., 246 N.J.Super. 245, 587 A.2d 290, 297 (Ct.App.Div.1991). Further, Daddow showed that the District was aware that she either was not capable of properly complying with the federal regulations or did not fully understand the process in 1988. She also demonstrated that the District reprimanded her for her failures, yet took no steps to train her or to ensure compliance. “An employer cannot give an employee negative fitness reports, retain the employee, and later sue [that employee] for failure to perform the agreement or for overall negligence or carelessness, allegedly causing the company financial losses.” Id. Finally, there are special considerations when the employer is a public employer. Cf. United States v. Gilman, 347 U.S. 507, 509-13, 74 S.Ct. 695, 696-98, 98 L.Ed. 898 (1954) (holding that the federal government is not entitled to assert a common-law right of indemnity against an employee whose negligence has made the employer liable). We affirm the decision of the trial court.
VI. Conclusion. We reverse the decision of the trial court on the question of whether a § 1983 action for money damages may be brought against a local school board and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
RANSOM, J., concurs.
FROST, J., specially concurs and files opinion in which BACA, C.J., joins.
MINZNER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.