*1 444 of the reasons that final was one
children until not be determined custody would BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellee, Edward following oral decision In its later time. 25, 1976, the trial v. hearing August parental responsi- of a lack of spoke court MINOT PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT and stated its conclu- parties bility in both 1, Corporation, Public NO. were left with the that if the children sion Defendant-Appellant. father, they likely would be more to be No. 9287. Civ. becoming charge supported without say cannot that such a public. We Supreme Court North Dakota. was not also in best interests of concern From the court’s oral state- the children. May 1977. we learn that court was con- ments negative upon effects about cerned in a home where their living
children and the man home
mother say We cannot that this was not a
married. determining custody. concern in
proper children, farm, living on the proximity grandparents. to their
be in close grandmother shows that the
The record in the care of the children.
willing to assist DeForest, v. 919
In DeForest N.W.2d
(N.D.1975), custody where the award of no reference to the basis of the
contained decision, we held that the trial
trial court’s findings of fact were inadequate
court’s regard question of the best child. In the instant case
interests record, reference in the ample
we have if findings, of the
not in the written basis of court’s decision. In DeForest we said: 52(a) of Rule is ‘to purpose
“The enable court to obtain appellate a correct
understanding of the factual issues deter-
mined the trial court as a basis for the judgment of law and it en-
conclusions
tered thereon.’ Ellendale Farmers Union Davis, v.
Cooperative Ass’n N.W.2d (N.D.1974).” Id. at 924.
As the record before us discloses the concern for best interests
court’s awarding their to their custody
children in
father, finding clearly No. 4 is not errone
ous. opinion,
For the reasons stated in the appealed from is affirmed. Costs party. to either not be assessed
shall
VOGEL, SAND, and PED- PAULSON
ERSON, JJ., concur. *2 appealed from is based
upon following fact, findings of conclu- law, order for judgment: sions “FINDINGS OF FACT “I.
“That the Plaintiff was a teacher in the Defendant school district for the 1975- year school and continued to teach through past the conclusion of the year.
“II. “That the Minot school board notified Plaintiff it the intended to non-re- his for year new contract the 1976-1977. “HI. permitted law,
“That as by the Plain- requested meeting tiff with the school for the purpose of discussing and acting upon contemplated the non-renew- of his contract and hearing al this was day on 1st of April, held the 1976. McGee, Hankla, Wheeler, Ltd., Backes & “IV.
Minot, defendant-appellant; for argued “That the basis the non-renewal of Hankla, B. rid Minot. Waif Plaintiff’s the contract as stated the substantially is as follows: Bismarck, Chapman, plain- J. Daniel 2,1976, “On March Mr. Baker left his tiff-appellee. 7:45-8:40 A.M. Math class 20 minutes early to return to home to shovel snow PAULSON, Justice. off his sidewalk. There had been a appeal judgment This is an from the during 12-inch snowfall night. the He County, court of Ward dated spent hour, the district most of next which 26, 1976, August which held that normally would his preparation hour defendant, school, Public clearing Minot School District his sidewalk. He Board], to com- failed returned the school 9:30 No. at A.M. [hereinafter the law regarding nonrenewal of a When he left ply school 20 minutes contract before the class teacher’s the Board acted would have normally sign unreasonably ended he did not out notify and abused its he principal that was given by leaving because the reasons the build- ing. A handbook which such Board for nonrenewal were suffi- distributed not provides among all teachers other the nonrenewal cient things: plaintiff, contract of Edward “ Mr. The district Baker ‘SUPERVISION [hereinafter Baker]. found that the Board had failed to court ‘It understood must be that students maximum consideration to basic fair- expected are to be under supervision at decency Board had ness ALL TIMES. teacher’s absence faith. a new acted Because supervision from his area does not yet had not year commenced relieve the responsibility. him of Ab- position for which Mr. Baker proven may because sence as neglect & the open was Board’s school qualified liability then falls the teacher. The the district court ordered that system, teacher should leave the area in offer Baker. supervising. which he is Remain with school, together with the assistant princi- If for some all times. class your class, pal departmental in- chairman of your leave must you reason mathematics, appeared before the board and a principal office form the Plaintiff. praised you. Of- be found will replacement a class- part of considered “VII. fices are not area. room witnesses “That the stated that Plain- “ satisfactory, classroom work was he tiff’s ‘EMERGENCY an enthusiastic teacher who created urgent reason has an ‘If a among students, his he enthusiasm was a the school building during leave good attitude, teacher with a dedicated be noti- office must principal’s day, the along very students, well got he with his fol- sign-out procedure fied, disciplinary problems he had few with his lowed.’ time, .class, always on he he was acknowledged to the Baker “Mister *4 extremely cooperative, he was ex- very of the above aware he was board good algebra he pressive, was teacher followed that he had and states rules faithfully depart- he attended and that years. He has for several closely them meetings of the Math teachers. mental Minot schools Public a teacher been “VIII. acknowledges that it He years. for seven “That the school board followed thing apolo- to do and he wrong was outlined law in procedure arriving at stating board that it the school to gized not to renew the decision Plaintiff’s its again. He said he had happen not contract. neglected to early leave to decided “IX. home to get his haste to out in sign of the board the decision was “That large accumula- the sidewalk shovel not to renew the Plaintiff’s three two He stated that he had snow. tion of contract. he of nine students and that class small “X. assignment a new them given had with discussing assignment finds that as matter after “That the Court fairness, asking they any them if a teacher who has been a had of them ‘Well, said, not, dedicated, cooperative enthusiastic and if there are he questions, system for in in the school seven you people stay like I would then the maximum considera- deserves going years and I am home the classroom decency set tion to basic fairness Mister Baker informed snow.’ shovel the 1975 Amend- 1 of one forth Subsection working class was that the board 15-47-38 when consider- lessons, ment to Section that the class difficult the less of a contract for such a teacher ing whether quarters, him for three under had been be renewed. should would ac- that the students he felt remaining in the responsibility of “XI. cept the for 20 min- supervision without classroom finds that undue em- “That the Court utes. given by one or two members phasis fact upon the that since the of the board
“V. had recommended the re- administrators a teacher in the Plaintiff was “That the newal, go along should the board past Minot for the seven schools of public their recommendation. has been his attendance record “XII. very good. finds, according to “That the Court “VI. law, is a decision the board must that this statements derogatory no “That the law and the evidence. under make Plaintiff, incident except the “XIII. hereinbefore, during detailed finds that the school “That the Court testimony before
the course unreasonably, arbitrarily, fact, acted principal and abused its and that 2. The district court erred in overriding given by the school board reasons discretionary action of the Board not sufficient non-renewal. non-renewing teaching Baker’s
“XIV. contract. “That the Court finds that the 3. The district court erred in employing not improper board did maximum considera- remedy when it required fairness and decency tion basic and did Board to offer a teaching position Baker, serious consideration when, to the dam- to Mr. if relief were to age that can result to the granted, it should have been in the reputation of stature and a teacher in form of compensatory damages. such a circumstance. I.
“XV. “That the Court further finds that the Our review of the Board’s first conten- school board did not act in good tion, faith. that the district court clearly erred in determining that the
“From the above and Board acted foregoing Find- frivolous- Fact, ly ings deciding Court makes the follow- to renew contract, Mr. Baker’s ing Conclusions of Law: is restricted by application of 52(a) Rule of the North “CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Rules of Dakota Civil Procedure. The find- “I. ings of the district court will not be dis- “That the school board in the instant unless “clearly turbed erroneous”. comply case failed to with the law re- *5 garding non-renewal of 1 and 5 teachers in that Subsections of 15-47-38 of the unreasonably, Code, it acted arbitrarily, Century amended, North Dakota and as its provide: abused giv- reasons en the school board were not sufficient legislative “1. The assembly, recogni- in justify the non-renewal. good tion of the value of employer- employee relationships
“II. between boards of school this state and the “That the school board failed to employed teachers sys- school maximum consideration to basic fairness tems, the need to recruit and retain decency and and did not act in faith. qualified state, teachers in this and “III. recognition in further of the many “That the judg- Plaintiff is entitled to in intangibles evaluating per- ment the Defendant. of formance individual members of “IV. teaching profession, urges that in “That view of the fact each school board of this state en- year yet school has not commenced and through formally sure adopted poli- that there position open is a in the De- cies, that channels of communication district, fendant school it is the Order of board, exist between the supervisory Court that Defendant school dis- personnel, and teachers employed must trict offer this in the Math system. within its school In the department to the Plaintiff. very sensitive area of discharge of “V. prior teachers cause to the expi- “That the Plaintiff have his costs and ration of the term of the teachers’ disbursements herein.” contracts, or in decisions not to re- seeks reversal the judgment of teachers, new the contracts of school of the district court for three reasons: boards shall serious considera- clearly 1.The district court erred in de- tion to the damage that can result to termining that the Board acted frivo- stature and reputa- lously deciding or in teachers, tion of such which stature non-renew Baker’s contract. reputation acquired only of substantial expenditure choosing. own In addition to after board obtaining the money members, in clerk, time school district for such necessary qualifications superintendent, school practicing in profession may be represented by two teaching; and that profession representatives other of its own rela- of school boards decisions in all choosing at such executive session. discharge refusal to renew ting Upon hearing, such if the teacher so contracts, all actions of the board granted he shall be requests, a con digni- with consideration taken of not exceed tinuance seven the maximum considera- giving ty. cause days. No of action for libel or decency. fairness tion to basic shall lie slander for any statement any school dis school board of !5. The either expressed orally or writing in renewing a contemplating not trict any executive session contract, in provided teacher’s board held for purposes 15-47-27, such notify shall section for in this provided section. The contem writing in of such not to renew a determination con later than nonrenewal no plated if made in good tract faith shall be shall be Such teacher April first. binding parties. on all final Fi time, writing informed notice of nal the determination not April later than shall which to renew contract shall be seventh, place special writing by April provid fifteenth as meeting purpose for the in section 15-47-27.” ed con discussing acting upon 15-47-38, N.D.C.C.,was Section substan- teach templated nonrenewal. Such tially Legislature amended writing be informed shall also er to our subsequent decision in Dathe v. Wild- nonrenewal. for such of the reasons District No. rose School N.W.2d 781 sufficient reasons shall be Such Dathe, In (N.D.1974). supra, this court not- action of contemplated 15-47-38, N.D.C.C., as it then ed not be frivolous and shall the board require did not that the reasons provided, *6 related to arbitrary but shall be or the nonrenewal a teaching of given competence, qualifica or ability, the the justify by action taken a school contract teacher, or the teacher as tions of However, this court did assert in board. as such of the district the necessities the reasons for such that nonrenewal Dathe a reduction calling funds lack of to the ability, competence, to relate or had meet At the the staff. teacher, teacher, of a as a and qualifications may the board the ing with not be teaching, irrelevant should may as such evidence produce then capable reasons should be of the that necessary to the reasons evaluate restriction, Beyond being articulated. such nonrenewal, party either that court noted the had this school board or witnesses to confirm produce may range to terminate a employ- teacher’s free The school the reasons. refute following the by statutory nonrenew- ment explanation shall procedure. al at such discuss and confirm shall of the comparison provisions former of for the contem meeting its reasons present its provisions re- 15—47-38 § of the contract. nonrenewal plated following (1) in sub- differences: veals executive meeting shall be an The 15-47-38, Legisla- 1 of the 1975 § section both the of the board unless session changed the of the precatory nature ture the teacher shall board and school consider school boards to other open it shall be admonition agree that stature of reputation professional The teacher public. or persons (2) into a meeting mandatory requirement; represented at such teachers may be of of his 15-47-38 was amended to representatives § subsection by any two the reasons for requirement competence, qualifications add or of a teacher in had to be furnished to a teacher nonrenewal as a capacity his teacher. (3) in subsection 5 of writing; 15-47- § findings The of the district court are that the requirement added rea- 38 the adequately supported by the record in the to justify be sufficient the con- sons “shall instant case. The transcript proceed of the board”; (4) in sub- action templated ings before the any Board is of testi void 15-47-38, requirement 5 of section § mony or to show that the Board that the reasons should not be evidence was added given serious had consideration to the ef should arbitrary, or but be related frivolous fect the nonrenewal of Mr. Baker’s teaching competence, qualifications or ability, upon professional contract would have his teacher, as a or the necessi- the teacher of reputation; appears stature it also the school district such as lack of ties of transcript one, two, from the if not of funds; (5) in 5 of 15—47— subsection the Board members based their decision on requirement added that the school recommendation, administrator’s required to furnish an ex- school board upon rather than the evidence before the and confirm and discuss the rea- planation Board, law; required as is finally, it contemplated for its nonrenewal of a sons appears that the reaction of the Board to teaching contract. We note that Mr. Baker’s commission of a breach of the new changes require law that a rules contained in the Teachers’ Handbook serious consideration to (1975-1976) of the High Minot School as effect the board’s action will have upon reported to the Board—when reputation compared stature and teacher, requiring dedicated, that such with his seven action be taken enthusi astic, cooperative with maximum consideration to basic fair- teaching in the Minot decency. We disagree system ness with the as the public record disclos characterization of the 1975amend- unduly Board’s es—is harsh. We therefore affirm 15-47-38, N.D.C.C., as merely ments findings district court that the Dathe, of our decision in supra. codification unreasonably Board acted and abused its and that the rea Board asserts that because the given by the sons Board were not sufficient upon actions based Board’s Bak the nonrenewal of Mr. Baker’s capacity teacher, in his as a er’s conduct teaching contract. grounded was not upon action frivo arbitrary reasons. lous Such an inter would allow contract
pretation nonrenewal II. upon any complaint grounded upon based The Board contends that the district taken a teacher in capacity actions his court erred in overriding the discretionary teacher, regardless complaint’s sig the Board in act of not renewing Mr. Bak- *7 find interpretation nificance. We to er’s contract. The Board asserts contrary Legislature’s to our intent. be the exercise of its discretion is not Legislature 47-38, the When amended § 15— subject courts, to review the except in a N.D.C.C., changed “pious hopes it the gross of clear or case abuse of discretion, contained therein into a exhortations” stat law, fraud, clear violation of faith, bad utory mandate that a school board transcending of the Board’s legal au- to damage consideration that can serious thority. disagree. We repu stature and result Legislative The 1975 consequence of a teacher as a of a Assembly, by tation 15-47-38, to its amendments N.D.C.C., decision not renew a teacher’s of § board’s Further, placed upon contract. amended statute re has courts of this State the quires responsibility that the reasons for nonrenewal of a of reviewing the decision of a justify teacher’s contract be sufficient to school board when an appeal is taken a and shall not be nonrenewal frivolous or teacher whose contract has not been re arbitrary, and shall be related to the ability, 15-47-38, newed. N.D.C.C., Section as
451
amended,
proce- by
Legislature
more than mere
our
requires
15-47-38(1),
N.D.
§
C.C.,
A school board’s decision
compliance.
requires
wherein it
school boards to
dural
“
to renew a teacher’s con-
or not
renew
to
.
.
.
serious consideration to
act,
longer purely discretionary
a
is no
tract
damage
profes-
that can result to the
subject to
proce-
an act
but,
is
rather
reputation
stature and
sional
of such
requirements
set
and substantive
dural
teachers, which stature
reputation
15-47-38,
N.D.C.C.
§
forth
only
acquired
after the expenditure
time and money
of substantial
in obtain-
case, the district court
the instant
In
ing
necessary qualifications
for such
the action of the Board
reviewed
properly
profession
and in
of practicing the
if its action conformed to
to determine
profession
teaching; and that
in all
requirements
and substantive
procedural
of school
relating
decisions
boards
to dis-
15-47-38, N.D.C.C., and, as
forth in
set
charge or refusal
contracts,
to renew
all
herein,
I
the district court
in Part
indicated
actions of
board be taken with consid-
non-
found the Board’s reasons for
properly
dignity, giving
eration and
the maximum
insufficient
to be
renewal
to basic
consideration
fairness and decen-
Board.
action
cy.”
precedent
lack of
is no
equita-
obstacle to
III.
relief which may
appropriate
ble
in a
Finally, the Board contends that
factual
particular
setting.
employing
improp
court erred
district
case,
In the instant
to limit Mr. Bak
required
it
the Board to
remedy when
er
remedy to a recovery
er’s
of compensatory
Baker,
teaching position to Mr.
a
offer
damages (which are difficult to ascertain
granted, it
argues that if relief were to be
because
indefinite duration of a
compensa
in the form of
have been
should
teaching contract and because it is difficult
damages. The Board’s contention is
tory
the value
appraise
of lost stature and
personal
on the rule that
service
premised
would thwart the
reputation)
protection of
en
generally
specifically
contracts are
very
our Legislature
interests
has
32-04-12,
affirmatively. Section
forceable
sought
protect.
recognize
We
that there
N.D.C.C.;
Fingal
Henley v.
Public School
instances in
will be
which the traditional
54,
106,
(N.D.
219 N.W.2d
District No.
supporting
rationale
the refusal of courts of
1974);
p.
Contracts
11 Williston
equity
personal
to enforce
service contracts
1968).
(3d
ed.
exist,
forcing
and the
will
of a school board
But,
Henley,
supra,
we held
to rehire a teacher or to renew the contract
in cases where
N.W.2d
teacher
best
contract of a teacher has not
continuing
district;
but,
interests of a
terminated, a
legally
writ of manda
been
case,
year
where
instant
has not
in cases where fac
be available
mus would
commenced,
yet
position
where
is open
In the instant
permit.
circumstances
tual
system
the school board’s school
within
case,
of Mr. Baker’s con
the nonrenewal
wrongfully
which
dismissed
legally
and as
just
improper
tract was
qualified,
is
where the
school dis
“continuing
to terminate his
ineffective
large enough
one that is
trict
absorb
supra.
Henley,
the case in
as was
contract”
system
teacher into its
the dismissed
with
creating
disruptive situation,
Equity is not inflexible
where
out
equity
grant
showing
such a
is no
that friction
a court
there
exists
power of
be
*8
upon the factual
depends
wrongfully
situation
tween the
dismissed teacher
remedy
and
administrators,
need for a
in
remedy
wrongful
and the
his
where
involved
and
ly
good
case.
11 Williston on Con
dismissed teacher has a
particular
See
record as
tracts,
proper
is
supra
away
at 786.
shift
teacher—it
for the district court
§
require
rule is mandated in the
a school
the traditional
to
board to offer a
from
by
policy expressed
wrongfully
the social
dismissed teacher
case
instant
In
court
in which the district
deter-
Bank
Hamilton v.
Banking
State
in cases
Bd.,
(N.D.1976),
interests
236 N.W.2d
that it would be in the best
we
mines
court, however,
said that: “This
has indi-
wrongfully dismissed teacher
cated its reluctance to substitute its own
district.
judgment for that of qualified
in
experts
Although
judgment
we affirm the
matters entrusted to
agen-
administrative
rendered,
court at the time it was
district
And, Agnew
Hjelle,
cies.”
v.
216 N.W.2d
to
subsequent developments related
this
held,
(N.D.1974),
we
syllabus
3:
by
argument
counsel on oral
indicate
Court
review of the
“Our
appeal
facts on
impossible
judgment may
now be
that
district
from a
court
reviewing
order
an
cog-
in the instant
take
case. We
apply
to
order
administrative
is limited to deter-
stayed
judg-
that the trial court
nizance
whether there is
mining
substantial evi-
pending appeal and another teacher
ment
the record
support
dence in
to
the find-
position.
employed to fill the vacant
ings of fact of the
agen-
administrative
remand to the district court
We therefore
cy.”
changed
whether or not
cir-
to determine
Admittedly, the Minot School Board does
judgment inappro-
render such
cumstances
within the
not come
scope of the Adminis-
so,
to
alternative
apply
if
priate,
Practice
Agencies
trative
Act (Chapter 28-
damages.
remedy of
32, NDCC), such as the State Banking
in Bank of
Board
Hamilton and the State
ERICKSTAD,
J., and
C.
SAND
VO- Highway
Agnew.
Commissioner in
How-
JJ.,
GEL,
concur.
ever, Banking Board determinations and
Highway Commissioner determinations are
PEDERSON,
(dissenting).
Justice
made
specifically
appealable
statute,
Obviously,
competence
Baker
ability,
has
determinations,
while School Board
under
perform admirably
to
qualifications
15-47-38(5), NDCC, are
appealable
not
“ * * *
of a teacher.
If I
were elected
be a
tasks
good
but
if made in
faith shall
Minot,
at
of the school board
I
member
binding
parties.”
be final
on all
forgive
violating
vote to
him
for
opinion
majority
The
treats the
case
if
rule,
I would
do that also for violators
appeal and,
fact,
it were an
it
calls
an
ability, competence
quali-
less
who have
appéal.
complaint
filed by Baker
fications, and then I would ask that
injunction or,
an
prayed for
in the alterna-
distinguish
its rules so
rewrite
as to
tive,
damages
$20,000.00.
that,
violated,
rules
when
are con-
between
prove
Baker
did
the Board did
grounds for dismissal or nonrenewal
sidered
good
not act in
faith but in fact admitted
merely advisory.
those that are
the rule
that he violated
and that the rule
I
But
am not
elected Board member
rule.
was a
The trial court specifical-
my judgment has
to do with
nothing
ly found “that
school board
followed
I am not even a
at
case.
voter Minot
this
procedure
outlined
law arriving
at its
cannot even vote in the next election
so I
decision not
renew the Plaintiffs con-
Board members
I
with whom disa-
tract.” Baker seems
suggest
gree.
Board should have used other sanctions
against him. Other sanctions would have
appeal-
of school boards are not
Decisions
provided
to have been
for in the contract
but, even in cases that have come to
able
apparently
weren’t.
pursuant
Court where the review
this
making the administrative deter-
a statute
seeking
injunctive
In
remedy, Baker
appealable,
repeatedly
we
mination
have
knew
he needed
allege
that there
will
that courts
their
said
substitute
adequate remedy
was no
he did
law—and
that of
the administrator.
Quite obviously, he
so.
also knew that he
See,
28-32-21, NDCC,
example,
to the injunction
was not entitled
under
annotated
Chapters
NDCC,
cases
thereunder.
32-05
32-06,
either
so
*9
None
acknowl-
of the four Board members
which then
who
damages,
asked
he
remedy
were cross-examined. The
adequate
of an
testified
record
existence
edged the
why
not disclose
the fifth Board mem
does
law.
testify.
did not
How the determination
ber
misinterpretation
simply a
It is
“frivolous
arbitrary”
be labeled
can
has,
conclude,
majority
that
as the
record
testimony
me. The
beyond
not incredi
considera-
serious
failed
Board
any respect.
Tri-County
See
ble in
Electric
will have
nonrenewal
effect
tion
Elkin,
Inc.
Cooperative,
v.
basis reversed. judgment should be He voted witnesses. and other istrators tied two-to- the vote was after nonrenewal
two. that he testified lawyer, Berning,
(4) “against” “for” and considerations
weighed decision. arriving at his difficulty had nonrenewal.
He voted