Donaldson v. Bd. of Ed. of No. Wildwood

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, DONALDSON, v. BOARD MARY C. WILDWOOD, THE CITY OF OF EDUCATION OF NORTH COUNTY, MAY CAPE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Reargued February 20, June 1974 Decided Mr, John F. Callinan argued the cause for the appellant Callinan, & Perskie (Messrs. attorneys).

Mr. Edwin Bradway W. argued the cause for the respon dent. Jersey

Mr. P. Cook for the New Thomas cause argued Association, curiae. School Boards amicus Ruhlman, New Mr. Jr. cause Cassel B. argued the Association, curiae. Education amicus Jersey Winard, General, A. Attorney Mr. Theodore Assistant F. Hyland, William amicus curiae (Mr. the cause argued Shillman, As Mr. General, Stephen Attorney attorney; Golum, Mr. Gordon J. General, counsel; Attorney sistant General, brief). on the Deputy Attorney The of the Court was delivered opinion affirmed the dismissal J. Division Appellate Jacobs, had filed the State of the petition plaintiff 115 N. J. Super. of Commissioner Educatiоn. plaintiff’s application (59 the

We certification on granted been fully argued matter has and the (1971)) the the by parties and before counsel for us reargued and amici curiae. Mary O. Donaldson was the plaintiff employed by of Education of of City Board North Wild-

respondent wood January through from June as a teacher In Elementary Mace School. Margaret January North Superintendent she notified Wildwood of was her would Schools that contract not renewed for the year. why 1969-70 school She told and though reason or from she persistently sought Super- intendent, action, from confirmed his and she any pertinent unable to disclosure. Coun- has been obtain advised for it that the failure to re- apparently sel the board her from precluded new the contract plaintiff’s obtaining best “on matters it is to give and that tenure tenure reasons.” filed verified with the petition plaintiff

In due course the Education the action charging of State Commissioner arbitrary, board was capricious and the the Superintendent of unreasonable, and review seeking by the Commissioner J. under N. A. 18A :6-9. The moved to respondent dis miss the petition, argument on centering largely whether the plaintiff was entitled to a statement of the reason or rea sons for the contract, refusal to renew her was heard by the Acting Assistant Commissioner in the Division charge of Controversies and He Disputes. reported the Commis sioner who dismiss on the granted motion to basis his finding plaintiff “has no statement of right reasons for respondent’s non-renewal of her contract.” The State Board of Education affirmed on the basis the Com turn, missioner’s Division, opinion and the Appellate affirmed Super. decision of the Board. 115

The plaintiff’s petition certification was con expressly fined to the issue of “whether non-tenure school teacher is ato statement of entitled reasons for her non-retention by a school board.” We granted certification the sole pur pose reexamining the validity ‍​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‍the Commissioner’s ad ministrative position that a board of education which re fuses to renew the of a contract nontenured teacher is un der no obligation whatever to honor the teacher’s request for a statement of the reason or reasons for her nonretention.

his formal opinion the Commissioner relied almost entirely People City 278 Ill. Chicago, 318, 116 N. E. 158 (1917) this Court’s reference to that case in Zimmer Newark, man v. Board Education 38 N. J. 65, 70 (1962), denied, cert. 371 956, U. 508, S. 83 S. 9 L. Ct. Ed. 2d 502 But the Illinois case has clearly no current There viability. the Illinois Court Supreme sustained a board of education rule which prohibited membership by teachers in labor unions. In the course of opinion its the view an expressed that the board had absolute right decline to or employ reemploy any applicant any reason whatever for no reason at all and “it that is immaterial the reason for to employ whether the refusal him is because 240 dark, union, is a of a or whether or is not member trades 116 N. E.

no reason for such refusal.” We is given quoted need of the hardly language out that point sweep rec anywhere expressly is no law this longer which, N. in Zimmerman J. at inci ognized (38 70-71) a issue whether did not on the dentally, pass nontenured a have simple request who not rehired is entitled to teacher is fairly Weintraub, honored. See of reasons statement Zimmerman, 79-80; 38 N. J. at supra, concurring C. J. Col., Gloucester County Katz v. Trustees 118 Bd. of cf. 398, 1972). J. 404 Div. N. Super. (Ch. our has Legislature It be borne mind that must when need be given not at said no reasons time bearing generally is Bills nontenured not rehired. teacher thus far but have been introduced subject periodically enacted; circum has been no pertinent legislation inference as to intеnt stances clear it is controlling Markets Boys See from the silence. drawn 90 Union, 241-242, S. Ct. 235, S. Retail Clerks 398 U. v. Girouard 199, 205 1587-1588, (1970); 26 L. Ed. 1583, 2d 826, 66 829- States, 69-70, S. Ct. 61, 328 U. S. v. United 1084, 90 L. 1090-1091 C. 830, Chap. Prop. Ed. (1946); cf. Council, 86, v. 55 N. J. 95 City (1969); &c. Assoc. Owner’s N. J. Fraser v. Creecy, 194, v. 54 203 (1969); Schmoll N. J. 486 v. 480, Dee 44 Walls Day Camp, Robin (1965); Horbach, N. 479, 490, Neb. 203 W. 2d (1973); - Gorham, -, Iowa 206 W. 2d v. has system established tenure Legislature (1973).* suggestion that, although o. has made *The been admittedly subject, seq.) (N. J. A. et is silent on the 18A:27-10 history controlling pertinent to the intent is somehow as is its suggestion misconcep Legislature. find be based on We of the insupportable. place, In the first crucial time is and to be tion reemployed Mrs. Donaldson was not but 1969 when not 1971 Camp, Day pointed out in Fraser Dee this Robin Court years (1965), bill shed introduction later can little Legislature original light on “intent of which enacted the place, although the bill second Senate which culminated law.” which contemplates that the local board shall have broad dis cretionary authority the of tenure and that once granting tenure is granted there shall be no dismissal for ineffi except ciency, incapacity, unbecoming conduct or “other just cause.” N. J. A.S. 18A:28-5. The board’s determination not to grant tenure need not be on grounded unsatisfactory classroom or professional performance for there are many but unrelated nonetheless valid equally why board, had having of observation benefits during probationary period, may conclude tenure should not be that See Asso granted. ciation New Jersey College Faculties v. Dungan, 64 N. J. 338, 351-352 Cammarata v. Essex (1973); сf. Park J. Commission, County 26 404, Surely (1958). the tenure system would not be affected or at all adversely if the board were called impaired upon respond for the teacher’s as to she was not inquiry why reengaged Drown v. Portsmouth School school See year. forthcoming requirement originally in hearing for reasons and c. 436 contained hoard, requirement out in the before was left the local may any It be that without recorded or discussion. Senate debate subject thought should for determination the senators be left had been the State Com this Donaldson decided case may pending appeal; or it missioner of Education was on requirement they hear for that ing were concerned with the intertwined board; may motiva be that therе were other before the local or it any was hand. the Senate unrelated to the issue at event tions subject, entirely act on the and as content to remain silent and not Creecy, (1969), 54 N. its this Court said Schmoll v. only Legislature did act.” In the mean “inaction can place, Legislature alone but is the Assem is not the Senate third Assembly, bly coupled it when received the with the Senate. any presented bill, issue to reasons was Senate them; believing did not favor indeed when it basis there presented calling recently with a bill for reasons without requirement hearing before local board the vote intertwined passed Assembly against. See A1668 for and 15 was 60 vividly foregoing May 16, soundness illustrates All of the controlling position inference that no well settled of this Court’s Prop. Chap. C. Owner’s See J. silence. be drawn from City Council, &c. Assoc. District, denied, 1185 Cir. cert. 1182, 1970), 435 F. 2d (1 1659, 91 29 L. Ed. 2d 137 972, (1971); 402 S. S. Ct. U. Board, 238, Parole 58 N. J. 245- v. N. J. State Monks cf. 882, 886 85 Harv. 73 Colum. L. Rev. 249 (1973); (1971); 469, & Ed. 482 1 J. Law 1327, (1972). ‍​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‍L. Rev. 1331 (1972); c&Lee Rev. Wash. 100 Note, (1972): 29 See also examined, required are of reasons effects of a statement When the system by this harm will be done to the clear little it seems — purpose of maintenance a com- of scheme addition. — affected, faculty petent school freedom not be board’s will only ad- unaffected. The contract will be not renew a teacher’s problem processing slight effect is the administrative verse reasons, from little different the statement and this is statement currently require. systems a That statement most of notice that system is those states not harm thе evidenced reasons will tenure employees, right probationary currently with a afford such apparent L. Rev. at 109. 29 Wash. & Lee adverse effect. no have, as a The federal courts matter of law, federal local various restraints on boards their placed dealings nontenured as well as tenured teachers. Thus local refuse rehire teacher because of his mem may not in a union or his exercise of labor constitutional bership Education, v. Board 563, 391 U. See S. rights. Pickering 1731, 20 L. Ed. 2d 811 v. (1968); Perry 88 Sinder S. Ct. mann, 92 593, 598, 2694, 2698, Ct. 33 L. Ed. 408 S. S. U. Van “The 570, Alstyne, 2d 578 Constitutional (1972); Professors,” 1970 Duke 841, L. J. of Teachers Rights Education, 847; 125 N. J. v. Board Super. Winston cf. 64 N. J. 582 Div. How 1973), 144 131, (App. aff'd Board we assume Re may ever, purposes (see for present Roth, 564, 2701, 92 Ct. 33 L. Ed. 2d 408 U. S. v. gents he if he tenured teacher ordinarily 548 (1972)) rеasons, statement right federal constitutional has he that if on the litigates ground seem would though his race or his participation because reengaged was not he constitutionally impermis other movements m protest would, customary discovery course of he sible grounds proceedings, readily obtain the statement of reasons. Be that may, as it we need the federal pursue for, aspects Board, Monks v. N. J. Parole 238, State 58 N. J. supra, before may issue us of on which are disposed grounds wholly State nature. We have on occasions many insisted on procedural safeguards against arbitrary unjust action there then have been no though comparable safeguards Kunz, federal e. v. 55 N. J. 128 See, g., State sphere. Laws, 494, dеnied, v. cert. State U. S. (1969); Cook, 2d v. S. Ct. 21 L. Ed. State (1968); Rosenblatt, 43 N. J. 560 58 N. J. Rodriguez (1965); cf. Bonis, 281, 294 v. De (1971); In Monks N. J. a a of (58 238) prisoner statement sought reasons for denial of parole his application. Legislature had remained silent on subject the board had parole but the an adopted administrative rule against reasons and giving courts had sustained In it. its rule before defending us the that the had urged prisoner no to right parole and that that reasons requirement be stated would ad impose ministrative burdens and the might impair parole system. We of course the had recognized prisoner to right but held that a matter of elemental parole as fairness he was reasons; entitled to a statement of the exercise of our authority constitutional review sweeping administrative Examiners, re 60 Appeals actions Senior N. J. 362- (In we struck 371 the board’s rule as (1972)), parole arbitrary by and directed that it be a rule replaced “designed gen towards statements of erally affording reasons on parole N. J. 249. denials.” 58 at our in Monks we opinion course of noted that when with administrative we had agencies

dealing long pointed for expression to the need “suitable find- controlling N. J. at and we (58 reasons”' Professor 244) quoted ings that “One of the procedural protec- Davis to the effect best exercise of arbitrary discretionary power lies against tions appear and reasons that findings requirement Davis, Administrative rational.” be reviewing judges We stressed that 16.12, p. (1970 Supp.). Law § as urgent parole process for fairness was “as in the need law” of reasons furnishing and that “the elsewhere be much fairer course.” 58 at denial would J.,N. White v. Parole Board 246. We cited Div. where Justice 1952), Super. (App. on classi procedural had suggested safeguards Brennan simple were called for “considerations issues fication following: then with the fairness” and concluded here, clearly granting rightness dictate the So fairness and gen prisoner’s request course as a for a statement of reasons. That prodeeural acknowledged matter serve interests would eral discipline significant fairness and would also suitable serve powers. in nowise wide It would curb the Board’s its on exercise parole grant it or denial of nor would Bоard’s discretion the impair expertise. scope It of its evident us effect as result would not undue. such incidental administrative burdens J.N. support said Monks said equally Everything here; in Monies opinion claim indeed the of the teacher’s Dis Drown v. Portsmouth School itself reliance on placed trict, F. Court of Appeals 2d where the supra, teacher’s request nontenured for the Pirst Circuit sustained for her nonretention though statement of reasons relief. In his additional found no constitutional ground the refusal give Coffin noted that to Judge Circuit opinion her “effectively forecloses reason for the nonretention any any from self improvement, from attempting correcting any false and explaining impressions, rumors false from ex any retributive effort on her academic free infringing posing dom, and from or otherwise minimizing the rea overcoming in her with a son discussions future potential employer.” F. 2d 1184. Purther on in his opinion Coffin Judge out that reasons be stated would pointed requirement administrative burden” “no and would impose significant not of incom board in itself ridding inhibit “significantly that, he held for the court In the ultimate teachers.” petent in basis knowing of the nontenured teacher the interests the incon were “so substantial” for the nonretention and in in supplying venience and to the disadvantages of reasons statement slight,” requested formation “so principles. under federal constitutional be honored should Roth, 408 U. S. Regents supra, Board But see Ed. 2d 548. 2701, 33 L. S. Ct. arguments balance the evident us that оn

It appears for a statement the teacher’s request supporting is a The teacher contrary. any arguments overwhelm attaining course of years who has spent professional engaged he is When training. education and necessary he probationary he aware that is fully as teacher is serving If he attain tenure. ultimately period may may in surely he is is not and tenure thus precluded reengaged human terested consideration knowing why every sug with all of elemental fairness and along thoughts justice asks, that, when he he be told state gest why. Perhaps and be of ment of reasons will disclose correetible deficiences conduct; will service in future dis guiding perhaps his close that the nonretention was due to factors unrelated his classroom and its availabil performance professional him future teaching employment; aid ity may obtaining him as fairly helpful it will serve other purposes perhaps in Drown F. 2d at 1184-1185); perhaps suggested (435 would, sug that reasons be stated very requirement N. J. at serve as a significant in Monks 249), gested (58 or abusive arbitrary on the board itself against discipline discretionary broad powers. ezercise of its minimal us to be appear contrary arguments bur- course be some administrative nature. There would of And the tenure would not be undue. surely they dens but affected for the adversely requirement would system curb the breadth of be stated would nowise that reasons decide whether to discretionary authority the board’s All not be or should reengaged. teacher should particular states those from the experiences this is evident with coupled requirements systems have had tenure long are not re who nontenured teachers be to given that reasons & 1185; 29 Wash. Drown, 2d 435 F. at supra, See engaged. Corporation, Rev., Tilton v. Southwest School 109; Lee supra, cf. Ind, In N. E. 2d 117 (1972). App. -, - Monies ef arguments rejected comparable we explicitly would undue and that administrative burdens be fect that the would be discretionary authority the breadth of the board’s Monieswas ‍​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‍handed down fully sup curbed. since Experiences serve strengthen sugges our action and indeed to port tion that that reasons stated very requirement arbitrary abusive discipline against serve as significant Bd., Bеckworth, Parole et al. v. N. action. See N. J. 354 (1973). that, does us plaintiff before addi urge reasons,

tion statement of she a formal to was entitled to before the board. Eor hearing we assume present purposes, that no such hearing was we hasten to required although for informal be suggest timely request appearance fore the board should even ordinarily though granted Drown, formal F. 2d is undertaken. See supra, hearing Assn., 1182; Dunellen Bd. Ed. v. Ed. N. J. Dunellen cf. 17, 31-32 had the matter at hand the plaintiff A. 18A:6-9 the undoubted to under to right appeal the State board’s refusal Commissioner urge her arbitrary statement of reasons was grant request and should be set aside. his of her Though rejection position administrative conformity prior on that issue was his we now hold thаt his was unsound practice, practice to an order at consequently plaintiff entitled board to the reasons give his hands directing respondent we need no fur strictly for her nonretention. Although go we consider refer inappropriate ther here briefly where nature of the before the Commissioner hearing the nontenured teacher the pursues appeal after reasons for the nonretention have been furnished. On refer- that issue ence made Ruch v. may be to the Commissioner’s opinion Board Education Egg Regional the Greater Harbor District, High County, School L. D. 7. Atlantic

In Ruch a teacher receive failed to his fourth contract and did obtain tenure. course the consequently During of h'is chairman his had еmployment department submitted his reports which outlined weaknesses methods teaching and and which stated he failed to meet the techniques standards of the school He appeared district. before the board and was permitted to but was not He speak reengaged. appealed to the Commissioner he though acknowledged and he had received a duly forth report adequately setting the reasons for dissatisfaction his he contended teaching, that the “were capricious and discrimina- arbitrary, based tory were on his for which teaching subject he was not certificated.” The moved to dismiss his appeal its motion was an opinion by granted which Commissioner set forth substantive and procedural bеen principles well towards appear designed have protecting impair- teacher’s interests without legitimate the board’s ing unduly and without discretionary authority appellate process. administrative encumbering The Commissioner first noted that discretion board’s ary authority not unlimited and that its action could be set aside if it was unreasonable, “arbitrary, capricious otherwise He improper.” then out pointed the board could not resort to “statutorily proscribed discriminatory e., race, i. practices, color, etc., religion, or dis hiring staff” nor could missing it adopt employment ifbased practices on frivolous, capricious, or arbitrary considerations which have no to the relationship to bе purpose served.” 1968 L.S. D. at 10. He held that, procedurally, burden of appeal was on the teacher and sustaining that the teach tebare allegation” er’s of arbitrariness was “insufficient establish action.” He grounds to enter into a declined reevaluation of classroom performance the teacher’s the matter involved teaching out that competence, pointing which was supervisor’s professional highly judgment made in subjective and which was to have been charged bad faith. With assertion that he was respect to teacher’s Com- to teach economics without certification the assigned that, true, even missioner found if it was immaterial central him. affirmative showing issue before no Finding "unlawful, motivation” and arbitrary capricious finding board, before the plenary hearing requirement was Commissioner dismissed the his action sus- petition; further review the State Board of Education and by tained not pursued. Ruch at all indicates how negligible levels handling ex are tenure and undue burden impairment the fears of far with those who have thus insisted pressed by un collective contracts Many by of reasons. boards holding A. 34:13A-1 et have seq. already agreed der S. will, which have not under this furnish reasons and those are hereafter be do so. We obliged to convinced opinion, will been system the tenure have process, and that the controlling rather strengthened impaired than will have been rather fairness and satisfied justice values of hereinbеfore expressed In the of the views light than ignored. not have dismissed the petition; Commissioner should erred Division and Appellate the dismissal the sustaining accordingly: its is judgment

Reversed. J. Whether a nontenured mem- (dissenting). Mountain, ber should be staff reasons for nonrenewal teaching given of his or her contract is question that has received con- answers from and tradictory legislatures courts throughout the nation.1 can Cogent persuasive arguments readily marshalled in of either support position. legislatures provisions relating state Several have enacted to non parallel seq., N. S. A. tenured teachers 18A:27-10 et a belief that case does rest upon dissent in this My policy, is as matter of wrong by majority reached result I have reаched that a con- conclusion rather upon but before the issue now enactment governs trolling legislative so, is no Court, this there room being and that majority expressly of the opinion intervention. The judicial based federal constitu- upon is not states that its conclusion rest state con- law, upon does not certainly tional if an statute so, applicable being This stitutional grounds.2 See, any requirement of a statement of reasons nonrenewal. omit e.g., 52, 361(2) (1960) ; Stat. Ann. Ala. Code Title sec. Colo. Rev. Comp. (Supp. 1967) ; Laws Ann. sec. 38.83 123-18-10 Mich. sec. ; (1967) ; (1964) N. H. Rev. Ann. Ohio Rev. Stat. sec. 189:14-a (Supp. 1972). legislatures have Ann. Code sec. 3319.11 Other state See, provisions specifically requiring reasons. enacted e.g., a statement of ; 14.20.175(a) (1971) Ann. Alaska Ariz. Rev. Stat. Stat. sec. ; ; (Deering 1969) (1956) Educ. sec. 15-259 Cal. Code sec. 13443 ; (Supp. 1972) Ann. Conn. Ann. Del. Code Gen. Stat. sec. 10-151 1970); Supp. (Cum. ch. Title 14 see. Ill. Ann. Stat. sec. (Smith-Hurd 1962). 24-11 question generally to whether State courts have determined the required statement of reasons is for nonrenewal the contracts of nontenured teachers to state enactments. reference legislation require of rea a statement Where relevant does not See, mandatory. sons, courts have concluded such statement Lance, g., (1971); E. Munro e. Still v. 279 N. C. 2d 403 ; Rapids Schools, (1970) Elk Mich. 2d 178 W. Springfield, (Mo. W. v. District 447 S. 2d 256 Williams School of Village 1969) Sup. ; Central No. 1 v. Three Teach Ct. School Dist. 466, 1972). Ass’n, (App. ers A. D. 2d 336 N. Y. S. 2d 656 Div. 39 reasons, legislation the relevant has mandated a statement of Where acquiesced v. Board have in deсision. See Waller courts the App. 1056, Century Ill. #100, Ed. Com. U. Sch. Dist. 13 3d of of generally, Fleming (App. 1973). N. E. of Ill. See 302 2d 190 Ct. School, 1973). (Ct. App. La. v. Concordia Parish 275 So. 2d 795 of of courts, prior Supreme decision in Board Federal Court’s of Regents Roth, 564, 2701, 2d v Ct. L. Ed. 548 408 U. S. 92 S. 33 disagreed providing (1972), for non- also as to need for the Compare Trinter, Orr v. renewal of nontenured teachers’ contracts. 1971) (6 F. 2d Drown v. Portsmouth School Dis 444 128 Cir. trict, (1 1970). F. 435 2d 1182 Cir. by majority clearly indicate that 2The authorities cited the the opinion. majority form for state constitution does not basis ; Laws, Kunz, 128, (1969) v. See State v. N. J. 144 State 51 Cook, 494, (1968) ; 560, N. — — has been enacted as is here the case and the legislative intent can discerned, be either from words of the statute itself or from the history its passage through the Legisla- ture, the function of the is сonfined judiciary to giving effect to that intent. 1969,

In at the plaintiff’s renewed, time contract was not there was no relevant statute with to respect the reemploy e., ment of probationary (i. teachers. nontenured) This is 1971, the case. c. N. A. no J. S. longer now 18A:27- 10 et seq., became effective 1972.3 September Under this statute, present form, provides: 3This in its teaching member; employment staff 18A:27-10. Nontenure offer succeeding year for next notice of termination or before April 30 April year, every On or before board of each education this give teaching continuously State shall to each nontenure staff member employed by preceding September it since the 30 either employment a. A written offer aof cоntract for for the next suc- ceeding year providing for at least same terms and conditions employment salary may required by but with such increases in as be policies education, law or of the board of employment Ab. written notice that such will not be offered. give timely 18A:27-11. Failure to notice of termination as offer employment succeeding year for next any give Should board of education fail to nontenure teach- ing employment staff member either an offer of contract for the year succeeding employment next or a notice that such will not be offered, provided by act, all within time and in the manner this then board said of education shall be deemed have offered to that teaching emрloyment succeeding staff member continued for the next year upon school the same terms and conditions but with in- such salary required policies creases in as law of the board of education. acceptance; ISA :27-12. Notice of deadline teaching accept employment If the staff member desires to such he notify acceptance, writing, shall of education of such employment on or June which event such before shall continue provided acceptance herein. absence such notice of provisions longer applicable. of this shall article Inapplicability teaching employees 18A:27-13. of act staff county colleges Notwithstanding provisions pro- J. S. 18A :64A-13 the apply teaching employees visions of this act shall not staff county colleges. statute, in nonrenewal, the event of teacher probationary need only be given written notice that further employment offered; will not be is mentioned rea- nothing giving about sons therefor. The board of neither education is explicitly reasons nor required give is it to re- expressly authorized frain statute, from so. ‍​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‍doing words, Had the in plain adopted one or the other of these I take further positions, it would have been if argument precluded. Similarly, the his- tory of the legislation clearly and reveals the unequivocally intent as to or providing providing for nonrenewal, further review judicial should be similarly foreclosed.

Here the legislativе history of the statute is enlightening. The bill which became c. 436 eventually was intro 1970 as Senate duced in Bill January the Senate 470.4 originally provided: bill as 4The introduced concerning providing employ- An Act education and for continued teaching supplementing ment of nontenure staff members Title Jersey 18A of the New Statutes. by Assembly Be It Enacted Senate and General the State Jersey: of New Every 1. board of in shall education this State cause each non- teaching employed by tenure staff member it to be observed and year, evaluated at least in each school to be followed a con- twice teaching superior ference between that staff member and his or her superiors purpose identifying any deficiеncies, or for the extend- ing improving assistance for their correction instruction. April 'year, every 2. On or before in each board of education give teaching this shall to each staff member con- nontenure tinuously employed by September preceding since either employment Aa. written offer of a contract for for the next suc- ceeding year providing for at the same terms and least conditions employment may required by salary but with such increase policies education, law or board of employment A written b. notice that such will not be offered. nonemploy- Any teaching member 3. staff who receives notice pursuant days article, ment to section 2 of within there- this after, writing, request for such nonеm- a statement of the reasons ployment, given teaching shall staff statement member days receipt writing request. within 5 after of such teaching Any staff member who has received such notice of non- employment employed, statement of has reasons and who been introduced, 196. As the bill pro- N. J. Jour. so (1970) Sen. reasons, of but giving upon request, vided not for the only Amend- a before the board of education. also for hearing all to the bill, however, giv- reference deleting to the ments were introduced hearings, and the of holding of reasons ing employed, April employment would be to were continued if said year equivalent shall 1 academic than for of more the district the provided education, a hearing board of a thе be entitled to before secretary of request office of the received in the therefor is written teaching receipt by days the after within 5 the board of education of reasons. member of the statement staff hearing provided article shall be 4 of this for section The 5. pro- by of rules in accordance with the board of education conducted by a determina- of Education and the Board established cedures teaching employment nonemployment staff of said as to the tion copy succeeding year thereof be made and for next shall member the May teaching upon on or before 31. staff member served the said served within board education made and determination the shall be conclusive. time any give nontenure fail to board of education 6. Should employment teaching for offer of contract staff member either an employment succeeding year will a notice that such the next by teaching member, request upon a state- staff the offered be hearing hearing, shall the event such ment of reasons and a determination, copy the all within the fail to and serve a make article, provided by then said board this in the manner time and teaching staff mem- to have offered to that shall be deemed education year succeeding upon employment school next ber continued salary increases in as but with such terms conditions the same required by policies of education. law or оf the board accept employment teaching such If staff member desires to 7. acceptance, writing, notify education of such he shall employment 1, in such shall continue before June which event on or acceptance provided absence of such notice of for herein. as longer applicable. provisions article shall no of this Any teaching staff member receives notice who 8. nontenure provision pursuant employment will contained be terminated his of reasons and shall be entitled a statement in said contract hearing article, except provided for in section 4 and 5 of this made and board of education shall be that a determination period provided exрiration for in said notice of the served before therewith, comply the board of education fail contract. Should invalid and of no force and said notice of termination shall be then employment teaching staff member shall continue effect and the of the given. had not been as if such notice September 1, act shall take effect 1970. 9. This Jour. Sen. March (1970) on Senate were voice adopted by 536-37. These amendments vote Id. As amended, all reference to the same so day. deleted, the bill expressly passed of reasons been having giving Id. call vote 31-0. 2, 1970 a roll the Senate on April germane 563-64. With further slight changes here, course and bill took its further issue (N. enacted law as c. into eventually et A. 18A:27-10 seq.). S. abоve, law, as set forth manner of the of this adoption

The 23, On March manifiest. entirely makes the legislative intent bill all 1970 acted to excise from formally the Senate described reasons. This cannot be reference to the giving inaction; it action. Such legisla- was positive legislative as well-rec- a bill amendments to action on proposed tive aof statute. in the interpretation ognized guide interpreta- readily aids most available extrinsic One of the legislature on action of the amendments which tion of statutes is the during proposed considera- made a bill the course of its are to be to legislature. Both the and federal courts will refer tion state interpret proposed changes into in a bill order the statute finally enacted. which it legislature Adoption intends of an amendment is evidence that original Sutherland, change provisions [2A bill. Stat of the Statutory 1973) 48.18, p. (4th 224]5 Construction sec. utes ed. adopted supporting that amendments authorities the view 5Other during appropriate materials course of enactment are interpretation finally adopted, include: of the for use Bindczyck statute Finucane, 76, 130, 83, 134, v. S. 96 L. Ed. 342 U. 72 S. Ct. Bank, 100, (1951) ; Wright v. Vinton Branch Mountain Trust 105 440, 463-464, 556, ; 562, 736, (1937) 57 S. Ct. L. 744 300 U. S. 81 Ed. Ry. Co., 154-155, 144, v. Northern United States Great 287 U. S. 53 32, 223, ; Pfitsch, 28, (1932) L. Ed. United v. S. Ct. 77 230 States 547, 550-552, 569, 570, 1084, 41 S. Ct. Ed. 256 U. S. 65 L. 1086 Ry. 310, ; Co., (1921) Paul M. States v. St. M. & 247 U. S. United 318, 1130, also, 525, 528, (1918). 38 S. Ct. Ed. 1134 See Review, Super. 71, (App. Ablondi v. Board 1950) ; Note, 8 N. J. Div. 77-78 — Interpretation Statutory “Extrinsic Aids to Jersey View,” Rutgers (1954). L. Rev. New 490-91 above, majority opinion As stated does base its con clusion that reasons for nonrenewal given upon must be federal constitutional reliance would ground. Any such Roth, be Board clearly Regents untenable in the light U. S. Ct. 33 L. Ed. 2d concur, Bather . view, in which I that “. . adopts issue before us be of on are may disposed grounds in nature.” then wholly fairly enters ex upon It Board, Parole tensive of Monks v. State discussion the case 58 N. J. 238 where this Court held that (1971) prisoners were entitled to be reasons for the denial parole given discussion applications. by observing It concludes the said in Monies said in “[ejverything equally support .” is, however, of the claim teachers here . . There one com Monies, between pletely difference this case distinguishing only which the majority passing Beferring take note. — issue in the central Monks whether prisoner should — for a given reasоns denial of parole application says, had remained majority opinion Legislature “[t]he Our subject.” silent on the not the case here. Legis That is lature has expressed its of view point affirmatively, clearly and without reservation or ambiguity. Monks this Court free entirely a rule adopt that be given reasons prison ers denied It was a matter parole. as to Legisla — n — ture which clearly has the word last had spoken. is contrary know, true here. We from an examination history, statute legislative that this was enacted into law only after the Senate had specifically ex affirmatively itself as pressed opposed requirement that reasons be given.

I hold would that the in this ease decision should gov statute, erned N. J. by the S. A. 18A:27-10 controlling et Examination seq.6 legislative of the history this enact- majority observe, complete accuracy, 6The the time expired, pertinent statute, Mrs. Donaldson’s contract N. J. S. A. seq., yet adopted, hence, et had 18A:27-10 been as of that ment reveals an unequivocal repudiation by the branch upper of the of the Legislature requirement given to a nontenure staff member teaching upon the nonrenewal of his or her contract. This Court should defer to this clear expression intent and accept binding. it as

I would affirm the decision Division Appellate the reasons set above. forth

Clifford, joins this dissent. Hughes Jacobs, For reversal ‍​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‍—Chief Justice and Justices Hall, and Pashman —5. Sullivan

For Mountain and Clifford —2. affirmance —Justices date, however, controlling. is, could not be deemed It somewhat dis ingenuous majority point of the labor this inasmuch its hold ing operate ongoing is intended as an rule which boards education obliged” adopted by will “hereafter be to follow. The rule here majority certainly not intended to be limited in effect to its present plaintiff period prior toor the enactment seq. A. 18A et :27-10 plaintiff case, As to the in this I would hold she is not en- titled to statement reasons for nonrenewal of her contract. There practice giving plaintiff’s was no not or reasons at time contract was renewed, requirement, there was constitutional either then now, giving reasons, Legislature impressed and the has since imprimatur upon practice. its the administrative

Case Details

Case Name: Donaldson v. Bd. of Ed. of No. Wildwood

Court Name: Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date Published: Jun 10, 1974

Citation: 320 A.2d 857

Court Abbreviation: N.J.