*1 Oрdahl’s teaching leaving stantiated nonrenewal N.D.E.A. and convention “ability, unsupervised. contract for reasons related to his classroom competence, qualifications.” N.D.C.C. Opdahl problem “Mr. seems to have a com- 15-47-38(5). The Board did not abuse its ing grips with his role the school renewing Opdahl’s discretion in not teacher system.” contract. Although Opdahl conflicting offered evi- performance principal, dence about his aas B reasonably Board could have concluded formally Opdahl’s Wickre evaluated Wickre’s evaluations substantiated nonre- performance elementary principal as an on Opdahl’s principal newal of contract for rea- January 7, Additionally, 1993. Wickre doсu “ability, competence, sons related to his meetings Opdahl mented other with 15-47-38(5). qualifications.” N.D.C.C. Opdahl’s performance addressed as an ele The Board did not abuse its discretion in not mentary principal. September A renewing Opdahl’s рrincipal contract. “[ejlementary document indicated students following assigned programs” are not and
“[djecisions C being are made without authori zation that leads to a breakdown of adminis Opdahl failed to demonstrate clear tyрe trative control.” “[t]his Wickre noted right to renewal principal of either his upsetting appears [Op- behavior is itas that teaching contract. The district court did not trying operation dahl] is to make the of this refusing abuse its discretion in to issuе a writ power struggle” school and “[i]t is neces require of mandamus to the Board to issue a sary [Opdahl] proce follow established position. contract for either they previ dures even if are different from The district court is affirmed. years.” Opdahl ous Wickre later noted “undermining system and that it was not WALLE, C.J., VANDE and NEUMANN good for the school.” Wiekre’s formal evalu LEVINE, JJ., and concur. ation summarized: Opdahl-
“Mr. has been in this school dis- MESCHKE, J., concurs in the result. years presents trict for a number and exempt attitude that he is from edu- improvements supervision.
cational and appears accept supervision
He reluctant to changes involving
and educational without negative Opdahl others in comments. Mr. GOSBEE, John J. Plaintiff reporting has been critical of student acci- Appellant, dents, plan requirements, lesson curricu- guides, days, lum N.D.E.A. school disastеr plan, supervision, classroom use of school BENDISH, County Richard Morton Com Chapter pro- time teachers and the # 1 missioner, capacity, in his official Paul gram. type This of attitude has a tenden- Trauger, County Auditor, E. Morton cy keep the sсhool in a state of unrest capacity, his official and Morton Coun and makes it difficult one to work with ty, corporate body politic, Defendants Superintendent him. The has discussed Appellees. Opdahl concerns with Mr. on several occa- relating Elementary sions to: duties Civ. No. 930230. Principal, lifting time on task to eliminate Supreme Court of North Dakota. weights eating breakfast on school time, before, supervision of students dur- Feb. school, following and after the set by holding prac- school schedule basketball classes, during assigned informing
tice concerning
teachers of false information *2 Law (argued), Gosbee
John J. Gosbee appellant. Firm, Mandan, plaintiff Smith, (argued), Horner Randall J. Bakke Bismarck, ap- Bakke, for defendants & pellees.
NEUMANN, presents appeal On two Justice. issues for First, “germinat- whether there is а This is an render- exception seed” to the North Dakota ing a verdict for the defendants. action second, law; public records whether merits, dismissed on its defendants *3 North of Dakota Rules Professional Conduct were and awarded their costs disbursements pro attorneys in testifying forbid se in the amount The district of court $173.75. specific their request- own cases. The relief plaintiff concluded that the document which ed trial judgment, is reversal of the court’s record, sought public a access to was not and and a case to remand of the the trial court in subject therefore it to 44- was not NDCC may appropriate order that enter an Gosbee moot, Determining 04-18. that this is appeal. certification of at trial and on сosts dismiss. Before we reach the issues raised John sought J. Gosbee access to a docu- by Gosbee, to we need address whether we County ment two Morton officials had in jurisdiction will exercise ap consider this possession. question their The document in peal. particular Of concern is the fact that prelim- was draft of a lease that was still in already Gosbee copy has received a inary rough A draft form. Bismarck attor- lease. Our law is well established courts ney had fоr the drafted the lease owners of give opinions, advisory appeals cannot and County some land Morton that was tenta- will be if the dismissed issues become moot tively going to for a ski be used resort. The academic, controversy оr no actual such that in question two officials were Richard Bend- is left to be determined. Walker v. Schneid ish, Commissioner, County Morton and Paul er, 167, (N.D.1991); 477 N.W.2d 169 Backes Trauger, County E. Morton Auditor. Both 621, (N.D.1989); Byron, v. 443 N.W.2d 623 county the officials and the denied Gosbee State, (N.D. 615, Williams v. 405 N.W.2d 620 lease, brought access to the so 1987); Publishing City Forum Co. v. Far of declaratory judgment action district court. 169, 170(N.D.1986); go, 391 N.W.2d Onge St. specific requested complaint relief in the Elkin, 41, (N.D.1985); v. 376 N.W.2d 43 Gas lease, inspect towas and to be awarded (N.D. 386, Dorgan, ser v. 261 N.W.2d 389 expenses. filing, cоsts and After but before 1977); Peoples Bank State Velva v. State of trial, Gosbee made an uncontested motion Towner, 144, (N.D. Bank N.W.2d 258 145 of requesting copy that a of the lease in the 1977); Wiederanders, v. Wiederanders 187 possession trial court’s be relеased to him. 74, (N.D.1971); Wahpeton N.W.2d 78 Pub. granted That motion complied was with. Sch. Dist. No. 37 North v. Dakota Educ. trial, At the trial court ruled that the issue Ass’n, 389, (N.D.1969), reh’g 166 N.W.2d 393 moot, not the following and made conclu- denied; State ex rel. v. Gussner at Schafer sions law: al., 65, (N.D.1958); 92 N.W.2d 66 Hart v. plaintiff “1. That has failed to 635, Bye, (N.D.1957), reh’g 86 N.W.2d 637 prove that the draft lease involved was a denied; 276, County, Brace v. Steele 77 N.D. public record to NDCC 44-04- (1950), 672, 42 reh’g N.W.2d 676 denied. brought fact that this was aas “2. That plaintiff to allow to obtain the declaratory judgment proceeding dоes not draft discourage open lease would dis- question eliminate the of moótness. Al inquiry course regarding economic de- though purpose declaratory judgment velopment. provide parties relief is to a method for to a mаy “8. While the draft lease have con- justiciable controversy to settle uncertainties potential public tained the seeds of a rec- status, relations, rights, about and other ord, germinate it did not into one. 32-23; McMullen, ch. In e.g., NDCC re 470 (N.D.1991),
“4. pub- That the drаft lease was not ordinarily N.W.2d 196 the action record, production lic requiring its must controversy, or involve an actual West inspection by plaintiff, destroy Fargo would Pub. No. 6 County Sch. Dist. Cass Ass’n, 612, hinder development the seeds of v. Fargo economic Wеst Educ. 259 N.W.2d they (N.D.1977); Minot, before City had a chance to blossom.” 617 Allen v. 363
453
(N.D.1985);
553,
anything
1
but
not mean
so narrow as
inter-
554 n.
N.W.2d
cf.
Smith,
Blackburn,
particular
est
localities which
Inc. v. Nation-
Nickels &
Co.,
by
Casualty
question.’”
matter in
Property &
be affected
al Farmers Union
(settlement
(N.D.1990)
319
N.W.2d
at
N.W.2d
moot
original parties
not
issue of ultimate
did
Hart,
citing
(quoting
N.W.2d at 637
among in-
liability
coverage and defense
Lyon,
Freeling
rel.
63 Okla.
State ex
proceed-
companies). “No action
surance
(1917)).
419, 420
165 P.
is
suffi-
There
declaratory judgment Act to
ings
under a
lie
at
cient
interest
stake in this case to
merely advisory
obtain a decision which
warrant our review.
questions.”
merely determines abstract
originally sought
The lease Gosbee
Fargo Pub.
Dist. No. 6
Cass
West
Sch.
*4
Trauger
from
does not
to
Bendish and
rise
County,
ed that in situations considered court —a certain development pub- likely situation of economic overrides the recur. right
lic’s access to sensitive information Id.
relating private businesses.
Although defining pub this issue of future,
lic record arise that alone empower purely
does not us to render
advisory opinion. Rolette Educ. Ass’n v. Ro
lette Pub. Sch. Dist. No.
427 N.W.2d
(N.D.1988);
43;
Onge,
St.
N.W.2d at
Application
In the
Matter
DIS-
Velva,
Peoples
Bank
State
258 N.W.2d at
CIPLINARY ACTION
Lorene
AGAINST
perceive
146. We do not
to be an issue
this
LARSON,
Whitesides
A Member of the
inherently
evades
The facts of
Dakota,
Bar of the
of North
State
distinguishable
this case
are
those cases
meaningful
in which we detеrmined
review
Petitioner,
BOARD,
DISCIPLINARY
Walker,
e.g.,
was evaded. See
N.W.2d at
*5
interest,
(significant public
and' time con
hearing
preliminary
straints of
and State’s
LARSON, Respondent.
Lorene Whitesides
complaint
belief it
issue a new
instead of
seeking
magistrate’s
ruling
review
adverse
Nos.
Civ.
930219 & 930220.
capable
jeopardy
made issue of double
review);
repetition
ain manner that evaded
Supreme Court of
Dakota.
North
North Dakota Council
Sch. Adm’rs v.
Feb.
Sinner,
(N.D.1990) (issues
appropriation and process virtually allotment meaningful repetition oppor
assured without review);
tunity interest, (great public N.W.2d at appeals).
undesirable results of further Al
though possible, the of an likelihood identical
set of occurring circumstances the future great,
is not and the nature this inherently
matter does not evade reasons,
For the stated above dismiss appeal.
this WALLE, C.J.,
VANDE and LEVINE and JJ.,
MESCHKE, concur.
SANDSTROM, Justice, concurring in re-
sult.
I concur in the result. issue is The moot
because Mr. Gosbee has the docu- received great
ment. issue involved is appears interest. statute that
control, 44-04-18.2, was not ar- N.D.C.C. applying receiving financing b. Trade secrets and commercial or finan- for or or technical assistance, person, cial information received from busi- other forms of business assis-
ness, industry that is interested in or tance.”