Smiley v. Grand Blanc Board of Education

Mich 316 SMILEY v GRAND BLANC BOARD OF EDUCATION

McKEE v WOODHAVEN SCHOOL DISTRICT 65326, (Calendar 15,1981 Argued 17, Docket 65930. Nos. October Nos. 18). 23, Rehearing December 1982. denied as to Decided Smiley, 417 Mich 1106. Smiley sought act, K. Robert relief under the teacher tenure alleging reassignment by the Grand Blanc Board of Educa- following employment tion as a classroom teacher as an admin- istrator was a demotion. The State Tenure Commission found reassignment proper, Court, and the Macomb Circuit Ed- J., Gallagher, ward J. affirmed the commission’s decision. The Burns, P.J., Appeals, Holbrook, Jr., Court of R. B. and D. E. and Walsh, JJ., (Docket 45764). appeal D. F. denied leave to No. The plaintiff appeals. sought reassignment by Alexander McKee similar relief after Woodhaven School District. The State Tenure Commission Ingham Court, Bell, denied relief. The Circuit Robert Holmes J., reversed, holding granted that McKee had been tenure as an by affirmatively administrator virtue of the district’s failure during еxclude administrative tenure the time McKee was employed Appeals, without a written contract. The Court of Danhof, C.J., Kelly Corsiglia, JJ., affirmed, and M. J. holding only by express provi- that tenure can be excluded (Docket 48142). sion in appeals. a contract No. The defendant opinion by Ryan, joined by In an Justice Chief Justice Fitz- gerald Levin, Coleman, Kavanagh, and Justices the Su- preme Court held: plaintiffs administrators, acquire did not tenure as be- contracts, cause tenure was excluded their written although writing were continued in effect not renewed in required law; therefore, of the teacher tenure act and the School Code which would afford relief are inapplicable. provides The teacher tenure act that a written contract [1, 4, [2, 4, ^[3] 2, 53 Am Jur Master 5] 5] 68 Am Jur 68 Am Jur 2d, References 2d, 2d, Schools 143. Schools and Servant 23.§ for Points in Headnotes § §§ 152. Bd of Ed v Grand Blаnc which excludes tenure as an administrator is enforceable and in a that failure to exclude tenure as an administrator acquisition contract results in the of tenure the administra- provides The School Code that administrators are to be tor. contracts, cases, employed only under written and these plaintiffs’ employment was not continued under which the however, contracts, arisen; ought decision not to have mandatory of the cases the Court does not alter the nature provisions. of code statutory provision one-year 2. The for an automatic renewal given of the contract if notification of nonrenewal is not writing provide only single can be read to that extension can give from failure to notice of nonrenewal or result that continu- give ous renewals can result from failure to notice. Wherе such exists, ambiguity provide the Court must a reasonable interpretation purposes is consistent with the of the act parties and that does not do violence to the intent of the who statutory provision interpreted enter a contract. The should be give continuing original to effect to an written contract that is abrogated years. neither renewed nor over the course of several original only The contract is the source to find the intent of the parties, employee is hornbook law that an who continues expiration in the service of another after the of a employment original contract, does so on the terms of the except agreement parties. as modified originally employed 3. Both and McKee were specifically administrators under written which contracts ex- Subsequently, plaintiffs cluded аdministrative tenure. both tendered, contracts, sign, continuing were but refused to their continued without a written contract. Under circumstances, interpreted such the School Code must give continuing original effect to an has neither abrogated, plaintiffs acquire been renewed nor and the did not tenure. Smiley affirmed.

McKee reversed. Williams, dissenting, simple reading Justice wrote the School Code and the teacher tenure act indicates that the Legislature placed duty upon an affirmative a school district to provide an administrator with a that to written contract and read the statutes to renewals of a contract continuous upon give failure to notification of nonrenewal does com- port legislative protect with the intent a teacher from 416 Mich vagaries upon employment attendant under an oral cоntract of uncertain terms. (1980) App

100 Mich reversed. Opinion of the Court — — — 1. Schools Administrators Contracts Tenure. provides The teacher tenure act that written contract which excludes tenure as an administrator is enforceable and that failure to exclude tenure as an administrator in a contract (MCL 15.1991). acquisition results in its — — — 2. Schools Administrators Contracts Renewal. of the School Code that an administrator shall be employed upon under a written contract and that failure notify the administrator of nonrenewal of the contract it shall one-year period be renewed for an additional must be inter- preted give continuing effect to an written contract abrogated nor neither renewed over the course (MCL years 380.132[2]; 15.4132[2]). several — Employment — 3. Master and Servant Contract Continua- —tion Terms. employee An who continues in the serviсe of another after the expiration of a contract of does so on the terms of contract, original except by agreement as modified of the parties. — — — — 4. Schools Administrators Contracts Renewal Tenure. expiration A school administrator who continues after the of a written contract to serve without a new written contract over years original the course of several serves on the terms of the except by parties, as modified and where the original administrator, contract excluded tenure as an such acquired operation tenure was not of the of the teacher tenure act that the contract must exclude tenure to prevent acquisition ground its on the that there was a failure (MCL 38.91, years to exclude it in the after the written contract 380.132[2]; 15.1991, 15.4132[2]). MSA

Dissenting Opinion Williams, J. — — — — 5. Schools Administrators Contracts Rеnewal Tenure. simple reading A of the School Code and the teacher tenure act indicates duty that school districts have an affirmative contracts; give administrators with written a failure to notiñcation of nonrenewal should not result in continuous Smiley Bd Ed Grand Blanc v Opinion of the Court tenure, which excluded over a renewals permits period years, a district because circumvent legislative protect vagaries intent a teacher from the upon employment under an oral contract of uncer- attendant (MCL 38.91, 380.132[2]; 15.1991,15.4132[2J). tain terms Cavanagh Toohey Allen, Kiefer, & H. Rollin (by Allen) plaintiff Smiley. for Buckley, Buckley R. James P.C. James R. (by Buckley), for defendant and Kathleen Grand Blanc Board of Education. Bailey

Richard B. McKee. plaintiff Hardy, Lewis, Clark, Pollard, Fine & P.C. (by Tuyn), Richard M. for defendant Woodhaven School District.

Ryan, J. Robert K. Mc- Alexander past Kee arе teachers who have in the worked as Upon reassignment administrators. to the class- room, relief sought each under the teacher seq. seq.; et et act, MCL 38.71 15.1971 These reassignments teachers have asserted that their protec- are demotions1 and violate the substantive tions afforded the tenure act. Those substantive protections are inapplicable, though, because these acquire teachers did not tenure as administrators.

I Before Robert K. for the Smiley went to work Education, Grand Blanc Board of he had worked for other school districts as a teacher 1970, September administrator. In of he executed a written contract that provided that he would compensation "The word 'demote’ shall mean to reduce or to position carrying salary.” transfer to a a lower 15.1974. Mich Opinion of the Court personnel supervisor of and instruction

serve as 1970, August 1, for the defendant from until June 30, Tenure in this con- 1971. was mentioned 1972, a January tract. In of second contract was executed, 1, 1971, covering period July from 30, provided until June 1972. We have not been with of there copy but is no dispute that contained a clause that recited that granted was not Smiley. signed Similar contracts were for the 1972-1973 years. and 1973-1974 school continued Smiley personnel supervisor serve as of and instruction until he was those relieved of duties ‍​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‍October of "assigned special 1974 and projects” under supervision another administrator. To assist finding he Smiley employment, per- other was keep supervisor mitted to his title of personnel Indeed, and instruction. the parties executed in December 1974 a contract employing supervisor personnel and instruction from July 1, 1974, until June 1975. This contract included excluding final paragraph tenure as an adminis- trator, "It expressly parties understood both ten- ure in designated on this contract has not granted

been been rights but that no party of either have waived as to Michigan teacher tenure act.”

At point some between October of 1974 and March of 1975—the record is far from clear —Smi- ley accepted a reassignment as an administrative tendered, He assistant. was sign, but declined to contract calling for him to serve as an administra- tive assistant during the 1975-1976 school year.2 This contract would have excluded tenure.

2Smiley negotiating higher salary. was for a Smiley Bd Ed v Grand Blanc of Opinion of the Court 1975, In of Smiley’s November former of supervisor personnel of and instruction was abol- 1975, ished. In December of the board of education reassigned to the classroom in Smiley beginning charges hearing of 1976. No written or February reassignment. accompanied this sought persuade the State Smiley Tenure Commission that he should an be reinstated administrator, proper but commission found reassignment to the classroom. The tenure agree commission did had Smiley "gained supervisor personnel tenure as of and instruction completing year after one service in satisfactory district”, explained school but that posi- tion had been eliminated in the course altogether proper reorganization of the board’s administrative structure. The tenure commission did not come to a conclusion about whether Smiley assistant, had tenure as an explain- ing instead that he would lose on the merits even if he did have such tenure.

The Macomb Circuit Court affirmed the decision of the tenure An application commission. for de- layed appeal was denied the Court of Appeals "for lack of merit grounds presented”. We v Grand Blanc Bd granted leave to appeal. Ed, (1981). 411 Mich 900

II Alexander McKee was a tenured teacher from another district when he was hired by the Wood- haven School District 1972. His first 1, 1972, 30, which ran from July through June 1973, provided that he would serve as an assistant principal. The contract provided that the assistant principal "shall not have tenure as an administra- Mich op Opinion the Court only

tor”. This was the written contract that Mc- signed; he in 1975 to sign Kee ever declined tendered excluded tenure. McKee as an principal remained assistant until December 1975, reassigned when he was as a at principal early another school district. In board of Woodhaven Public Schools notified that, McKee the beginning with 1977-1978 school administrator, an year, longer he would no be but reassigned would instead be as a classroom Again, teacher. nо charges hearing or accompanied reassignment.

The State Tenure Commission denied relief to McKee. It the continuing concluded relation- ship between McKee and the Woodhaven Public governed Schools was written con- tract, which included a denial of administrative tenure. The spoke tenure commission also of the rule that interpreted contracts should be to effec- tuate parties. the intent of the The tenure commis- sion said that the board of education would be placed "in an position” untenable if administrative tenure granted were to McKee as a result of sign McKee’s refusal a contract that excluded tenure. The Ingham Circuit Court reversed decision of the tenure commission. The circuit court held the 1972 contract that excluded tenure was only renewed for a one-year period. Bеyond the year during which this contract extension was effect, Ingham Circuit Court believed adminis- trative granted tenure to have been result the board of education’s failure affirmatively exclude administrative tenure. circuit The court offered the view that law "the is settled that mere intention on the part school board Bd v Grand Blanc of Ed 323 Opinion op the Court deny prevent tenure is sufficient Mr. McKee it”. acquiring from judgment circuit court was affirmed McKee v Woodhaven Appeals. the Court of Schools,

Public App 195; Mich (1980). The Court of Appeals agreed that board’s intention to tenure deny is irrelevant can only through excluded express provision.

We granted leave to appeal. McKee v Wood- Schools, haven (1981). Public

Ill A pair statutory are involved in this case. is in One the School Code and presently reads:3 during language years There were several versions of this transpired: when these events may employ superintendents, principals, "The board assistant assis- principals, directors, guidance tant not assume and other who administrators do terms, position, years, in for not to 3 exceed fixed

by the employment board and shall define their duties. The shall be under written contract. Notification nonrenewal of contract shall given writing days prior be date or PA in at least 90 to the termination contract period.” 1-year the renewed for an additional 451; 15.4132(2). 380.132(2); MCL may employ superintendent "The board a of schools who shall meet qualifications prescribed 573, the superintendent employ in section and shall a employed. if 12 or more teachers are The contract superintendent with the by shall be for a term fixed board not to the years. may employ exceed 3 superintеndents, board The assistant principals, administrators principals, guidance assistant directors and other classified position, do not who in a term assume tenure for fixed years, the board not to exceed 3 shall and define their duties. The shall under written contract. Notification nonre- given writing prior days newal of contract shall be at least 90 the date or termination the contract is renewed an additional for * * *” 1-year period. 247; 1970 PA MCL MSA 15.3066. may employ superintendent "The board shall meet schools who qualifications prescribed employ in section and shall superintendent employed. if 12 or more are teachers The contract superintendent with shall be for a term fixed board not to 416 Mich Opinion of the Court may

"The employ superintendents, board assistant principals, principals, guidance directors, assistant other administrators whо do not assume tenure position, terms, years, not to exceed 3 fixed employment board and shall define their duties. The shall be under written contract. Notification of nonre- given newal of writing contract shall be at least 60 days before the contract termination date or the con- tract is renewed for an 1-year period.” additional 15.4132(2). 380.132(2); PA important other statutory provision is 1 of § art III of the teacher tenure act: satisfactory completion "After the of the probationary period, a employed teacher shall be continuously by the controlling board under which the probationary period has completed, been and shall not be dismissed or except specified demoted in this act. If the control- ling board shall in a contract of employment of any employed teacher other than as a classroom teacher, including to, but not superintendent, limited superintendent, assistant principal, department head or curriculum, director of made with such teacher after completion of the probationary period, that such teacher shall not granted be deemed to be continuing tenure in such capacity by virture of such contract of employment, then such teacher granted shall not be tenure in such capacity, but shall be deemed to have granted been continuing tenure as an active classroom teacher in such school Upon district. termination any such contract of employment, if controlling such board shall not re-employ such teacher under contract in any such capacity, such teacher continuously shall be employed by controlling such board as an active class- room teacher. any Failure of controlling board to re- employ any such any teacher in capacity upon such years. may employ exceed 3 principals, superintendents, The board assistant principals, guidance directors, assistant classi- other fied fixed position, administrators who do not assume tenure in for a term * * *” years. the board not to exceed 3 1966 PA MCL 340.66; MSA 15.3066. Bd of Ed v Grand Blanc Opinion op the Court any employment such contract of shall of termination a demotion within the of deemed be be in such salary The to which this act. assigned as if he had beeh is shall be the same teacher newly assigned position. in the continuously employed controlling provide in any board to so Failure of any such any in a employment contract of of teacher such teacher shall be capacity other than a classroom teаcher to constitute the of such deemed continuing capacity subject in such on the Continuing provisions of act. tenure shall not assignment duty of extra for extra apply to an annual added.) 38.91; (Emphasis 15.1991. pay.” MSA courts of this state have several appellate The 38.91; language examined ‍​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‍the of MCL times Ed, 15.1991. In Street v Ferndale Bd of (1960), 82; 104 a teacher was employed NW2d permitted assignments under a contract superintendent transfers at the discretion of the of schools. The contract also stated "that the teacher with whom this contract is made shall not be granted deemed be tenure capacity principal under or virtue of this contract”. months, serving After as a principal several Street was relieved of and reassigned those duties to teaching sought duties. He then in the tenure commission and the courts to reinstated as a be рrincipal. This argument Court noted Street’s spirit protect the teacher tenure act is to against teachers caprice changing the whim and light officeholders. In language the clear of MCL 15.1991, though, this Court found the teacher to be without tenure: authority

"No support is cited to the claim that express, unambiguous statutory language may disre- garded interpreter he deference to what determines to spirit be and invokes as the of the stat- language ute. explicit statute 416 316

326 Mich op Opinion the Court capacities in acquired is not when ex- excluded, here, pressly by the contract. That is Street, controlling.” pp 86-87. Ed, Saginaw In Bd of Dodge v (1971), received, a principal NW2d for three years, consecutive school one-year contracts that that expressly provided no tenure as a principal Then, acquired was to be thereunder. for the next she two school received a contract years, which the language about of nonacquisition tenure did appear. not These latter two contracts were on a form throughout the contract used the word further, "teacher” of the "principal”; instead word printed title of the which had read "Tenure-Teacher Contract of Employment” was striking edited out "Tenure-Teacher” with a typewriter typing above these crossed-out words the phrase "Elem. Prins.” We found [sic]. that typewritten on correction the title of the contract did explicit not constitute an exclusion of tenure within the language 38.91; of MCL 15.1991: only question "The upon we are called to determine provided whether the plaintiff would have principal. not tenure as "The argue striking defendants that the of the word printed 'tenure’ from equivalent form is the

statutоrily required provision not teacher would agree. have We tenure. do not "Were it requirement not for the of the statute that provision tenure, the contract make for no in order to it, avoid construed, might the absence for tenure be so requirement but the statute’s was intended to obviate the need construction. . "We are satisfied that the members the board did grant intend plaintiff capacity of principal in the instant contract. We are satisfied from the they record avail did not themselves of Smiley v Grand Blanc Bd Ed Opinion of the Court only the (Emphasis means available under the to avoid it.” statute Dodge, pp 347-348. original.) Ed, Goodwin v Kalamazoo In Bd of App 82 Mich 559, 568-569; (1978), the Court of Appeals discussed underlying philosophy MSA 15.1991: districts,

"In range view of the wide in size of school the statute enables local school their boards to tailor policies аdministrative tenure accordingly. The statute attempt does not policies to dictate uniform tenure administrators in all school districts. One school board may not wish to allow principals gain school to tenure may while another board supervisor wish to allow the gain of the stockroom to tenure. These are to decisions be made through given each school board and to are be effect between the board and administrators.”

The Court of Appeals explain went on to that a district that seeks to need deny only place tenure such a clause in the administrator’s contract:

"If the contract acting of a tenured teacher as an administrator does not specify the individual is to be tenure, denied stipulates the statute that individual granted is to be tenure in position. the administrative If tenure, grant the board does not want simply provision inserts denying a contractual tenure.” Dist, Bode v Roseville School Finally, (1979), Bode had worked for the Roseville School District as a superinten- dent, but never classroom teacher. His con- tract provided that Superintendent "[t]he Schools shall granted not be deemed to be continu- ing tenure virtue agreement”. Though of this this Court principal divided on the question 416 Mich 316 Opinion op the Court

Bode, accepted pre- all that this exclusion clause acquiring Bode from tenure as an adminis- vented trator.

IV It is of MCL clear from review 15.1991 these cases that a written contract that excludes administrative tenure is enforceable and that a written contract fails exclude acquisition administrative tenure results in the tenure the administrator. Before today us is the question whether ac- is administrator quired begins un- serving when with der written contract an exclusion clause thеreafter continues serve absence any written contract.

This a question ought arise, not to since provides the School Code in the clearest language administrators are under employed 380.132(2); contracts. 15.4132(2). The fact we today determine rights parties who complied have not with that statutory does not mandatory alter its nature.

In opinion, its McKee the Court Appeals discussed the question whether the final sentence 15.4132(2)5 380.132(2); of MCL MSA provides for continuous one-year renewals. The Court of Ap- peals held that it did not that statutory and the provision permitted only one such renewal. The 380.247(3), 380.346(4), 380.471(1); 15.4247(3), 4 Cf. 15.4346(4), 15.4471(1). 5At reassigned, the time McKee was this sentence read: given "Notification of writing nonrenewal of contract at shall prior days least 90 to the contract termination date or the contract is 1-year period.” for an renewed additional Bd of Ed v Grаnd Blanc op Opinion the Court 380.132(2); reasoned that MCL Appeals Court of 15.4132(2) district places upon a school an contract provide affirmative a written duty a to circumvent this clear that allow board "[t]o construing the next sentence the language by contracts is to continuing implied to allow statute of a written contract requirement render ex- meaningless”. Appeals The Court of further plained: providing provision

"The which follows in the statute one-year period protec- for a is a for automatic renewal employees arbitrary by for from action the board. tion At the provides expiration date of a written contract right renewal employee to the contract an period one-year if written additional notification given provided by nonrenewal statutory provision is statute. The

relating to renewal of the written 1-year period’ phrased an is contract 'for additional singular plural. rather than If the contract parties, renewed between the whether the automatic through express renewal of the statute or an employee new written has such status as provided governing administrator as is writ- ten contract.

"In the instant case it should that be noted construction of statute apply one-year successive original renewals of the is inconsistent with the facts as found the Tenure Commission. The terms of employment, McKee’s including his structure, the administrative responsibilities com- pensation, had been altered drastically years. over the Under such illogical circumstances it is to assert McKee, remained in effect.” App 201-202.

We believe the final sentence of MCL 15.4132(2) 380.132(2); MSA is susceptible of either ‍​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‍interpretation. It can fairly be rеad to only single extension can result from a failure to

330 416 316 IVTich Opinion of the Court give fairly of It notification nonrenewal. can be provide read to that continuous can re- renewals give from to of sult a failure notification nonre- newal. ambiguity exists,

Where such we must interpretation reasonable that is consistent with purposes routinely of act that the the and does not parties do violence to the intent of who enter into statutory provision. contracts under the In this interpret way, obligation we can fulfill our to the Legisla- statute accordance with the will the ture.6 principles

These lead us to the conclusion that 380.132(2); the final sentence of MCL 15.4132(2) interpreted give continuing be should to effect to an written contract nei- abrogated ther renewed nor over the course of years. several Where a school district оnce fails to sign an administrator to newa 380.132(2); the extension clause of MCL 15.4132(2) protect serves the administrator from vagaries the that attend under an oral contract of uncertain terms. is no There rea- sign repeatedly son that a district fails administrator a new written contract should be 6 People Gilbert, 191, 205; (1982), (1982), v Mich 414 324 834 NW2d City Novi, 617, 631-632; v Wikman 413 Mich 103 NW2d Arbor, (1979). City 554, 562; vWhite of Ann 406 Mich NW2d explained: In White we primary statutory "The and fundamental rule of or constitutional duty construction is intent as question. Also, purpose the Court’s tois ascertain the expressed legislative or constitutional used, language while intent must be from inferred meaning particular it is only not the words in the abstract or strictly grammatical their governs. construction alone that The words applied subject general are to scope be to matter and to the provision, purpose sought they light general are to be сonsidered in accomplished sought to be or evil remedied (On Corp the constitution or statute. See General v Motors Erves Rehearing), 241, 255; (1976) (opinion J.).” Coleman, Bd 331 v Grand Blanc of Ed Opinion Court different treatment under the stat- rewarded with ute. Ingham Circuit Court concluded McKee the "should construed so as to

that statute grant By rather than withhold teacher tenure”. limiting year clause, to one the extension the accomplished goal that in the case circuit court bar, at interpretation but we think its would the long protection less, more, run afford teach- ers.

McKee the Woodhaven School District came agreement that McKee would work for the district under certain terms conditions. McKee relationship and the district continued that for a years. During parties time, number of the agreed to a number of modifications in their rela- tionship, significаnt. some which were As to aspects relationship they those of their which agreement modify, never reached an think it we altogether reasonable to assume that both in- relationship governed by tended the to be the original contract. There is no other source that identify parties can the intent of the and it employee hornbook that an law who continues in expiration the service of another after the of a contract does so on terms except agree- contract, as modified parties.7 ment of the We believe tenure analysis commission offered a sound of McKee: "We do not gratu- believe that the act intended to itously provide the teacher with in this perform situation. The authority teachers’ compensated and be in an administrative 7 Clinic, Springfield Cf. Foster v App 459, 463; 88 Ill 410 3d NE2d 604, (1980), Vogel Washington Metropolitan v 607 Area Transit Authority, App 345, (1976), CJS, 174 DC US F2d 56 15-16 Servant, 10, pp Master and § 82-83. op Opinion the Court

comes from the board of education. The board indicated upon position, the terms offered such which By embarking per- of tenure. in the included denial position, appellant of such administrative formance unilaterally changed cannot be said have terms then, of that offer to work. The continued to 380.132; deny administrative tenure. MCL MSA 15.4132 15.3066) (formerly specifically pro- contract of vides an administrator by operation year shall be extended days of law for if 90 one given, notice of nonrenewal is not or unless the parties enter into a new contract. Since a new written executed, contract was not nor notice of nonrenewal provided, existing (including the denial of tenure) must be considered to have been extended. The changed, terms оf that extended contract could not be changes except agree- as to for which there was mutual agreement ment. Mutual salary as to terms of and promotion by appellant are evidenced the fact that the willingly accepted compensation position. the new demonstrating agreement No evidence a mutual to remove the tenure denial has been shown. parties, therefore, The the contract between continued to contain an administrative tenure exclusion. especially light

"This is true in of the basic rules of interpretation. general interpret The rule in ing parties. contracts is to effectuate the intent of the Burland, Reiss, Mosher, Schmidt, See Murphy & Inc v 670; (1977), App Mich 261 NW2d 540 Henry v J B Co, (1974). Publishing App parties What did the appellee intend here? The a had policy affording of not tenure to administrators. The appеllant’s employment initial contract of excluded tenure successfully. A second contract to the offered appellant executed, but not excluded tenure. appellant, knowledge with appellee’s position question tenure, on the continued to work the posts assigned, administrative though claiming tenure as an administrator. supported by Is this claim the facts? We must answer no. Smiley Grand Bd of Ed v Blanc op Opinion the Court matter, salary

"In instant the and other terms of accepted agreed by appel- were to and the appellee, promisor, out position lant. The to the held the appellant, promisee, with the condition that appellant tenure was excluded. The tion, knew of condi- offer, accepted and still as evidenced his claim, performance. expressly His tenure was not contraсt, and, therefore, excluded he has held, achieved in the tenure he must fail. any way place

"To rule other would the board position, an education in think untenable we do Legislature indicated, previously intended. As it is the board of education which is identi- specifically body deny permit fied as the sole to either or adminis- trative tenure to occur. To the administrator leverage power refusing with the force tenure sign proffered effectively wrests from the statutory board of education its authority exclusive determine whether administrative will occur.

"Admittedly, the board of education could have placed appellant upon in the classroom his refusal sign the contract. But the board does not such have large if opportunity number administrators sign were to likewise require refuse to contracts. To board placing large to take such drastic action as number of quire administrators the classroom would re- layoff teachers, equally large of an number of Or, which could be system. disastrous to the educational if the seniority administrators no have a teacher under collective-bargaining agreement, large of ad- number displaced. Nothing ministrators would be in the act that ordinary principles indicates applied contract cannot be case, extending previ- to this by implication the provisions, except ous written change mu- tually agreed upon. precisely transpired Such was what herein, and thus the denial of shall be considered to have been continued.”

Smiley’s position former of supervisor person- 416 Mich 316 Dissenting Opinion by Williams, J. has

nel and instruction been abolished.8 The sole in Smiley’s issue framed brief to this Court whether he attained tenure as an administrative assistant. The written contract that was ever only in effect while he wаs so employed contained a McKee, excluding clause tenure. As with Smiley’s relationship to his employer gov- continued to be erned ‍​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‍his last except written contract insofar as agreed to parties mutually alter its terms. and his employer agreed never that he assistant, would have tenure as an administrative and we can locate neither his contract nor the any statutes reason that the failure of parties execute 1975-1976 contract should result Smiley’s receiving tenure.

V reasons, For these we affirm in Smiley the judg- ment of the Macomb Circuit Court and reverse in McKee the judgments Ingham Circuit Court and the Appeals. Court of The decision of the McKee is affirmed. No tenure commission in costs, public question being involved. Fitzgerald, C.J., Kavanagh, Levin, and Coleman, JJ., Ryan, concurred with J.

Williams, J. (dissenting). This case is one of first impression. We are asked tо determine whether a school administrator acquires tenure when that person begins serving under a written with a tenure exclusion clause later school years continues to serve without any written con- tract. The majority opinion holds that school ad- ministrators in such a setting do not acquire ten- Court, Like the tenure commission and the Macomb Circuit we have located in the record before us no reason to believe improper elimination of this was or done in had faith. Smiley v Grand Bd of Ed Blanc Dissenting Opinion Williams, J. agree ure. While we with the discussion found in I to III of parts opinion, disagree we with the in majority’s part conclusion IV that the Legisla- 15.4132(2) 380.132(2); ture intended MCL MSA interpreted give "to continuing be effect to an original written contract is neither renewed abrogated nor over the course of years”. several question, Court, effect, To resolve this in must give reconcile and interpretation consistent to a pair statutory regulate issue in the instant cases. 380.132(2); MCL 15.4132(2) provides that: "The may board employ superintendents, assistant

principals, principals, directors, assistant guidance other administrators who do not assume tenure position, terms, not to years, exceed 3 fixed board and shall define employment their duties. shall be under written contract. Notification of nonre- newal of given contract shall be in writing at least 60 days before the contract termination date or the con- (Em- tract phasis is renewed for an 1-year period.” additional added.) In addition, 15.1991, act, the teacher part states in that: "After the satisfactory completion probationary period, a teacher shall employed continuously by the controlling board under which probationary period has completed, been and shall not be dismissed or except demoted If specified the control- this act. ling board shall in a contract of any teacher employed other than as a classroom teacher, including to, but not superintendent, limited superintendent, assistant principal, department head or curriculum, director of made with such teacher after completion the teacher shall probationary period, that such granted not be deemed continuing to be tenure in such capacity by virtue of such 416 Mich Dissenting Opinion by Williams, J.

employment, granted such teacher not be then shall capacity, tenure in but shall be deemed to such have granted continuing an been tenure as active classroom ” added.) (Emphasis teacher in district. such school provisions, From is easy these two to list requirements that a in school board must meet setting of an the terms contract with First, 380.132(2); a school MCL administrator. 15.4132(2) places MSA a burden on the school district, employs type administrators in provision, listed this to for employment Second, terms under a contract. teacher act in MCL MSA 15.1991 requires deny school district that wishes tenure to expressly deny that ten- ure in a written contract made with "any teacher Third, employed other than a classroom teacher”. protect school from "arbitrary administrators and capricious” district, action by the school district must an notify administrator of nonre- newal of writing in presumably written contract "at least 60 before the days contract termination date or the 1- is for an renewed additional 15.4132(2). year period”. See, MCL 380.132(2); MSA also, 15.4132(3). 380.132(3); effect,

In simple reading of these two statutes leads us to believe that has Legislature placed an duty upоn affirmative a school district to pro- vide a administrator, written contract to an since the intent Legislature is to allow school great districts flexibility making in decisions about which administrators given are be tenured sta- short, tus. In if the school districts in the instant cases had provided the mandatory written con- tracts, the requirements these two hence, would and, have been fulfilled there would be dispute. Dist, no See Bode v Roseville School of Ed Grand Bd 337 v Blanc Dissenting Opinion Williams, J. 517, 527-528; (1979); Mich 405 Ed, 346, Dodge v Bd of 384 Mich Saginaw 347-348; (1971); Ed, 197 Street v Ferndale Bd 183 NW2d 82, (1960); 86-87; 361 Mich NW2d 748 Goodwin Ed, v Kalamazoo Bd of App (1978). NW2d is key question

The this issue the proper interpretation given following language 15.4132(2): 380.132(2); found MCL "Notification given of nonrenewal of contract shall be writing days at least 60 before termina- date or is tion the contract renewed for additional 1- period.” year states majority opinion language "susceptible of either interpretation”. Notwith- standing the that the Legislature fact explicitly requires provision, written contract in the same the to majority legislate reading chooses the act by affirmatively this "can language fairly be provide read to that continuous can re- renewals sult from a give failure to notification .nonre- newal”.

It is uncontested that this was language enacted protect school "arbitrary administrators from capricious by conduct” school districts. See 15.4132(3). Thus, 380.132(3); MCL MSA we cannot that, agree where a school once fails in district its mandatory duty sign an administrator to a this extension clause serves "to protect the teacher from the vagaries attend an under oral contract of uncertain terms”. Such interpretation language this is fair to Legislature the administrator whom protect provisions. decided to in enacting these agree We with the majority opinion teacher is a adopted act remedial statute 416 Mich 316 by Dissenting Opinion Williams, J. protect

"to indirectly public pro- interest by tecting However, directly rights of teachers”. the majority’s interpretation this extension accomplishes clause what the Legislature at- tempted prevent enacting these two provi- short, clause, sions. In the extension as interpreted opinion, majority "protect does not teacher from the vagaries that attend employment Thus, under an oral contract of uncertain terms”. agree we with the Court of Appeals analysis Schools, McKee v Woodhaven Public 100 Mich App 201-202; (1980), where the Court stated that:

"An placed affirmative duty upon the statutes the school district a written contract. "Such a burden language conforms with the of MCL 15.4132(2). 380.132(2); provision clearly re- quires a written contract between school districts and administrators. To allow a board to circumvent language clear by construing the next sentence of the continuing statute to implied allow contracts is to ren- requirement der the of a written meaningless. Every applicable states, version of the unambig- statute uously, employment shall be under '[t]he written con- 380.132(2); tract’. 15.4132(2), MCL superseding MSA 15.3066. "The which follows in providing the statute for automatic one-year period renewal for a protec- is a tion employees from arbitrary action the board. At expiration date of a written provides employee to the right to a contract renewal for an one-year period additional if written notification of given nonrenewal is provided by statute. The statutory provision relating to renewal of the written 'for an additional 1-year period’ phrased is singular rather plural. than If the is renewed parties, between the whether the automatic renewal through express statute or new employee has such status as Smiley v Grand Bd Blanc of Ed Dissenting Opinion by Williams, J. provided an administrator as is the governing written contract.

"In the instant case it should be noted that construc- apply tion of the statute to of the found one-year successive renewals original contract is inconsistent with the facts as the Tenure Commission. The terms of McKee’s employment, including his in the administra- structure, responsibilities tive compensation, had drastically been altered years. over the Under such illogical circumstances contract remained to assert effect.” stated,

For the reasons we would reverse the judgment of the Macomb Circuit Court in and would affirm the judgment ‍​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‍of the Ingham Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals in McKee. costs, No public question being involved.

Riley, J., took part no in the decision of this case.

Case Details

Case Name: Smiley v. Grand Blanc Board of Education

Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court

Date Published: Dec 23, 1982

Citation: 330 N.W.2d 416

Docket Number: Docket Nos. 65326, 65930. (Calendar Nos. 17, 18)

Court Abbreviation: Mich.