Webster v. Board of Trustees of School District No. 25
659 P.2d 96
Idaho
1983
Check Treatment

*1 342

Under 96 holding, party may P.2d Shultz 659 terminate performance his under a contract WEBSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, Norma which is to upon silent as duration reasona- v. ble other party. notice to the The record OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES SCHOOL (three years) establishes reasonable notice DISTRICT NO. BANNOCK COUN- was given in that Mrs. Barton Murphy, Mrs. TY, Idaho, POCATELLO, Defendant- and their hear- attorney public attended a Respondent. Highway Department conducted objec- in plaintiff wherein the entered No. 13851.

tion closing the two proposed Supreme Court of Idaho. access points. provid- A second notice was ed Mrs. when it forwarded State Feb. 1983.

Murphy the in plans January

II. argues

The appellant alternatively can under grant this Court her relief essence,

the “change plans” doctrine. “change doctrine is follows: plans” condemning

once a introduces authority to plans proceeding

construction con public

demn for a it is property purpose, according to project

bound to construct

those to plans. change plans If damage to additional

construction causes landowner, is re damage issue State, Ariz.App.

opened. v. Olson State, 59 (1970); Feuerborn P.2d

Wash.2d inapplicable doctrine is

“change plans” did not Here the

the case at bar. State construction, re plans

change, prior to making damages determina

lied according built the road

tion. The State Murphy maintained shown plans twenty-two years. points

the access is affirmed. Costs re- judgment

spondent.

WALTERS, SWANSTROM and SCOG- Tern.,

GIN, JJ., Pro concur.

DONALDSON, J., sat partici- but did not

pate.

343 Board, following spring In the princi- from the received a recommendation worked, appellant school where pal of the received Webster She letter dated probation by of her notification not indi- 6,1977. notification did April The There- would end. cate when the a con- after, accepted and she was offered year- school the 1977-78 tract for continued of Webster evaluation was informed and she year that second 12, 1978, that she would May letter dated for the 1978-79 not be offered a contract letter informed her of school This her of for such action and advised reasons request her under I.C. § Upon review the Board. an informal conducted receiving request, her the Board review, an informal review. After teaching to offer a Board’s decision unchanged. contract remained alleging suit violations of Webster filed rights under I.C. process her due reinstatement for seeking damages. Af- the 1978-79 school court, a memorandum ter a trial to the Judgment filed. was entered decision was in favor of the Board. Webster and filed We affirm. appeals.

The central focus of this case is the 33-513(5). Specifically, struction of I.C. § this statutory rights granted by what are employees who are section to certificated pursuant to I.C. not on renewable contracts arises: ancillary question 33-1212. An what, process due any, procedural if employee an under accrue to the benefit of Pocatello, Coulter, plain- M. for Joseph § 33-513(5). tiff-appellant. cause, I.C. 33- applicable As to this Johnson, Boise, amicus curi- Byron J. p. ch. 513(5), 1976 Idaho Sess.Laws ae, Idaho Educ. Ass’n. 33-513(6)), provid- (currently I.C. Merrill, F. Merrill of Merrill & Wesley dis- of the school ed the board of trustees Pocatello, defendant-respondent. following powers and duties: trict with the procedures establish criteria “[t]o DONALDSON, Chief Justice. evaluation of cer- supervision and Webster, who are not employees was em- tificated Norma Appellant, contract, provided on a renewable as a teacher for the 1976-77 ployed 33-1212, Idaho Code. Such in section by the Board of Trustees require at least one periodic procedures shall During District No. 25. reports written teacher evaluations and year, and teaching. semester of the school concerning made Webster’s second

were tion, when such teacher’s work is found to Webster does not have an interest be unsatisfactory gives rise to a process full due analy- shall be established which shall continue sis under the fourteenth amendment to the until the time for the reissuing of the United States Constitution. Board of Re- yearly contract as para- this Roth, gents U.S. S.Ct. graph. preclude shall not L.Ed.2d 548 procedural due *3 recognition unsatisfactory of work at a process rights involved in this case have subsequent evaluation and the establish- genesis their in the statute and not the ment of a reasonable period probation. of United States Constitution. We are con- instances, In all duly the teacher shall be with procedural rights cerned what are in writing notified of work areas granted by and whether Web- deficient, which are including the condi- ster was the protection by accorded offered tions of probation. Until the third year rights. these of employment by continuous the same district, including any specially statute, From district, chartered each such certificated probation period is mandated if a teach notice, employee given shall be in writ- unsatisfactory er’s work is found to be dur ing, whether reemployed he will be prior an evaluation to the of ensuing year. next notice shall Such the second in such probation semester. given be board of trustees no later instance shall continue until the time for than the fifteenth day May of of each reissuing provided by of contracts as year. If the board of trustees has argued probation statute. It is that the decided not to reemploy certificated thereby established is curtailed as a matter employee, then the notice must contain a of law the offer of a new contract. We statement of reasons for such decision agree. opinion do not We are of the shall, employee and the upon request, be pro this given opportunity for an informal vision is at run time minimum to until the review of such decision the board of reissuing of contracts and that trustees.” continuing board is from precluded not We probation from one to another. prime function of this Court support find for this conclusion in the fol when construing a statute is to ascertain lowing language quali of the statute which give and effect to the intent. procedure: fies the above “This Hanson, 58, E.g., v. 101 Gavica Idaho 608 preclude recognition of unsatisfac (1980); P.2d 861 Idaho Public Utilities Com tory work evaluation and 415, subsequent Company, mission v. V-1 90 Idaho Oil 420, 581, period the establishment of a reasonable (1966). argued 583 It is added.) probation." (Emphasis due Webster procedural process Webster’s placed spring on were violated when she was no during immediately preceding written notice of year. clarify quoted language 1977-78 school To the situa- of the statute.1 There 6, 1977, body April teacher/pupil relationships 1. The of the letter dated weaknesses placing you probation. notice of Webster’s are the reasons for on hope pro- read: “The Board of Trustees that this bationary period growth will be a regulations “Pursuant to the rules and development in these areas. Since edu- you the Idaho State Board of Education are cation of students of School District No. hereby day notified that on the 23rd concern, paramount they pledge 25 is our March, 1977, Trustees, the Board of School support supervi- of the administration and properly District No. at a constituted sory personnel assisting you. meeting, approved Hammond’s recom- Mr. program Hammond will establish a “Mr. mendation, 21, 1977, you dated March supervision utilizing Dis- resources on Poor student control you you. keep trict No. 25 that will assist To program management, lack of communi- your and the Board of Trustees informed administration, general cation with the fore, Jones, she was entitled to a Tel. 76 Idaho peri “reasonable & Co. P.2d f probation.” od of From our examination o (1955); Williams v. Idaho Potato record, we conclude that there was sub Co., 73 Idaho 245 P.2d 1045 Starch competent stantial evidence to support (1952); Mattson, Adamson v. 32 Idaho trial implicit finding proba court’s 185 P. 553 spring tion established in the 1977 was No costs allowed. still in effect the 1977-78 school Affirmed. finding has not been shown to be clearly erroneous and will not be dis BAKES, SHEPARD, McFADDEN and appeal. 52(a). turbed on I.R.C.P. JJ., concur. Under Webster was also McFADDEN, J., registered his vote entitled to written notice of the board’s August to his retirement decision not to renew including her contract a statement of reasons opportunity and the *4 BISTLINE, Justice, dissenting. for an informal review by the board of its If I were to vote to affirm the district supports decision.2 The record the trial judgment, court it would have to be on the court’s findings that Webster was accorded of counsel for argument basis of the rights.3 these Board that: We next consider Webster’s conten “[Tjhere precondition is of probation no be- tion that by excluding the trial court erred fore the Board of Trustees can determine rebuttal of a testimony by witness offered not to offer a to contract a teacher under concerning performance Webster her aas 33-513(5), who on a year-to-year non- teacher. Webster failed to contest the va renewable basis. of the reasons lidity for nonrenewal at the 33-513(5) has language “Section no what- informal review and the propriety of the ever provides that a board’s upon decision based these reasons must immediately was not at come within the time issue before the trial court —the question preceding offering was whether Webster of a new contract provid was ed procedural rights. Therefore, her for a new and has no exclusion of testimony concerning any probation period Web at all is ster’s performance as a teacher by precondition the trial to whether or not the Board court was on grounds of will offer relevancy Trustees a contract to a non- and materiality. See Mountain Tel. continuing States teacher. It is sub- progress, reports Mr. Hammond will submit evalua- uation have been related to the Board reports regular tion on a basis.” of Trustees. i “Unfortunately, your progress in these body 12, 1978, May 2. The of the letter dated problem areas has not been corrected to the provided notice of the board’s decision satisfaction of the administration and there- not to renew read: fore, the Board of Trustees has acted 6, 1977, April you “On were notified of the you Mr. Hammond’s recommendation by placing action taken the Board of Trustees teaching will not be offered a contract for the you probationary on action 1978-79 school was on Mr. Dale Hammond’s recommenda- 33-513, “Pursuant Idaho Code Section your performance tion because of in the you request given have the and be poor performance classroom. Your was out- opportunity an informal review of this correspondence poor lined student decision the Board of control, Trustees.” program management, lack of com- administration, gen- munication with the requested an informal 3. Webster review which teacher/pupil eral weaknesses relation- as reflected a letter admitted ships. into evidence addressed to her from chair- Hammond, “Mr. the direction of the trustees, Neider, Boyd Trustees, man of the board of program Board of did establish a 6, supervision you dated June 1978. This letter advised Web- in order to assist in overcom- original problem Periodically, ster that the board adhered its these deci- Mr. areas. Hammond submitted to Mr. Strah evaluation sion not to renew. reports outlining your progress. eval- These Thereupon, 33-513. if the appellant’s premise provisions

mitted that error a contract for the fourth unambiguous statutory language granted and the teacher is becomes a ‘renewable’ or year, the teacher requires the Idaho Code no such teacher, et ‘contract’ 33-1212 circumstances. under the wherein the teacher has certain seq, principle “The basic con renewal of the contract. to automatic clear, unambiguous struction is that statu case, appellant instant was in the “In the (State tory language must be effect by the first period of time covered (1961); v. 83 Idaho 362 P.2d 1075 Riley, district. years with the school Board, v. 97 Idaho Moon Investment Groseclose, (1976); v. P.2d 861 State history “The 33-513 shows that (1946)). like Idaho 171 P.2d 863 It is change applicable to this action oc- first construe the duty wise the court to Laws, Chap- curred in 1973 Session legislative meaning intent when the of a begins ter 126. Section question. statute is called into This tech following language: “ nique approved past. has been board, of each ‘The of trustees Falls, Meyers City of Idaho 52 Idaho including any specially chartered district (1932), held: P.2d 626 the court district, following powers shall have the “ attempting ‘In to arrive at and duties:’ made, intent, “the endeavor should be Laws added the entire “The 1973 Session tracing history legislation (4) as follows: subparagraph subject, to ascertain the uniform and “ ‘(4) guidelines proce- develop To or to purpose legislature, sistent *5 supervision dures policy legislature discover how the of the employees who are not em- of certificated subject matter has with reference to the contract, pro- on a renewable ployed from time to changed been or modified 33-1212, vided for in I.C. Until § view, purpose With this there- time. employment by third of continuous fore, only it is to consider not acts district, including any the same school passed legisla- at the same session district, each such cer- specially chartered ture, or passed but also acts at notice, given be employee tificated sessions, subsequent and even those reemployed will writing, whether he be This canon repealed.” which have been notice ensuing year. for the next Such investigation already adopted has been the board of trustees no given by shall be this court.’ by day May 15th of each later than the also: Local 1494 of the International “See of trustees has year. If the board such Firefighters City v. of Coeur d’Al Assoc. of the certificated reemploy decided not to 1346; 630, ene, Sunset 99 Idaho the notice must contain a employee, then Tax v. Idaho Com Memorial Garden State for such decision of reasons statement 206, (1958); mission, P.2d 766 Idaho shall, request, be employee and the Martinez, 43 Idaho 250 P. 239 State an informal opportunity for given the board of of such decision review ’ legislative history “A review of the .... trustees will show that a clearly § procedure supervi- for up “This sets the. nor contemplated was never tionary period during of teachers their and evaluation sion legislature prerequisite as a enacted dis- with the same school years first three not to offer a contract for a determination a district shall that trict. It also contract’ teacher. to a ‘non-renewable will not the teacher whether or give notice Idaho, This is the basic reemployed. laws of the state of be

“Under the school district categories requirement of teach- actually are two there and to help supervise to ers; have a years the first three during their first the teachers district, help a ‘non-renew- evaluate said teacher is school years. under the ‘non-contract’ teacher able’ or district, including any specially “It also be noted that in the 1973 should district, each such Laws, bill, certificated being Chapter the same chartered Session notice, given writing employee shall be legislature amended 33-1212 § reemployed he will be section) whether (‘contract’ provide: “ notice shall be ensuing year. Such next ‘Before a board of trustees can deter- no later by the board of trustees given renew any mine not to the contract of day May of each such than the 15th person certificated whose contract would board of trustees has decid- If the renewed, automatically otherwise be or to reemploy the certificated em- ed not to such person renew the contract of the notice must contain ployee, then salary, person a reduced shall be reasons for such decision statement of probationary period. entitled to a shall, upon be employee request, and the period preceded by shall be opportunity for an informal written from the board of trustees notice review of such decision the board with reasons for such trustees.’ provisions adequate supervi- and with (placed in paragraph “The balance of the per- evaluation of the person’s sion and above) it was. regular type was left as probationary period. formance shall not effect Such up no criteria or language “The 1973 set person’s renewable contract status.’ minimum standards that the district must guidelines proce- follow to or develop the important although “It is to notice that Therefore, possibility dures. to avoid the were both sections amended same bill was too uncertain and legislature, only the same 33-1212 sets lacking detail or standards to be enforce- requirement out able, clarify prior language, and to renew granted before determination changes were made in attempt the contract. The amendments to 33-513 (See: deficiency. cure that Statement legislature did not do this. The 1973 mere- 237.) Bill Purpose, RS No. It is to be up the district set criteria ly required change noted that the new in 1975 did not for supervision and evaluation of these new change the basic difference between 33- Nothing teachers. else. concerning pro- 513 and whether activity “The next occurred in when *6 required bation is before the determination again provide 33-513 was amended to § as to whether or not a contract for the next 4, (which under the in subsection granted. will be It does not ‘tie in’ year italics) following: in the the refusal of or probation with the offer- “ procedures ‘To establish criteria and for ing of a contract for the next year. supervision and evaluation of certifi- 1976, by Chapter legislature “In who employees cated are not numbering subpar- set the current up of the contract, in provided a renewable for agraphs portion to the end that now 33-1212, Idaho Code. Such § case, under consideration in this was num- (1) at least one require subparagraph bered There were five beginning of the second se- prior changes. no other and when year, mester of the school 1,1978 “In and there- July effective such teacher's work is found to be unsat- herein, five subparagraph fore not involved isfactory, probationary period a shall be (5) particulars was amended in further which shall continue until the controversy before this involved in the reissuing yearly for the time court. provided paragraph. tract as in this instances, duly shall be all teacher history important because it “This writing of the areas of work notified what is now 33- things: shows three § deficient, including are the condi- to have the district 513(5) designed probation. develop program supervision Until the third a and evalu- tions teachers, help of those employment by the same ation new of continuous teachers; (2) new change no was ever made the decision to not renew a teacher’s con- authority upon any board of trustees to tract must be based evaluation or offer or not to offer a contract for the next condition. year; (3) in regarding statute sum, “In history of Idaho granted ‘contract’ teachers prerequisite legislature Code shows that the probation before refusal to renew the con- amended the above section several times to tract, whereas the statute regarding ‘non- establish a course of conduct to be followed

contract’ or ‘non-renewable contract’ teach- districts in supervising up- ers was never so amended and never did grading teaching profession, especially provide prerequisite. for such a for those teachers who have not worked for comparison “The between 33-513 and school district years. same that, 33-1212 is helpful likewise if “Paraphrased, that section probation immediately before contract time power the board of trustees shall have the 33-513, is read into then the ‘non-renewa- duty to: ble contract’ teacher and the ‘contract’ procedures “1. Establish criteria and teacher have exactly the same supervision and evaluation of teachers. has, reemployment, and the district “2. One valuation must be made granting contract, the first year’s become of the second semester. obligated teaching for the balance of the Actually, life of the teacher. the full three if “3. That the teacher’s work is unsatis- years ‘probationary period’, are a factory, must be es- rights of the district to determine if the tablished. type ‘permanent’ individual is the teach- Subsequent “4. evaluations and logical er the district wants. It is not tionary periods may be established. be, effect, there require double “5. The teacher must be notified in probation. writing of the deficiencies and conditions of “During years, the first three the teacher only has contract for one “However, place at no within said section acquired any legally pro and has not is it provided necessary that it is to follow ‘rights’ benefits or to be re specific tected procedures such evaluation before a second During comparable periods, the hired. Su or third can be denied preme of the United has deter Court States place provide board. At no does it that, statutory language, mined absent unsatisfactory teacher must be evaluated as legal right not have a to be does before a second or third contract can hearing rehired nor to be reasons or a place be denied the board. At no is it (Board when Regents not rehired only that the board shall use rea- Roth, 33 L.Ed.2d U.S. S.Ct. sons for non-renewal of the second or third Therefore, (1972)). first these year contracts that are found from said *7 years property teacher has no the procedure. right requirement whatever that she be or that, only provides the “That section until the distinguished rehired. This is from ‘continuing contract’ teacher under 33- third of continuous contracts the district, given which of each teacher shall be teacher has a automat school whether will or continuing ic renewal and has a contract. written notice she will not ensuing (Compare: reemployed year by Robinson v. Joint District be for the next School 150, 100 (1979)). May 436 no than No. Idaho later that “If the Board of Trustees has decided not “Section has no teacher, must to the the notice must provides any probation period reemploy that the the reasons for such decision and the immediately preced- come within time state opportunity for a teacher shall be the ing question offering the a contract that an informal review of such decision. any language new nor is there year,

349 however, and I opinion, The Court in its legislative-drawn “The distinction is clear as based first blush justifiably, upon and believe between a ‘non-contract’ teacher a ‘con- statutory proce- teacher. 33-1212 re- similarities found tract’ Idaho Code § that, continuing to and non-con- quires specific language, applicable the dures board teachers, inde- tinuing to has reached cannot refuse renew a contract unless contract uphold- probation- pendent reasoning the has on a and grounds been so, the doing the court. ary period supervision. ing under district Section mind, Court, the precondition incorrectly has no to divines applica- my such intent, so in a to such the or at least does legislative ble ‘non-contract’ teachers as agree. I am unable to appellant herein. manner with which the be as to be accepted, appears If it facts, “While not exactly point its some due position, that Webster has Court’s the legislative intent disclosed in case of statutory provi- process rights under Board Turner v. of Trustees Cal.3d [16 sions, have I would to conclude then 443], (Cal.) P.2d 1115 con- Cal.Rptr. not awarded her. were cerning probationary their treatment re- the contentions of the Putting dis- aside supportive vested teachers is upon Board which it would spondent The closed Idaho intent. Turner court, Cal.Rptr. p. at have us affirm the district and reach- provided, beginning case p. ing only follows: proper interpretation for a P.2d] “ scheme, statutory it follows that our deci- to system is established not ‘Our sion should turn construc- jobs for teachers but rather provide tion of provi- I.C. and its two Establishing a test young. educate the sions regarding of teachers prove teachers to themselves is essen- continuing who are not on a or good system. tial to a While education provision renewable contract. The first grant security job refusal to total at the least one that “at evaluation [is repugnant time of initial hiring may required] prior career, teaching those re- pursuing second of the school semester statutory peated amendments related to * * * when teacher’s is found to be any such work probationary teachers re- shall unsatisfactory probationary has legislature veals been well be established which shall continue until balancing necessary aware of the delicate reissuing time for yearly compet- to accommodate the sometimes ” majority added.) .... (Emphasis interests. lan- straightforward reads into this rather “ existing ‘Examination of statutes guage so estab- vinces us the has not fit legislature seen provision lished this “is at minimum under grant probationary teachers a vested of con- reissuing to run the time for ’ until ** * right to be rehired precluded the board tracts and that is not being no precondition “There one continuing from from granted tion must be before Board added.) ma- (Emphasis to another.” its Trustees can exercise discre- its ex- jority support to find purports not, reemployment tion whether offer or (and in a almost panding conclusion further fall, case must and the trial appellant’s statute, provision parenthetical) Brief, Respondent’s pp. be affirmed.” court immediately the first above follows 8-15. “This quoted language: court, unsatisfactory work preclude recognition of was on this basis that the trial It *8 estab- the at a evaluation and the Judge Hargraves, subsequent ruled for School of Board, period one assume that he of a reasonable safely and can lishment I explain does and majority of brief which the tion.” The not had the benefit the same provision how has least on the do not understand the latter Board filed here —at majority’s supports which court ruled. the conclusion. point on the lower probationary period. was entitled to a majority The notes that Webster shall placed probation pursuant period probation preceded by on to the second of be provision was on dur- placed probation written notice from the board of trustees —she year.1 the second semester of the school period probationary with reasons for such Thus, that majority the concludes adequate supervi- with provisions and to that “was entitled to a provision Webster person’s per-, sion and evaluation ” I period probation.’ ‘reasonable of believe probationary period. during formance the that she was entitled to more than that. not affect period probation of Such status.” renewable contract person’s the provision

The statute states that the first dicta, preclude not ... the stated: “The duration regarding probation “shall In Court notice period of a reasonable to be set in a written period the establishment the was 33-513(5) which probation.” (emphasis of trustees in I.C. from the district board § context, added). plain the lan- of the reasons Read the was to be advised ” the guage suggests of the statute .... Id. at imposing the required of Trustees is to establish 266, added). Board Al (emphasis 596 P.2d at 439 Although this period fixed interpreting I.C. though the Court was ap- either the argument by was not raised 33-513(5), and not the lan § § curiae, sug- it or amicus I believe pellant comparable, guage of the two sections I.C. interpretation the gests explicitly requiring neither the duration 33-513(5). § fixed. Under the the be circumstances, appropriate to it would be District No. v. Joint School In Robinson interpret 33-513(5) requiring I.C. § 263, (1979), this 100 Idaho to establish a Board of Trustees 33-1212, which es- construed I.C. § Court Furthermore, of fixed duration. for teachers procedures tablishes procedures set forth in I.C. since renewable contracts on 33-513(5) legislature were added § part: are not re protections which provide of trustees can deter- “Before a board for teachers not em process due quired any the contract of not to renew mine contracts,2 compare on renewable ployed whose contract would person certificated Roth, 408 U.S. Regents Board of renewed, or to automatically be otherwise (1972), with I.C. 33 L.Ed.2d person such S.Ct. the contract of renew interpretation would 33-513(5), such an person shall be salary, a reduced protec- however, only 33-513(5) provides forth the minimum of trus- sets that boards 1. I.C. § duty “pro- may provided power teachers. establish to such tions which tees have supervision and evaluation of cedures interesting Board in this to note that the It is employees not who are certificated protections to nonten- case additional contract,” proce- those renewable but that on a policy “If a states: The Board’s ured teachers. principal (1) require “shall at least one dures recommending considering that a prior beginning of the second semester employed on a non-renewable teacher who is ” case, In this the Board the school .... probation, on status be procedures for the evaluation had established with his principal, conferred who shall have status. nonrenewable contract of teachers on teacher, notify superior, must immediate writing, during procedures provide first Those day of March.” the first not later than . employment, “will be such teachers addition, policy provides if Board’s (3) formally times. evaluated at least established, it “shall not is (60) prior completed must be The first evaluation days.” sixty Al- calendar be less than the second semester plaintiff as an issue though not raised it has remaining evalua- two only appear appeal, did the it would completed 15th.” to March tions must be 33-513(5), comply it with I.C. fail to Thus, preclude Board does not I.C. proce- its own clearly with to act in accordance Board failed procedures dures, Webster teachers the letter contemplate of untenüred because evaluations probation was she was on second semester. notified that April dated 1977. autho- supra n. I.C. As noted procedures to establish boards of trustees rizes statute, teachers. nontenured to evaluate *9 required initial evaluation has taken be consistent with general mind, time. place my to a reasonable To purpose of not em- benefiting teachers prevents the Board from es- provision ployed on renewable contracts. period is either tablishing probation a lan- majority rewrites the initial unreasonably long. or unreasonably short 33- guage regarding probation in I.C. § However, interpreta- majority’s under the 513(5) allowing probation periods for 33- provision first of I.C. § tion of the “at minimum” run until the time 513(5), pursu- probation period a reissuing of contracts and which can only has a minimum provision ant to that continue year from one to the next. With- duration; period probation length out separately discussing provi- the second only by indefinitely can continue —limited statute, majority sion in the concludes is entitled to addi- the fact that the teacher probation that a established under the “rea- achieving renewable con- rights upon tional period sonable also probation” provision of con- (after years tract status three full necessarily upon does not terminate district, see employment tinuous reissuance of a contract and can continue 33-1212). This means that under the I.C. § from year agree one to the next. I cannot 33-513(5) majority’s interpretation I.C. § with those conclusions. placed pro- could be on first-year a teacher It is a important keep in mind that first month of the school bation on employed a renewable no.t could probation and that continue being tract has no contract reem- reasoning per- Most years. almost three mind, ployed. accepts With this in if one sons, teachers, likely would find including the fact that under I.C. § unreasonably probation period such a to be required period Board is to establish a fixed However, long. majority opinion under the probation, illogical it would be clearly improper. it would not be conclude that could probation period interpretation A of I.C. 33- continue from such a Under 513(5) necessary, if one is would be as fol- reading of the statute the Board could es- lows: Where a teacher is on tablish probation period possi- a which could pursuant provision tion to the initial —based bly beyond continue the time in which the upon required first-semester evalua- teacher was if teacher’s employed. What a probation tion —that continues from the contract is not renewed or if she does not imposition statutory date of until the time accept a new if one is offered? issuing new contracts. At that time the Does she take her probationary status with offering signals of a new contract the end job? her to the next a teacher not Since Under such an unstrained employed only renewable contract is would interpretation, a definite time single for a it would be established, teacher with a providing logical only to conclude that the can Board adjust reasonable time in which to to the a teacher on place probation suggestions of the evaluator. The second remainder of the until the year up portion simply provides of the statute offering offering of a new contract if the precluded making the Board is not from such is the Board’s will. If such subsequent evaluations of teachers. I is incorrect in majority believe imposition pro- evaluations result in the concluding provision that under the initial bation, a fixed term of in cases in (applying of I.C. § must be established. length reasonable in upon is placed which the teacher estab- probation period, like those Such required provision, first-semester initial should lished under the issuing evaluation), probation period once estab- until the time for continue Such, submit, really terminate the reis- I is not lished does new contracts. clear and merely an but interpretation, suance of a contract. The statute, and which reading limits the informed provision second Further- purposes. with its after is consistent imposed in which in cases *10 more, liberty boards of trustees remain at The contract between Webster and the to notify faltering again being teachers of contains following para- School District the placed on probation pursuant to evaluations graph:

occurring subsequent period. a agreed “5. It be- understood I Finally, majority note that the con parties tween the this contract compe cludes that there is substantial and subject applicable to the laws of the State tent evidence to support the trial court’s Idaho, duly adopted the rules of the “implicit” finding probation “that the es policies Board of Education and the State spring tablished in the of 1977 was still in reference, are, by of the District which during year,” effect the 1977-78 school a incorporated part a herein and made finding part based in on the fact that agreement fully this the same as if set plaintiff probation was aware that her was forth herein.” manner, purportedly continuing. In this previous Our decisions establish that issue, “implicit majority disposes statutory applicable law of Idaho to teacher ly” holding that Webster was afforded the contract. part contracts becomes process required due under the law. The excerpt recognizes. Similarly, The above so curiae, however, brief of amicus correctly excerpt provides policies of the points out of what Webster the irrelevance incorporated District are also in the School thought principal and of the fact that Thus, case the teacher contract. in a recent may have informed her that she was still on United District Court for the District States probation during year. the 1977-78 school reviewing statutory Nevada in similar Robinson, supra, The quotes amicus brief noting that it was “not provisions, after which statute clear this Court stated: “The decisions,” was by any assisted state court ly appears imposition probation to make interpreta- “assisted the treatment and a board decision.” 100 Idaho provisions tion Code School added). P.2d at 439 There is no (emphasis officers of Washoe administrative contention in this case that the Board of McQueen, District.” Cain v. County School Trustees the 1977-78 school (D.Nev.1975), BRT aff’d 580 probation period acted to establish a for No. R-74-5 Thus, Webster claims to be enti (9th Cir.1978). Webster. F.2d 1001 either the sought, tled the relief because us, Here, in the case before School probation period purportedly District to the mandate 1976-77 school was not during the 33-513(5), criteria of I.C. did “establish require established in accordance doing and in so did two procedures,” statute, or, single because the ment of the (1) beyond Board went things. my opin expired. had requirements minimum of I.C. § relief in the ion she should be accorded such but, displayed it its importantly, more of the ration adoption absence of the Court 33- understanding purpose I.C. § quoted district court arid the ale of the 513(5), understanding is reflected brief —which has excerpt from the Board’s applicable and is hence procedures its noted, no previously been aside. As put relationship, as teacher-Board contractual established for the termination date was per Cain. during the period established probation required three policy Board’s Although neither the year. 1976-77 school teacher, of a first-year formal evaluations argue curiae nor the amicus appellant completed which was to be the first of a establishment of requires the statute semester, the other two second duration, person period of fixed to March 15th completed prior to be being placed in a be made aware of should requirements exact semester. The second status, which is ex and that probationary Follow- second governed a teacher’s v. Board of him or her. Tuma pected See probation, formal Nursing, 100 Idaho sta- imposing out for spelled seeming negate tus —such the Court’s imposed

view that once could and

would continue on ad infinitum. Not an

absolute, reading but it is deducible from a

of the Board’s in its policy entirety

Board understood the requir- State law as

ing a probationary period as a condition

precedent making determination that

second or third year contract would not be This, course,

offered. runs contrary to

the contentions of counsel as set forth in brief,

the Board’s but the Board was free to policy prior

form its own any litigation obtaining advice counsel.

Whether it be that I see this in a correct error,

light, event, or am in I am join

unable to opinion Court’s at this

juncture. CO.,

CIRCLE C RANCH

Plaintiff-Respondent, Gladys Jayo,

Paul JAYO and Marie wife,

husband and

Defendants-Appellants.

No. 13296.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Feb.