State ex rel. Stiller v. Columbiana Exempted Village, School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

• Citation: 74 Ohio St.3d 113,656 N.E.2d 679
• Decision Date: 22 November 1995
• Docket Number: No. 95-320,95-320
• Parties: , 104 Ed. Law Rep. 475 The STATE ex rel. STILLER, Appellant, v. COLUMBIANA EXEMPTED VILLAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 113

74 Ohio St.3d 113

656 N.E.2d 679, 104 Ed. Law Rep. 475

The STATE ex rel. STILLER, Appellant, v. COLUMBIANA EXEMPTED VILLAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellee.

No. 95-320.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted Oct. 10, 1995.

Decided Nov. 22, 1995.

Appellee, Columbiana Exempted Village School District Board of Education ("board"), employed appellant, Roger M. Stiller, as the superintendent of the district under a five-year contract for a term expiring on July 31, 1994. Pursuant to R.C. 3319.01, the board adopted procedures for evaluating its superintendent and determining whether to renew the superintendent's contract. Board Policy 1240.01, which has been in effect during all pertinent times, provides:

" * * *

"If the services of the Superintendent are found to be unsatisfactory to the Board, s/he shall be notified through the evaluation process as established.

"If his/her services continue to be unsatisfactory, the Superintendent shall be notified in writing by the Treasurer, as approved by the Board, of its intent, at least sixty (60) days prior to March 1st of the expiration date of his/her contract, that his/her contract will not be renewed."

On January 26, 1994, the board adopted its January 1994 evaluation of Stiller and presented it to him. The board's evaluation specified that Stiller was unsatisfactory in four areas and needed improvement in twenty-one areas. At a regular meeting held on February 7, 1994, the board held an executive session at which it performed a second evaluation of Stiller's performance as superintendent. The board found no improvement by Stiller in any of the areas specified as unsatisfactory or needing improvement on his previous evaluation. The board noted on the second evaluation that Stiller had denied many of the problems set forth in his initial evaluation, "exhibited a hostile attitude toward the evaluation process," and had been "noncommunicative" and "combative." The board further decided at its February 7 meeting to conduct a special meeting on February 15, 1994 to "vote on the Superintendent's contract." An agenda for the February 15, 1994 special meeting of the board listed the following items:

"5. Consider adoption of second Superintendent's evaluation. * * * "6. Executive Session to discuss the employment of personnel, specifically the expiring contract of Superintendent Roger M. Stiller. * * *

"7. Consider resolution to not reemploy the Superintendent. * * * "

At the special meeting held on February 15, the board adopted its second evaluation of Stiller, met in executive session to discuss Stiller's contract, and passed a resolution not to renew Stiller's superintendent contract. Stiller was present at the special meeting, and he received written notice of the board's decision not to renew his contract on that date.

On February 23, 1994, Stiller filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Columbiana County for a writ of mandamus compelling the board to reemploy him as superintendent for a one-year term commencing August 1, 1994. The court of appeals granted the board's motion for summary judgment and denied the writ.

The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.

Rosenzweig, Schulz & Gillombardo Co., L.P.A., Issac Schulz and Bill J. Gagliano, Cleveland, for appellant.

Horning & Horning, Richard A. Horning and J. David Horning, Salem, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Stiller had to establish that he possesses a clear legal right to reemployment, that the board is under a clear legal duty to reemploy him, and that he has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Carter v. Wilkinson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 65, 637 N.E.2d 1. In addition, Civ.R. 56(C) provides that before summary judgment may be granted, it must be determined that (1) no genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party. Davis v. Loopco Industries, Inc. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 64, 65-66, 609 N.E.2d 144, 145.

Stiller contends in his first and second propositions of law that the court of appeals erred in denying him relief in mandamus when the board failed to give him timely notice of nonrenewal in accordance with the board's procedures adopted pursuant to R.C. 3319.01. Stiller claims that he has a clear legal right under R.C. 3319.01, as modified by Board Policy 1240.01, to reemployment for an additional year as superintendent and that the board had a clear legal duty to provide notice of nonrenewal at least sixty days prior to March 1, 1994, in accordance with Board Policy 1240.01 R.C. 3319.01 provides:

" * * * [The] superintendent is, at the expiration of his current term of employment, deemed reemployed for a term of one year at the same salary plus any increments that may be authorized by the board of education, unless such board, on or before the first day of March of the year in which his contract of employment expires, either reemploys the superintendent for a succeeding term as provided in this section or gives the superintendent written notice of its intention not to reemploy him. * * *

" * * *

"Each board of education shall adopt procedures for the evaluation of its superintendent and shall evaluate its superintendent in accordance with those procedures. An evaluation based upon such procedures shall be considered by the board in deciding whether to renew the superintendent's contract. The establishment of an evaluation procedure shall not create an expectancy of continued employment. Nothing in this section shall prevent a board of education from making the final determination regarding the renewal or failure to renew of a superintendent's contract." (Emphasis added.)

Stiller received written notice of the board's intent not to renew his superintendent's contract on February 15, 1994, which is before March 1, the date specified in R.C. 3319.01. However, the nonrenewal notice was not given to Stiller at least sixty days prior to March 1, i.e., December 31, 1993, as required by Board Policy 1240.01.

The court of appeals determined that the board's failure to follow its own procedures enacted under R.C. 3319.01 did not require that statute's remedy of reemployment for one year. The court of appeals relied on our recent decisions involving R.C. 3319.02's analogous provisions regarding administrators in State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 217, 631 N.E.2d 150, and State ex rel. Martines v. Cleveland City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 416, 639 N.E.2d 80.

In Cassels, we unanimously held that a failure by a board of education to comply with R.C. 3319.02(D) evaluation procedures will not invalidate the board's action not to renew an administrative contract where the administrator received timely notice of nonrenewal pursuant to R.C. 3319.02(C). In so holding, the court stated:

"It is apparent that the court of appeals misinterpreted * * * R.C. 3319.02(D). Although R.C. 3319.02(D) mandates the evaluation procedure, it provides no remedy of reemployment for failure on the part of the board to comply with that procedure. Indeed, R.C. 3319.02(C) deems an administrator reemployed by operation of law only if a timely written notice of the board's intention not to reemploy is not given. By contrast, as appellee notes, R.C. 3319.11 specifically provides that a board's failure to comply with the teacher evaluation requirements of R.C. 3319.111 results in reemployment of the teacher. In other words, if the General Assembly had intended that board compliance with the administrative evaluation provisions of R.C. 3319.02(D) be a prerequisite to a valid board decision not to renew an administrative contract, it would have so provided, as it did in R.C. 3319.11 for teachers' contracts.

"Furthermore, R.C. 3319.02(D) expressly states that '[n]othing in this section shall prevent a board of education from making the final determination regarding the renewal of or failure to renew the contract of any * * * administrator.' This manifestly indicates that noncompliance with any or all of the R.C. 3319.02(D) evaluation procedures does not invalidate a board's action not to renew an administrative contract. * * *

" * * * [A] failure to comply with the R.C. 3319.02(D) evaluation procedures will not invalidate a board's action not to renew an administrative contract. This result comports with the language of R.C. 3319.02(C) and (D). * * * Since appellant * * * readily admitted that she was sent a timely notice of nonrenewal pursuant to R.C. 3319.02(C), she was, as a matter of law, not entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel her reemployment as an assistant principal." (Emphasis added.) Cassels, supra, 69 Ohio St.3d at 222, 631 N.E.2d at 154.

In Martines, we followed Cassels in holding that only a violation of the R.C. 3319.02(C) requirement of timely written notice of a board of education's intention not to renew an administrative contract requires relief in mandamus to compel reemployment. Again, we determined that violations of the R.C. 3319.02(D) evaluation procedure did not warrant the R.C. 3319.02(C) remedy of reemployment.

This case involves R.C. 3319.01, pertaining to superintendents, rather than R.C. 3319.02 (administrators). Like R.C. 3319.02(C) and unlike R.C. 3319.11 (teachers), R.C. 3319.01 deems a superintendent reemployed only where the board either reemploys him or fails to give written notice, prior to March 1 of the year in which his contract expires, of its intention not to reemploy him. Additionally, R.C. 3319.01 and 3319.02 both mandate that boards of education adopt evaluation procedures, but further emphasize that...