Owens v. School Dist. No. 8R of Umatilla County
Decision Date | 20 October 1970 |
Citation | 3 Or.App. 294,473 P.2d 678 |
Parties | Arnold S. OWENS, Appellant, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 8R OF UMATILLA COUNTY, as public body corporate, Respondent. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Gene B. Conklin, Pendleton, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.
Alex M. Byler, Pendleton, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Corey, Byler & Rew, Pendleton, and Brewer & Smallmon, Hermiston.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and LANGTRY and FOLEY, JJ.
Plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring that he has a valid teaching contract with defendant school district pursuant to contract renewal rules and regulations adopted by defendant district which were incorporated in his teaching contract. Defendant district claims the adopted rules contravene statutes governing school districts and are invalid. The issues were raised by defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's amended complaint on the ground it did not set forth facts sufficient to state a cause for declaratory relief. The trial court sustained defendant district's demurrer and plaintiff appeals from the judgment dismissing his amended complaint.
We base our statement of facts on the allegations of plaintiff's amended complaint. Plaintiff is a teacher who is ready, willing and able to teach. Defendant is a nontenure school district. In 1964 defendant district negotiated with the Hermiston Association of Teachers, on behalf of plaintiff and other teachers within defendant's district, certain rules and regulations which were agreeed upon between defendant and the Hermiston Association of Teachers and adopted by defendant.
Plaintiff and defendant entered into a Teacher's Three Year Contract dated February 24, 1966, under which plaintiff was employed by defendant district for the 1966--67, 1967--68 and 1968--69 school years. The aforementioned rules and regulations were incorporated as a part of this contract. That portion thereof relating to grievances and dismissals is as follows:
'DISMISSALS
'The board, upon receipt of such request, shall call a hearing to be held within 10 days following the receipt of the request and shall, at least three days prior to the day fixed for the hearing, notify the employee in writing of the date, time and place of the hearing.
'The employee may engage such counsel and produce such witnesses as he may desire.
'The board, within 5 days following the conclusion of such hearing, shall notify the employee for the next ensuing term.
'GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
Prior to March 15, 1969, defendant district informed plaintiff in writing that his Teacher's Three Year Contract would not be renewed for another three year term, or at all. In giving this notice of nonrenewal, defendant did not comply with the dismissal provisions set out above.
It is plaintiff's contention that defendant must comply with these rules and regulations in order to effectuate a termination. Because defendant failed to comply, plaintiff claims he has a valid contract for three years beginning August 29, 1969, with a salary for 1969--70 equal to his 1968--69 salary. Defendant contends that it need only follow ORS 342.508(2) and ORS 342.513 in order to effectively terminate the contract. These two sections read:
ORS 342.508(2):
ORS 342.513:
'(1) Each district school board shall give written notice by March 15 of each year to all teachers and administrators in its employ who are not under tenure or who are not eligible for a three-year contract under ORS 342.508 the renewal or nonrenewal of the contract for the following school year. In case the district school board does not renew the contract, the material reason therefor shall, at the request of the teacher or administrator, he spread upon the records of the school district and the board shall furnish a statement of the reason for nonrenewal to the teacher or administrator. If any district school board fails to give such notice by March 15, the contract shall be considered renewed for the following school year at a salary not less than...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Neuhaus v. Federico
...rules governing student conduct. See, e.g., Dilger v. School District 24CJ, 222 Or. 108, 353 P.2d 564 (1960); Owens v. School District, 3 Or.App. 294, 473 P.2d 678 (1970). Thus, the question of the school board's authority in this context is a novel We interpret ORS 339.240, 339.250 and 332......
-
Wallis v. Crook County School Dist.
...an action of mandamus to compel the school board to issue such a one-year contract for the following year.' In Owens v. School District, 3 Or.App. 294, 301, 473 P.2d 678, 681, Sup.Ct. review denied (1970), this court '* * * In essence, these statutes provide that notice of renewal or nonren......
-
Johnson v. Angle
...it does not preclude a school board setting up other dates, so long as the statutory minimum is met. See Owens v. School Dist. No. 8R of Umatilla County, 473 P.2d 678, 681 (Or.App.1970). It is conceded by the defendants that the procedures outlined in the booklet were not followed in termin......
-
Vanderzanden v. Lowell School District No. 71
...fire or renew a teacher's contract. The power to remove personnel is necessarily implied therefrom. Owens v. School District No. 8R of Umatilla County, 3 Or.App. 294, 473 P.2d 678 (1970). It is apparent that the superintendent had no statutory power or authority to either employ or to dismi......