Case Title: Mehlhoff v. NEWBURG UNITED SCHOOL DIST. 54

Citation: 512 N.W.2d 432

Docket Number: 930265

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1994-02-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
512 N.W.2d 432 (1994) Kim MEHLHOFF, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NEWBURG UNITED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 54, Defendant and Appellee. Civ. No. 930265. Supreme Court of North Dakota. February 23, 1994. *433 Michael Geiermann of Rolfson, Schulz, Lervick Law Offices, Bismarck, for plaintiff and appellant. Brian W. Hankla of McGee, Hankla, Backes & Wheeler, Minot, for defendant and appellee. SANDSTROM, Justice. Kim Mehlhoff appeals from a district court summary judgment dismissing his complaint against Newburg United School District No. 54. Mehlhoff alleges the school district wrongfully did not renew his teaching contract because it failed to "discuss" the evidence at his nonrenewal meeting, in violation of N.D.C.C. § 15-47-38(5). We affirm, holding the school board, through the use of clarifying questions during the nonrenewal meeting, "discussed" the evidence as required by § 15-47-38(5). During the 1991-92 school year, Mehlhoff was a teacher and coach with Newburg United School District No. 54. In March 1992, Mehlhoff was notified by letter the school board was contemplating nonrenewal of his teaching contract due to a decline in enrollment and lack of funds. A school board meeting was scheduled for discussing and acting on the proposed nonrenewal of his contract. At the nonrenewal meeting, Mehlhoff personally appeared and was represented by Ron Kouba of the North Dakota Education Association, and Mary Huber, a fellow teacher. The school district was represented by Superintendent John Rintala and Principal Joe Harder. The special meeting was held in an executive session of the school board. See N.D.C.C. § 15-47-38(5). At the start of the meeting, school board President John Wyman read the proposed meeting procedure from the North Dakota School Board Association's Handbook for Board Members: The procedures outlined by President Wyman were agreed to by the school board and Mehlhoff. *434 To support nonrenewal of Mehlhoff's contract, Superintendent Rintala presented testimony and evidence of decreased enrollment and lack of funds. Superintendent Rintala also explained why, under the district's reduction in force policy, Mehlhoff was chosen for nonrenewal. Mehlhoff and his representatives questioned Superintendent Rintala concerning his testimony and evidence. Following Superintendent Rintala's presentation, Mehlhoff and his representatives made a presentation. Mehlhoff produced several witnesses to support his position that his teaching contract should be renewed. During Mehlhoff's presentation, several school board members asked questions of Mehlhoff and his witnesses. Superintendent Rintala also asked questions. At the close of the evidence, Superintendent Rintala made a closing statement, followed by closing statements by Mehlhoff and Kouba. Following the closing statements, President Wyman asked for a motion from the school board. School board member Ray Boll moved the board find that the reasons for nonrenewal had been substantiated, and Mehlhoff's contract not be renewed. The motion was seconded, and President Wyman asked if there was any further discussion by board members only. There was no further discussion. The board voted, by roll call vote, not to renew Mehlhoff's teaching contract. In September 1992, Mehlhoff sued the school district for monetary damages, alleging the school board wrongfully did not renew his teaching contract. Mehlhoff claims the school board violated his rights under N.D.C.C. § 15-47-38(5), and under the agreed upon meeting procedure, by not properly discussing the evidence before voting on his nonrenewal. Both Mehlhoff and the school district moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the school district's motion for summary judgment, concluding the school board did not violate Mehlhoff's rights during the nonrenewal meeting. Under Rule 56, N.D.R.Civ.P., summary judgment should be granted only if it appears there are no genuine issues of material fact or any conflicting inferences that may be drawn from those facts. See Ellingson v. Knudson, 498 N.W.2d 814, 817 (N.D. 1993). The issues raised by Mehlhoff on appeal are controlled by the nonrenewal procedure of N.D.C.C. § 15-47-38(5). The interpretation of a statute is a question of law and is fully reviewable by this Court. Gabriel v. Minnesota Mut. Fire and Cas., 506 N.W.2d 73, 75 (N.D.1993). N.D.C.C. § 15-47-38(5) provides: Mehlhoff claims the school board violated both § 15-47-38(5) and the procedure agreed upon, by failing to discuss at the end of the meeting the reasons for his nonrenewal. Mehlhoff contends the requirement in § 15-47-38(5) that "[a]t the meeting, the board shall discuss the evidence presented" requires the board to discuss the evidence after closing statements and before voting. Mehlhoff also claims a similar requirement is mandated by the procedure agreed upon at the start of the meeting. The procedure provides: "[f]ollowing the closing statements, discussion will be limited to board members only." Mehlhoff does not claim the board's nonrenewal decision was frivolous or arbitrary. The district court rejected Mehlhoff's contentions, finding in its conclusions of law: Mehlhoff's appeal raises two issues: (1) whether either § 15-47-38(5), or the agreed upon meeting procedure, required the school board to discuss the evidence after closing statements, and (2) whether the school board's questions during the meeting satisfy the discussion requirements of § 15-47-38(5) and the agreed upon procedure. In interpreting a statute, we first look to its words. "When the wording of a statute is clear and free of all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit." N.D.C.C. § 1-02-05. The discussion requirement of N.D.C.C. § 15-47-38(5) is clear and unambiguous. The board is to discuss the evidence at the meeting. The plain language of the statute does not require the board to discuss the evidence after closing statements, and we will not add such a requirement through interpretation. Similarly, the agreed upon meeting procedure limits the discussion after closing statements to board members, it does not require the board to discuss the evidence at that time. Mehlhoff contends the board failed to discuss the evidence at his nonrenewal meeting. According to Mehlhoff, questions during the hearing do not satisfy the statutory requirement. Citing Webster's Dictionary (2nd ed. unabridged) Mehlhoff defines "discuss" as: "to talk or write about; to take up in conversation or in a discourse; consider and argue the pros and cons of." Mehlhoff also notes "discuss" is synonymous with terms such as "debate, argue, dispute, and controvert." Although Mehlhoff's definition is accurate, his logic is flawed. A debate is a discussion, but not all discussions are debates. Discussions can take many forms, including the asking of questions. We have reviewed the transcript from the nonrenewal meeting and conclude, as a matter of law, the school board satisfied its duty under § 15-47-38(5) to discuss the evidence. Under § 15-47-38(5), discussion is required to ensure the board's decision is not frivolous or arbitrary. In determining whether a school *436 board has met its duty to discuss, the inquiry is not on whether the board has used a particular form of discussion, but rather, whether the board was actively involved in determining whether the reasons for the nonrenewal were substantiated. Here, the board was actively involved in the meeting. The board heard presentations from both Superintendent Rintala, and Mehlhoff and his representatives and witnesses. The board asked questions of many of the participants and was actively involved in deciding whether Mehlhoff's teaching contract should be renewed. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. VANDE WALLE, C.J., and NEUMANN, LEVINE and MESCHKE, JJ., concur.