1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r:

____

____ ____ ___ 3 Fi lin g D at e: January

29, 201 5 4 N O. 33, 484 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO e x rel. THE 6 HON ORA BLE S HER YL WILLIAM S 7 ST A P LE TO N , TH E H ON OR A BL E H OW IE 8 MORALES , THE H ONORABL E LI NDA M. 9 LOPEZ , AMERICAN FEDERATI ON OF 10 TEACHE RS-NEW MEXICO , ELLE N 11 BERNST EI N, and RYAN ROSS, 12 Pet it io ne rs -Ap pe ll an ts , 13 v. 14 HAN NASKA ND ERA , S ecre tary-D esignate of 15 the PU BLIC ED UC ATION DE PA RTM ENT OF 16 THE STATE OF NEW MEXI CO, 17 Respondent -Appellee. 18 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF BER NA LILLO C OUN TY 19 C. Shann on Bacon, Distr ict Judge 20 Youtz & V aldez, P. C. 21 Sh an e C. Y out z 22 Stephen Curtice 23 Ja m es A
. Mo nta lbano 24 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 25 fo r Pe tit ion er s- Appe llants1 Mo nt go m ery & An dr ews , P.A.

2 Jeffr ey J. W echsler 3 Seth C. McMillan 4 AndrewS. Montgo m ery 5 San ta Fe, NM 6 for Re spon dent-Appellee1 OPIN ION

2 BUS TAM AN TE, Judge. 3 { 1} Pe tit ion er s a

ppe al the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of the ir pe tit ionf

or aw ri t of 4 m an da m

us o rd er ing the Se cr et ar

y -D es ign at e (the Se cr et ar y ) of the Pu

bli c E duc at ion 5 D ep ar tm en t ( the D ep ar

tm en t) to de s i s t

f r o m i m p l e m en tin g ne wr eg ulatio ns g ove rn ing 6 the evaluation of teachers in publ ic schools
. Like the district court, w e conclude that 7 the S ec re tary ac te d w ith in the dis cr et ion au tho ri ze d by statut e an d, the re fo re , c an not 8 be co m pe ll edby a writ o f m an da m us to su sp en d t he ne w reg ul at io ns . W e aff irm. 9 BACKGRO UND 10 { 2} InJanuary

201 2 th e T ea ch er

a nd S ch ool L ea de r E ffectiv en es s A ct ( the A ct ) 11 w as intro duc ed in the N ewMe xic o L eg isl at ur e. A lth oughit

pa sse d inthe H ouse of 12 Re pr es en ta tiv es , ult im at el y the L eg isl at ur e fa ile d to pa ss the A ct . L at er that y ear, the 13 Se cr et ar

y pub lis he d r eg ulatio ns gove rn ing ev al ua tio n of te ac he rs in publ ic sc hool s, 14 w hic h w er e co dif

ie d at T itl e 6, Ch ap te r 69, Part 8 of the N ewMe xic o A dm ini str at ive 15 Co de
. See 6. 69. 8 N MA C ( 08/ 30/ 20 12 ). W e w ill r ef er to the se r eg ulatio ns 16 co ll ect iv el y

as “ Part 8.” Pa rt 8 is ti tl ed “ Teach er an d S ch oo l Lea de r Effec ti ve ne ss .” 17 Id

. 18 { 3} The pu rp os e o f Part 8 i s s ta te d i n t he reg ul at io ns . 19 Th i s r

ul e e st abl i sh e s un i f

or m p r oc e dur e s f

or c on du c t i ng a nnual 20 ev al ua tio ns o f lic en se d sc hool em plo y ee s, fo r se tti ng the standard s f or2

1 ea che ff

ec tiv en es s le ve l, f

or m ea sur ing a nd i m

ple m en tin g st

ude nt 2 ac h i ev emen tg ro wt h , a n dfo r mon i t o ri n g ea ch s ch o o l d i s t ri ct ’s 3 im

ple m en ta tio n of

it s tea ch er an d sc hool le ad er e ff ec tiv en es s e va luatio n 4 sy ste m . Thi s rul e al so see ks to change the dy na m ic of pla ci ng e m

pha sis 5 on t ea ch er

e ff ec ti ve ne ss and p ro vid e the opp ortun ity to ac know le dge 6 excellence, therebyreplacing the binary sy stem that em phasizes y ears 7 of

e xpe ri en ce a nd c re de nti al s. 8 6. 69. 8. 6 N MA C ( 08/ 30/ 2012 ). Part 8 su pe rs ed es the te ac he r ev al ua tio n r eg ulatio ns 9 prom ulga t ed i n 2 0 0 3 as 6 .6 9 .4 NM AC (0 9 / 3 0 / 2 0 0 3 , a s am ended throug h 06/1 5/20 09). 10 See 6. 69. 8. 8 N MA C ( 09/ 30/ 2013 ). A ddi tio na l f ac ts ar e pr ovi de d inour

dis cu ssi on 11 of Pet it io ne rs ’ arg um en ts . 12 DISC US SION 13 A. Stand ard of R eview 14 { 4} “ [M] andam

us lies to com

pel the perform ance of an affir m ative act byanother 15 w he re the duty

to pe rf orm the a ct is cl earl y enj oin ed

by lawa nd whe re the re is no 16 other plain, s peedy [, ] and adequate rem edy in the ordinary course of law .” Lovato v. 17 Ci tyof

A lbu que rque , 1987 -N MS C- 086, ¶ 6, 106 N
. M. 287 , 742 P
. 2d 4 99; see NMS A 18 1978 , §§ 44 -2 -4 , - 5 ( 1884 ). “ Mandam us i s adr as tic r em edy

to be inv oke d on ly

in 19 extraordinary

circum stances.” B rant le y F arm s v . Ca rls bad Irrigati on D ist
. , 199 8- 20 N MCA-023, ¶

12, 124 N
. M. 698 , 954 P
. 2d 7 63. Mandam us d oe s no t a

ppl y “ to 21 com pel an executive officer acting within his d iscretion.” Sta te exre l. Ki ng v . L yo ns , 2 2 201 1
- N M S C
- 0 0 4 , ¶ 2 8 , 1 4 9 N
. M
. 3 3 0 , 2 4 8 P
. 3 d 8 7 8
. I n o t h e r w o r d s , “ [ w ] he n th e3

1 legal duty

in questio n is based on a statute, m andam us is appropriate only

when that 2 dutyis clear and indis putable.” Jo hnso n v . V igi l- G iro n , 200 6- N MS C- 051, ¶ 22, 140 3 N.M. 66 7, 1 46 P.3d 31 2 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)
. 4 { 5} Ge nerally , the grant or denial of a petition for wr it of m andam us is reviewed 5 fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. F ast B uc ks ofR osw el l, N. M

. , LLC v . Ki ng , 20 13 -NMCA6 008, ¶ 7, 294 P.3d 128 7. W ithin the abuse of d iscretion standard we c onsid er whether 7 the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r

uli ng r es te d onit s de te rm inatio n that the S ec re tary a ct ed w ith in 8 her statutory authority and exercised her discretion under statute, th e issue presented 9 re qui re s the int er

pr et at ion of statut es . T hus, our re vie w is de novo . Id

. ¶6; OS 10 F arm s, I nc . v . N. M

. A m . W ate r C o. , 2009 -N MC A -1 13, ¶ 19, 147 N
. M. 221 , 218 P
. 3d 11 1269
. T he sc ope of

our r ev ie wis lim ite d to w he the r the Se cret ary ’ s a ct ion s f al l 12 w ith in h er

auth or ity ; w e do n ot e xa m ine the pr ude nc e of the r eg ulatio ns the m se lve s. 13 See Am. Fe d’n of Sta te, Cnty. &Mun. Em ps. v. Martinez , 2011 -N MS C- 018, ¶ 4, 150 14 N
. M. 132 , 257 P
. 3d 9 52 ( “ Inc onsi de ri ng whe the r to i ssu e a pr ohi bit or y m an da m us, 15 we do not assess the wisdom of the public official’ s act[. ] ”). 16 { 6} Petitio n er s m ake two broad ar gum ents. Fir st, they argue that the Se cretary 17 “ [o ] ve rs te ppe d” the auth or ity gr an te d he r by

statut e an d “ [u ] sur

p[ ed ] ” the auth or ity 18 of the L eg isl at

ur e to se t publ ic pol ic y . Se co nd, the y m ai nta in that tw o pr ovi sio ns i n 19 Part 8 e xpressly

violate the Public School Code. NMSA 1978 , §§ 22-1-1 to 22-33 -44

1 (e xc ep t A rt ic le 5A ) (1 967, a s am en de d th ro ugh 2014 ). W e ad dr es s the se a rg um en ts 2 in tu rn . 3 B. The S ecre tary Did Not Exceed Her Au thority 4 { 7} Petitioners m aintain that Part 8 const i t utes a “ radical[] alter[ ation of the] 5 teacher evaluation stand ards” foun d in the Departm ent’ s governin g statutes. More 6 specifically , P etitioners object to the inclusio n of student perform ance as a m easure 7 of te ac he r co m

pe te nc y a nd t o th e re pla ce m en t of the “ bin ar

y sy ste m ” of

e va luatio n 8 (c om pe te nt o r inc om

pe te nt) w ith one in w hic h te ac he rs a re a sse sse d a cc or din g to f ive 9 le ve ls o f co m

pe te nc y ( ex em pla r y , h i g h l y e f f e c t i v e, e ff ec tiv e, m ini m al ly

e ff ec tiv e, a nd 10 ine ff ec tiv e)
. 6. 69. 8. 8( D )( 6) N MA C. T he ym ai nta in tha t the se a spe ct s of the 11 re gul at ion s c onst itu te a“ fundam en ta l sh if t i n publi c pol ic y ” and

the re fo re usurp the 12 Le gislature’ s policy -m aking functio n. We disagree that the S ecre tary has acted 13 ou ts id e o f he r st atut or il y de fin edau th or it y . 14 { 8} “ A ge nc ie s are c re at ed by statut e, a nd l im ited to the pow er a nd a uth or ity 15 expressly granted or n ecessar ily im plied by those statu tes.” Q west C orp. v . N. M

. P ub. 16 Reg u latio n Comm ’n , 2 0 0 6
- N M S C
- 0 4 2 , ¶ 2 0 , 1 4 0 N
. M
. 4 4 0 , 1 4 3 P
. 3 d4 78. 17 “ G en er al ly , the L eg isl at ur e, no t the a dm ini str at ive a ge nc y , de cl ar es the pol ic y a nd 18 establishes prim ary

stan d ards to which the agency m ust conform .” Sta te e

x re l. 19 Ta yl or v . J ohns on , 199 8- N MS C- 015, ¶ 22, 125 N
. M. 343 , 961 P
. 2d 7 68. T hr ough5

1 en ab lin g st at

ute s, the L eg isl at

ur e m ay “ de le ga te both a dj udi cativ e an d r ule -m ak ing 2 power to adm inistrative agencies.” Ne w E ne rgy Eco n. , In c. v. Sh oo br idg e , 201 0- 3 NMS C-049, ¶ 14, 1 49 N. M. 42, 243 P.3d 746
. Thus, a lthou gh courts have recognized 4 the prim acy

of the L egislature’ s role, our Suprem e Court “ha s ac k nowledged that 5 el ec te d e xe cu tiv e of

fi ci al s and exe cu tiv e age nc ie s als o m ak e poli cy , to a l es se r ex te nt, 6 as authorized by the constitu tion or the [L ] egislature[. ] ” St at e ex r el . Sa ndel v. N.M. 7 Pub. Util. Comm ’n , 199 9- N MS C- 019, ¶ 12, 127 N
. M. 272 , 980 P
. 2d 5 5 ( al te ratio n, 8 int ernal quota tio n m ar ks, a nd c itatio n om itt ed ). H ow ev er , “ [t ] he a dm ini str at ive 9 ag en cy ’ s di sc re tio n m ay not j ust if y a lte ri ng, m odi fy ing [, ] or e xte ndi ng the r ea chof 10 a lawcre ated by

the Le gislature.” Ta

yl or , 19 98 -NMSC -0 15 , ¶ 22
. 11 { 9} Whe n re vie w ing ag en cy ac tio n, w e pr es um e that “ [r ] ule s and re gul at ion s 12 en ac te d by

a n a ge nc y

a re . . . va lid ” an d w e w ill uph old the m if the y a re “ re as ona

bly 13 consist ent with the statutes that the y i m p l em ent.” Tenneco O il Co. v. N. M. W ater 14 Quality Control Comm’n , 198 7- N MC A -1 53, ¶ 14 , 107 N
. M. 469 , 760 P
. 2d 1 61, 15 supe rse de d bysta tut e as s tat ed in N

. M

. M ini ng A ss’ n v . N. M

. W ate r Q ual ityCo ntr ol 16 Comm ’n , 2 00 7- N MC A -0 10, 141 N
. M. 41, 150 P
. 3d 9 91. G ive n th is p re sum pti on, 17 Petitioners bear the burden “ of establishin g the invalid ity of [P art 8] .” N. M

. M ini ng 18 Ass’n v. N. M. Mining Comm ’n , 1996 -N MC A -0 98, ¶ 8, 122 N
. M. 332 , 924 P
. 2d 7 41.6

1 { 10} T he S ec re tary ’ s du tie s and author ity ar e addre sse d by se ve ra l di ff

er en t st at ute s. 2 T he P ubl ic E duc at ionD ep ar tm en t A ct pr ovi de s that “ [t ] he se cr et ar y m ay m ak e an d 3 ad opt suc h r ea sona

ble an d pr oc ed

ur al r ule s a s m ay

be ne ce ssary

to carr y out the 4 dut ie s of the [D ] ep ar

tm en t an d its div isi ons. ” N MS A 1978 , § 9- 24- 8( D ) (2 004)
. T he 5 Pu bli c Sc hool Co de al so co nta ins se ve ra l pr ovi sio ns ad dr es sin g th e au tho ri ty of the 6 Se cr et ar

y a nd the D ep ar

tm en t. S ec tio n 22 -2 -1 state s th at “ [t ] he [ S] ec re tary

is the 7 gove rn ing auth or ity

a nd s ha ll ha ve co ntr ol, m an ag em en t an d dir ec tio n of al l pu bli c 8 sc ho ol s, ex cep t as ot he rwis e pr ov id edby law” an d t ha t “ [t]he [D]epart m en t m ay . . . 9 ad opt , pr om

ulg at e[ , ] a nd e nf

or ce r ule s to e xe rc ise it s auth or ity a nd t he au th or ity

of 10 the [S ] ec re tary [. ] ” Se ct ion 22- 2- 2( B) an d (C ) state that “ [t ] he [D]epartm en t 11 shall . .
. determ ine policy for the o p eration of all public schoo ls and vocatio nal 12 ed uc at ionpr ogr am s inthe state , . . . [ an d] supe rv ise al l sc hool s and s ch ool of fi ci al s 13 co m ing und er

it s j ur isd ic tio n[
. ] ” I n ad di tio n, S ec tio n 22 -1 0A -1 9( A ) re qui re s th e 14 D ep ar tm en t t o “ ad opt

c ri te ri a an d m ini m

um hig hly obj ec tiv e uni fo rm

stat ewide 15 stand ard s of e va luatio n f or the a nnua l pe rf

orm an ce e va luatio n of

li ce nse d sc hool 16 em plo y ee s. ” T hr oughthe se pr ovi sio ns, the L eg isl at ur e ha s de le ga te d br oa d auth or ity 17 to the Secr etary to define h ow teachers w ill be evaluated, so long as evaluation s are 18 “ high ly

objec tive” and “ u niform statewide. ” Id

. T hus, unless th e Se cretary has 19 ab us edhe r di sc ret io n, m an da m us is im pr op er. Se e Bra nt le

y Far ms , 19 98 -NMCA-7

1 023, ¶ 22 (“ [T ] he exercise of discretionary power or the perf

o rman ce o f a 2 di sc ret io na ry

du ty cann ot be co nt ro ll edby m an da m us .”). 3 { 11} Petitioners argue that inclusion of student achieve m en t as a perf orm ance 4 m ea sur e fo r te ac he rs r ep re se nts a shi ft in publ ic pol ic y that c anonl y be m ad e by

the 5 Le gislature. T hey

appear to contend that the 200 3 evaluation r eg u l at i ons, which 6 fo cu se d onte ac hers ’ “ ski lls , tr ai nin g[ , ] a nd know le dge ” an d di d no t i nc lud e the 7 as se ssm en t of

stu de nt a ch ie ve m en t t o th e sa m e de gr ee as th e newr eg ulatio ns, 8 pr op er ly

im ple m ente d t he Legi sl atur e’s in te nt . Se e, e . g. , 6. 69. 4. 10 N MA C ( pr ovi din g 9 for im plem entation o f a h igh ob j ective uniform

standard of evaluation); 1 0 6 .6 9 .4 .9 (D )( 4 )( b ) N M AC (d i s cu s s i n g s tu d en tac h i ev emen tas a m easure of a teach er ’s 11 co m pe te nc y ); 6 .69 .4.1 1( E)(1 )(a) NMAC (s am e). 12 { 12} Bu t the re is nothin g inthe L eg isl at ur e’ s di re ct ive thatte ac he r ev al ua tio ns 13 shou ld b e “ hig hly

obj ec tiv e” a nd “uni fo rm state w ide ” that a ddr es se s e xa ct ly how 14 te ac he r ef

fe ct ive ne ss s houl d be m ea sur ed
. I nde ed , e ve n th e 2003 r eg ulatio ns, w ith 15 w hic h P et iti one rs a gr ee , w er e ba se d on the D ep ar tm en t’ s di sc re tio nary

se le ct ionof 16 assessm ent criteria
. W e conclude that the statute leaves the particulars of a teacher 17 ev al ua ti on pro gr am

to th e Sec ret ary. 18 { 13} A sim ilar analy s is applies to Petitioners’ argum ent that the Secr etary 1 9 f u n d a me n t a l l y a l t e r e dt h e p ub l i c p o l i c y o f t h e s t a t e b y “r e p l a c i n g t h e b i n a ry s ys t e m”8

1 of te ac he r ev al ua tio n w itha m or e nuanc ed sy ste m . T he statut e re qui re s on ly that the 2 te ach er ev al ua ti on pro gr am be ob jecti ve an d u ni fo rm . See § 22 -1 0A -1 9( A ). A s lo ng 3 as these broad criter ia are m et, it is within the Secre tary ’ s discretion to d evise a 4 st ru ctur e fo r ev al ua ti on s as sh e se es fit
. 5 { 14} Finally , to the extent that Petitioners argue that Part 8 is inv alid because it wa s 6 pr om ulg at ed onl y a ft er the L eg isl at

ur e fa ile d to pa ss a bil l m an da tin g it s pr ovi sio ns, 7 w e ar e unpe rs ua de d. P et iti one rs a rg ue that the pr es en t m at te r is “ virtua lly 8 ind ist ing uishable ” fr om the f ac ts i n Ta

yl or , in w hich an adm inistrative agency 9 im ple m en te d r eg ulatio ns after abil l t o th e sa m e ef

fe ct f ai le d to pa ss i n th e 10 L eg isl at

ur e. 199 8- N MS C- 01 5, ¶ 10. O n a ppe al , the Co urt i nva lid at ed the 11 reg ul at io ns . Id

. ¶ 25. I ts r ea soni ng, how ev er , w as ba se d onit s de te rm inatio n th at the 12 re gul at io ns “ im

ple m en t[ ed ] the ty

pe of sub stanti ve pol ic y

c hange s r es er

ve d to the 13 Le gislature[,] ” and t herefor e were bey ond the agency ’ s authority , not on the fact that 14 t h e Le gi sl atur e h adreject edsi m il ar l eg is la ti on . Id

. S i m i l a r l y , t h e f

a i l u r e of the 15 L eg isl at

ur e to p as s the T ea ch er an d Sc hool L ea de r E ff ec tiv en es s A ct ha s no b eari ng 16 on our analy sis of whether the Secr etary ’ s actions we re within her discretion un der 17 th e cu rre n t st atut es . Se e id. S inc e w e ha ve c onc lud ed that the S ec re tary

did not 18 ex ceed he r au th or it y , Ta yl or do es no t s up po rt P et it io ne rs ’ po si ti on .9

1 C. Part8 Does N ot Violate t he P ublic S chool Code 2 { 15} In their s econd m aj or argum ent, Petition ers cont end that two provisio ns in Part 3 8 are in dir ec t vi olatio n of the P ubl ic S ch ool Co de
. The y arg ue that w he re as the 4 statu te r equir es pr inc ipa ls t o ob se rv e ea chte ac he r in the c la ssr oom , P ar t 8 pe rm its 5 as sis tant pr inc ipa ls to obse rv e te ac he rs . S im ilarl y , the y a rg ue that w he re as the statut e 6 requires that any

evaluation sys t em be “ uniform statewide, ” Part 8 exem

pts charter 7 sc ho ol s fr om

it s re gu la ti on s. Th es e arg um en ts are u na va il in g. 8 { 16} Pe tit ion er s f

ir st c ont en d th at

6. 69. 8.8 (H ) N MA C c onf lic ts w ithS ec tio n 22
- 9 10A-19(C). T he form er states that “ [s] ch ool leaders shall obs erve instructional 10 practice of teacher s usin g com m on researc h-based observation al protocol approved 11 by the [D]epart m en t th atco rrel at es ob se rv at io ns to im pr ov edst ud en t ac hi ev em en t.” 12 6. 69. 8. 8( H ) N MA C. T he te rm “ sc hool leade r[ s] ” inc lud es both pr inc ipa ls and 13 as sis tant p ri nc ipa ls. 6. 69. 8. 7( N ) N MA C. S ec tio n 22- 10A -1 9( C) state s, “ [a ] s part of 14 the hig hly obj ec tiv e unif orm state w ide standard

of e va luatio n f

or te ac he rs , the sc hool 1 5 p ri n ci p al s h al l o b s er v e e ac h t ea ch er ’s cl as s ro o m p ra ct i ce t o d et er m i n e t h e t ea ch er ’s 16 ability to dem onstrate state-adopted c om petencies.” W e agre e w ith the dis trict court 17 that the r eg ulatio n do es not ne ce ssari ly

c onf lic t w iththe statut e be caus e th e sta tut e 18 “ m an da te s th e part ic ipatio n of sc hool pr inc ipa ls [ but ] doe s no t l im it the pe rs ons w ho 19 m ay[also] observe [teac hers] .” (E m phasis add ed.) N either doe s t h e fa ct that10

1 6. 69
. 8. 8( H ) NMA C allows e ither principals or assistant p rincipals to ob serve teac hers 2 in cla ss ro om s re li ev e p rin ci pa ls of t he ir d ut y to do so un de r th e st atut e. Even if we 3 acknowledge that, a s Petitioners argue, the regulation m ay be applied in su ch a w ay 4 as to conflict with t he statute, Petition ers provide no evidence that the Secre tary has 5 int er pr et ed the re gul at ion that way . “ If the [D ep ar tm en t] m ay int er

pr et the r eg ulatio n 6 in a m an ne r tha t is in co m pli an ce w ith the [P ubl ic Sc hool Co de ] , w e m ust a ff irm the 7 regulation, leaving to a future tim e any challenge to the regulation as applied.” O ld 8 Abe C o. v. N. M. M

ining Comm ’n , 199 5- N MC A -1 34, ¶ 22, 121 N
. M. 83, 908 P
. 2d 9 776. “ Me an w hil e, f

or pur pose s of thi s a ppe al , w e w ill pr es um e that the r ule w ill not 10 be interpreted in a m anner contrary to the [Public School Code] .” Id

. 11 { 17} N ex t, P et iti one rs a rg ue that, be ca use c hart er

sc hool s are e xe m

pt f ro m P ar t 8, 12 the e va luatio n p ro gr am doe s no t c om

ply w iththe statut e’ s r equir em en t tha t any 13 ev al ua ti on pro gr am

be un ifo rm ly app li edto all sch oo ls
. See 6.6 9.8 .7(L) NMAC 14 (defining “ [s] chool di strict” and stating that “ [d] istrict-authorized charter schools are 15 ex cl ude d f

ro m be ing c onsi de re d asc hool dis tr ic t f or pu rp os es of thi s r

ule ”) ; § 22- 16 10A -1 9(A) (“ The de partm en t sh al l a dopt
. . . uni fo rm

state w ide standard s of 17 eval uat i onf

or t he a nnua l p e r f

or m a nc e e va l uat i ono f

l i c e ns e d sc ho ol e m

pl oy e e s. ” ). 18 Bu t the L eg isl at

ur e expr es sly

e xe m pte d c hart er

sc hool s f

ro m the P ubl ic S ch ool 19 Code’ s provisi ons related to teacher evaluation s. Section 22-8B-5(C), which is part11

1 of the Ch ar te r Sc hool s Ac t wi thi n the Pu bli c Sc hool Co de , r equir es the D ep ar tm en t 2 to “ waiv e req ui rem en ts or rul es an d p ro vi si on s o f th e Publ ic Sch oo l Co de
. . . 3 p er t ai n i n g t o . . . ev al u at i o n s t an d ar d s fo r sc h o o l p er s o n n el [. ]” Th u s Pa r t 8 ’s 4 pr ovi sio n ex em

pti ng ch ar

te r sc hool s do es not

c ontrave ne the uni fo rm ity r equir em en t 5 in th e Publ ic Sch oo l Co de
. 6 { 18} Pet it io ne rs m ak e a cu rs ory arg um en t t ha t t he req ui rem en t i n S ect io n 2 2- 10 A7 19(A) that e valuation program s be uniform through ou t t h e st ate “ could be seen as 8 ta kin g pr ec ed en ce [ ove r the e xe m pti on in the Ch ar

te r Sc hool s A ct ]
. ” T he y

do n ot c ite 9 to an y autho ri ty in supp ort of thi s pr opos iti on. In ad dit ion , Pe tit ion ers do no t sta te 10 howthi s sp ec if

ic a rg um en t w as pr es er

ve d, w e do n ot f

ind it in the ple ad ing s, a nd the 11 dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a ddr es s it in its or de r. W e the re fo re do n ot a ddr es s th is 12 arg um en t b ecau s e i t w as no t p res erv edbe lo w and is un de ve lo pe d o n app eal
. See 13 Cr utc hfi el

d v

. N. M

. D ep ’t of Ta xa tio n & R ev en ue , 2005-NMC A- 022, ¶ 14, 137 N. M. 14 26, 106 P
. 3d 1273 (“ [O ] n appe al , the party m ust spe ci fi ca lly poi nt o ut whe re , in the 15 re co rd , the party inv oke d the co urt’ s ru lin g on the iss ue . Abse nt tha t c itatio n to the 16 re co rd or a ny obv iou s pr es er

va tio n, w e w ill not

co ns id er the iss ue . ”) ; He adley v. 17 M orga n M gm t. Co rp. , 200 5- N MC A -0 45, ¶ 15, 137 N
. M. 339, 110 P
. 3d 1 076 18 (d ecl in in g t o re vi ew an un de ve lo pe d a rg um en t).12

1 CON CLU SION 2 { 19} H av ing c onc lud ed that the S ec re tary ’ s pr om ulg at ionof Part

8 w as w ith in the 3 dis cr et ion ar

y auth or ity gr an te d he r by statut e, w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of 4 Pet it io ne rs ’ pe ti ti on fora writ of m an da m us . 5 { 19} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

6 7 M IC HA EL D . BU ST A M A N TE , Ju dg e 8 WE CO NCUR:
9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 10 JO N A TH A N B. S U TI N , Ju dg e 11

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 12 R OD ERIC K T . KE N N ED Y , Ju dg e