No. 89-07 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1989 

ROSE KELLER, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

-vsSCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 5 and its 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ED ARGENBRIGHT, 

Superintendent of public Instruction, 

Office of public Instruction, State of 

Montana, 

Defendants and Appellants. 

APPEAL FROM: ~istrict Court of the First ~udicial ~istrict, 

In and for the County of ~ewis & Clark, 

The Honorable Thomas Honzel, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Loren Tucker, County Attorney, ~irginia city, Montana 

Beda Lovitt, office of Public Instruction, Helena, 

Montana 

For Respondent: 

J. C. ~eingartner, Helena, Montana &- 

Submitted on Briefs: April 27, 1989 

Decided: June 6, 1989 
Mr. Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the 

Court. 

Rose Keller, petitioner, was informed by the Sheridan 

School ~istrict, that her teaching contract was not to be 

renewed. Petitioner appealed to the County Superintendent of 

Public Instruction who upheld the decision of the School 

Board, stating that petitioner had not filed timely for an 

appeal. The State Superintendent affirmed the school board's 

decision, but the ~istrict Court reversed the Deputy County 

superintendent's decision, finding that Keller's appeal was 

timely and that she had followed the applicable statute 

properly in questioning her dismissal. Sheridan School 

District appeals the District Court's decision. We reverse. 

The issues brought forth by appellant are: 

1. Whether an appeal by the nontenured teacher was 

filed timely with the county superintendent, subsequent to 

her termination. 

2. Whether petitioner is entitled to reasons for the 

nonrenewal of her contract. 

On April 14, 1987, petitioner was informed in writing 

that her teaching contract with Sheridan Public School 

~istrict No. 5 was not being renewed for the 1987-88 school 

year. The letter informing her of nonrenewal gave no reasons 

for the termination of her contract. However, the minutes 

from the school board meeting reflected that the reason all 

nontenured teachers (of which Keller was one) had not been 

rehired was financial. Allegedly, all of the nontenured 

teachers were released in anticipation that the upcoming mill 

levy would not pass. 

Respondent argues in her brief that the mill levy for 

the school district did pass in June 1987 and the board of 

trustees considered a motion to rehire all of the nontenured 
teachers, but the motion failed. The record discloses that a 

motion to rehire all of the nontenured teachers, with the 

exception of Rose Keller, was passed subsequently. 

Following the April 14 nonrenewal letter, petitioner 

did not request reasons for her nonrenewal as permitted by S 

20-4-206(3), MCA (1985). She allegedly relied on the school 

board minutes which stated that the nontenured teachers were 

being released "due to financial conditions of the district 

at this time." 

Petitioner appealed her termination with the County 

Superintendent on July 21, 1987. The appeal was dismissed on 

motion of the school district, for Keller's failure to appeal 

within the thirty days required by 10.6.103 (5), ARM. The 

State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Ed Argenbright., 

affirmed the decision of the Deputy County Superintendent. 

The school district appealed to the District Court and 

on November 3, 1988, the court reversed the decision of the 

Deputy County Superintendent of Schools, stating that Keller 

had appealed in a timely fashion and was entitled to be given 

reasons for the nonrenewal of her contract. 

The first issue is whether the appeal by petitioner 

with the County Superintenderit of Public Instruction was 

timely subsequent to her termination. We will address issue 

two in conjunction with issue one as they are closely related 

in the appeal process. Issue two is whether the teacher is 

entitled to reasons for her termination. 

Upon the termination of a teaching contract, a 

nontenured teacher has the option of requesting the reasons 

for the nonrenewal release under S 20-4-206(3), MCA (1985). 

20-4-206. Notification of nontenure 

teacher reelection -- acceptance -- 

termination and statement of reason. 

(1) The trustees shall provide written 

notice by April ---- 15 to all nontenure - 
teachers who have been reelected. Any 

nontenure teacher who does not receive 

notice of reelection or termination 

shall be automatically reelected for the 

ensuing school fiscal year. (Emphasis 

added). . . . (3) When the trustees notify a 

nontenure teacher of termination, the 

teacher may within 10 days after receipt 

of such notice make written request of 

the trustees for a statement in writing 

of the reasons for termination of 

employment. Within 10 days after 

receipt of the request, the trustees 

shall furnish such statement to the 

teacher. 

"The nontenured teacher is entitled to a notice which states 

what undesirable qualities merit a refusal to enter into a 

further contract." ~ridger Education ~ssociation v. Board of 

Trustees, Carbon County School ~istrict No. 2 (1984), 209 

Mont. 31, 34, 678 P.2d 659, 660. The request, in writing, 

must be made within ten days. A nontenured teacher also has 

the right to appeal the decision of the board of trustees, 

pursuant to 10.6.103(5), ARM, within thirty days of receiving 

notice of her nonrenewal. An exception to S 20-4-206(3), 

MCA, is subsection (4) of the same statute which states: 

The provisions of this section shall not 

apply to cases in which a nontenure 

teacher is terminated when the financial 

condition of the school district 

requires a reduction in the number of 

teachers employed and the reason for the 

termination is to reduce the number of 

teachers employed. 

section 20-4-206 (4), MCA. 

Petitioner did not request the reasons for termination 

of her contract within ten days, nor did she appeal the 
board's decision to not renew the contract within thirty 

days. 10.6.103 (5), ARM. 

Teacher claims that there are special circumstances 

involved here which did not require her to take action. 

~ccording to the board of trustees' minutes, the nontenured 

teachers were being released because "financial conditions" 

required the reductions. It is clear that if the board of 

trustees are to meet the 5 20-4-206, MCA, statutory 

requirement of informing teachers of their renewal or 

termination, they must do so before April 15 (May 1, as of 

the 1987 Montana Legislature, 5 20-4-206(3), MCA) of the 

current school year. Section 20-4-206(1), MCA. Therefore, 

if the mill levy vote does not take place until after April 

15, then it is apparent that the school board may release all 

of the nontenured teachers until the board knows whether it 

will have the funds to rehire the nontenured teachers. 

Because petitioner relied on the alleged financial 

condition grounds for the cancellation of her contract, she 

saw no necessity in requesting reasons for her termination, 

pursuant to 5 20-4-206(3) or filing notice of appeal 

according to 10.6.103, ARM. Only after Keller was the only 

nontenured teacher not to be rehired did she appeal her 

termination. Allegedly, by this time, the reasons of the 

board had changed and, therefore, 5 20-4-206(4), "financial 

conditions," was no longer applicable. While Rose Keller 

waited to be rehired after the mill levy vote, her chance for 

appeal passed. 

The statute requires a two-step process. First, if a 

teacher is not going to be rehired for the subsequent year, 

the board of trustees is required to give written notice to 

the nontenured teacher. Section 20-4-206(l), MCA. Second, 

the nontenured teacher has the right to request the reasons 

for her termination, but must make written request within ten 
days. Section 20-4-206 (3) , MCA. The letter received by 

Keller on April 14, informed her that she was not being 

rehired. Keller did not request reasons for her termination 

within the required ten days. The statute gives a nontenured 

teacher the opportunity to find out upon what grounds 

termination is based. Even in those cases where "financial 

conditions"is the alleged reason for termination, nontenured 

teachers cannot assume this is the reason for termination 

unless they request and receive from the district trustees 

written confirmation of the reasons for termination. 

Having failed to comply with the requirement of 

5 20-4-206(3), MCA, Keller is not entitled to reasons for her 

termination. We hold that the decision of the District Court 

must be reversed and the findings of the Deputy County 

Superintendent reinstated. 

Reversed. 

We concur: 
Mr. Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., dissenting: 

I dissent. The Madison County Deputy Superintendent of 

Schools and the State Superintendent of public Instruction 

both found that the Sheridan Public School Board of Trustees 

terminated four nontenured teachers, including appellant Rose 

Keller, due to the financial condition of the school 

district. Keller justifiably relied on this reason for her 

termination and did not request further justification. In 

fact, under S 20-4-206(4), MCA, the trustees were not 

required to give her reasons for her termination if the 

financial condition of the school district was indeed the 

reason for her nonrenewal. The majority, however, holds 

that, because Keller did not request a statement of reason 

within 10 days after notification of termination, she lost 

all rights of appeal. Under this reasoning, whenever a board 

of trustees decides not to renew contracts due to the 

financial condition of the school district, in order to 

protect appeal rights, all nontenured teachers must request a 

statement of reasons--just in case the trustees did not mean 

what they said when they adopted the resolution. If a 

teacher cannot rely on the resolution of a school board, what 

can she rely on? 

I would affirm the ~istrict C 

Justice