#24014-r-DG 

2007 SD 9 

IN THE SUPREME COURT 

OF THE 

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA 

* * * * 

SHARON HANSON, Petitioner and Appellee, 

 v. 

VERMILLION SCHOOL DISTRICT 

#13-1 and BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent and Appellant. 

* * * * 

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF 

THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

HUGHES COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA 

* * * * 

HONORABLE MAX A. GORS 

Judge 

* * * * 

ANNE CROWSON PLOOSTER 

General Counsel 

South Dakota Education Association 

Pierre, South Dakota Attorney for petitioner 

and appellee. 

JAMES E. McCULLOCH 

McCulloch Law Office 

Vermillion, South Dakota Attorney for respondent 

and appellant. 

* * * * 

CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS 

ON OCTOBER 2, 2006 

 OPINION FILED 01/17/07
-1- 

 

#24014 

GILBERTSON, Chief Justice 

[¶1.] On March 22, 2004, the Vermillion School District Board of Education 

(Board) voted to non-renew Sharon Hanson’s professional employee contract with 

the Vermillion School District (District). The Vermillion Education Association 

(Association) filed a grievance on her behalf with the District that was rejected by 

the Board. The Association appealed the Board’s decision to the South Dakota 

Department of Labor, Division of Labor and Management (DOL). An 

administrative law judge (ALJ) heard the appeal and affirmed the District’s 

decision to non-renew Sharon Hanson’s contract. The Association then filed an 

appeal with the South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit, which reversed. The District 

and Board now appeal. We reverse. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURE 

[¶2.] Due to a revenue shortfall and the voters’ subsequent rejection of an 

opt-out proposal, the District eliminated several staff positions for the 2004 – 2005 

term. The District applied its reduction-in-force (RIF) policy to determine which 

positions to eliminate. The RIF policy was part of the overall Negotiated 

Agreement for 2003 – 2004 (Agreement)1 between the District and the Association, 

the collective bargaining group on behalf of teachers working for the District. 

 (continued . . .) 

1. The RIF policy was included in the Agreement under “STAFF 

REDUCTION” and provided as follows:

Whenever, in the judgment of the Vermillion School Board it is advisable to 

reduce staff in the district, the following procedure will be used: 
#24014 

-2- 

________________________ 

(. . . continued) 

[¶3.] Among the positions the Board voted to eliminate at its March 8, 

2004 meeting was high school computer education. This position was held by 

Cheryl Lessmann (Lessmann). Lessmann had taught for the District for over 30 

years. At the time, she taught four sections of high school computer classes. The 

1. The school board, or its designee, will through the use of a verbal 

communication with the teaching staff, explain the situation 

confronting the district and allow the Association a reasonable 

opportunity, not to exceed ten (10) days from the date of the 

communication to present possible alternatives. 

2. The school board hereby states that the following areas are the overall 

guidelines for any staff reduction: 

A. Balanced cuts as to grade level and curriculum area to be 

determined by the student population and the pressure this 

population places on grade level or on subject area. 

B. The superiority of academic areas over extracurricular 

activities. 

3. The board may consider the following, not necessarily in order of 

priority, any of which may be used in determining which staff 

members will be nonrenewed for staff reduction purposes: student 

needs, financial condition of the district, priority of programs, program 

elimination, recommendations of administrative staff, evaluation 

records, competency, qualifications, certification, education 

background, continuing contract status, federal mandates, and any 

other relevant considerations. Seniority shall have priority in making 

staff reduction: (1) provided the teacher has the necessary certification 

stated on his/her certificate that is on file in the Administrative 

Services Building and, (2) provided the teacher has taught in one or 

more of the grades and certification of the respective level of education

(Early Childhood – 5, 6 – 8, 9 – 12, or support services; i.e. K – 12 art, 

K – 12 music, K – 12 computer, EC – 12 special education, K – 12 

library, K – 12 counselors, K – 12 P.E., and respective K – 12 foreign 

language) during the last seven years in the Vermillion School District. 

(Emphasis added). 
#24014 

-3- 

 

District determined that Lessmann met the RIF policy requirements necessary to 

invoke seniority, thus enabling her to “bump” into the position of a teacher with less 

seniority. See note 1 supra (setting out two requirements in paragraph three that 

must be met to invoke seniority). In order to allow her an opportunity to exercise 

the prerogative, the District delayed action to non-renew Lessmann’s contract until 

March 22, 2004. 

[¶4.] The District reached its determination that Lessmann was eligible to 

use seniority based on her certification2 and the courses she had taught during the 

preceding seven years. Though Lessmann was certified to teach in subject areas 

other than computer science, she had not taught under these certifications during 

the preceding seven years. Therefore, Lessmann could only use her seniority to 

“bump” into another computer science position. 

2. Lessmann’s “Teacher Certificate” had been issued by the South Dakota 

Department of Education and Cultural Affairs (DECA). The certificate had 

the following endorsements: 

Education Staff Assignment Endorsements 

204 Secondary School Teacher 

210 Office Occupations Teacher 

212 Librarian 

Teaching Majors 

520 Business Education 

Additional Subjects/Assignments 

6400 Library/Media (K – 12) 

6700 Computer Science 

2001 Lang. Arts – Mid. Sch./Jr. High 

 

 
#24014 

-4- 

 

[¶5.] Besides Lessmann, the District employed three other individuals who 

taught computer courses. Sharon Hanson (Hanson) had taught for the District for 

17 years. At the time, she was the elementary and middle school computer 

teacher.3 Marlys Larson (Larson) had taught for the District for 10 years. At the 

time, she was a part-time high school business teacher and part-time elementary 

computer teacher, who also taught a middle school computer class during the 

second semester of the 2003 – 2004 term.4 Erik Van Laecken (Van Laecken) was in 

his first year of teaching with the District. He was a part-time elementary 

computer teacher, part-time middle school science and technology modules 

instructor, middle school technology coordinator and head cross-country track 

coach. In addition to these duties Van Laecken also performed middle school 

Website work.5

 (continued . . .) 

3. Hanson had the following class schedule for the 2003 – 2004 term: 

 1st period 8th grade Computer Lit. 

 2nd period 8th grade Computer Lit. 

 3rd period 7th grade Computer Applications 

 4th period Lunch duty 

 5th period Lunch 

 6th period 6th grade keyboarding 

 7th period 3rd grade computers 

4. Larson had the following class schedule for the 2003 – 2004 term including 

the second semester middle school computer class: 

 1st period 4th and 5th grade computer 

 2nd period Marketing and Business 

 3rd period Accounting 

 4th period 8th grade Computer Lit. 

 

5. Van Laecken had the following class schedule for the 2003 – 2004 term: 

 1st period 1st and 2nd grade computers 

 2nd-7th periods 6th, 7th and 8th grade Tech Modules and Building 

 Tech Coordinator 
#24014 

-5- 

________________________ 

(. . . continued) 

 (continued . . .) 

[¶6.] The District determined that Lessmann could not “bump” either 

Larson or Van Laecken. Lessmann would have been able to “bump” in to teach 

Larson’s middle school and elementary computer courses, but she could not “bump” 

into Larson’s high school, business oriented courses. Although Lessmann had the 

certification required for teaching marketing & business and accounting by virtue of 

her business education teaching major, she had not taught in the high school 

business curriculum during the preceding seven years. Therefore with respect to 

the business courses in Larson’s schedule, Lessmann satisfied the first RIF policy 

requirement to invoke seniority—certification. However, she could not satisfy the 

second requirement—recent teaching experience at the corresponding grade level 

under the applicable certification. 

[¶7.] Lessmann was not able to satisfy either of the seniority requirements 

with respect to Van Laecken’s position. The technology modules taught by Van 

Laecken were heavily weighted on math and science.6 Lessmann had neither the 

 

In addition to his $26,471.00 annual base salary as Technology Modules 

instructor, Van Laecken also received $1,175.00 for middle school Website 

work, $1,175.00 for middle school technology coordination, and $2,350.00 for 

head cross-country coaching duties. His total contract compensation for the 

2003 – 2004 term came to $31,171.00. 

 

6. Van Laecken’s “Teacher Certificate” was issued by the South Dakota 

Department of Education (DOE) on May 7, 2002 following the reorganization 

of teacher certification and school accreditation that had formerly been 

administered by DECA. The certificate had the following endorsements: 

Education Staff Assignment Authorization: 

202 K – 8 Elementary Education 
#24014 

-6- 

________________________ 

(. . . continued) 

certification nor the teaching experience, in math or science, for her to exercise 

seniority under the RIF policy to “bump” into a position teaching those disciplines. 

Neither did Lessmann have any coaching experience or qualifications. Therefore, 

she was unable to “bump” into Van Laecken’s cross-country coaching duties. 

Degree Program Authorization: 

460 Elementary Education 

671 K – 12 Educational Technology Education 

Endorsement Program Authorization: 

2001 5 – 8 Middle Level Education – Language Arts 

2002 5 – 8 Middle Level Education – Social Science 

2003 5 – 8 Middle Level Education – Natural Science 

7011 Basketball 

7012 Football 

7017 Track/Cross Country 

7021 7 – 12 Assistant Varsity Coach 

7022 Middle/School Junior High Coach 

7023 K – 8 Elementary Coach 

Although Van Laecken’s certificate did not include a stand-alone math 

endorsement, his certification to teach elementary math arose from his K – 8 

elementary education endorsement. ARSD section 24:16:08:05 states in 

pertinent part: 

A K – 8 elementary education program shall comply with 

all standards in general education and professional 

education and require coursework sufficient to constitute 

a major, which includes demonstrated competence in the 

following professional development areas and completion 

of the following subjects: 

. . . 

(5) Nine semester hours in mathematics, to include algebra or an 

equivalent; 

. . . 

(8) Methodology of . . . mathematics, . . . ; 

. . . . 
#24014 

-7- 

 

[¶8.] Lessmann was able to “bump” into Hanson’s position because she was 

able to satisfy both of the RIF policy seniority requirements with respect to 

Hanson’s schedule. Hanson taught computer science courses exclusively. 

Lessmann was certified to teach those courses, thereby satisfying the first 

requirement. She had also taught courses under the computer science certification, 

within the grade span taught by Hanson, during the last seven years. This satisfied 

the second requirement. Lessmann notified the District that she intended to 

exercise her seniority to “bump” into Hanson’s position. On March 23, 2004, the 

District gave Hanson notice that her contract would be non-renewed for the 2004 – 

2005 term. 

[¶9.] On April 12, 2004, the Association filed a grievance with the District 

on Hanson’s behalf. The Association requested that Hanson’s contract be renewed 

because she too should have been able to exercise seniority to “bump” into a 

different position. The Association argued that Hanson’s certification7 and 

seniority qualified her to “bump” into either Larson’s or Van Laecken’s position. 

7. Hanson’s “Teacher Certificate” issued by DECA on June 27, 2000 included 

the following endorsements: 

Education Staff Assignment Endorsements 

204 Secondary School Teacher 

216 Middle School/Jr High Experience 

Teaching Majors 

520 Business Education 

630 Health/Phys Ed (K – 12) 

Additional Subjects/Assignments 

2001 Lang. Arts – Mid. Sch./Jr. High 

6700 Computer Science (K – 12) 
#24014 

-8- 

 

This argument was based in part on the claim that Hanson, Lessmann, Larson & 

Van Laecken all possessed the same experience because they all had been teaching 

computers within the K – 12 grade span during the past seven years and had served 

on computer or technology committees. The Association also argued that no special 

qualifications were required to teach Van Laecken’s technology modules and that 

the RIF policy was not being followed in the manner previously applied. 

[¶10.] On April 14, 2004, the District formally rejected Hanson’s grievance. 

The District pointed out several factors in making its determination. The vast 

majority of Van Laecken’s responsibilities comprised teaching technology modules 

for which Hanson lacked sufficient qualifications. Hanson was not certified to take 

over Van Laecken’s coaching duties. Though Hanson was certified to take over 

Larson’s middle school computer and high school business courses, she had not 

taught business courses within the last seven years. Consequently, the District 

determined that Hanson could not satisfy the seniority requirements of the RIF 

policy. 

[¶11.] Hanson appealed the District’s decision to the DOL. On September 14, 

2004 an ALJ heard the appeal. Hanson took the position that Van Laecken’s 

position should have been “reduced-in-force” or “RIFed.” Hanson supplemented her 

previous arguments in regard to “bumping” into Van Laecken’s position by calling 

his coaching duties a “non-issue” since coaching certifications were no longer 

administered by the DOE.8 

 (continued . . .) 

8. Prior to the 2001 – 2002 school term, coaching endorsements were 

administered by DECA. Since the 2001 – 2002 term, high school coaching 
#24014 

-9- 

________________________ 

(. . . continued) 

[¶12.] Hanson argued in the alternative that she should be able to partially 

“bump” into the positions of both Larson and Van Laecken. Hanson reasoned that 

if she could not teach Larson’s business courses and was unqualified to teach Van 

Laecken’s technology modules, she should be able to “bump” into the rest of their 

respective schedules. The District’s policy was not to allow “partial bumping.” The 

District asserted that Hanson could not “cherry-pick” classes she was qualified to 

teach because the responsibilities within a position were not severable. The District 

further noted that the purpose of the RIF was to save money by reducing staff. If 

“partial bumping” was allowed, optimum savings could not be achieved. 

[¶13.] The ALJ issued a memorandum decision on April 20, 2005, affirming 

the District’s decision to non-renew Hanson’s contract. On May 18, 2005 the ALJ 

issued an order, together with findings of fact and conclusions of law, incorporating 

the earlier memorandum decision. The order dismissed Hanson’s grievance with 

prejudice. The ALJ found that Hanson had not taught high school business courses 

during the previous seven years and therefore could not “bump” into Larson’s 

position. The ALJ also found that the technology modules taught by Van Laecken 

and his coaching duties precluded Hanson from “bumping” into his position. 

requirements have been administered by the South Dakota High School 

Athletics Association (SDHSAA). The requirements for coaching 

authorization under SDHSAA are the same for both head coaching and 

assistant coaching. An individual seeking authorization to coach must first 

complete two courses, Coaching Principals and Sports First Aid. This 

information is available at http://www.sdhsaa.com (last visited January 2, 

2007). 

 
#24014 

-10- 

[¶14.] The ALJ found Van Laecken’s 671 K – 12 educational technology 

teaching major, coupled with his 5 – 8 middle level science qualifications and K – 8 

elementary education endorsement (qualifying Van Laecken to teach elementary 

math), certified him to teach technology modules. See note 6 supra. Conversely, the 

ALJ found that Hanson was not certified to teach technology modules because she 

only possessed a 6700 computer science certification and did not possess math or 

science qualifications. The ALJ noted the parties stipulated that coaching 

requirements still exist, albeit through SDHSAA rather than DECA. Since Hanson 

possessed no coaching credentials, the ALJ found she could not assume Van 

Laecken’s coaching duties. 

[¶15.] With regard to Hanson’s alternative “partial bumping” proposal, the 

ALJ concluded that the District’s RIF policy was clear and unambiguous and did 

not address that possibility. The ALJ also concluded that “partial bumping” was 

not permitted because teaching contracts are not severable and “all teaching 

contracts are an equal part and parcel of an entire contract.” In addition, the ALJ 

concluded that the dollar saving objective of the RIF could not be accomplished by 

“partial bumping.” 

[¶16.] Hanson appealed the ALJ decision to the South Dakota Sixth Judicial 

Circuit, where on December 7, 2005, the circuit court heard oral arguments. At the 

conclusion of argument, the circuit court reversed the ALJ. On January 5, 2006, 

the circuit court issued its order with findings of fact and conclusions of law. The 

order directed the District to reinstate Hanson’s contract for the 2004 – 2005 term. 

Agreeing with the District, the circuit court concluded there was no provision in the 
#24014 

-11- 

 

RIF policy for “partial bumping” and that it should not otherwise be allowed. 

However, the circuit court discovered a new interpretation of the seniority 

provisions of the RIF policy that the court concluded “clearly and unambiguously” 

enabled Hanson to “bump” Van Laecken from his position. 

[¶17.] The circuit court determined that the term “necessary certification,” as 

it was used in the first part of the RIF policy seniority requirement, applied to the 

position that was RIFed rather than the position that a teacher was attempting to 

“bump” into. Based on this interpretation, no other certifications were relevant for 

satisfying the first requirement.9

[¶18.] The circuit court also had a different interpretation for the second 

requirement of the RIF policy. It determined that the list referenced in this 

requirement was exclusive. See note 1 supra (referencing a parenthetical list in 

paragraph 3 that includes certifications (K – 12 art, K – 12, K – 12 computer, etc.) 

in regard to the second requirement to invoke seniority—experience teaching course 

within a certification during the preceding seven years). The circuit court’s 

determination was based on the fact that the list was preceded by the abbreviation 

“i.e.” or “that is.” The circuit court decided that to satisfy the second seniority 

9. Under the circuit court’s interpretation, the first requirement of the RIF 

policy seniority qualifier became a comparison test. A teacher whose position 

had been RIFed could “bump” into any other position utilizing the same 

certification as the RIFed position providing the second requirement could 

also be satisfied. 
#24014 

-12- 

 

requirement a teacher had to have taught within one or more of the certifications 

listed during the preceding seven years.10

[¶19.] Contrary to the District’s contention, the circuit court also found there 

had been a past practice of RIFing on a departmental basis. In the circuit court’s 

view, the District’s past practice had been to RIF within a certification without 

specifying the position to be RIFed. The RIF would then be applied to eliminate the 

position of the lowest seniority person within a group of like certified persons. 

[¶20.] The circuit court reasoned that Hanson’s reinstatement was justified 

because the District had not correctly applied its RIF policy. Under the circuit 

court’s interpretation of the RIF policy, Hanson had satisfied the first requirement 

of the seniority provision. By this interpretation, K – 12 computer science was the 

only certification relevant since the RIFed position was Lessmann’s computer 

science course. The circuit court also concluded that under its interpretation, 

Hanson also satisfied the second seniority requirement because she had taught a 

course within the preceding seven years under a certification that was among those 

included on the “exclusive list,” K – 12 computer science. 

[¶21.] The District asserted that the middle school technology modules 

taught by Van Laecken were not computer science courses. Rather, they were math 

10. Under the circuit court’s interpretation, this “exclusive list” in the second 

requirement essentially became a limiting factor. In order for a teacher to 

“bump” into a position with the same certification as the RIFed position 

(established under the first requirement), the teacher had to have taught 

within one of the certifications on the “exclusive list” during the preceding 

seven years. This list comprised K – 12 art, K – 12 music, K – 12 computer, 

EC – 12 special education, K – 12 library, K – 12 counselors, K – 12 P.E., and 

respective K – 12 foreign languages. 
#24014 

-13- 

 

and science technology courses that integrated technology for instructional 

purposes.11 The circuit court dismissed the District’s position. It found that there 

was no difference between Van Laecken’s K – 12 education technology endorsement 

and Hanson’s K – 12 computer science endorsement. The circuit court then 

concluded that the technology modules were merely another form of “computer 

science/technology department” course that Hanson was certified to teach given her 

K – 12 computer science endorsement. 

[¶22.] The District had also averred that Hanson could not “bump” into Van 

Laecken’s position because she lacked the requisite coaching credentials required 

for her to take over Van Laecken’s entire contract. The circuit court in dismissing 

the relevance of the coaching duties cited the District’s RIF policy that gave priority 

to academic areas over extracurricular when making staff reduction decisions. See 

note 1 supra, paragraph 2(B). The circuit court also disagreed with the District in 

finding that Hanson was qualified to perform Van Laecken’s middle school 

technology coordinator and Website maintenance duties. In reversing the decision 

of the ALJ, the circuit court determined that Hanson could invoke her seniority to 

“bump” into Van Laecken’s position, concluding it was a computer 

science/technology department position. 

[¶23.] The District raises two issues on appeal: 

1. Whether the circuit court erred by its interpretation of the 

District’s RIF policy. 

11. Middle school principal Pat Anderson testified at the ALJ hearing that the 

sixth grade math and measurements module taught by Van Laecken did not 

utilize the computer at all.
#24014 

-14- 

2. Whether the circuit court erred in determining Hanson could 

“bump” into Van Laecken’s position.

 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

[¶24.] Interpretation of contracts is a question of law, reviewed de novo. 

Prunty Const., Inc. v. City of Canistota, 2004 SD 78, ¶10, 682 NW2d 749, 753 (citing 

Fenske Media Corp. v. Banta Corp., 2004 SD 23, ¶8, 676 NW2d 390, 393). This 

Court reviews the circuit court’s conclusions of law de novo. Parmely v. Hildebrand, 

2001 SD 83, ¶6, 630 NW2d 509, 512 (citing Arnold Murray Constr., LLC v. Hicks, 

2001 SD 7, ¶6, 621 NW2d 171, 174). We treat mixed questions of law and fact, 

requiring the application of a legal standard, as questions of law subject to de novo 

review. Bayer v. PAL Newcomb Partners, 2002 SD 40, ¶8, 643 NW2d 409, 411 

(citing Permann v. South Dakota Dep’t of Labor, Unemployment Ins. Div., 411 

NW2d 113, 119 (SD 1987)). We review the circuit court’s findings of fact under the 

clearly erroneous standard. Franklin v. Forever Venture, Inc., 2005 SD 53, ¶7, 696 

NW2d 545, 548 (citing Block v. Drake, 2004 SD 72, ¶8, 681 NW2d 460, 463). 

ANALYSIS AND DECISION 

[¶25.] 1. Whether the court erred by its interpretation of the 

District’s RIF policy. 

[¶26.] The District argues that the circuit court’s interpretation of the RIF 

policy’s two seniority requirements will bring about a result unintended by either 

the District or the Association. The District believes that both it and the 

Association intended the RIF policy to result in the replacement of a less senior, but 

qualified teacher with a more senior, qualified teacher. The District contends the 

upshot of following the circuit court’s interpretation will result in the undesirable 

and unintended effect of replacing qualified but less senior teachers with more 
#24014 

-15- 

senior teachers who are less qualified. The District also argues that many teachers 

will simply not be able to exercise their seniority under the circuit court’s 

interpretation because they are not endorsed for one of the certifications on the 

“exclusive list.” 

[¶27.] Trade agreements or collective bargaining agreements are contracts 

under South Dakota law. Council of Higher Educ. v. South Dakota Bd. of Regents,

2002 SD 55, ¶10, 645 NW2d 240, 243-44. Contracts negotiated between teachers 

and public school districts are like any other collective bargaining agreement. Id. 

(citing Wessington Springs Educ. Ass’n v. Wessington Springs Sch. Dist. No. 36-2,

467 NW2d 101, 104 (SD 1991)). Disputes over collective bargaining agreements 

negotiated between school districts and teachers are settled by application of 

general contract principles. Id. Disputes over the meaning of terms in teacher 

contracts are settled by applying general principles of contract law. Gettysburg 

Sch. Dist. No. 53-1 v. Larson, 2001 SD 91, ¶11, 631 NW2d 196, 200 (resolving an 

issue over interpretation of a RIF policy in a school district’s collective bargaining 

agreement with teachers) (citing Wessington Springs Educ. Ass’n, 467 NW2d 101, 

104 (SD 1991)). 

[¶28.] “When the terms of a negotiated agreement are clear and 

unambiguous, and the agreement actually addresses the subjects that it is expected 

to cover, ‘there is no need to go beyond the four corners of the contract.’ ” 

Wessington Springs Educ. Ass’n, 467 NW2d at 104 (quoting AFSCME Local 1922 v. 

State, 444 NW2d 10, 12 (SD 1989) (citing MEA/AFSCME Local 519 v. City of Sioux 

Falls, 423 NW2d 164, 168 (SD 1988)). When the language of the collective 
#24014 

-16- 

bargaining agreement is ambiguous, we may go outside the four corners of the 

contract to interpret its meaning. AFSCME Local 1922, 444 NW2d at 12 (clarifying 

the general proposition cited in MEA/AFSCME Local 519, 423 NW2d at 168 (SD 

1988)). 

[¶29.] Hanson cites Estate of Fischer v. Fischer, to support her position that 

the circuit court’s interpretation of the RIF policy must be affirmed because to do 

otherwise would render the seniority provision meaningless. 2002 SD 62, ¶14, 645 

NW2d 841, 846 (noting that a contract should not be interpreted so as to render 

part of it meaningless) (citing Bowen v. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co., 758 NE2d 976, 980 

(IndApp 2001)). Hanson offers nothing more specific to support this general 

position. 

[¶30.] Applying the facts of this case to the seniority provision of the RIF 

policy, as negotiated by the District and the Association, it is true that Hanson’s 

seniority in this factual setting is meaningless. However, this is only because she 

has neither the certification nor recent experience of the less senior teacher whose 

position she is trying to assume. Hanson overlooks the fact that the seniority 

provision, as negotiated, was not meaningless to Lessmann who was able to exercise 

her seniority. What renders seniority truly meaningless for all but a select few staff 

members is the circuit court’s interpretation of the RIF policy, now supported by 

Hanson. 

[¶31.] The practical effect of interpreting the term “necessary certification” in 

the first seniority requirement to refer to the RIFed position is to render 

meaningless any other certification under which a teacher may be endorsed to 
#24014 

-17- 

 

teach. For example, suppose a teacher was RIFed out of a K – 12 computer certified 

course position, but also carried another certification from the “exclusive list,” such 

as K – 12 PE. Even if the teacher had taught under the K – 12 PE certification 

during the preceding seven years, the teacher still could not exercise seniority to 

“bump” into the position of a less senior K – 12 PE teacher because the position that 

had been RIFed was a K – 12 computer certified course. Further under the circuit 

court’s interpretation, any teacher RIFed out of a course for which he or she is 

certified would always satisfy the first seniority requirement with respect to that 

certification. 

[¶32.] Perhaps even less meaningful is the status that seniority is relegated 

to under the circuit court’s interpretation of the second seniority requirement. 

Seniority becomes irrelevant within a certification like the RIFed position, if the 

teacher whose position was RIFed does not carry one of the certifications on the 

“exclusive list.” In addition to the eight certifications on the “exclusive list,” the 

DOE lists 46 other teacher certifications under ARSD chapters 24:15:06 and 

24:16:08.12 Based on the interpretation of the circuit court, none of these 

certifications would qualify a teacher to invoke seniority. 

 (continued . . .) 

12. The following certifications are included in ARSD chapters 24:15:06 and 

24:16:08: 

Birth through preschool education endorsement program, kindergarten 

education endorsement, 5-8 middle level education endorsement, 5-8 middle 

level education endorsements content areas (language arts, mathematics, 

natural science and social science), 7-12 language arts education 

endorsement, 7-12 mathematics education endorsement, 7-12 science 

education endorsement, 7-12 social science education endorsement, 7-12 

vocational-technical education endorsement, 7-12 business education 
#24014 

-18- 

[¶33.] The rationale of teacher certification under the circuit court’s 

interpretation is not supported by other parts of the Agreement. The Agreement 

also includes policies relevant to transfers and reassignments that take place due to 

vacancy. A transfer is defined as the appointment of a teacher to a different school 

within the District. A reassignment is a designation that a teacher will teach at a 

different grade level and or class within the same school. Criteria evaluated in 

reviewing teacher transfer and reassignment includes, “qualification of the teacher 

as compared to the job criteria and any minimum requirements for the position to 

be filled.” (Emphasis added). It is counterintuitive to conclude that the District and 

________________________ 

(. . . continued) 

endorsement, 7-12 marketing education endorsement, 7-12 technology 

education endorsement, K-12 comprehensive school health education 

endorsement, K-12 educational technology endorsement, K-12 adapted 

physical education endorsement, K-12 South Dakota Indian studies 

education endorsement, K-12 deaf or hearing impaired endorsement, birth 

through preschool special education endorsement, K-12 English as a new 

language education endorsement, K-12 gifted education endorsement, K-12 

American sign language education endorsement, K-12 Braille education 

endorsement, K-12 Lakota languages education endorsement, 7-12 driver 

education endorsement, junior ROTC education endorsement, coach 

education endorsement, birth to age 21 school psychological examiner 

education endorsement, K-12 blind or visually impaired endorsement, 

business official endorsement, K-12 mathematics specialist, K-12 science 

specialist endorsement, grade K through grade 8 special education 

endorsement, grade 7 through 12 special education endorsement, K-12 

special education program, birth through age eight early childhood and birth 

through age eight special education program, K-8 elementary education 

program, K-8 elementary education/special education program, 7-12 

secondary education program, 7-12 agriculture education program, 7-12 home 

economics/family and consumer science education program, K-12 education 

program, K-12 reading specialist program, 7-12 mathematics/science 

composite program. 
#24014 

-19- 

Association would have intended the qualifications of a teacher seeking to fill a 

vacant position to be considered more prominently than those of teacher seeking to 

“bump” into a position presently occupied by a qualified teacher. 

[¶34.] The record is devoid of any indication that the District or Association 

intended to relegate seniority to a nearly ineffectual status by drafting a seniority 

provision so limited in application as interpreted by the circuit court. Hanson, 

below, never advocated the interpretation of the RIF policy adopted by the circuit 

court. Her objections to the District’s decision to non-renew her contract were 

always based on the claim that she was qualified/certified to assume the teaching 

duties of Van Laecken’s position. This is evident in the following excerpt from the 

brief she submitted to the ALJ: 

Sharon testified [at the April 12, 2004, Board level grievance 

hearing] that she was qualified/certified to teach technology 

modules as of the date she was RIFed. She also testified 

that she was qualified/certified to perform middle school 

web site work and middle school technology coordinator 

work. . . . There was no testimony [offered by the District 

to show] Sharon could not perform Van Laecken’s coaching 

duties. 

Contrary to Hanson’s new position, the mandate of statute, other provisions in the 

Agreement, and past practice reveal that the District and the Association intended 

the provision to be interpreted so as to make seniority significant for the largest 

possible number of teachers employed by the District. 

[¶35.] The Agreement, under Scope of Negotiations – Professional 

Negotiations Policy, Article I, “Recognition” provides: “The Vermillion School 
#24014 

-20- 

Board formally recognizes the Vermillion Education Association as the 

representative of the certified personnel of the district.” Appendix H, “2003 – 2004 

Negotiations Guidelines,” paragraph A, provides: “In accordance with SDCL 

[chapter] 3-18, the board recognizes the Vermillion Education Association 

/SDEA/NEA as the official representative of all employees as defined in Article I 

paragraph one of the negotiated agreement.” (Emphasis added). Scope of 

Negotiations, Professional Negotiations Policy, Article II, section C, “Subject of 

Negotiation” further provides: “The negotiation teams shall consider policies, which 

affect ‘rate of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment’ 

as spoken to in SDCL 3-18-3.”13 

[¶36.] The Agreement established the Association as the designated 

representative of all the teachers in negotiations with the District over terms of the 

Agreement. Both the applicable statutes and the Agreement itself recognize a duty 

by the Association to fairly represent all teachers of the District. The position now 

advocated by Hanson is not consistent with that obligation. 

[¶37.] Hanson also contends that prior applications of the RIF policy support 

the position that the District conducted RIFs on a departmental basis without 

specifying a position. We disagree. The record indicates that the RIF policy was 

 

13. SDCL 3-18-3 provides in pertinent part: 

Representatives designated or selected for the purpose of formal 

representation by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for 

such purposes shall be the exclusive representatives of all employees in such 

unit for the purpose of representation in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours 

of employment, or other conditions of employment[.] (Emphasis added). 
#24014 

-21- 

applied on four occasions prior to Hanson’s non-renewal. On one occasion a K – 12 

PE position was RIFed and the lowest seniority person was reduced from full time 

to part time. On another occasion a K – 12 music position was RIFed and the least 

senior person was slated for contract non-renewal. Another RIF involved a K – 12 

counselor’s position in which the least senior counselor was non-renewed. These 

prior RIFs are not informative because the record does not reveal whether the 

effected parties held other certifications beside that of the positions that were 

RIFed. There is also nothing in the record from which it can be determined 

whether a specific position was RIFed or a departmental RIF occurred. Middle 

school principal Pat Anderson (Anderson) testified at the ALJ hearing that the 

District had established no departments and that Hanson’s RIFing resulted from a 

positional RIF—a reduction in staff by elimination of the high school computer 

science position.14

 

14. Anderson’s testimony that staff reduction is conducted on a positional 

basis is consistent with minutes from the March 8, 2004, Board meeting. 

The minutes include the following entry: 

Item #8-1904 

Motion by Granaas, seconded by Merrigan, to eliminate the following 

positions for the 2004 – 2005 school year due to reduction-in-force: 

High school computer education 

Elementary/middle school counselor 

Elementary art 

Part-time high school English 

Second grade teaching position 

Third grade teaching position 

Music position below high school level 

Part-time special education at middle school 

High school math 

 Aye: Unanimous 
#24014 

-22- 

[¶38.] More informative is the prior K – 12 art RIF. An elementary art 

teacher was RIFed. This teacher had more seniority than the high school art 

teacher, but was unable to exercise her seniority because she only held a K – 8 art 

certification. This indicates that prior RIFs were conducted on a positional basis 

because the invocation of seniority was contingent upon satisfying the second 

seniority requirement that references the position the teacher is attempting to 

“bump” into. 

[¶39.] The circuit court also misapplies paragraph 2(B) of the RIF policy 

relating to the priority applied to academic areas over extracurricular areas when 

considering staff reduction. See note 1 supra, paragraph 2(B). The circuit court’s 

construction of this provision renders immaterial Van Laecken’s coaching 

responsibilities thus permitting Hanson, who lacks any coaching credentials, to 

“bump” into his position. 

[¶40.] As we read this provision in context with the rest of the RIF policy we 

conclude that it applies to the initial evaluation of which position(s) to eliminate. 

Once positions slated for elimination due to RIF have been established through 

application of the paragraph 2(B) criteria, determination of which staff members to 

non-renew is made by applying paragraph 3, including consideration of seniority, if 

the requisite certification provisions are satisfied. 

[¶41.] We conclude that the term “certification” in the first seniority 

requirement refers to the position that a teacher whose position has been RIFed is 

attempting to “bump” into. The parenthetical list of eight certifications included in 

the second seniority requirement is intended to be an example of the other 46 
#24014 

-23- 

certifications listed in the DOE regulations and refers to the certification 

requirement of the position the RIFed teacher is attempting to “bump” into. We 

reverse the circuit court on this issue. 

[¶42.] 2. Whether the circuit court erred in determining 

 Hanson could “bump” into Van Laecken’s position. 

[¶43.] The District argues that the circuit court’s finding, equating the 

certifications of Hanson and Van Laecken, is clearly erroneous. The ALJ found that 

the middle school technology modules taught by Van Laecken are math and science 

based courses. Anderson testified at the ALJ hearing that the technology modules 

are “an integrated format for teaching math skills and science skills.” The circuit 

court’s conclusion that Hanson is qualified to teach this course is based on its 

finding that Hanson and Van Laecken have equivalent certifications. We disagree 

with this conclusion because the underlying finding is clearly erroneous. 

[¶44.] Hanson’s 6700 computer science endorsement is not equivalent to Van 

Laecken’s 671 educational technology endorsement.15 According to the DOE, the 

 

15. On its website at http://doe.sd.gov/oatq/teachercert/Changes/k12edtec.htm

(last visited January 2, 2007), the DOE publishes the following information 

distinguishing the old 6700 endorsement from the current 671 endorsement: 

24:02:01:09 (18) K – 12 Computer Endorsement 

Requirements EFFECTIVE UNTIL 8/31/2000 

24:02:01:09. Teaching assignment outside major areas of academic 

preparation - Exceptions Teaching assignments outside major areas of 

academic preparation require the following minimum preparation: 

Eight semesters [hours] for a K – 12 computer science teacher, 

including one course in programming language 

24:16:08:36 K – 12 Educational Technology 

 (continued . . .) 
#24014 

-24- 

________________________ 

(. . . continued) 

6700 endorsement is no longer issued having been replaced by 671. The 671 

endorsement has expanded course requirements beyond those previously required 

to obtain a 6700 endorsement. A teacher may continue to teach computer science 

courses using the 6700 endorsement. If, however, the 6700 endorsement is allowed 

EFFECTIVE 9/1/2000 and THEREAFTER 

24:16:08:36. K-12 Educational Technology endorsement program. A K-12 

educational technology endorsement program requires an educational 

technology methodology course in addition to 12 semester hours of 

coursework as follows: 

(1) Demonstrated knowledge of basic computer technologies and networking 

concepts, terminology tools, and applications; 

(2) Study of designing, operating, and maintaining computer technologies and 

networking systems; 

(3) Development of skills with current productivity and multimedia tools for 

education; 

(4) Demonstrated competencies with integrating educational technology to 

support teaching and learning; 

(5) Study of equity and ethics associated with the use of educational 

technology in schools. 

Study in the developmental characteristics of K-12 learners and a practicum, 

internship, or student teaching inclusive of K-12 learners is required in 

addition to the 12 hours, if not previously completed. 

Verified teaching experience in K-12 educational technology within the fiveyear period immediately preceding application may be accepted in lieu of the 

above field experiences at the equivalency of one year’s teaching experience 

for one semester hour credit for a maximum of three semester hours of the 

total credit hours required. (Emphasis in original omitted). 

Note: the DOE website also explains that to be issued a 6700 K –12 computer 

science endorsement, its requirements must be met by 9/1/2000. After 

9/1/2000, the requirements for the 671 K – 12 educational technology 

endorsement must be met because only it will be issued. 
#24014 

-25- 

to lapse, the teacher must recertify under the 671 endorsement with its more 

expansive course prerequisites. Hanson and the District stipulated to these facts. 

[¶45.] Notwithstanding the distinction between Hanson’s computer science 

endorsement and Van Lacken’s education technology endorsement, Hanson has no 

math or science certification. See note 7 supra. Van Laecken has both natural 

science and social science endorsements. See note 6 supra. Van Laecken’s math 

certification underlies his K – 8 elementary education endorsement. Id. We 

conclude that the circuit court erred when it reversed the DOL and supplanted the 

determination of the District with respect to Hanson’s qualifications to teach 

technology modules. 

[¶46.] The District also argues that Hanson possesses no coaching credentials 

and thus cannot assume Van Laecken’s cross-country coaching responsibilities. The 

circuit court concluded that Van Laecken’s coaching responsibilities are a non-issue 

and as such should be disregarded. This Court has held otherwise. A teacher’s 

coaching responsibilities are not severable from a teacher’s classroom 

responsibilities, but are equal parts of the teacher’s entire contract. Lemmon Educ. 

Ass’n. v. Lemmon School Dist. No. 52-2, 478 NW2d 821, 824 (SD 1991) (holding that 

non-renewal of a teaching contract for deficient performance of an extracurricular 

activity does not violate continuing contract law when the decision to non-renew is 

not unreasonable, arbitrary or an abuse of discretion) (interpreting Reid v. Huron 

Board of Education, 449 NW2d 240 (SD 1989)). Thus, even if we were to conclude 

that Hanson was qualified to teach technology modules, she still could not “bump” 
#24014 

-26- 

into Van Laecken’s position since she lacks the prerequisite training to receive 

SDHSAA coaching authorization. See note 8 supra. 

[¶47.] The District also argues that Hanson does not possess the 

qualifications to take over Van Laecken’s middle school website work and duties as 

middle school technology coordinator. In addition to the broader base of technology 

related courses that Van Laecken had to take to obtain the 671 K – 12 educational 

technology endorsement, he has also completed at least 32 hours of post-bachelor 

degree study in technology and website development since 2002.16 During the same 

period Hanson completed approximately four hours of training in technology. We 

therefore conclude that Hanson is likewise not qualified to “bump” into Van 

Laecken’s Website work or technology coordinator duties. The principle from 

Lemmon Educ. Assoc., applies with equal relevance to Hanson’s attempt to “bump” 

into this portion of Van Laecken’s contract. Even if Hanson was qualified to teach 

technology modules and coach, she still could not “bump” into Van Laecken’s 

position because she lacks adequate training in technology and website 

development. 

[¶48.] “No person may teach . . . in any of the public schools of this state or 

draw wages as a teacher . . . who does not have a certificate issued by the secretary 

of the Department of Education authorizing the person to teach . . . in the . . . field 

for which he was employed.” SDCL 13-42-1 (emphasis added). A de novo hearing 

conducted by a circuit court in a school board case, though it permits an 

 

16. This information is from a report compiled by the District that was made 

available at the April 12, 2004 board-level grievance hearing. 
#24014 

-27- 

independent inquiry into the facts, is limited to considering the legality of the school 

board’s decision and may not substitute the judgment of the circuit court for that of 

the board. Mortweet v. Ethan Bd. of Ed., Davison County, 90 SD 368, 372-73, 241 

NW2d 580, 582-583 (1976). “This [C]ourt is cognizant of the great deference due to 

school board decisions in determining whether to renew a teacher’s contract. As 

long as the school board is legitimately and legally exercising its administrative 

powers, the courts may not interfere with nor supplant the school board’s decision 

making process.” Sutera v. Sully Buttes Bd. of Educ., 351 NW2d 457, 458-59 (SD 

1984) (citing Schaub v. Chamberlain Bd. of Educ., 339 NW2d 307 (SD 1983); 

Schnabel v. Alcester School Dist. No. 61-1, 295 NW2d 340 (SD 1980)). “Policies of a 

school district especially those negotiated with bargaining representatives for the 

protection of teachers, have the full force and effect of law, and legally bind the 

school district.” Wessington Springs Educ. Ass’n., 467 NW2d at 104 (citing 

Schnabel, 295 NW2d 340; Sutera, 351 NW2d 457). 

[¶49.] The District is bound by statute to employ teachers who are certified to 

teach in the positions for which they have been hired. The District was legally and 

properly following the RIF policy. Therefore, the District’s decision to non-renew 

Hanson’s contract due to her lack of qualification for Van Laecken’s position was 

correct. As a result, the circuit court’s reversal of same was error. For the 

foregoing reasons we reverse. 

[¶50.] SABERS, KONENKAMP, ZINTER, and MEIERHENRY, Justices, 

concur.