THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS ASKED ME TO RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTIONS IN THE ABOVE-REFERENCED MATTER. AS YOU WILL RECALL, YOUR REQUEST AROSE PRIMARILY OUT OF CONCERNS THAT CERTAIN LEGISLATION, SPECIFICALLY HOUSE BILL 1017 (1989 OKLA. SESS. LAWS, 1ST EX. SESS., C. 2) (HEREAFTER "H.B. 1017"), WOULD BE REPEALED AND WHAT THE REPERCUSSIONS WOULD BE ON TEACHER CONTRACTS AND THE SALARYLEVELS CONTAINED THEREIN THAT WERE RELIANT ON THE NON-REPEAL OF H.B. 1017. THESE CONCERNS WERE FOCUSED IN YOUR REQUEST UPON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 79 OF HOUSE BILL NO. 1236 (1991 OKLA. SESS. LAWS, C. 280, 79) (HEREAFTER "SECTION 79").
IN SECTION 79, THE LEGISLATURE MANDATED THAT "THE SALARY LEVEL OF CERTIFIED INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF EMPLOYED IN THE SAME SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THE 1990-91 SCHOOL YEAR SHALL NOT BE REDUCED FOR THE 1991-92 SCHOOL YEAR UNLESS THE HOURS OR THE DUTIES . . . ARE REDUCED PROPORTIONATELY." AS YOU INDICATED IN YOUR REQUEST, SECTION 79 WAS OF SPECIAL CONCERN WHEN ONE CONSIDERED THAT CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICTS HAD INSERTED "CONTINGENCY CLAUSES" IN THEIR 1990-91 TEACHER CONTRACTS AND PLANNED TO DO THE SAME FOR 1991-92 TEACHER CONTRACTS. AN EXAMPLE OF SUCH A CONTINGENCY CLAUSE READS, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:
"THIS 1990-91 SALARY SCHEDULE IS BASED UPON THE LAW AS IT NOW EXISTS AND BASED UPON THE CONDITION THAT HOUSE BILL 1017 IS NOT REPEALED . . . PROVIDED THAT IF HOUSE BILL 1017 IS REPEALED . . . THE SALARY SCHEDULE WILL REVERT BACK TO THE 1989-90 SALARY LEVEL . . . ON THE NEXT MONTH FOLLOWING THE DATE HOUSE BILL 1017 IS REPEALED . . . SAID CHANGE OF THE SALARY SCHEDULE SHALL REQUIRE NO FURTHER ACTION BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION.."
OBVIOUSLY, SUCH A CONTINGENCY CLAUSE CONDITIONS TEACHER SALARY LEVELS ON THE NON-REPEAL OF H.B. 1017. ALSO, SUCH CLAUSES CLEARLY CONTRADICT THE MANDATES OF SECTION 79. WITH THE FOREGOING PROVIDING THE LEGAL BACKDROP, I UNDERSTOOD YOUR REQUEST TO POSE THREE SEPARATE QUESTIONS: (1) WOULD THE TERMS OF SECTION 79 PRECLUDE SCHOOL DISTRICTS FROM REDUCING SALARIES PAID PURSUANT TO CONTRACTS CONTAINING THE CONTINGENCY CLAUSE IF H.B. 1017 WAS REPEALED; (2) IF SECTION 79 DID APPLY TO SUCH CONTRACTS, WOULD SUCH AN APPLICATION BE A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE II, SECTION 15 OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION; AND (3) IS SECTION 79 OTHERWISE CONSTITUTIONAL?
YOU WILL RECALL THAT SHORTLY AFTER YOUR REQUEST WAS RECEIVED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SHE DIRECTED ME TO RESPOND TO IT, WE HAD A SERIES OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS WHEREIN WE DISCUSSED THE NATURE OF YOUR REQUEST. AS A RESULT OF MY CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU, IT WAS AGREED THAT A RESPONSE TO YOUR REQUEST WOULD BE LIMITED TO CONTRACTS EXECUTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF SECTION 79, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN NO LATER THAN JULY 1, 1991, SEE, 1991 OKLA. SESS. LAWS, C. 280, 88 AND 89.
THAT BEING SO, THE RESPONSE FROM THIS OFFICE WOULD NOT INCLUDE THE IMPACT OF THE LANGUAGE FOUND IN SECTION 79 ON CONTRACTS WHICH HAD BEEN COMPLETED AND FULLY EXECUTED PRIOR TO SECTION 79 BECOMING