LAW. YOUR INQUIRY WAS THUSLY FOCUSED MORE DIRECTLY ON THE LEGALITY OF INCLUDING CONTINGENCY CLAUSES SUCH AS THE ONE REFERENCED ABOVE IN TEACHER CONTRACTS WHICH WERE EXECUTED AFTER THE MINIMUM SALARY LEVEL MANDATES OF SECTION 79 WERE THE LAW IN OKLAHOMA.
IN THIS REGARD, AS YOU ARE AWARE, SINCE THE LAST TIME WE SPOKE AND WHILE YOUR REQUEST HAS STILL BEEN PENDING, THE VOTERS IN OKLAHOMA HAVE VOTED NOT TO REPEAL H.B. 1017 BY TURNING DOWN STATE QUESTION 639 ON OCTOBER 15, 1991. AS A RESULT, YOUR QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF THE CONTINGENCY CLAUSE IN LIGHT OF THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 79 ARE MOOT, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE EVENT THAT WOULD HAVE TRIGGERED THE CONTINGENCY, THE REPEAL OF H.B. 1017, DID NOT OCCUR. ALSO, SINCE YOUR QUESTIONS ARE CONCERNED WITH THE MINIMUM SALARY LEVEL MANDATES OF SECTION 79, ONLY AS APPLIED TO TEACHER CONTRACTS THAT WERE EXECUTED AFTER SECTION 79 BECAME LAW, THE PROHIBITIONS AGAINST IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT FOUND IN ARTICLE II, SECTION 15 OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION DO NOT COME INTO PLAY.
ARTICLE II, SECTION 15 OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION PROVIDES, IN PART, THAT "NO . . . LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS, SHALL EVER BE PASSED. N THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THIS CONSTITUTIONAL INHIBITION IS APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTS OF THE STATE AS FULLY AS TO THOSE BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS. FORTINBERRY CO. V. BLUNDELL, 242 P.2D 427 (OKLA. 1952). HOWEVER, THE COURT HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY AGAINST IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS ONLY APPLIES TO CONTRACTS WHICH ARE COMPLETE AND CLEARLY PROVED. PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF OKL. V. CADDO ELEC. COOP., 479 P.2D 572 (OKLA. 1970). FOR EXAMPLE, ANY STATUTE WHICH EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY PREVENTS THE COLLECTION OF INTEREST ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE ORIGINAL OBLIGATION WOULD IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT AND WOULD THEREFORE BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SECURITY BANK TRUST CO. V. BARNETT, 36 P.2D 874 (OKLA. 1934). SIMILARLY, A STATUTE THAT PROVIDED THAT PRIOR CONTRACTS SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS NULLITIES WOULD BE INVALID AS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE II, SECTION 15. APPLICATION OF OKLAHOMA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY, 348 P.2D 510 (OKLA. 1960).
YOUR QUESTION HAS BEEN LIMITED TO THE IMPACT OF SECTION 79 ON FUTURE CONTRACTS BETWEEN SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND TEACHERS, CONTRACTS WHICH ARE NEITHER COMPLETE NOR FULLY EXECUTED. MOST IMPORTANTLY, CONTRACTS WHICH WOULD NOT BE COMPLETE UNTIL AFTER SECTION 79'S MANDATES WERE THE LAW OF THE LAND. THEREFORE, THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION PROHIBITING THE PASSAGE OF ANY LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO YOUR QUESTION BECAUSE THE STATUTE ALLEGED TO VIOLATE THE PROVISION WOULD NOT BE OPERATING ON CONTRACTS IN EXISTENCE PRIOR TO ITS PASSAGE. IN SHORT, THE OBLIGATIONS OF A CONTRACT ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY IMPAIRED WHERE SUCH STATUTES OPERATE PROSPECTIVELY ONLY. THERE SIMPLY CAN BE NO IMPAIRMENT OF A CONTRACT WHEN THE STATUTE IS IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT IS EXECUTED. LAYTON V. PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORP., 383 P.2D 624 (OKLA. 1963).
HOWEVER, SUCH A CONCLUSION SHOULD NOT BE INFERRED TO MEAN THAT HAD