Title: Peters v. Bowman Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 1
Citation: 231 N.W.2d 817
Docket Number: 9123
State: north-dakota
Issuer: north-dakota Supreme Court
Date: July 11, 1975

231 N.W.2d 817 (1975) George PETERS, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. BOWMAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT # 1, a public corporation, Defendant, Appellee. Civ. No. 9123. Supreme Court of North Dakota. July 11, 1975. Rehearing Denied July 30, 1975. Daniel J. Chapman, Bismarck, for plaintiff, appellant. T. L. Secrest, Hettinger, for defendant, appellee. Gerald W. VandeWalle, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Bismarck, amicus curiae. PEDERSON, Judge. This is an appeal by the plaintiff, George Peters, from a judgment granted by the district court of Bowman County on May 28, 1975, dismissing plaintiff's action for an injunction to restrain the defendant school district from denying Peters a teaching contract *818 for the school year 1975-1976, and from seeking to find a replacement for the position held by Peters as a teacher in the Bowman school. After a hearing on an order to show cause, this court entered an order temporarily enjoining and restraining the school district from hiring a replacement and set the matter for oral argument on the merits for July 7, 1975. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for appropriate action by the trial court. George Peters has been a teacher-counselor at Bowman High School for twelve years. He was not offered arenewal contract for the 1975-1976 school year. Portions of the official minutes of the school board pertinent to this case are as follows: Minutes of the March 4, 1975, meeting state: "The Board then went into Executive Session for teacher evaluation." Minutes of the March 18, 1975, meeting included the following item: Minutes of "a hearing for contemplated non-renewal of contracts" held on April 3, 1975, included the following: Minutes of "a hearing for contemplated non-renewal of contracts" held on April 7, 1975, contains the following entries: Minutes of the April 9, 1975, meeting contains the following entry: This action was instituted by Peters on April 23, 1975, and the school district answered, praying for dismissal. The parties stipulated that the case be heard at the May Term of court. The school district was temporarily enjoined from filling the position held by Peters, pending trial. Trial was held on May 21, 1975, and judgment was entered on May 28, 1975. Peters appealed and a special term was granted by this court to permit arguments on July 7, 1975. The trial court made the following findings of fact: And the following conclusions of law: At the end of the trial, the trial court made the following oral memorandum opinion: (The remaining portions of the memorandum opinion do not relate to any issue before us.) Peters describes the issues as: 1. Does the failure of the school board to take action approving the giving of a letter of contemplated nonrenewal to a teacher at a valid meeting of the board vitiate the entire nonrenewal procedure? 2. Where the entire discussion concerning the evaluation of a teacher and the reasons for the contemplated nonrenewal is conducted at an invalid "executive session" of the school board but the actual decision to send the letter of nonrenewal is taken at a later open meeting of the board, is the sending of the letter of contemplated nonrenewal a valid action of the board? The two issues stated by Peters are so interrelated we find it unnecessary to answer them separately. Everyone concedes that the executive session conducted by the school district on March 4, 1975, for the purpose of teacher evaluation violated § 44-04-19, N.D.C.C. The trial court so held. The minutes of the March 4 meeting, and the testimony at the trial, clearly indicate that an official board meeting was closed and that its purpose was "teacher evaluation." The superintendent and the principal made recommendations on rehiring and stated reasons. The first official action taken upon these recommendations, without disclosure or discussion, occurred at the open meeting on March 18, 1975. The trial court's ruling indicated that it could void action only when it is taken at an invalid board meeting. We do not agree. Without implying that in every case action taken upon the basis of information learned outside of an official and legal board meeting is void, we find the action of the school district in this case a clear attempt to evade § 44-04-19, N.D.C.C. When the official action of the school district is clearly the product of an illegal meeting, documented in the minutes, and not clearly denied in the testimony, such official action is invalid even though such official action is taken at an otherwise legal meeting. The provisions of § 44-04-19, N.D.C.C. (requiring that all meetings of public or governmental bodies be open to the public, except as otherwise specifically provided by law) were violated by the school district and the action thereafter taken to not renew the contract of George Peters was void. The district court, in denying the application for temporary injunction, abused its discretion. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with instructions to the district court to direct the school district to reconsider the action whereby it determined not to renew its contract with George Peters. If the school district, after reconsideration at an open meeting of the school board, redetermines that Peters should be *821 sent a notice of contemplated nonrenewal, appropriate notice and hearing should be afforded to him pursuant to § 15-47-38(5), N.D.C.C. Because the dates specified for procedures under §§ 15-47-27 and 15-47-38(5), N.D.C.C., cannot now be met, the district court should specify reasonable dates in lieu thereof. Until such proceedings have been carried out, the school district is enjoined from employing a replacement for Peters. Because a public question is involved, no costs are allowed on this appeal. ERICKSTAD, C. J., and PAULSON, SAND and VOGEL, JJ., concur.