Opinion ID: 2144157
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Error to refuse inquiry as to motive.

Text: Reed contends that the trial court erred in sustaining the school district's objection to the following question regarding the school board president's personal feelings toward Mr. Reed: Q. As a personal matter, Mr. Heim, you wanted to get rid of Mr. Reed; didn't you? Reed argues that the true reason for the nonrenewal of his contract was the personal antagonism of the chairman of the board toward him. As we discussed earlier, we said in Rolland v. Grand Forks Public School District No. 1, 279 N.W.2d 889, 893 (N.D.1979), that subsections (1) and (5), of Section 15-47-38, N.D.C.C., merely require the board to vote to nonrenew the contract for reasons stated in the notice of contemplated nonrenewal, thus in effect confirming the action by which it decided to send the notice of the contemplated nonrenewal of the contract. The board's stated reason for nonrenewing Reed's contract was declining enrollment and diminishing funds resulting in need for staff reduction. The school board made no allegations concerning his teaching ability. Our decision in Rolland requires only that the reasons for nonrenewal be sufficient to justify the contemplated action. That there may be other additional reasons for nonrenewal is immaterial. The trial court ruled that Reed's inquiry into the personal feelings of the school board president toward Mr. Reed was not relevant. Recently, in Fercho v. Montpelier Public School District No. 14, 312 N.W.2d 337 (N.D.1981), we held that the Montpelier School District did not act arbitrarily in nonrenewing the teacher's contract at issue in that case. In Fercho, testimony concerning the board's desire to get rid of Fercho was received by the trial court. We held that the board's action was not arbitrary in spite of the testimony supporting Fercho's contention that some of the board members wanted to see her removed because they thought she was not a good teacher. Similarly, a reading of the record in this case does not disclose that the board acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, or unconscionably. We do not believe that testimony indicating that one member of the board desired to get rid of Reed would be grounds for concluding that the Edgeley School Board acted arbitrarily. Even if for discussion purposes we were to assume that the trial court erred in keeping out this evidence, Reed still must fail on this issue because it is incumbent upon the party contesting the ruling of the trial court to show that the error complained of was prejudicial. Haider v. Finken, 239 N.W.2d 508, 518 (N.D. 1976); Gleson v. Thompson, 154 N.W.2d 780, 788 (N.D.1967). In light of the law no such proof could be made here.