Opinion ID: 1348668
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the signature of Board's president on the Application for Authority to Act validated the contract between Board and Maasjo.

Text: The circuit court, in reviewing Board's decision, determined that a valid contract existed between Board and Maasjo and that substantial evidence did not exist to support its decision or terminate the contract. We must reiterate, we are reviewing Board's decision, not the circuit court's decision. This court will only interfere with Board's decision if it was clearly erroneous. We recognize that ARSD 24:02:02:02.02 authorizes a superintendent to obtain an Authority to Act. While the Authority to Act must only be signed by the school board president, approval of a majority of the members of the school board is required to take any official action as a school board. SDCL 13-8-33. Furthermore, the Application for Authority to Act in reality created a new contract between Board and Maasjo. SDCL 13-20-1 provides: No contract shall be binding on any school district except it be approved by the school board acting as such, at an annual, regular, or regularly called special meeting. Board never acted on Maasjo's Application for Authority to Act, nor was it even aware that it existed; therefore, it is not legally binding on Board or the school district.