Opinion ID: 882846
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statutory Tenure.

Text: Talley argues that according to § 20-4-203, MCA, he has acquired tenure. According to Talley, changes in the law governing community colleges do not preclude the tenure statute from applying to instructors at FVCC. Talley further argues that FVCC's definition of teachers is incorrect. FVCC argues that the tenure statute is applicable to teachers in elementary and high school districts, but not to part-time instructors at a community college. FVCC contends that Montana has already defined school teacher as excluding community college instructors. Further, FVCC argues that the use of teacher in the tenure statute also requires that a person be certified to teach by the Department of Public Instruction and that such is not the case for instructors at FVCC. The District Court determined that no genuine issues of material fact were present and that FVCC was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The court determined that the tenure statute did not include community college faculty. The court granted summary judgment to FVCC on the tenure question which was Count Ten of Talley's complaint. Our standard of review for a grant of summary judgment is the same as that initially applied by the trial court under Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P. Wangen v. Kecske (1993), (Mont.165], 845 P.2d 721, 726, 50 St.Rep. 6, 9. Summary judgment is appropriate if no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P. The moving party has the initial burden to prove that there are no genuine issues of any fact deemed material. Wangen, 845 P.2d at 726. Once movant has met this burden, the non-moving party must present evidence that a material fact does exist. Wangen, 845 P.2d at 726. Here, Talley also moved for summary judgment on this same issue. The District Court determined that no disputed facts existed and that FVCC, which had moved for summary judgment, was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Talley argued to the District Court that he, not FVCC, was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Thus, the pivotal question is a matter of legal interpretation. This is a case of first impression in Montana as this Court has not previously interpreted § 20-4-203, MCA. That section provides: 20-4-203. Teacher tenure. (1) Except as provided in 20-4-208, whenever a teacher has been elected by the offer and acceptance of a contract for the fourth consecutive year of employment by a district in a position requiring teacher certification except as a district superintendent or specialist, the teacher is considered to be reelected from year to year thereafter as a tenure teacher at the same salary and in the same or a comparable position of employment as that provided by the last executed contract with the teacher unless the trustees resolve by majority vote of their membership to terminate the services of the teacher in accordance with the provisions of 20-4-204. (2) The tenure of a teacher with a district may not be impaired upon termination of services of the teacher if the following conditions exist: (a) the tenure teacher is terminated because the financial condition of the district requires a reduction in the number of teachers employed; and (b) continued employment rights are provided for in a collectively bargained contract of the district. (Emphasis added.) The legislature has defined teacher in Chapter 20 as: (18) Teacher means any person, except a district superintendent, who holds a valid Montana teacher certificate that has been issued by the superintendent of public instruction under the provisions of this title and the policies adopted by the board of public education and who is employed by the district as a member of its instructional, supervisory, or administrative staff. This definition of a teacher shall also include any person for whom an emergency authorization of employment of such person has been issued under the provisions of 20-4-111. (Emphasis added.) Section 20-1-101, MCA. We consider whether Talley as an instructor at a community college is a teacher to whom the tenure statute applies. Talley contends that § 20-4-203, MCA, must include community college instructors because it always has and the legislature has not repealed it since it was originally codified as § 75-6103, RCM, in 1971. We decline to read community colleges into Chapter four of Title 20. Talley's assertion that we have previously defined school teacher as including those who teach in the State's system of higher education, citing Teamsters v. Cascade County School District No. 1 (1973), 162 Mont. 277, 511 P.2d 339, is incorrect. The Teamsters case defined who was included in the term employees of the State. The action was one by the non-teaching employees of the State to obtain vacation time pursuant to § 59-1001, RCM (1947). Teamsters is not authority for the definition of teacher as it applies to community colleges. The current law includes § 20-4-203, MCA, and uses the word teacher. The current definition section of Chapter 20 which defines teacher, states that a teacher is a person required to have a teacher certificate that has been issued by the superintendent of public instruction. Section 20-1-101(18), MCA. While it is true the community colleges of this State were once under the authority of OPI and were referred to as a School District, community colleges have been referred to as Community College Districts since 1979. In these Community College Districts, teaching faculty are not required to have teaching certificates issued by the OPI, although other requirements exist for employment as an instructor. The 1979 Legislature attempted to clarify the statutes governing community colleges by combining the statutory guidelines concerning the community colleges into one chapter of Title 20  Chapter 15: Precedence of community college chapter. Unless specifically identified in any other sections of the school laws prescribed in this title, community college districts are governed by the provisions of this chapter. Should there be a conflict between other requirements of this title and the provisions of this chapter regulating community college districts, the provisions of this chapter shall govern. (Emphasis added.) Section 20-15-402, MCA. This language clearly indicates that unless a statute in Title 20, other than in Chapter 15, specifically notes that it applies to community colleges, it does not apply to community colleges. The tenure statute is in Chapter 4 of Title 20. FVCC argues that the tenure statute does not specifically mention community colleges; therefore, it does not apply to them. We agree. Our job as a reviewing court is to interpret the laws before us  not to add to those laws. Section 1-2-101, MCA. The clear meaning of § 20-4-203, MCA, is that it applies to all teachers who have been certified to teach by the Superintendent of Public Education and who teach in school districts under the authority of the OPI. Instructors at a community college are not required to have certificates from the Superintendent and do not teach in school districts under the authority of the OPI. Community college instructors are not teachers as that term is defined in Chapter 4 of Title 20. Because community colleges are not now governed by OPI as they once were, the Teamster case is no longer precedent for circumstances which involve community college instructors. To that extent, Teamsters is overruled. We have had occasion to consider the question of the relationship between community colleges and the word teacher found in § 20-1-101(20), MCA (now § 20-1-101(18), MCA). In Rippey v. Flathead Valley Com. College (1984), 210 Mont. 396, 682 P.2d 1363, we held that the ordinary meaning of the word teacher does not encompass higher education faculty, including a community college faculty member. Rippey, 210 Mont. at 400, 682 P.2d at 1365. While the Rippey case dealt with sick leave compensation for faculty members at FVCC, the holding specifically interpreted the word teacher as it is used in the current Title 20 definition. Both Rippey and the plain wording of § 20-4-101(18), MCA, preclude any instructor at a community college in Montana from relying on the tenure provisions in § 20-4-203, MCA. Trustees of the community colleges have been given power by the Legislature to establish the conditions of employment of their staff and instructors pursuant to § 20-15-225(1)(h), MCA. If FVCC chooses to have tenured faculty, it may establish the conditions under which that tenure is applied. Chapter 15 also contains the limitations of power with which the Legislature embued trustees: Trustees to adhere to certain other laws. Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the trustees of a community college district shall adhere to:.... Section 20-15-404, MCA. What follows is a long list of other sections in Title 20 with which trustees of a community college must also comply. Section 20-4-203, MCA, is not one of them. We conclude that § 20-4-203, MCA, does not control tenure for instructors at any community college in Montana. Community colleges are unique centers for learning; they are neither high schools, nor are they part of the University System. Rippey, 210 Mont. at 397-98, 682 P.2d at 1364. Similarly, instructors teaching at these centers are also unique. Montana law specifically designates that community college districts are under the control of the Board of Regents and that community college trustees have the power to set conditions of employment for their faculties. We hold that the District Court did not err in granting summary judgment as to Count Ten of Talley's amended complaint.