Court Opinion

ID: 9530379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:59:23.649609+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:05.627365
License: Public Domain

Roe, J.
(dissenting)—It appears to me that the majority based its reversal on the failure of the school board to establish evaluative criteria. RCW 28A.67.065(2). Admittedly, no criteria were established in this case, but the statute does not limit discharge of principals or superintendents to a satisfactory compliance with the criteria. The majority has made this leap which the legislature has not as pertains to a principal, not a certificated classroom or support personnel.
I am further convinced that the letter of the superintendent of April 26, 1978, though certainly inartfully drawn and professionally suspect, was sufficient notice to force the *290plaintiff to request a hearing within 10 days. RCW 28A.67-.070. Since he failed to demand the hearing, by the terms of the statute he is foreclosed.
Wojt v. Chimacum School Dist. 49, 9 Wn. App. 857, 516 P.2d 1099 (1973), is limited in its facts and law and does not apply to principals.
The right of this principal to resist discharge or nonrenewal depends solely upon a right given him by statute and absent such a statute, he may be hired or fired at will. Roberts v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 88 Wn.2d 887, 891, 568 P.2d 764 (1977).
If there is a deficit in the statutory scheme, this case may illuminate it and it should be corrected for the protection and benefit of all parties.
Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court.
Reconsideration denied June 16, 1980.
Review denied by Supreme Court August 15, 1980.