Court Opinion

ID: 9548046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:56:45.562153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:25.635556
License: Public Domain

TANZER, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result, but for different reasons than those expressed by the majority.
The contract between the parties was accepted by plaintiff "under the written policies of the Board and written administrative rules and regulations developed to implement such policies.” That provision contemplates that administrative rules are subject to adoption and modification.
Plaintiff complains here that a rule change during his term changed the method of faculty evaluation and that he was entitled as a matter of contract to consideration for reappointment following the form of evaluation provided for under the rule in effect at the time of his appointment. I agree with defendant that the contract did not give to plaintiff three-year entitlement to an unchanged rule regarding the method of faculty evaluation to be used, among other things, as a part of the selection process for a department head.
The theory of the majority was not relied upon by defendant and was therefore not answered by plaintiff. It strikes me as insubstantial and I would not rely upon it.