A. All employment contracts between local school boards and certified school personnel and between governing authorities of state agencies and certified school instructors shall be in writing on forms approved by the state board. These forms shall contain and specify the term of service, the salary to be paid, the method of payment, the causes for termination of the contract and other provisions required by the regulations of the state board.
B. All employment contracts between local school boards and certified school personnel and between governing authorities of state agencies and certified school instructors shall be for a period of one school year except:
(1) contracts for less than one school year are permitted to fill personnel vacancies which occur during the school year;
(2) contracts for the remainder of a school year are permitted to staff programs when the availability of funds for the programs is not known until after the beginning of the school year;
(3) contracts for less than one school year are permitted to staff summer school programs and to staff federally funded programs in which the federally approved programs are specified to be conducted for less than one school year;
(4) contracts not to exceed three years are permitted for certified school administrators in public schools who are engaged in administrative functions for more than one-half of their employment time; and
(5) contracts not to exceed three years are permitted at the discretion of the local school board for certified school instructors in public schools who have been employed in the school district for three consecutive school years.
C. Persons employed under contracts for periods of less than one school year as provided in Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Subsection B of this section shall be accorded all the duties, rights and privileges of the Certified School Personnel Act [repealed and recompiled].
D. In determination of eligibility for unemployment compensation rights and benefits for certified school instructors where those rights and benefits are claimed to arise from the employment relationship between governing authorities of state agencies or local school boards and certified school instructors, that period of a year not covered by a school year shall not be considered an unemployment period.
E. Except as provided in Section 22-10-12 NMSA 1978 [recompiled], a person employed by contract pursuant to this section has no legitimate objective expectancy of reemployment, and no contract entered into pursuant to this section shall be construed as an implied promise of continued employment pursuant to a subsequent contract.
HISTORY:
1953 77-8-8, enacted by Laws 1967, ch. 16, § 113; 1975, ch. 306, § 7; 1986, ch. 33, § 19; 1999, ch. 214, § 1; 1978 22-10-11, recompiled as 1978 22-10A-21 by Laws 2003, ch. 153, § 72.
Editor’s notes.
The Certified School Personnel Act referred to in Subsection C was recompiled and repealed, effective April 4, 2003. Laws 2003, ch. 153, §§ 31, 33, 36, 52, 53 and 72 recompiles sections and Laws 1986, ch. 33, § 33 and Laws 2003, ch. 153, § 73 repeals sections within the Certified School Personnel Act. See the School Personnel Act located at Chapter 22, Article 10A NMSA 1978.
Former Section 22-10-12 NMSA 1978 referred to in Subsection E was recompiled by Laws 2003, ch 153, § 72 as 22-10A-22 NMSA 1978, effective April 4, 2003.
Notes to Decisions
Administrators.
Administrators have no tenure rights, and are not entitled to procedural due process regarding termination decisions. Swinney v. Deming Bd. of Educ., 1994-NMSC-039, 117 N.M. 492, 873 P.2d 238, 1994 N.M. LEXIS 158 (N.M. 1994).
Certified school personnel.
The term “certified school personnel” includes both instructors and administrators who hold a certificate from the state board of education. Naranjo v. Board of Educ. of the Espanola Pub. Sch., 1995-NMSC-015, 119 N.M. 401, 891 P.2d 542, 1995 N.M. LEXIS 79 (N.M. 1995).
Construction.
Because the statute did not prescribe the result that will follow if a contract was not on a form approved by the State Board, it was directory only. Board of Educ. v. Jennings, 1982-NMCA-135, 98 N.M. 602, 651 P.2d 1037, 1982 N.M. App. LEXIS 922 (N.M. Ct. App. 1982), abrogated in part as stated in Skowronski v. N.M. Pub. Educ. Dep't, 2013-NMCA-034, 298 P.3d 469, 2012 N.M. App. LEXIS 125 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012).
Exhaustion of remedies.
Teacher’s suit seeking a declaration of his tenure rights was properly dismissed because the teacher failed to exhaust administrative remedies and a contract that contravened the law could not be enforced. Jones v. Board of Sch. Directors of Indep. Sch. Dist., 1951-NMSC-025, 55 N.M. 195, 230 P.2d 231, 1951 N.M. LEXIS 725 (N.M. 1951).
Expectation of reemployment.
Plaintiff had a right to pursue a claim for damages for age, gender, and disability discrimination beyond the time covered by her last contract, even though statutory language precluded any legitimate expectation of reemployment of plaintiff in the education field, because plaintiff established that her contract had been renewed in the past and the contracts of similarly situated employees were renewed. Keller v. Bd. of Educ., 182 F. Supp. 2d 1148, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22448 (D.N.M. 2001).
School principal had no legitimate expectation of reemployment beyond her initial contract term. Cole v. Ruidoso Mun. Sch., 947 F.2d 903, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 25159 (10th Cir. N.M. 1991).
Just cause.
Provision stating that employment contract shall contain, inter alia, causes for termination, did not allow school board to use this provision to expand reasons for discharge beyond the statutory just cause requirement. Employee was discharged, not terminated. Aguilera v. Bd. of Educ., 2005-NMCA-069, 137 N.M. 642, 114 P.3d 322, 2005 N.M. App. LEXIS 55 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005), aff'd, 2006-NMSC-015, 139 N.M. 330, 132 P.3d 587, 2006 N.M. LEXIS 188 (N.M. 2006).
Remedies.
Plaintiff school administrators were not entitled to declaratory relief, reinstatement, and compensatory damages when the school board voted to declare their positions vacant rather than to “terminate” them; the school district’s personnel policies could not provide them with greater rights than those granted by statute, which disallowed for any expectancy of reemployment of an administrator. Naranjo v. Board of Educ. of the Espanola Pub. Sch., 1995-NMSC-015, 119 N.M. 401, 891 P.2d 542, 1995 N.M. LEXIS 79 (N.M. 1995).
Retroactivity.
Amendment of statutory tenure provisions was not applicable to non-certified employee terminated pursuant to employment contract which pre-dated the amendment. Gadsden Fed'n. of Teachers v. Board of Educ., 1996-NMCA-069, 122 N.M. 98, 920 P.2d 1052, 1996 N.M. App. LEXIS 45 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996).