On or before the last day of the school year of the existing employment contract, the local school board or the governing authority of the state agency shall serve written notice of reemployment or termination on each certified school instructor employed by the school district or state agency. A notice of reemployment shall be an offer of employment for the ensuing school year. A notice of termination shall be a notice of intention not to reemploy for the ensuing school year. Failure of the local school board or the governing authority of the state agency to serve a written notice of reemployment or termination on a certified school instructor shall be construed to mean that notice of reemployment has been served upon the person for the ensuing school year according to the terms of the existing employment contract but subject to any additional compensation allowed other certified school instructors of like qualifications and experience employed by the school district or state agency. Nothing in this section shall be construed to mean that failure of a local school board or the governing authority of the state agency to serve a written notice of reemployment or termination shall automatically extend a certified school instructor’s employment contract for a period in excess of one school year.
HISTORY:
1953 77-8-9, enacted by Laws 1967, ch. 16, § 114; 1975, ch. 306, § 8; 1986, ch. 33, § 20; 1978 22-10-12, recompiled as 1978 22-10A-22 by Laws 2003, ch. 153, § 72.
Editor’s notes.
Laws 2003, ch. 153, § 72 recompiles former 22-10-12 NMSA 1978, as 22-10A-22 NMSA 1978, effective April 4, 2003.
Notes to Decisions
Board rules.
Although notice to a teacher two days prior to the end of the school year satisfied statutory requirements, it did not provide her with a fair opportunity to prepare and present her defense which would have been provided by the two week notice requirement provided for in tenure rules promulgated by the state board of education, and thus the decision of the local school board not to reemploy the teacher was reversed. Brininstool v. New Mexico State Bd. of Educ., 1970-NMCA-034, 81 N.M. 319, 466 P.2d 885, 1970 N.M. App. LEXIS 564 (N.M. Ct. App. 1970).
Effective date of act.
Where orginal statute which imposed notice requirement on the school board for a decision not to reemploy a teacher became effective on last day of school, school board’s failure to provide such notice to a teacher it intended not to reemploy meant that the teacher was employed for the ensuing year by operation of law. Freeman v. Medler, 1942-NMSC-050, 46 N.M. 383, 129 P.2d 342, 1942 N.M. LEXIS 48 (N.M. 1942).
Failure to accept.
No binding contract for reemployment was created where teacher failed to deliver an acceptance within 15 days of the last day of the current school year, even though the school board that employed her failed to serve a written notice of reemployment or termination at the end of the school year. Hyde v. Taos Mun. Sch., 1972-NMSC-061, 84 N.M. 206, 501 P.2d 194, 1972 N.M. LEXIS 898 (N.M. 1972).
Issue rendered moot.
Whether a trial court erred in determining that a board of education could involuntarily retire a tenured teacher who would turn 60 years of age shortly before the start of the next school year instead of giving the teacher notice of reemployment or dismissal at the end of the school year became a moot point where the teacher took an inconsistent position by voluntarily retiring while his appeal was pending, thereby foreclosing his right to a contract. Snodgrass v. Tularosa Bd. of Educ., 1964-NMSC-066, 74 N.M. 93, 391 P.2d 323, 1964 N.M. LEXIS 2143 (N.M. 1964).
Notice.
A teacher must receive written notice of termination before the last day of the school year; thus, a school board superintendent who gave a nontenured teacher notice of her termination on the day before the school year ended strictly complied with this requirement, and judgment was properly entered in favor of the school board, the superintendent, and school board members in the teacher’s action for breach of employment contract. Provoda v. Maxwell, 1991-NMSC-022, 111 N.M. 578, 808 P.2d 28, 1991 N.M. LEXIS 119 (N.M. 1991).
Notice provider.
An official offer to re-employ a teacher, just like a notice to terminate, could come from only the contracting party, the school board. Thus, a teacher’s purported acceptance of employment, on the basis of a recommendation by his supervisors, was inoperative to form an employment contract with a school board. Giangreco v. Murlless, 1997-NMCA-061, 123 N.M. 498, 943 P.2d 532, 1997 N.M. App. LEXIS 46 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997).
Timeliness.
A school board’s written notice to a non-tenured teacher not to re-employ him, issued 4 days before the last day of school, satisfied the “on or before the last day of the school year” requirement. Giangreco v. Murlless, 1997-NMCA-061, 123 N.M. 498, 943 P.2d 532, 1997 N.M. App. LEXIS 46 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997).