In this mandamus action, the defendant school board appeals from the trial court’s order that the board renew plaintiff’s contract as the school district’s superintendent. The issue is whether the board gave plaintiff sufficient notice by April 1, 1980, of its decision not to renew his contract for the next school year pursuant to ORS 342.513:
"Each district school board shall give written notice of the renewal or nonrenewal of the contract for the following school year by April 1 of each year to all teachers and administrators in its employ who are not permanent teachers. In case the district school board does not renew the contract, the material reason therefor shall, at the request of the teacher or administrator, be spread upon the records of the school district and the board shall furnish a statement of the reason for nonrenewal to the teacher or administrator. If any district school board fails to give such notice by April 1, the contract shall be considered renewed for the following school year at a salary not less than that being received at the time of renewal. The teacher or administrator may bring an action of mandamus to compel the district school board to issue such a contract for the following school year.”
We reverse.
Plaintiff was first employed as superintendent of the district in July, 1970. His duties, according to his testimony, included serving as the board’s executive officer, with responsibility for carrying out the actions of the board.
At a meeting on March 31, 1980, with plaintiff in attendance, the board voted not to renew his contract. The following day, the deputy clerk of the district prepared a draft of the minutes of the meeting, which, in keeping with usual practice, she transmitted to plaintiff for review. Plaintiff made a number of handwritten corrections on the draft, including an addition to the description of the board’s decision not to renew his contract. The draft was then transmitted to plaintiff’s secretary, who typed and distributed copies of the minutes to plaintiff and others, also in keeping with usual practice. The minutes had not yet been approved by the board when plaintiff saw them on April 1.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that he was not given a "formal” notice similar to those received by the teachers and that the minutes he did receive were not adequate notice under ORS 342.513. Defendants argue that the minutes did constitute sufficient notice and, in any event, that plaintiff is estopped from contending he was entitled to better notice because he was responsible for giving notices of renewal or nonrenewal on behalf of the board.
"Q- [by school board’s attorney] But of the persons who would receive the notice in March of 1980, you reviewed each and every one that was prepared by [the secretary], correct?
"A. I don’t remember reviewing each and every one, no. I think I reviewed the list with her, I don’t think that I indicated that I reviewed each one after it was prepared.
"Q. Okay. Turning your attention again, Mr. Ambrose, to the deposition which you have already testified, you remember? Do you recall the question I asked you?
"[Plaintiff’s attorney]: What page, counsel?
"[School board’s attorney]: Page 14, line 20.
"Q. Do you remember the question and answer:
"'Q. So it’s your testimony that the Notices to the people whose contracts that were renewed was prepared and you reviewed each and every one of those Notices?
"A. I probably did.’
"Do you remember that?
"A. I am sure if it is there that’s what I said.
"Q. Okay. And then after they were reviewed they were delivered to the persons who they were directed to, were they not?
"A. They are usually delivered to the principals and the principals are responsible for seeing the teachers get them.
"Q. Okay. And you specifically told the principals to be sure they witnessed the delivery of those notices to each person to whom the notices were directed, did you not?
"A. No, to the ones that were for nonrenewal.”
"A different case would be presented if petitioner had left town to avoid receiving notice. There is sufficient evidence to support the circuit court’s finding that petitioner did nothing to intentionally thwart the giving of notice.” 24 Or App at 446, n 3.
Here, plaintiff concedes that he received a writing — the draft of the minutes — which contained the information the board was required to impart to him. He argues that that did not give him satisfactory notice, however, because the minutes had not been approved. Plaintiff states that defendants’
"* * * contention that the notices sent to other teachers would be ineffective if approval of the minutes were required misses the point: Those teachers had already been given written notice while Mr. Ambrose had not. If those teachers had not been given written notice, and the School Board minutes were the sole notice they received, then their nonrenewals would have been ineffective too.”2
Reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the peremptory writ.
1.
Plaintiff testified:
2.
The board’s actions on the teachers’ contracts were taken at a meeting which preceded by a week the meeting at which the board voted not to renew plaintiffs contract.