Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-474

Opinion No. 474. Schools-Te-.tchers-Contracts, Execu- tion of -Salary, Payment of -School Board. HELD: It is the duty of the school board, under Section 1015, H. C. 1\£., 1921 as amended by Chapter 122, Laws of i931 to see that contracts with teacher; are executed in writing as provided; if they do not the blame is on the board rather than on the teach- er. Where the board, while in session, duly authorized the employment of a teacher and made entry on its minute \'ecords to that effect, and the teacher entered upon her duties under such ar- rangement for four months. she may collect her salary. }<'eilruary 26, 1934. 'Ve acknowledge receipt of yours of Januan' 26 submitting the following mattei' 'and requesting an opinion from this office thereon: "A problem has been presented. to this office as regards a constructlOn of Chapter 122, Session Laws of 1931, in Section 1015, Sub-section 2 thereof. "Sub-section 2 of Chapter 122, Laws of H)31, amending Section 1015, R. C. ~I. 1921, provides among other things. that the trustees of a school district a re empowered to employ and dis- charge teachers. It appears that the trustees did engage the services of a teached at a regular meeting and the minutes of that meeting of the school trustees show that this particular teacher was employed, but they ne- glected to give her in writing a con- tract for her services. Section 1015, sub-section 2 -pro\'ides: 'All contracts of employment of teachers authorized by proper resolution of a board of trustees shall be in writing and exe- cuted in duplicate by the Chairman and Clerk of the Board for the dis- trict and by the teacher.' "The question submitted is whether or not the school trustees can avoid the payment of a teacher's salary on the ground that she has no written contract for her services. The min- utes of the school trustee's meeting show tim t she was employed by the School Board. Is it not a fact that the obligation on the trustees to give an employed teacher a written con- tract is a mandatory obligation under the abo\'e quoted statute?" That part of said chapter 122 which is pertinent here is as follows: Sec- tion 1015. "Every school board unless otherwise specially provided by law shall ha ye power and it shall be its duty: • *. (2) To e!llploy or dis- charge teachers, mechamcs, or labor- ers, and to fix and order paid their wages; provided, that no teacher s~all be employed except under resolutlOn agreed to by a majority of the board of trustees at a special or regular meet- ing: not unless such teacher be the holder of a legal teacher's certificate in full force and effect. All contracts of employment of teachers, authorized by proper resolution of a board of trus- tees, shall be in writing and executed in duplicate by the ehairman and clerk of the hoard, for the district and by the teacher." This statute makes it the duty of the board to see that contracts with teach- ers are executed as provided. If the hoard fails to attend to this duty and a controversy arises hetween the board and the teacher, the blame for not haYing the contract in writing is on the board rather than the teacher, 328 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY Gl~NER1\L In Ryan •. Mineral County High School, 146 Pac. 792, an Oklahoma case, the court held that where plain- tiff's application was considered by the board, a motion made to employ appli- cant, the clerk notified applicant and he accepted, the contract was complete, and a vote to reconsider after appli- cant had accepted could not abrogate the contract. See also Morton v. Han- cock County, 30 S. W. (2d) 250. In a letter from the teacher, Miss Moore, she advises that she taught this school for four months. We think that when the board while in session duly authorizes the employment of a teach- er and made an entry on its minute records to that effect and the teacher entered upon her duties as a teacher and taught under such arrangements for four months that that is such a compliance with the statutes as the teacher may rely upon and collect her salary. True Chapter 122, above, pro- vides that the contract must be exe- cuted in duplicate by the teacher and the board, but where the hoard is at fault in not preparing the contract and attending to its execution, the board should not be permitted to' take advantage of its own neglect of duty to the injury of the other party. (56 C. J. 388, Sec. 315.)