AGO 84-5.
Case Date | March 29, 1984 |
Court | Colorado |
Colorado Attorney General Opinions
1984.
AGO 84-5.
March 29, 1984Department of Law
Attorney General Opinion FORMAL OPINION
of DUANE WOODARD
Attorney General Opinion No. 84-5
AG Alpha No. ED AD AGAMN
Calvin M. Frazier
Commissioner of Education
Department of Education
303 West Colfax Avenue
Denver, CO 80203 RE: Amendments to Teacher Employment,
Dismissal, and Tenure Act, C.R.S. 1973, 22-63-101 et seq.Dear Dr. Frazier:
I am writing in response to your request for a formal legal
opinion concerning amending or repealing the Teacher Tenure Act.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED AND CONCLUSIONS
Without addressing any specific legislation or policy objective,
your inquiry raises two questions:
Can the general assembly substantially change the status of
someone who is already a tenure teacher by repealing or amending the Teacher
Employment, Dismissal, and Tenure Act, C.R.S. 1973, 22-63-101 et seq.?
My conclusion is that under certain circumstances the general
assembly may substantially change or repeal the Teacher Tenure Act so as to
apply to tenure teachers.
Can the general assembly amend the Tenure Act to allow different
dismissal and review procedures to be utilized?
My conclusion is that the legislature can provide the opportunity
for such pilot projects, but may not mandate them.
ANALYSIS
The initial inquiry must be whether the Teacher Tenure Act
provides contractual rights to those teachers who have gained tenured status,
i.e., a vested property right, or whether this legislation merely is a
statement of legislative policy curtailing the power of local school districts.
See Phelps v. Board of Education of the Town of West New York, 300 U.S. 319
(1937); Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand, 303 U.S. 95 (1938). Several Colorado
Supreme Court cases indicate that the Teacher Tenure Act provides contractual
rights to those teachers who have already gained tenure status. Maxey v. School
District, 158 Colo. 583, 408 P.2d 970 (1965). Accord Marzec v. School District,
142 Colo. 83, 349 P.2d 699 (1960). See Howell v. Woodlin School District, 198
Colo. 40, 596 P.2d 56, 60 (1979) ("by its nature /the grant of tenure/
engenders a reasonable and objective expectancy of continued employment ...
even though not a guarantee under all circumstances" and is a "constitutionally
protected property right.").
The prohibition against passing laws which impair the obligation
of contracts applies only to those contractual rights which have vested. In
this instance the right of tenure would vest when the teacher entered the
fourth year of continuous teaching as provided by C.R.S. 1973, 22-63-112.
Vested rights, however, do not "accrue to thwart the reasonable
exercise of the police power for the public good." Lakewood Pawnbrokers, Inc.
v. Lakewood, 183 Colo. 370, 517 P.2d 834 (1974) and Ohlson v. Phillips, 304 F.
Supp. 1152 (D. Colo. 1969), aff'd, 397 U.S. 317, reh'g denied, 397 U.S. 1081.
This is because all rights are held subject to the police power and neither the
state nor its political subdivisions can contract the...
To continue reading
Request your trial