AGO 96-F-007.

• Court: North Dakota

North Dakota Attorney General Opinions 1996. AGO 96-F-007. STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION 96-F-07Date issued: March 26, 1996Requested by: Jeff Rotering, Adams County State's Attorney- QUESTION PRESENTED - Whether any or all persons assigned by a county commission, under N.D.C.C. § 15-22-01.1, to act in place of a county superintendent of schools must possess the qualifications of a county superintendent of schools provided in N.D.C.C. § 15-22-02.- ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION - It is my opinion that the qualifications required of county superintendents of schools under N.D.C.C. § 15-22-02 do not apply to any person or persons assigned by the county commission to perform the duties of a county superintendent of schools pursuant to N.D.C.C. § 15-22-01.1. - ANALYSIS - The statute in question provides: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a board of county commissioners may by majority vote choose not to employ a county superintendent of schools and may assign, to one or more qualified persons, all statutory duties of county superintendents of schools. The assignment of duties must be set forth in a written plan, and the plan must be approved by a majority of the presidents of school boards whose districts include land in the county and must be placed on file with the legislative council. N.D.C.C. § 15-22-01.1. The qualifications for county superintendents of schools are stated as: The county superintendent of schools must be a bachelor degree graduate of a regional or nationally accredited college or university approved for teacher education, must hold a valid teacher's certificate, and successful experience in teaching in an approved elementary or secondary school. . . . N.D.C.C. § 15-22-02. When interpreting statutes, our law provides: When the wording of a statute is clear and free of all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. N.D.C.C. § 1-02-05. Also, the North Dakota Supreme Court has stated: "Generally, the law is what the Legislature says, not what is unsaid." Little v. Tracy, 497 N.W.2d 700, 705 (N.D. 1993). In Little, the court further stated: It must be presumed that the Legislature intended all that it said, and that it said all that it intended to say. The Legislature must be presumed to have meant what it has plainly...