Oregon Advisory Opinions September 07, 1967: OAG 67-126 (September 7, 1967)

OAG 67-126.

When agreement has been reached on teachers' salary schedule through consultation procedures of ORS 342.450 to 342.470, a school board proposal to reduce such salary schedule after budget defeat entitles teachers' committee to limited reopening of such consultation procedures.

You have written this office stating that as a result of defeats of many school budgets in the state, questions have arisen concerning the responsibility of the district school board to the elected consultation committee representing the certificated personnel of the district. In this connection, you ask the following questions:

"In the event the district school board and the consultation committee had previously agreed on a salary schedule, is it necessary for the school board to meet again with the committee before adopting formal changes in the salary schedule providing the reason for the change is the defeat of the proposed school budget?

"In the event a district is preparing a second budget to submit to the voters, is it necessary for the board to 'confer, consult and discuss' the matter of salaries and other related economic matters with the consultation committee?

"During the preparation of the second budget, is it possible for either side to declare persistent disagreement and request consultants? Is it necessary for the school board to actually appoint consultants and hear the report of said individuals?"

The answers to these questions involve consideration of the extent to which the procedures provided by ORS 342.450 to 342.470 are applicable after defeat of a tax measure submitted to the voters in support of the initial budget adopted by the school board. In opinion No. 6222, dated January 10, 1967, and opinion No. 6231, dated February 3, 1967, this office had occasion to review the consultation procedures provided by these statutes and it was held in opinion No. 6222 that the school board's obligation to observe such procedures terminated upon the budget document being received by the budget committee. In arriving at this conclusion, we said in that opinion:

"There is nothing in ORS 342.470 which specifies the length of time during which a school board is obligated to 'confer, consult and discuss' salary matters, nor is there any designation of the time within which consultants are to be appointed. Lacking specified time limits in the statute itself, our interpretation must be based upon the purposes to be accomplished by the procedures provided for therein. After board determination of the salary item in accordance with the necessities of its budget timetable, we assume that there is no further obligation on its part to meet with the committee. The decision has been made and no purpose would be served by requiring further discussion of the matter. However, until the budget document is prepared and delivered to the budget committee, the board has authority to alter the items therein. Conceivably, a recommendation of consultants could cause modification of the board's decision on salaries during this time. Accordingly, it is our opinion that request for consultants could be made at any time prior to delivery of the budget document to the budget committee."

We affirm these observations made in our prior opinions and add only that where, as here, an agreement has been reached on a salary schedule through the consultation procedures, good faith would seem to require that the school board attempt to secure budget committee approval of the salary schedule and, if this is possible, to provide for the agreed schedule in the initial budget.

It further appears that if, in order to balance such a budget, a tax levy in excess of the six percent limitation is necessary, the board shall attempt to secure voter approval of a levy sufficient to meet the salary schedule as agreed upon.

Thereafter, if the voters have defeated a measure to authorize a tax sufficient to balance the budget, it is our opinion that it then becomes the school board's primary responsibility either to prepare a budget which can be balanced by a levy within the district's tax base or to resubmit a tax measure to the voters. In most cases, the budget timetable will require that these steps be taken without delay, particularly if another tax measure is to be submitted to the voters. If, in the board's best judgment, proposed expenditures in the budget must be reduced in order to make a levy within the tax base or to secure voter approval of a supporting tax measure, then it is the board's prerogative as well as its duty to make such reductions. In making reductions, consideration should be given to all factors affecting the best interests of the school district, including teacher salary schedules, but the ultimate decision concerning the amount and nature of reductions must rest in the sound discretion of the board.

Because of the necessities of meeting the budget timetable and in view of our prior holdings, we are of the opinion that voter defeat of the initial tax measure does not unqualifiedly entitle the committee to renew the consultation procedures provided by ORS 342.450 to 342.470. Matters which have been or should have been the subject of original consultation procedures and which are not affected by proposed board action should not now be the subject of such procedures. Nevertheless, where an agreement has previously been reached, a board proposal to reduce the agreed salary schedule necessarily is a decision that reduction of budgetary items must be made and that such reductions must include reduction of the agreed item for teachers' salaries. Such a decision involves new matter and a consideration of factors not present when the original agreement was made. Voter rejection of the tax measure is not necessarily a direction by the electorate to reduce the agreed salary schedule. The committee has a vital interest in deliberations which lead to a determination that such a reduction is necessary. We therefore conclude that in this situation the committee is entitled to "confer, consult and discuss" with the board the proposed salary reduction and to ask for appointment of consultants in the event of persistent disagreement. This conclusion, we believe, is in furtherance of the legislative purpose and is in harmony with the liberal construction generally accorded social legislation of this type. See 3 Horack, Sutherland, Statutory Construction, p. 395, § 7201 et seq.

We repeat that we do not view the right to reopen consultation procedures as unqualified and we confine this opinion to the situation you have described. The "other related economic matters" you mention may or may not be the proper subject of further consultation procedures, depending on whether they are directly affected by proposed board action and whether they were previously the subject of such consultation procedures or should have been and were not. All such procedures are subject to the necessities of the budget timetable and the committee should act in a timely manner at all stages of the proceedings. The board, in turn, should promptly advise the committee of any proposal to reduce the agreed salary schedule and expeditiously provide a time for conferences, consultations or discussions. Obviously, the time available for such conferences, consultations or discussions is limited, and the services of appointive consultants, if any, would need to be performed before the time set for finalization of the new budget if such services are to be effective.

Within the limitations noted above, we answer your questions in the affirmative.