Skip to content

Non-Renewal of Michigan School Administrator Contracts

January 18, 2022

The deadlines are approaching for non-renewal of public school administrative contracts. Administrator contracts are governed by Section 1229 of the Michigan Revised School Code, MCL 380.1229, which contains two crucial deadlines for non-renewing an administrator’s contract. The statute requires a board of education to provide written notice of non-renewal of an administrative contract at least 60 days before the termination date of the contract, which typically is June 30. In addition, before the 60 days notice, the board of education is required to provide at least 30 days advance notice to the administrator that the board is considering non-renewal together with a written statement of the reasons, which cannot be arbitrary or capricious. If these deadlines are not followed, then the contract is automatically renewed for an additional one-year period.

For illustrative purposes, assuming that an administrative contract expires June 30, in order to satisfy the 60-day notice requirement, the board of education must enact a resolution of non-renewal and ensure delivery to the administrator on or before Sunday, May 1, 2022.

In this same illustration, the statute provides that the 30 days advance notice that the board is considering non-renewal should be sent and received by the administrator on or before Friday, April 1, 2022. After issuance of this written statement, the statute requires that the affected administrator be given an opportunity to meet with not less than a majority of the board to discuss the reasons for non-renewing his or her contract. Under the Open Meetings Act, an administrator has the option of requesting a closed meeting to consider non-renewal of his or her contract at a designated March board meeting to address the board and/or have the board consider the non-renewal in closed session.

If you have questions regarding non-renewal of an administrator’s contract, please contact your Clark Hill PLC education law attorney.

The views and opinions expressed in this article represent the view of the author and not necessarily the official view of Clark Hill PLC. Nothing in this article constitutes professional legal advice nor is intended to be a substitute for professional legal advice.

Subscribe for the latest

Subscribe

Related

Event

Clark Hill's Commercial Real Estate Symposium – Dallas, Texas

Join Clark Hill’s Commercial Real Estate attorneys and industry professionals for a timely and dynamic program in Dallas, focusing on the latest challenges and top trends in the CRE industry.

Explore more
Legal Updates

What Is Likely the Weakest Provision in Your Multi-State Lease?

Using one eminent domain lease clause across states risks lost value. Learn how state laws should reflect notice and just compensation for better protection.

Explore more
Legal Updates

Critical Risk Mitigation Provisions for Design Contracts — Part 1: Waiver of Consequential Damages

An essential element of architect and engineer contracts with their clients is the treatment of risk sharing between the parties. Design professionals who are typically simply providing services for a fee, and who are not investors who will share in the profits of a successful project, can ill-afford to expose themselves to unlimited liability for negligent errors and omissions in the performance of their services. Architects and engineers would argue that it is fundamentally unfair to expose them to unlimited downside risk when they do not directly participate in the upside profit potential of the projects they design. Owners and developers would counter that this is why design professionals carry professional liability insurance. But even simple design errors can lead to liability that is many times greater than the amount of such insurance.

Explore more