Council of the City of Phenix City et al. v. Phenix City Board of Education

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 9/2/11 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100346 C o u n c i l o f the C i t y o f Phenix C i t y e t a l . v. Phenix C i t y Board o f Education Appeal from R u s s e l l C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-270) BRYAN, J u d g e . The C o u n c i l o f t h e C i t y o f P h e n i x H.S. "Sonny" C o u l t e r , Jimmy W e t z e l , C i t y a n d i t s members, Max W i l k e s , M i c h e l l e E. W a l k e r , a n d A r t h u r Sumbry ( c o l l e c t i v e l y " t h e C o u n c i l " ) , a p p e a l from a permanent i n j u n c t i o n entered i n favor o f t h e Phenix 2100346 C i t y Board of E d u c a t i o n ("the B o a r d " ) . The Board is a city board We r e v e r s e and remand. of education p u r s u a n t t o § 16-11-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975. authorized The City of P h e n i x C i t y ( " t h e C i t y " ) has a d o p t e d a c o u n c i l - m a n a g e r f o r m o f m u n i c i p a l government, The p u r s u a n t t o A c t No. 71, A l a . A c t s 1977. C o u n c i l a p p o i n t s t h e members o f t h e B o a r d t o s e r v e five- y e a r t e r m s , w i t h t h e t e r m o f one member e x p i r i n g a n n u a l l y . 16-11-3, A l a . Code 1975. The C o u n c i l f o r m e d a c o m m i t t e e the Board. § I n October 2010, t o i n v e s t i g a t e conduct of the committee sent the Board's a t t o r n e y a l e t t e r d i r e c t i n g t h e B o a r d and i t s s u p e r i n t e n d e n t , Dr. Larry DiChiria, to produce documents c o n c e r n i n g t h e Board's not produce the requested November 2010, the DiChiria t o produce issued information committee had requested in the subpoena, the committee relied Section 9.03 and a on Board d i d documents. directing that the serving the 9.03 In of o f A c t No. the City's 71, A l a . A c t s g r a n t s s u b p o e n a power t o any committee a u t h o r i z e d by t h e C o u n c i l o r t h e c i t y manager " t o i n q u i r e 2 In documents and § The and subpoena letter. c h a r t e r , w h i c h i s i d e n t i c a l t o § 9.03 1977. information activities. information committee the certain into 2100346 the conduct officer o f any o f f i c e , of municipal the City" or department, " t o make board investigations as t o affairs." The Board subsequently temporary r e s t r a i n i n g order, sued the Council, the Board t o produce t h e requested trial November court 22, entered seeking a a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n , and a permanent i n j u n c t i o n t o p r e v e n t t h e C o u n c i l The o r agency o r compelling i n f o r m a t i o n and documents. a temporary 2010, t h e t r i a l from r e s t r a i n i n g order. court entered a 1 On permanent injunction enjoining the Council from subpoenaing t h e Board. The § trial Council appealed court concluded the authority to the that t o subpoena supreme court, 9.03 d i d not grant the Board. and the The supreme the Council court t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal t o t h i s court, pursuant t o § 12-2-7(6), Ala. Code 1975. "'To be e n t i t l e d to a permanent i n j u n c t i o n , a p l a i n t i f f must d e m o n s t r a t e s u c c e s s on t h e m e r i t s , a s u b s t a n t i a l t h r e a t of i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y i f the i n j u n c t i o n i s not granted, t h a t t h e t h r e a t e n e d i n j u r y t o The complaint a l s o sought t o p r e v e n t t h e C o u n c i l from attempting t o remove members o f t h e B o a r d . I n p a r t , t h e permanent i n j u n c t i o n e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n j o i n e d t h e C o u n c i l f r o m a t t e m p t i n g t o remove a n y member o f t h e B o a r d . T h a t p a r t o f t h e i n j u n c t i o n i s n o t an i s s u e on a p p e a l . 1 3 2100346 the plaintiff outweighs t h e harm t h e i n j u n c t i o n may c a u s e t h e d e f e n d a n t , a n d that g r a n t i n g the i n j u n c t i o n w i l l not disserve the public i n t e r e s t . ' "TFT, I n c . v. W a r n i n g S y s . , I n c . , 751 So. 2d 1238, 1242 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) , o v e r r u l e d on a n o t h e r p o i n t o f l a w , H o l i d a y I s l e , LLC v . A d k i n s , 12 So. 3d 1173 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) . The e n t r y o f a p e r m a n e n t i n j u n c t i o n i s r e v i e w e d de novo, TFT, I n c . , 751 So. 2d a t 1241 " Sycamore Mgmt. Group, LLC v. Coosa C a b l e Co., 42 So. 3d 90, 93 (Ala. 2010). On a p p e a l , t h e C o u n c i l a r g u e s t h a t § 9.03 g r a n t s i t t h e power t o subpoena the Board i n this case. Section 9.03 provides: " I n v e s t i g a t i o n s by c o u n c i l o r c i t y manager. The council, the c i t y manager, o r any p e r s o n o r c o m m i t t e e a u t h o r i z e d by e i t h e r o f them, s h a l l have power t o i n q u i r e i n t o t h e c o n d u c t o f any o f f i c e , department, b o a r d o r agency o r o f f i c e r o f t h e C i t y and t o make i n v e s t i g a t i o n s as t o m u n i c i p a l a f f a i r s , and f o r that purpose may subpoena witnesses, a d m i n i s t e r o a t h s , and compel the production of b o o k s , p a p e r s a n d o t h e r e v i d e n c e . F a i l u r e t o obey s u c h subpoena o r t o p r o d u c e b o o k s , p a p e r s o r o t h e r e v i d e n c e as o r d e r e d u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l c o n s t i t u t e a m i s d e m e a n o r a n d s h a l l be p u n i s h a b l e b y a f i n e n o t t o e x c e e d $100 o r by i m p r i s o n m e n t n o t t o e x c e e d s i x months, o r b o t h . " The are Council "officers" first argues t h a t t h e members o f t h e B o a r d o f t h e C i t y u n d e r § 9.03 a n d , t h e r e f o r e , § 9.03 g r a n t s t h e C o u n c i l subpoena 4 that power o v e r t h e B o a r d . I n 2100346 s u p p o r t o f i t s a r g u m e n t , t h e C o u n c i l c i t e s Day v. A n d r e w s , 279 Ala. 563, 188 So. 2d 523 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , w h i c h c o n c e r n e d an a t t e m p t by a mayor a n d c i t y c o u n c i l t o remove members o f a c i t y b o a r d o f education. I n Day, o u r supreme court stated: c i t y b o a r d o f e d u c a t i o n , a f t e r due a p p o i n t m e n t , of "Members o f a are o f f i c e r s t h e c i t y a n d c a n n o t be removed e x c e p t f o r c a u s e s in [Article 1901 V I I , ] S e c t i o n 173 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f A l a b a m a 279 A l a . a t 565, 188 So. 2d a t 526. W r i g h t v . Cook, (stating specified that See a l s o 216 A l a . 270, 2 7 1 , 113 So. 252, 254 members o f a town's board of education "are o f f i c e r s o f t h e town a n d c a n n o t be removed f r o m o f f i c e for the causes Although board specified the court except i n [ § ] 173 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n " ) . i n Day c h a r a c t e r i z e d o f e d u c a t i o n as o f f i c e r s impeachment u n d e r A r t . V I I , §§ court also (1927) members of the c i t y of a city f o r purposes of 173-75, A l a . C o n s t . 1 9 0 1 , t h e stated: "A r e a d i n g o f t h e e n t i r e p r o v i s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g the a p p o i n t i n g and f u n c t i o n i n g o f c i t y boards o f education shows beyond p e r adventure that the legislative p u r p o s e was t o i n v e s t i n b o a r d s o f e d u c a t i o n , when d u l y a n d l e g a l l y s e l e c t e d , t h e a u t h o r i t y t o a c t as f r e e a n d i n d e p e n d e n t a g e n c i e s o f the city i n the operation of the c i t y school systems, f r e e o f i n t e r f e r e n c e by t h e g o v e r n i n g b o d i e s w h i c h may have a p p o i n t e d t h e members." 5 2100346 279 A l a . a t 565, 188 So. 2d a t 525-26. I n E n t e r p r i s e C i t y B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n v. M i l l e r , 2d 782 board ( A l a . 1977), of education determining our So. a city supreme c o u r t d i s c u s s e d how should immunity 348 from be c h a r a c t e r i z e d f o r purposes tort actions. The supreme of court stated: " L i k e county s c h o o l boards, [ c i t y boards of e d u c a t i o n ] a r e a g e n c i e s o f t h e s t a t e , empowered t o a d m i n i s t e r p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n w i t h i n t h e c i t i e s . As such, a c i t y s c h o o l board i s not a s u b d i v i s i o n or agency of the m u n i c i p a l government. O p i n i o n of the J u s t i c e s , 276 A l a . 239, 160 So. 2d 648 (1964). A city school board's relation to the city is analogous t o a county s c h o o l board's r e l a t i o n t o the county. S t a t e v. B r a n d o n , 244 A l a . 62, 12 So. 2d 319 (1943)." 348 So. 2d at 783. See a l s o Ex parte E d u c . , [Ms. 1100122, J a n . 14, 2011] (stating that c i t y S t a t e and, boards Phenix So. 3d of e d u c a t i o n are City Bd. (Ala. agencies of 2011) of the t h e r e f o r e , enjoy c o n s t i t u t i o n a l immunity from t o r t actions). Thus, a city a g e n c [ y ] , " Day, board of 279 A l a . 565, education 188 So. is an 2d a t 525, "independent t h a t i s "not a s u b d i v i s i o n or agency of the m u n i c i p a l government," 348 So. 2d 783. Therefore, we conclude t h a t t h e members t h e B o a r d a r e n o t o f f i c e r s o f t h e C i t y u n d e r § 9.03. 6 Miller, of Thus, § 2100346 9.03 does not grant the Council or i t s committee subpoena power o v e r t h e B o a r d on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e B o a r d members a r e officers The of the City. Council also argues that § 9.03 authorizes the subpoena i n t h i s case because, the C o u n c i l s a y s , the subpoena concerns we "municipal affairs" under determine whether the a c t i v i t i e s affairs." Act term "municipal ed. 2004) No. relating the local court interpreting city council a f f a i r s " has (Sup. Ct. Court could of as power with 189 Misc. 1016, must "municipal define D i c t i o n a r y 1042 "[t]he the (8th matters a municipality." respect 1019, One charter granting d e s c r i b e d the scope of those Balog, to "municipal p o w e r s as 73 a "broad." N.Y.S.2d 285, 288 1947). Super. o f New 493, 271 A.2d of Union C i t y 733 Jersey addressed exercise education. Law a provision in a city subpoena Thus, does n o t affairs" government In Board of E d u c a t i o n N.J. 1977, Black's "municipal 9.03. of the Board are Ala. Acts affairs." defines to F r a n k v. 71, § The (Law Div. v. Union C i t y , 1970), the Superior whether a c i t y ' s governing subpoena power s t a t e law i n t h a t case granted 7 over the city's 112 body board the power of of 2100346 subpoena to consider "any N.J. Super. 40:48-25. a committee of subject matter a t 494, 271 A.2d the city's within a t 733; governing body i t s jurisdiction." See N.J. Stat. Ann. to 112 § S i m i l a r to the s i t u a t i o n i n t h i s case, the c o u r t i n U n i o n C i t y f i r s t a c k n o w l e d g e d " t h e autonomous c h a r a c t e r o f t h e b o a r d o f e d u c a t i o n i n t h e management and c o n d u c t o f t h e s c h o o l system." 112 N . J . the c o u r t then Super. a t 495, 271 A.2d a t 734. However, stated: "[T]here are nevertheless certain areas i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e between the b o a r d [of e d u c a t i o n ] t h e g o v e r n i n g body o f t h e c i t y . of and "The B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n o f U n i o n C i t y i s ... a p p o i n t e d by t h e mayor o f t h e c i t y . ... There i s a B o a r d o f S c h o o l E s t i m a t e , composed o f two members o f t h e B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , two members o f t h e g o v e r n i n g body and t h e mayor, w h i c h p a s s e s on t h e s c h o o l b u d g e t and fixes the amount o f t h e necessary a p p r o p r i a t i o n t o be s u b m i t t e d t o t h e g o v e r n i n g body. ... The g o v e r n i n g body must a p p r o p r i a t e t h e amount c e r t i f i e d by t h e B o a r d o f S c h o o l E s t i m a t e up t o a maximum o f 1 ^% of the assessed v a l u a t i o n of p r o p e r t y i n t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y . ... "In connection w i t h c a p i t a l p r o j e c t s , the Board of School Estimate also determines the amount necessary, and the governing body, subject to c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s , i s r e q u i r e d to a p p r o p r i a t e the amount so c e r t i f i e d e i t h e r f r o m i t s g e n e r a l f u n d s o r t h r o u g h t h e i s s u a n c e o f m u n i c i p a l b o n d s . ... A b o n d i s s u e f o r s c h o o l p u r p o s e s must be a u t h o r i z e d by o r d i n a n c e a d o p t e d by t h e b o a r d o f c o m m i s s i o n e r s o f t h e c i t y and, u n d e r c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s , by t h e v o t e r s of the m u n i c i p a l i t y . 8 2100346 " A l l moneys n e c e s s a r y f o r s c h o o l p u r p o s e s must be p r o v i d e d by t h e c i t y t h r o u g h l o c a l t a x a t i o n . "As a c o n s e q u e n c e , t h e r e a r e s u f f i c i e n t a r e a s o f mutual relationship between t h e two bodies to demonstrate t h a t the a c t i v i t i e s of the Board of E d u c a t i o n of Union C i t y , i n c l u d i n g c o s t , e f f i c i e n c y and p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e s c h o o l s y s t e m , a r e a m a t t e r o f l e g i t i m a t e i n t e r e s t t o t h e g o v e r n i n g body o f t h e city so as to justify the inquiry by i t s i n v e s t i g a t i n g c o m m i t t e e . See d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n i n B o t k i n v. M a y o r , e t c . , Westwood, 52 N . J . S u p e r . 416, 437, 145 A.2d 618 (App. D i v . 1 9 5 8 ) ; H a c k e n s a c k Bd. o f E d u c a t i o n v. H a c k e n s a c k , 64 N . J . S u p e r . 560, 165 A.2d 33 (App. D i v . 1 9 6 0 ) . The r a t i o n a l e a r t i c u l a t e d i n B o a r d o f T r u s t e e s o f F r e e P u b l i c L i b r a r y v. C i t y o f U n i o n C i t y , [112 N . J . S u p e r . 484, 271 A.2d 728 (Ch. Div. 1970)] is equally applicable and d i s p o s i t i v e of the p l a i n t i f f s ' contentions h e r e i n . "The subject is manifestly within the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e g o v e r n i n g body, i n t h e s e n s e o f the l a t t e r ' s l e g i t i m a t e i n t e r e s t i n the b u s i n e s s of the Board of E d u c a t i o n f o r the purpose of p e r f o r m i n g i t s s t a t u t o r y f u n c t i o n s v i s - a - v i s the s c h o o l system. Consequently, the i n q u i r y i n t o the o p e r a t i o n of the Board of Education is properly within the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g c o m m i t t e e , and t h e B o a r d ' s a r c h i t e c t and e m p l o y e e , L u g o s c h , i s s u b j e c t t o i t s subpoena." 112 N . J . S u p e r . a t 495-96, 271 A.2d at 734. S i m i l a r l y , i n t h i s c a s e , t h e C o u n c i l a p p o i n t s t h e members of the Board. § 16-11-3. provides "any that action S e c t i o n 16-11-12, A l a . Code brought upon [a city 1975, board of e d u c a t i o n ' s c o n t r a c t s ] and f o r t h e r e c o v e r y and p r o t e c t i o n o f money and property belonging 9 to and used by the public 2100346 schools, o r f o r damages, s h a l l of the c i t y . " education be b r o u g h t b y a n d i n t h e name That p r o v i s i o n i n d i c a t e s " t h a t c i t y boards o f are c l o s e l y related t o the c i t y governing body." S t a t e ex r e l . McQueen v . B r a n d o n , 244 A l a . 62, 66, 12 So. 2d 319, 322 (1943) ( a d d r e s s i n g A l a . Code 1940, T i t l e and A l a . S c h o o l Code 1927, § 201, p r e d e c e s s o r s I f t h e income o f a c i t y that board "shall petition e l e c t i o n f o r the issuance to provide 11-19. board of education sufficient t o § 16-11-12). is council insufficient, ... t o c a l l funding f o r the board's schools. complaint the p u b l i c s c h o o l § 16¬ s t a t e d t h a t , " f o r many ... C o u n c i l s have g i v e n t h e [ B o a r d ' s a p p r o p r i a t i o n s from c i t y an o f bonds on t h e c r e d i t o f t h e c i t y " The B o a r d ' s v e r i f i e d years, previous the c i t y 52, § 161, funds t o a s s i s t schools] i n the operation of system." F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e B o a r d and t h e C o u n c i l have o r h a d an a g r e e m e n t a l l o w i n g t h e B o a r d t o use a stadium owned by the C i t y . p r o p o s e d l e a s e agreement c o n c e r n i n g from the Board's superintendent The record contains t h e s t a d i u m t h a t was to a Council member. a sent The Board's p r e v i o u s use of the stadium i s the s u b j e c t of s e v e r a l of t h e C o u n c i l ' s requests f o r i n f o r m a t i o n and documents. 10 2100346 "Investigation tool in itself f o r the functioning c l e a r showing liberally i s an i m p o r t a n t a n d of government. of bad f a i t h , t o p e r m i t a b r o a d scope of i n q u i r y F r e e P u b l i c L i b r a r y v. Union C i t y , A.2d 728, 731 In t h e absence t o achieve the Board of Trustees of 112 N . J . S u p e r . (Ch. D i v . 1 9 7 0 ) . The 484, 490, Council l e g i t i m a t e i n t e r e s t i n the a c t i v i t i e s of the Board. the Council interrelate activities and in the Board several of a s u c h a power s h o u l d be c o n s t r u e d l e g i t i m a t e ends o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . " 271 valuable are ways. separate pursuant the they Board's t o § 9.03 a n d , t h u s , may p r o p e r l y be i n v e s t i g a t e d by t h e C o u n c i l u n d e r section. A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l a Although entities, Therefore, are "municipal a f f a i r s " has court's that judgment i n s o f a r as i t p e r m a n e n t l y e n j o i n e d t h e C o u n c i l f r o m e x e r c i s i n g its s u b p o e n a power o v e r t h e B o a r d . The C o u n c i l f i l e d a m o t i o n t o s t r i k e v a r i o u s p a r t s o f t h e Board's brief on t h e grounds that those parts are either f a c t u a l l y i n c o r r e c t , u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d , o r i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e s on a p p e a l . We deny t h e C o u n c i l ' s motion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and Pittman, 11 Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.