Wilkinson v. Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Mary Ann Wilkinson was employed by the Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama for several years, until the Board terminated her employment in December 2009. In July 2010, Wilkinson sued the Board, seeking compensation she alleged was due her pursuant to her employment contracts. The Board filed a motion to dismiss Wilkinsons complaint, in which it alleged that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P., on the ground that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the Board, as a State agency, is immune from suit under Ala. Const. 1901, Art. I, sec. 14; that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., because it failed to state a claim; and that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P., for improper venue. In its petition for a writ of certiorari, the Board argued this case presented an issue of first impression regarding whether the Board is a State agency that is entitled to section 14 immunity and whether the Board was entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment. The Board argues that the Court of Civil Appeals erred when it concluded that the Board was not a State agency entitled immunity. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the Board was a State agency and therefore entitled to immunity pursuant to section 14, the courts of this State were without jurisdiction in this case, and the Board of Adjustment would have jurisdiction over Wilkinsons claims. For these reasons, the Court of Civil Appeals erred when it reversed the trial courts judgment dismissing Wilkinsons complaint against the Board and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Download PDF
REL: 05/25/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal 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 , Alabama 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 1100993 Ex p a r t e B o a r d o f D e n t a l E x a m i n e r s o f Alabama PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF C I V I L APPEALS (In r e : Mary Ann W i l k i n s o n v. Board o f D e n t a l Examiners o f Alabama) ( J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t , CV-10-902491; C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s , 2100175) 1100993 WISE, Justice. We the granted the p e t i t i o n Board of Dental Examiners review of Wilkinson the v. not which a set of and t o A r t . I , § 14, f o r t h b e l o w , we of filed ("the B o a r d " ) the Dental So. of C i v i l agency of c e r t i o r a r i of Alabama of 1, 2 0 1 1 ] the Court State pursuant decision Board 2100175, A p r i l in for a writ Court Examiners 3d was of seeking Appeals Alabama, ( A l a . C i v . App. Appeals thus Civil held not A l a . Const. that 1901. For to the in [Ms. 2011), the Board entitled by was immunity reasons r e v e r s e the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals. I. The Appeals' F a c t s and pertinent opinion facts Procedural History are stated in the Court of in Wilkinson: " M a r y A n n W i l k i n s o n was e m p l o y e d b y t h e B o a r d o f Dental Examiners of Alabama ('the Board') for several years, u n t i l the Board terminated her employment i n December 2009. During her tenure with t h e B o a r d , W i l k i n s o n was e m p l o y e d p u r s u a n t t o y e a r l y contracts. Wilkinson's employment contracts p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e ' s o l e remedy f o r t h e s e t t l e m e n t o f any and a l l d i s p u t e s a r i s i n g under t h e terms o f t h i s a g r e e m e n t s h a l l be l i m i t e d t o t h e f i l i n g o f a c l a i m with the Board of Adjustment f o r the State of Alabama.' "In J u l y 2010, W i l k i n s o n sued the Board, s e e k i n g c o m p e n s a t i o n s h e a l l e g e d was due h e r p u r s u a n t t o h e r 2 Civil 1100993 employment c o n t r a c t s . Wilkinson based her breacho f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m on a n a u d i t o f t h e B o a r d c o v e r i n g the p e r i o d between O c t o b e r 2003 and September 2007 c o n d u c t e d by the Department of Examiners o f P u b l i c A c c o u n t s o f A l a b a m a , w h i c h was c o m p l e t e d i n F e b r u a r y 2009. W i l k i n s o n a l l e g e d t h a t the a u d i t had r e v e a l e d that the Board had not p a i d W i l k i n s o n f o r her a t t e n d a n c e a t B o a r d m e e t i n g s between O c t o b e r 2004 and September 2007 and t h a t the B o a r d had o v e r p a i d Wilkinson other compensation. According to W i l k i n s o n ' s complaint, the a u d i t determined that the Board had underpaid Wilkinson $31,950 and had overpaid Wilkinson $21,787.92. Thus, Wilkinson c o n t e n d e d i n h e r c o m p l a i n t t h a t t h e B o a r d owed h e r $10,162.08. She a l s o r e q u e s t e d a f u r t h e r a u d i t a n d compensation f o r her attendance at Board meetings b e t w e e n O c t o b e r 2007 a n d December 2009. "The B o a r d f i l e d a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s W i l k i n s o n ' s complaint, i n which i t a l l e g e d that the complaint s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e t r i a l court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the B o a r d , a s a S t a t e a g e n c y , i s immune f r o m s u i t u n d e r A l a . C o n s t . 1901, A r t . I , § 14; t h a t t h e c o m p l a i n t s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., b e c a u s e i t f a i l e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m ; a n d t h a t t h e c o m p l a i n t s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., f o r i m p r o p e r v e n u e . The motion to dismiss contained legal argument c o n c e r n i n g o n l y t h e immunity i s s u e and whether the employment contracts, which provided that W i l k i n s o n ' s s o l e remedy w o u l d l i e w i t h t h e B o a r d o f Adjustment, b a r r e d her complaint i n the circuit court. W i l k i n s o n responded to the Board's motion to dismiss with a detailed brief, arguing that the Board d i d not q u a l i f y f o r i m m u n i t y u n d e r § 14 a n d t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , h e r c l a i m c o u l d n o t be h e a r d b y t h e Board of Adjustment. See A l a . Code 1975, § 4 1 - 9 6 2 ( b ) ( s t a t i n g t h a t t h e B o a r d o f A d j u s t m e n t h a s no jurisdiction 'to s e t t l e o r a d j u s t any m a t t e r o r c l a i m o f which the c o u r t s o f t h i s s t a t e have or had 1 3 1100993 j u r i s d i c t i o n ' ) ; s e e a l s o L e e v . C u n n i n g h a m , 234 A l a . 639, 6 4 1 , 176 So. 4 7 7 , 479 ( 1 9 3 7 ) ; a n d V a u g h a n v . S i b l e y , 709 So. 2 d 4 8 2 , 486 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1997) ('The B o a r d o f A d j u s t m e n t has j u r i s d i c t i o n over claims against the state that are not j u s t i c i a b l e i n the courts because of the state's constitutional i m m u n i t y f r o m b e i n g made a d e f e n d a n t . ' ) . A f t e r t h e Board r e p l i e d t o W i l k i n s o n ' s response and a f t e r a hearing, the t r i a l court dismissed Wilkinson's c o m p l a i n t , f i n d i n g i n i t s o r d e r t h a t t h e B o a r d was a S t a t e agency because 'the funds r a i s e d by t h e Board are appropriated by the State t o the Board f o r use as p r o v i d e d by s t a t u t e . ' Wilkinson timely appealed t o this court. II " Wilkinson also attached to her response d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e B o a r d was self-supporting. However, t h a t e v i d e n c e d i d n o t convert t h e Board's motion t o dismiss i n t o a motion for a summary j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e t h e m o t i o n was, b y and l a r g e , a motion s e e k i n g d i s m i s s a l p u r s u a n t t Rule 12(b)(1) and a t t a c k i n g the t r i a l court' s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n b a s e d on t h e B o a r d ' s a s s e r t i o n o f § 14 i m m u n i t y . See W i l l i a m s v. S k y s i t e Commc'ns C o r p . , 7 8 1 S o . 2 d 2 4 1 , 2 4 5 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) ( ' E v i d e n t i a r y m a t t e r s may b e f r e e l y s u b m i t t e d on a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h a t a t t a c k s j u r i s d i c t i o n . ' ) . N o n e o f t h e a r g u m e n t s made b y t h e B o a r d w a s a n argument that the complaint f a i l e d to state a claim." 1 So. 3 d a t ___ . Wilkinson's appeal c h a l l e n g e d t h e Board's addressing that issue, to the Court of Civil Appeals e n t i t l e m e n t t o i m m u n i t y u n d e r § 14. I n the Court of C i v i l 4 Appeals stated: 1100993 "'Section 14 of the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n provides " t h a t the State of A l a b a m a s h a l l n e v e r b e made a d e f e n d a n t i n any c o u r t o f law o r e q u i t y . " T h i s c o u r t has h e l d t h a t the use of the word " S t a t e " i n S e c t i o n 14 was intended to protect from suit only immediate and strictly governmental agencies of the State. Ex parte Board of School Commissioners of M o b i l e C o u n t y , 230 A l a . 3 0 4 , 161 S o . 108 (1935).' "'Thomas v . A l a b a m a Mun. E l e c . A u t h . , 432 S o . 2 d 4 7 0 , 480 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . W i l k i n s o n a r g u e s t h a t t h e B o a r d i s n o t an ' i m m e d i a t e a n d s t r i c t l y g o v e r n m e n t a l a g e n c [ y ] of the State,' and, therefore, that i t i s not e n t i t l e d t o § 14 i m m u n i t y . "The B o a r d r e l i e s o n D e l a v a n v . B o a r d o f D e n t a l E x a m i n e r s o f A l a b a m a , 620 S o . 2 d 1 3 , 18 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 2 ) , and V i n i n g v. B o a r d o f D e n t a l Examiners o f A l a b a m a , 492 S o . 2 d 6 0 7 , 610 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1985). I n both cases, this court described the B o a r d as a S t a t e agency. I n n e i t h e r c a s e was the i m m u n i t y o f t h e B o a r d an i s s u e , and i n n e i t h e r c a s e , as Wilkinson aptly points out, did this court u n d e r t a k e an a n a l y s i s o f t h e f a c t o r s r e l e v a n t t o a determination whether the Board i s an 'agency' entitled t o § 14 i m m u n i t y . T h u s , we a g r e e with W i l k i n s o n t h a t our i n q u i r y cannot end w i t h Delavan and V i n i n g . " After discussing this o f A l a b a m a v. Staudt, Court's decisions 388 So. 2d 991, 993 v . A l a b a m a I n s a n e H o s p i t a l , 138 A l a . 4 7 9 , (1903) ; Ex parte Greater i n Armory ( A l a . 1980); 482, Mobile-Washington 5 Commission 35 S o . County White 454, 454 Mental 1100993 Health-Mental (Ala. 2006) Retardation Board, ("MH-MRB"), t h e C o u r t I n c . , 940 S o . 2 d 9 9 0 , of Civil Appeals 1004 stated: "Based on t h e a b o v e - q u o t e d language from W h i t e , and t h e outcome i n S t a u d t , t h e B o a r d a r g u e s t h a t i t , l i k e other agencies created f o rpurposes b e n e f i t i n g t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , i s immune u n d e r § 14 b y v i r t u e of i t s c r e a t i o n by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . The B o a r d , however, misunderstands the test enunciated i n Staudt and followed since, which focuses on much more t h a n w h e t h e r t h e a l l e g e d 'agency' was c r e a t e d b y t h e l e g i s l a t u r e f o r some p u r p o s e o f b e n e f i t t o the p u b l i c . "To b e s u r e , t h e f u n c t i o n s a n d p u r p o s e o f a n e n t i t y s e e k i n g immunity i s an i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r under the Staudt t e s t ; however, o u r supreme c o u r t h a s e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e main, b u t n o t s o l e , focus o f t h e i m m u n i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n must be whether t h e l i a b i l i t y of t h e e n t i t y would r e s u l t i n l i a b i l i t y f o r the State and thus potentially impact the State treasury. Ex p a r t e G r e a t e r Mobile-Washington County M e n t a l H e a l t h - M e n t a l R e t a r d a t i o n B d . , I n c . , 940 S o . 2 d 9 9 0 , 1 0 0 4 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) ('MH-MRB'). As e x p l a i n e d i n MH-MRB, i n m o s t e v e r y c a s e d e c i d e d a f t e r S t a u d t , the 'treasury factor' has been, i f not the determinative factor, one o f t h e d e t e r m i n a t i v e f a c t o r s i n d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r a n e n t i t y was a S t a t e a g e n c y e n t i t l e d t o § 14 i m m u n i t y . MH-MRB, 940 S o . 2d a t 1004. Immunity i s designed to shield the State t r e a s u r y , n o t t o a f f o r d immunity t o each and every e n t i t y c r e a t e d by s t a t u t e , even i f t h e purpose of t h e e n t i t y i s t o p r o t e c t t h ep u b l i c welfare. " B a s e d o n S t a u d t a n d a s e x p l a i n e d i n MH-MRB, we must examine t h e 'complete r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e S t a t e a n d t h e B o a r d , ' MH-MRB, 940 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 0 5 , a n d we b e g i n b y f i r s t n o t i n g t h a t , d e s p i t e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t 'the funds r a i s e d by t h e Board are a p p r o p r i a t e d by t h e S t a t e t o t h eBoard,' i t does not appear t h a t t h e Board r e c e i v e s any S t a t e funds 6 1100993 at a l l . One o f t h e s t a t u t e s c r e a t i n g t h e B o a r d d o e s c o n t a i n l a n g u a g e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a l l money c o l l e c t e d by t h e B o a r d i s ' a p p r o p r i a t e d ' t o the Board. A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , § 34-9-41. H o w e v e r , t h a t same s t a t u t e further provides t h a t t h e money c o l l e c t e d b y t h e Board f o r fees and other r e c e i p t s i s p a i d t ot h e secretary-treasurer o f the Board and i s deposited i n a b a n k s e l e c t e d b y t h e members o f t h e B o a r d . I d . The money c o l l e c t e d b y t h e B o a r d i s n e v e r p l a c e d i n the State t r e a s u r y . C f ^ A l a . Code 1975, § 34-43-14 ( e s t a b l i s h i n g a s p e c i a l revenue fund i n t h e State t r e a s u r y f o rt h e Alabama Board o f Massage Therapy Fund). The Board, from a l l t h a t appears i n t h e record, i s fully s e l f - s u p p o r t i n g , a n d no a c t u a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f funds t o t h e Board from t h e State appears t o be r e q u i r e d i n o r d e r f o r i t t o p e r f o r m its functions. Thus, t h e S t a t e does n o t ' " s u p p l [ y ] the means" b y w h i c h [ t h e B o a r d i s ] m a i n t a i n e d a n d operated.' MH-MRB, 940 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 0 4 ( q u o t i n g W h i t e , 138 A l a . a t 4 8 2 , 35 S o . a t 4 5 4 ) . "Another factor that the courts have found relevant t o t h e immunity issue i s whether t h e statute creating the entity specifically c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h e e n t i t y as an agency o f t h e S t a t e . MH-MRB, 940 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 0 5 . T h e s t a t u t e s c r e a t i n g t h e B o a r d do n o t . L i k e w i s e , we m u s t l o o k t o t h e a u t h o r i t y a n d power g r a n t e d t h e B o a r d a n d t h e l e v e l of State oversight o f t h e Board and i t s f u n c t i o n s . I d . a t 1003. N o t h i n g i n t h e p e r t i n e n t s t a t u t e s o r the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e State oversees t h e f u n c t i o n s o f t h e B o a r d , w h i c h i n c l u d e , among o t h e r things, administering examinations t o those seeking a l i c e n s e t o p r a c t i c e d e n t i s t r y o r dental hygiene and i n v e s t i g a t i n g v i o l a t i o n s o f laws o r r e g u l a t i o n s governing the practice of d e n t i s t r y and dental h y g i e n e . A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , §§ 3 4 - 9 - 4 3 & - 4 3 . 1 . The B o a r d d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o h a v e a n y p o w e r t o own o r s e l l property i n i t s own name, a f a c t o r t h a t h a s been c o n s i d e r e d r e l e v a n t i nother cases. See, e.g., R o d g e r s v . H o p p e r , 7 6 8 S o . 2 d 9 6 3 , 967 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; T a l l a s e e h a t c h i e Creek Watershed Conservancy D i s t . v. 7 1100993 A l l r e d , 620 S o . 2 d 6 2 8 , 630 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . The B o a r d can enter into certain contracts, including employment c o n t r a c t s r e l a t i n g t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a n d investigative services and contracts f o r legal services, a power that has been considered as indicium that t h e a l l e g e d agency i s actually a separate entity. Rodgers, 768 S o . 2 d a t 9 6 7 ; A l l r e d , 620 S o . 2 d a t 6 3 0 . " C o n t r a c t s f o r l e g a l s e r v i c e s , however, must be approved by the attorney general, a fact that i n d i c a t e s i n c i d e n t a l c o n t r o l over that aspect o f t h e Board's powers. A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , § 3 4 - 9 - 4 3 ( 8 ) b . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e B o a r d ' s a c c o u n t s must be a u d i t e d by a c e r t i f i e d p u b l i c a c c o u n t a n t o f t h e S t a t e , a n d r e p o r t s o f t h e money r e c e i v e d a n d d i s b u r s e d a n d o f the a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e Board together w i t h t h e a u d i t must be f i l e d w i t h t h e S t a t e F i n a n c e Department. Ala. Code 1975, § 34-9-42. The l e v e l o f o v e r s i g h t o v e r t h e B o a r d b y t h e S t a t e w o u l d appear t o be m i n i m a l , w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e MH-MRB c o u r t , i s not i n d i c a t i v e o f State-agency s t a t u s . MH-MRB, 940 So. 2 d a t 1 0 0 4 . " B a s e d on o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s under S t a u d t as a p p l i e d i n d e t a i l by o u r s u p r e m e c o u r t i n MH-MRB, we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e B o a r d does n o t q u a l i f y as an 'immediate and s t r i c t l y governmental agenc[y] o f t h e State' and, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t i t i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o § 14 i m m u n i t y . T h o m a s [ v . A l a b a m a Mun. E l e c . A u t h . ] , 4 3 2 S o . 2 d [ 4 7 0 ] a t 4 8 0 [(Ala. 1983)]. B a s e d o n t h a t c o n c l u s i o n , we m u s t a l s o agree w i t h W i l k i n s o n t h a t , despite t h e language c o n t a i n e d i n h e r employment c o n t r a c t s , t h e B o a r d o f Adjustment i s not the appropriate forum f o r h e r claims against t h e Board, because the Board o f Adjustment provides a forum f o r a d d r e s s i n g those c l a i m s o t h e r w i s e b a r r e d b y § 14 i m m u n i t y a n d h a s a b s o l u t e l y no j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r c l a i m s o r a c t i o n s t h a t may b e b r o u g h t i n t h e c o u r t s o f t h i s S t a t e . § 41-9-62(b); see a l s o Lee[ v. Cunningham], 234 A l a . [639] a t 6 4 1 , 176 So. [ 4 7 7 ] a t 479 [ ( 1 9 3 7 ) ] ; a n d 8 1100993 V a u g h a n [ v. S i b l e y ] , C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) ] . " So. 3d a t In i t s petition argues that (footnote this case r e g a r d i n g whether to the § 14 709 immunity for So. 2d [482] a t 486 omitted). a writ of p r e s e n t s an certiorari, issue of the Board i s a S t a t e agency and w h e t h e r jurisdiction t h e B o a r d was of the Board II. [(Ala. of first the Board impression that i s e n t i t l e d entitled to invoke Adjustment. Standard of Review "In r e v i e w i n g a d e c i s i o n of the Court of C i v i l A p p e a l s on a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i , t h i s C o u r t ' a c c o r d s no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s t o t h e legal conclusions of the intermediate appellate c o u r t . T h e r e f o r e , we m u s t a p p l y de n o v o t h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w t h a t was a p p l i c a b l e i n t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l Appeals.' E x p a r t e T o y o t a M o t o r C o r p . , 684 S o . 2 d 1 3 2 , 135 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) . " Ex p a r t e Exxon The M o b i l Corp., Court of C i v i l Appeals 926 So. 2d 303, 308 s t a t e d the f o l l o w i n g standard of review applicable i n that ( A l a . 2005). regarding court: "'In Newman v . Savas, 878 So. 2d 1147[, 1148-49] ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , t h i s C o u r t s e t o u t t h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w o f a r u l i n g on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n : "'"A r u l i n g on a m o t i o n t o dismiss i s reviewed without a p r e s u m p t i o n of c o r r e c t n e s s . Nance 299 v . M a t t h e w s , 622 S o . 2 d 2 9 7 , 9 the 1100993 (Ala. 1993). This Court must accept the allegations of the complaint as t r u e . C r e o l a Land Dev., I n c . v . B e n t b r o o k e H o u s i n g , L . L . C . , 828 S o . 2 d 2 8 5 , 288 ( A l a . 2002). Furthermore, i n reviewing a r u l i n g on a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s we w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e pleader w i l l u l t i m a t e l y prevail but whether the pleader may p o s s i b l y p r e v a i l . N a n c e , 622 S o . 2d a t 299."' "'Pontius v. S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . 2d 557, 563 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) . " Wilkinson, So. 3d a t III. The Board argues that I n s . C o . , 915 S o . . Discussion the Court of C i v i l Appeals when i t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e B o a r d was n o t a S t a t e is entitled this Court t o § 14 i m m u n i t y . In Staudt, erred agency 388 S o . 2 d a t 9 9 3 , stated: "Whether a lawsuit against a body created by l e g i s l a t i v e enactment i s a s u i t a g a i n s t t h e s t a t e d e p e n d s o n [1] t h e c h a r a c t e r o f p o w e r d e l e g a t e d t o t h e b o d y , [2] t h e r e l a t i o n o f t h e b o d y t o t h e s t a t e , a n d [3] t h e n a t u r e o f t h e f u n c t i o n p e r f o r m e d b y t h e body. A l l f a c t o r s i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p must be e x a m i n e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e s u i t i s a g a i n s t an arm o f t h e s t a t e o r m e r e l y a g a i n s t a f r a n c h i s e e l i c e n s e d f o r some b e n e f i c i a l p u r p o s e . S t a t e Docks C o m m i s s i o n v . B a r n e s , 225 A l a . 4 0 3 , 406-07, 143 So. 5 8 1 , 584 (1932)." 10 that 1100993 1. C h a r a c t e r In is determining entitled character Oregon (1935), to § o f Power Delegated whether the Board 14 immunity, we must power delegated to State Board of Examiners, the United States Supreme Body i s a State of Dental to the first the Board. Court agency look In 294 U.S. at Smeller 608, that the v. 611 stated: "That the state may regulate the p r a c t i c e of d e n t i s t r y , p r e s c r i b i n g the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s that are reasonably necessary, a n d t o t h a t e n d may require licenses and establish supervision by an administrative board, i s not open to dispute. D o u g l a s v . N o b l e , 2 6 1 U.S. 165 [ ( 1 9 2 3 ) ] ; Graves v. S t a t e o f M i n n e s o t a , 272 U.S. 4 2 5 , 427 [ ( 1 9 2 6 ) ] . The s t a t e may t h u s a f f o r d p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t ignorance, i n c a p a c i t y and i m p o s i t i o n . Dent v. West V i r g i n i a , 129 U.S. 1 1 4 , 122 [(1889)]; G r a v e s v. S t a t e of Minnesota, supra. We h a v e h e l d t h a t t h e s t a t e may deny to corporations the right to practice, insisting upon the personal obligations of individuals (State Board of Dental Examiners v. M i l l e r , 90 C o l o . 1 9 3 , 8 P. (2d) 699 [ ( 1 9 3 2 ) ] ; M i l l e r v . S t a t e B o a r d o f D e n t a l E x a m i n e r s , 287 U.S. 563 [ ( 1 9 3 2 ) ] ) , a n d t h a t i t may p r o h i b i t a d v e r t i s i n g t h a t tends t o mislead the p u b l i c i n t h i s respect. Dr. B l o o m D e n t i s t , I n c . v . C r u i s e , 2 5 9 N.Y. 3 5 8 , 3 6 3 , 182 N.E. 16 [ ( 1 9 3 2 ) ] ; I d . , 288 U.S. 588 [(1933)]." Section 34-9-2, A l a . Code 1975, provides: 1 Many o f t h e s e c t i o n s i n C h a p t e r 9 o f T i t l e 34, " D e n t i s t s a n d D e n t a l H y g i e n i s t s , " w e r e a m e n d e d e f f e c t i v e S e p t e m b e r 1, 2011. Unless otherwise i n d i c a t e d , we h a v e q u o t e d f r o m t h e a m e n d e d v e r s i o n w h e n t h e C o d e s e c t i o n was a m e n d e d . 1 11 1100993 " ( a ) The L e g i s l a t u r e h e r e b y d e c l a r e s that the p r a c t i c e of d e n t i s t r y and the p r a c t i c e o f dental hygiene affect the public health, safety, and w e l f a r e and s h o u l d be s u b j e c t t o r e g u l a t i o n . It is f u r t h e r d e c l a r e d t o be a m a t t e r o f p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and concern that the dental profession m e r i t and r e c e i v e the c o n f i d e n c e of the p u b l i c and t h a t only qualified dentists be permitted to practice d e n t i s t r y and o n l y q u a l i f i e d d e n t a l h y g i e n i s t s be permitted to p r a c t i c e dental hygiene i n the State of Alabama. A l l p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s chapter r e l a t i n g t o the p r a c t i c e o f d e n t i s t r y and d e n t a l hygiene s h a l l be l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d t o c a r r y o u t t h e s e objects and p u r p o s e s . "(b) The L e g i s l a t u r e a l s o f i n d s a n d declares t h a t , because of t e c h n o l o g i c a l advances and changing p r a c t i c e p a t t e r n s , the p r a c t i c e of d e n t i s t r y and the practice of dental hygiene i s occurring with i n c r e a s i n g frequency across s t a t e l i n e s and t h a t the t e c h n o l o g i c a l advances i n the p r a c t i c e of d e n t i s t r y and i n the p r a c t i c e of dental hygiene are i n the public interest. " ( c ) The L e g i s l a t u r e f u r t h e r f i n d s a n d d e c l a r e s t h a t the p r a c t i c e o f d e n t i s t r y and the p r a c t i c e of dental hygiene are each a p r i v i l e g e . The l i c e n s u r e b y t h i s s t a t e o f n o n r e s i d e n t d e n t i s t s who e n g a g e i n dental practice and persons who engage i n the p r a c t i c e of dental hygiene within t h i s state are within the public interest. The ability to discipline the nonresident dentists and dental h y g i e n i s t s who e n g a g e i n d e n t a l p r a c t i c e i n t h i s state i s necessary f o r the protection of the c i t i z e n s of t h i s s t a t e and f o r t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , h e a l t h , w e l f a r e , and s a f e t y . " Chapter 9 of requirements dentistry Title and 34, A l a . Code regulations and d e n t a l hygiene 1975, regarding i n the State. 12 provides the detailed practice Section of 34-9- 1100993 4 0 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s , i n pertinent part: "In order to accomplish the purposes and t o p r o v i d e f o r the enforcement of the Board of Dental t h i s chapter, there i s hereby Examiners o f Alabama. authority t o c a r r y out t h e purposes and e n f o r c e t h e p r o v i s i o n s of this chapter." The board created Additionally, i s hereby § 34-9-43, vested with A l a . Code 1975, provides: " ( a ) The b o a r d s h a l l e x e r c i s e , s u b j e c t c h a p t e r , t h e f o l l o w i n g powers and d u t i e s : "(1) A d o p t r u l e s f o r i t s government deemed n e c e s s a r y a n d p r o p e r . to this as "(2) P r e s c r i b e r u l e s f o r q u a l i f i c a t i o n and licensing of dentists and dental hygienists. "(3) Conduct or participate in examinations to ascertain the q u a l i f i c a t i o n and f i t n e s s o f a p p l i c a n t s f o r l i c e n s e s as d e n t i s t s and dental hygienists. "(4) regarding Make rules sanitation. and regulations "(5) Formulate r u l e s and regulations by which d e n t a l s c h o o l s and c o l l e g e s a r e approved, and formulate rules and r e g u l a t i o n s by which t r a i n i n g , e d u c a t i o n a l , technical, vocational, or any other i n s t i t u t i o n which provides i n s t r u c t i o n f o r dental assistants, dental laboratory technicians, or any other paradental personnel are approved. 13 the 1100993 "(6) Grant licenses, issue license c e r t i f i c a t e s , t e a c h i n g p e r m i t s , and annual registration certificates in conformity with this chapter to such qualified d e n t i s t s and d e n t a l h y g i e n i s t s . "(7) C o n d u c t h e a r i n g s o r p r o c e e d i n g s to impose the penalties specified in S e c t i o n 34-9-18. " ( 8 ) a . Employ n e c e s s a r y persons to assist in performing i t s d u t i e s i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and enforcement o f t h i s chapter, and to provide offices, furniture, f i x t u r e s , s u p p l i e s , p r i n t i n g , or secretarial service to these persons and expend necessary funds. "b. E m p l o y an a t t o r n e y o r attorneys, subject to the approval of the Attorney General, to advise and assist i n the c a r r y i n g out and e n f o r c i n g o f t h e provisions of this chapter. P r o v i d e d , however, i f the board contracts with an outside a t t o r n e y t o be g e n e r a l c o u n s e l t o t h e b o a r d , t h a t a t t o r n e y o r any member o f a l a w f i r m w i t h w h i c h he o r s h e i s a s s o c i a t e d s h a l l n o t function as the board's prosecutor at disciplinary hearings. "(9)a. Investigate alleged violations of t h i s chapter and institute or have instituted before the board or the proper court appropriate proceedings regarding the v i o l a t i o n . 14 1100993 "b. Authorize and employ i n v e s t i g a t o r s who c o m p l y w i t h t h e Peace O f f i c e r s ' Minimum S t a n d a r d s and T r a i n i n g A c t t o e x e r c i s e the powers of a peace officer in investigating alleged violations of the drug or controlled substances laws by persons licensed pursuant to this c h a p t e r , i n c l u d i n g the powers of arrest and inspection of documents. "(10) Adopt r u l e s and implement t h i s c h a p t e r . regulations to " ( 1 1 ) P u b l i s h , on a q u a r t e r l y b a s i s , a l l minutes, except minutes of e x e c u t i v e sessions, f i n a n c i a l reports, schedules of meetings, i n c l u d i n g a n t i c i p a t e d executive s e s s i o n s , and o t h e r p e r t i n e n t i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e b o a r d ' s w e b s i t e no l a t e r t h a n 90 days f o l l o w i n g the date o f o c c u r r e n c e . I n addition, publish or post a n n u a l l y the r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s p r o m u l g a t e d by the board, a copy of the D e n t a l P r a c t i c e A c t , and a list of a l l persons licensed to p r a c t i c e under t h i s chapter. "(12) Attend meetings, seminars, w o r k s h o p s , o r e v e n t s t h a t may i m p r o v e t h e f u n c t i o n and e f f i c i e n c y of the b o a r d or improve the a b i l i t y of the board t o e n f o r c e and a d m i n i s t e r t h i s c h a p t e r . " ( b ) The b o a r d , i n e x e r c i s i n g i t s p o w e r s a n d d u t i e s , s h a l l adhere t o g u i d e l i n e s and p r o c e e d i n g s of the State Ethics Commission as provided in C h a p t e r 25 o f T i t l e 3 6 . The b o a r d may a d o p t rules 15 1100993 for the purpose guidelines." of establishing additional ethical 2 Also, § 34-9-46, A l a . Code 1975, g i v e s issue subpoenas and compel t h e attendance o f w i t n e s s e s and the production of documentary Further, oaths evidence to witnesses material books, or and other or to take witnesses' § 3 4 - 9 - 1 8 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, s e t s constitutes dentist and papers, records, evidence." a n y member o f t h e B o a r d h a s t h e a u t h o r i t y Additionally, that a l l necessary t h e B o a r d " t h e power t o or dental grounds for disciplinary hygienist. Section to issue affirmations. f o r t h conduct action 34-9-18(b) against a provides: " ( b ) When t h e b o a r d f i n d s a n y d e n t i s t o r d e n t a l h y g i e n i s t g u i l t y o f any o f t h e grounds s e t f o r t h i n subsection ( a ) , i t may e n t e r a n o r d e r i m p o s i n g o n e o r more o f t h e f o l l o w i n g p e n a l t i e s : "(1) Refuse t o issue the d e n t i s t or dental hygienist license or permit provided for i n this chapter. "(2) W i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f n e g l i g e n c e as d e f i n e d i n p a r a g r a p h ( a ) ( 6 ) a . r e v o k e t h e l i c e n s e o r p e r m i t o f any d e n t i s t o r d e n t a l hygienist. any 2 Ala. "(3) S u s p e n d t h e l i c e n s e o r p e r m i t o f dentist or dental hygienist. S u b s e c t i o n (b) was a d d e d b y t h e a m e n d m e n t t o § C o d e 1 9 7 5 , e f f e c t i v e S e p t e m b e r 1, 2 0 1 1 . 16 34-9-43, 1100993 "(4) Enter a censure. " ( 5 ) I s s u e an o r d e r f i x i n g a p e r i o d and terms of p r o b a t i o n b e s t adapted to p r o t e c t the p u b l i c h e a l t h and s a f e t y and t o rehabilitate the dentist or dental hygienist. " ( 6 ) Impose an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f i n e n o t to exceed f i v e thousand d o l l a r s ($5,000) f o r each count or separate o f f e n s e . of "(7) Impose r e s t r i c t i o n s practice. on the "(8) Impose peer review professional education requirements. "(9) Assess the costs d i s c i p l i n a r y proceedings." Finally, § 34-9-5, A l a . Code 1975, of scope or the provides: "Any p e r s o n who s h a l l e n g a g e i n t h e p r a c t i c e o f d e n t i s t r y across s t a t e l i n e s or p r a c t i c e d e n t i s t r y or d e n t a l hygiene i n t h i s s t a t e w i t h i n the meaning of t h i s chapter w i t h o u t h a v i n g f i r s t o b t a i n e d from the board a license and an annual registration c e r t i f i c a t e , when t h e c e r t i f i c a t e i s r e q u i r e d b y t h i s c h a p t e r , o r who v i o l a t e s t h i s c h a p t e r , o r who w i l l f u l l y v i o l a t e s any p u b l i s h e d r u l e o r r e g u l a t i o n o f t h e b o a r d , o r who d o e s a n y a c t d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r as u n l a w f u l , t h e p e n a l t y f o r w h i c h i s n o t h e r e i n s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e d , s h a l l be g u i l t y o f a m i s d e m e a n o r a n d u p o n c o n v i c t i o n s h a l l be p u n i s h e d by a fine of not more t h a n five thousand dollars ( $ 5 , 0 0 0 ) f o r e a c h o f f e n s e , t o be f i x e d b y t h e c o u r t t r y i n g t h e c a s e , a n d i n a d d i t i o n t h e r e t o may b e , i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the c o u r t , sentenced to hard l a b o r for the county f o r a p e r i o d not to exceed 12 months." 17 1100993 (Emphasis The added.) purposes the character the Board that support a finding 2. to o f t h e power i sentitled Next, of Chapter this the State. t o § 14 9, T i t l e and duties that 34, A l a . Code 1975, a n d that t h e Board are delegated t o i sa State agency immunity. R e l a t i o n o f t h e Body t o t h e S t a t e C o u r t must l o o k In reaching at the relation i t s decision of the Board i n Wilkinson, the C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s r e l i e d h e a v i l y on t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n in MH-MRB, stating: "As e x p l a i n e d i n MH-MRB, i n m o s t e v e r y c a s e d e c i d e d a f t e r [ A r m o r y C o m m i s s i o n o f A l a b a m a v.] S t a u d t f , 388 So. 2 d 991 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) ] , t h e ' t r e a s u r y f a c t o r ' h a s been, i f n o t t h e d e t e r m i n a t i v e f a c t o r , one o ft h e d e t e r m i n a t i v e f a c t o r s i n d e c i d i n g whether an e n t i t y was a S t a t e a g e n c y e n t i t l e d t o § 14 i m m u n i t y . MHMRB, 940 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 0 4 . I m m u n i t y i s d e s i g n e d t o s h i e l d the State t r e a s u r y , n o t t o a f f o r d immunity t o each a n d e v e r y e n t i t y c r e a t e d b y s t a t u t e , even i f the purpose o f t h e e n t i t y i s t o p r o t e c t t h e p u b l i c welfare." So. 3d a t . The C o u r t o f C i v i l Appeals then reasoned: " B a s e d o n S t a u d t a n d a s e x p l a i n e d i n MH-MRB, we must examine t h e 'complete r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e S t a t e a n d t h e B o a r d , ' MH-MRB, 940 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 0 5 , a n d we b e g i n b y f i r s t n o t i n g t h a t , d e s p i t e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t 'the funds r a i s e d by t h e B o a r d are a p p r o p r i a t e d by t h e S t a t e t o t h eBoard,' i t does not appear t h a t t h e Board r e c e i v e s any S t a t e funds at a l l . One o f t h e s t a t u t e s c r e a t i n g t h e B o a r d d o e s 18 1100993 c o n t a i n l a n g u a g e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a l l money c o l l e c t e d by t h e B o a r d i s ' a p p r o p r i a t e d ' t o t h e Board. A l a . Code 1975, § 34-9-41. H o w e v e r , t h a t same s t a t u t e f u r t h e r p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e money c o l l e c t e d b y t h e Board f o r fees and other r e c e i p t s i s p a i d t o the s e c r e t a r y - t r e a s u r e r of the Board and i s deposited i n a b a n k s e l e c t e d b y t h e members o f t h e B o a r d . Id. The m o n e y c o l l e c t e d b y t h e B o a r d i s n e v e r p l a c e d i n the State t r e a s u r y . C f ^ A l a . Code 1975, § 34-43-14 ( e s t a b l i s h i n g a s p e c i a l revenue fund i n the State t r e a s u r y f o r t h e Alabama Board o f Massage Therapy Fund). The B o a r d , f r o m a l l t h a t a p p e a r s i n t h e record, i s fully s e l f - s u p p o r t i n g , a n d no a c t u a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f funds t o t h e Board from t h e S t a t e a p p e a r s t o be r e q u i r e d i n o r d e r f o r i t t o p e r f o r m its functions. Thus, t h e S t a t e does n o t ' " s u p p l [ y ] t h e means" b y w h i c h [ t h e B o a r d i s ] m a i n t a i n e d a n d operated.' MH-MRB, 940 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 0 4 (quoting W h i t e [ v . A l a b a m a I n s a n e H o s p . ] , 138 A l a . [ 4 7 9 ] a t 4 8 2 , 35 S o . [ 4 5 4 ] a t 454 [ 1 9 0 3 ) ] ) . " So. 3d a t However, 109-10 i n Ex p a r t e ( A l a . 2006), significant, is . whether Troy this Court an e n t i t y not the determinative U n i v e r s i t y , 961 noted receives funds So. 2d 105, that, although from t h e State factor: "The r e c e i p t o f funds from t h e State i s a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n d e c i d i n g whether an e n t i t y i s a S t a t e agency. L i k e w i s e , t h e f a c t t h a t a judgment 'would result i n a monetary loss to the State treasury,' Ex p a r t e Alabama Dep't o f M e n t a l H e a l t h & M e n t a l R e t a r d a t i o n , 937 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 8 , 1 0 2 3 ( A l a . 2006), i s s i g n i f i c a n t , i fnot d e t e r m i n a t i v e , i n the decision. However, n e i t h e r f a c t o r i s t h e s o l e b a s i s f o r o u r e x t e n s i o n o f § 14 t o S t a t e a g e n c i e s . S e e , e.g., Ex p a r t e Greater Mobile-Washington County M e n t a l H e a l t h - M e n t a l R e t a r d a t i o n B d . , I n c . , 940 S o . 19 1100993 2d 990, 993 ( A l a . 2006); Tallaseehatchie Creek W a t e r s h e d C o n s e r v a n c y D i s t . v . A l l r e d , 620 S o . 2 d 6 2 8 , 630 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; A r m o r y Comm'n o f A l a b a m a v . S t a u d t , 388 S o . 2 d 9 9 1 , 9 9 2 - 9 3 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) ; W h i t e v . A l a b a m a I n s a n e H o s p . , 138 A l a . 4 7 9 , 4 8 2 , 35 S o . 4 5 4 , 454 ( A l a . 1903) . This Court considers several factors i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether an e n t i t y i s 'an immediate and s t r i c t l y g o v e r n m e n t a l a g e n c [ y ] ' and t h u s e n t i t l e d t o p r o t e c t i o n f r o m s u i t u n d e r § 14, i n c l u d i n g f a c t o r s r e l a t e d t o '(1) t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e p o w e r d e l e g a t e d t o t h e b o d y ; (2) t h e r e l a t i o n o f the b o d y t o t h e S t a t e ; a n d (3) t h e n a t u r e o f t h e f u n c t i o n p e r f o r m e d by t h e body.' Rodgers v. Hopper, 768 S o . 2 d 9 6 3 , 966 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ( c i t i n g S t a u d t , 388 So. 2d a t 9 9 3 ) . " (Emphasis added.) Additionally, overly narrow misapprehend retained provides, by the Court definition the the true Board. i n pertinent of Civil of "State nature of Section Appeals funds" the that funds 34-9-16, applies an appears to collected Ala. Code and 1975, part: "The Board shall establish and collect reasonable fees provided f o r i n t h i s chapter w i t h i n the ranges s e t f o r t h below and w i t h o u t h a v i n g t o engage i n the r u l e m a k i n g p r o c e s s " (Emphasis of fees, added.) That s e c t i o n includes a detailed s u c h as " D e n t a l E x a m i n a t i o n A p p l i c a t i o n E x a m i n a t i o n Fee," and then sets also forth Fee," D e n t a l "Dental Examination Materials a maximum a m o u n t t h a t may 20 be list Fee." It charged f o r each 1100993 listed fee. establish 3 Therefore, and collect legislature has given establishing the amount limits the l e g i s l a t u r e fees. Additionally, the of requires the Board to Board fees some i t will although the discretion in collect, t h a t d i s c r e t i o n b y p r o v i d i n g t h e maximum f e e s i t also that can be e s t a b l i s h e d a n d c o l l e c t e d . Section 3 4 - 9 - 4 1 , A l a . Code 1975, provides: "The board shall annually elect from i t s membership a president, vice-president, and s e c r e t a r y - t r e a s u r e r a n d may e m p l o y s t a f f m e m b e r s who a r e n o t members o f t h e b o a r d . The b o a r d s h a l l h a v e a common s e a l . The b o a r d s h a l l h o l d a n annual meeting i n Birmingham a t the U n i v e r s i t y of Alabama S c h o o l o f D e n t i s t r y as soon as p r a c t i c a l a f t e r t h e graduation exercises of the dental school f o r the purpose of examining or participating i n the regional examination of applicants f o r a license to p r a c t i c e d e n t i s t r y and d e n t a l hygiene or a t such o t h e r t i m e s a n d p l a c e s a s t h e b o a r d may designate for the purpose of t r a n s a c t i n g i t s business and examinations. A majority of the board shall c o n s t i t u t e a quorum f o r t h e t r a n s a c t i o n o f b u s i n e s s a t any m e e t i n g e x c e p t t h a t i n c o n d u c t i n g hearings i n v o l v i n g any o f t h e p e n a l t i e s o u t l i n e d i n S e c t i o n 3 4 - 9 - 1 8 , no l e s s t h a n f i v e m e m b e r s o f t h e b o a r d s h a l l be p r e s e n t . In conducting hearings i n v o l v i n g any o f t h e p e n a l t i e s o u t l i n e d i n S e c t i o n 34-9-18, a m a j o r i t y o f t h e b o a r d may a p p o i n t a n y f o r m e r member o f t h e b o a r d who f o r s u c h p u r p o s e s s h a l l h a v e a l l the powers and p r i v i l e g e s of such office as a B e f o r e i t s a m e n d m e n t e f f e c t i v e S e p t e m b e r 1, 2 0 1 1 , § 3 4 - 9 ¬ 16 a l s o s e t a m i n i m u m a m o u n t t h a t c o u l d b e c h a r g e d f o r e a c h fee. 3 21 1100993 r e g u l a r b o a r d member p o s s e s s e s . In conducting or p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n e x a m s , a m a j o r i t y o f t h e b o a r d may a p p o i n t a n y f o r m e r member o f t h e b o a r d o r s u c h o t h e r l i c e n s e d p r a c t i c i n g d e n t i s t s from a jurisdiction r e c o g n i z e d b y t h e b o a r d who f o r s u c h p u r p o s e s s h a l l have a l l t h e powers and p r i v i l e g e s o f such o f f i c e as a r e g u l a r b o a r d member p o s s e s s e s . Out o f t h e funds o f t h e b o a r d t h e members t h e r e o f s h a l l r e c e i v e a s c o m p e n s a t i o n a sum t o b e f i x e d b y t h e b o a r d f o r e a c h day a c t i v e l y engaged i n t h e d u t i e s o f t h e i r o f f i c e , a n d i n a d d i t i o n b o a r d m e m b e r s s h a l l r e c e i v e t h e same per diem and t r a v e l a l l o w a n c e as i s p a i d by law t o s t a t e employees f o reach day a c t i v e l y engaged i nt h e duties of their office. The secretary-treasurer s h a l l r e c e i v e s u c h c o m p e n s a t i o n a s may b e f i x e d b y t h e b o a r d , w h i c h s h a l l be i n a d d i t i o n t o h i s o r h e r per diem and expenses, provided no p e r d i e m o r e x p e n s e s s h a l l be a l l o w e d u n l e s s h i s o r h e r d u t i e s r e q u i r e h i s o r h e r absence from h i s or h e r o f f i c e . The secretary[-treasurer] shall receive such compensation a s may b e f i x e d b y t h e b o a r d . The secretary-treasurer shall be custodian of a l l property, money, r e c o r d s and the o f f i c i a l s e a l o f the board. A l l money r e c e i v e d b y t h e b o a r d u n d e r t h i s c h a p t e r s h a l l be p a i d t o a n d r e c e i v e d b y t h e secretary-treasurer of the board. The secretary-treasurer shall deposit to the credit of the b o a r d a l l funds p a i d t o t h e b o a r d i n a bank s e l e c t e d b y i t s members. The b o a r d i s a u t h o r i z e d t o e x p e n d s u c h f u n d s as s h a l l be n e c e s s a r y t o e n f o r c e the p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s chapter; t o pay s a l a r i e s , expenses and other c o s t s h e r e i n p r o v i d e d ; t o promote the a r t s and science o f d e n t i s t r y ; and f o r such o t h e r p u r p o s e s as t h e b o a r d s h a l l c o n s i d e r t o be i n the b e s t i n t e r e s t o f d e n t i s t r y i n t h i s s t a t e . A l l the costs herein provided f o r s h a l l be p a i d b y checks drawn by the secretary-treasurer and countersigned by t h e p r e s i d e n t o f t h e board; except t h e b o a r d may a u t h o r i z e t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s e c r e t a r y or t h e executive d i r e c t o r t o s i g n checks f o r costs t h a t do n o t e x c e e d a m o n e t a r y l i m i t t o b e s e t b y t h e board i n i t s rules. S h o u l d t h e p r o p e r t y be o t h e r 22 1100993 t h a n money, t h e s e c r e t a r y - t r e a s u r e r s h a l l p r o v i d e for the safekeeping thereof f o r the use of the b o a r d . A l l money, i n c l u d i n g l i c e n s e f e e s , annual renewal l i c e n s e c e r t i f i c a t e fees, examination fees and any and a l l o t h e r f e e s and r e c e i p t s under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s chapter, are hereby a p p r o p r i a t e d to the Board of Dental Examiners t o be u s e d as herein provided." (Emphasis added.) In this section, the legislature s p e c i f i c a l l y states that the fees and r e c e i p t s c o l l e c t e d Chapter 9, T i t l e Board. The r e a s o n i n g o f t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l under 34, A l a . Code 1975, a r e a p p r o p r i a t e d t o t h e t h e s e amounts a p p e a r s t o be t h a t , Appeals regarding b e c a u s e t h e money collected by t h e B o a r d i s d e p o s i t e d i n t o a bank account r a t h e r than into a not special fund constitute reasoned, Opinion i n the State treasury, State funds; therefore, the Board does of the Justices money does the Court of C i v i l not receive No. such any S t a t e 3 8 5 , 69 S o . 3 d 847 Appeals funds. In ( A l a . 2011), t h i s Court a d d r e s s e d t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f Senate B i l l 373, which a would percentage eligible have allowed certain of state employees. income approved entities taxes w i t h h e l d from In addressing this issue, to retain the pay of this stated: "With r e g a r d t o the d i s p o s i t i o n of the proceeds from s t a t e income t a x e s , § 211.02[, A l a . Const. 1901,] p r o v i d e s : 23 Court 1100993 " ' [ A ] l l net proceeds of such t a x , p l u s the earnings from investment of the trust f u n d s , m u s t be u s e d o n l y i n t h e m a n n e r a n d i n the order f o l l o w i n g : ( 1 ) To r e p l a c e t h e revenue l o s t to the s e v e r a l funds of the state by reason of the exemption of homesteads f r o m t h e s t a t e ad v a l o r e m t a x . All homesteads i n Alabama are hereby d e c l a r e d t o be e x e m p t f r o m a l l s t a t e ad valorem t a x to the e x t e n t of at least $2,000.00 in assessed value and a s u f f i c i e n t amount i s h e r e b y appropriated from the p r o c e e d s of the income t a x i n each f i s c a l year to r e p l a c e the revenue l o s t to t h e s e v e r a l f u n d s o f t h e s t a t e by r e a s o n o f the homestead exemption herein declared; ( 2 ) The r e s i d u e s h a l l be p l a c e d i n t h e s t a t e t r e a s u r y to the c r e d i t of the Alabama s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n t r u s t f u n d t o be u s e d f o r the payment of public school teachers salaries only.' "(Emphasis added.) Section 211.02 clearly and u n e q u i v o c a l l y p r o v i d e s that a l l net proceeds of the state income t a x m u s t be u s e d o n l y f o r t h e two s p e c i f i c purposes designated t h e r e i n . First, the p r o c e e d s m u s t be u s e d ' [ t ] o r e p l a c e t h e r e v e n u e l o s t t o t h e s e v e r a l f u n d s o f t h e s t a t e by r e a s o n o f t h e exemption of homesteads f r o m t h e s t a t e ad v a l o r e m tax.' S e c o n d , t h e ' r e s i d u e s h a l l be p l a c e d i n t h e s t a t e t r e a s u r y to the c r e d i t of the Alabama s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n t r u s t f u n d t o be u s e d f o r t h e p a y m e n t o f public school teachers salaries only.' (Emphasis added.) "S.B. 373 p e r m i t s c e r t a i n a p p r o v e d e n t i t i e s t o r e t a i n a p e r c e n t a g e o f s t a t e income t a x e s w i t h h e l d from the pay of e l i g i b l e employees. However, § 211.02 r e q u i r e s t h a t ' a l l n e t p r o c e e d s o f [ t h e s t a t e i n c o m e ] t a x ' be u s e d f o r t h e s p e c i f i c p u r p o s e s s e t f o r t h i n § 211.02. T h e r e f o r e , f o r S.B. 373 n o t t o be v i o l a t i v e o f § 211.02, t h e p e r c e n t a g e w i t h h e l d by 24 1100993 the approved entities must n o t c o n s t i t u t e p r o c e e d s o f [ t h e s t a t e income] t a x . ' 'net "The C o n s t i t u t i o n o f A l a b a m a o f 1 9 0 1 d o e s n o t d e f i n e t h e p h r a s e ' a l l n e t p r o c e e d s o f such t a x ' as u s e d i n § 211.02. B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y d e f i n e s 'net p r o c e e d s ' as ' [ g ] r o s s p r o c e e d s , l e s s c h a r g e s which may be rightly deducted.' Black's Law D i c t i o n a r y 1041 ( 6 t h e d . 1 9 9 0 ) . S.B. 3 7 3 a l l o w s a n approved e n t i t y t o r e t a i n a percentage of s t a t e income taxes w i t h h e l d from e l i g i b l e employees. If an a p p r o v e d e n t i t y c o l l e c t s s t a t e i n c o m e t a x e s due from i t s employees b u t does n o t r e m i t t h o s e t a x e s i n their e n t i r e t y to the State, i s i t possible that such retained amounts w o u l d constitute 'charges w h i c h may b e r i g h t l y d e d u c t e d , ' r a t h e r t h a n ' n e t proceeds o f t h e t a x , ' so t h a t t h e A c t would n o t run a f o u l o f § 211.02? The a n s w e r t o t h a t q u e s t i o n i s 'no.' " I n O p i n i o n o f t h e J u s t i c e s No. 3 4 6 , 665 S o . 2 d 1357, 1358-59 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) , t h i s C o u r t a d d r e s s e d t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f House B i l l 586 i n l i g h t o f § 5 ( a ) o f A m e n d m e n t No. 450 t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f A l a b a m a o f 1 9 0 1 (now § 2 1 9 . 0 2 , A l a . C o n s t . 1 9 0 1 (Off. Recomp.)) a n d h e l d : "'Our r e s p o n s e t o t h e f i r s t question of t h i s Resolution [requesting the opinion] is t h a t t h e a p p r o p r i a t i o n t h a t w o u l d be made b y S e c t i o n 11 o f H o u s e B i l l 5 8 6 w o u l d b e c o n t r a r y t o § 5 ( a ) o f A m e n d m e n t No. 450 of t h e Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n , 1901. S e c t i o n 5 ( a ) o f A m e n d m e n t No. 450 s t a t e s : "'"The trust capital shall be h e l d i n perpetual t r u s t and s h a l l not be appropriated by the legislature or expended or d i s b u r s e d f o r any purpose other than to acquire eligible investments i n accordance with 25 1100993 the provisions of this amendment.... [But] any t r u s t income d e r i v e d t h e r e f r o m s h a l l be paid directly into the general fund as i t i s r e c e i v e d by t h e board, subject t o appropriation and withdrawal by the legislature." "'(Emphasis added.) I n t h e Amendment, "trust income" i s defined as " t h e n e t income r e c e i v e d by t h e s t a t e , subsequent t o the t r a n s f e r o f the i n i t i a l t r u s t c a p i t a l by t h e s t a t e t r e a s u r e r t o t h e b o a r d , from the investment and reinvestment ofa l l a s s e t s o f t h e t r u s t fund, determined i n accordance with the provisions of this amendment." "'Under t h i s Bill, the legislature provides f o r a continuing appropriation o v e r a p e r i o d o f 30 y e a r s , b e g i n n i n g i n 1995, f r o m t h e a n n u a l i n t e r e s t e a r n e d on investments o f t h e Alabama T r u s t Fund t o the Alabama I n c e n t i v e s F i n a n c i n g A u t h o r i t y . While the l e g i s l a t u r e ' s broad governmental power i s p l e n a r y i n c h a r a c t e r , i t i s n o t absolute and i s subject t o the express restrictions of the state constitution. V a n H a r t v . d e G r a f f e n r i e d , 388 S o . 2 d 1 1 9 6 , 1198 (Ala. 1980); see a l s o , e.g., C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m v . C i t y o f V e s t a v i a H i l l s , 654 So. 2 d 532 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . A m e n d m e n t No. 4 5 0 , by express language, requires that the interest earnings on i n v e s t m e n t s be p a i d i n t o t h e s t a t e ' s G e n e r a l Fund upon r e c e i p t . A f t e r t h e t r u s t income has been p a i d i n t o the General Fund, the legislature may a p p r o p r i a t e i t as i t sees f i t , s u b j e c t t o constitutional restrictions. A r t i c l e IV, § 71, o f t h e Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n , 1901, i s one s u c h c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n o n t h e 26 1100993 l e g i s l a t u r e ' s power A c c o r d i n g t o § 71: to appropriate funds. "'"The general appropriations bill shall embrace nothing but appropriations f o r the ordinary expenses of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of the state, f o r i n t e r e s t on t h e p u b l i c d e b t , a n d for p u b l i c schools.... A l l other a p p r o p r i a t i o n s s h a l l b e made b y separate bills, each embracing b u t one s u b j e c t . " "'(Emphasis added.) "'The l e g i s l a t u r e d e c l a r e s i n § 1 1 ( a ) o f t h e B i l l t h a t t h e a p p r o p r i a t i o n " i s made pursuant to and i n accordance with [Amendment No. 4 5 0 ] a n d t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t income on i n v e s t m e n t s i n t h e Alabama T r u s t Fund i s n o t a p a r t o f t h e General Fund o f the State u n t i l d e p o s i t e d i n t h e General Fund." The G o v e r n o r , i n h i s b r i e f , a r g u e s that the appropriation of s p e c i f i e d , annual i n s t a l l m e n t s o f income from t h e Alabama T r u s t F u n d f o r 30 y e a r s , made b y S e c t i o n 11 of H.B. 586, does not constitute an appropriation o f money i n t h e s t a t e ' s General Fund because the money i s appropriated before i t reaches the state's G e n e r a l Fund. The s i m p l e a n s w e r t o t h i s contention i s : The c o n s t i t u t i o n i t s e l f s t a t e s t h a t t h e income from i n v e s t m e n t s o f the Alabama Trust Fund shall be paid d i r e c t l y t o t h e s t a t e ' s G e n e r a l Fund. The l e g i s l a t u r e i s w i t h o u t power t o o v e r r i d e t h i s express c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n by the subterfuge of d i v e r t i n g such funds before they are a c t u a l l y paid i n t o the G e n e r a l Fund. House B i l l 586 i s i n v a l i d , 27 1100993 because i t i s i n d i r e c t c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s o f A m e n d m e n t No. 450. The c o n s t i t u t i o n has "earmarked" t h e s e funds f o r t h e G e n e r a l Fund. "'The Governor states i n his brief that, because under H.B. 586 the l e g i s l a t u r e w o u l d be p o w e r l e s s t o c o n t r o l the i n t e r e s t income e a r n e d by t h e Alabama T r u s t Fund, a f a c t i n contrast toi t s ability to increase a special tax to s e r v i c e a d e b t , t h e scheme a u t h o r i z e d b y the B i l l i s not a debt o f the s t a t e . He asserts i t i s t h e economic and legal e q u i v a l e n t o f an a n n u a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n . We cannot agree. The i n e s c a p a b l e f a c t i s : b y constitutional mandate these funds a r e r e q u i r e d t o be p a i d i n t o t h e G e n e r a l Fund as r e c e i v e d , a n d t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i s b o u n d by t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n t o a p p r o p r i a t e those funds only as permitted by express provisions of the constitution. "'The legislature may not avoid constitutional restrictions on i t s a u t h o r i t y t o a p p r o p r i a t e s t a t e funds by "diverting" such funds from t h e General Fund before they are received by the G e n e r a l Fund.' In "(Emphasis, o t h e r than as i n d i c a t e d , added.) t h a t same o p i n i o n , t h i s C o u r t a l s o s t a t e d : 'No c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d i s t i n c t i o n e x i s t s b e t w e e n money t h e s t a t e a l r e a d y has and t h a t which i t w i l l receive.' 665 S o . 2 d a t 1 3 6 2 . "Based on t h i s C o u r t ' s r e a s o n i n g i n O p i n i o n o f the Justices No. 346, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e may n o t prevent any amounts that are withheld from employees' paychecks pursuant t o state-income-tax laws from b e c o m i n g s t a t e - i n c o m e - t a x p r o c e e d s t o be deposited into t h e a p p r o p r i a t e funds s i m p l y by 28 1100993 a l l o w i n g an a p p r o v e d e n t i t y t o r e t a i n t h o s e a m o u n t s once c o l l e c t e d , r a t h e r t h a n t u r n i n g them o v e r t o t h e State. As s o o n as an e m p l o y e r withholds state i n c o m e t a x f r o m an e m p l o y e e ' s p a y c h e c k , t h e amount w i t h h e l d becomes g r o s s p r o c e e d s o f t h e s t a t e income tax." 69 So. 3d Opinion at of Justices 856-58. the No. The Justices 346, 665 reasoning No. So. this Court 385, 1357 2d supra, and ( A l a . 1995), employed Opinion of in the i s persuasive here. In this established funds. case, by once the mere f a c t funds before they their status as bank rather their to has reach State the i n the are not those State funds. funds State the funds become State appropriates those treasury Also, allowed the Board than collects that the l e g i s l a t u r e s t a t u s as S t a t e f u n d s . the Board Board legislature, The legislature the not alter fact that the to deposit those funds in a not alter treasury the does also Although the d e p o s i t e d i n the does funds a p p r o p r i a t e d State treasury, but in a bank, t h e B o a r d does not have u n b r i d l e d d i s c r e t i o n regarding the Ala. expenditure of 1975, for Ala. those funds. S e c t i o n 34-9-41, s p e c i f i c a l l y a u t h o r i z e s the expenditures of such only certain Code 1975, s p e c i f i c purposes. Additionally, even the provides 29 for manner § Code funds 34-9-41, i n which the 1100993 costs for such expenditures will a u t h o r i t y t o s i g n c h e c k s on b e h a l f conclusion are State Alabama that the funds S u n s e t Law, for agencies. § the The agencies 41-20-1 e t enumerated of in or Dental § of was an "back is] Court State 35 the 1975, State 34-9-41, Civil [454] Alabama at other Ala. Code the t h a t the 1975, by 30 which State one of the Code 1975. will appropriation concluded which 940 Hosp.], So. 138 So. Chapter that the law." 9, [the 2d 3d that Board at Ala. 1004 [479] at 34, the Board agency. members of at . Title between Board i s a State provides Board terminated its means" by relationship our t h a t a l l unexpended [(1903)])." in the of Ala. been MH-MRB, Insane provisions regarding indicate 454 has is incorrectly the to termination from which Appeals operated. ' v. that the Finally, Code 1975, Examiners provided '"suppl[y] and Ala. provides fund otherwise White[ So. agency has the p r o v i s i o n s of 41-20-3(a)(2)q., state does not Further, Code the of maintained (quoting 482, to made, u n l e s s The "the enumerated who directly seq., continuation Board and of the Board. appropriated S e c t i o n 41-20-12, A l a . Code 1975, revert paid f u n d s i s f u r t h e r b u t t r e s s e d by provides funds be Ala. and Section the Board 1100993 "shall receive t h e same p e r d i e m p a i d by law t o s t a t e employees in the duties of their 1975, p r o v i d e s , allowance f o r each day a c t i v e l y office." i n pertinent and t r a v e l Also, § 34-9-42, as i s engaged A l a . Code part: "The s e c r e t a r y - t r e a s u r e r o f t h e b o a r d s h a l l compile an a n n u a l r e p o r t w h i c h s h a l l c o n t a i n an i t e m i z e d s t a t e m e n t o f a l l money r e c e i v e d a n d d i s b u r s e d a n d a summary o f t h e o f f i c i a l a c t s o f t h e b o a r d d u r i n g t h e p r e c e d i n g year, and t h e r e p o r t s h a l l have a t t a c h e d t h e r e t o a c e r t i f i e d r e p o r t a n d a u d i t made b y a c e r t i f i e d p u b l i c accountant o f t h e State o f Alabama. A c o p y o f t h e r e p o r t a n d a u d i t s h a l l be f i l e d o f r e c o r d i n t h e o f f i c e o f t h e Department o f Finance o f t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a , a n d a c o p y s h a l l be r e t a i n e d by t h e s e c r e t a r y - t r e a s u r e r t o be r e n d e r e d upon request, t o the d e n t i s t s at large i n the State of Alabama." (Emphasis added.) Although § 34-9-43(8)b. B o a r d t o h i r e an a t t o r n e y o r a t t o r n e y s in of c a r r y i n g out and performing Chapter "subject 9, to Additionally, Title the authorizes to advise the and a s s i s t i t i t s d u t i e s under the p r o v i s i o n s 34, A l a . Code approval of 1975, the that Attorney hiring General." § 34-9-43.1, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s : "(a) The board may employ investigators, attorneys, agents, and any o t h e r employees and assistants to a i d i n the administration and e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e d u t i e s o f t h e b o a r d . The b o a r d may r e q u e s t a s s i s t a n c e f r o m t h e A t t o r n e y General, d i s t r i c t attorneys, or other prosecuting attorneys of t h i s s t a t e i n the various c i r c u i t s and counties. A l l prosecuting attorneys throughout the state s h a l l 31 i s 1100993 assist action charge (Emphasis t h e b o a r d , upon r e q u e s t o f e i t h e r , i n any f o r i n j u n c t i o n o r any p r o s e c u t i o n w i t h o u t or a d d i t i o n a l compensation." added.) S e c t i o n 3 4 - 9 - 4 5 , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s : "The b o a r d a n d i t s m e m b e r s a n d o f f i c e r s shall a s s i s t prosecuting o f f i c e r s i n the enforcement of t h i s c h a p t e r , a n d i t s h a l l be t h e d u t y o f t h e b o a r d , its members a n d o f f i c e r s to furnish the proper p r o s e c u t i n g o f f i c e r s w i t h such e v i d e n c e as i t o r t h e y may a s c e r t a i n t o a s s i s t t h e m i n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n o f any v i o l a t i o n o f t h i s c h a p t e r , and t h e b o a r d i s a u t h o r i z e d f o r s u c h p u r p o s e s t o make s u c h r e a s o n a b l e e x p e n d i t u r e s f r o m t h e f u n d s o f t h e b o a r d a s i t may deem necessary to ascertain and furnish such evidence." All t h e s e v a r i o u s p r o v i s i o n s o f C h a p t e r 9, T i t l e 1975, show that the relationship between 34, A l a . Code the Board and t h e State supports the conclusion that the Board i s a State that i s entitled 3. N a t u r e Finally, also State immunity. wish hygiene nature supports a of finding the function that performed the Board by t h e i s entitled I n a d d i t i o n t o examining and l i c e n s i n g t o engage i n the practice i n the State, regulations immunity. of the F u n c t i o n Performed by the Board the Board who t o § 14 agency governing the Board the also practice of dentistry promulgates of dentistry or to those dental rules and and the p r a c t i c e of dental hygiene; i n v e s t i g a t e s v i o l a t i o n s of Chapter 32 1100993 9, Title 34, proceedings Chapter those Code 9, A l a . Code instituted Title found g u i l t y 1975. that p r o m u l g a t e d by In entitled takes v. to State proceedings disciplinary has violations regarding or of action of the constitutes 768 issue Authority So. whether against i n § 34-9-18(a), A l a . § 34-9-5, A l a . Code 1975, Hopper, the Finance i t of conduct set f o r t h the Board addressed Institute and violations Rodgers institutes before Additionally, willful Court 34; 1975; rules and provides regulations a misdemeanor. 2d 963 the ("ACIFA") ( A l a . 2000), Alabama was a this Corrections State agency immunity: "Rodgers argues t h a t ACIFA i s not e n t i t l e d t o s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y b e c a u s e , he a r g u e s , i t i s n o t an agency of the S t a t e and thus i s not p r o t e c t e d by Art. I , § 14, o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . Section 14 provides: '[T]he S t a t e of Alabama s h a l l never be made a d e f e n d a n t i n a n y c o u r t o f l a w o r e q u i t y . ' T h i s C o u r t has h e l d t h a t 'the use of the word " S t a t e " i n S e c t i o n 14 was i n t e n d e d t o p r o t e c t f r o m suit only immediate and strictly governmental agencies of the State.' Tallaseehatchie Creek W a t e r s h e d C o n s e r v a n c y D i s t . v . A l l r e d , 620 S o . 2d 6 2 8 , 631 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ( q u o t i n g Thomas v . A l a b a m a Mun. Elec. Auth., 432 So. 2d 470, 480 (Ala. 1983)). Thus, we must determine what constitutes an 'immediate and s t r i c t l y governmental a g e n c [ y ] . ' The t e s t f o r d e t e r m i n i n g whether a l e g i s l a t i v e l y c r e a t e d body i s an immediate and strictly governmental agency f o r purposes of a s o v e r e i g n - i m m u n i t y a n a l y s i s i n v o l v e s a n a s s e s s m e n t o f (1) t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e p o w e r d e l e g a t e d t o t h e b o d y ; (2) t h e r e l a t i o n o f t h e 33 1100993 body t o the State; a n d (3) t h e n a t u r e of the f u n c t i o n p e r f o r m e d b y t h e body. A r m o r y Comm'n o f A l a b a m a v . S t a u d t , 388 S o . 2 d 991, 993 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) ) . In T a l l a s e e h a t c h i e Creek Watershed Conservancy D i s t . v . A l l r e d , s u p r a , we a p p l i e d t h e s e f a c t o r s t o a n e n t i t y w i t h powers s i m i l a r t o those o f ACIFA. The L e g i s l a t u r e had organized t h e T a l l a s e e h a t c h i e Creek Watershed Conservancy District ('Tallaseehatchie C r e e k ' ) a s a w a t e r s h e d c o n s e r v a n c y d i s t r i c t ('WCD'), p u r s u a n t t o § 9-8-50 e t s e q . , A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 . As a WCD, [ T a l l a s e e h a t c h i e ] C r e e k w a s a u t h o r i z e d t o a c t as a n a g e n t o f t h e S t a t e . I t enjoyed t h e customary g o v e r n m e n t a l p o w e r o f e m i n e n t d o m a i n ; i t was exempt from State and l o c a l t a x a t i o n ; and i t b e n e f i t e d from legislative appropriations. S e e §§ 9 - 8 - 6 1 ( 1 ) , 9-861(7), a n d 9-8-67. Despite these decidedly governmental characteristics, we held that T a l l a s e e h a t c h i e C r e e k , a s a WCD, w a s a n i n d e p e n d e n t e n t i t y , a n d , t h u s , was n o t e n t i t l e d t o s o v e r e i g n immunity. T a l l a s e e h a t c h i e C r e e k , 620 S o . 2 d a t 6 3 1 . " T h i s C o u r t b a s e d i t s h o l d i n g i n t h a t case on s e v e r a l k e y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e d WCDs as entities separate from the State. Those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n c l u d e d t h e a b i l i t y t o : (1) s u e a n d ^ A- ^ A ^ -I/ 0 \ be sued; (2) e n t e r i n t o^ c^o n t-I- asc^-1- ^; . (3) s ^e ^l 1l 1 a s ^d^ r ts n d i s p o s e o f p r o p e r t y ; a n d (4) i s s u e b o n d s . Id. at 630 ( c i t i n g §§ 9 - 8 - 2 5 ( a ) ( 1 3 ) , 9 - 8 - 6 1 ( 6 ) , a n d 9-861(4) and (5)). Notably, the L e g i s l a t u r e also had e x p r e s s l y provided that debts and o b l i g a t i o n s o f a WCD w e r e n o t t h e S t a t e ' s d e b t s a n d o b l i g a t i o n s . I d . (citing § 9-8-61(3)). We found this final c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t o be d i s p o s i t i v e , s t a t i n g : "'This l a s t p r o v i s i o n c l e a r l y contemplates t h a t WCDs a r e e n t i t i e s s e p a r a t e a n d a p a r t from the State; the provision also i n t r o d u c e s an e l e m e n t o f a m b i g u i t y i n t o t h e crucial question of the financial r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r any judgment adverse t o a WCD.' 34 1100993 "Tallaseehatchie Creek, 620 S o . 2 d a t 6 3 0 . "In t h e p r e s e n t case, ACIFA has these same q u a l i t i e s , q u a l i t i e s s u g g e s t i n g t h a t i t i s an e n t i t y independent of the State. These q u a l i t i e s i n c l u d e : (1) t h e p o w e r t o s u e a n d b e s u e d ; (2) t h e p o w e r t o enter into contracts; (3) t h e p o w e r t o s e l l a n d dispose of property; (4) t h e p o w e r t o i s s u e b o n d s ; and (5) e x c l u s i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i t s f i n a n c i a l obligations ( t h e same quality that we found d i s p o s i t i v e i n Tallaseehatchie Creek). S e e §§ 1 4 2 - 8 ( 2 ) , 14-2-8(5) t h r o u g h ( 7 ) , 14-2-12, and 14-2-24. "ACIFA argues t h a t , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h a t i t has those q u a l i t i e s , i t i s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l y i n t e r t w i n e d with the State by v i r t u e of the State's oversight p o w e r r e g a r d i n g A C I F A ' s c h i e f o p e r a t i n g a c t i v i t y -¬ prison construction. T h i s o v e r s i g h t power, however, i s n o t d i f f e r e n t from t h e power t o d i r e c t o p e r a t i o n s that i s commonly exercised by t h e owner o f any ordinary business. I n t h i s c a s e , t h e S t a t e ' s power to d i r e c t operations i n c l u d e s t h e power t o a p p r o v e prison-construction plans and the use of p r i s o n labor. ACIFA's r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e S t a t e does n o t persuade us t o a c c e p t i t s argument. "Rather than l o o k i n g t o ACIFA's o p e r a t i o n s , we must look to i t s organizational and financial structure, as we did with the WCDs i n Tallaseehatchie Creek. Accordingly, we conclude t h a t ACIFA and, d e r i v a t i v e l y , i t so f f i c i a l s a r e not e n t i t l e d to sovereign immunity." 768 So. 2 d a t 966-67. In this employment attorneys. case, t h e Board has t h e a u t h o r i t y contracts However, and t o enter as we into previously 35 to enter contracts noted, into t o employ the Board's 1100993 authority attorney t o employ general. Unlike ACIFA attorneys i s subject See § 3 4 - 9 - 4 3 ( 8 ) b . , i n Rodgers, to approval A l a . Code 1975. the Board was not granted c a r t e b l a n c h e a u t h o r i t y t o sue a n d be s u e d . 29, A l a . Code action 1975, m e r e l y authorizes i n i t s name i n a n y c o u r t by t h e Instead, the Board of the State the § 34-9¬ to bring an f o r the purpose of e n j o i n i n g a person from v i o l a t i n g the p r o v i s i o n s o f Chapter 9, T i t l e 1975, 34, A l a . Code 1975. Also, § 34-9-18(f), A l a . Code provides: "Members of the board, any agent, employee, consultant, or attorney f o r the board, and the members o f a n y c o m m i t t e e of dentists or dental h y g i e n i s t s i m p a n e l e d b y t h e b o a r d , s h a l l b e immune from s u i t s f o r any conduct i n t h e course o f t h e i r o f f i c i a l duties with respect to investigations or hearings; provided, that the persons act without malice and i n good f a i t h t h a t such i n v e s t i g a t i o n s or h e a r i n g s a r e w a r r a n t e d b y t h e f a c t s , known t o t h e m after d i l i g e n t e f f o r t t o obtain the facts of the matter r e l a t i v e to the i n v e s t i g a t i o n s or hearings." Additionally, u n l i k e ACIFA i n Rodgers, t h e B o a r d was n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y a u t h o r i z e d by the l e g i s l a t u r e t o s e l l of property. could A t most, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e p r o v i d e d "provide printing, offices, furniture, and dispose that the Board fixtures, supplies, or s e c r e t a r i a l s e r v i c e " t o those persons i t employed to a s s i s t i n i t s duties and i n a d m i n i s t e r i n g and e n f o r c i n g the 36 1100993 provisions of 43(a)(8)a., authorize Chapter 9, Title A l a . Code 1975. the Board Further, A l a . Code 1975. § the l e g i s l a t u r e 34-9- d i d not t o i s s u e bonds or t o i n c u r i n d e b t e d n e s s . Finally, i n Rodgers, this that legislature expressly the 34, Court relied heavily provided that on the debts the fact and o b l i g a t i o n s o f ACIFA were not t h e d e b t s and o b l i g a t i o n s o f t h e State. any Chapter similar 9, Title 34, A l a . Code 1975, provisions. does not Therefore, contain Rodgers is distinguishable. The facts of t h i s c a s e a r e more c l e a r l y akin to those i n Mooneyham v. S t a t e B o a r d o f C h i r o p r a c t i c E x a m i n e r s , 200 ( A l a . 2001) . whether the the Board State and 802 So. I n Mooneyham, t h i s C o u r t a d d r e s s e d t h e of C h i r o p r a c t i c Examiners therefore entitled to State was an issue agent immunity: "We next address the immunity of the Board itself. The B o a r d a r g u e s t h a t i t i s a S t a t e a g e n c y and that as a State agency i t enjoys absolute i m m u n i t y from any l a w s u i t . We a g r e e . " A r t i c l e I , § 14, o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n provides: '[T]he S t a t e of Alabama s h a l l made a d e f e n d a n t i n a n y c o u r t o f l a w o r W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e w o r d ' S t a t e , ' we h a v e o f 1901, n e v e r be equity.' said: " ' T h i s C o u r t has h e l d t h a t " t h e use o f t h e w o r d ' S t a t e ' i n S e c t i o n 14 was i n t e n d e d t o protect from suit only immediate and strictly governmental agencies of the 37 2d of 1100993 State." T a l l a s e e h a t c h i e Creek Watershed Conservancy D i s t . v. A l l r e d , 620 S o . 2 d 628, 631 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ( q u o t i n g Thomas v . A l a b a m a Mun. E l e c . A u t h . , 432 S o . 2 d 4 7 0 , 480 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ) . T h u s , we m u s t d e t e r m i n e what c o n s t i t u t e s an " i m m e d i a t e a n d s t r i c t l y governmental agenc[y]." The test for determining whether a l e g i s l a t i v e l y c r e a t e d body i s an immediate and strictly governmental agency f o r purposes of a sovereign-immunity analysis involves an assessment o f (1) t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e power d e l e g a t e d t o t h e body; (2) t h e r e l a t i o n o f t h e b o d y t o t h e S t a t e ; a n d (3) the n a t u r e o f t h e f u n c t i o n p e r f o r m e d b y t h e body. A r m o r y Comm'n o f A l a b a m a v . S t a u d t , 388 S o . 2 d 9 9 1 , 993 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) . ' "Rodgers v . H o p p e r , 768 S o . 2 d 9 6 3 , 966 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . "The Board of Chiropractic Examiners i s a l e g i s l a t i v e l y c r e a t e d body. § 34-24-140, A l a . Code 1975. The B o a r d i s authorized to control the licensing of chiropractors, § 34-24-161, and i s charged with regulating the c h i r o p r a c t i c profession, § 3 4 - 2 4 - 1 6 6 . A l t h o u g h t h e B o a r d may c o l l e c t c e r t a i n fees t o generate revenue, i t i s r e q u i r e d by law t o d e p o s i t those funds i n the State Treasury, which s e t s a s i d e t h o s e funds f o r t h e B o a r d ' s u s e . § 34¬ 24-143. Under § 34-24-143, those funds are a p p r o p r i a t e d t o the Board 'to d e f r a y the expenses i n c u r r e d ' i n c a r r y i n g out the Board's charges. Our e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e s c r e a t i n g and empowering the B o a r d shows t h a t t h e B o a r d i s a r e g u l a t o r y body that receives i t s funding from the State. T h e r e f o r e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e B o a r d i s a S t a t e agency and, c o n s e q u e n t l y , i s e n t i t l e d t o § 14 immunity. B e c a u s e t h i s i m m u n i t y , when a p p l i e d t o a governmental e n t i t y , i s absolute, the c i r c u i t court properly dismissed a l l the claims against the Board." 38 1100993 802 So. 3d Examiners, funding at 203-04. of Chiropractic " i s a r e g u l a t o r y body t h a t the Board Like receives i t s from t h e S t a t e . " Board 802 S o . 2 d a t 2 0 4 . B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , arm the i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e B o a r d i s "an o f t h e s t a t e " r a t h e r t h a n a mere " f r a n c h i s e e some beneficial purpose." Staudt, Board an Therefore, the governmental agenc[y] i s 388 "immediate licensed for So. 3d and at 993. strictly o f t h e S t a t e , " M o o n e y h a m , 802 S o . 2 d a t 203-04, t h a t i s e n t i t l e d t o i m m u n i t y p u r s u a n t t o A r t . I , § 14, Ala. C o n s t . 1 9 0 1 , a n d t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s e r r e d when i t concluded otherwise. 4 I n V e r s i g l i o v . B o a r d o f D e n t a l E x a m i n e r s o f A l a b a m a , 651 F.3d 1272 ( 1 1 t h . C i r . 2 0 1 1 ) , d e c i d e d a f t e r W i l k i n s o n , t h e United States Court of Appeals f o r the Eleventh Circuit a d d r e s s e d t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r t h e B o a r d was e n t i t l e d t o E l e v e n t h Amendment i m m u n i t y f r o m V e r s i g l i o ' s c l a i m s a s s e r t e d p u r s u a n t to the F a i r Labor Standards A c t . In addressing t h i s i s s u e , the E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t n o t e d t h a t t h e Board "appear[ed] t o have a v i a b l e argument t h a t i t i s an arm o f t h e S t a t e u n d e r " t h e t e s t s e t f o r t h i n Miccosukee T r i b e o f Indians v. F l o r i d a S t a t e A t h l e t i c C o m m i s s i o n , 2 2 6 F. 3 d 1 2 2 6 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) . 651 F.3d a t 1274. However, i n l i g h t o f t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l Appeals' decision i n Wilkinson, the Eleventh Circuit ultimately determined that "a h o l d i n g by [the Eleventh C i r c u i t ] t h a t t h e B o a r d i s an arm o f t h e s t a t e f o r p u r p o s e s o f s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y w o u l d be i n a p p r o p r i a t e . " 651 F . 3 d a t 1 2 7 7 . 4 39 1100993 The Board also e r r e d when, b a s e d State agency, not the proper argues that the Court on i t s c o n c l u s i o n i t concluded that forum that claims the Court of C i v i l Appeals not a of Adjustment ( A l a . C i v . App. stated: "Because o f t h e s o v e r e i g n immunity c l a u s e , the courts of this state are without j u r i s d i c t i o n to entertain a suit seeking damages, i n c l u d i n g back pay, f o r breach of contract against the state. S t a t e Bd. o f A d j u s t m e n t v. D e p a r t m e n t o f M e n t a l Health, 5 8 1 S o . 2 d 481 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1991) . Vaughan's remedy, i f any, i s w i t h t h e B o a r d o f A d j u s t m e n t . S e c t i o n s 4 1 - 9 - 6 2 ( a ) ( 4 ) a n d ( a ) ( 7 ) , Code "'(a) The B o a r d o f A d j u s t m e n t shall have t h e power and j u r i s d i c t i o n and i t s h a l l be i t s d u t y t o h e a r a n d c o n s i d e r : " ' "'(4) A l l c l a i m s a g a i n s t the S t a t e o f Alabama o r any o f i t s agencies, commissions, boards, institutions or departments arising out of any contract, express or implied, to which the S t a t e o f Alabama o r any o f i t s agencies, commissions, boards, institutions or departments are p a r t i e s , where t h e r e i s c l a i m e d a l e g a l or moral o b l i g a t i o n r e s t i n g on t h e s t a t e ; II I 40 was against i t . I n V a u g h a n v . S i b l e y , 709 S o . 2 d 4 8 2 , 486 1997), Appeals t h e B o a r d was the Board f o r Wilkinson's of C i v i l 1100993 "'(7) A l l claims for underpayment by the State of Alabama o r any o f i t s agencies, commissions, boards, i n s t i t u t i o n s or departments t o p a r t i e s having dealings with the State of Alabama o r any o f i t s agencies, commissions, boards, i n s t i t u t i o n s or departments.' "(Emphasis added.) The B o a r d of Adjustment has j u r i s d i c t i o n over claims against the s t a t e that are not j u s t i c i a b l e i n the courts because o f t h e s t a t e ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i m m u n i t y f r o m b e i n g made a d e f e n d a n t . L e e v . C u n n i n g h a m , 234 A l a . 6 3 9 , 6 4 1 , 1 7 6 S o . 477 (1937)." Further, § 4 1 - 9 - 6 2 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s , i n pertinent part: "[T]he j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the Board of Adjustment i s specifically limited to the consideration of the c l a i m s e n u m e r a t e d i n s u b s e c t i o n (a) o f t h i s s e c t i o n and no o t h e r s ; ... n o t h i n g contained i n this subdivision shall be construed to confer j u r i s d i c t i o n upon t h e B o a r d o f A d j u s t m e n t t o s e t t l e or a d j u s t any matter o r c l a i m o f which t h e c o u r t s o f t h i s s t a t e have o r h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n " In Lee v. Cunningham, Court stated creating 234 A l a . 6 3 9 , 1 7 6 S o . 477 the following with the Board regard (1937), to the original of Adjustment: "Our j u d g m e n t , h o w e v e r , i s t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t i v e p u r p o s e d i s c l o s e d i n t h e a c t ... w a s t o c o n f e r o n said board j u r i s d i c t i o n over claims against the s t a t e , c o l o r a b l e l e g a l l y and m o r a l l y w e l l grounded, not j u s t i c i a b l e i n t h e courts because o f t h e s t a t e ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i m m u n i t y f r o m b e i n g made a d e f e n d a n t 41 this act 1100993 (Const. 1901, § 1 4 ) , and t o exclude from i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n claims w e l l grounded i n law or e q u i t y , c o g n i z a b l e by t h e c o u r t s . " 234 Ala. a t 6 4 1 , 176 So. a t 479 The Court of C i v i l (emphasis Appeals based i t s conclusion B o a r d o f A d j u s t m e n t was n o t t h e p r o p e r claims on entitled i t s erroneous to determined entitled State § 14 that are without holding immunity. the Board t o immunity it these i s a pursuant jurisdiction reversed complaint reasons, the t r i a l against court's State to § Court Appeals entry Malone, Murdock, f o r Wilkinson's the Board was because agency and we i n this case, not have therefore 14, t h e c o u r t s of this and the Board o f over Wilkinson's claims. Appeals erred judgment d i s m i s s i n g we reverse when Wilkinson's t h e judgment and remand t h e case o f a judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h R E V E R S E D AND that the t h e B o a r d and remanded t h e case f o r f u r t h e r Accordingly, the that the Court of C i v i l proceedings. of C i v i l forum However, A d j u s t m e n t would have j u r i s d i c t i o n For added). to that this of the court f o r opinion. REMANDED. C.J., and Shaw, a n d M a i n , Woodall, Stuart, J J . , concur. 42 Bolin, Parker,
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.
