ÿWPC· …# V %a 0(gw@4ÏãUFò 0l8 0D¤ è 0Jð UF: 0T€ 0^Ô 0h2 0rš 0| 0†ˆ 0 1už U, 0d?U,£U6ÏB)DC. AMqU*¾7è B D3<o~ 0@v~ÁvÓ? AOÆa 0D' D/k Bš˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ò($¡¡ =@ÃeAeBDCDeEUFUGÓ€QDÒ 3|xQ<4šÛ 9Z ‹.Courier New Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô<Ú5 9Z ‹.Courier New Regular2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial -Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌJune€28,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó d))))'ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€4„5„315,€an€administrativeÏagency€may,€in€the€exercise€of€its€discretion,€ð ðreview€some€but€not€all€of€theÏissues.€.€.€.ðð€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð4„5„315(a)(2)(A)€(1991).€€This€statute,Ïhowever,€does€not€apply€to€the€Board€of€Paroles.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð4„5„106(c)Ï(1991).Ì ùÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€One€of€Petitioner's€allegations€is€that€the€Board€violated€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€4„5„107€when€it€allowed€a€single€board€member€to€reviewÏhis€request€for€appellate€review.€€Although€we€previously€stated€that€thisÏallegation€states€a€cause€of€action,€we€do€not€address€the€merits€of€the€claimÏat€this€time.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€,XXdÖdÈ7ÑÑ  ќԀ#XÔCHARLES›€A.€GRIFFIN,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àPetitioner/Appellant,à àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9511„CH„00533Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€Chancery€No.ÌCHARLES€TRAUGHBER,€COLIS€NEWBLE,à à)à à95„3554„IIÌÙ€€ÙœßL€&(%;+'h|%Ÿ` ç `€€Lß›DAWN€CHASE,€ROSE€HILL,€JIM€GRISHAM,)ÌJOHN€MCGRANAHAN,€and€TENNESSEEà à)ÌBOARD€OF€PAROLES,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àRespondents/Appellees.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ€#¼Ôà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€C.€ALLEN€HIGH,€CHANCELLORÔ€#XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCHARLES€A.€GRIFFIN,€PRO€SEÌTurney€Center€„€1A/58ÌRoute€1ÌOnly,€Tennessee€37140„9709ÌÌÌÌÌCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌPATRICIA€C.€KUSSMANNÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ404€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌSuite€2000ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37243Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€RESPONDENTS\APPELLEESÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ€#¼Ôà@ àREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÔ€#XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÔ€#¼ÔSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÔ€#XÔÌÌà@ àÔ€#¼ÔòòOPINIONÔ€#XÔóóÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThis€is€an€appeal€by€petitioner/appellant,€Charles€A.ÏGriffin,€from€the€trial€courtððs€order€granting€summary€judgment€inÏfavor€of€respondents/appellees,€Charles€Traughber,€Colis€Newble,ÏDawn€Chase,€Rose€Hill,€Jim€Grisham,€John€McGranahan,€and€TennesseeÏBoard€of€Paroles€(ð ðthe€Boardðð).ÌÌà à€Petitioner€is€a€convicted€sex€offender.€€On€13€June€1994,ÏJim€Grisham,€the€hearing€official,€conducted€Petitionerððs€paroleÏhearing.€€Thereafter,€Petitioner€received€two€documents.€€TheÏfirst€was€the€inmate€copy€of€the€Notice€of€Board€Action€ParoleÏRelease€Hearing.€€This€document€came€from€a€carbonless€duplicateÏform.€€The€form€contained€four€pages€each€of€which€were€aÏdifferent€color€and€went€to€a€different€file€or€person.€€ItÏappears€that€the€sheets€were€not€properly€aligned€when€the€hearingÏofficial€completed€the€form€because€many€of€the€notations€onÏPetitionerððs€copy€are€below€the€designated€spaces.€€As€a€result,Íthe€letters€DR,€standing€for€disciplinary€reports,€and€PV,Ïstanding€for€complete€vocational€program,€are€circled€in€theÏð ðReasons€for€Declineðð€portion€of€Petitionerððs€copy.€€In€thisÏportion€of€the€top€copy€of€the€form,€the€letters€SO,€standing€forÏseriousness€of€offense,€and€PS,€standing€for€complete€sex€offenderÏprogram€are€circled.€€Beneath€the€circled€items€are€spaces€toÏwrite€in€the€appropriate€abbreviations.€€In€this€portion€ofÏPetitionerððs€copy,€the€hearing€official€wrote€SO€and€PS.€€TheÏsecond€document€received€by€Petitioner€was€a€form€letter€from€JohnÏMcGranahan,€Institutional€Parole€Officer€II.€€The€letter€stated€asÏfollows:€ð ðThe€final€disposition€of€your€grant/revocation€hearingÏis:€Decline;€Review€6/96;€Disciplinary€Reports;€Complete€SexÏOffender€Program.ððÌÌà àFollowing€the€denial€of€his€parole,€Petitioner€requested€anÏappeal€hearing.€€He€based€his€request€on€the€following€grounds:€Ï1)€significant€procedural€errors€by€the€hearing€official;€2)Ïmisconduct€on€the€part€of€the€hearing€official;€and€3)€newÏinformation€that€was€not€available€at€the€time€of€the€hearing.€ÏThree€members€of€the€Board€of€Paroles€adopted€the€hearingÏofficialððs€conclusions€and€denied€the€appeal.€€On€18€October€1994,ÏPetitioner€received€a€form€letter€from€Colis€Newble,€ParoleÏHearing€Director,€which€stated€that€the€parole€board€had€deniedÏPetitionerððs€request€for€an€appeal.€€The€reasons€for€the€denial,Ïas€indicated€by€the€letter,€were€that€there€was€no€proof€ofÏsignificant€new€information€or€evidence€that€was€not€available€toÍPetitioner€at€the€time€of€the€13€June€hearing€and€that€there€wasÏno€misconduct€on€the€part€of€the€hearing€official.€The€letterÏfailed€to€address€Petitionerððs€claim€of€significant€proceduralÏerrors€even€though€there€was€a€space€specifically€designated€forÏthat€issue.ÌÌà à0n€21€November€1994,€Petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€writ€ofÏcertiorari€in€the€Davidson€County€Chancery€Court.€€Petitioner€madeÏnumerous€allegations€claiming€Respondents€acted€improperly.€€AfterÏreceiving€the€petition,€Respondents€filed€a€motion€on€19€DecemberÏ1994€requesting€a€thirty€day€extension€for€the€filing€of€theirÏresponse.€€In€an€order€dated€3€February€1995,€the€court€grantedÏRespondentsðð€motion.ÌÌà àOn€21€December€1994,€Petitioner€filed€a€ð ðmotion€to€stayÏdecision€pending€first€discovery€requests€propounded€to€theÏRespondents€by€the€petitionerðð€and€attached€his€first€discoveryÏrequests.€€Respondents€failed€to€comply€with€PetitionerððsÏdiscovery€requests.€€As€a€result,€Petitioner€sent€Respondents€aÏletter€asking€them€to€comply.€€When€this€did€not€work,€PetitionerÏfiled€a€motion€to€compel€discovery€and€an€affidavit€on€2€MarchÏ1995.ÌÌà àOn€6€March€1995,€Respondents€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss,€theirÏonly€response€to€any€of€Petitionerððs€pleadings.€€They€alleged€thatÏthe€court€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdiction€because€the€€petitionÍwas€not€timely.€€In€support€of€the€motion,€Respondents€filed€aÏmemorandum€and€an€affidavit€given€by€Teresa€Thomas,€staffÏattorney,€Tennessee€Board€of€Paroles.€€In€response,€PetitionerÏdenied€Respondentsðð€allegations€and€filed€a€memorandum€of€law.€€ÌÌà àOn€31€July€1995,€the€chancery€court€entered€an€order€whichÏstated€as€follows:€ÌÓÓà8 àThe€case€is€before€the€Court€on€the€petitionerððs€motionsÏto€stay€decision€pending€completion€of€discovery,€motionÏfor€directed€response,€and€motion€to€compel€discovery.€ÏAlso€before€the€Court€is€respondentððs€motion€to€dismissÏbased€upon€the€assertion€that€the€petition€was€untimelyÏfiled€and€is€otherwise€beyond€the€scope€of€reviewÏpermitted€under€the€writ€of€certiorari.€€Since€theÏrespondent€relies€on€an€affidavit€in€support€of€itsÏmotion,€the€Court€will€treat€the€motion€as€a€motion€forÏsummary€judgment.ÌÌÓÓThe€court€then€held€that€the€petition€was€timely,€that€PetitionerÏhad€not€alleged€ð ðfacts€which€would€support€a€claim€that€the€BoardÏacted€illegally,€fraudulently,€or€arbitrarily€in€refusing€to€grantÏ[Petitioner]€parole€or€in€denying€his€request€for€an€appealÏhearing,ðð€and€that€ð ðPetitioner€seeks€to€attack€the€correctness€ofÏthe€Boardððs€decision,€an€issue€beyond€the€scope€of€judicialÏreview.ðð€€As€a€result€of€these€holdings,€the€court€grantedÏRespondentsðð€motion€for€summary€judgment€and€denied€PetitionerððsÏmotions€finding€that€the€issues€were€moot.ÌÌà àPetitioner€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€on€21€August€1995.€€InÏhis€brief,€Petitioner€presented€five€issues.€€Taken€together,Ïthese€issues€ask€whether€the€chancery€court€erred€in€grantingÍsummary€judgment€in€Respondentsðð€favor.ÌÌà àA€court€shall€grant€summary€judgment€when€there€is€ð ðnoÏgenuine€issue€as€to€any€material€fact€and€the€moving€party€isÏentitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.ðð€€òòò òByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847ÏS.W.2d€208,€214€(Tenn.€1993).€€ð ðIn€making€this€determination,€theÏcourt€is€to€view€the€evidence€in€a€light€favorable€to€theÏnonmoving€party€and€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€his€favor.ðð€Ïòòò òId.óóó ó€€The€petition€at€issue€seeks€a€common€law€writ€of€certiorariÏas€to€the€Boardððs€adoption€of€the€hearing€officialððs€decision€andÏto€its€denial€of€Petitionerððs€request€for€an€appeal.€€ð ðThe€scopeÏof€review€under€the€common€law€writ,€however,€is€very€narrow.€€ItÏcovers€only€an€inquiry€into€whether€the€Board€has€exceeded€itsÏjurisdiction€or€is€acting€illegally,€fraudulently,€orÏarbitrarily.ðð€€òòò òPowell€v.€Parole€Eligibility€Review€Bd.óóó ó,€879ÏS.W.2d€871,€873€(Tenn.€App.€1994).€€Thus,€the€issue€before€theÏchancery€court€was€two„fold.€€First,€the€court€had€to€determineÏwhether€there€were€any€genuine€issues€of€fact€material€to€theÏissue€of€whether€the€Board€exceeded€its€jurisdiction€or€actedÏillegally,€fraudulently,€or€arbitrarily,€and€second,€if€the€courtÏdetermined€that€there€were€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact,€itÏhad€to€decide€whether€the€law€entitled€Respondents€to€a€judgment.€ÏThe€courtððs€order,€however,€did€not€address€these€issues€directly.€ÏInstead,€the€order€reveals€that€the€court€decided€the€law€entitledÏRespondents€to€a€judgment€despite€any€issues€of€fact.€€To€explain,Ïbecause€the€court€held€that€it€lacked€jurisdiction€and€thatÍPetitioner€failed€to€state€a€cause€of€action,€it€concluded€thatÏRespondents€should€prevail€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Neither€of€theseÏholdings,€in€the€context€of€this€case,€depend€on€the€degree€ofÏfactual€dispute.€€They€are€legal€issues.ÌÌà àð ðThe€allegations€of€a€pro€se€complaint€are€held€to€lessÏstringent€standards€than€formal€pleadings€drafted€by€lawyers.€.€.Ï.ðð€€òòò òBaxter€v.€Roseóóó ó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€939€(Tenn.€1975).€€TheÏpetition€at€issue€clearly€alleged€that€Respondents€actedÏarbitrarily€and€illegally.€€Further,€it€did€not€simply€attack€theÏcorrectness€of€the€Boardððs€decision,€but€attacked€the€BoardððsÏmeans€of€reaching€that€decision.€€A€review€of€the€petition€revealsÏthat€Petitioner€made€seven€allegations€of€improper€conduct€on€theÏpart€of€the€Board.€€These€were€as€follows:€€1)€the€Board€failed€toÏaddress€Petitionerððs€claim€that€the€hearing€official€committedÏsignificant€procedural€errors;€2)€the€hearing€official€and€theÏBoard€incorrectly€required€Petitioner€to€complete€the€sex€offenderÏprogram€as€required€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€41„21„235(b);€3)€the€hearing€official€and€the€Board€denied€PetitionerÏhis€statutory€right€to€a€prerequisite€psychological/psychiatricÏevaluation€as€required€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„28„116(a)(2);€4)€the€hearing€official€and€the€Board€relied€onÏnonexistent€disciplinary€reports;€5)€the€Board€violated€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€4„5„107€which€prohibits€a€board€from€makingÏa€final€determination€of€a€contested€case€unless€a€majority€of€theÏboard€is€present;€6)€the€Board€failed€to€conduct€its€proceeding€inÍaccordance€with€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€title€8€chapter€44;€andÏ7)€the€Board€and€the€hearing€official€violated€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€8„16„304€by€refusing€to€receive€into€evidence€aÏduly€notarized€letter€from€the€victim.€€Six€of€these€allegationsÏsupport€a€claim€that€the€Board€acted€illegally,€fraudulently,€orÏarbitrarily€and€attack€the€means€by€which€the€Board€reached€itsÏdecision.ÌÌà àThree€of€the€allegations€describe€conduct€which€is€illegal€onÏits€face.€€Allegations€three,€five,€and€seven€allege€that€theÏBoard€violated€certain€statutes.€€The€violation€of€a€statute€by€anÏadministrative€body€or€officer€constitutes€illegal€conduct.€ÏFurther,€the€allegations€not€only€state€a€cause€of€action,€butÏthey€also€assert€that€the€means€used€by€the€Board€in€reaching€itsÏdecision€were€improper.€€This€is€different€than€challenging€theÏcorrectness€of€the€decision.€€òòò òPowellóóó ó,€879€S.W.2d€at€873.ÌÌà àThe€conduct€in€the€first€allegation,€if€proven,€is€alsoÏillegal.€€The€Board€can€not€arbitrarily€decide€which€complaints€ofÏan€inmate€it€will€address€when€determining€whether€to€grant€aÏrequest€for€appellate€review.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÏ40„28„105(d)€provides€that€ð ða€review€will€be€conducted€if€there€isÏnew€evidence€or€information€that€was€not€available€at€the€time€ofÏthe€hearing,€or€if€there€are€allegations€of€misconduct€by€theÏhearing€official€that€are€substantiated€by€the€record€or€if€thereÏwere€significant€procedural€errors€by€the€hearing€official.ðð€€òòTenn.ÍCode€Ann.óó€ðð40„28„105(d)€(1990).€€As€applied€to€the€present€case,€theÏBoard€would€have€acted€illegally€if€it€failed€to€addressÏPetitionerððs€allegations€of€procedural€errors€because€it€isÏrequired€to€conduct€a€review€if€such€errors€occurred.× ƒ+ ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€second€allegation€describes€facts€which,€if€true,Ïconstitute€illegal€conduct€and€attack€the€Board's€method€ofÏreaching€its€decision.€€Specifically,€Petitioner€claims€that€theÏhearing€official€denied€him€parole€because€he€had€not€completedÏthe€sex€offender€treatment€program€as€required€by€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€41„21„235(b).€€Petitioner€alleged€that€the€BoardÏcould€not€use€this€statute€as€a€requirement€for€granting€himÏparole€because€the€law€was€ex€post€facto€and€the€Board€could€notÏapply€it€retroactively.€€Clearly,€the€retroactive€application€ofÏan€ex€post€facto€law€is€illegal.€€òòTenn.€Const.óó€art.€I,€ðð11;€òòò òseeÏKaylor€v.€Bradleyóóó ó,€912€S.W.2d€728€(Tenn.€App.€1995)€(explainingÏthe€relation€between€ex€post€facto€laws€and€parole).ÌÌà àPetitioner€also€alleged€that€the€Board's€application€of€theÏstatute€violated€a€stipulation€that€it€had€entered€into€in€anotherÏcase.€€This€court€recently€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€plain€wording€of€the€stipulations€approved€by€theÏUnited€States€District€Court€limits€the€board's€abilityÍto€rely€on€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€41„21„235(b).€€Under€noÏcircumstances€can€it€use€an€inmate's€failure€to€completeÏa€treatment€program€for€sex€offenders€as€grounds€to€denyÏparole€until€it€has€fully€developed€and€instituted€theÏtreatment€program€required€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€41„21„235(a).€€Even€after€it€institutes€this€program,€it€canÏonly€apply€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€41„21„235(b)€to€inmates€whoÏwere€incarcerated€after€the€program€was€instituted.ÌÌÓÓòòò òDalton€v.€Tennessee€Board€of€Parolesóóó ó,€No.€01„A„01„9601„CH„00029,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€App.€8€May€1996).€€In€this€case,€theÏBoard€relied€on€completion€of€the€sex€offender€program€when€itÏdenied€Petitioner€parole.€€Because€the€stipulation€prevented€suchÏreliance,€the€Board's€actions€were€arbitrary€and€illegal.ÌÌà àThis€case€is€similar€to€òòò òDaltonó óóó€for€another€reason.€€Inòòò òÏDaltonóóó ó,€the€Board€denied€Mr.€Dalton€parole€because€he€failed€toÏcomplete€the€sex€offender€program€and€because€he€ð ð'violatedÏposition€of€trust€as€father€figure.'ðð€€òòò ò€Id.óóó ó€at€7„8.€€AfterÏconcluding€that€the€Board€could€not€rely€on€the€sex€offenderÏstatute,€we€held€that€such€reliance€may€be€harmless€error€if€theÏBoard€had€other€adequate€and€independent€grounds€for€decliningÏparole.€€òòò òId.óóó ó€at€7.€€We€then€addressed€the€Board's€other€basis€forÏdenying€Mr.€Dalton€parole€and€concluded€that€it€was€insufficientÏbecause€it€was€not€among€the€grounds€listed€in€the€Board'sÏregulations.€€òòò òId.óóó ó€at€7„8.€€As€a€result,€we€could€not€determine,Ïbased€on€the€record€of€the€Board's€decision,€whether€the€BoardÏcould€have€declined€Mr.€Dalton€parole€absent€the€errors.€ÏThereafter,€we€ordered€the€trial€court€to€remand€the€case€to€theÏBoard€for€further€review.€òòò òId.óóó ó€at€8.ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€there€were€at€least€two€grounds€for€denyingÏPetitioner€parole.€€We€know€that€one€of€these€grounds€was€theÏcompletion€of€the€sex€offender€program;€however,€the€record€doesÏnot€establish€the€other€grounds€for€the€Board's€decision.€€AsÏexplained€previously,€Petitioner€received€two€documents€regardingÏthe€denial€of€his€parole.€€One€listed€disciplinary€reports€as€theÏother€reason,€while€the€second€listed€disciplinary€reports€andÏseriousness€of€the€offense€as€the€other€reasons.€€Both€of€theseÏgrounds€fit€easily€into€the€Board's€regulations.€€òòTenn.€Comp.€R.€&ÏRegs.óó€1100„1„1„.06(1)€(1986).€€Nevertheless,€we€are€unable€toÏdetermine€if€the€Board's€decision€can€stand€on€these€other€groundsÏbecause€we€do€not€know€the€actual€basis€for€the€Board's€decision.ÏAccordingly,€the€trial€court€should€hear€evidence€on€this€issue€toÏdetermine€whether€the€Board€acted€arbitrarily€when€it€deniedÏPetitioner€parole.ÌÌà àThe€fourth€allegation€also€alleges€illegal€and€arbitraryÏconduct.€€Illegal€conduct€includes€ð ðthe€making€of€findings€of€factÏfor€which€there€is€no€legally€sufficient€basis.ðð€€Ben€H.€Cantrell,ÏòòReview€of€Administrative€Decisions€by€Writ€of€Certiorari€inÏTennesseeóó,€4€òòMem.€St.€U.€L.€Rev.óó€19,€28€(1973).€€Petitioner€allegedÏthat€the€hearing€official€relied€on€Petitionerððs€disciplinaryÏreports€when€deciding€to€deny€Petitioner€parole.€€As€proof€ofÏthis,€Petitioner€attached€the€form€letter€from€John€McGranahan,Ïwhich€listed€disciplinary€reports,€and€Petitionerððs€copy€of€theÍNotice€of€Board€Action€Parole€Release€Hearing,€which€has€DR,Ïdisciplinary€reports,€clearly€circled.€€Petitioner€then€allegedÏthat€his€institutional€record€did€not€contain€any€disciplinaryÏreports€and€attached€a€copy€of€that€record.€€Thus,€PetitionerÏalleged€that€the€Board€based€its€decision€on€an€unsupportedÏfinding€of€fact.€€This€is€illegal€conduct.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€Finally,€theÏallegation€does€not€challenge€the€intrinsic€correctness€of€theÏdecision,€but€simply€asserts€that€the€Board€could€not€have€reliedÏon€unsupported€findings€when€making€its€decision.ÌÌà àUnlike€the€other€allegations,€Petitioner's€remaining€claim,Ïnumber€six,€fails€to€state€a€cause€of€action.€€In€this€allegation,ÏPetitioner€claimed€that€the€Board€violated€Tennessee's€OpenÏMeetings€Act,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sections€8„44„101€to€„108,Ïwhen€it€failed€to€hold€an€open€meeting€in€regard€to€its€decisionsÏto€adopt€the€hearing€official's€recommendations€and€to€denyÏPetitioner's€request€for€an€appeal.€€It€is€the€opinion€of€thisÏcourt,€however,€that€there€were€no€meetings€for€the€Board€to€openÏto€the€public.€€This€court€recently€came€to€the€same€conclusion€inÏa€similar€case.€€òòò òArnold€v.€Tennessee€Board€of€Parolesóóó ó,€No.Ï01„A„01„9508„CH„00375,€slip€op.€at€5„7€(Tenn.€App.€8€May€1996).ÌÌà àThe€Open€Meetings€Act€provides€that€ð ð[a]ll€meetings€of€anyÏgoverning€body€are€declared€to€be€public€meetings€open€to€theÏpublic€at€all€times,€except€as€provided€by€the€Constitution€ofÏTennessee.ðð€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€8„44„102€(1993).€€The€term€meeting€asÍused€in€the€above€section€means€ð ðthe€convening€of€a€governing€bodyÏof€a€public€body€for€which€a€quorum€is€required€in€order€to€make€aÏdecision€or€to€deliberate€toward€a€decision€on€any€matter.ðð€€òòò òId.óóó ó€ððÏ8„44„102(b)(2).€€A€key€term€in€the€definition€of€ð ðmeetingðð€isÏð ðconvening.ðð€€The€word€convene€means€€to€come€together€or€toÏassemble.€€òòBlack's€Law€Dictionaryóó€330€(6th€ed.€1990).€€The€Board,€inÏthis€case,€did€not€convene€nor€was€it€required€to€convene€when€itÏadopted€the€hearing€official's€recommendations€and€when€it€deniedÏPetitioner's€request€for€an€appeal.ÌÌà àThere€is€no€evidence€of€a€meeting.€€Petitioner€does€notÏallege€that€the€board€members,€assigned€to€review€the€hearingÏofficial's€recommendations,€came€together€to€decide€or€toÏdeliberate€the€issue.€€Moreover,€Petitioner€stated€in€his€petitionÏthat€the€Board€did€not€convene€a€meeting€to€address€either€theÏhearing€official's€recommendations€or€his€request€for€an€appeal.ÏFinally,€Petitioner€failed€to€cite€this€court€to€any€authority€inÏsupport€of€the€proposition€that€the€Board€must€conduct€meetingsÏwhen€addressing€these€issues.€€The€Open€Meetings€Act€does€notÏprescribe€when€governing€bodies€must€conduct€meetings.€€Instead,Ïit€defines€when€meetings€must€be€open€to€the€public.€€Further,ÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„28„105,€which€sets€forth€theÏbasic€procedures€of€the€Board,€provides€in€pertinent€part€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 à(d)€A€majority€of€members€of€the€board€shall€constituteÏa€quorum€for€official€administrative€business.€€TheÏchairman€of€the€board€may€designate€individual€paroleÍboard€members€and€appoint€hearing€officers€who€shall€beÏauthorized€to€conduct€hearings,€take€testimony€and€makeÏproposed€findings€of€fact€and€recommendations€to€theÏboard€regarding€a€grant,€denial,€revocation€orÏrescission€of€parole.€€Such€findings€and€recommendationsÏshall€be€reduced€to€writing€and€reviewed€by€boardÏmembers€who€shall€adopt,€modify€or€reject€theÏrecommendations.€€No€person€shall€be€paroled€nor€shallÏthe€parole€of€any€person€be€denied,€revoked€or€rescindedÏwithout€the€concurrence€of€three€(3)€board€members.€.€.Ï.€Inmates€whose€parole€has€been€revoked€or€rescinded,€orÏwho€have€been€denied€parole,€or€whose€grant€of€paroleÏhas€been€rescinded,€may€request€an€appellate€review€byÏthe€board.€.€.€.€An€appellate€request€will€be€screenedÏby€a€board€member€or€designee€and€a€review€will€beÏconducted€if€there€is€new€evidence€or€information€thatÏwas€not€available€at€the€time€of€the€hearing,€or€ifÏthere€are€allegations€of€misconduct€by€the€hearingÏofficial€that€are€substantiated€by€the€record€or€ifÏthere€were€significant€procedural€errors€by€the€hearingÏofficial.ÌÌÓÓòòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€40„28„105(d)€(1990).€€This€section€does€not€require€Ïthe€Board€to€meet€when€it€reviews€the€written€findings€andÏrecommendations€of€the€hearing€official.€€In€addition,€the€sectionÏprovides€that€a€single€board€member€shall€screen€a€request€forÏappellate€review.× ƒ, ××  ×€€Because€there€is€no€evidence€that€the€Board€metÏor€that€it€was€required€to€meet,€Petitioner€failed€to€state€aÏcause€of€action.ÌÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€chancery€court€incorrectlyÏgranted€summary€judgment€as€to€all€issues€except€that€of€whether€Ïthe€Board€violated€the€Open€Meeting€Act.€€As€previously€stated,Íthe€trial€court€denied€Petitionerððs€motions€finding€that€theÏsummary€judgment€determination€rendered€the€issues€presented€inÏthose€motions€moot.€€Because€this€court€has€concluded€that€theÏgrant€of€summary€judgment€to€Respondents€was€incorrect,€we€mustÏalso€conclude€that€the€motions€are€no€longer€moot€and€that€theÏtrial€court€should€address€the€motions€on€remand.€€Finally,Ïalthough€we€do€not€address€the€lack€of€discovery€issue,€we€noteÏthat€there€is€both€federal€and€Tennessee€case€law€to€support€theÏproposition€that€summary€judgment€is€improper€when€the€nonmovingÏparty€has€not€had€a€sufficient€opportunity€to€conduct€discovery.€ÏThis€proposition€is€especially€true€when€such€discovery€isÏnecessary€to€properly€oppose€the€motion.€€ò òòòWhiteððs€LandingÏFisheries,€Inc.€v.€Buchholzeróóó ó,€29€F.3d€229,€231„32€(6th€Cir.Ï1994)€(construing€Rule€56€of€the€Federal€Rules€of€CivilÏProcedure);€òòò òCostello,€Porter,€Hill,€Heisterkamp€&€BushnellÏv.€Providers€Fidelity€Life€Ins.€Co.óóó ó,€958€F.2d€836,€838„39Ï(8th€Cir.€1992)€(construing€Rule€56€of€the€Federal€Rules€of€CivilÏProcedure);€òòò òShaw€v.€Donnellóóó ó,€No.€7761,€1988€WL€74650,€at€*3Ï(Tenn.€App.€1988)€(construing€Rule€56€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCivil€Procedure);€ò òòòSammons€v.€Rotroffóóó ó,€653€S.W.2d€740,€745€(Tenn.ÏApp.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€464€U.S.€860,€104€S.€Ct.€186,€78€L.€Ed.€2dÏ165€(1983)(construing€Rule€56€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilÏProcedure);€òòò òsee€Celotex€Corp.€v.€Catrettóóó ó,€477€U.S.€317,€322,Ï106€S.€Ct.€2548,€2552,€91€L.€Ed.€2d.€265,€273€(1986)(construingÏRule€56€of€the€Federal€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure);€òòò òByrdóóó ó,€847€S.W.2dÏat€213€(quoting€òòò òCelotex€Corp.óóó ó,€106€S.€Ct.€at€2552€and€construingÍRule€56€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure).ÌÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€chancery€courtÏis€reversed€and€the€case€remanded€for€further€necessaryÏproceedings.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€taxed€to€Respondents,€CharlesÏTraughber,€Colis€Newble,€Dawn€Chase,€Rose€Hill,€Jim€Grisham,€JohnÏMcGranahan,€and€Tennessee€Board€of€Paroles.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌœÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:Ì›ÌÌÌ_________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€J.ÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€J.