ÿWPCz …# VU:a %› 0(¡w@É4  , {`4 0J” 0TÞ 0^2 0h 0rø 0|j 0†æ 0l 1uü U,q 0d U,U*-B)WDC€ AMÃä Bôv~vÓ D3b 0@• AOÕÆ$ 0Dê D/. B]˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ P    D  U D Ó€ DÒ 3|x (8$G$¡¡ÒN°ÒÒN°ÒÑNLÑÑNLÑ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÚÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌSeptember€11,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  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€ ÔÝ  ÝÑ X ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€§ÿXXdædÈ7Ñà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌBILL€KIGER,€PAYNE€C.€GORDON,à à)ÌBARBARA€BRIDGES,€CHARLESà à)€€ÌCARMEN€and€JEAN€HOLMES,€inà à)€Davidson€Chancery€No.€90„3354„IÌtheir€capacity€as€officers€of€theà à)€ÌNashville€Electric€Service€Employeesà à)€Appeal€No.€01A01„9511„CH„00501ÌAssociation,€Inc.,€à àà àà àà à)€€ÌÙ€€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€#$";+'h|÷ü-` ç `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPetitioners/Appellantsà àò ò)€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌBETTY€NIXON,€DR.€ALBERT€BERRY,à à)ÌJAMES€JOHNSON,€KEVINà àà à)ÌLAVENDER€and€TOM€JACKSON,à à)Ìin€their€capacities€as€members€of€theà à)ÌElectric€Power€Board€and€the€à àà à)ÌElectric€Employees€Civil€Serviceà à)Ìand€Pension€Board€of€theà àà à)ÌMetropolitan€Government€ofà àà à)ÌNashville€and€Davidson€County,à à)ÌTennessee,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óRespondents/Appellees.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€IRVIN€H.€KILCREASE,€JR.,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌò òMARIAN€F.€HARRISONó óÌò òJEFFREY€RAPPUHNó óÌò òWILLIS€&€KNIGHTó óÌNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€AppellantsÌÌò òD.€KIRK€SHAFFERó óÌò òNANCY€A.€VINCENTó óÌò òSTOKES€&€BARTHOLOMEW,€P.A.ó óÌNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€AppelleesÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌò òÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌÓÓó ó›à àœÌà àPetitioners›€are€officers€of€the€Nashville€Electric€Service€Employees€AssociationÏÑ7€§ÿXXdæXXdæ7Ñ(ð ðNESEAðð),€who€brought€this€action€seeking€to€invalidate€the€decision€of€the€Board€ofÏDirectors€(ð ðBoardðð)€of€the€Nashville€Electric€Service€(ð ðNESðð)€to€outsource€its€dataÏprocessing€operations€to€a€private€sector€vendor.€Petitioners€alleged€that€the€BoardÏexceeded€its€jurisdiction€and€violated€certain€provisions€of€the€Metropolitan€Charter.€ÏThe€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€Board,€holding€that€theÏBoardððs€decision€was€within€its€jurisdiction€and€was€supported€by€substantial€andÏmaterial€evidence.€€It€is€from€this€judgment€that€petitioners€have€appealed.ÌÌà àIn€œ1986,€NES€contracted›€with€Seltman,€Cobb,€and€Bryant€(ð ðSCBðð)€to€design,Ïinstall,€and€implement€a€computer„based€management€information€and€dataÏprocessing€system.€€Following€the€installation€of€the€system,€NES€began€experiencingÏnumerous€problems€with€its€data€processing€operations,€such€as€overrun€of€chargesÏand€mismanagement€by€NES€employees.€œIn›€early€1990,€Dudley€Phillips,€generalÏmanager€of€NES,€retained€the€assistance€of€Walter€Smiley,€an€outside€consultant,€toÏadvise€them€as€to€how€to€resolve€their€operational€difficulties.€€At€a€publicly„advertisedÍmeeting€of€the€NES€board€in€October€1990,€Smiley€stated€that€the€problems€hadÏarisen€from€the€inability€of€top€NES€management€personnel€to€manage€the€dataÏprocessing€department€and€from€lack€of€cooperation€on€the€part€of€NESðð€dataÏprocessing€employees.€€Smiley€recommended€to€the€Board€that€NES€outsource€itsÏdata€processing€department€to€œSCB.€His›€recommendation€was€based€on€the€fact€thatÏSCB€employees€currently€held€many€key€positions€in€the€data€processing€departmentÏand€the€fact€that€SCB€employees€were€already€directing€most€of€NESðð€personnel.€ÌÌà àFollowing€a€discussion,€the€NES€Board€approved€a€letter€of€intent€to€negotiate€aÏprofessional€services€contract€with€SCB€to€manage€NESðð€data€processing€department.€ÌÌà àThe€following€day,€Phillips€prepared€and€circulated€a€bulletin€to€all€dataÏprocessing€employees,€which€stated€that€the€Board€had€decided€to€outsource€its€dataÏprocessing€department€and€that€all€employees€of€that€department€would€beÏguaranteed€a€position€with€SCB€at€a€salary€and€benefits€level€equal€to€or€greater€thanÏtheir€present€salary€and€benefits.€ÌÌà àOn€October€30,€1990,€several€officers€of€NESEA,€a€voluntary€associationÏcomprised€of€non„supervisory€NES€employees,€filed€a€complaint,€alleging€certainÏviolations€of€the€Charter€of€the€Metropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€and€the€OpenÏMeetings€Act.€€On€November€26,€1990,€the€petitioners€moved€to€enjoin€NES€fromÏentering€into€the€outsourcing€contract.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion,€holding€thatÏthere€existed€a€factual€issue€as€to€whether€the€Board€had€violated€the€Open€MeetingsÏAct€and€that€NESEA€possessed€an€adequate€remedy€at€œlaw.›ÌÌà àOn€November€28,€1990,€a€special€NES€board€meeting€was€held€to€consider€theÏproposed€contract€between€SCB€and€NES.€€€At€the€meeting,€Joe€Martin,€counsel€forÏNES,€clarified€the€employment€status€of€current€NES€employees.€€He€stated€that€anyÏindividual€who€accepted€employment€with€SCB€would€be€effectively€resigning€fromÏNES.€€If€any€employee€declined€to€accept€employment€with€SCB,€that€individual€wouldÏremain€an€NES€employee,€subject€to€the€rules€for€employees€regarding€seniority€andÏœqualifications.›ÌÌà àNES€employees€filed€affidavits€stating€that€on€November€28,€1990,€Phillips€metÏwith€the€data€processing€department€and€told€them€that€the€contract€was€going€to€beÏexecuted.€€Phillips€stated€that€NES€employees€should€seriously€consider€acceptingÏemployment€with€SCB€because€NES€would€no€longer€operate€the€data€processingÏdepartment.€œNES›€employees€were€each€provided€with€a€letter€from€SCB€thatÏannounced€approval€of€the€outsourcing€contract€and€offered€employment€to€NESÏemployees.€€Petitioners€allege€that€neither€NES€nor€SCB€explained€to€the€employeesÏthat€they€had€the€option€of€remaining€employed€at€NES€if€they€declined€employmentÏwith€SCB.€ÌÌà àOn€December€1,€1990,€the€contract€between€SCB€and€NES€was€executed.€€œAs›€aÏresult€of€this€contract,€the€data€processing€operations€of€NES,€which€formerly€had€beenÏhandled€by€civil€service€employees,€were€assumed€by€SCB€and€its€employees.€ÌÌà àThirty„six€of€the€forty„two€NES€data€processing€employees€acceptedÍemployment€with€SCB.€€Six€employees€declined€employment€with€SCB€and€remainedÏat€NES.€€€Following€the€execution€of€the€contract,€most€of€the€data€processingÏoperations€continued€to€be€performed€at€the€same€location,€and€all€former€employeesÏof€NES€received€equal€to€or€better€rates€of€compensation€than€they€had€received€priorÏto€the€outsourcing€contract.€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€Board,€holding€thatÏpetitionersðð€claims€should€have€been€brought€under€a€common€law€writ€of€œcertiorari.›ÏThe€court€allowed€petitioners€to€so€amend€their€petition,€but€granted€summaryÏjudgment€in€favor€of€the€Board€with€respect€to€their€Open€Meetings€Act€and€competitiveÏbidding€claims€on€the€basis€that€such€claims€could€not€properly€be€joined€with€aÏpetition€for€writ€of€certiorari.€ÌÌà àPetitioners€filed€an€amended€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari,€alleging€that€the€NESÏBoard€had€acted€illegally,€had€exceeded€its€jurisdiction,€and€had€violated€certain€civilÏservice€provisions€of€the€Metro€Charter€by€constructively€discharging€its€employees.€ÏœBoth›€parties€filed€motions€for€summary€judgment.€€In€support€of€its€motion,€the€BoardÏargued€that€NESEA€lacked€associational€standing€to€bring€the€action,€that€the€BoardÏhad€the€authority€to€outsource€the€data€processing€department,€and€that€NESÏemployees€waived€any€right€to€relief€that€they€may€have€had€by€voluntarilyÏrelinquishing€their€employment€with€NES.€€Ìà àFollowing€oral€argument€on€both€partiesðð€motions,€petitioners€filed€aÏSupplemental€Memorandum,€alleging€a€basis€for€associational€standing€to€bring€theÏaction.€ÌÌà àà àà àThe€trial€judge€held€that€petitioners€had€the€requisite€standing€to€challenge€theÏBoardððs€decision,€but€granted€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€Board.€€The€trial€judgeÏstated€in€his€Memorandum€Opinion€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àOn€consideration€of€the€record€made€before€the€NES€PowerÏBoard€and€the€cited€provision€of€the€Metropolitan€Charter,Ïthe€Court€finds€that€the€action€of€NES€outsourcing€its€dataÏprocessing€department€to€SCB€was€legal,€within€itsÏjurisdiction€and€supported€by€substantial€and€materialÏevidence.€€Therefore,€NESððs€motion€for€summary€judgmentÏis€granted,€and€NESEAððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€isÏoverruled.€Ìà8 àà8 à*à à*à à*à à*à à*à à*Ìà8 àà8 àThe€employees€in€the€data€department€had€the€option€ofÏaccepting€employment€with€SCB€or€remaining€with€NES.€ÏThere€were€43€employees€in€NESððs€data€processingÏdepartment.€€Six€(6)€NES€employees€elected€to€remainÏemployed€with€NES.€€One€(1)€employee€retired€andÏimmediately€accepted€employment€with€SCB.€€TheÏremaining€employees€voluntarily€resigned€their€positionsÏwith€NES€and€accepted€employment€with€SCB.€œ›€€(òòSeeóóÏAffidavit€of€Herbert€W.€Deberry,€Exhibit€C€to€respondentsððÏMotion€for€Summary€Judgment).€€The€record€clearly€showsÏthat€the€NES€employees€were€not€constructively€laid„off€orÏterminated€from€their€employment.€€NES€did€not€violate€theÏCivil€Service€provisions€of€Appendix€Three,€Chapter€43€ofÏthe€Metropolitan€Charter.€€Therefore,€NESEAððs€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€is€overruled,€and€NESððs€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€is€granted.€œÌ›œ›à8 àà8 à*à à*à à*à à*à à*à à*Ìà8 àà8 àThe€decision€of€NES€to€out„source€its€data€processing€isÏsupported€by€substantial€and€material€evidence€thus,€theÏdecision€of€NES€is€affirmed.€€NESEAððs€amended€petition€forÏwrit€of€certiorari€is€dismissed.€ÌÌÌÓÓà àPetitioners€have€raised€two€issues€on€appeal,€which€are:€(1)€whether€theÏchallenge€to€NESðð€decision€must€be€brought€pursuant€to€a€common€law€writ€ofÏcertiorari;€and€(2)€€whether€the€NES€Board€violated€the€Metro€Charterððs€civil€serviceÏprovisions.ÌÌà àConversely,€the€Board€contends€that€petitioners€lack€standing€to€maintain€theÏpresent€action€and€that€petitioners€waived€any€objections€they€might€have€had€to€theÏoutsourcing€decision€by€resigning€from€NES€and€accepting€employment€with€SCB.€ÏWe€decline€to€address€the€Boardððs€second€contention€regarding€waiver€as€we€find€it€toÏbe€without€merit.ÌÌà àThe€Board€alleges€that€petitioners€lack€standing€to€bring€a€claim€on€behalf€of€theÏformer€NES€data€processing€employees€because€the€complaint€failed€to€allege€thatÏeither€NESEA€or€any€members€of€NESEA€suffered€any€distinct€injury€caused€by€NESððÏdecision€to€outsource.€œAccording›€to€the€Board,€the€only€injury€claimed€by€petitionersÏwas€the€loss€of€civil€service€status,€which€is€insufficient€to€confer€standing€because€it€isÏa€mere€conclusion€of€injury€without€any€explanation€of€harm.€€The€Board€also€allegesÏthat€NESEA€lacks€standing€in€its€own€right€to€maintain€this€action€because€theÏcomplaint€failed€to€allege€that€the€association€itself€suffered€any€injury.€€€Finally,€theÏBoard€argues€that€the€relief€that€petitioners€seek€would€not€redress€any€alleged€injuryÏand€is€not€available€under€a€common€law€writ€of€œcertiorari.›ÌÌà àPetitioners€respond€that€the€individual€members€of€NESEA€who€worked€in€theÏdata€processing€department€had€standing€to€institute€the€suit€because€they€sufferedÏthe€damage€of€termination€of€their€employment€from€NES.€€Petitioners€contend€thatÏNESEA€itself€suffered€damages€because€the€outsourcing€decision€eliminated€dues„paying€members€of€NESEA,€which€caused€NESEA€to€suffer€a€decrease€in€bothÏmembers€and€membership€dues.€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€held€€that€petitioners€possessed€the€requisite€standing€to€bringÏtheir€claim€alleging€that€the€Board€acted€illegally€and€exceeded€its€jurisdiction.€ÏHowever,€the€court€held€that€petitioners€did€not€have€standing€to€seek€theÏreinstatement€of€the€employees€because€such€remedy€is€unavailable€under€a€commonÏlaw€writ€of€certiorari.€€œÌ›Ìà à€Standing€is€a€judicially„created€doctrine€employed€by€courts€in€determiningÏwhether€a€party€is€entitled€to€judicial€relief.€€òòKnierim€v.€Leatherwoodóó,€542€S.W.2d€806,Ï808€(Tenn.€1976).€€In€order€to€establish€standing,€a€party€must€demonstrate€to€the€courtÏthat:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€[I]t€sustained€a€distinct€and€palpable€injury,€(2)€that€theÏinjury€was€caused€by€the€challenged€conduct,€and€(3)€thatÏthe€injury€is€apt€to€be€redressed€by€a€remedy€that€the€courtÏis€prepared€to€give.ÌÌòòMetropolitan€Air€Research€Testing€Authority,€Inc.€V.€Metropolitan€Govt.€Of€NashvilleÏand€Davidson€County,óó€842€S.W.2d€611,€615€(Tenn.€App.€1992).ÌÌÓÓà àœ›à àœÌà àWhere›€a€plaintiffððs€standing€is€brought€into€issue,€the€pertinent€inquiry€is€whetherÏthe€plaintiff€has€shown€an€injury€to€himself€that€is€likely€to€be€redressed€by€a€favorableÏdecision.€€òòTennessee€Environmental€Council€v.€Solid€Waste€Disposal€Control€Bd.óó,€852ÏS.W.2d€893,€896€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€As€this€court€stated€in€òòMetropolitan€Air€Researchóó,Ïð ð[S]tanding€often€turns€on€the€nature€and€source€of€the€claim€asserted.€€Thus,€theÏinquiry€requires€a€careful€judicial€examination€of€the€complaintððs€allegations€toÏascertain€whether€the€particular€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€an€adjudication€of€the€particularÏclaims€asserted.ðð€€842€S.W.2d€at€615.€ÌÌà à€In€their€Amended€Petition€for€Writ€of€Certiorari,€petitioners€alleged€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à11.€€In€approving€the€SCB€contract,€the€Power€BoardÏabolished€and€vacated€all€civil€service€positionsÏ(approximately€forty„one)€in€its€data€processing€departmentÏand€transferred€those€positions€which€were€necessary€toÏthe€provision€of€NES€electric€services,€to€SCB.€€In€additionÏto€abolishing€and€vacating€these€positions€and€delegatingÏits€responsibilities€to€a€third€party,€the€Power€BoardÏeffectively€laid€off€or€dismissed€the€employees€filling€thoseÏpositions.€.€.€.ÌÌà àà à*à à*à à*à à*à à*à à*ÌÌà8 àà8 àG.€€Finally,€the€Charter€provides€that€ððNo€Civil€ServiceÏOffice,€employment€or€position€provided€for€or€createdÏunder€the€provisions€[of€article€42]€of€the€Charter€may€beÏvacated,€except€pursuant€to€and€in€conformity€with€the€CivilÏService€provisions€in€this€article.ðð€€Appendix€III,€Article€43,Ïparagraph€19.€€The€data€processing€positions€at€NES€wereÏclearly€vacated€by€the€adoption€of€the€SCB€contract€inÏviolation€of€the€Charter€provisions.ÌÌà8 àà8 à12.€€By€outsourcing€its€data€processing€operations€to€SCB,Ïand€by€eliminating€those€NES€jobs€forcing€its€civil€serviceÏemployees€to€become€employees€of€SCB€to€retain€theirÏpositions,€by€effectively€laying€off€or€dismissing€its€dataÏprocessing€department€employees,€and€by€replacing€thoseÏemployees€with€third€party€labor,€NES€abdicated,€both€inÏletter€and€spirit,€its€responsibilities€under€Articles€42€and€43Ïof€the€Charter,€Appendix€III,€acted€illegally,€and€exceeded€itsÏjurisdiction.€€The€Charter€gives€no€authority€to€the€PowerÏBoard€to€outsource€a€department€and€delegate€its€duties€asÏit€did.€€Accordingly€the€Power€[sic]€exceeded€its€jurisdictionÏin€adopting€the€SCB€contract€œand›€that€contract€is€void.€œÌ›Ìà àà à*à à*à à*à à*à à*à à*Ìà àà àWHEREFORE,€premises€considered,€the€Petitioners€pray:Ìà8 àà8 à4.€€That€the€Court€hold,€after€reviewing€the€record,€theÏCharter€provisions€and€other€authorities,€and€the€proof€to€beÏpresented,€that€the€Power€Board€acted€illegally€andÏexceeded€its€jurisdiction€and€violated€the€provisions€of€theÏMetropolitan€Charter,€Appendix€III,€Chapters€42€and€43,€setÏforth€above,€in€agreeing€to€outsource€its€entire€dataÏprocessing€department€to€a€third€party.Ìà8 àà8 à4.€[sic]€That€the€Court€reverse€and€hold€void€the€actions€ofÍthe€Power€Board...Ìà8 àà8 à5.€€That€the€Court€order€the€displaced€employees€reinstatedÏas€if€they€had€never€been€outsourced€in€violation€of€theÏMetropolitan€œCharter.Ì›ÌÌÓÓà àIn€the€present€case,€the€standing€requirement€imposes€a€duty€upon€petitionersÏto€allege€ð ððða€particularized€injury€concretely€and€demonstrably€flowing€from€the€actionÏof€the€defendants€which€will€be€redressed€by€the€remedy€sought.ðð€€òòTennessee€MedicalÏAssoc.€V.€Corkeróó,€No.€01„A„01„9410„CH00494,€1995€WL€228681€(Tenn.€App.Ï1995)(quoting€òòLugo€v.€Milleróó,€640€F.2d€823,€827€(6th€Cir.€1981)).€€€Petitioners€mustÏdemonstrate€to€this€court€that€they€suffered€ð ða€distinct€and€palpable€injury.ðð€ÏòòMetropolitan€Air€Researchóó,€842€S.W.2d€at€615.€€ÌÌà àPetitioners€alleged€that€the€ð ðPower€Board€effectively€laid€off€or€dismissed€theÏemployees.ðð€The€sole€injury€suffered€by€NES€employees€was€the€loss€of€civil€serviceÏstatus.€€Petitioners€have€not€alleged,€nor€have€they€suffered,€any€economic€loss€or€lossÏof€benefits€that€occurred€as€a€result€of€the€outsourcing€decision.€€œThe€question€thatÏarises€is€whether€loss€of€civil€service€status€alone€is€sufficient€injury€under€the€above„cited€authority€to€confer€standing€upon€petitioners.Ìà à›Ìœà àIn€this€case,€we€assume,€without€deciding,€that€petitioners€possessed€theÏrequisite€standing€to€maintain€this€action.€€Even€upon€this€assumption,€however,€weÏare€of€the€opinion€that€petitionersðð€action€must€fail€for€the€reasons€set€forth€below.Ì›Ìà àPetitionersðð€first€contention€on€appeal€is€that€it€was€not€necessary€for€them€toÏhave€brought€their€action€pursuant€to€a€petition€for€common€law€writ€of€certiorariÍbecause€the€Board€was€not€exercising€a€judicial€or€quasi„judicial€function€within€theÏmeaning€of€T.C.A.€ðð€27„8„101.€€Accordingly,€they€argue,€their€Open€Meetings€Act€claimÏwas€properly€joined€with€their€original€complaint€for€declaratory€relief.€ÌÌà àT.C.A.€ðð€27„8„101€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€writ€of€certiorari€may€be€granted€whenever€authorizedÏby€law,€and€also€in€all€cases€where€an€inferior€tribunal,Ïboard,€or€officer€exercising€judicial€functions€has€exceededÏthe€jurisdiction€conferred,€or€is€acting€illegally,€when,€in€theÏjudgment€of€the€court€there€is€no€other€plain,€speedy,€orÏadequate€remedy.ÌÌÓÓÌà àIn€òòMcCallen€v.€City€of€Memphisóó,€786€S.W.2d€633€(Tenn.€1991),€the€CourtÏdiscussed€the€above€statute€in€evaluating€when€an€action€must€be€brought€pursuant€toÏa€petition€for€common€law€writ€of€certiorari,€as€opposed€to€an€action€for€declaratoryÏjudgment.€€The€Court€in€òòMcCallenóó€relied€on€the€case€of€òòFallin€v.€Knox€County€Board€ofÏCommissionersóó,€656€S.W.2d€338€(Tenn.€1983),€in€holding€that€the€critical€inquiry€isÏwhether€the€inferior€board€exercised€either€a€legislative€or€an€administrative€function.€ÏòòId.óó€at€638.€€In€the€former€case,€an€action€for€declaratory€judgment€is€appropriate,€whileÏin€the€latter€case,€a€petition€for€€common€law€writ€of€certiorari€is€the€proper€method€byÏwhich€to€challenge€an€administrative€decision.€€òòId.óó€at€639.€€In€evaluating€whether€aÏparticular€decision€is€properly€characterized€as€legislative€or€administrative,€the€courtÏstated€that€the€ð ðterm€administrative€is€used€interchangeably€with€judicial€or€quasi„judicialðð€within€the€meaning€of€T.C.A.€ðð€27„8„101.€€òòId.óó€at€638€(citing€òòFallinóó,€656€S.W.2dÏat€341).€€The€court€also€stated€that€ð ða€crucial€test€in€distinguishing€legislative€fromÏadministrative€acts€is€whether€the€action€taken€(resolution€or€ordinance)€makes€newÏlaw€or€executes€one€already€in€existence....In€order€to€qualify€as€an€administrative,Íjudicial,€or€quasi„judicial€act,€the€discretionary€authority€of€the€governmental€body€mustÏbe€exercised€within€existing€standards€and€guidelines.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€639.ÌÌà àBecause€in€òòMcCallenóó,€there€existed€pre„established€guidelines€requiring€theÏcity€council€to€exercise€reasonable€discretion€in€electing€to€grant€approval€to€aÏproposed€planned€development,€the€councilððs€decision€to€approve€the€plannedÏdevelopment€was€an€administrative€decision.€€òòId.óó€at€640.€€Consequently,€the€CourtÏheld,€the€challenge€to€the€councilððs€decision€should€have€been€brought€pursuant€to€aÏpetition€for€common€law€writ€of€certiorari.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àœThe›€Board€is,€as€petitioners€concede,€bound€by€the€terms€and€limitationsÏcontained€in€the€Metro€Charter.€€The€charter€expressly€delineates€all€of€the€powers€andÏfunctions€that€the€Board€may,€in€its€discretion,€exercise.€€Thus,€in€accordance€with€theÏprinciples€set€forth€in€òòMcCallenóó,€it€is€our€opinion€that€the€Boardððs€decision€to€contractÏwith€a€private€sector€vendor€for€its€data€processing€operations€was€an€administrativeÏfunction.€€Consequently,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€petitioners€were€required€toÏchallenge€the€Boardððs€decision€pursuant€to€a€petition€for€common€law€writ€of€certiorari,Ïrather€than€an€action€for€declaratory€judgment.€€Petitionersðð€Open€Meetings€Act€claim,Ïwhich€is€an€original€action,€may€not€properly€be€joined€with€a€petition€for€writ€ofÏcertiorari.€€òòGoodwin€v.€Metropolitan€Board€of€Healthóó,€656€S.W.2d€383,€387€(Tenn.€App.Ï1983).ÌÌà àPetitioners€argue€that€the€Boardððs€decision€to€outsource€its€data€processingÏdepartment€violates€two€aspects€of€the€Metro€Charter.€€First,€petitioners€œargue,Íoutsourcing€€the€department›€contravenes€the€œCharter€provisions›€requiring€that€NESÏoperations€be€carried€out€by€civil€service€employees.€€Second,€petitioners€argue€thatÏoutsourcing€the€data€processing€department€to€SCB€amounted€to€a€constructiveÏdischarge€of€NES€employees€without€compliance€with€the€Charterððs€procedures€forÏdischarge.ÌÌà àThe€scope€of€review€under€a€common€law€writ€of€certiorari€is€whether€the€inferiorÏboard€has€exceeded€its€jurisdiction€or€has€acted€illegally,€arbitrarily,€or€fraudulently.€ÏòòMcCallenóó,€786€S.W.2d€at€638;€òòYokley€v.€Stateóó,€632€S.W.2d€123€(Tenn.€App.€1981).€€InÏòòMcCallenóó,€the€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[T]he€court€should€refrain€from€substituting€its€judgment€forÏthe€broad€discretionary€authority€of€the€local€governmentalÏbody.€€An€invalidation€of€the€action€should€take€place€onlyÏwhen€the€decision€is€clearly€illegal,€arbitrary,€or€capricious.ÌÌòòId.óó€at€642.ÌÌÓÓThe€Court€also€noted€that€ð ðcourts€are€wary€of€unwarranted€judicial€intrusions€into€theÏperformance€of€ordinary€governmental€activities.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€619.ÌÌà àPetitioners€allege€that€the€Board€violated€the€following€provisions€of€the€MetroÏCharter€by€replacing€NES€civil€servants€with€third€party€labor€in€contravention€of€theÏCharterððs€mandate€that€such€employees€be€civil€servants:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à7.€€Every€position€or€employment€by€or€with€the€electricÏpower€board€of€the€metropolitan€government€shall€beÏdeemed€to€be€a€civil€service€position,€and€every€employeeÏof€said€board€shall€be€deemed€to€be€a€civil€serviceÏemployee€with€the€exception€of€temporary€employees,€andÏshall€include€the€present€employees€of€said€board€and€allÏfuture€employees,€and€all€officers€and€agents,€except€thatÏmembers€of€the€electric€power€board€of€the€metropolitanÍgovernment,€the€general€manager,€assistant€generalÏmanager,€and€the€secretary€are€expressly€excluded€fromÏthe€provisions€hereof€with€reference€to€civil€service,€andÏnone€of€said€persons,€nor€the€positions€which€they€fill,€shallÏbe€deemed€or€considered€as€under€the€provisions€of€civilÏservice.ÌÌà8 àà8 à12.€€No€employee€of€the€electric€power€board€of€theÏmetropolitan€government,€except€temporary€employees€andÏprovisional€employees,€shall€be€discharged,€suspended€forÏmore€than€ten€(10)€days€nor€oftener€than€twice€in€any€twelveÏ(12)€months,€or€otherwise€punished€except€for€just€causeÏand€after€the€filing€of€charges€and€trials€as€hereinbeforeÏprovided.ÌÌà8 àà8 à14.€€The€said€board€shall€establish€a€system€of€serviceÏratings€for€the€employees.€€Such€service€ratings€andÏseniority€shall€be€the€principal€factors€in€determining€theÏorder€of€promotion,€layoffs,€abolition€of€positions,€andÏreemployment.ÌÌà8 àà8 àProvided,€that€no€corresponding€respective€civil€serviceÏoffice,€employment€or€position€provided€for€or€created€underÏthe€provisions€of€the€preceding€article€of€this€Charter,€mayÏbe€vacated€except€pursuant€to€and€in€conformity€with€theÏcivil€service€provisions€of€this€article.Ìà8 àÌÓÓÌà àConversely,€the€Board€relies€upon€the€following€Charter€provisions€in€support€ofÏits€position€that€it€possessed€the€authority€to€enter€into€the€outsourcing€contract:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThat€The€Metropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€andÏDavidson€County,€it€is€corporate€capacity€is€herebyÏauthorized€and€empowered€to:ÌÌà8 àà8 à6.€€To€make€contracts€and€execute€instruments€containingÏsuch€covenants,€terms€and€conditions,€as€in€the€discretionÏof€the€metropolitan€government€may€be€necessary,€properÏor€advisable€for€the€purpose€of€obtaining€loans€from€anyÏsource,€or€grants,€loans,€or€other€financial€assistance€fromÏany€federal€agency;€to€make€all€other€contracts€and€executeÏall€other€instruments,€which€in€its€discretion,€may€beÏnecessary,€proper,€or€advisable,€in€or€for€the€furtherance€ofÏthe€acquisition,€improvement,€operation€and€maintenance,Íof€any€electric€plant€and/or€distribution€system,€and€theÏfurnishing€of€electric€service;€and€to€carry€out€and€performÏthe€covenants,€terms€and€conditions€of€all€such€contracts€orÏinstruments.ÌÌà8 àà8 à8.€€To€do€all€acts€and€things€necessary€or€convenient€toÏcarry€out€the€powers€expressly€given€in€this€article.€ÌÌÓÓÌà àAfter€reviewing€the€Charter€provisions€and€the€Boardððs€actions€in€this€regard,€weÏdo€not€find€that€the€Boardððs€decision€to€outsource€its€data€processing€department€wasÏclearly€illegal,€arbitrary,€or€capricious.€€The€Boardððs€decision€stemmed€from€numerousÏoperational€difficulties€that€had€occurred€over€the€course€of€several€years.€€The€recordÏreflects€that€the€data€processing€operations€were€inefficient,€mismanaged,€and€costly,Ïresulting€in€numerous€complaints€from€NES€customers.€€NES€employees€were€notÏterminated€or€laid€off€as€a€result€of€the€outsourcing€œdecision.›€€Instead,€the€employeesÏwere€well€provided€for€and€suffered€no€substantial€loss€of€salary€or€benefits.€€TheÏBoard€simply€made€a€contract,€which€in€its€discretion,€it€felt€was€necessary€œand›Ïadvisable€for€the€improvement€and€operation€of€the€data€processing€department.€ÏPursuant€to€Article€42,€ðð€6€of€the€Metro€Charter,€the€Board€did€not€act€illegally€orÏarbitrarily€in€making€such€a€decision.ÌÌà àœPetitionersðð€final€contention€is›€that€the€decision€to€outsource€the€departmentÏamounted€to€a€constructive€discharge€of€all€data€processing€employees€because€theÏemployees€were€never€informed€that€they€could€remain€at€NES€in€the€event€that€theyÏdeclined€to€accept€employment€with€SCB.€ÌÌà àWe€find€this€contention€to€be€without€merit.€€The€facts€of€the€case€òòsub€judice€óódoÍnot€support€the€elements€of€a€claim€for€constructive€discharge.€€òòEckard€v.€ChattanoogaÏState€Technical€Comm.€Collegeóó,€No.€03A01„9106CH„220,€1991€WL€253305€(Tenn.ÏApp.€Dec.€3,€1991)(ð ðA€finding€of€constructive€discharge€requires€the€determination€thatÏððworking€conditions€would€have€been€so€difficult€or€unpleasant€that€a€reasonableÏperson€in€the€employeeððs€shoes€would€have€felt€compelled€to€resign.ðððð)(quoting€òòHeld€v.ÏGulf€Oil€Co.óó,€684€F.2d€427,€432€(6th€Cir.€1982)).ÌÌà àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxedÏto€œpetitioners.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.›