WPC  # VUNa % 0Nb 0 w@ 4$ 8 G mI ` h p 0J 0T@ 0^ 0h 0rZ 0| 0H 0 1u^ 0dU>7B)u BDC AMU*K/u D3v~vU 0@( AOh 0D} D/ BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 '"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(&y$   - -((2E$ y!     XiX   `   0   ,E-e.[/0D1D23E4Ӏ>D 3|x>U MORRIS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION - DISSENT (LEWIS)   ( ' IB011C20IB011C2 .   2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d d$$$$7Border 1dd-&C << G<  9p`(Arial % !  #d###   ((   YYY FILED(XJanuary8,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  %%%%'dxdPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . ##          \RA'\\RA'\7xdd7    #ԛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE #JAMEST.MORRIS,   )      ) Plaintiff/Appellee,  )      ) DavidsonChancery      ) No.953084IIIVS.      )      ) AppealNo.      ) 01A019605CH00247̜R')&A1-j|`  `@RߛTHEBOARDOFEDUCATION )OFTHEMETROPOLITAN  )NASHVILLEPUBLICSCHOOLS, )      ) Defendant/Appellant.  )#@ DISSENTINGOPINION # TheMetropolitanNashvilleBoardofEducationandtheteachersunionareattemptingtousethiscaseasavehicletoresolvewhetherTenn.CodeAnn.77105(Supp.1996)permitstheboardtouseadministrativelawjudgesinTenn.CodeAnn.495512(1996)hearingsconcerningtheterminationoftenuredteachers.Thecourthasdecidedtoaddressthisissueonitsmeritseventhoughtheteacherinvolvedinthiscaseisnontenuredandisnotentitledtoahearingbeforetheboard.Icannotagreethatweshoulddecidethisquestionatthistime.Itwouldbemoreappropriatetodelayaddressingtheissueuntilwearepresentedwithaconcretecaseorcontroversy. Thedoctrineofjusticiabilitypromptsthecourtstostaytheirhandincasesthatdonotinvolveagenuineandexistingcontroversyrequiringthepresentadjudicationofpresentrights.Stateexrel.Lewisv.State,208Tenn.534,537,347S.W.2d47,48(1961);Dockeryv.Dockery,559S.W.2d952,954(Tenn.Ct.App.1977).Inaccordancewiththedoctrine,ourcourtsroutinelydeclinetorenderadvisoryopinions,SuperFleaMarketofChattanoogav.Olsen,677S.W.2d449,451(Tenn.1984);Parksv.Alexander,608S.W.2d881,892(Tenn.Ct.App.1980),ortodecideabstractlegalquestions.Stateexrel.Lewisv.State,208Tenn.at538,347S.W.2datϜ4849. AllthepartiesagreethatMr.Morrisisanuntenuredteacher.Theauthoritytoterminateuntenuredteachersrestswiththeschoolsuperintendentratherthantheboard.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.492301(f)(33)(1996).Thus,Mr.Morrisdoesnothaveastatutoryrighttoahearingorappealtotheboardfromthesuperintendentsdecisiontoterminatehim.IfMr.MorrisisnotentitledtoaTenn.CodeAnn.495512appeal,heisnottheproperpartytoseekadeclaratoryjudgmentconcerningtheuseofadministrativelawjudgesforTenn.CodeAnn.495512hearings. TherecorddemonstratesthatthesuperintendentwasunawareofhisprerogativetoterminateMr.MorrisandthatheandhisdepartmentmistakenlybelievedthatMr.MorriswasentitledtoahearingbeforetheboardpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.495512.Nocollectivebargainingagreementorotherlocalruleorprocedurerequiresorpermitstheboardtoreviewthesuperintendentsdecisionwithregardtonontenuredpersonnel.Thus,the͜superintendentsmistakecannotvesttheboardwithjurisdictionthatitotherwisedoesnothave. Iwouldvacatethejudgmentandremandthecasewithdirectionsthatitbedismissed.      ________________________________      WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE