ÿWPC° …# VU>a %Ÿ 0(¥4Íáw@ð 0L0 0l| 0Dè , 0J4 0T~ 0^Ò 0 0h8 0r  0| 0†Ž 0 1u¤ 0d 0N}U 6ËB) B*DCG D3Š AM½U*  0@4t/ƒ²v~ºvÓ8 AO ÆZ 0D  D/d B“˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX($¡¡DÒ ½Q x°°3|xß ÍDÎÏIÐIÑÒIÓDÔÕÓ€ß> ÿÿ$Small Circleððà0 à((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ>‡¦$"Small Circleð"ðà0  à< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d d''''7Border 1dd(((('ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔÌÌJanuary€8,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó %Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔCorporal€punishment€is€permitted€in€Metro€public€schools€if€doneÏpursuant€to€procedures€set€forth€in€school€policy.Ó  ÓÌ þÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÌà àÔ€&ôÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€49„2„301(f)(31)€&€(33)(1996).€€This€section€providesÏas€follows:.Ìà8 à(f)à àIt€is€the€duty€of€the€board€of€education€to€assign€to€itsÏòòsuperintendentóó€the€duty€to:Ìà à€€.€.€.€.Ìà8 à(31)à àEmploy,€transfer,€suspend,€non„renew€and€òòdismiss€allÏpersonnelóó€within€the€approved€budget,€òòexcept€as€provided€in€ðð€49„2„203(a)(1)€and€in€chapter€5,€part€5€of€this€title;óóÌà à€€.€.€.€.Ìà8 à(33)à àòòThe€superintendent€may€dismiss€any€employee€under€theÏsuperintendent's€jurisdictionóó€for€incompetence,€inefficiency,Ïinsubordination,€improper€conduct€or€neglect€of€duty;€provided,Ïthat€no€one€shall€be€dismissed€without€first€having€been€given€inÏwriting,€due€notice€of€the€charge€or€charges€and€an€opportunityÏfor€defense€.€.€.€.Ìò òòòId.ó óóó€(emphasis€added).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ ` Ü‚Xœ ’X ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€^XdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  Ñ›Þ ÞÌJAMES€T.€MORRIS,à à)Ìà àà à)ÌÓ#` Ü‚Xœôx‘X#Óà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà à)à à01„A„01„9605„CH„00247Ìv.à àà à)Ìà àà à)à àDavidson€ChanceryÌTHE€BOARD€OF€EDUCATION€OF€THEà à)à àNo.€95„3084„III̜ـ€ÙßR€+.)A1-j|i(` ç `€€@ÿRß›METROPOLITAN€NASHVILLE€PUBLICà à)ÌSCHOOLS,à à)à àÌà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à à)ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€&¼ÔCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€S.€BRANDT,€CHANCELLORÌÓ ` Ü‚XœÈ“X ÓÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÔ€&XÔCHARLES€HAMPTON€WHITEÌRICHARD€L.€COLBERTÌCornelius€&€CollinsÌSuite€2700ÌNashville€City€CenterÌ511€Union€StreetÌP.€O.€Box€190695ÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37219Ìà àATTORNEYS€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEEÌÌÌÌJAMES€L.€MURPHY,€IIIÌJUDY€J.€SHELLÌ204€Metropolitan€CourthouseÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37201Ìà àATTORNEYS€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLANTÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€&¼ÔSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÓÓòòÓ  ÓÔ€&°ÔOÔ€&¼Ô€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÓ  ÓÓ#` Ü` ä œÈ“X#ÓóóÔ€&XÔà àDefendant/appellant,€the€Board€of€Education€of€theÏMetropolitan€Nashville€Public€Schools€("Board"),€appeals€from€theÏjudgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€County€which€held€thatÏthe€Board€could€not€use€an€Administrative€Law€Judge€("ALJ")€toÏconduct€a€hearing€on€whether€to€dismiss€plaintiff/appellee,€JamesÏMorris,€a€non„tenured€teacher€in€the€Metro€school€system.€€TheÏfacts€out€of€which€this€case€arose€are€as€follows.ÌÌà àThe€Board€employed€plaintiff€as€a€teacher€at€the€CarterÏLawrence€Middle€School€during€the€1994„95€school€year.€€In€1995,Ïplaintiff€was€charged€with€having€improperly€administered€corporalÏpunishment.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€In€a€letter€dated€27€June€1995,€the€superintendent€ofÏschools€informed€plaintiff€of€the€charges€made€against€him€andÏthat€a€hearing€had€been€set€for€1€August€1995.€€After€conductingÍthe€hearing,€the€superintendent€determined€that€plaintiff'sÏconduct€warranted€his€dismissal€and€placed€him€on€leave€withoutÏpay.ÌÌà àThe€superintendent€presented€the€charges€against€plaintiffÏto€the€Board€and€recommended€that€the€Board€dismiss€plaintiff€fromÏhis€employment.€€Subsequently,€the€superintendent€notifiedÏplaintiff€in€writing€that€the€Board€€had€voted€that,€if€true,€theÏcharges€against€plaintiff€warranted€his€dismissal.€€Along€with€theÏnotification,€the€superintendent€supplied€plaintiff€with€a€copy€ofÏthe€charges€that€the€superintendent€had€forwarded€to€the€Board€andÏa€copy€of€a€memorandum€furnished€by€the€Commissioner€of€EducationÏfor€the€State€of€Tennessee€regarding€plaintiff's€right€to€demand€aÏhearing.€Ì€Ìà àPlaintiff€requested€a€hearing€before€the€Board€on€theÏcharges.€€Thereafter,€the€Board€voted€to€have€an€ALJ€hear€theÏcase.€€Before€the€hearing,€plaintiff€filed€a€complaint€forÏdeclaratory€judgment€and€injunctive€relief.€€Plaintiff€asked€theÏcourt€to€issue€a€restraining€order€enjoining€the€Board€from€usingÏan€ALJ.€€Plaintiff€claimed€that€the€use€of€the€ALJ€as€proposed€byÏthe€Board€violated€the€provisions€of€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€49„5„512€and€plaintiff's€right€to€due€process.€€ÌÌà àOn€6€October€1995,€the€court€entered€a€memorandum€opinion.ÏThe€court€held€that€the€Board,€not€the€superintendent,€had€theÍauthority€to€terminate€plaintiff.€€In€addition,€it€held€thatÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€49„5„512€contemplates€that€theÏhearing€will€be€before€the€Board,€not€an€ALJ.€€The€court€also€heldÏthat€title€7,€chapter€7€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€does€not€allowÏthe€Board€to€use€an€ALJ€because€the€act€only€applies€to€"appellateÏboards."€€On€that€same€day,€the€court€entered€an€order€restrainingÏand€enjoining€the€Board€from€having€an€ALJ€conduct€a€contestedÏcase€hearing€on€the€charges€against€plaintiff.€€The€court€didÏnote,€however,€that€the€Board€could€conduct€the€hearing€itself€asÏlong€as€the€hearing€was€in€compliance€with€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€49„5„512.ÌÌà àOn€2€November€1995,€plaintiff€filed€a€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment.€€The€Board€filed€a€response€and€a€cross„motion€forÏsummary€judgment.€€As€stated€by€the€court,€the€only€issueÏremaining€was:€€"Is€the€Metropolitan€Board€of€Education€authorizedÏto€have€an€administrative€law€judge€conduct€Mr.€Morris'€dismissalÏhearing?"€€On€8€January€1996,€the€court€entered€its€final€judgmentÏgranting€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€plaintiff.€€The€court€foundÏas€follows:ÌÓÓà8 à€€That€the€Metropolitan€Board€of€Education€cannotÏhave€an€administrative€law€judge€conduct€a€hearingÏthat€the€Metropolitan€Board€of€Education€could€relyÏupon€to€dismiss€the€Plaintiff.€€The€recentlyÏenacted€statute,€T.C.A.€ðð€7„7„105,€only€authorizesÏadministrative€law€judges€to€conduct€hearings€onÏmatters€appealed€to€boards€and€commissions€of€theÏcounty.€€The€hearing€that€is€contemplated€beforeÏthe€Metropolitan€Board€of€Education€would€not€be€anÏappeal€to€a€board€or€commission€because€Title€49€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Code€provides€that€only€theÍMetropolitan€Board€of€Education€has€the€authorityÏto€dismiss€Mr.€Morris.€€Therefore,€anÏadministrative€law€judge€may€not€conduct€Mr.ÏMorris'€dismissal€hearing.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThereafter,€the€Board€filed€a€timely€notice€of€appeal€andÏpresented€the€following€issues:ÌÓÓà8 à€€1.€€Title€49€provides€that€it€is€the€duty€of€theÏschool€superintendent€to€dismiss€non„tenuredÏteachers€when€appropriate.€€Title€49€provides€thatÏit€is€the€duty€of€the€Board€of€Education€to€dismissÏtenured€teachers.€€In€each€case,€the€teacher€mustÏhave€an€opportunity€to€be€heard.€€Must€a€hearing€beÏconducted€by€the€Board€of€Education€before€a€non„tenured€teacher€may€be€dismissed?ÌÌà8 à€€2.€€Section€7„7„105€of€the€Tennessee€Code€permitsÏcounty€boards,€such€as€the€Board€of€Education,€toÏuse€administrative€law€judges€to€hear€mattersÏappealed€to€the€boards.€€Does€Title€49's€hearingÏrequirement€prohibit€the€Board€of€Education€fromÏusing€an€administrative€law€judge,€as€expresslyÏpermitted€in€section€7„7„105,€to€hear€an€appealÏfrom€a€dismissal€of€a€non„tenured€teacher?ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àWe€respectfully€disagree€with€the€trial€court'sÏdetermination€that€only€the€Board€had€the€authority€to€dismissÏplaintiff.€€Plaintiff€is€a€non„tenured€teacher.€€The€GeneralÏAssembly€has€provided€that€the€superintendent,€not€the€Board,€hasÏthe€authority€and€duty€to€dismiss€non„tenured€teachers.× ƒ0 ××  ×€ÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€49„2„301(f)(31)€providesÏthat€the€Board€is€to€assign€the€superintendent€the€duty€ofÏdismissing€certain€personnel€except€those€covered€under€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€49„2„203(a)(1)€and€title€49,€chapter€5,Ïpart€5.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ49„2„301(f)(31)(1996).›€œ€Tennessee›€CodeÏAnnotated€section€49„2„203(a)(1)€provides:ÌÓÓà8 à(a)€It€is€the€duty€of€the€local€board€of€educationÏto:Ìà à€Ìà8 à(1)€.€.€.€Elect,€upon€the€recommendation€of€theÏsuperintendent,€teachers€who€have€attained€or€areÏeligible€for€tenure€and€fix€the€salaries€of€andÏmake€written€contracts€with€such€teachers.ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€49„2„203(a)(1)(1996).€€ÓÓThis€section€applies€onlyÏto€tenured€teachers.€€The€references€to€personnel€in€title€49,Ïchapter€5,€part€5€are€also€to€tenured€teachers.€€œMoreover,€the›Ïattorney€general€has€œopined›€that€title€49€permits€superintendentsÏto€hire,€fire,€transfer€or€suspend€employees€other€than€tenuredÏteachers€without€school€board€approval.€€Tenn.€Op.€Atty.€Gen.€No.Ï93„66€(1993).€€We€agree€with€this€œopinion.ÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€49„2„301(f)(33)Ïestablishes€the€procedure€that€the€superintendent€must€followÍbefore€dismissing€employees€under€the€superintendent'sÏjurisdiction.€€First,€the€employee€must€receive€written€notice€ofÏthe€charges.€€Second,€the€superintendent€must€provide€the€accusedÏan€opportunity€to€defend€himself.›€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€49„2„301(f)(33)(1996).ÌÌà àRecently,€the€United€States€District€Court€for€the€EasternÏDistrict€of€Tennessee€entered€a€Memorandum€Opinion€in€a€caseÏinvolving€similar€facts.€€òòò òMoore€v.€Board€of€Educ.óóó ó,€No.€2:94„CV„274€(E.D.€Tenn.€23€Apr.€1996)€(Memorandum€Opinion).€€Specifically,Ïthe€district€court€addressed€the€plaintiff's€claim€that€theÏprocedures€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€49„2„301(f)(33)€failed€to€satisfy€due€process€requirements.€€In€ò òòòMooreó óóó,Ïthe€superintendent€gave€the€teacher€written€notice€of€the€chargeÏagainst€her€and€an€opportunity€to€defend€herself€in€a€hearingÏbefore€the€superintendent.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€5„7.€€Like€the€plaintiff€inÏthis€case,€the€teacher€was€represented€by€an€attorney.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€4.€ÏThe€district€court€considered€the€teacher's€claim€that€she€hadÏbeen€denied€due€process€and€held€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àIt€is€obvious€from€the€facts€that€[the€teacher]€wasÏgiven€a€pre„termination€"right€of€reply€hearing"Ïwith€the€essential€elements€of€due€process€asÏrequired€by€òòCleveland€Board€of€Education€v.ÏLoudermillóó,€470€U.S.€532€at€546,€105€S.Ct.€1487,€94ÏL.€Ed.€2d€494€(1985).€€She€was€given€written€noticeÏof€the€charges,€an€explanation€of€her€employer'sÏevidence,€and€an€opportunity€to€present€her€side€ofÏthe€story€at€a€hearing,€with€the€assistance€ofÏcounsel.Ìà à€€.€.€.€.€€Ìà8 à€€In€our€case,€it€is€clear€that€[the€teacher]€òòwasóóÏaccorded€the€termination€procedures€offered€to€non„tenured€teachers€under€the€Education€€ImprovementÏAct€of€1991.€€The€proof€was€that€[theÏsuperintendent]€relied€upon€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€49„2„301(f)(33)€.€.€.€.€[I]t€isÏclear€that€Ms.€Moore€received€the€process€to€whichÏshe€was€due€under€this€statute€.€.€.€.ÌÌò òòòÓÓId.ó óóó€at€13„16.€ÌÌà àThe€General€Assembly€has€given€the€board€of€education€theÏduty€of€dismissing€teachers.€€In€addition,€it€has€given€the€boardsÏthe€duty€to€assign€the€duty€of€terminating€non„tenured€teachers€toÏsuperintendents.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€49„2„203(a)(7)€&€„301(f)(31)Ï&€(33)(1996).€€It€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€these€sectionsÏreflect€the€General€Assembly's€intention€to€increase€theÏsuperintendent's€powers€to€administer€the€schools€and€must€includeÏthe€ability€to€dismiss€non„tenured€teachers.ÌÌà àIn€the€instant€case,€the€superintendent€gave€plaintiffÏwritten€notice€of€the€charges€against€him.€€The€superintendentÏalso€gave€plaintiff€an€opportunity€to€present€a€defense€at€aÏhearing.€€The€superintendent€conducted€a€hearing€on€1€August€1995Ïwhich€plaintiff€attended€with€his€attorney.€€After€plaintiff€wasÏgiven€written€notice€of€the€charges€against€him€and€a€hearing,€theÏsuperintendent€determined€that€plaintiff€should€be€dismissed.€ÏNevertheless,€he€did€not€dismiss€plaintiff.€€Instead,€he€simplyÏreferred€the€charges€to€the€Board€and€suspended€œplaintiff›€withoutÏpay.€€The€Board€insists€that€any€hearing€after€theÏsuperintendent's€action€would€be€in€the€nature€of€an€appeal.€ÍThus,€€the€Board€argued€that€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€7„7„105,€which€allows€administrative€agencies€to€use€ALJ's€to€hearÏmatters€appealed€to€them,€authorized€it€to€use€an€ALJ€to€conductÏthe€œhearing.›€€ÌÌà àThe€chancery€court€held€that€an€ALJ€could€not€conductÏplaintiff's€hearing.€€The€court€found€that€only€the€Board€couldÏdismiss€Mr.€Morris.€€Based€on€this€finding,€the€court€reasonedÏthat€the€hearing€before€the€Board€would€not€have€been€an€appeal.ÌÌà àWhile€we€agree€with€the€end€result€reached€by€the€court,€weÏcan€not€agree€with€the€reasoning.€€Clearly,€the€statutes€grant€theÏsuperintendent€the€authority€to€dismiss€non„tenured€teachers€suchÏas€Mr.€Morris.€€Ironically,€the€fact€is€that€in€this€case€theÏsuperintendent€€failed€to€exercise€that€authority.€€Instead,€heÏsimply€suspended€plaintiff€and€referred€the€charges€to€the€Board.€ÏThus,€this€is€not€an€appeal€because€neither€the€superintendent€norÏthe€Board€made€a€€decision€to€dismiss€plaintiff.€€That€is,Ïplaintiff€has€never€been€dismissed€on€the€charge€ofÏinsubordination.€€Because€the€hearing€œis›€not€œan›€appeal,€the€BoardÏmay€not€use€an€ALJ.ÌÌà àIn€conclusion,€it€is€the€opinion€of€œthis›€court€thatÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€49„2„301(f)€grantsÏsuperintendents€the€authority€to€dismiss€non„tenured€teachers.€€AÏsuperintendent€must,€however,€comply€with€the€proceduralÍrequirements€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€49„2„301(f)(33)€in€order€to€satisfy€due€process€requirements€whenÏexercising€that€authority.€€Finally,€as€to€the€present€case,€theÏBoard€can€not€use€an€ALJ€because€neither€the€superintendent€norÏthe€Board€terminated€Mr.€Morris.€Ìà àTherefore,€it€results€that€the€judgment€of€the€chanceryÏcourt€is€affirmed€in€results€only.€€We€note€that€this€decisionÏdoes€not€in€any€way€œaffect›€any€other€rights€plaintiff€may€haveÏagainst€the€Board.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€toÏœdefendant/appellant,›€The€Board€of€Education€of€the€MetropolitanÏNashville€Public€Schools,€and€the€cause€is€remanded€to€theÏchancery€court€for€any€further€necessary€proceedings.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌÌÌÌœWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌDISSENTING€IN€SEPARATE€OPINIONÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ