ÿWPC  Fœ©x§÷R¯S%^±‚‘òq°®¥3ƒé)Ûr¡Ä~i½h©@Ù²Ø\’žä¾À‡ëq™¨r­KCÇä2P’¼ x¨èe( -iÕ²çËÛ†ã8²—À½Ñ¨1‰çæ;–Õ¾´ÚèE¿I°¥r”Í=Ž%YÖƒÝhô9^C ßÅôI&KÔÌ䀛« ]iè‚ û¥A êƒÓÒÊ!z‹–°‚Ÿ5ü8žY)Zú›ƒ*ñ¦:H ˆïˆDBŒ5Ï*YÕñ$ňŒÚ|³¼4æ2-p°d¤*k‘A-®Ê‡ïC€TåsüÕÙl̳"1v)úI·[Pˆ”Ùë%1³:Éç¾*ø3‘"9I"ÿ7!®¢%8šÉä±ø˜KÈ6×;È«ÿÌŒ=ºèœkÎûÊ»x´ŒÕçÛlc]ÕK€µM{¾è|mp„8q™J¹L´™µ\› ÙÈ<’éÅ/¡ª¤qÕt̳:RJÊ&E9<êÕÍøÅ;llïý\Öõ»¯«à,k‰£%ÛŽ°”ìc¿â!çC Qz§T<1asJïI(<³¸æ„úcôåÔ >¿ýøõ"ô…Šc‹M÷‚ü%¼åTTý®û>¬7\îb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U*N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz z Æ‘ ÆW Æ Æã 0D©NííUNïE=? GePPµJËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËb 0ë B 0¤% D3É D-ü 0K)) AStÆÇ 0¤ 0D1 A«u˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»ŽxP-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularš‚,-r¦ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular  ÿÝ ƒRcY$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôêÍò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThroughout€the€record€on€appeal,€Mr.€Howellððs€position€with€the€Department€of€Narcotics€and€Vice€is€referredÐ ° Ðto€as€both€Deputy€Administrator€and€Deputy€Chief.€€After€examining€the€record,€we€can€find€no€distinction€between€theÐ tÄ Ðtwo€labels€for€the€position,€and,€therefore,€to€maintain€consistency,€will€refer€to€the€position€as€Deputy€Chief.€€ [Ý ƒRcY$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôêÍò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔUnder€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„9„114,€hearings€which€affect€the€employment€status€of€a€civil€service€employee€Ð ° Ðby€local€government€civil€service€boards€are€to€be€conducted€pursuant€to€the€Uniform€Administrative€Procedures€Act,Ð tÄ Ðand€judicial€review€of€decisions€resulting€from€such€hearings€ð ðshall€be€in€conformity€with€the€judicial€review€standardsÐ 8ˆ Ðunder€the€Uniform€Administrative€Procedures€Act,€ðð€4„5„322.ðð Ñ ° Ñ @Ý ƒRcY$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôêÍò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€are€unable€to€ascertain€from€the€administrative€record€the€exact€dollar€amount€of€the€reduction€of€Mr.Ð ° ÐHowellððs€pay€that€resulted€from€his€return€to€patrolman€status.€€- ù-(|G2cY$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Hm»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôêÍò»»Ô d(|3 Y$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Hm»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 Y$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Hm»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Hm»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Hm»»»ÔÑ8€ XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÑ€OYÑà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îN”HmÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Hm»îîN”#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€December€11,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡X X»¼HmÔÌò òÔ#†¼Hm»XX #ÔROBIN€A.€HOWELL€v.€CITY€OF€COLUMBIAÔ‡X X»¼HmÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Maury€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€93„654€€€€€€Jim€T.€Hamilton,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„00620„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€16,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓPetitioner,€a€police€officer,€filed€a€petition€in€Maury€County€Chancery€Court€pursuant€to€Tenn.€CodeÐ xÈ  ÐAnn.€ðð€4„5„322€seeking€review€of€a€decision€of€the€Civil€Service€Board€for€the€City€of€Columbia.€Ð d´ ÐAfter€the€Department€of€Narcotics€and€Vice,€including€Petitionerððs€position€as€Deputy€Chief,€wasÐ P  Ðabolished€by€city€ordinance,Ô#†¼Hm»XX {#ÔÔ‡X X»¼HmÔ€the€Civil€Service€Board€determined€that€the€City€Manager€was€justifiedÐ <Œ Ðin€returning€Petitioner€to€his€previously€held€position€with€the€City€of€Columbia€Police€DepartmentÐ (x Ðas€a€patrolman€at€a€lower€rate€of€pay.€€The€court€dismissed€the€petition€finding€that€the€actions€of€theÐ d ÐCity€did€not€contravene€the€City€Charter€or€deny€the€Petitioner€due€process€of€law.€€We€affirm€theÐ P Ðdecision€of€the€trial€court.Ð ì< ÐÓ¸ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ Ä ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ ° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Hm»àX m#ÔÔ‡X X.¼HmÔPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen€H.€Ô_ÔCantrellÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€M.S.,óóÐ ˆØ Ðand€òòWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð tÄ ÐÌGary€Howell,€Columbia,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Robin€A.€Howell.Ð L œ ÐÌPatrick€A.€Flynn,€Columbia,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€City€of€Columbia.Ð $"t! ÐÓ$ Óò òÌOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Hm»XX S #ÔÔ‡X X»¼HmÔÐ ü#L# ÐÌÓ  Óà  àIn€1989,€the€City€of€Columbia€created€a€new€division€within€its€police€department,€theÐ Ô%$!% ÐNarcotics€and€Vice€Department.€Ô#†¼Hm»XX o #ÔÔ‡X X»¼HmÔ€Ô#†¼Hm»XX i #ÔÔ‡X X»¼HmÔRobin€Howell,€a€patrolman€with€the€City€of€Columbia€PoliceÐ À&"& ÐDepartment,€was€appointed€Deputy€Chief׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€of€the€newly„created€division.€€Ô#†¼Hm»XX ¬ #ÔÔ‡X X»¼HmÔIn€1993,€the€City€abolishedÐ ¬'ü"' Ðâ âthe€Narcotics€and€Vice€Department€in€its€entirety€and€abolished€all€positions€therein.Ô#†¼Hm»XX × #ÔÔ‡X X»¼HmÔ€€As€a€result,€Mr.Ð ˜(è#(ý ÐÑOYÑâ âѰ°Ñâ âÑ  ÑÔ_ÔHowell€was€returned€to€his€former€position€with€the€Police€Department€as€a€patrolman€and€his€payÐ ° Ðwas€reduced.Ð œì Ðâ âÔ#†¼Hm»XX ©#ÔÔ‡X X»¼HmÔà  àMr.€Howell€then€requested€and€was€granted€a€hearing€before€the€Civil€Service€Board€for€theÐ ˆØ ÐCity€of€Columbia€(ð ðBoardðð).€€At€the€hearing,€Mr.€Howell€argued€that€although€the€City€could€legallyÐ tÄ Ðreturn€him€to€the€position€of€patrolman€after€the€abolition€of€the€Department€of€Narcotics€and€Vice,Ð `° Ðhe€was€entitled€to€continue€to€receive€the€Deputy€Chief€salary.€€In€addition,€he€attempted€to€proveÐ L œ ÐthatÔ#†¼Hm»XX #ÔÔ‡X X»¼HmÔ€after€the€Department€of€Narcotics€and€Vice€was€abolished,€a€position€for€a€Sergeant€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðadvertised€by€the€Police€Department€and€that€the€job€description€of€the€Sergeant€position€wasÐ $ t Ðidentical€to€that€of€the€Deputy€Chief€of€Narcotics€and€Vice.€€He€asserted€he€should€have€beenÐ  ` Ðlaterally€transferred€into€that€position.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€City€argued€that:€(1)€the€City€followed€its€own€ordinances€in€abolishing€the€DepartmentÐ Ô$  Ðof€Narcotics€and€Vice€and€returning€Mr.€Howell€to€his€former€position€at€his€former€rate€of€pay;€(2)Ð À  Ðthe€job€description€for€Sergeant€is€different€from€that€of€the€abolished€Deputy€Chief€position;€(3)Ð ¬ü  ÐSection€6.13€of€the€Charter€did€not€require€the€City€to€offer€Mr.€Howell€any€employment€with€theÐ ˜è  ÐColumbia€Police€Department€after€the€abolition€of€the€Department€of€Narcotics€and€Vice€or€to€placeÐ „Ô  ÐMr.€Howell€in€a€different€position;€and€(4)€Mr.€Howell€had€no€vested€interest€in€the€salary€he€wasÐ pÀ Ðdrawing€as€Deputy€Chief€of€the€Department€of€Narcotics€and€Vice€at€the€time€the€department€wasÐ \¬ Ðabolished.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àAt€the€close€of€the€hearing,€the€hearing€officer€framed€the€issue€before€the€Board€as€follows:€Ð  p ÐÌà8  àThe€question€before€the€board€today€is€whether€or€not€the€City€manager€of€the€CityÐ øH Ðof€Columbia,€Tennessee€was€justified€in€his€decision€to€place€Officer€Robin€HowellÐ ä4 Ðback€in€his€position€previously€held€in€the€police€department,€that€being€the€positionÐ Ð  ÐofÔ#†¼Hm»XX ;#ÔÔ‡X X»¼HmÔ€Ô#†¼Hm»XX 8#ÔÔ‡X X»¼HmÔpatrolman€at€the€wage€of€patrolman€as€opposed€to€the€previous€wage€that€he€heldÐ ¼  Ðwhen€he€was€within€the€department€of€narcotics€and€vice€and€served€under€theÐ ¨ø Ðcapacity€of€a€lieutenantððs€wage.Ô#†¼Hm»XX {#ÔДäÐ Ð  ÐÔ€X X»¼HmÔÌThe€Board€unanimously€upheld€the€action€of€the€City€in€reinstating€Mr.€Howell€in€his€previousÐ l¼ Ðposition€as€patrolman€at€the€salary€applicable€to€that€position.Ð X ¨ ÐÌÓ  ÓI.€€The€LawsuitÐ 0"€  ÐÓ¬ÓÌà  àThereafter,€Mr.€Howell€sought€judicial€review€of€the€Boardððs€decision€pursuant€to€Tenn.Ð $X" ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€4„5„322.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€His€petition€was€filed€November€22,€1993.€€After€the€City€failed€to€respond,Ð ô$D # Ðin€August€of€1994€Mr.€Howell€filed€a€motion€for€default€judgment.€€The€City€answered€the€petitionÐ à%0!$ Ðon€August€18,€1994,€but€failed€to€file€the€administrative€record€with€the€trial€court,€which€is€requiredÐ Ì&"% Ðby€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„5„322(d).€€No€further€activity€occurred€for€almost€three€years.€€The€recordÐ ° Ðthen€includes€a€notice€to€all€parties,€dated€June€1997,€that€an€order€of€dismissal€for€failure€toÐ œì Ðprosecute€would€be€entered€unless€a€party€took€action€to€set€the€case€for€trial€or€otherwise€move€itÐ ˆØ Ðtoward€conclusion€by€a€specified€deadline.€€The€record€does€not€reveal€what€action,€if€any,€either€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€parties€took,€but€also€does€not€include€an€order€dismissing€the€case€for€failure€to€prosecute.€€NoÐ `° Ðfurther€activity€occurred€until€Mr.€Howell€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€December€7,Ð L œ Ð1999,€based€on€the€failure€of€the€City€to€file€the€administrative€record€prior€to€January€8,€1994.€TheÐ 8 ˆ Ðtrial€court€granted€the€motion€for€summary€judgment,€but€later€set€aside€the€judgment€stating€theÐ $ t Ðorder€was€erroneously€entered€and€ð ðshould€not€have€been€entered.ðð€€The€court€then€allowed€the€CityÐ  ` Ðtwenty€(20)€additional€days€in€which€to€file€the€record.€€The€administrative€record€was€filed€withinÐ ü L  Ðthe€time€limitation€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€Mr.€Howell€asserts€that€he€was€entitled€to€judgment€due€to€the€Cityððs€failure€toÐ À  Ðfile€the€administrative€record€and€the€delay€he€suffered€therefrom.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„5„322(d)Ð ¬ü  Ðprovides:Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  àWithin€forty„five€(45)€days€after€service€of€the€petition,€òòor€within€further€timeÐ pÀ Ðallowed€by€the€courtóó,€the€agency€shall€transmit€to€the€reviewing€court€the€original€orÐ \¬ Ða€certified€copy€of€the€entire€record€of€the€proceeding€under€review.€.€.€.ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌ(emphasis€added).Ð  p ÐÌà  àObviously,€the€City€did€not€file€the€record€within€the€forty„five€(45)€days€established€byÐ øH Ðstatute.€€Nonetheless,€the€language€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„5„322(d)€allows€the€time€limitation€forÐ ä4 Ðfiling€the€administrative€record€to€be€extended€by€the€court.€€Whether€and€how€much€to€extend€theÐ Ð  Ðdeadline€are€questions€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€court.€€Because€the€review€conducted€by€the€trialÐ ¼  Ðcourt€pursuant€to€the€APA€is€based€solely€on€a€review€of€the€record,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„5„322,€fullÐ ¨ø Ðconsideration€of€the€merits€of€the€controversy€can€only€be€obtained€if€the€record€is€filed.€€The€trialÐ ”ä Ðcourtððs€action€in€setting€aside€the€judgment€against€the€City€and€imposing€a€short€time€for€filing€theÐ €Ð Ðrecord€was€designed€to€allow€review€on€the€merits,€but€without€further€undue€delay.€€It€accomplishedÐ l¼ Ðthose€purposes.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€record€reveals€a€six„year€delay€from€the€filing€of€Mr.€Howellððs€petition€for€judicialÐ 0"€  Ðreview€to€his€filing€of€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€due€to€the€Cityððs€failure€to€file€the€record.€Ð #l! ÐDuring€that€time,€Mr.€Howellððs€case€was€subject€to€dismissal€at€least€once€for€failure€to€prosecute.€Ð $X" ÐHe€survived€that€dismissal,€but€did€not€bring€the€Cityððs€failure€to€file€the€record€to€the€attention€ofÐ ô$D # Ðthe€trial€court€during€that€time.€€Mr.€Howell€has€not€demonstrated€that€he€suffered€any€prejudice€toÐ à%0!$ Ðhis€lawsuit€because€the€record€from€the€administrative€hearing€was€preserved€and€intact.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àConsequently,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€properly€exercised€its€discretion€in€denyingÐ ¤(ô#' Ðjudgment€to€Mr.€Howell€and€allowing€the€controversy€to€proceed€to€determination€on€its€merits.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àAfter€the€administrative€record€was€filed,€both€parties€submitted€short,€informal€statementsÐ ° Ðâ âof€their€positions€to€the€trial€court€and€agreed€to€submit€the€case€to€the€court€for€a€determination€ofÐ œì Ðwhether€Mr.€Howell€was€entitled€to€continue€to€receive€the€salary€of€Deputy€Chief€of€Narcotics€andÐ ˆØ ÐVice€after€the€City€of€Columbia€abolished€that€position€and€the€entire€department€and€returned€Mr.Ð tÄ ÐHowell€to€his€former€position€of€patrolman.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Mr.€Howell€was€not€entitledÐ `° Ðto€retain€the€higher€salary€after€his€position€was€abolished.Ð L œ ÐÌÓ  ÓII.€€Evidence€at€the€Civil€Service€Board€HearingÐ $ t ÐÓP0ÓÌà  àThis€appeal€involves€the€review€of€a€decision€of€the€Civil€Service€Board€for€the€City€ofÐ ü L  ÐColumbia.€€Ô‡X XXX ÔIn€a€proceeding€for€judicial€review€of€an€administrative€decision€resulting€from€aÐ è 8  Ðcontested€case€hearing€under€the€Administrative€Procedures€Act,€such€review€is€generally€confinedÐ Ô$  Ðto€the€record€of€the€proceedings€in€the€administrative€agency.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„5„322€(g).€€Thus,Ð À  Ðwe€begin€with€the€facts€revealed€in€the€record€of€the€hearing€before€the€Board€on€September€21,Ð ¬ü  Ð1993.Ô#†X XXX 61#ÔÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àAt€the€hearing,€various€exhibits€were€introduced€through€stipulation,€including€minutes€ofÐ pÀ Ðprevious€Board€meetings,€a€portion€of€the€City€Charter,€the€ordinance€abolishing€the€Department€ofÐ \¬ ÐNarcotics€and€Vice,€the€job€description€of€Deputy€Chief€of€that€department,€and€a€personnel€actionÐ H˜ Ðform€concerning€Officer€Howell.€€James€Boyd,€the€police€chief,€was€called€as€a€witness€by€Mr.Ð 4„ ÐHowell€to€testify€regarding€the€Sergeant€position€which€was€advertised€after€the€Narcotics€and€ViceÐ  p ÐDepartment€was€abolished.€€The€job€description€for€the€Sergeant€position€was€also€introduced€intoÐ  \ Ðevidence.€€The€facts€regarding€the€establishment€and€abolition€of€the€position€of€Deputy€Chief€of€theÐ øH ÐDepartment€of€Narcotics€and€Vice€must€be€gleaned€from€the€exhibits.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àOn€January€1,€1989,€Robin€Howell,€a€patrolman€with€the€City€of€Columbia€PoliceÐ ¼  ÐDepartment,€was€appointed€Deputy€Chief€of€the€newly„created€Narcotics€and€Vice€Department.€Ð ¨ø ÐAccording€to€the€minutes€of€the€December€27,€1988€meeting€of€the€Board,€permission€was€given€onÐ ”ä Ðthat€date€to€ð ðhire€for€ninety€daysðð€and€come€back€before€the€Board.€€The€subject€of€that€position€wasÐ €Ð Ðre„visited€at€the€April€25,€1989€meeting,€wherein€the€following€took€place.Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àMr.€Dickey€[a€Board€member]€asked€if€the€position€in€the€Narcotics€and€ViceÐ D!” ÐDepartment€which€was€filled€by€Robin€Howell€was€a€temporary€appointment.€€Mr.Ð 0"€  ÐGentner€[the€City€Manager]€stated€that€this€is€not€temporary,€but€a€full„timeÐ #l! Ðappointment.€€Mr.€Gentner€further€stated€that€the€Narcotics€and€Vice€Department€willÐ $X" Ðbe€evaluated€by€the€City€Council€at€the€end€of€three€years€to€determine€if€theÐ ô$D # Ðdepartment€will€remain€or€be€dissolved€and€that,€if€this€department€is€dissolved,€bothÐ à%0!$ ÐFrank€Duncan€[Chief€of€the€Narcotics€and€Vice€Department]€and€Robin€HowellÐ Ì&"% Ðwould€be€returned€to€their€former€positions€and€that€both€men€understood€thisÐ ¸'#& Ðpossibility€at€the€time€they€were€given€their€present€appointments.Ф(ô#'Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThere€is€some€question€about€the€regularity€of€Mr.€Howellððs€appointment€to€Deputy€Chief.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐApparently,€the€Board€circumvented€the€normal€Civil€Service€operating€procedure,€including€testing,Ð h+¸&* Ðbecause€of€the€nature€of€the€new€divisionððs€activities€and€because€of€the€new€Chiefððs€request€that€Mr.Ð ° ÐHowell€be€placed€in€that€position€because€he€was€a€person€that€the€Chief€trusted.€€In€any€event,€at€theÐ œì ÐMay€16,€1989€Board€meeting,€the€Director,€or€Chief,€of€the€Narcotics€and€Vice€Department€appearedÐ ˆØ Ðand€requested€that€Mr.€Howell€be€placed€on€permanent€status€in€the€position€of€Deputy€Chief€whichÐ tÄ Ðhe€had€held€on€a€temporary€basis€since€January€1.€€The€request€was€approved.€€The€City€does€notÐ `° Ðdispute€that€Mr.€Howell€was€given€full€civil€service€status.€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àOn€March€4,€1993,€the€Columbia€City€Council€passed€ordinance€number€1922,€abolishingÐ $ t Ðthe€Narcotics€and€Vice€Department€in€its€entirety.€€The€ordinance€stated,€in€pertinent€part:Ð  ` ÐÌà8  àSection€1:€That€the€Department€of€Narcotics€and€Vice€having€heretofore€been€createdÐ è 8  Ðin€the€organization€of€the€City€of€Columbia,€Tennessee,€be€and€is€now€abolishedÐ Ô$  Ðeffective€July€1,€1993.ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àSection€2:€That€as€of€July€1,€1993,€the€Department€of€Narcotics€and€Vice€shall€turnÐ ˜è  Ðover€to€the€Columbia€Police€Department€all€duties€and€responsibilities€that€saidÐ „Ô  ÐDepartment€of€Narcotics€and€Vice€had€previously€exercised€and€that€all€positions€inÐ pÀ Ðsaid€Department€of€Narcotics€and€Vice€will€be€abolished.€€Ð\¬Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€April€of€1993,€the€City€of€Columbia€advertised€a€job€opening€for€a€Sergeant€in€the€PoliceÐ 4„ ÐDepartment.€€Mr.€Howell€did€not€formally€apply€for€the€position€or€take€the€required€test€in€order€toÐ  p Ðbe€eligible€for€this€position.€€He€did,€however,€request€that€the€Chief€of€Police€laterally€transfer€himÐ  \ Ðto€the€Sergeantððs€position.€€The€Chief€testified€that€he,€in€turn,€forwarded€that€request€on€to€the€CivilÐ øH ÐService€Board.€€Mr.€Howell€did€not€receive€the€Sergeant€position.€€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àAt€the€hearing€which€is€the€subject€of€this€appeal,€the€Chief€of€Police€of€the€Columbia€PoliceÐ ¼  ÐDepartment,€James€Boyd,€testified€regarding€the€differences€in€the€Deputy€Chief€of€Narcotics€andÐ ¨ø ÐVice€position€and€the€Sergeantððs€position.€€Chief€Boyd€stated€that€the€Deputy€Chief€position€wasÐ ”ä Ðlimited€to€narcotics€and€vice€duties€while€the€Sergeant€position€would€include€supervisory,€payroll€Ð €Ð Ðand€patrol€responsibilities€that€were€not€a€part€of€the€Deputy€Chief€position.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àAs€a€result€of€the€passage€of€the€ordinance€and€the€abolition€of€the€Department€of€NarcoticsÐ D!” Ðand€Vice,€the€Board€returned€Mr.€Howell€to€his€former€position€with€the€Police€Department€as€aÐ 0"€  Ðpatrolman.€€As€a€result€of€Mr.€Howellððs€return€to€the€position€of€patrolman,€his€pay€was€reduced€fromÐ #l! ÐLevel€12,€Step€6€to€Level€9,€Step€7.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð $X" ÐÌÓ  ÓIII.€€Standard€of€Review€Under€the€APAÐ à%0!$ ÐÌÓ‡JÓà  àThe€standard€of€review€in€this€matter€is€governed€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„9„114(b)(1),Ð ¸'#& Ðwhich€provides€as€follows:Ð ¤(ô#' Їà8  àJudicial€review€of€decisions€by€civil€service€boards€of€a€county€or€municipality€whichÐ ° Ðaffects€the€employment€status€of€a€county€or€city€civil€service€employee€shall€be€inÐ œì Ðconformity€with€the€judicial€review€standards€under€the€Uniform€AdministrativeÐ ˆØ ÐProcedures€Act,€ðð€4„5„322.€€ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„5„322(h)€states€that€a€reviewing€court€may€reverse€or€modify€theÐ L œ ÐBoardððs€decision€if€the€boardððs€findings€or€conclusions€are:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  à(1)€In€violation€of€constitutional€or€statutory€provisions;Ð `Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(2)€In€excess€of€the€statutory€authority€of€the€agency;Ðü L Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(3)€Made€upon€unlawful€procedure;Ðè 8 Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(4)€Arbitrary€or€capricious€or€characterized€by€abuse€of€discretion€or€clearlyÐ Ô$  Ðunwarranted€exercise€of€discretion;€orÐÀ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(5)€Unsupported€by€evidence€which€is€both€substantial€and€material€in€the€light€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðentire€record.€€Ð˜è Ð Ð  Ðà8  àIn€determining€the€substantiality€of€evidence,€the€court€shall€take€into€accountÐ „Ô  Ðwhatever€in€the€record€fairly€detracts€from€its€weight,€but€the€court€shall€notÐ pÀ Ðsubstitute€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€agency€as€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence€onÐ \¬ Ðquestions€of€fact.€ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€its€ruling€herein,€the€trial€court€stated,€à8 @Ì àð ð[t]he€City€Council,€pursuant€to€Article€XVI€of€theÐ  p ÐCharter€of€the€City€of€Columbia,€Section€16.02,€has€the€authority€to€combine€or€abolish€existingÐ  \ Ðdepartments.ðð€€On€appeal,€Mr.€Howell€concedes€that€the€City€had€a€right€to€abolish€the€departmentÐ øH Ðand€his€position.€€However,€he€asserts€that€his€position€was€not€really€abolished;€instead,€his€dutiesÐ ä4 Ðwere€transferred€to€the€police€department.€€Consequently,€he€argues,€the€City€merely€undertook€aÐ Ð  Ðreorganization.€€The€result,€according€to€Mr.€Howell,€is€that€he€could€not€have€been€removed€fromÐ ¼  Ðhis€position€and,€instead,€should€have€been€transferred€along€with€the€duties€to€the€new€SergeantÐ ¨ø Ðposition.€€He€relies€upon€the€following€excerpt€from€a€treatise€on€municipal€law:Ð ”ä ÐÌà8  à[T]he€abolition€of€the€position€cannot€be€used€as€a€subterfuge€to€remove€a€policeÐ l¼ Ðofficer€or€firefighter€other€than€as€required€by€law.€€Such€an€improper€subterfuge€isÐ X ¨ Ðattempted€where€an€old€position€is€abolished€and€a€new€one€created€which,€inÐ D!” Ðsubstance,€is€identical€to€the€old€one.€€Thus,€merely€changing€the€name€of€a€positionÐ 0"€  Ðand€transferring€its€duties€to€a€person€other€than€the€present€employee€does€not€in€factÐ #l! Ðabolish€the€office,€and€cannot€have€the€effect€of€removing€the€employee.Ð$X"Ð Ð  ÐÌòòEugene€McQuillinóó,€Tòòheóó€òòLaw€of€Municipal€Corporationsóó,€ðð€45.71€(3d€ed.€1984)€(citing€òòMillerÐ à%0!$ Ðv.€Stateóó,€249€Ala.€14,€29€So.€2d€411€(1947)).Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àHis€argument€in€this€regard€is€based€upon€his€factual€assertion€that€the€Sergeant€positionÐ ¤(ô#' Ðadvertised€a€month€after€passage€of€the€ordinance€abolishing€the€Narcotics€and€Vice€DepartmentÐ )à$( Ðincluded€the€duties€Mr.€Howell€performed€as€Deputy€Chief.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€City,€by€ordinance,€abolished€the€Department€of€Narcotics€andÐ ° ÐVice.€€The€trial€court€also€addressed€Mr.€Howellððs€argument€that€ð ðabolition€of€the€entire€DepartmentÐ œì Ðof€Narcotics€and€Vice€was€a€subterfuge€to€demote€Mr.€Howellðð€and€found:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àThere€is€simply€no€proof€anywhere€to€be€found€that€this€was€the€intent€of€the€council.€Ð `° ÐThere€was€no€new€position€created€that€was€identical€to€Mr.€Howellððs€old€positionÐ L œ Ðand€no€other€employee€was€transferred€to€fill€Mr.€Howellððs€old€position€because€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðposition€no€longer€existed.Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àWhere€a€factual€issue€exists,€both€the€trial€court€and€this€court€review€the€record€to€determineÐ ü L  Ðif€there€is€substantial€and€material€evidence€to€support€the€agencyððs€decision.€€òòCF€Indus.€v.€TennesseeÐ è 8  ÐPub.€Serv.€Commððnóó,€599€S.W.2d€536€(Tenn.€1980);€òòHumana€of€Tenn.€v.€Tennessee€Health€FacilitiesÐ Ô$  ÐCommððnóó,€551€S.W.2d€664€(Tenn.€1977).€€Substantial€and€material€evidence€is€such€as€a€reasonableÐ À  Ðmind€might€accept€to€support€a€conclusion€and€such€as€to€furnish€a€reasonably€sound€basis€for€theÐ ¬ü  Ðaction€under€consideration.€€òòSouthern€Ry.€v.€State€Bd.€Of€Equalizationóó,€682€S.W.2d€196€(Tenn.Ð ˜è  Ð1984).Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€record€herein€includes€the€job€descriptions€of€the€two€positions€as€well€as€the€testimonyÐ \¬ Ðof€the€Police€Chief€that€the€jobs€were€not€the€same€and€did€not€have€the€same€scope€ofÐ H˜ Ðresponsibilities.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€there€was€material€and€substantial€evidence€toÐ 4„ Ðsupport€the€Boardððs€implicit€conclusion€that€the€new€Sergeant€position€was€not€the€same€as€the€soon„Ð  p Ðto„be„abolished€Deputy€Chief€position.€€Further,€we€agree€there€is€no€factual€basis€for€any€conclusionÐ  \ Ðother€than€that€the€City€abolished€Mr.€Howellððs€former€position.€€By€ordinance,€the€City€abolishedÐ øH Ðnot€only€his€position€but€also€all€others€in€the€department€which€it€abolished.€€This€factual€scenarioÐ ä4 Ðdiffers€greatly€from€the€kind€of€situation€described€in€the€treatise€excerpt€relied€upon€by€Mr.€Howell.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àMr.€Howellððs€other€argument€is€that,€absent€misconduct,€the€City€could€not€reduce€a€civilÐ ¨ø Ðservice€employeeððs€pay,€unless€there€is€a€reduction€in€force.€€In€essence,€this€is€an€argument€that€heÐ ”ä Ðhad€a€property€interest€in€his€Deputy€Chiefððs€salary€that€could€only€be€taken€away€in€certainÐ €Ð Ðcircumstances.€€One€set€of€circumstances€involves€Section€6.13€of€the€Charter€of€the€City€ofÐ l¼ ÐColumbia,€which€states:Ð X ¨ ÐÌà8  àWhenever€it€may€be€deemed€to€be€in€the€interest€of€efficiency€or€economy€andÐ 0"€  Ðrecommended€by€the€City€Manager,€the€council€may€by€ordinance€provide€for€aÐ #l! Ðreduction€in€the€number€of€employees€in€any€department;€provided€however,€that€inÐ $X" Ðthe€event€of€any€such€reduction€in€the€number€of€Civil€Service€employees€therebyÐ ô$D # Ðrelieved€from€duty€in€any€particular€department€shall€be€the€ones€who€have€served€theÐ à%0!$ Ðshortest€period€of€time€in€that€department€when€such€abolition€or€reduction€occurs.€Ð Ì&"% ÐAny€Civil€Service€employee€thus€relieved€from€duty€shall€thereafter€be€givenÐ ¸'#& Ðpreference€in€filling€the€position€formerly€held€by€him€if€said€position€shall€beÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsubsequently€reinstated.€€Said€preference€shall€be€granted,€however,€only€after€saidÐ )à$( Ðemployee€shall€pass€the€examination€and€otherwise€meet€the€rules,€regulations€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðrequirements€prescribed€by€the€Civil€Service€Board.€€Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  Їà  àBased€on€this€provision,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€City€obviously€had€the€authority€toÐ ° Ðreduce€the€number€of€employees€in€any€department€so€long€as€the€Charter€was€followed.€€The€trialÐ œì Ðcourt€further€found,€however,€there€was€not€a€reduction€in€force€in€either€the€Department€of€NarcoticsÐ ˆØ Ðand€Vice€or€in€the€police€department€because€the€Department€of€Narcotics€and€Vice€was€abolished,Ð tÄ Ðand€the€Council€merely€transferred€the€three€employees€whose€positions€were€abolished€to€otherÐ `° Ðpositions€within€the€police€department.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€City€ð ðchose€to€transfer€theÐ L œ Ðaffected€employees€to€other€positions€rather€than€to€terminate€them€completely.€.€.€.ðð€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€City€has€asserted€that€the€abolition€of€the€positions€in€the€Department€of€Narcotics€andÐ  ` ÐVice€was€a€reduction€in€force€and€that€it€was€accomplished€in€compliance€with€Section€6.13.€€WeÐ ü L  Ðtend€to€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€Cityððs€action€herein€was€not€a€reduction€in€force€but,€rather,Ð è 8  Ðwas€an€abolition€of€an€operational€unit€and€all€positions€therein€pursuant€to€Section€16.02€of€theÐ Ô$  ÐCharter.€€In€any€event,€Mr.€Howell€does€not€argue€that€the€procedures€applicable€to€persons€whoÐ À  Ðsuffer€loss€of€a€position€due€to€a€reduction€in€force€were€not€followed.€€Instead,€he€once€again€assertsÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€the€new€Sergeant€position€was€ð ðin€substanceðð€identical€to€his€former€position€and,€therefore,Ð ˜è  Ðthere€was€not€a€reduction€in€force.€€Because€the€facts€support€the€conclusion€that€the€SergeantÐ „Ô  Ðposition€was€not€the€same€as€the€Deputy€Chief€of€Narcotics€and€Vice€position,€Mr.€HowellððsÐ pÀ Ðargument€lacks€a€factual€basis.€€To€the€extent€this€argument€is€really€an€argument€that€he€should€haveÐ \¬ Ðbeen€transferred€into€the€Sergeant€position,€it€is€undisputed€that€he€did€not€take€the€examination€forÐ H˜ Ðthat€position€as€is€required€by€Section€6.13.Ð 4„ ÐÌÓ  ÓIV.€€Due€ProcessÐ  \ ÐÌÓàrÓà  àMr.€Howell€asserts€that€while€it€is€within€the€purview€of€the€City€to€abolish€the€DepartmentÐ ä4 Ðof€Narcotics€and€Vice€and€return€Mr.€Howell€to€his€former€position€as€patrolman,€the€City€did€notÐ Ð  Ðhave€the€right€to€reduce€his€pay.€€Essentially,€the€crux€of€Mr.€Howellððs€argument€is€that€he€had€aÐ ¼  Ðproprietary€interest€in€his€salary€as€Deputy€Chief€that€could€not€be€taken€away€without€due€process.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àTo€sustain€a€due€process€claim,€Mr.€Howell€must€first€demonstrate€that€he€has€a€propertyÐ €Ð Ðinterest€sufficient€to€trigger€the€procedural€safeguards.€€òòBoard€of€Regents€v.€Rothóó,€408€U.S.€564,€571„Ð l¼ Ð73,€92€S.€Ct.€2701,€2706„07€(1972).€€Following€the€United€States€Supreme€Court,€the€TennesseeÐ X ¨ ÐSupreme€Court€has€defined€constitutionally„protected€property€interests€as€follows:Ð D!” ÐÌà8  àThe€Fourteenth€Amendmentððs€procedural€protection€of€property€safeguards€theÐ #l! Ðsecurity€of€interests€that€a€person€has€already€acquired€in€specific€benefits.€€òòRothóó,€408€Ð $X" ÐU.S.€at€576,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2708.€€Property€interests€are€not€created€by€the€federalÐ ô$D # Ðconstitution.€€Instead,€they€are€created€and€defined€ð ðby€existing€rules€orÐ à%0!$ Ðunderstanding€that€stem€from€an€independent€source€such€as€state€law.ðð€€òòRothóó,€408Ð Ì&"% ÐU.S.€at€577,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2709.€€To€be€entitled€to€procedural€due€process€protection,Ð ¸'#& Ða€property€interest€must€be€more€than€a€ð ðunilateral€expectationðð€or€an€ð ðabstract€needÐ ¤(ô#' Ðor€desire.ðð€€It€must€be€a€ð ðlegitimate€claim€of€entitlementðð€to€a€specific€benefit.€€òòIdóó.€Ð )à$( ÐIndeed€it€is€the€purpose€of€the€ancient€institution€of€property€to€protect€thoseÐ |*Ì%) Ðexpectations€upon€which€people€rely€in€their€daily€lives.€€€Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  ЇòòRowe€v.€Board€of€Educ.óó,€938€S.W.2d€351,€354€(Tenn.€1996)€(citing€òòRothóó,€408€U.S.€at€569„70,€92€S.Ð ° ÐCt.€at€2705).Ð œì ÐÌà  àMr.€Howell€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€he€had€a€legitimate€claim€of€entitlement€to€continueÐ tÄ Ðbeing€paid€at€the€salary€attached€to€a€position€which€was€abolished.€€The€Cityððs€Charter€clearly€gaveÐ `° Ðit€the€authority€to€abolish€departments€and€the€positions€assigned€thereto.€€In€addition,€the€City€hadÐ L œ Ðauthority€to€reduce€the€number€of€City€employees.€€When€his€position€was€abolished,€Mr.€HowellÐ 8 ˆ Ðwould€have€been€without€a€job.€€The€fact€that€Mr.€Howell€was€given€back€his€former€position€ratherÐ $ t Ðthan€suffering€loss€of€employment€does€not€give€him€an€entitlement€to€his€former€salary.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àMr.€Howell€cannot€point€to€any€independent€source€of€an€entitlement€to€his€former€salary.€Ð è 8  ÐConsequently,€he€had€no€protected€property€interest.€€In€any€event,€he€was€given€a€hearing€before€theÐ Ô$  ÐBoard€which€determined€the€City€had€acted€in€compliance€with€governing€requirements.Ð À  ÐÌà@xx#ìàV.€€Conclusion€ˆÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.€€The€costs€of€this€appealÐ pÀ Ðare€taxed€to€the€appellant,€Robin€Howell,€for€which€execution€may€issue,€if€necessary.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌÌòòóóÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð  \ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÐ øH Ð