ÿWPC3 5# öUN %O 0(Uw@}4½Ñ 0là 0DL 0J˜ 0Tâ 0^6 0h” 0rü 0|n 0†ê 0p 1u 0du 0@Ù D3 BL U>i B)§ DCÐ AM AQ` Ʊ 0Dw 0D» D/ÿ B. U*K u ä|‚`v~âvÓ`˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ /0D12V3V4U5V6Ó€BEB\J#E!"3|xE((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd* 'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(Arial ýÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌò òNovember€14,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€/ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÚÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝLocastro€was€charged€with€violating€Sections€3.26€and€3.8€of€Article€III€of€the€FireÏDivision€Rules€and€Regulations.€€Section€3.26€provides:ÌÌà8 àà àNo€member€shall€be€in€possession€of,€or€use€illegal€drugs€as€forbidden€byÏlaw,€including€marijuana,€while€on€duty,€in€uniform,€or€on€city€property.ÌÌSection€3.8€provides:ÌÌà8 àà àAny€act€or€omission€contrary€to€good€order,€discipline,€or€accepted€socialÏpractice€may€subject€an€employee€to€disciplinary€action.€€When€an€employee€isÏunable€or€unwilling€to€perform€the€duties€of€his€position€in€a€satisfactory€manner,€orÏhas€omitted€any€act€or€acts€it€was€his€duty€to€perform€either€by€training€orÏexperience,€or€whose€service€is€below€satisfactory€standards,€or€whose€conduct€isÏunbecoming€an€employee€of€the€City€of€Memphis,€shall€be€subject€to€disciplinaryÏaction.Ì xÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWhile€the€notice€of€investigation€had€cited€Sections€3.26€and€3.8,€Locastroððs€terminationÏletter€actually€cited€Sections€3.4(5)€and€3.8€as€the€bases€for€his€termination.€€Even€though€the€letterÏcited€Section€3.4(5),€it€actually€quoted€Section€3.4(20),€not€3.4(5).€€Section€3.4(20)€is€clearly€theÏapplicable€Section,€and€it€provides:ÌÌà8 àà àDisciplinary€action€may€be€taken€for,€but€shall€not€be€limited€to€theÏfollowing€causes:ÌÌÓ  Ó***ÌÓ  ÓÌà8 àà à(20.)€€That€the€employee,€during€non„duty€hours,€has€engaged€in€anÏemployment,€activity,€or€enterprise€that€is€inconsistent,€incompatible,€or€in€moral,Ïlegal,€or€technical€conflict€with€his€duties,€functions,€and€responsibilities€as€a€cityÏemployee.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\Ñò òÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌà@ àò òWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSON€€€Ìà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌÌCITY€OF€MEMPHIS,€à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àó óPlaintiff/Appellee,€ò òà àà àà à)à àó óShelby€Chancery€No.€œ102642›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCIVIL€SERVICE€COMMISSION€OF€€à à)à àó óAppeal€No.€02A01„9607„CH„00158Ìò òœÙ€*ÙßR€(0'A1-j|]ù)` Å `€€@ÿRß›THE€CITY€OF€MEMPHIS,€ANDà àà à)ÌDAVID€LOCASTRO,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àDefendants/Appellant.à àò òà à)à àÌòòó óÌò òóóÌ€€€ÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€C.€NEAL€SMALL,€CHANCELLOR€€òòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appelleeóó:òòà àà àà àFor€the€Defendant/Appellantóó,€Ìòòà àà àà àà àà àà àDavid€Locastro:ÌóóÌMonice€Moore€Hagler€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€William€D.€Massey€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌAlicia€A.€Howard€€€€€à àà àà àà àMemphis,€Tennessee€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌMemphis,€TennesseeÌò òÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àREVERSEDÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ò òÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓÑ  ÑÑ7€Ü×XdðXXdð7Ñà0 àà àà@ àOPINIONó óÌÓ  Óà àThis€case€involves€the€review€of€a€decision€by€the€City€of€Memphis€Civil€ServiceÏCommission.€€A€firefighter€was€terminated€for€conduct€unbecoming€a€firefighter.€€The€CivilÏService€Commission€reinstated€the€employee,€and€the€trial€court€reversed€that€decision.€€We€findÏthat€the€decision€of€€the€Civil€Service€Commission€was€not€arbitrary€or€capricious€and€wasÏsupported€by€substantial€and€material€evidence.€€Consequently,€we€reverse€the€decision€of€the€trialÏcourt.€Ìà àOn€April€21,€1992,€officers€in€the€Memphis€Police€Departmentððs€Organized€Crime€UnitÏexecuted€a€search€warrant€at€the€residence€leased€to€Brenda€Sue€Fowler€(ð ðFowlerðð).€€At€the€time,€ÏAppellant€David€Michael€Locastro€(ð ðLocastroðð)€was€living€with€Fowler.€€The€officers€announcedÏtheir€presence€and€purpose€and€then€broke€into€the€home.€€In€response€to€the€officersðð€questions,ÏLocastro€admitted€that€there€was€marijuana€in€the€bedroom€closet.€€The€officers€found€a€total€of€oneÏand€a€half€pounds€of€marijuana,€a€set€of€triple„beam€scales,€and€$710€in€cash€in€the€bedroom.€ÏLocastro€had€$174€in€his€wallet.€€Officers€later€found€an€additional€six€pounds€of€marijuana€andÏ$2,000€in€cash€at€Fowlerððs€brotherððs€house.€€The€officers€arrested€Fowler€and€Locastro€on€chargesÏof€possession€of€a€controlled€substance€with€intent€to€manufacture/deliver/sell.€€Ìà àBoth€Fowler€and€Locastro€were€questioned€by€the€police.€€Both€then€signed€statementsÏprepared€by€the€police€officers.€€Locastroððs€statement€contained€the€following€admissions:Ìà8 àQ.€€The€marijuana€found€in€your€home[,]€who€did€it€belong€too[sic]?Ìà8 àA.€€The€two€of€us,€she€arranged€to€have€it€in,€I€knew€it€was€there.Ìà8 àQ.€€How€long€have€you€been€selling€marijuana€from€your€home?Ìà8 àA.€€4€to€5€weeks.ÌLocastro€admitted€that€Fowler€had€gone€to€Dallas,€Texas,€to€arrange€to€have€the€marijuana€broughtÏto€Tennessee.€€Locastro€took€some€of€the€marijuana€to€Fowlerððs€brotherððs€house.€€He€said€he€didÏnot€know€how€much€he€transported.€€When€questioned€about€how€much€of€the€money€seized€in€theÏarrest€came€from€drug€sales,€he€answered,€ð ðI€guess€that€money€that€was€found€in€her€radio.ðð€ÏLocastro€acknowledged€that€he€had€not€been€forced€to€give€the€statement€and€signed€it.Ìà àIn€her€statement,€Fowler€stated€that€the€marijuana€found€at€the€residence€belonged€to€her.€ÏShe€admitted€that€she€had€been€selling€marijuana€since€February€and€that€she€had€arranged€for€theÏmarijuana€to€be€brought€in€from€Texas.€€Fowler€said€that€$500€of€the€money€found€in€her€homeÏhad€been€obtained€through€the€sale€of€marijuana.€€She€stated€that€Locastro€had€taken€approximatelyÏfive€and€a€half€pounds€of€marijuana€to€her€brotherððs€house.€€None€of€her€other€statementsÏimplicated€Locastro.Ìà àAt€the€time€of€his€arrest,€Locastro€was€employed€as€a€firefighter€with€the€Memphis€FireÏDepartment.€€On€April€24,€the€deputy€director€of€the€Fire€Department€contacted€Division€ChiefÏLarry€McKissick€(ð ðMcKissickðð)€and€instructed€him€to€conduct€an€investigation€and€get€back€to€himÏas€soon€as€possible.€€McKissick€then€obtained€a€copy€of€Locastroððs€arrest€ticket€and€his€statementÏto€the€police.€€McKissick€called€Locastroððs€supervisor,€telling€him€to€inform€Locastro€that€he€wasÏsuspended€pending€investigation€and€to€stay€at€the€engine€house€until€McKissick€could€get€there€toÏtalk€with€him.€€At€approximately€9:00€that€morning,€McKissick€reached€the€engine€house€and€gaveÏLocastro€a€notice€of€investigation,€charging€him€with€possession€of€marijuana€and€ð ðconductÏunbecoming€an€employee€of€the€city€of€Memphis.ðð× ƒ1 ××  ×€€The€notice€informed€Locastro€that€a€hearingÏwould€be€held€at€noon€that€day,€that€he€was€entitled€to€union€representation€at€the€hearing,€and€thatÏthe€results€of€the€hearing€and€investigation€could€result€in€disciplinary€action,€includingÍtermination.Ìà àLocastro€contacted€his€attorney.€€His€attorney€told€him€that€he€would€be€in€trial€at€the€timeÏof€the€hearing,€that€Locastro€should€request€a€continuance,€and€that€Locastro€should€answer€noÏquestions€without€him€and€should€instead€plead€his€Fifth€and€Sixth€Amendment€rights.€€LocastroÏasked€a€union€representative€if€the€hearing€could€be€delayed.€€The€union€representative€contacted€anÏunidentified€official€who€told€the€representative€that€the€hearing€could€not€be€put€off.€€At€theÏhearing,€McKissick€read€the€charges,€Locastro€refused€to€respond€to€the€charges€without€theÏassistance€of€counsel,€and€McKissick€closed€the€hearing.€€During€the€hearing,€Locastro€did€not€askÏfor€a€continuance.Ìà àLater€that€day,€McKissick€prepared€a€letter€informing€Locastro€of€his€termination.€€TheÏletter€read,€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓà8 àWhen€questioned€about€these€charges€[by€the€police€for€possession€with€intent€toÏsell]€in€the€administrative€investigation,€you€stated€that€your€lawyer€had€advised€youÏnot€to€answer€any€questions€and€that€you€are€taking€the€fifth€amendment.ÌÌà8 àYou€were€told€by€Division€Chief€McKissick€that€if€you€did€not€cooperate€in€anÏadministrative€hearing,€that€you€could€be€disciplined,€up€to€and€includingÏtermination.€€You€stated€that€you€understood€the€charges.ÌÌà8 àBased€upon€the€information€received€concerning€your€arrest€of€April€21,€1992,€andÏthe€circumstances€surrounding€such€arrest,€I€find€that€your€conduct€is€unbecomingÏan€employee€of€the€City€of€Memphis€Fire€Division€and€has€violated€Fire€DivisionÏrules€and€regulations€cited€in€this€letter.ÌÌÓÓThe€letter€informed€Locastro€that€his€termination€was€based€on€violations€of€Article€III,€SectionsÏœ3.4(5)›€and€3.8€of€the€Fire€Division€Rules€and€Regulations.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€Locastro€appealed€this€decision€to€theÍCivil€Service€Commission€(ð ðthe€Commissionðð),€which€set€a€hearing.Ìà àAt€the€Commission€hearing,€Locastro€presented€evidence€that€he€had€a€good€work€recordÏwith€the€Fire€Department.€€He€stated€that,€following€his€arrest,€he€voluntarily€entered€the€cityððsÏEmployee€Assistance€Program€(ð ðEAPðð)€and€joined€Alcoholics€Anonymous,€doing€well€in€bothÏœprograms.€€He€also€presented€evidence€that€Fowler€had€plead€guilty€as€the€one€who€had€acquiredÏthe€marijuana€with€the€intent€to€sell,€and€that€€the€charges€against€Locastro€were€dismissed€at€theÏrecommendation€of€the€Attorney€General.Ìà àMcKissick€testified€that€he€had€terminated€Locastro€based€solely€on€the€police€report€andÏLocastroððs€statement.€€He€stated€at€one€point€that€he€would€not€have€terminated€Locastro€had€heÏknown€the€marijuana€was€not€his,€but€then€testified€that€he€considered€Locastroððs€knowledge€thatÏthe€marijuana€was€in€the€house€as€sufficient€to€warrant€termination.€€McKissick€stated€thatÏLocastroððs€use€of€marijuana€did€not€play€a€role€in€the€decision€to€terminate.€€He€admitted€that€theÏEAP€was€a€disciplinary€option€but€indicated€that€he€did€not€like€drug€use€and€did€not€think€highlyÏof€the€EAPððs€success€rate.Ìà àLocastro€testified€that€he€had€used€marijuana€for€several€years€but€was€not€involved€inÏselling€it.€€Locastro€testified€that€the€police€officer€who€prepared€his€signed€statement€had€writtenÏboth€the€questions€and€the€answers€on€the€statement.€€According€to€Locastro,€the€police€officerÏasked€him€how€long€ò òòòFowleróóó ó€had€been€selling€marijuana,€to€which€he€answered€four€to€fiveÏweeks,€but€that€the€officer€wrote€the€question€on€the€statement€to€indicate€that€Locastro€had€beenÏasked€how€long€òòò òheó óóó€had€been€selling€marijuana.€€Locastro€stated€that€he€had€admitted€to€the€policeÏthat€he€knew€the€marijuana€was€in€the€house€but€that,€contrary€to€the€written€statement,€LocastroÏhad€never€indicated€that€the€marijuana€belonged€to€him.€€Locastro€said€he€signed€the€statementÏwithout€reading€it,€because€he€was€fearful€and€because€he€trusted€the€officer€to€correctly€record€theÍquestions€and€answers.Ìà àJane€Hardaway€(ð ðHardawayðð),€Deputy€Director€of€Personnel€for€the€City€of€Memphis,Ïtestified€at€the€Commission€hearing€that€attorneys€were€not€normally€allowed€in€departmentalÏinvestigative€hearings,€but€that€an€attorney€could€sit€outside€the€hearing€room€to€be€available€toÏconfer€with€the€employee.€€In€response€to€questions€from€the€Commission,€Hardaway€testified:ÌÓÓà8 àQ.€€So€in€your€last€answer€I€hear€that€people€have€an€option€as€to€when€they€canÏhave€the€[investigative]€hearing,€is€that€correct?ÌÌà8 àA.€€Well,€they€have€an€option.€€Of€course,€they€canððt€go€on€ad€infinitum.€€There€hasÏto€be€„„€so€thatððs€why€when€we€give€a€charge€letter€we€give€a€date€for€the€hearing€inÏthe€letter.€€And€when€the€hearing€comes€then€certainly€the€City€feels€they€have€anÏobligation€to€make€a€decision€and€not€leave€an€employee€hanging€out€with€manyÏworries,€that€sort€of€thing,€Ms.€Hurd.ÌÌà8 àQ.€€But€is€it€the€norm€for€you,€if€you€are€informed€as€this€case€is€at€9:00,€to€beÏprepared€by€12:00,€does€the€employee€know€that€he€has€an€option€to€say€can€I€do€itÏat€5:00?€€I€mean€is€there€an€option€here,€thatððs€what€Iððm€asking.ÌÌà8 àA.€€Well,€I€believe€that€the€City€always€if€the€employee€says€I€want€to€call€my€wife,ÏI€want€to€do€this,€I€want€to€do€that,€Iððve€never€known€the€City€to€say€oh,€no,€it€mustÏbe€immediately.€€We€try€to€give€that€employee€some€time.ÌÌÓÓShe€€testified€that€attorneys€usually€became€involved€only€after€a€disciplinary€action€had€been€taken.Ìà àAfter€the€hearing,€the€Commission€decided€to€reinstate€Locastro,€finding€that€the€City€hadÏfailed€to€carry€the€burden€of€proof€necessary€to€sustain€Locastroððs€termination.€€The€CommissionÏfound:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€proof€has€shown€that€more€evidence€was€presented€to€the€Commission€thanÏwas€before€Chief€McKissick€when€the€decision€was€made€to€terminate€Mr.ÏLocastro.ÌÌà8 àThe€Commission€is€concerned€that€the€investigation€conducted€by€Chief€McKissickÏwas€of€limited€scope€and€value€and€a€more€thorough€evaluation€of€the€facts€shouldÏhave€been€employed€prior€to€a€rendering€of€the€termination€decision.ÌÌà8 àThe€Commission€finds€that€the€decision€to€terminate€was€not€reasonable€under€theÏfacts€and€circumstances€as€presented€during€the€hearing.ÌÌÓÓThe€Commission€conditioned€Locastroððs€reinstatement€upon€his€remaining€involved€with€EAP.€ÏThe€City€appealed€this€decision€to€the€Chancery€Court.Ìà àOn€appeal,€after€reviewing€the€record€and€hearing€argument€from€counsel,€the€trial€courtÍreversed€the€Commission.€€During€the€trial€court€hearing,€the€court€commented:ÌÓÓà8 àà àIt€does€appear€that€more€notice€could€have€been€given€before€the€actualÏhearing€was€held,€but€I€donððt€know€what€could€be€presented€that€would€change€theÏfacts.€€And€the€facts€are€that€he€admitted€that€he€was€involved€with€his€girlfriend€inÏthe€acquisition€and€selling€of€illegal€drugs.€€Either€he€did€that€or€he€misled€theÏpolice.€€He€signed€a€false€statement,€and€he€made€statements€that€„„€you€know,€youÏcould€get€into€a€lot€of€ramifications€here,€statements€that€would€have€hampered€aÏpolice€investigation€even€if€he€was€not€involved.ÌÌà8 àà àSo€it€just€appears€to€me€that€adding€new€proof€or€new€evidence€or€newÏtestimony€to€what€was€already€there,€which€is€not€needed€and€would€not€change€theÏfact€that€either€he€was€actively€involved€in€selling€illegal€drugs€or€he€made€a€falseÏstatement€or€statements,€including€signing€a€written€statement€that€would€certainlyÏhamper€the€police€investigation€and€make€their€job€more€difficult.ÌÌà8 àà àI€donððt€think€there€is€any€question€that€in€many€cases€such€as€this€whereÏmore€than€one€person€is€involved€in€a€crime,€you€know,€one€will€suffer€more€ifÏnailed€than€the€other.€€So€you€can€perhaps€speculate,€but€I€think€itððs€pretty€wellÏaccepted€that€itððs€not€uncommon€for€one€defendant€to€take€the€blame€and€perhapsÏthey€settle€up€later€on.ÌÌÓÓThe€trial€courtððs€Findings€of€Fact€and€Order€provided,€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓà8 àà à2.€€The€Court€finds€that€even€if€Locastro€was€not€involved€in€the€selling€ofÏillegal€drugs,€his€confession€to€police€that€he€and€his€girlfriend€were€involved€in€thisÏillegal€activity€would€have€constituted€making€false€and€misleading€officialÏstatements€and€interference€with€a€police€investigation€sufficient€to€have€justified€hisÏtermination.ÌÌÓÓThe€trial€court€concluded€that€McKissick€had€enough€evidence€at€the€investigative€hearing€toÏwarrant€Locastroððs€termination€and€that€the€Commission€acted€arbitrarily€in€reversing€€McKissickððsÏdecision.€€It€reversed€the€decision€of€the€Commission€upholding€the€termination.€€From€thisÏdecision,€Locastro€now€appeals.€€Ìà àOn€appeal,€Locastro€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€because€there€was€substantial€andÏmaterial€evidence€to€support€the€Commissionððs€decision.€€The€City€maintains€that€the€decision€ofÏthe€ÇChancery€Court€should€be€affirmed€because€the€Commission€acted€in€an€arbitrary,€capricious,€andÏillegal€manner.Ìà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€4„5„322€sets€forth€the€standard€of€review€for€the€ChanceryÏCourt€in€reviewing€agency€decisions:ÌÓÓà8 àà à(h)€The€court€may€affirm€the€decision€of€the€agency€or€remand€the€case€forÏfurther€proceedings.€€The€court€may€reverse€or€modify€the€decision€if€the€rights€ofÏthe€petitioner€have€been€prejudiced€because€the€administrative€findings,€inferences,Ïconclusions€or€decisions€are:Ìà8 àà à(1)€In€violation€of€constitutional€or€statutory€provisions;Ìà8 àà à(2)€In€excess€of€the€statutory€authority€of€the€agency;Ìà8 àà à(3)€Made€upon€unlawful€procedure;Ìà8 àà à(4)€Arbitrary€or€capricious€or€characterized€by€abuse€of€discretion€or€clearlyÏunwarranted€exercise€of€discretion;€€orÌà8 àà à(5)€Unsupported€by€evidence€which€is€both€substantial€and€material€in€theÏlight€of€the€entire€record.Ìà8 àIn€determining€the€substantiality€of€evidence,€the€court€shall€take€into€accountÏwhatever€in€the€record€fairly€detracts€from€its€weight,€but€the€court€shall€notÏsubstitute€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€agency€as€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence€onÏquestions€of€fact.Ìà8 àà à(I)€No€agency€decision€pursuant€to€a€hearing€in€a€contested€case€shall€beÏreversed,€remanded€or€modified€by€the€reviewing€court€unless€for€errors€whichÏaffect€the€merits€of€such€decision.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„5„322(h)„(I)€(1991€&€Supp.€1997).€€This€review€is€not€òòò òde€novoó óóó.€€òòò òCFÏIndus.€v.€Tennessee€Pub.€Serv.€Commððnó óóó,€599€S.W.2d€536,€540€(Tenn.€1980).€€It€isÏð ðnarrower€than€the€standard€of€review€normally€applicable€in€other€civil€cases.ðð€€òòò òJacksonÏMobilphone€Co.€v.€Tennessee€Pub.€Serv.€Commððnó óóó,€876€S.W.2d€106,€110€(Tenn.€App.Ï1993).€€The€standard€for€appellate€review€of€such€actions€is€the€same€as€the€standard€for€theÏChancery€Courtððs€review.€€€òòò òCF€Indus.ó óóó,€599€S.W.2d€at€540.€€Ìà àIn€order€to€determine€whether€the€decision€of€the€Chancery€Court€should€be€upheld,€€weÏmust€examine€the€two€statutory€bases€for€reversal€raised€by€Locastro€and€the€City:€€(1)€whether€theÏCommission€acted€in€an€arbitrary€or€capricious€manner,€or€a€manner€characterized€by€an€abuse€ofÏdiscretion,€€and€(2)€whether€there€was€substantial€and€material€evidence€to€support€theÏCommissionððs€action.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„5„322(h)(4)€and€(5).€€€Ìà àThe€issue€of€whether€an€agencyððs€decision€is€arbitrary€or€capricious€or€characterized€by€anÍabuse€of€discretion€is€discussed€in€òòò òMcCallen€v.€City€of€Memphisó óóó,€786€S.W.2d€633,€640„41Ï(Tenn.€1990).€€In€ò òòòMcCallenó óóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€defines€an€abuse€of€discretion€asÏbeing€an€action€ð ðin€opposition€to€the€intent€and€policy€of€the€statute€and€of€the€ordinance€adoptedÏconformably€to€its€provisions,€as€applied€to€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€at€641.€ÏThe€Court€also€notes€that€ð ð[a]buse€of€discretion,€arbitrariness,€capriciousness,€andÏunreasonableness€are€terms€often€used€interchangeably.ðð€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€òòò òMcCallenó óóó€pointed€out€that,€withÏthe€arbitrary€and€capricious€standard:ÌÓÓà8 à[T]he€courtððs€primary€resolve€is€to€refrain€from€substituting€its€judgment€for€that€ofÏthe€local€governmental€body.€€An€action€will€be€invalidated€only€if€it€constitutes€anÏabuse€of€discretion.€€If€ð ðany€possible€reasonðð€exists€justifying€the€action,€it€will€beÏupheld.ÌÌÓÓòòò òMcCallenó óóó,€786€S.W.2d€at€641.€€The€Tennessee€Court€of€Appeals€has€stated€that€ð ðagencyÏdecisions€with€adequate€evidentiary€support€may€still€be€arbitrary€and€capricious€if€caused€by€aÏclear€error€in€judgment.ðð€€òòò òJackson€Mobilphone€Co.€v.€Tennessee€Pub.€Serv.€Commððnó óóó,Ï876€S.W.2d€106,€110€(Tenn.€App.€1993).€€The€òòò òJackson€Mobilphoneó óóó€Court€explained€thatÏð ð[a]n€arbitrary€decision€is€one€that€is€not€based€on€any€course€of€reasoning€or€exercise€of€judgment,Ïor€one€that€disregards€the€facts€or€circumstances€of€the€case€without€some€basis€that€would€lead€aÏreasonable€person€to€reach€the€same€conclusion.ðð€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€111€(citations€omitted).Ìà àAbuse€of€discretion€was€discussed€by€this€Court€recently€in€a€review€of€a€Civil€ServiceÏCommission€decision,€in€ò òòòCity€of€Memphis€v.€Civil€Service€Commission€of€the€City€ofÏMemphis€and€Shotwelló óóó,€No.€02A01„9512„CH„00289€(Tenn.€App.€Nov.€4,€1997).€€InÏò òòòShotwelló óóó,€a€police€officer€voluntarily€entered€the€Cityððs€EAP€for€alcohol€abuse€and€signed€anÏagreement€stating€that€ð ðfailure€to€remain€substance€free€will€result€in€termination.ðð€€Slip€Op.€at€2.€ÏThe€officer€subsequently€tested€positive€for€cocaine€and€admitted€use€of€alcohol.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€He€wasÏterminated.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€The€Civil€Service€Commission€reversed€his€termination,€finding€that€ð ða€selfÏreferral€employee€should€not€be€required€to€sign€his€disciplinary€death€warrant€in€order€to€obtainÏthe€help€the€EAP€Program€was€created€to€provide.€.€.,ðð€and€that€termination€was€too€harsh€a€result.€ÍSlip€Op.€at€3„4.€€The€Chancery€Court€reversed€this€decision€and€upheld€the€termination,€findingÏthat€the€City€sought€to€implement€a€ð ðzero„toleranceðð€drug€policy€and€that€the€Commission€hadÏð ðruled,€in€essence,€that€they€disagree€with€that€zero„tolerance€policy.ðð€€Slip€Op.€at€4,6.Ìà àOn€appeal,€we€affirmed€the€Chancery€Court.€€Since€Shotwell€had€admittedly€tested€positiveÏfor€cocaine€and€had€acknowledged€use€of€alcohol,€after€signing€an€agreement€stating€that€ð ðfailure€toÏremain€substance€free€will€result€in€termination.€.€.€,€ð ð€we€agreed€that€the€Commission€in€essenceÏdisagreed€with€the€Cityððs€zero„tolerance€policy€and€concluded€that€the€Commissionððs€reversal€ofÏthe€termination€was€arbitrary€and€capricious.€€Slip€Op.€at€5„6.ÌÇÌà àIn€this€case,€the€Cityððs€initial€investigation€had€virtually€no€participation€by€Locastro,Ïbecause€it€was€held€with€almost€no€notice€to€Locastro€and€his€attorney€advised€him€to€refrain€fromÏanswering€questions€in€the€attorneyððs€absence.€€As€noted€by€the€Commission,€the€CommissionÏwas€in€a€position€to€receive€additional€evidence,€such€as€Fowlerððs€statement€to€the€police,€theÏdismissal€of€the€charges€against€Locastro,€and€Locastroððs€explanation€of€his€statement€to€the€police.€ÏMcKissickððs€testimony€was€somewhat€contradictory;€at€one€point€he€stated€that€he€would€not€haveÏterminated€Locastro€if€he€had€known€that€the€marijuana€did€not€belong€to€him;€however,€he€statedÏthat€Locastroððs€knowledge€that€the€marijuana€was€in€the€house€was€sufficient€to€terminate€him.€ÏThe€termination€decision€did€not€appear€to€involve€a€Fire€Department€drug€policy,€since€McKissickÏindicated€that€Locastroððs€use€of€marijuana€was€not€a€factor€in€the€termination.Ìà àTherefore,€unlike€ò òòòShotwellóóó ó,€the€employee€had€not€signed€an€agreement€acknowledgingÏthat€the€admitted€conduct€would€result€in€termination.€€Unlike€ò òòòShotwelló óóó,€the€CommissionððsÏdecision€does€not€appear€to€be€a€disagreement€with€the€City€over€its€drug€policy.€€The€CommissionÏhad€the€opportunity€at€its€hearing€to€assess€Locastroððs€credibility€and€review€the€additionalÏinformation€which€was€unavailable€to€McKissick.€€Under€the€circumstances,€we€cannot€concludeÏthat€the€Commissionððs€decision€was€arbitrary€or€capricious€or€an€abuse€of€discretion.Ìà àSecond,€the€Chancery€Court€may€reverse€the€Commissionððs€decision€if€it€is€not€supportedÏby€substantial€and€material€evidence€in€the€light€of€the€entire€record.€€This€standard€ð ðrequires€aÏsearching€and€careful€inquiry€that€subjects€the€agencyððs€decision€to€close€scrutiny.ðð€€òòò òSanifill€ofÏTennessee,€Inc.€v.€Tennessee€Solid€Waste€Disposal€Control€Bd.ó óóó,€907€S.W.2d€807,Ï810€(Tenn.€1995).€€ð ðSubstantial€and€material€evidence€is€such€relevant€evidence€as€a€reasonableÏmind€might€accept€to€support€a€rational€conclusion,€and€such€as€to€furnish€a€sound€basis€for€theÏaction€under€consideration.ðð€€òòò òOgrodowczyk€v.€Tennessee€Bd.€for€Licensing€HealthÏCare€Facilitiesó óóó,€886€S.W.2d€246,€251€(Tenn.€App.€1994).€€Substantial€and€material€evidenceÏð ðrequires€something€less€than€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€but€more€than€a€scintilla€orÍglimmer.ðð€€òòò òWayne€County€v.€Tennessee€Solid€Waste€Disposal€Control€Bd.ó óóó,€756ÏS.W.2d€274,€280€(Tenn.€App.€1988)€(citations€omitted).Ìà àThe€Memphis€Charter€sets€forth€the€Commissionððs€role€in€reviewing€the€Cityððs€action€in€an€Çappeal:ÌÓÓà8 àIf,€after€presentation€of€the€proof,€the€commission€finds€that€there€exists€aÏreasonable€basis€for€the€disciplinary€action€taken,€the€action€of€the€City€shall€beÏsustained.ÌÌÓÓCity€of€Memphis€Charter€ðð€248.€€The€Commission€can€reverse€an€action€by€the€City€if€it€finds€thatÏthe€City€had€no€reasonable€basis€for€the€disciplinary€action€it€took.€Ìà àIn€this€case,€after€hearing€the€testimony,€the€Commission€apparently€found€credibleÏLocastroððs€denial€that€the€marijuana€belonged€to€him€or€that€he€was€involved€in€selling€it,€as€well€asÏLocastroððs€explanation€of€his€statement€to€the€police.€€However,€it€is€undisputed€that€Locastro€hadÏknowledge€of€the€presence€of€marijuana€in€his€household€and€the€fact€that€Fowler€was€selling€it.€€ÏNevertheless,€the€Commission€found€that€the€decision€to€terminate€was€ð ðnot€reasonable.ðð€ÏAlthough€the€issue€is€somewhat€close,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€Commissionððs€decision€was€notÏsupported€by€substantial€and€material€evidence.€€The€decision€of€the€Chancery€Court€must€beÏreversed,€and€€the€Commissionððs€decision€to€reinstate€Locastro€must€be€upheld.€Ìà àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed.€€Costs€are€assessed€against€Appellee,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ìó óà àò òÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.€J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó óÌ