State ex rel. Thompson v. Walker

845 S.W.2d 752, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1050
CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedJune 29, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 845 S.W.2d 752 (State ex rel. Thompson v. Walker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Thompson v. Walker, 845 S.W.2d 752, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1050 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

OPINION

LEWIS, Judge.

This is an appeal by defendants1,Joseph G. Walker, Laleta Shipper, and Allen Barry, duly elected members of the Wilson County Board of Education, from the judgment of the trial court that defendants be ousted from office instanter.

Appellant Shipper took office 1 September 1986 and appellants Walker and Barry took office 1 September 1988.

Members of the Wilson County School Board are required to have a high school education. They receive only token, compensation for their time and services. The School Board’s chief responsibility is to make policies for the school system, as a body representative of the public.

Wilson County has an elected full-time superintendent who oversees the day to day operation of the school system and manages its finances. In addition, the superintendent has a full-time staff to assist the superintendent in administering and managing all aspects of the operations of the school system.

School systems are audited each year by the State Comptroller’s Office. The audits for the fiscal year 1988-89 and fiscal year 1989-90 revealed that the Wilson County School System had incurred a budget deficit of approximately two million dollars. The state auditors revealed several clerical and accounting mistakes that contributed to the deficit, including an overestimation of the average daily attendance by the superintendent’s office, resulting in an overestimation of state funds for the school system; an increase in health insurance claims and clerical errors on payroll deductions for family coverage for employees; [754]*754and an improper accounting entry by the superintendent’s office which made the books of the school system appear to show $800,000.00 more money than the system actually had.

The results of the audits for the 1988-89 and 1989-90 school years revealing these deficits were not available until the summer of 1990.

On 31 January 1991, the Wilson County Grand Jury, after having reviewed investigatory material from the State Comptroller of the Treasury and the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, concluded that there were a number of serious problems with the Wilson County School System. The Grand Jury concluded that there was no criminal culpability on anyone’s part, but that there had been a failure of management and supervision in the system. The Grand Jury requested the District Attorney to initiate ouster proceedings against school officials still in office.

On 15 February 1991, the District Attorney caused to be filed on behalf of the State of Tennessee on relation of the District Attorney, a complaint for ouster pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 8-47-101, et seq., naming appellants as defendants.

Trial was held before a jury on 27 March — 9 April, 1991, in the Wilson County Criminal Court. Following the jury findings as to questions of fact submitted to it, the trial court entered judgment that the appellants be ousted from office.

Tennessee Code Annotated 8-47-101 provides as follows:

8-47-101. Officers subject to removal — Grounds.—Every person holding any office of trust or profit, under and by virtue of any of the laws of the state, either state, county, or municipal, except such officers as are by the constitution removable only and exclusively by methods other than those provided in this chapter, who shall knowingly or willfully misconduct himself in office, or who shall knowingly or willfully neglect to perform any duty enjoined upon such officer or by any of the laws of the state, or who shall in any public place be in a state of intoxication produced by strong drink voluntarily taken, or who shall engage in any form of gambling, or who shall commit any act constituting a violation of any penal statute involving moral turpitude, shall forfeit his office and shall be ousted from such office in the manner hereinafter provided.

Each of the defendants testified that as members of the Wilson County School Board they were satisfied to leave the finances of the school system to the Superintendent of Schools. They also insist that their “good faith” in the carrying out of their duties as school board members should be a complete defense to the ouster proceedings. They insist that “good faith” is defined as an absence of an intention to violate the law. In relying on this defense, defendants cite and rely on State ex rel. Estep v. Peters, 815 S.W.2d 161 (Tenn.1991). We are of the opinion that State ex rel. Estep v. Peters is inapposite to the facts of this case.

Estep addressed the question of whether a county superintendent of schools who knowingly and willfully misapplied public funds without an intent to benefit personally may be ousted from office for this conduct under Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 8-47-101.

In Estep, the county superintendent, in order to cope with a deficit in the school system’s budget, diverted federal funds designated for certain programs, bond proceeds for capital improvements, and contributions from an education employee benefit trust to the school’s general purpose fund. Estep, 815 S.W.2d at 162. Nothing in the record shows that the superintendent in any way benefitted personally from the transfer. The superintendent’s “misapplication of federal funds could have subjected him to federal prosecution pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Section 666(a)” even though the superintendent had no intent to benefit personally from the misapplication. 815 S.W.2d at 163. The Supreme Court upheld the Chancellor’s judgment of ouster based on knowing or willful misconduct under Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 8-47-101, finding that the ouster was fully sup[755]*755ported by the findings of the jury that the defendant “knowingly or willingly misapplied public funds and failed to make required financial reports to the Claiborne County Commission.” Id. at 166. Unlike Estep, the issue in this case is whether the defendants “knowingly or willfully” neglected to perform their duties as school board members.

In order to remove an official from office for neglect, the neglect must have occurred “knowingly and willfully.” Tenn.Code Ann., § 8-47-101. Neglect is generally defined as

to omit, fail, or forebear to do a thing that can be done, or that is required to be done, but it may also import an absence of care or attention in the doing or omission of a given act. And it may mean a designed refusal, indifference, or unwillingness to perform one's duty....
[[Image here]]
Failure to perform or discharge a duty, covering positive official misdoing or official misconduct as well as negligence.

Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed.) p. 1032 (1990).

Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 49-2-2032 sets forth the powers and duties of [757]*757the local school board. The Board acts as a deliberative body and is charged with broad general policy-making powers. The Board sets teachers’ salaries, approves contracts, hires and fires teachers and other emplqy-ees, adopts and enforces minimum standards and policies and develops evaluation plans for employees.

Subsection 49-2-203(a)(ll) provides that the Board shall:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Penny Parker v. Mike Lowery, etc.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2013
State Ex Rel. Jones v. Looper
86 S.W.3d 189 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2000)
State v. Looper
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1998
Walker v. Bd. of Education of Wilson Co.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1997
Jane Doe v. Claiborne County, Tennessee
103 F.3d 495 (Sixth Circuit, 1996)
Childs v. Roane County Board of Education
929 S.W.2d 364 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
845 S.W.2d 752, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-thompson-v-walker-tennctapp-1992.