archive-edu.com » EDU » T » TENNESSEE.EDU

Total: 795

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Knowledgebase-At Large Elections of School Boards
    ordinary meaning of the language used in the context of the legislative enactment as a whole See Worral v Kroger Co 545 S W 2d 736 Tenn 1977 and Neff v Cherokee Ins Co 704 S W 2d 1 Tenn 1986 The language elected from districts is not ambiguous and has been used historically in the education statutes relative to school board elections to mean just that elected by the voters of a district to represent that district T C A 49 2 201 a 3 as it appears in the 1983 replacement volume before the Education Improvement Act of 1991 was enacted provided that Members of the county board of education shall be elected by the county legislative body or by vote of the people from school or education districts underlining added An optional provision in Subdivision b 2 provided that The members shall be residents of and elected from districts of equal population by the qualified voters of that district The Education Improvement Act of 1991 carries this elected from districts language forward Section 39 a of that Act ironically this Act was passed in 1992 and became Chapter No 535 of that year provided in pertinent part that Members of county and municipal boards of education shall be residents of and elected from districts of substantially equal population There was a provision in 39 b that allowed municipalities and counties to defer implementation of this requirement until September 1 1996 Before that deadline arrived however the General Assembly passed what became Chapter No 404 of the Public Acts of 1995 This is the Act that placed the provision that is codified in 49 2 201 d 1 and that is the source of your question into the law The purpose of this law was to eliminate the requirement that municipal school board members shall be residents of and elected from districts with the exception that those who have been elected from districts as of June 6 1995 shall continue that method of election The wording in this statute must be read in the context of the previous provisions of law and the exceptions it is attempting to make When one does this it seems clear your School Board is not elected from districts as contemplated in 49 2 201 d 1 If it can be argued that the language of 49 2 201 d 2 as interpreted with your charter provision is ambiguous another rule of statutory construction comes in handy This is the rule that statutes on the same subject matter must be construed together or in pari materia State v Blackstock 19 S W 3d 200 Tenn 2000 In interpreting such statutes courts will try to avoid conflicts and promote the harmonious operation of the laws so that both can be effective Carver v Citizen Utils Co 954 S W 2d 35 Tenn 1997 Since the general statute requires board members elected from districts to continue to be elected that way and since your charter

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/6a5b8195829cbe1785256b3e0059ce75?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-At Will Employees
    makes those city employees at will and authorizes no other options a municipal ordinance resolution or policy that gives employees a property right in their jobs gives way to the charter In Chilingirian v Boris 882 F 2d 200 6 th Cir 1989 a city attorney fired by the city argued that he had a property right in his employment the basis of which was an implied contract with the city The Court rejected his argument reasoning that This argument is devitalized by the fact that the city charter governs the terms of the city attorney s employment and provides for his termination at will Moreover the city was not authorized to enter into any contract in contravention of its charter See Niles v Michigan Gas and Elec Co 273 Mich 255 262 N W 900 1935 under Michigan law a municipality cannot exceed its charter powers Accordingly notwithstanding Chilingirians protestations to the contrary no viable means exist for circumventing the termination at will language implicit in the charters section 4 6 provision that the city attorney serves at the pleasure of the council Citation omitted My emphasis At 205 In the unreported case of McLemore v City of Adamsville 1990 WL 30478 6 th cir 1990 Table of Cases 914 F 2d 257 6 th Cir 1990 the chief of police of the City of Adamsville Tennessee was fired Under the city s charter department heads including the chief of police shall be appointed for indefinite terms and shall serve at the pleasure of the commissio n Court s emphasis At 2 The former chief of police made several related arguments against his dismissal among which were that he had a property right in his employment and that his due process rights had been violated because the city had not given him the pretermination hearing required by Loudermill The Court rejected those and all his other arguments His claim that he was entitled to a Loudermill hearing failed said the Court citing Chilingirian above because he did not have a property right in his employment In Tennessee city charter provisions and ordinances may give rise to property rights for continued employment Huddleston v City of Murfreesboro 635 S W 2d 694 Tenn 1982 However a review of the Adamsville s city charter reveals that by its specific terms the chief of police shall serve at the pleasure of the commission Sixth Circuit precedent dictates that an employee does not have a protected property interest in his continued employment when his position is held at the will and pleasure of his superiors Citing Chilingirian above At 2 His claim of being a permanent member of the classified service failed said the Court because T he city charter exclusively controls McLemore s employment relationship with Under Tennessee law declared the court an individual is an at will employee as long as the city charter or other city regulations do not provide otherwise Whittaker v Care More Inc 621 S W 2d 395 Tenn App 181 As previously stated the Adamsville s city charter clearly provides that McLemore was an at will employee At 3 Important here is that in Tennessee as in Michigan charter provisions are mandatory where the charter creates at will employment no viable means exist for circumventing the termination at will language in the charter That charter language is mandatory in Tennessee with specific respect to at will provisions in the city charter is seen in Lewis v Bowman 814 S W 2d 369 Tenn App 1991 There the director of public works claimed he was terminated in violation of the city s personnel policies which gave him certain procedural rights However the procedural rights granted to him were in conflict with the city s charter which made department heads employees at will In holding the charter superseded the personnel policies the Court said It has long been the law in this state as in many other states that ordinances of the city are subordinate to charter provisions This was pointed out in the case of Marshall Bruce Co v City of Nashville 109 Tenn 495 512 71 S W 815 819 1903 wherein it was said The provisions of the charter are mandatory and must be obeyed by the city and its agents and if in conflict with an ordinance the charter must prevail A similar result was reached in Dingham v Harvell 814 S W 2d 362 Tenn App 1991 in which the police chief contested his firing by the Millington Board of Mayor and Aldermen The Court rejected the chief s argument that he was an employee of the city for the purposes of the city s personnel policies which gave city employees certain job protection Under the city s charter the police chief served at the will and pleasure of the board of mayor and aldermen In a contest between the city s charter and the city s personnel policies the charter wins said the Court In accord are Gay v City of Somerville 878 S W 2d 124 Tenn App 1994 Miller v City of Murfreesboro 122 S W 3d 766 Tenn Ct App 2003 Trusant v City of Memphis 56 S W 3d 10 Tenn Ct App 2001 Summers v Thompson 764 S W 2d 182 Tenn 1988 unreported Those cases tell us that if a municipal employee claiming a property right in his employment makes that claim in the face of a statute that paints him at will his claim will fail They also tell us that if the statute in question is silent on a municipal employee s employment status the municipality has the discretion to adopt an ordinance or other written policy that gives him a property right in his employment It seems clear that by the standards announced in Brown v City of Niota governing the question of whether a city s personnel policy intercepts the employee at will doctrine the City s personnel policies do not intercept

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/9b2a1cfea5e9276785257640006725fb?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Athens Asphalt Price Comparison
    Summary Thirteen cities one county and MTAS were asked the Emix cost per ton of asphalt in place for the last 6 years Original Author Athens Co Author Product Create Date 04 08 2010 Last Reviewed on 04 08 2010

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/3d485e2c918f8b07852576ff005f1c6e?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Athens Rain Garden Program and Grant
    A brochure on building a rain garden and how public works can help with excavation and bedding materials Original Author Athens Co Author Product Create Date 04 08 2010 Last Reviewed on 04 08 2010 Subject Stormwater management Erosion control

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/3279b76255ea1cca852576ff0052a028?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Attempting to Block the School System from Building Ball Fields on the Theory That They Would Be a Nuisance
    is an accurate reflection of the law on your question However the county attorney points out the principle cited in that opinion that the officers and agents of the state may not disregard local zoning regulations when and if to disregard such local zoning regulations when and if to disregard such regulations would result in the creation of a nuisance That is true but under the above facts the most likely nuisance suit would brought by the neighboring private property owners who object to the ball fields being built against the county school system While I cannot speak for what the city may do in response to the building of the ball field the Mayor has already sent a letter to director of the County School System objecting to the school system s proposed construction of the ball fields I doubt that an attempt by anyone to block the school system from building the ball fields on the theory that they would be a nuisance would probably fail A public school is not a nuisance per se and I cannot find a single case in the United States where a court has enjoined the construction of one The State of Tennessee and probably every other state is everywhere dotted with school athletic facilities and other recreational facilities abutting or near residential neighborhoods and that are the cause of periodic extremely heavy traffic and noise There have been a few cases in the United States in which the courts have held or suggested that the operation of a particular function of a school to be a nuisance to neighborhood property owners The most instructive case in that area is Stein v Highland Park Independent School District 540 S W 2d 551 Tex Ct Civ App 1976 and a citation contained therein

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/c371f6058ceeb2bb8525798b004b4f65?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Attorney General Opines Local Regulation of Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine Unlawful
    and Pseudoephedrine Unlawful Josh Jones Amid a surge of interest in recently passed local government legislation to require a prescription for the purchase of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine products the Tennessee Attorney General has opined that such local regulation is in violation of Tennessee law The opinion No 13 99 declares that the General Assembly via T C A 39 17 431 has preempted the entire field of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine regulation The doctrine of preemption states that the law of a superior body can supersede supplant or negate the law of an inferior body where the latter is inconsistent with or an obstacle to the former Even without direct conflict preemption can apply as it does here where the state regulatory scheme is so pervasive as to occupy the entire field in a particular area In determining whether the General Assembly occupied the entire field of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine regulation the Attorney General looked to the Meth Free Tennessee Act of 2005 and the 2011 I Hate Meth Act both of which suggest comprehensive state regulation and contain explicit statements of preemption With the publication of this opinion Tennessee cities are on notice that absent legislative action by the General

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/1307d563477b8a1585257c450060dca4?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Auction Services Request for Proposals
    as described in their response to this RFP COMPANY TELEPHONE NUMBER AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE PRINT TITLE AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE DATE GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR AUCTION SERVICES Jefferson City is seeking proposals from local individuals firms to auction property owned by the City It is the intent of this RFP to have the successful individual firm enter into a Professional Services Contract with the City to supply auction services as outlined herein A SCOPE OF SERVICES The successful individual firm shall agree to contract with the City to provide the following Establishing auction sites and times in accordance with City needs Developing and implementing strategies for promoting auctions Conducting auctions in accordance with any laws rules or regulations established by the City or the State of Tennessee Coordinating all auction related transactions and Handling all other customary activities and services associated with auctions Services may include consultation with City staff and City Councilmembers relating to the sale of items owned by the City Presentations at public meetings may be required B QUALIFICATIONS Respondents to this RFP shall have the following qualifications Must be licensed and in good standing with the State of Tennessee Must have an excellent reputation in the auction community Must be knowledgeable in the auction market and have experience with small and large auctions Must be knowledgeable in the use of all auction related records and technologies C INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS For proposal purposes proposers must submit copies of certificates of insurance for general liability and workers compensation The successful contractor must provide original certificates prior to commencing services D FEE SCHEDULE The proposed fee schedule shall include the following items State your commission rate for auction services State any other costs the City may anticipate relating to auctions or the services to be provided Payments to the successful contractor will be based on actual services received E TERM OF CONTRACT The contract period for the successful auction firm will be from date of award through The contract may be renewed for additional terms upon satisfactory performance by the individual firm and at a negotiated rate agreed to in writing by both the individual firm and the City of Jefferson City F EVALUATION AND AWARD PROCESS Issuance of this RFP and receipt of proposals does not commit the City to award a contract The City reserves the right to postpone receipt date accepting or rejecting any or all proposals received in response to this RFP or to negotiate with any of the individuals firms submitting an RFP or to cancel all or part of this RFP G ORAL PRESENTATION INTERVIEWS Firms submitting a proposal in response to this RFP may be required to give an oral presentation of their proposal Additional technical and or cost information may be requested for clarification purposes but in no way will change the original proposal submitted Interviews are optional and may or may not be conducted H SELECTION CRITERIA Selection of an individual firm will be made based on the following criteria 1 Ability of the

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/426163b23c4a175d85257cb3004d5467?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Authority of Aldermen
    Town employees It is also spelled out very clearly that the Aldermen shall only act as a body not as individual officers with respect to all matters The above language is not vague and it does not create any flexibility with regard to the authority of Aldermen This language very clearly explains that Aldermen cannot be given any individual duties whatsoever Your Municipal Code sections 1 303 Duties of finance committee and 1 304 Duties of the street committee directly conflict with the Town s Charter in that these code sections seek to distribute duties to these committees which are held by the governing board pursuant to charter provisions It is my understanding that Aldermen sit on these committees and that one or more Aldermen refer to themselves as the street commissioner or otherwise believe they are commissioners of city departments Such titles and actions conflict with the Town Charter Despite the fact the above cited charter language clearly states that no Alderman may individually direct city employees Code Section 1 304 states that the street committee on which an Alderman sits shall have and exercise general supervision over matters personnel and property Code Section 1 303 states that the finance committee which also has an Alderman exercises general supervision and reviews plans and programs with a budgetary impact The Charter very clearly requires that Aldermen shall act on all matters as a body so an Alderman sitting on such a committee is acting without his fellow Board members in violation of the Town Charter It is a well settled legal principle that charter provisions always take precedence over conflicting ordinances and code provisions Ordinances of a city are subordinate to charter provisions The Supreme Court declared in Marshall Bruce Co v City of Nashville 71 S W 815 819

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/fbc780cae173a4388525791300667e24?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive



  •