Ex parte Meeks
| Decision Date | 06 September 1996 |
| Citation | 682 So.2d 423 |
| Parties | Ex parte Larry MEEKS, et al. (Re Ronald MORGAN, et al. v. Larry MEEKS, et al.). 1950502. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
N. J. Cervera of Cervera & Ralph, Troy, for Petitioners.
Joseph E. Faulk and Keith Watkins of Calhoun, Faulk, Watkins & Clower, L.L.C., Troy, for Respondents.
Three of the six members of the Pike County Commission petitioned for a writ of mandamus directing the Pike County Circuit Court to vacate its order in favor of the other three members of the Commission in a declaratory judgment action. 1
A brief review of the legislation giving rise to this controversy is necessary for a complete understanding of the parties' contentions.
The Code of Alabama of 1852 authorized "courts of county commissioners," composed of the judge of probate ("as principal judge") and four commissioners, to transact a variety of business on behalf of the county, with "all matters where the court [was] divided" to be "determined by the judge of probate." These provisions were adopted, unamended, by subsequent codes. See Tit. 9, Chap. VII, §§ 697, 707 (Code of 1852); Tit. 9, Chap. VII, §§ 825, 835 (Code of 1867); Tit. 9, Chap. VIII, §§ 739, 749 (Code of 1876); Tit. 9, Chap. VII, §§ 819, 829 (Code of 1886-87).
The corresponding provisions of the Civil Code of 1896 (Chap.22, §§ 951, 961) were identical to the earlier sections except that the provision setting the commissioners' term of office at four years was amended by the addition of "and until their successors are elected and qualified." These provisions remained the same in the 1923 Civil Code, at Art. 1, §§ 6748, 6765; and in Tit. 12, at §§ 5 and 21, Ala.Code of 1940 (Recomp.1958).
A 1980 Act amended the "county commission" provisions of the Code (now codified at Ala.Code 1975, § 11-3-1 et seq.). The 1980 amendment, however, did not affect 1) the basic composition of the commission ("the judge of probate, who shall serve as chairman, and four commissioners"); 2) the commissioners' terms of office ("for four years ... and until their successors are elected and qualified"); or 3) the method for preventing a vote stalemate among the commissioners ("In all matters where the county commission is divided, the same must be determined by the chairman of the county commission [the judge of probate]."). §§ 11-3-1 and -20.
In 1986, the legislature enacted Act No. 86-323, 1986 Ala. Acts, which redivided Pike County into six (rather than four) districts. Thereafter, the Pike County Commission consisted of six members.
In 1988, Pike County voters ratified Act No. 88-308, which became Amendment 503 to the Alabama Constitution of 1901. Amendment 503 is generally referred to as the "Pike County Government Modernization Amendment." Among other things, it prescribed that the judge of probate of Pike County was no longer to act as the chairman of the Pike County Commission. In 1989, pursuant to Amendment 503, the legislature adopted Act No. 89-783, which provided that the chairman of the Pike County Commission would no longer be the judge of probate but would "be elected by the qualified electors" of Pike County and would "hold office for a term of four years ... and until his successor is elected and qualified."
Act No. 93-382, also a local act, made a further change in the method of selecting the chairman of the Pike County Commission:
(Emphasis added.)
Act No. 93-382, which became effective on May 10, 1993, did not include the provisions in Act No. 89-783 setting out the chairman's specific term of office and the holdover provision ("and until his successor is elected and qualified"). Further, although the 1993 act required that the commission chairman be chosen from among the six commissioners, it made no change in the method for resolving a vote deadlock among the commissioners ("determined by the chairman"). The act did, however, 1) provide for the chair to receive a $5,000 salary "in addition to the salary for commissioner as compensation for serving as Chair of the Pike County Commission"; 2) state that its provisions were "severable" and that "[i]f any part of this act is declared invalid or unconstitutional, that declaration shall not affect the part which remains"; and 3) provide that "[a]ll laws or parts of laws which conflict with [Act No. 93-382] are repealed."
The petitioners 2 (Larry Meeks, Charlie Harris, and Willie Thomas) and the respondents (Ronald M. Morgan, Wayne Gibson, and Don Wambles) are the Pike County commissioners. Respondent Morgan served as chairman of the commission from November 1994 to November 1995. During the commission's meeting on November 13, 1995, the commissioners were unable to elect a new chairman, each vote ending in a three-to-three tie. The commission met again on November 27, 1995, and again was unable to break the stalemate on the election of a commission chairman. The commissioners chose Petitioner Thomas to preside over the November 27 and December 11 meetings of the commission.
On December 7, 1995, these respondents filed in the circuit court a complaint for a declaratory judgment, claiming that the commission's inability to elect a new chairman had "shut down the operation of the Pike County government." The complaint also alleged that these petitioners had refused to attend meetings of the commission and that the controversy could cause "irreparable damage to the citizens of Pike County" because, the complaint alleged, the commission could not function without a chairman. The complaint asked the circuit court for a judgment declaring that Respondent Morgan could continue as commission chairman and that, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 11-3-20, he could cast the tie-breaking vote. 3
The petitioners filed a motion to continue the hearing set for December 19, attaching copies of the minutes of the November 27 and December 11 meetings of the commission to show that all members of the commission had been present for the meetings and that commission business had been conducted as usual. The petitioners also maintained that there was no "emergency" situation contrary to the allegation of the declaratory judgment complaint, because commission business was being carried on and because the next meeting of the commission would not take place until January 8. The trial court denied the motion to continue.
Following the hearing on December 19, the trial court on December 20 issued an order that read, in part, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. City of Birmingham
-
L.M.L. v. State
... ... trial court, this type of double-jeopardy issue is ... jurisdictional and, therefore, may be raised at any time. See ... Ex parte Robey , 920 So.2d 1069, 1071-72 (Ala. 2004) ... (holding that convictions for violating alternative ... subsections of the same statute ... and policy of the statute, such a construction is to be ... avoided. Ex parte Meeks , 682 So.2d 423 (Ala ... 1996).')." ... __ So.3d __ at (footnotes omitted) ... For ... these reasons, I ... ...
-
Bishop v. State
...result that is clearly inconsistent with the purpose and policy of the statute, such a construction is to be avoided. Ex parte Meeks, 682 So. 2d 423 (Ala.1996)." ‘There is also authority for the rule that uncertainty as to the meaning of a statute may arise from the fact that giving a liter......
-
Marks v. Tenbrunsel
... ... 1 See Ex parte Meeks, 682 So.2d 423, 428 (Ala.1996) ("`A construction [of a statute] resulting in absurd consequences as well as unreasonableness will be ... ...