Hudson v. Sparks

• Decision Date: 30 March 1961
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 497
• Citation: 129 So.2d 664,272 Ala. 203
• Parties: Dan R. HUDSON et al., Members of Personnel Board of Jefferson County et al., v. King SPARKS, Jr.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 664

129 So.2d 664

272 Ala. 203

Dan R. HUDSON et al., Members of Personnel Board of Jefferson County et al., v. King SPARKS, Jr.

6 Div. 497.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 30, 1961.

Rehearing Denied May 18, 1961.

Hucy, Stone & Patton, Bessemer, for appellants.

Graham, Bibb, Wingo & Foster, Birmingham, for appellee.

MERRILL, Justice.

This is an appeal from the issuance of a writ of prohibition by the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit of Jefferson County, restraining and prohibiting appellants, individually and as members of the Personnel Board of Jefferson County, Alabama, and the Personnel Director (respondents below) from holding a public hearing on charges that had been filed by the Personnel Director against appellee, Superintendent of the Park and Recreation Board of the City of Birmingham (petitioner below).

Appellants have also submitted the cause in the alternative on petition for mandamus on the theory that if we hold with their contention that the Personnel Board is not subject to suit, then the judgment appealed from would be void and would not support an appeal.

On September 25, 1958, the Classification Branch of the Personnel Board of Jefferson County (hereinafter referred to as Personnel Board) initiated an audit of all classified positions on the staff of the Park and Recreation Board. The Civil Service Law requires that such an audit be conducted at least once every five years. This survey was conducted by Richard Tannehill, who is employed as a job analyst.

Tannehill was unable to ascertain from the employees of the Park and Recreation Board (hereinafter referred to as Park Board) exact job descriptions or information as to where their responsibilities began and ended. He so reported to Director Mullins, who then directed him to make a survey of all the employees to ascertain methods of handling the work, hours of work, attendance, training, working conditions and morale of the employees, as authorized by what is listed as Tit. 62, § 330(33)(34), 1955 Pocket Part. Some two and one-half months were spent in making the survey and it was filed with the Personnel Board on February 9, 1959, and a copy furnished the Park Board. It was also made available to the press.

The Park Board called a special meeting and after meeting for an hour, gave a statement to the press that they were behind their superintendent of parks, the appellee.

On February 25th, the President of the Park Board, Raiford Ellis, wrote the Personnel Board and the Director of Personnel replied on March 4th, asking the Park Board 'to fix responsibility and take corrective actions.' The Park Board, if it took any action, did not notify the Personnel Board, and the Director filed charges against appellee, the superintendent of parks, and the administrative officer of the Park Board on March 25, 1959.

Appellee appeared before the Personnel Board, through his attorney, and filed a motion for the members of the Personnel Board to recuse themselves. The Board overruled this motion and Set April 15th as the date for the public hearing on the charges.

On April 4th, appellee filed his petition in circuit court for a writ of prohibition. It was submitted to Presiding Judge McElroy and he granted a rule nisi against the members of the Personnel Board in their official and individual capacities. When the petition for prohibition came on to be heard, the Chief Justice appointed Judge Rueben Wright of Tuscaloosa to hear it. Much testimony was taken at the hearing on September 9, 1959, and the court ordered the issuance of the writ and 'that respondents (the Personnel Board) be, and they are hereby, ordered and directed to take no further action on and to proceed no further with the charges and trial referred to in the petition herein, as last amended, and that the respondents be, and hereby are, restrained and prohibited from doing so.'

The court was evidently of the opinion that the charges were against the Park and Recreation Board and not against Sparks, the superintendent, and that any violations were the responsibility of the Park Board and should not be charged to appellee.

The thirteen charges are summarized in appellants' brief and they are copied below. Sparks is charged with being guilty of inefficiency or neglect of duty as follows:

1. 'That he has failed to adequately provide for the care and maintenance of the grounds and properties (of the Park Board) and as a proximate consequence thereof a substantial portion of them are in a bad state of repair and have seriously deteriorated.'

2. 'That he has failed to adequately supervise or provide adequate supervision for said personnel (of Park Board) and as a proximate consequence said personnel has engaged in extravagant and unproductive practices, such as idleness on the job, performance of unauthorized work and the unauthorized use of equipment owned by the Park and Recreation Board.'

3. 'That he has failed to establish an effective system for controlling maintenance work of the grounds and physical properties (of Park Board) or if such a system was established, he has failed to properly enforce said system.'

4. 'That he has been guilty of inefficiency in this respect in that he has failed to establish such a system for controlling the issuance and use of gasoline and oil for such equipment, or if such a system existed, he has failed to properly supervise and enforce the same.'

5. 'That he has failed to establish and enforce an effective system to control the issuance and use of such expendable items of supply (lumber, small hand tools, shovels, picks, light bulbs, paint, pipe, soaps, cleaning compounds, floor wax, electrical and plumbing supplies).'

6. 'That he has failed to establish adequate payroll and accounting procedures for said Park and Recreation Board or if such procedures have been established, he has failed to properly supervise the personnel engaged in the performance of such work.'

7. 'That he has failed to establish adequate payroll and accounting procedures for said Park and Recreation Board or if such procedures have been established, he has failed to properly supervise the personnel engaged in the performance of such work, and as a proximate consequence thereof, the names of persons have been placed on payrolls who did not exist or the names of persons were shown on payrolls who did not perform the services for which payments were made, and hourly laborers have been paid for hours that they did not work.'

8. 'That classified and unclassified employees have performed unauthorized work for compensation at times when they were on the payrolls of said Park and Recreation Board and receiving pay from the City of Birmingham.'

9. 'That he knew or should have known that some of the personnel (of the Park Board) used equipment and gasoline of said Park and Recreation Board of work other than that of the said Park and Recreation Board for which they received compensation.'

10. 'That he knew or should have known that some of the Park and Recreation Board personnel or members of their families were allowed, given or permitted to have special benefits or privileges of a monetary value or otherwise.'

11. 'That he has failed to adequately supervise, audit and control the leases made by the Park and Recreation Board of its properties and for concessions.'

12. 'That he has failed to establish an effective system for purchases under $500.00, or if such a system has been established he has failed to properly supervise the personnel making such purchases.'

13. 'That he has failed to establish effective systems, procedures and controls of the operations, properties and personnel of said Park and Recreation Board, or if such were established, they are not properly supervised or enforced, and as a proximate consequence, the following resulted: a substantial part of the physical properties and grounds have not been properly maintained and are in a bad state of repair; equipment, gasoline and oil have been used for unauthorized work and purposes; payrolls have been padded and payments made where the names of the persons appearing on the payroll were ficticious or unknown, and payments have been made for services not rendered; special...