DeKalb County Federal Court Ruling Regarding SACS Report in Layman's Terms

7/29/2019 DeKalb County Federal Court Ruling Regarding SACS Report in Layman's Terms

1/4

Page 1 of 4

Copyright 2013 Get the Cell Out - Atlanta Chapter www.GETtheCELLoutATL.org [email protected]

What the Federal Judge Said (in Laymans Terms)

ORDER

The judge is being asked to consider a case. In this case, the Plaintiff wants the judge to tell the Governor

of Georgia that he cannot suspend members of the DeKalb School Board. The judge has already read

everything that both sides of this argument have presented and listened to their side of things on March 1,2013. He is now going to officially write down his instructions in this matter.

BACKGROUND

But, before he tells you what he has decided, he wants you to understand the background of this particular

situation. The DeKalb County School District (DCSD) was placed on a status called Accredited

Probation, by an accrediting agency called SACS (the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools).

They were given a notice that said they had to present some information to their higher-ups, the State BOE

(Board of Education). There is a law that requires the state BOE to set this hearing if a situation like this

arises. The DeKalb board members must present a case that explains any valid reasons why they should

not lost their jobs.

Earlier, on Feb. 20, 2013, the school board tried to stop the state BOE from holding a hearing by asking fora temporary restraining order. Dr. Eugene Walker also requested the same thing as an individual as a

member and chairman of the DeKalb school board. But, together, the requests were denied.

So, the next day, Feb. 21, the state BOE held the hearing, which is similar to a court trial, but with different

rules that are not as strict as a criminal trial. After the hearing, the state BOE voted and decided to

recommend that the Governor suspend 6 of the 9 members of the local BOE. Three of them were not

serving in office at the time the school system accreditation was lowered to the Probation status so the law

for suspension by the Governor does not apply to them.

After the decision, the school board and Dr. Walker individually asked the state court for an emergency

motion for a temporary restraining order to stop the Governor from suspending them and to stop him from

appointing replacements. The state court ruled on Feb. 22 that the request was denied, but in the

meantime, the federal court decided they should also be kept in the loop since the decision might be a

violation of the right to vote which is guaranteed under the U.S. constitution.

The states ruling said that the Governor could go ahead and do whatever he was going to do, but if he

suspended anyone, they would not actually lose their jobs, but they would not be allowed to conduct any

official business. Also, if he named new folks to the school board, they would not be permitted to take

office until the mess was figured out about whether the suspended ones would be allowed to stay. The

judge said the purpose of this action was to maintain the status quo.

On Feb. 25, the Governor did go through with suspending the 6 members of the DeKalb school board, but

he did not immediately name any replacements.

When school board and Dr. Walker learned that the federal court was interested, they decided to drop their

lawsuit from the state court. So, on March 1, the federal hearing took place. The judge heard from both

sides and then considered what he might do based on the evidence.

DISCUSSION

Basically, what the 6 school board members and Dr. Walker wanted the court to do was called a

preliminary injunction. The judge cited another federal case that called this request to be something that

was considered extraordinary and drastic. For that reason, there would be a lot of stuff that the school

board and Dr. Walkers side would have to prove to the judge.

They would have to show that the reason they were being removed from office were not very good reasons.


2/4

Page 2 of 4


They would have to show that with the court helping them in this way, the harm that could result would be

something that could never be repaired.

They would have to show that their side was going to face the tougher loss if they do not get their

injunction to stop them from being removed.

They must prove that the judge would not be going against the best interest of the public if he did decide to

grant the injunction.

Then the judge cited some other federal cases that proved these things were necessary because thats how it

was done there, too.

Those things he listed are called the standards. He has to use them to make a decision on things that the

attorney for the school board and Dr. Walker is asking about.

They say the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution will be violated AND the Georgia Constitution. Dr.

Walkers lawsuit says the same.

The answer is a little different as to why there was not enough proof that the amendment would be violated

and he explains it a little further. The judge said he can tell you what he thinks about the U.S. amendment

portion, but he thinks it is better that the State of Georgia Supreme Court rules on the issue about whether

or not the state constitution would be violated.

A. Fourteenth Amendment Claim

1. DeKalb County School District

The defendants (attorney representing the citizens of the state of Georgia and the

Governor of Georgia) have asked if the School District is even allowed to bring this

lawsuit against them at all. They mentioned some cases that show that the court is

limited in what it can do in a democratic society.

The school district is a subdivision of the state of Georgia and there are laws stating that a

subdivision of the state cannot challenge a state statute.

The defendants also state that there is no injury for the school board to be complaining about inthe first place. They say that the school board is only making a general complaint about

government, but they have to show actual harm that would be caused if the judge does not stop

the Governor from acting. There is no harm to the public at large because the school board

positions are intended to be filled by members of the general public, not by specific people who

cannot be replaced. And, Dr. Walker cannot show that he would personally be harmed in any

way because he will be suspended with full pay.

The judge decided that the question about whether or not the school district can bring a lawsuit

against the state doesnt really matter right now. He thinks the biggest issue is whether or not

the Plaintiffs (school board and Dr. Walker) can actually prove that there will be any harm if the

court does not act in their favor. Without proving that, there is no merit on which to base the

case.

The judge says that due process oflaw requires proof that someone is being deprived of their

rights to life, liberty or property without some type of notice and the opportunity for a hearing.

While Dr. Walker could be asserting that he is being denied a form of property (income, in t his

case), there is nothing identified that the school system or board members collectively would

be denied if the 6 members are removed and replaced with 6 other members.

The school district does not exist to serve any particular person. Rather, it is simply a necessity

at a board be in place so that business can be conducted. It must allow the Governor to appoint


3/4

Page 3 of 4


replacements whenever there are vacancies so that the school districts business will not have to

be interrupted. So, the judge says he has not seen any evidence that show that there is any loss of

property interest for the school district and therefore there is no merit for a claim under the 14 th

amendment of the U .S. Constitution.

2. Dr. Eugene Walker

Unlike the school district, Dr. Walker does have property that should be protected under the 14 th

amendment so his claim can go forward. However, he would have to show that he was facing a

loss of that property and that is not the case.

Dr. Walkers case is based partially on the fact that he has the right to a hearing before being

terminated from his office. The Georgia law requires that he be removed first and then have a

hearing for reinstatement. The judge said that the fact that the suspension is with pay does

make up for some of the trouble being created by this process of offering a hearing after the fact.

Dr. Walkers side said that it could take up to 9 months for the hearing and the judge said he

didnt think that sounded unusually long.

The board members received notice of the state BOE hearing and received a copy of the SACS

report that listed the claims against them. He decided the notice was fine. He did think the

SACS report lacked some detail (like exactly whom on the board was being accused of what), buthe decided that an ordinary person exercising ordinary common sense can sufficiently

understand the accusations. So, the judge decided the notice and pre-determination process was

fine. And, the post-termination portion of the law that allows the members to a hearing for

reinstatement is an additional way to ensure they are not being treated unfairly.

So, the judge thinks it is fair to say that Dr. Walker does not have a case based on the 14 th

amendment claims.

B. State Law Claims

The Plaintiffs say that the state law violates the Georgia Constitution. They say that there is a

section that says that their positions, as elected officials, must be treated differently for removal

purposes. They believe that the lawmakers do not have the authority to make a law that wouldcreate a means for their removal because both they and the lawmakers are elected officials. They

also point out that the state constitution mentions that an additional qualification must be

require before suspension of an elected official and the law that is being used to remove them

does not include this additional qualification.

The law is called the School Board Suspension Statute and it was passed in 2010. To date, the

Georgia Supreme Court has not taken up any of these state constitution issues. With all due

respect to the states and their authority over public education, the federal judge says he will not

be ruling on these issues. They need to go back to the state court, but theres only one problem:

that case was dropped. So, it will have to be filed again if the Plaintiffs want to go forward with

it. But, that might take a lot of time, so there is another way to go about it.

The federal judge says he can certify official questions that are asked to the Georgia SupremeCourt. Since he thinks that it is critical to get all this done as quickly as possible, he will ask for

the answers on the state questions first and then make his final decision. So, both sides should

meet and decide what questions they would like to ask of the Georgia Supreme Court. If they

cannot agree after 10 days, then they can each submit their own separate set of questions to the

court.

C. Injunctive Relief

Neither the school system nor Dr. Walker has presented anything that shows a good enough


4/4

Page 4 of 4


reason for the judge to stop the Governor from moving ahead, at least not from a federal

perspective. There might be a slightly better chance at the state level, but nothing can be ruled

until they get the answers back from the certified questions.

The lawyers do make a persuasive argument about the lawmakers not being authorized to make

the suspension of school board provision in the first place, but there is a general assumption that

they are duly authorized to do whatever they want, so there isnt much of a chance that this

argument is going to fly, either.

Since the board members are currently unable to perform their duties but will still receive full

pay, there is no real loss for them. If by some wild chance the states answers to the questions

would end up changing the judges mind, then they would still get their jobs back and the only

loss would be a few months of service. Thats not too big of a deal, really.

The public, on the other hand, has an interest in seeing their own elected officials actually serve

in office. However, the public has an even bigger interest in seeing the public education system

succeed. There was enough evidence to convince SACS and the state BOE that the DeKalb

Board of Education deserved to be placed on Probation. And, the harm that could be caused by a

total loss of accreditation would be far more profound that the harm of any single board member

being out of a job.

In fact it would be far easier to make things up to the board members if they were to win their

case eventually. But, it would be nearly impossible to make up the loss of accreditation to the

students.

Based on everything stated above, the judge denies the request to stop the Governor and he takes

back the restraining order that was previously issued in order to temporarily stop the Governor

from fully suspending the 6 board members and appointing new ones.

CONCLUSION

Like the man just said, the request to stop the Governor is denied and the temporary restraining order is

removed. The federal court will direct the state court to answer the certified questions after the parties

agree to what those questions are. If they cannot agree, they can send separate questions.

That is the official order. Today is March 4, 2013

Richard Story, U.S. District Judge

(This summary is not an official approved document of the court. It is a private interpretation of the judges written decision.

Author not responsible for any errors that may have occurred in the attempted translation to laymans terms.)

Documents

DeKalb County Federal Court Ruling Regarding SACS Report in Layman's Terms