Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Richard Franklin, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No.: ______________
)
)
Birmingham City Board of )
Education; Wardine T. Alexander, )
Sherman Collins, Jr., )
Lyord Watson, Brian Giattina, )
Daagye Hendricks, Cheri Gardner, )
Randall Woodfin, April M. )
Williams, and Sandra Brown )
in their individual capacities and )
official capacities as members of the)
Jefferson County Board )
of Education; Fictitious Parties A, )
B, and C, )
)
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW Plaintiff Richard Franklin and for his Complaint against
Birmingham, Alabama.
2. Defendant Birmingham City Board of Education (Board) is a local entity of
1
3. Defendant Wardine T. Alexander is, on information and belief, an adult resident of
the City of Birmingham, Alabama, and is the President of the Birmingham City
Board of Education.
4. Defendant Sherman Collins, Jr. is, on information and belief, an adult resident of
the City of Birmingham, Alabama, and is the Vice President of the Birmingham
of Education.
6. Defendant Brian Giattina is, on information and belief, an adult resident of the City
of Education.
7. Defendant Daagye Hendricks is, on information and belief, an adult resident of the
Board of Education.
8. Defendant Cheri Gardner is, on information and belief, an adult resident of the City
of Education.
9. Defendant Randall Woodfin is, on information and belief, an adult resident of the
Board of Education.
10.Defendant April M. Williams is, on information and belief, an adult resident of the
Board of Education.
2
11.Defendant Sandra Brown is, on information and belief, an adult resident of the City
of Education.
12.Fictitious Parties A, B, and C, whether singular or plural, are those persons or
entities who authorized expenditure of Board funds for travel, food, and lodging
JURISDICTION
13.This is an action seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief for the
law. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to Rule 65,
Ala.R.Civ.P., Rule 81(a)(15), (16), and (19), Ala.R.Civ.P., and 6-6-220, et seq.,
and 6-6-500, et seq., Code of Alabama (1975). Plaintiff also invokes the
jurisdiction of this Court seeking relief to which he is entitled for violation of state
law, particularly Ala. Code 16-11-5 which prohibits city boards of education
from passing any motion or resolution without a concurrence of the majority of the
board. The Court has jurisdiction over these matters pursuant to the Constitution
of Alabama.
14.Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have misused public funds by expending such
3
interpretation of the law and are not immune to suite pursuant to Ex Parte
VENUE
16.Venue is proper pursuant to Rule 82(b)(1)(A) and 82(c), Ala.R.Civ.P., and 6-3-
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
17.Ala. Code 16-11-5 prohibits city boards of education from passing any motion or
negotiate with the Alabama Association of School Boards (AASB) for that
The Search Committee also presented for Board approval a timeline for the
February 28, 2017, and a final candidate to be selected on March 13, 2017.
4
21.At the December 13, 2016 meeting, the Search Committee requested Board
services rendered in the search for a superintendent. The Search Committee did
not request, and the Board did not approve, any expenditure of funds related to the
Board in a meeting that complied with the Alabama Open Meetings Act (OMA),
Ala. Code 36-25A-1, et seq. The Board has not voted to approve any changes
complied with the requirements of the OMA since the December 13, 2016 meeting.
More importantly, the Board has not authorized any additional expenditure of
funds associated with the superintendent search in a meeting that complied with
the OMA.
23.The superintendent search has not proceeded in accordance with the timeline and
process approved by the Board in the December 13, 2016 meeting. Among other
deviations, the Board did not begin interviewing candidates until April 19, 2017.
utilized the Boards public funds to pay for travel, food, and lodging expenses.
5
This expenditure of public funds was not, at any point, approved by a majority vote
of the Board.
25.Upon information and belief, two out-of-state candidates have been asked to return
to Birmingham for a second in-person interview, and public funds will again be
used to pay for travel, food, and lodging expenses. The Board has not, by majority
public Board funds without express approval by majority vote of the Board. The
payment of candidates travel, food, and lodging expenses without Board approval,
and the impending repetition of that violation for a second round of interviews,
Public Accounts (Examiners) performed an audit of the Boards finances for the
period of October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015, pursuant to the authority
granted the Department by Ala. Code 41-5-21. The report of that audit is
attached hereto as Exhibit A. Included in that report is a finding that the Board
deviation from the Boards contract with that superintendent and Board policy
regarding compensation for accrued sick leave. (Ex. A, pp. D-E). The Examiners
noted specifically that [w]ithout official action taken by the Board, this expense
6
which deviated from the contract and the Boards policy is not considered as
food, and lodging expenses related to their interviews without receiving Board
approval.
29.Plaintiff has been harmed by the Boards unauthorized expenditure of public funds
the education of children in the City of Birmingham, and erodes public trust and
COUNT ONE
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
30.Plaintiffs adopt and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 29 as if set out anew herein.
31.As set out above, Defendants violated Ala. Code 16-11-5 when they utilized
public Board funds to pay the travel, food, and lodging expenses without Board
approval.
following: Issue a declaratory judgment that the Defendants actions violate Ala.
Code 16-11-5, and that the Board must expressly approve any expenditure of
public funds.
Issue a declaratory judgment that Defendants are obligated to seek
7
That this Court award such fees, costs, and expenses of maintaining this
action in order to restore legal rights of which Defendants had clear knowledge,
expressly requiring that the costs of this action be taxed against the Defendants,
which costs would include, but not be limited to, reasonable attorneys fees.
Plaintiff further prays that he be awarded any further relief, and that such
32.Plaintiffs adopt and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 29 as if set out anew herein.
33.As set out above, Defendants violated Ala. Code 16-11-5 when they utilized
public Board funds to pay the travel, food, and lodging expenses without Board
approval.
following:
An Order that directs Defendants to immediately cease all unauthorized
expenditure of public funds and that prohibits Defendants from expending any
public funds for the travel, food, and lodging expenses of superintendent
Board in a meeting in compliance with the Alabama Open Meetings Act, Ala. Code
36-25A-1, et seq.
8
That this Court order Fictitious Parties A, B, and/or C to reimburse the
Board in the amount of the funds that party authorized to be expended without
Board approval.
That this Honorable Court award such fees, costs, and expenses of
maintaining this action in order to restore legal rights of which Defendants had
clear knowledge, expressly requiring that the costs of this action be taxed against
the Defendants, which costs would include, but not be limited to, reasonable
attorneys fees.
Plaintiff further prays that he be awarded any further relief, and that such
s/ Nicolas M. Stanojevich
NICOLAS M. STANOJEVICH (STA113)
s/ Glen M. Connor
GLEN M. CONNOR (CON003)
OF COUNSEL:
9
205.803.4143 fax
gconnor@qcwdr.com
nstanojevich@qcwdr.com
10