Case Title: Adams v. Farlow

Citation: 516 So. 2d 528

Docket Number: 61106

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1987-09-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
516 So. 2d 528 (1987)
Leland C. ADAMS, Jr., et al.
v.
Carl P. FARLOW, et al.
Leland C. ADAMS, Jr., et al.
v.
AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY, et al. (Two Cases)
Leland C. ADAMS, Jr., et al.
v.
Paul W. GREEN, et al.
85-300, 85-448, 85-888 and 85-1032.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 18, 1987.
Rehearing Denied November 20, 1987.
*529 W. Eugene Rutledge and Kay S. Kelly, Birmingham, for appellants.
A.J. Noble, Jr. of Burr & Foreman, Birmingham, for appellees.
BEATTY, Justice.
These four cases were consolidated on appeal. They arise from controversies between *530 the two boards that comprise the board of trustees of the trust established by the codicil to the will of John J. Eagan. The two boards are the Board of Operatives and the Board of Management.[1] The res of the trust is the American Cast Iron Pipe Company ("ACIPCo"). In a previous decision arising out of another controversy between these two boards, Farlow v. Adams, 474 So. 2d 53 (Ala.1985), this Court set out a brief explanation of the components of the Eagan trust and ACIPCo, which we quote here in order to provide a backdrop for an understanding of the various bases for the present controversies:
"`The trustees, appointed by this codicil, in accepting the trust and acting hereunder will be trustees both for said employees and said persons requiring the product of said company. It is my will and desire that said trustees in the control of said company, through the control of said common stock, shall be guided by the sole purpose of so managing said company as to enable said American Cast Iron Pipe Company to deliver the company's product to persons, requiring it, at actual cost, which shall be considered the lowest possible price consistent with the maintenance and extension of the company's plant or plants and business and the payment of reasonable salaries and wages to all employees of said company, my object being to insure "service" both to the purchasing public and to labor on the basis of the Golden Rule given by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.'"
474 So. 2d  at 54-55.
In Farlow v. Adams, this Court held that members of the Operatives could not be fired without cause. We explained:
474 So. 2d  at 58.
As the foundation for their various requests for relief in these consolidated cases, the Operatives contend that Management has attempted to ignore and circumvent this Court's decision in Farlow v. Adams, supra, and find other ways to dominate the trust. Additional facts specific to each appeal will be discussed in turn.
The facts pertinent to this appeal are as follows:
In early December 1984, E.E. Langner, ACIPCo's works manager and also a member of Management and the Board of Directors, issued a memorandum addressed to the Operatives concerning the enforcement of Plant Rule 12, which prohibits ACIPCo employees from "quitting work, leaving assigned work area, ... or leaving during working hours without permission from immediate supervisor." In his memorandum to the Operatives, Langner stated the following:
Apparently from the time of this memorandum and up until August 30, 1985, all of the Operatives abided by Plant Rule 12. The Operatives do not dispute Management's contention that the Operatives were never denied permission to leave the plant during their working hours to see their attorney; that no one ever inquired about the Operatives' reason or purpose for going to see their attorney; and that the Operatives were always able to perform their duties as Operatives and as trustees without violating this or other plant rules.
In August 1985, the Operatives learned that ACIPCo had hired, or was planning to hire, temporary contract labor from Manpower, Inc. Because the Operatives were of the opinion that the employment of contract labor was in violation of the Eagan trust, three of the members of the Operatives requested Carl P. Farlow, in his capacity as chairman of the board of trustees, to call a special trustees meeting for the purpose of discussing ACIPCo's use of contract labor. Farlow refused because he did not think that the use of Manpower, Inc., fell within the province of the board of trustees. Farlow also assured these Operatives that no Manpower, Inc., workers would work 40 hours a week if any ACIPCo employee was working less than 40 hours a week.
After Farlow refused to call a special meeting, several Operatives members orally requested the vice chairman of the board of trustees, Leland Adams, to call the *532 meeting. The rules and regulations governing the board of trustees, which are included in the by-laws of ACIPCo as Article VII, provide at Section 3 the procedure for calling a special trustees meeting:
(Emphasis added.)
On August 16, 1985, after Adams also refused to call the meeting, a majority of the Operatives, acting under the above provision, issued a written call for a special trustees meeting to be held on August 27, 1985. When Farlow received his notice of this meeting, he then instructed the secretary of the board of trustees to call a special meeting for August 23, 1985, four days prior to the meeting called by the Operatives. Upon receiving notice of the August 23 meeting, two of the Operatives, Adams and Bradford, went to the secretary, P.W. Green, and asked for an agenda of the meeting called by Farlow. Green explained that there was no agenda but told them that he presumed the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the contract labor issue.
At the August 23 meeting, Farlow told the Operatives that the meeting was called in response to their request for a meeting, and he took the position that the August 27 meeting called by the Operatives was improper because it had not been called in accordance with the by-laws. Farlow's interpretation of the portion of the by-laws quoted supra required the Operatives to submit their request in writing to Adams, the vice-chairman, upon Farlow's refusal to call the meeting. The Operatives disagreed and explained that they were not then prepared to discuss the contract labor issue because, for example, they had not prepared the resolutions they planned to introduce. Farlow told the Operatives that there would not be an August 27 meeting, and that Management would not attend any meeting the Operatives attempted to conduct.
The Operatives assembled on August 27 for the trustees meeting they had called. None of the members of Management were present. Several of the Operatives attempted, but were unable, to find any of the members of Management and were informed that Farlow was away from the plant and that all the others were out of town. The Operatives proceeded with their trustees meeting and passed the following resolution:
"The Board of Trustees does hereby resolve that the use of contract labor, whether provided by an entity engaged in the provision of contract labor as a *533 legal business or otherwise, is contrary to the provisions of the John J. Eagan Trust and is prohibited by the terms and conditions thereof except as to professional services provided by professional persons.
The resolution went on to provide that the prohibition against using contract labor at ACIPCo would also apply to any wholly-owned subsidiaries of ACIPCo as soon as practicable.
On Friday, August 30, 1985, three days after the August 27 meeting, Adams had an appointment scheduled with the Operatives' attorney to prepare the necessary letters to be delivered to Farlow and the other committee members informing them of the above resolution. Early that morning, Adams asked his supervisor, Bert Bowlin, for permission to leave the plant during his working hours to see the Operatives' attorney. According to Adams, Bowlin gave him permission to leave. Bowlin, however, testified that he did not give Adams permission, and that since the December 7, 1984, memorandum (quoted supra), he had required Adams to obtain permission from Langner, the works manager. Adams testified that he did go to Langner's office to see him or one of his assistants about leaving the plant, but that none of them was present. Adams then went to see Glen Hicks, the personnel director, who was in a meeting. Because he was running late for his 8:00 a.m. appointment, Adams did not wait for Hicks and, instead, asked Hicks's secretary to tell him where he was going and that he could be reached there. When Hicks learned that Adams left the plant without obtaining his permission, he reported it to Langner *534 around 9:30 a.m. Langner then checked with Bowlin, Adams's supervisor, to see if he had given Adams permission to leave. Upon learning that Bowlin had not given Adams permission to leave, Langner prepared a written reprimand on Adams that same day.
The following Monday was Labor Day, an ACIPCo holiday, so the "workload meeting" between the Operatives and one or more representatives from the works manager's office, which is regularly scheduled to be held every other Monday, was held at noon on Tuesday, September 5, 1985. At that meeting, Langner presented to each of the Operatives a written memorandum, set out below, concerning a change in the compensation to Operatives members for attending special Operatives meetings:
(Emphasis added.)
Prior to this change, the Operatives did not have to obtain approval in order to be paid for non-scheduled Operatives meetings held before or after their respective regular working hours. The Operatives are paid their "regular shift differential for time charged to Board business during *535 their normal scheduled work shift and hours." They are paid the first shift rate (apparently a higher rate) for time charged to board business in excess of regularly scheduled work hours. According to Langner, the requirement that overtime pay for non-scheduled meetings be authorized was imposed in response to alleged abuses by some of the Operatives, which he had either witnessed or which had been reported to him, resulting in excessive amounts of overtime claimed by the Operatives.
At the conclusion of the September 3 workload meeting, Langner told Adams to report to Langner's office at 1:30 p.m. Adams went to Langner's office at 1:30 p.m. as directed, accompanied by another member of the Operatives. Hicks, the personnel director, was also present. At this meeting, Langner informed Adams that he was being given a writen reprimand for violating Plant Rule 12 on August 30, 1985, by leaving the plant without permission. Langner read the reprimand to Adams but did not give him a copy.
On that same day, September 3, 1985, Farlow wrote Adams a letter in response to Adams's letter informing Farlow of the resolution passed by the Operatives acting as the board of trustees at their August 27 meeting which Management refused to attend. In this letter, set out in pertinent part below, Farlow once again disavowed and disaffirmed the validity of any of the actions taken by the Operatives purportedly acting as the board of trustees at the August 27 meeting, because he contended the meeting was improperly called and a quorum was not present:
(Emphasis added.)
The Operatives contend that the phrase "without proper authority," included in the *536 sentence emphasized above, is in reference to Plant Rule 6, which prohibits "[d]isobedience to proper authority," the minimum penalties for which include: reprimand for a first offense; two-week layoff for a second offense; and discharge for a third offense.
Responding to what it perceived to be threats of punitive actions against them by Management, the Operatives filed a motion in this case on September 16, 1985, seeking a temporary restraining order and temporary and permanent injunctive relief.[2] Specifically, the Operatives asked the trial court to grant the following relief:
By an order dated September 17, 1985, the trial court denied the Operatives' request for a temporary restraining order. Following a ten-day trial and the submission of briefs by both parties, the trial court entered a rather lengthy order on December 6, 1985, denying the Operatives' motion for preliminary injunction.[3] It is from this order that the Operatives appeal.
In Howell Pipeline Co. v. Terra Resources, Inc., 454 So. 2d 1353, 1356 (Ala. 1984), this Court set out a three-pronged *537 test by which the trial court can review an application for a preliminary injunction:
"Double C. Productions, Inc. v. Exposition Enterprises, 404 So. 2d 52, 54 (Ala. 1981). `In measuring the relief sought by a complainant against this standard, the trial court, then, in its discretion and under the individual facts and circumstances of each case, "... may consider and weigh the relative degree of injury or benefit to the respective parties...."' Id., citing Valley Heating, Cooling and Electric Company v. Alabama Gas Corporation, 286 Ala. [79] at 82, 237 So.2d [470] at 472 [(1970)]."
Additionally, as recently recognized by this Court in Marshall Durbin & Co. of Jasper, Inc. v. Jasper Utilities Board, 483 So. 2d 399, 400 (Ala.1986):
"`Furthermore, the law in this State is settled that, on a motion for preliminary injunction, the burden is on complainant to satisfy the court that there is at least a reasonable probability of ultimate success on the merits of the controversy. Postal Telegraph v. City of Mobile, 179 F. 955 (C.C.S.D.Ala. 1909).'
A party appealing from the grant or denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction also bears a heavy burden because a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion seeking a preliminary injunction will not be disturbed on appeal, absent a gross abuse of discretion. Marshall Durbin & Co. of Jasper, Inc., supra; Howell Pipeline Co., supra. This gross abuse of discretion must be such as to result in manifest injustice unless this Court sets aside the trial court's order.
Having reviewed the record in this case, along with the respective briefs and arguments of counsel for both sets of parties, we cannot say the trial court grossly abused its discretion in denying the Operatives' request for preliminary injunctive relief. Indeed, as to the "permission to leave rule" issue, the "removal of the reprimand" issue, and the "approval of overtime pay for special Operatives' meetings" issue, we agree with and hereby adopt the order of the trial court:
"The evidence has shown that since at least December 7, 1984, the Plaintiffs have been seeking and requesting permission prior to their leaving the plant premises during their working hours to consult with the Board of Operatives' attorney. Until the incident involving Leland C. Adams, Jr. resulting in a written reprimand to him on September 3, 1985, (discussed later herein), the evidence shows that the Plaintiffs had suffered no difficulty, injury or damage as a result of following the permission procedure. There has been no evidence presented that any of the Plaintiffs have been denied permission to leave the plant premises to consult with their attorney on Board of Operatives business or that any of the Defendants have ever demanded to know or tried to learn the reasons it was necessary for the Plaintiffs, or any of them, to meet with their attorney at a particular time. To the contrary, the evidence has shown that *538 Plant Rule 12 ... has been in existence for many years and that the evidence has failed to show that it has been applied unfairly or more restrictively to the Plaintiffs than any other wage employee.
"`Board members will be compensated for time that they are required by the Company to attend committee meetings and investigations, as well as for the regular meeting of the Board on the first Monday of each month whether during regular working hours or not. Pay for special Board meetings not held during regular working hours must be authorized by the Works Manager's office.'
As to the Operatives' request that Management be restrained from interfering with the Operatives' attempts to implement the contract labor resolution passed on August 27, 1985 (quoted supra), we agree with the trial court that the Operatives are not entitled to the issuance of a preliminary injunction as to this matter because they have failed to establish that imminent and irreparable injury will result if the injunction is not issued. However, we do not agree that this claim "fails to show a fair question to raise as to the existence of a right to relief," which is, nevertheless, only one of several factors to be considered. In the portion of its order dealing with the resolution, the trial court stated the following:
(Emphasis added.) Based on our reading of the clear language of Article VII, Section 3, setting forth the procedure for calling a special trustees meeting, we cannot agree with the trial court's preliminary finding that the meeting was not properly called. However, the error of this preliminary finding by the trial court does not compel reversal because of the narrow issue here presented.[4]
Management argues that Article VII, Section 3, requires that when the chairman of the board of trustees refuses to call a special meeting, as he did in the present case, a majority of either board must submit to the vice chairman a written request to call a special meeting, upon which he must refuse or fail to act before a majority of that board may call the meeting themselves. This construction of Section 3 does not comport with the plain language of that provision. As the following pertinent sentences make clear, resort to the vice chairman by a majority of either board is required only in the absence of the chairman or his inability to act:
(Brackets and emphasis added.) The bracketed portion of the second sentence above is sub-disjunctive; that is, applicable only in the event of the second contingency expressed, viz., the chairman's absence or inability to act. Thus, in the present case, where the chairman refused, it was unnecessary for a majority of the Operatives to submit to the vice chairman a written request to call a special meeting before they could make the call themselves.
We reserve opinion as to the correctness of the other preliminary "findings" of the trial court with respect to the validity of the resolution passed by the Operatives in their capacity as the board of trustees. The evidence on these issues should be fully developed upon a consideration of the merits of the Operatives' complaint seeking a preliminary injunction.
Based on the foregoing, the order of the trial court denying the Operatives' motion for preliminary injunction is due to be affirmed.
This case, also an appeal from the denial of a motion for preliminary injunction, involves the validity of the actions taken at a December 4, 1985, meeting of the ACIPCo Board of Directors. Underlying the Operatives' attack on the validity of those actions is their contention that the board of directors was improperly constituted on December *540 4, 1985, and, therefore, that any actions taken by the board during the directors' meeting held that day were without force and effect.
Because the proper composition of the ACIPCo board of directors, both in number and respective positions, is at the heart of the factual inquiry in this case, we set out below the pertinent provisions of the ACIPCo by-laws regarding the number of directors as well as the provisions pertaining to the various seats on the board:
"If the by-laws of the Company permit, there may be elected a Director in *541 addition to those above provided, who shall be the seventeenth Director."
(Emphasis added.)
The recent history of the composition of the ACIPCo board of directors, including the facts pertinent to this controversy, is undisputed and is set out by the trial court in its order, which we incorporate with additional facts:
Thus, eleven directors were in attendance at the December 4 meeting. The action taken by the board at that meeting included the following:
Harbert, after routine business, moved that Farlow be elected to serve exclusively as chairman of the board of directors. All of the directors other than Farlow, Johnson, and Sloan voted in favor of the resolution. Johnson and Sloan, the two directors from the Operatives, voted against it, and Farlow abstained. There were thus eight votes in favor.
Farlow then submitted a written resignation as president of ACIPCo, which stated: "I hereby resign as President of American Cast Iron Pipe Company effective immediately." It was unanimously accepted.
Harbert then moved that P.W. Green be elected president and chief executive officer of the company. The motion was seconded and all present voted in favor of the resolution except Sloan and Johnson, who voted against, and Green, who abstained. There were thus eight votes in favor. Green then submitted his resignation, which read: "I hereby resign as Vice President and Sales Manager and Secretary of American Cast Iron Pipe Company effective immediately." The resignation was *542 unanimously accepted by the Board of Directors.
Harbert then moved to elect Richard Bragdon as secretary of ACIPCo, the motion was seconded, and all present voted in favor, except Johnson and Sloan, who voted against, and Bragdon, who abstained. There were thus eight votes in favor.
Another motion was made, seconded, and adopted by a vote of all present, except Sloan and Johnson, who voted against it, that Green as president of ACIPCo be appointed attorney in fact and agent of ACIPCo to vote all of the shares of capital stock owned by ACIPCo in its wholly-owned subsidiaries, American Valve & Hydrant Manufacturing Company, Specification Rubber Products, Inc., and Kristin Shipping Company.
On December 9, 1985, five days after the above board of directors meeting, the Operatives filed their complaint seeking a temporary restraining order, preliminary and final injunctive relief, and a declaratory judgment. The Operatives' requests for numerous and specific forms of relief were based on their underlying contentions that the December 4 directors' meeting, and the actions taken therein, were invalid in that the board was improperly constituted, that the number of directors had fallen below the minimum stated in the by-laws, that directors Farlow, Green, and Bragdon were disqualified by reason of interest, that a quorum was not present, and that the action taken was not done by a vote of the majority of the board as required by the by-laws. By their complaint, the Operatives requested the following specific relief:
"(i) Declare that Van L. Richey has not been validly appointed as sales manager of ACIPCO and that his name has been improperly certified to the Board of *543 Trustees, all as required by the ACIPCO By-Laws;
By an order entered on December 10, 1985, the trial court denied the Operatives' request for a temporary restraining order, and on January 14, 1986, the trial court entered another order denying their request for a preliminary injunction. In support of its decision to deny the preliminary injunction, the trial court made the following preliminary findings:
"A Board of Directors may continue to transact the business of the corporation even though the number of directors is reduced below the minimum required by the by-laws provided that the number of *544 directors does not fall below a quorum. Nevertheless, in this situation there were thirteen authorized directors of ACIPCO, and since Dr. Fargason's retirement, there have been twelve acting directors, which is the minimum number stated in the by-laws. Thus, with eleven directors present at the meeting, a quorum was present. Although there are situations where a director may be disqualified from voting by reason of personal pecuniary interests, this was not the case here. Defendants Farlow, Green, and Bragdon were not disqualified and could have voted for themselves. Even if Mr. Farlow had been disqualified from voting for himself, and Mr. Green had been disqualified from voting for himself, and Mr. Bragdon had been disqualified from voting for himself, each of them still received more votes than a majority of the then authorized directors.
It is from the above order that the Operatives appeal.
As stated, supra, in appeal 85-300, a party appealing from the denial of a motion for preliminary injunctive relief has the burden of showing that in denying that motion, the trial court grossly abused its discretion. This the Operatives have not done. What they have done is argue legal issues that bear strictly on the merits of the Operatives' claims. The Operatives open the argument portion of their brief in this appeal by stating the question for review thusly:
The above statement, we respectfully note, is not a correct assessment of the question presented to this Court by this appeal. At the conclusion of their argument in this case, the Operatives ask this Court to:
From our review of the record in this case, however, it appears that the Operatives have not yet been denied, on the merits, their requests for declaratory and permanent affirmative injunctive relief. While the trial court made certain preliminary findings, it did so only upon consideration of the Operatives' motion for preliminary injunctive relief; by express language in the trial court's order, only that portion of the Operatives' requested relief was denied. Thus, the merits of the legal issues argued by the Operatives are not yet ripe for review.
We recognize that by their arguments, the Operatives are attempting to establish as erroneous the trial court's finding that they "have failed to show a fair question as to the existence of a right to relief." However, this factor is but one of three that the trial court must consider in deciding whether to grant or deny a request for preliminary injunctive relief. Having reviewed the record in this case and having considered the arguments made by each side, we conclude that the Operatives have failed to establish that the trial court's denial of their request for a preliminary injunction amounted to a gross abuse of discretion.
The trial court's preliminary findings comport with a reasonable reading of the ACIPCo by-laws as they pertain to the composition and election of the board of directors and the circumstances under which that board is empowered to act. Furthermore, the evidence in this case supports the trial court's finding that denying the Operatives' motion for a preliminary injunction would not result in imminent and irreparable injury to the Operatives. The Operatives fail to point to any evidence of record that can establish the imminent and irreparable harm they will suffer as a consequence of the denial of their preliminary injunction motion, other than their allegation that Management will continue to have unbridled control over ACIPCo, the entire res of the Eagan trust. Moreover, the record clearly supports the trial court's finding that, in weighing the relative degree of injury or benefit to the respective parties, "ACIPCO and the other defendants would suffer greater injury and hardship than would be sustained by plaintiffs [Operatives]." See Double C. Productions, Inc. v. Exposition Enterprises, 404 So. 2d 52 (Ala.1981).
To preliminarily grant the relief requested by the Operatives would require a complete dismantling of the ACIPCo board of directors, divesting its members of all power, thereby drawing into question the validity of the actions already taken by that Board. It would further leave the company without a president, a secretary, or a sales manager. The effect of granting the Operatives' relief preliminarily could have far-reaching consequences in terms of the vital, day-to-day operations of the company. Clearly then, maintenance of the status quo, pending a final determination of the Operatives' claims, on the merits, is the least injurious to ACIPCo itself and those who benefit from its uninterrupted operation, and, supposedly, the protection and preservation of ACIPCo is the aim of each of the respective parties. The status quo in this case is preserved by not granting the Operatives' motion for preliminary afirmative injunctive relief.
It bears repeating that the issue before us here is the correctness of the order denying the preliminary injunction; "we are not reviewing a final judgment on a hearing of the case on its merits." Howell Pipeline Co v. Terra Resources, supra, 454 So. 2d  at 1358. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant the Operatives' request for a preliminary injunction. Therefore, the judgment below is due to be affirmed.
At the outset, we note that Management has filed motions to strike the Operatives' brief and reply brief and to dismiss the appeal in this case. The grounds alleged *546 concern the inclusion by the Operatives of quotes from and references to the affidavit of James Whitehead, which was not included in the record of this appeal. After filing their brief with this Court, the Operatives filed a motion in the trial court to correct and supplement the record in this case to include the Whitehead affidavit. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the Operatives' motion. For that reason, Management's motion to strike is due to be granted, but only as to that portion of the Operatives' briefs in which references to or quotes from the Whitehead affidavit are made.
On January 27, 1986, the Operatives and Management, as trustees, met for the annual meeting of the ACIPCo board of trustees. At this meeting, the respective boards cast their collective vote for or against a slate of individuals nominated for positions on the ACIPCo board of directors. Management nominated and voted in favor of each of the following persons: P.W. Green, president; V.L. Richey, sales manager; R.M. Bragdon, vice president in charge of engineering; E.E. Langner, vice president and works manager; J.P. Doughty, treasurer; Nick Johnson, a member of the Operatives; James Sloan, a member of the Operatives; J.A. Bragan, a member of the clerical forces of the company; Dr. J.W. Reid, an employee from the company at large; C.P. Farlow, chairman of the board of directors; and W.E. Snow, technical director. Each of these persons was an officer or employee of the company. Except for Nick Johnson, James Sloan, and J.A. Bragan, the Operatives voted against each of these persons.
Management nominated and voted in favor of John M. Harbert III, chairman of the board of the Harbert Corporation, to be the director to represent the buying public, and W.R. Eagan, the son of John J. Eagan, to be the director to represent the religious, social, and educational life of the country. Operatives voted against Harbert and Eagan.
Management also nominated Dr. Thomas A. Bartlett, chancellor of the University of Alabama System, and Wallace D. Malone, Jr., chairman and chief executive officer of Southtrust Corporation, to be outside directors of the company. Operatives voted against both of these men. Because the Operatives and Management failed to agree on all of the individuals nominated to the board of directors, pursuant to the following provision in the rules and regulations of the board of trustees found in Section 12 of Article VII of the ACIPCo by-laws, Management directed R.M. Bragdon, as secretary of the board of trustees, to refer the questions in dispute regarding the election of directors to the board of directors for final decision:
By letter dated January 30, 1986, directed to all of the ACIPCo directors, Bragdon referred the election questions to the directors for final decision.
Although the Operatives contend that, besides those referred by Management to the board of directors, disputes over additional questions arose at the January 27, 1980, board of trustees meeting (and thus the list of those referred by Management to the directors for final decision was incomplete), there is nothing in the record *547 indicating that the Operatives sought to refer those questions themselves, even though the above-quoted provision gives "[e]ither the Board of Management or the Board of Operatives" the right to direct the secretary to refer a disputed question to the directors.
In further pursuance of the above-quoted provision of the ACIPCo by-laws, Management filed its petition with "the presiding judge of the court having jurisdiction over this trust," seeking the appointment of "an attorney authorized to practice law in Birmingham, Alabama, who is not a member of either the Board of Operatives or the Board of Management," to preside over "[a]ny meeting of the members of the Board of Directors held for the purpose of deciding" the election questions in dispute referred to the directors by Management. Following the mandate of this Court's decision in Ex parte Nick Johnson, 481 So. 2d 353, 358 (Ala.1985), Management made the Operatives parties to the proceeding, giving them "notice and an opportunity to appear and participate in the appointment of an attorney provided for in such Rules and Regulations."
At the first scheduled hearing on the petition for appointment on March 10, 1986, the Operatives appeared and filed three motions: a motion to stay, a motion to dismiss, and a motion for summary judgment. The motions to stay and dismiss were denied, and the hearing on the petition for appointment was continued. Following a hearing on April 18, 1986, Judge John N. Bryan, Jr., the presiding judge of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, entered an order dated April 22, 1986, appointing the Honorable J.N. Holt to preside over the ACIPCo board of directors meeting to decide the questions in dispute which had been referred to them. As an aid in understanding the posture of this appeal, Judge Bryan's order is set out in its entirety below:
"Upon receipt of a petition to appoint attorney to preside over a meeting of the Board of Directors of American Cast Iron Pipe Company, with due notice being given to the respondents of such petition, to set same for hearing. At such hearing, said respondents to be granted the right to participate and the *548 right to be heard on who would be appointed as the attorney to preside over the meeting of the said Board of Directors. I view this to be the sole duty and obligation placed on the undersigned in his capacity and office of presiding judge of this circuit. I still view my function to be principally a ministerial duty coupled with a judicial duty to see that notice of the petition and hearing on said petition be given to each of the party respondents.
The Operatives raise a number of issues by their appeal. Nevertheless, we must first consider the parameters of Judge Bryan's "authority" in this case to consider many of these issues interjected by the Operatives as affirmative defenses to Management's petition for appointment. We agree with Judge Bryan that his duty to appoint a presiding attorney is ministerial, provided that it is undisputed and uncontroverted that all of the prerequisites to such an appointment have been met. That is, all of the conditions set out in Article VII, Section 12, of the ACIPCo *549 by-laws for such an appointment are present,[5] as well as the prerequisite mandated by this Court in Ex parte Johnson, supra, requiring that notice and opportunity to be heard be given to all necessary parties. If there are not factual disputes as to whether these prerequisites are met, the presiding judge's duty is purely ministerial and he has no discretion in making the appointment. Under these circumstances, he may, by way of mandamus, be compelled to perform his duty, or, conversely, be prevented from performing that duty where it is undisputed that one or more of the above prerequisites have not been met. See Ex parte Johnson, supra, and the dissenting opinion at 481 So. 2d 360-61.
It is only when there are factual issues as to whether all of the prerequisites to such an appointment have been met that the presiding judge's function becomes at least quasi-judicial. In that instance, the proceedings become adversarial, and by "deciding" the factual issues, and thereupon determining whether the appointment should be made, the presiding judge assumes the role of factfinder. Under these circumstances, the presiding judge's "decision" to appoint an attorney or not is one that would support an appeal. However, where there are no such factual issues to be decided, mandamus is the appropriate method of review.
In either event, upon the filing of only a petition for the appointment of an attorney under the language of the by-laws, supra, the purview of the presiding judge's power or "jurisdiction" is not in any way broadened to permit him to consider other matters besides those discussed above pertaining to the prerequisites for such an appointment. In other words, in the absence of a separate complaint filed invoking the full jurisdiction of the circuit court, it would be inappropriate for either party to present to the presiding judge matters pertaining to, for example, the merits of the reasons underlying the disputes between the Operatives and Management which necessitated resolution by the board of directors and therefore the petition for the appointment of a presiding attorney. Nor would it be appropriate, under a bare petition for appointment, for either party to present arguments to the presiding judge which, if accepted, would serve to invalidate the provision of the by-laws giving him the power to appoint an attorney to preside. Thus, Judge Bryan properly declined to rule on the issues pertaining to matters described above raised by the Operatives in response to Management's petition for appointment. (See discussion ante.)
In this case, the Operatives responded to the petition filed by Management with an answer in which they claimed, among other things, that Management (petitioners) "failed to comply with the By-laws of [ACIPCo] as required by the rules and regulations of the Board of Trustees and the decision in Moore v. Hardin." They further claimed that "[t]he questions to be considered by the Board of Directors have been improperly certified by the secretary of the Board of Trustees to the Board of Directors." The record in this case clearly establishes otherwise, and, therefore, the presiding judge's decision to appoint an attorney is due to be affirmed.
By their answer, the Operatives also sought to prevent the appointment by interjecting a number of other matters. They claimed that Management is estopped from petitioning for an appointment because "they have already filed two prior actions which are still pending in this Court requesting appointment of a Birmingham attorney *550 to preside over a meeting of the American Cast Iron Pipe Company Board of Directors and have obtained the relief requested, but have failed and refused to exercise such relief and have abandoned those actions without pursuing or concluding the same or using the relief granted."
It is undisputed that the two prior petitions referred to above were filed as a result of prior disputes between the Operatives and Management. It may very well be that some of the prior disputes overlap with those that arose during the January 27, 1986, meeting of the board of trustees of ACIPCo. Nevertheless, we fail to perceive how filing this petition, in addition to the previous petitions, "has probably injuriously affected substantial rights" of the Operatives. Rule 45, A.R.App.P. Indeed, had Management sought merely to make use of an appointment it had already obtained through prior petitions, it is likely that the Operatives would now be complaining that, because a subsequent meeting of the trustees was held out of which new disputes arose, another petition for appointment is necessary. On these facts, we find the Operatives' estoppel argument to be without merit.
The Operatives also sought to prevent the appointment essentially by attacking the validity of Article VII, Section 12, of the ACIPCO by-laws insofar as it allows the board of directors to resolve disputes between the Operatives and Management. Specifically, the Operatives alleged:
The merits of the issues raised by these allegations, however, are the subject of two other separate proceedings: one has been filed in Georgia seeking to challenge the change that was made in the Eagan codicil in 1924 at the request of Eagan's executors when the will was probated in Georgia in Eagan v. Moore, Case No. 61106 (Super.Ct., Fulton Co., Ga., December 15, 1924). (The codicil originally provided that tie votes between the Operatives and Management were to be resolved by a majority vote of the trustees presumably voting individually rather than each board casting one collective vote.) The other is a proceeding under Rule 60(b)(6), A.R.Civ.P., seeking to set aside the 1942 circuit court decree in Moore v. Hardin, Case No. 53715 (10th Jud.Cir. of Ala., Equity, 1942), approving the rules and regulations submitted by the 1942 ACIPCo board of trustees (which incorporated the above change), and thereby finding that the trustees had the power under the Eagan codicil to make such rules and regulations to govern themselves as well as subsequent trustees. (The Operatives' appeal from the denial of this Rule 60(b) motion is consolidated herewith and is discussed ante.) Thus, not only was it improper for the Operatives to raise these matters in this proceeding (brought simply to have an attorney appointed) because they were the subject of other separate actions (see Code of 1975, § 6-5-440), but also the trial court was correct to follow the ACIPCo rules and regulations empowering it to appoint an attorney under the facts of this case. Until the Operatives succeed in their attempts to set aside decisions upholding these rules, the trial court is duty bound to follow those decisions.
Based on the foregoing, the order below is due to be affirmed.
On February 21, 1986, the Operatives filed a motion entitled "Motion Under Rule 60, Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure For Relief From Judgment And To Declare Judgment Void And For Preliminary Injunction." By that motion, the Operatives sought to set aside and/or obtain relief from a decree entered on April 6, 1942, in the case of Moore v. Hardin, Case No. 53715 (10th Jud.Cir. of Ala., Equity, 1942).
The bill of complaint filed in Moore v. Hardin by the ACIPCo board of trustees in 1942 named as respondents 12 ACIPCo employees, both white and black, employed in each of the various departments of ACIPCo, and alleged that all 1,500 ACIPCo employees could not be made respondents "without great inconvenience, ... expense, and ... oppressive delays," and further alleged that the "interest of all and each of said [ACIPCo] employees ... in the subject matter of this suit is the same, and the failure to make other employees parties to this cause will not adversely affect any of the rights of any of said employees as such employees if a proper representation of employees be made parties hereto." After generally averring the origin, history, and composition of the ACIPCo board of trustees, the trustees alleged that their number "is comparatively large," and that the individual members changed from time to time, "especially ... the members of the Board of Operatives, who are elected by the employees of the Company." The trustees, therefore, believed that they needed a set of rules and regulations for guidance in performing their duties as trustees. In accord with that belief, the 1942 trustees, predecessors to the parties herein, adopted a set of rules and regulations at the February 1942 board of trustees meeting, of which, by their complaint, they sought court approval. Specifically, the trustees sought instructions from the court as to their administration of the trust and a declaration of their rights, particularly as to
The trustees also asked the court to decree that the 12 employees named respondents represented the interests of all ACIPCo employees.
Each of the respondents individually executed a joint acceptance of service on April 2, 1942, stating as follows:
An answer was also filed by Smyer & Smyer, as solicitors for respondents; that answer admitted certain of the allegations of the complaint and neither admitted nor denied certain others. The respondents also joined with the complainants in asking for instructions and directions as to the proper administration of the trust, and put in issue the question of whether or not the trustees have the right and authority to adopt reasonable rules and regulations governing the conduct of the trust, and the action of the trustees and their successors in the management and conduct of the trust.
Under the rules of procedure and practice in force at that time, the cause was submitted on the bill of complaint and exhibits, the answer, and the testimony of witnesses whose testimony had been taken down by a commissioner and submitted in writing. Based on this submission, the trial court entered a lengthy order in which it found, inter alia, that the 12 employees named as respondents were sufficiently representative of all classes of ACIPCo employees, and that it was, therefore, unnecessary *552 to make any other employees respondents to the cause. The court further found that it was desirable, and, in fact, necessary to the proper operation of the Eagan plan for the trustees to have suitable rules and regulations for the government of the board of trustees and that the trustees had the "right and authority" to adopt such rules and regulations. The court then specifically decreed that:
No appeal was taken from this order, and the trustees have been governed by the rules and regulations approved therein since April 6, 1942. By their Rule 60(b) motion, the Operatives sought to have this 1942 order set aside and declared void, alleging as grounds the following:
By order dated March 7, 1986, the trial court denied the Operatives' request for a preliminary injunction. Then, on May 29, 1986, the trial court entered an order designated an "Order Denying Preliminary Injunction on the Merits." The substance of this order, however, deals exclusively with the merits of the Operatives' request for Rule 60(b) relief; within the body of the order, there is no discussion whatsoever of the criteria applicable to motions for preliminary injunctions nor of whether the Operatives are entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. In its order, the trial court discussed only the merits of the grounds alleged by the Operatives in support of their Rule 60(b) motion, and thereby denied that motion. The parties have so construed this order in their respective briefs and arguments to this court. Therefore, despite its denomination and the language of the mandate at the end, we treat this order according to its substance rather than its form and consider it as an adjudication (i.e., a denial) of the Operatives' Rule 60(b) motion.
Management correctly states the standard of review applicable to a trial court's decision to grant or deny a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment:
Ex parte Dowling, 477 So. 2d 400, 402-03 (Ala.1984). Having reviewed the record in this case, along with the respective arguments of the parties and the applicable authorities, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Operatives' motion to set aside a judgment entered almost 44 years ago. Indeed, under Alabama law, the only ground that can be asserted to set aside a 44-year-old judgment is that the judgment is void on its face. See Sweeney v. Tritsch, 151 Ala. 242, 44 So. 184 (1907). However, a "judgment cannot be void when the Court has *553 jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter." Raine v. First Western Bank, 362 So. 2d 846, 849 (Ala.1978). The Operatives contend that the court in Moore v. Hardin, supra, had neither subject matter jurisdiction nor jurisdiction of all the necessary parties. Specifically, they contend the judgment is void because: (1) no guardian ad litem was appointed to represent minor beneficiaries and absent beneficiaries and trustees; (2) the necessary parties were not before the court; and (3) there was no case or controversy. As to these three reasons, the trial court held as follows:
"`As a general principle when a trustee is in reasonable doubt as to the extent of his powers or as to the proper manner in which to proceed under the trust, he may apply to a court of equity, which will interpret the trust instrument when necessary and when it is ambiguous in order to give him directions without other equity appearing in the bill.'
"In Bogert, The Law of Trusts & Trustees, § 559 (2d Rev.1980), the following is provided:
"`Equity has jurisdiction over all matters relating to trust property, and in the execution and administration of the trust, in all cases of doubt as to their rights and liabilities and what their conduct should be, trustees are entitled to and should seek instruction and direction from the court.'
"In Ex parte Nick Johnson, [481 So. 2d 353 (Ala.1985)], ACIPCO filed a petition in the Tenth Judicial Circuit requesting the Presiding Judge to appoint an attorney to preside over the meeting of the Board of Directors of ACIPCO as provided for in the rules and regulations quoted in this opinion. The Court appointed an attorney to preside over the meeting without notice having been given to any other party. Three days later, members of the Board of Operatives filed a motion to vacate the appointment. When this motion was denied, the Board of Operatives filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court of Alabama seeking to require the circuit court to vacate the appointment. The Supreme Court granted the writ, but only on the ground that the members of the Board of Operatives were entitled to reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard in opposition to the application. The Supreme Court there stated:
"`We do not agree with the petitioners' contention that the court below lacked subject matter jurisdiction. As we view the matter, the court acquired jurisdiction in the 1942 declaratory judgment action and, by approving and adopting the rules and regulations of the Board of Trustees, it retained jurisdiction over the trust, the corpus of which is all located in Jefferson County....'
"Equity Rule 30 provided in part as follows:
"`When parties are numerous, court may proceed, having before it parties to represent adverse interests. When the parties having vested interest in real or personal property are very numerous, and cannot, without manifest inconvenience and oppressive delays in the suit, be all brought before it, the court, in its discretion, may dispense with the making of all of *554 them parties, and may proceed in the suit, having sufficient parties before it to represent all the adverse interests of the plaintiff and the defendant in the suit. But in such cases the decree shall be without prejudice to the rights of the absent parties in that they may claim their shares of any funds in court, or if paid out by order of court, may recover their shares from parties to whom such funds have been so paid.'
"Similarly, Title 7, Section 128, Alabama Code 1958, provided:
"`In equity of the parties to the action, those who are united in interest must be joined as plaintiffs or defendants; if the consent of any one who should have been joined as a plaintiff cannot be obtained, he may be made a defendant, the reason thereof being stated in the bill of complaint, and when the question is one of a common or general interest of many persons, or where the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court, one or more may sue or defend for the benefit of all.'
We agree with the trial court that requirements of both personal and subject matter jurisdiction were met in this case.
With respect to the Operatives' contention that necessary parties (including a guardian ad litem representing minor and absent beneficiaries and trustees) were not before the court, we point out that this issue of the sufficiency of naming only 12 employees as respondents was specifically adjudicated by the trial court in 1942. The issue was raised in the petition by the petitioners, and the trial court ruled as follows:
It is "well-settled that the denial of a 60(b) motion does not bring up for review on appeal the correctness of the judgment which the movant seeks to set aside, but is limited to deciding the correctness of the order from which he appeals." (Emphasis added.) Raine v. First Western Bank, 362 So. 2d  at 848. Accordingly, the issue of whether the named respondents sufficiently represented the interests of those whose interests the Operatives now claim were not represented, is not properly reviewable in these proceedings. On their face, the 1942 proceedings disclose that the court acquired personal jurisdiction over those employees named respondents; the document evidencing service of process is valid on its face.
Furthermore, we agree with and adopt the trial court's order determining that the *555 equity court had subject matter jurisdiction over the petition filed in 1942. Additional authority for that holding includes the following:
Bogert, The Law of Trusts & Trustees, § 559 (Rev.2d ed. 1980):
Gilmer v. Gilmer, 245 Ala. 450, 453-54, 17 So. 2d 529, 531 (1944):
Collins v. Morgan County National Bank, 226 Ala. 376, 379, 147 So. 161, 163 (1933), quoting 1 Pom.Eq., § 352:
The Operatives also claim that the 1942 decree is due to be set aside on account of fraud. Under Rule 60(b)(3), motions to set aside a judgment because of "fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party" must be brought "not more than four months after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken." Rule 60(b), however, goes on to provide that:
Clearly, even under § 6-2-3, Code of 1975, the Operatives' claim for "fraud upon the court" is barred because, without question, more than two years prior to their filing of this action, the Operatives knew or should have known of the facts they alleged constituted fraud. This is especially true of the Operatives' claim that in 1942 the petitioners misrepresented to the court that the copy of Mr. Eagan's codicil attached to the bill of complaint was as Mr. Eagan wrote it. In other words, the Operatives contend that it was fraud upon the court not to specifically aver that modifications to the codicil had been made when the will was probated in Georgia in 1924. Eagan v. Moore, supra. We think that by using reasonable diligence, the Operatives could have discovered this alleged fraudulent omission far sooner than 43 years after the filing of the petition by the trustees in 1942.
In further support of their fraud claim, the Operatives offered the affidavit of James Whitehead, who was one of the 12 respondent/employees in Moore v. Hardin, supra. In his affidavit, Whitehead states the following:
"... I learned that there was going to be an opening in the company's `YMCA Building.' ... This job which I was interested in, in the YMCA Building was a white collar job. ... I was very interested *556 in moving from the No. 2 ramming station in the monocast department to this white collar position in the YMCA Building and so I applied for the YMCA job opening.
First of all, Whitehead's affidavit does not support the Operatives' claim for fraud on the court. See Duncan v. Johnson, 338 So. 2d 1243 (Ala.1976); Bolden v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co., 215 Ala. 334, 110 So. 574 (1925). Rather, if these facts establish anything, it would be only that a fraud was perpetrated upon one of the respondents, not upon the court, and such a fraud claim falls under Rule 60(b)(3), which must be brought within four months after judgment is entered. Furthermore, even if these facts constituted a fraud upon the court, that claim is clearly barred by § 6-2-3, supra, because the fact of the purported fraud could have been readily discovered by Whitehead had he read the acceptance of service at the time he signed it on April 2, 1942. See Sharpe v. Crook Realty Co., 508 So. 2d 262 (Ala.1987); Gonzales v. U-J Chevrolet Co., 451 So. 2d 244 (Ala.1984); Torres v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 438 So. 2d 757 (Ala.1983); Sexton v. Liberty National Life Ins. Co., 405 So. 2d 18 (Ala.1981); Seybold v. Magnolia Land Co., 376 So. 2d 1083 (Ala.1979). See also Myers v. Geneva Life Ins. Co., 495 So. 2d 532 (Ala.1986).
The Operatives also attempted to have the 1942 judgment set aside because, at that time, the trust was racially discriminatory. We find the reasoning of the trial court on this issue to be correct and herewith adopt that portion of the trial court's order set out below:
"`... The Board of Operatives will continue to operate and to carry out its functions as an integral part of the Eagan plan with its members serving as joint stockholders and co-trustees under the Eagan codicil as in the past, subject, however, to the eliminating of the racial restrictions on its members. The court further finds that upon the *557 elimination of the racial restriction on membership to the Board of Operatives, the continued and separate existence of the Advisory Auxilliary Board composed of negro employees only and elected by negro employees only would be unnecessary and the court holds that the continuation of such separate Auxilliary Board would also constitute a violation of Title VII. Therefore, the Auxilliary Board must be abolished simultaneously with the elimination of the racial restriction on membership of the Board of Operatives.
"`The elimination of the racial restriction on the Board of Operatives, together with disestablishment of the separate Auxilliary Board will, in the opinion of the court, provide all employees of the company an equal opportunity regardless of the race or color to vote for representatives on the Board of Operatives and to serve on the Board of Operatives. Furthermore, in the future, the members of the Board of Operatives, elected and serving without regard to race or color, will be able to appoint all members of the standing committees and special committees of the Board of Operatives without being in violation of the provisions of Title VII.'
"`The Court feels that it should not, and it will not, engage in a presumption that employees elected from fair and properly drawn electoral districts, will not fairly represent the interest and rights of employees of another race or color and faithfully serve as trustees under Mr. Eagan's will. ...'
Finally, the Operatives argue in effect that the totality of their arguments justifies granting them relief from the 1942 judgment under Rule 60(b)(6). They contend that the effect of the 1942 decree frustrates Mr. Eagan's basic intent in that it allows Management trustees to assume "absolute and unbridled control over the trust estate." Farlow v. Adams, 474 So. 2d  at 58.
Although the trial court did not specifically address the Operatives' Rule 60(b)(6) claim, we agree with Management that the Operatives have not demonstrated compelling and extraordinary circumstances entitling them to Rule 60(b)(6) relief. Furthermore, a Rule 60(b)(6) motion must be based on some reason other than those stated in Rule 60(b)(1) through (5), and there is the additional requirement that a Rule 60(b)(6) motion be brought within a "reasonable time" after entry of judgment. As explained by the Seventh Circuit in its discussion of the "reasonable time" requirement of Rule 60(b) in Planet Corp. v. Sullivan, 702 F.2d 123, 126 (7th Cir.1983), "[w]hat constitutes `reasonable time' depends on the facts of each case, taking into consideration the interest in finality, the reason for delay, the practical ability to learn earlier of the grounds relied upon, and prejudice to other parties." (Quoting Ashford v. Steuart, 657 F.2d 1053, 1055 (9th Cir.1981)). (Emphasis added.)
It clearly appears that if the rules and regulations approved in the 1942 decree permitted the Management to exercise "absolute and unbridled" control over the trust estate, that result should have been evident to the Operatives much sooner than almost 43 years later. Accordingly, we hold that *558 the Operatives' Rule 60(b)(6) motion is untimely and, therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
Based on the foregoing, the judgments below are due to be, and they hereby are, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
MADDOX, JONES, SHORES and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.
[1]  In their respective briefs in each of these cases, the appellants and appellees have denominated each other as "Board of Operatives" and "Board of Management." We follow that denomination herein, referring to each as "Operatives" and "Management."
[2]  The Board of Operatives had previously filed a complaint on February 2, 1985, seeking a temporary restraining order and various forms of injunctive and declaratory relief. On February 21, 1985, the trial court entered a consent order indicating that, as to the matters in which the Operatives sought preliminary injunctive relief, the parties had reached an agreement obviating the necessity for any further consideration thereon. Based on that agreement, the court ordered that no preliminary injunction shall issue. Except for the denial of Management's motion to strike the February 2 complaint and their subsequent answer to that complaint, nothing further transpired in the case until the Operatives filed their September 16, 1985, motion for a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief. It is from the order denying this September 16 motion that the Operatives appeal.
[3]  By its order, the trial court denied only the Operatives' motion for preliminary injunction, apparently reserving their request for permanent injunctive relief for consideration at a later date.
[4]  We recognize that the validity vel non of the resolution has not been determined, as a matter of law, by this order denying the Operatives' request for preliminary injunctive relief, and that its validity will be determined by a trial on the merits of the Operatives' request for a permanent injunction. Nevertheless, because the parties argue this preliminary finding by the trial court, among others, we deem it appropriate to address the proper construction of this specific provision setting out the procedure for calling a special trustees meeting.
[5]  Under this section of the ACIPCo by-laws, the following are, in effect, preconditions to the appointment of an attorney by the presiding judge:

(1) Disputes between the two units (Management and Operatives) of the board of trustees;
(2) Direction to the secretary by either unit to refer the dispute(s) to the board of directors for resolution;
(3) Such referral made in writing by the secretary to the board of directors; and
(4) Petition brought by either unit, to the presiding judge of the court having jurisdiction of the Eagan trust, requesting the appointment of an attorney who is (a) authorized to practice law in Birmingham, Alabama, and (b) not a member of either unit of the board of trustees.