T he ser vi ces p e rfo rm e d b y t he p ri vat e ent i t y i n C her okee , f o r e x a m p le , w e re a n inte g ra l p a rt o f t h e S ta te ’s 1
t rans i t i o n of i t s p ub l i c ass i st ance f unct i o n f rom dir ect f

i nanci al ass i st ance (A FD C ) t o i ncent i ves f o r t rai ni ng and wo rk (Fam i l i es Fi rs t ). 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE Fe bruary24, 200 6 S es sio n KI MBERLY K AY ALLEN, ET AL 

### . v. J OHN DAY, ET AL 

### . AND 

### GAN NET T SA TELLIT E INF ORM ATION NET WORK , INC., D 

### /B 

### / A 

### THE TENNES SEAN, ET A L 

### . V 

### . POWE RS MA NA GEME NT, LLC Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Davidson County No. 02C-817 and 05C-61 Ham ilton V. Gayden, Judge

No. M2005- 00989-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Augu st 11, 2006

P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J

. , co n cu rr i n g.
B e c a us eof the tr oubli ng po ten ti al f

or o vere x pan si on of t he “f un ctional e qu iva

le nc y ” ra tio nale e s ta b li s hed in Ch erokee a ndre lie d u po n h e re in, I writese pa

rate ly to i de nti fy

there a so n f

or my concur renc e. The key

to determining when a private e ntity , t h ro u gh a relationship with a g overnme nt, subjects its recor ds to publ i c i n spection lies, in the first instance , in the analy sis of whether the entity is performing a

g overnme ntal function.
Ce rt a in a c tiv iti e s h a ve be e n tr a dition a lly pe rf orme d b y state and lo c a l g ov e rn me nts in fu l fi l m en to f t h ei r ro l es
. P ri m e e x am p l es o f s u ch ac t i v i t i es ar e l aw en fo rc em en t(s u ch as p o l i ci n g, incar cer ating , adjudicating , etc.) and education. Many other examples ex ist. I do not believe that 1 manag ing or operating a building, be it a sports arena, e ntertainment ve nue, or othe r, is a tra ditional g ov e rn me ntal, as op po sed t o p ri vate , f un c tio n. Simi larl y , I

do no t be lie vethat th e fa c t th a t a g overnme ntal entity contra cts with a private company to c lean g overnme nt of fice s makes janitorial s e r v i c e s a g o v e r n m e n t a l f

u n c t i o n , e v e n w h e n p e r f

o rm e di n g o v e rn m e n t

- o w n e dp r o p e rt y.
Howeve r, in the ca se bef

ore us, we a

re f ace d with a State statute that make s operation of a fac ilitysuch as the Arena

a g overnme ntal function, dut y , or power. Tenn. Code Ann. § 7- 67-102(a ). I n view of that leg islative action, this Court cannot substitute its own analy sis of the g overnme nt function def

inition.-2-

I f the de finition of gove rnmental func tion found i n t h e C onnecticut statute quote d in the majority opinion, Conn. Gen

. Stat. Ann. § 1- 200(11), we re de terminative, I would be dissenting from the majority opinion. That is becauseI cannot c onclude that ope ration of a publicly -owne d facili ty is “the administ ration or mana g ement of a program .” Howe ver, in the a bsenceof either

Tenne ssee leg islative action or Tenne ssee Supreme Court holding s limit ing the func tional equivalent test as se t out in Ch er o kee , this Court i s bound to follow Cherokee . A pp lying thelang ua g e of theSup re me Court in Cherokee , I r e a c h th e s a m e c o n c l u s i o n a s th em a j o ri t y.

____________________________________ PATRI CI A J . COTTRELL , J UDGE