### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nua ry 10, 200 7

MA DISO N C OUN TY, TEN NES SEE

v. D EE A N N C U LB R EA TH , e t al.

AND 

### CITY OF JACK SON, I NTERVENOR
An Appeal f

rom the Chancer y Court for Madison Coun ty No. R.D. 63850 Jam es F . Butler, Chancellor

No. W2006-01910-C OA-R3-C V - F iled April 19, 2007

T h i s i s a d ec l ar at o ry

j u d gm en tac t i o n

. T h e p l ai n t i ff co u n t y f i l e d t h e i n s t an tl aw s u i ts ee k i n g a decla ration that the de fenda

nt county library board of trustees ha s no authority

under the pertinent Te nn e sse e statut e to c on tr a c t w ithpr ivate e nti tie s fo r the mana g e me nt of the loc a l lib ra ry . T he c ity inte r v e n e d
, a r g u in g th a t th e li b r a r y b o a r d h a d th e a

u th o r it y u n d e r th e s tatute to e n ter into such contra cts. Upon stipulated fa ct s , t h e t rial cour t held that the statute at issue a uthorizes the library board to c ontrac t with private en t i t i es for the manag ement of the county library . The c ounty

now
a pp e a ls. We a ff

ir m, c on c lud ingthat th e aut ho ri ty c on fe rr e d u

po n th e c ounty

lib ra ry bo a rd in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated § 10-3- 104 includes the a uthority to enter into private contra cts for the

m an a g e m e n to f

t h e l o c a l l i b r a r

y.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court is Aff irm ed

H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f

th e Co u rt, in

w h ic h W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., and A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J ., joined.

C. J erome Tee l, J r., Jackson, Tennesse e, for the appe llant, Madison County , Tenne ssee.

Rus se ll E. Re vie re , Jac ks on , Te nn e sse e , fo r the a pp e lle e s, De e Ann Cul br e a th, Willi a m Sta nw or th Har ris, Gre g Milam, Robert Huffma n, Mary L ouise Wil liam Slack, Kathry n J ohnson Swindle, and Dr. Sharon Y oung er, in their o ff i ci al capa cities as Jackson-Madison County L ibrary Boa rd of Tr us te e s.

J . Br andon McWherte r and L ewis L . Cobb, J ackson, Te nnessee , for the a ppellee- intervenor , City

of J ackson, Te nnessee

.T he seven t rus t ees are D ee A nn C ul b reat h, W i l l i am S t anwo rt h H arri s, G reg M i l am , R o b ert H uf f m an, M ary 1

Lo ui se W i l l i am Slack, K at hry n Jo hnson S wi nd l e, and D r. Sharo n Y o unger.

-2- OP IN ION
Sometime pr ior to A

pril 2006, Def

endant/Appe llee J ackson- Madison County L ibrary Boa rd of Tr us te e s ( “ the B oa

rd ” ) pu bli sh e d a “ Re qu e st fo r Pro po sa l” se e kin g bid s f ro m pr ivate e nti tie s to 1

m an a g e t h e J a c k s o n

- M a d i s o n C o u n t y L i b r a r y ( “ t h e L i b r a r

y” )

. P l a i n t i f

f / A p p e l l a n tM a d i s o n C o u n t y, T e n n e s s e e ( “ t h e C o u n t y” )
, w a s o p p o s e d t o t h e B o a r d

p r i v a t i z i n g t h e m a n a g e m e n to f t h e L i b r a r

y. There fore
, on April 20, 2006, the County filed the instant complaint for de clar atory judgme nt and injunctive relief

ag ainst the Boa

rd member s in their officia l capa cities, seekinga dec laration from the trial cour

t that Tennesse e Code Annotated § 10-3-104 d o es n o t confe r upon the B oard the

a uth or ity to c on tr a c t w itha priva te e nti ty fo r t he mana g e me nt o f a

pu bli c lib ra ry . T hat st a tut e pr ov ide s:

The membe rs of the libra ry board sha ll o rga n ize by

elec ting of

fice rs and a dopting bylaws a nd regul atio ns

. The bo ard ha s the

po we r to dire c t al

l the af fa irs of the lib ra ry , including a

ppointment of a librar ian who shall direc t the interna l affa irs of the library , and such a ssistants or e mploy ees a s may be nec essar

y . I t may make a nd enfor ce r ules and regulations a

nd establish branc hes of trave l se rvice at its discretion. I t may expend funds for the sp ec ial training and for mal education of library pe rs on ne l; p ro vid e d, that su c h p e rs on ne l sh a ll a g re e to w or k in the lib ra

ry fo r a t le a st two (2) y ear s afte r completion of such training and education. I t m ay rec eive donations, devises and be quests to be used by it directly

for libra ry purposes. I t may ho ld a nd c on ve y re a lty a nd pe rs on a l pr op e rt y a nd ne g oti a te le a se s f

or a nd on be ha lf of such libra

ry . The librar

y board sha ll furnish to the stat e li brar y ag ency such statistics a

nd information as may be require d, and shall make annual repor ts t o t he

c o u n t y l e g i s l a t i v e b o dy a n d / o r c i t y g o v e r

n i n g b o dy.
T.C.A. § 10-3-104 ( 1999) (e mphasis added) . The Coun ty also soug ht and obtained a n order

e njo ini ngthe B oa

rd fr om t a kin g fu

rt he r a c tio n in

purs uit of su c h a pr ivate c on tr a c t.

I n J une 2006, Appellee C ity of J ackson (“the Ci ty ”) filed a mot ion to intervene in the case

. The City filed a memorandum of law in support of t he B oard’ s position t hat the statute g rants to the B o ar d t h e p o w e r

t o c o n t r a c tw i t h a

p r i v a t e e n t i t y f

o r t h e m a n a g e m e n to f

t h e L i b r a r

y.

On July 14 , 2 00 6, pr ior

to a he a ri ngon

the County ’s c ompl ain t, the City a nd the County

su bmi tte d to the tr ia l c ourt

a sti pu la tio n o f t

he pe rt ine nt f

a c ts. Th e sti pu la te d f

a c ts a re a s f oll ow s:

1. Pr ior to F e br

ua ry 1, 19 60 , the City

of Jac ks on (“ the City” ) a

nd Ma dis on County (t he “ County” ) o pe rate d s e pa ra te fr e e pu bli c lib ra ri e s.-3-

2. E f f e c ti v e F e b r

u a r y 1 , 1 9 6 0 , th e Ci ty

an d th e Co u n ty

e n te r e d in to an A g r e e me nt to operate a sing le l i b rar y supported jointly

by the City and the County

(the “Ag ree ment”). 3. The Ag re em en t p ro vided that the City and the County

would jointly

fund the operation of the J ackson- Madison County Fr ee Publi c L ibrary (the “L ibrary”). The Ag ree ment also provided that the Cit y shall appoint a L ibrary

Boa rd of se ven (7)

m em b er s wi t h t h re e (3 ) m em b er s o f th e Bo ar d b ei n g ap p ro v edb y t h e C o u n t y

J u d ge [ M a yo r ] o f

t h e C o u n t y. 4. The City

and C ounty enter ed int o an Agr eeme nt dated Dece mber 18, 1986, which provided for

the sharingof ce rtain depa rtments’ administrative e x penses. . . . The 198 6 Ag ree ment descr ibed how the City and County

would pay

for their share of

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e x p e n s e s o f v a r i o u s d e p a rt m e n t s , i n c l u d i n g t h e L i b r a r y. 5. The 1986 Ag ree ment was modified by an Ag ree ment d at ed Februa ry 21, 1989. . . . This Ag ree ment provided that the County would b e re sponsible for pay ing the entire e x p ense of

the depa rtments identified in the Ag ree ment (which inc luded the L ibrary ), and the City

would pay

to the County

one-ha lf of the total appr opriations

ma de to t he a g e nc ie s and

de pa rtme nts ide nti fi e d in

the Ag re e me nt. 6. On F e br

ua ry 21 , 199 5, the 19 86 Ag re e me nt wa s ag a in am e nd e d to a c c omm od a te the cre ation of a Joint Funding Ag ree ment Commi ttee compr ised of thre e member s of the City

Council and three members of the County

Commi ssion. . . . 7. I n April/May

of 1998, the City

and County

enter ed in t o an other Joint Funding Ag ree ment. . . . 8. I n its October 2002 mee ting, the L ibrary Boa rd a dopted B y -L aws for

the B oard of Trustee s of the Jackson/Madison County L ibrary

. . . . 9. The powe rs and duties of the L ibrary Boa rd ar e codif

ied at T.C.A. § 10-3- 104. 10. The L i b ra ry Board has published a Request for Proposa l seeking bids from pri v a te e n ti ti e s f

o r th e ma n a g e me n t o f th e L ib r a r

y

. T h e L ib r a r

y B o a r d has not y et voted on whethe r to awa

rd a contract to a private entity for the ma

nag ement of the L i b r a r y.
Thus, from the stipulated fa cts, it is clear that the C ounty and the City

jointly fund the ope ration of the L ibrary , and that the B oard, a ppointed by

the City and approved by

the County , possesses the power s and duties codifie d at Tenne ssee Code A nnotated § 10-3- 104.
The pa rties indicated to the tr ial court that no he aringon t h e C o u n t y ’s complaint was

nece ssary , and that the trial court could rule on the merits of the c omplaint based on the stipulated fac ts a nd the parties’ memoranda

. Acc ording ly , on J uly 31, 2006, the trial judg e sent the pa rties an opinion letter in which he c oncluded that, under the plain lang uag e of se ction 10-3-104, the B oard

was a uthorized to enter into contra cts relative to the operation of t he li brar y

. The trial court rea soned that, once the Boa

rd is appointed, it is autonomous and operate s independe ntly from the a

ppointing authority . The trial court found that the lang uag e in se ction 10-3-104 is c lear , and that it g ives the B oa rd “ the p o w e r

t o d i r e c ta l l a f

f a i r s o f t h e L i b r a r

y , ” a l o n g w i t h a

n o n e xh a u s t i v e l i s to f

s p e c if ic authorized ac tions. The authority provided in t he st atute, the trial court de termined, include s “theSub sequent t o t he ent ry of t he f i nal de cree, t he B o ard ac cep t ed a p rop o sal s ub m i t t ed by a pri vat e ent i t y , Li b rary 2 Sys t em s and S ervi ces, L LC (“LS SI”), t o m anage t he l i b rary

. T he C o unt y f i l ed a m o t i o n t o s t ay t he p roce ed i ngs, but t he

m o tio n w a s d e n ie d . T h e C o u n ty t h e n so u g h t a sta y fro m this C o u rt, a n d this m o tio n w a s a lso d e n ie d

.
-4- power and author ity to c ontrac t w ith a private entity for the manag ement of the L ibrary .” The trial court stated:

Th e la

n g u a g e o f th e s tatute s d o e s n o t a p p e a r to b e a mb igu o u s

. T hus, the Court is l imi te d to th e pla in m e a nin g of the statut or

y lang ua g e . T he Court

sh ou ld restric t itself to the natural a nd ordinary

meaning of the languag e used by the L e g isl a tur e in t

he statut e a nd

thi s Co ur t ha s d on e that. T he re are no oth e r s ta tut e s in th i s s e c t i o n w h i c h w o u l d t e n d b y t h e i r l a n g u a g e t o m a k e a n y o t h e r s t a tu te in t his section ambig uous. They do not a ppear to c onflict with eac h other. The Court has to assume that the L eg islature use d eac h word in the statute pur posely . The Court

wo uld have to s tr e tc h to de te rm ine that T e nn ess ee Cod e Anno ta te d § 10 -3 -1 04 is capa ble of c onveying mor e than one meaning . The wor d “all” i s t otally inclusive,

c le ar a nd pla in. Th e wo rd s “ a ff

a ir s o f t he L ibr a ry” g ive n it s p la in m e a nin g , w ou ld inc lud e ever y

th ing havin g to d o w iththe op e ratio n o f t he L ibr a ry . T hat st a tut e pr ov ide s f

or no e xclu sio ns , o r a c tio ns wh ic h a re re se rv e d to the a pp oin tin g a

uth or ity or anyone else

. Thus, the trial cour

t found that statute was c lear and unambig uous, and that it confe rre d upon the Boa rd the a uthority to contrac t with a private e ntity for the ma

nag ement of the local li b ra ry . On Aug ust 14, 2006, the t ri al co u rt enter ed a f inal decr ee a

nd judgme nt consistent with its letter op ini on

. F ro m th is o rd e r, the County no w a pp e a ls. 2

On appea l, the County argues that the trial cour t erre d in its i nterpre tation of section 10-3- 10 4, be c a us e the statut e do e s not spe c if ic a lly g ra nt the B oa rd the a uth or ity to c on tr a c t w itha

pr ivate entity f o r th e ma n a g e me n t o f

th e L ib r a r

y

. I t a r g u e s th a t t

h e p u r p o s e o f th e B o a r d

is to p r o v ide “ac tive, hands-on manag ement,” a nd that the B oard is not per mitted to abdicate its responsibility by deleg ating it to a third party . The County contends that statutes such a s section 10-3-104 a re to be

na rr ow ly c on str ue d, a nd tha t any re a so na ble do ub t c on c e rn ingthe ex is ten ce of po we r i n a n e nti ty such as the Boa

rd shoul d be resolved aga inst the g rant of pow er. F inally , the County asser ts that the B o ar d d o e s n o th a v e t h e a

u t h o r i t y t o c o n t r a c tu a l l y b i n d t h e C o u n t y.

The trial c ourt’s interpr etation of a statute is purely a question of law, which we revie w de

novo , with no presumption of corr ectne ss in the trial court’s de cision. Eastm an Ch em. C o. v. Johns on , 151 S.W .3d 503, 506 (Tenn. 2004). I n interpre ting statutes, we must “asc erta in and g ive eff ect to the intention and pur pose of the le g islature. L eg islative intent is to be a scer tained whe never po ssi ble fr om t

he natur a l and

or din a ry me a nin g of

the lang ua g e us e d, wi tho ut f or c e d o r s ub tle construction th at wo uld limi t or extend the meaning of the languag e.” Id. at 507 (quotations and

c itatio ns omi tte d) . Wh e n the lang ua g e of a statut e is cl e a r, we do no t inqu ir e int o the re a so na ble ne ss of the languag e; rather, we “pre sume that the leg islature say s in a statute what it means a nd meansT he appel l ees ar gu e t hat D i l l on’ s R ul e i s not ap pl i cabl e t o l ocal l i brar y boards

. W e n eed n ot addres s t hat i s s ue, 3
b ecause we have f

o und t hat D i l l o n’ s R ul e i s i nap p l i cab l e b ased o n t he f act t hat t he l anguage i n t he st at ut e i s cl ear and

u n a m b igu o u s.

-5- in a statute what it say s there.” BellSou th Telecomm uni cations, In c. v. G reer , 972 S.W .2d 663, 673 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

F ro m our re vie w of the statut or y lang ua g e , we a g re e wi th the tr ia l c ourt that th e lang ua g e in

se c tio n 1 0- 3- 10 4 is c le a r a nd that it c on fe rs up on

the B oard th e po wer to c on tr a c t w ithpr ivate

e nti tie s f or the mana g eme nt of th e L ib ra ry . T he statut e state s th a t “ [t]he bo a rd ha s th e po we r t o direc t all the aff

airs of the library
, including” cer tain enumer ated tasks. I t is diff icult to imagine a g rant of a uthority broade r than the pow er to dire ct “a ll” of th e L i b ra ry ’s aff airs. More over, the specific authority

g rante d the B oard in t he statute pe rmits it t o appoint a librar ian to operate the internal a ffa irs of the L ibrary and to hir e other employ ees for the L ibrary ’s operation. This impli es that th e B oa

rd may c ho os e to co ntr a c t with a pr ivate e nti ty to p ro vid e su c h p e rs on ne l, h op e fu lly wi th

s o m e e x p e rt i s e , i n t h e o p e r a t i o n s o f t h e L i b r a r

y.
The County

relies on a

canon of statutory construction to the ef

fec t that the g rant of powe r to l oc al gover

nme nta l a uth or iti e s mu st b e str ic tly c on str ue d ( i.e
., Di llo n’ s Ru le ). Th is c a no n is in a pp lic a ble in thi s c a se be c a

us e the lang ua g e in the statut e is c le a r a nd un a mbi g uo us

. See 3 Sout he rn Const

ruc tor s, Inc . v. Lo udo n Cou nty

Bd. of Edu. , 58 S.W .3d 706, 710-13 (Te nn. 2001). Th e County

a lso a sse rt s tha t the B oa

rd wa s n ot g ra

nte d th e po we r t o b ind

the Cou nty by e nte ri ngint o pr ivate c on tr a c ts. Th is a sse rt ion is b e lie d b y

the lan gua g e of

the statut e . T he statut e sp e c if ic a lly empower s the Boa

rd to hire employ ees, to e nter into lease s, and to hold and conve y rea lty , power s wh ic h mu st n e c e ssa

ri ly inc lud e the a

uth or ity to e nte r i nto c on tr a c ts. Gi ve n th a t th e B oa rd is implicitl y g rante d the power

to contrac t and to direc t all the aff airs of t h e L i b ra ry , we must ag ree with the trial court that the B oard is al s o authoriz ed to enter into private contra cts for the

m an a g e m e n to f

t h e L i b r a r

y.

The de cision of the trial c ourt is affir med. Costs on appeal are t o b e t ax ed to Appellant Madison County , and its surety , for whic h execution may issue, if nec essar

y

.

___________________________________ HOL L Y M. KI RBY, JUDGE