### IN THE S UP REME COURT OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON N ove m be r 15, 200 6 S es sio n

CIT Y OF MEMPHI S, a Mu ni ci pa l Co rpo ra tio n v . THE CI VIL SERVI CE

COM MISS ION OF THE C ITY O F M EMP HIS ET AL


### . Appeal by Per m ission from the Court of Appeals, Wester n Section

Chancery Court

for Sh elby County No. CH-04-0432- 2 Arnold Goldin, Ch ancellor

No. W2004-00091-SC- R11-CV - F iled on March 2, 2007

After an interna l administrative hearing, the appellee , the Cityof Memphis (“the City ”), discha rg ed Police Offic er Jack Vince nt (“Vinc ent”) , the appe llant. The Civil S er v i ce Comm ission (“the Commi ssion”) hear d Vincent’ s appea l, r uled that the termination was not r easona ble, and or dere d reinsta t em ent with full back pay and bene fits. Subsequently , the Cityfiled a pe tition for writ of

certiorari cha lleng ing the decision of the Commission. The Chance ry Court r eviewe d the re cord a nd aff irmed the Commission. On direct appe al, howeve r, the Court of Appeals reverse d, holding that Vi nc e nt w a s la wf

ull y te rm inate d. We g ra nte d a n a pp lic a tio n f

or pe rm iss ion to a

pp e a l to a sc e rt a in wh et h er substantial or material e vidence supported the de cisions of the Commissi on and the Chance ry Court. B eca

use it is our view that there was no substantial or mate rial evide nce supporting the re ins ta te me nt o f V inc e nt, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the Cou rt of Ap pe a ls.

Tenn. R. App . P . 11 Appeal by Per m ission ; Judgme nt of th e Court of Ap peals Aff

irm ed

G AR Y R. W ADE , J ., delivered t h e o p i n ion of the Court, in which W I L L I AM M. B ARKE R , C.J
., and J ANI CE M. H O LDER and C OR NE L I A A. C LARK , J J
., and D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , S P .J ., joined.

Th oma s E . H a ns om a ndL e ig h H . T ho ma s, Me mph is, Te nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt, Jac k V inc e nt.

Sara L . H a ll, City

At torne y , a nd Ge ra ld T . T ho rn ton a ndCarm a lit a Carl e tos -D ray ton , A ssi sta nt C ity At torne y s, fo r the app e lle e , Ci ty of Me mph is.

OP IN ION

I. F ac tu al a nd P r oc e dur al B ac kgr oundIn a c c o rd a n c e w ith the p ra c tice o f t h e inte rm e d ia te a p p e llate c o u rts, this C o u rt w ill re fer to the m ino r v ic tim 1

o f sexu al ab use b y her ini t i als.

-2- On Octobe r 2, 2002, forty -y ear -old Memphis Poli ce O ff i cer J ack V incent made contac t throug h an I nterne t chat room with sevente en-y ear -old S.B. Using the scre en name “Unklec ree py ,” 1 th e nam e of a com ic bo ok char act er fro m th e 19 60 s and 19 70 s, Vi ncen t f als elyrepr esen ted to S .B. that he wa s thirty -one y ear s old. He then arr ang ed to communi cate with her by direc t e-mail and the tw o e xch a ng e d me ssa g e s o ve r a pe ri odof

tw o to thr e e da y s. Th e y a lso c omm un ic a te d b y

bo th telephone a nd cell phone. L ater , they exchang ed their r eal na mes by way of the I nterne t. Vincent

was a war e that S.B. w as seve nteen y ear s of ag e.

Du ri ng the c ou rs e of

the ir c omm un ic a tions
, S .B. dis c los e d th a t he r s te p- fathe r r e g ula rl y molested her a nd asked V incent for permission to move into his residenc e. I n return, S.B . offe red to perform household chore s and sexual favors f or Vince nt. S.B., who had a w eb ca mera attache d to h e r c omp ute r, re mov e d h e r c lothin g du ri ng on e of the ir c omm un ic a tio ns a nd ma stu rb a te d w hil e Vincent watched the vide o fee d on his monit or.

Onl y th ree d ay s af

terth ey had begun th eir c o r r e s p on den ce, V in cent arran ged to mee t S .B. at her home in Fa y ette County at 1:00 a .m., a time w hen S.B.’s step-father wa s to be at work. S.B .’s two half-sister s, ag es six and thirteen, wer e the only other occupa nts of the reside n ce at t h e t i me. I n the meantime, members of the Memphis Crimes Ag ainst Children Task F orce , made up of office rs from the FB I
, the M emphis Police Depa rtment, and the Fa y ette C ounty Sheriff’ s Depa rtment, had

rec eived a report of the content of the I nterne t c ommunications be tween Vincent and the minor. The task forc e set up surve illance at both Vincent’s and S.B .’s re side nces. A fter V incent had driven some forty

miles from his home in Shelby County into Fa y ette C ounty , the authorities interc eded. The off icer s returne d Vincent to his residenc e, took possession of hi s computer, found evidenc e of his c omm un ic a tio ns wi th S .B
., a nddis c ov e re d o the r n ud e ima g e s.

W h en q u es t i o n ed
, Vi n ce n t ad m i t t ed t h e n at u re o f h i s co m m u n i ca t i o n s wi t h S

. B.
, ex p l ai n i n g, “She would ca ll me up and ask if I wanted to see a show

. . . [and] I said, y eah, . . . a nd I

turned on the [I ]nte rn e t a ndsh e did

. . . s tr ip, y e s. ” Vi nc ent in si ste d th a t he ne ve r a sk e d S. B . to strip o r t o masturbate in his pre sence . He c laimed t h at i n h i s next conver sation with her, he w arne d, “You shouldn’t do that any more.” Vincent state d that S.B. “se emed lik e s h e wa s suicidal . . . so I went ahea d with the . . . decision to . . . pi ck h er up and try to take her

to ge t some help.” His alleg ed admonishment, howeve r, wa s not preser ved on his computer. V incent explained t h at he did not notify the Memphis Police beca use S.B. “ was a fra id of offic ial involvement[,] . . . afr aid of g oing to a foster home, [ and]

. . . afr aid of police in g ener al . . . [ who might] forc e her into a possiblymore dire situation.” Vince nt claimed that it was his intention to take S.B. to a hospital or a law enfor ceme nt ag ency . Vincent a lso acknowle dg ed that he did not conta ct either the Oakla nd Police D e p ar t m e n t , t h e F a y e t t e C o u n t y S h e r i f f ’ s D e p ar t m e n t , o r

t h e D e p ar t m e n to f

C h i l d r e n ’ s S e r v i c e s. He c oncede d that his conduct “w as not the wa y to handle” the situation.-3-

Until the intervention by the t ask force, V incent had not r eporte d S.B.’s c omplaints about her step-father to any one. Sometime afte r Vincent was confronted by the t ask force, S.B .’s step-f ather

was c harg ed and later c onvicted of c rimes re lated to her complaints.

Deputy Direc tor Ray

Schwill of the Memphis Po l i ce Department conducted a n internal inv e sti g a tio n to de te rm ine wh e the r t o c ha rg e Vi nc e nt w ith a

vi olatio n o f d e pa

rt me nt r e g ulatio ns

. Acc ording to the Deputy Direc tor, Vince nt freel y acknow ledg ed the we b came ra inc ident and

a dmi tte d a c c e pti ng S.B .’ s o ff e r to li ve with him

in e xch a ng e fo r c le a nin g a ndlaun dry se rv ic e s. Vincent a lso acknowle dg ed that S.B. ha d offe red se x ual fa v o rs b u t claimed that his response was equivoca l

– “t h ey wo u l d take that one day at a time.” When a sked why he did not report S.B.’s claims of sexual abuse, Vinc ent, who conte nded that he was just try ing to “ help somebody ,”

e xpla ine d th a t he ha d n e ve r f a c e d a situa tio n li ke tha t. A t th e c on c lus ion of the he ari ng , D e pu ty Di re c tor Sc hw ill re c omm e nd e d te rm inatio n. Th e he ari ng su mma ry pr ov ide d, in p art , a s f

oll ow s:

Offic er V incent dec ided not to report the ong oing se x ual abuse of [S .B.] althoug h he had am ple time and opportunity to do so. He spoke with [S.B.] a number of times

on the [I ]nte rn e t. H e ha d a n in app ro pr ia te re latio ns hip to a llo w h e r t o c ome liv e wi th him. He would have let her c ome live with him. He attempted to r emove her f rom her r esidenc e without t he knowledg e of he r step-f ather or any law enf orce ment

a g e nc y . A ndhe wo uldha ve do ne so if no t st op pe d by loc a l auth or iti e s a ndthe ta sk forc e . . . .
Deputy Direc tor Schwill a lso concluded tha t Vincent had f ailed to re port to his supervisor that he wa s und e r i nv e sti g a tio n u nti l se ve n d a y s a ft e r the inc ide nt, a s r e qu ir e d b y De pa rt me nta l Ru le 12 5, and th at h e had fai led to repo rtth e cri mes of t he s tep -fat her a gains t S .B.

On J anuary

24, 2003, the C ity discharg ed the defe ndant based upon his failure to report the incident to his supervi s o r and his violation of Depa rtmental Rule 104 of the Me mphis P olice De pa rt me nt P oli c y

a ndPr oc e du re , w hic h g ov e rn e d p e rs on a l c on du c t:

Th e c on du c t of

e a c h me mbe r, bo th o n a nd of f du ty , is e xpe c te d to be su c h th a t it wi ll not r efle ct adver sely on other members, the D epartment, the Cityof Memphis, or the law enf orce ment profe ssio n. This reg ulation applies to both the profe ssional and pr ivate c on du c t of

a ll m e mbe rs . It pr oh ibi ts any a nda ll c on du c t w hic h is c on tr ary to th e le tt e r a n d s p irit o f d e p ar tm e n ta l p o li c y a n d p r o c e d u r e w h ic h w o u ld refle ct

a dv e rs e ly up on the De pa

rt me nt o r i ts m e mbe rs . It in c lud e s n ot onl y a ll u nla wf ul a c ts by me mbe rs bu t als o ac ts wh ic h, a lth ou g h not unl a wf ul in the mse lve s w ou ld v iol a te the L aw Enf

orce ment Code of Ethics, and would deg rade or bring disrespec t on the

me mbe r o r the De pa

rt me nt.

Vincent a ppeale d his termination to the Comm ission. At the hearing befor e t h e Commi ssion, D e p u t y D i r e c t o r

S c h w i l l ’ s f

i n d i n g s w e r e p r e s e n t e d o n b e h a l f o f t h e C i t y.T h e su rn a m e o f A g e n t L e is is sp e lled L e iss, L e is, an d L ie s in th e re c o rd e d tes tim o n y. 2

-4- Special Ag ent J oseph N. Rinehart of the Fe dera l B ureau of I nvestig ation, who serve d on the Memphis Crimes Ag ainst Children Task Force
, confirme d that he had initiated the i nquiry when a fr i en d of S.B. made a re port of the e -mail communications with “a Me mphis poli ce of fice r.” Ev e ntu a lly , A g e nt R ine ha rt wa s a ble to i de nti fy

Vi nc e nt a nde sta

bli sh su rv e ill a nc e . A t th e tim e Vi n ce n twa s s t o p p ed
, S

. B. wa s s t an d i n g at h erfr o n tp o rc h w i t h s ev er al “l u ggage t yp e” b ags
c on ta ini ng he r b e lon g ing s.
Special A g e n t St e p h e n L e is o f th e F B I
, a me mb e r o f th e ta s k f o r c e , te s ti f

ie d th at he 2 questioned Vince nt, who rea dily admitte d wa t ch i n g on the web c amer a as S.B . stripped and mastu rb at ed

. Acc ording to the office r, there wer e picture s of S.B. a t Vincent’s r esidenc e. Af ter Ag e nt L e is r e c e ive d V inc e nt’ s c on se nt t o s e arc h h is c omp ute r, he ma de a mir ro r i ma g e of

its c on te nt.
Memphis Police Depa

rtment Serg eant Bra dy Valentine, who was also a part of the task forc e, described Vincent as cooperative when st opped in Fa y ette C ounty . Serg eant Va lentine conf irmed that afte r the c ompletion of the i nvestig ation, Vincent wa s not charg ed with a c rime. He did, howeve r, state that a

copy of the report w as for war ded to Major Ma tt McCan of the Memphis Police Depa rtment for a ny

internal investig ation.

Donald L ewis Sr., a thirty -y ear veter an of the Memphis Police Depa rtment, testified bef

ore the Com mis sio n o n b e ha lf of Vi nc e nt. Th e fo rm e r d e pu ty dir e c tor of the de pa rt me nt, Of

fi c e r L e wi s
e xp r e s s e d th a t V in c e n t h a d a r e p u tati o n f o r tr u th a n d h o n e s ty

. A lth o u g h h e h a d r e tired bef ore Vi nc e nt w a s e mpl oy e d a s a po lic e of fi c e r, Of fi c e r L e wi s re la te d that V inc e nt h a d a g oo d r e la tio ns hip with the public and had pe rformed ca pably in his previous job as a sec urity g uard.

Offic er H ope Elizabeth Be bout, a Crime Response Of fi cer for f ourtee n y ear s, described Vincent a s “a g ood g uy , an honest man.” Memphis Police Offic ers St even Sloan, Michae l Chapman, and B arba ra Robinson, none of w hom had any firsthand knowledg e of the facts leading to Vincent’s dis c ha rg e , a lso te sti fi e d a s c ha

ra c te r w itn e sse s.

On Fe b ruary

11, 2004, the Commiss ion, in a split decision, ruled that the termination wa s not rea sonable under t he circumstance s. The Chairman ruled that Depa rtmental R ule 125, re quiring office rs to immediately submit a written report when under i nvestig ation by any ag ency other than the Memphis Police Depa rtment, was not abridg ed bec ause of the unce rtainty

surrounding whether Vincent wa s “under

investigation.” The Commi ssion also observed tha t because Off icer Valentine was pa rt of the task f

orce and a me mber of t h e poli ce de partment, Vinc ent’s duty to report wa s abrog ated.

As to D e pa

rt me nta l Ru le 10 4, re g ard ing the pe rs on a l c on du c t of the de fe nd a nt, the ma jority of the Commission concluded that Vince nt “neve r encourag ed, re quested, or a g ree d to any thing.” Whil e ac knowledg ing V incent’s a dmission t hat he obse rved S.B . in the nude b y we b ca mera and considere d her of

fer for se x ual fa vors, the Commissi on im p li c itly a c c r e d it e d

V in c ent’s stateme nt that-5-

he wa s “attempting to remove the minor from her situation, not t o further

exploi t her” and had not otherwise a g ree d to any thing imprope r. The dissenting c ommissi oner simply descr ibed Vince nt’s conduct a s unbecoming of a police office r.

After revie wing the re cord, the Chance ry Court upheld the dec ision o f the Commission, observing that it was “not permitted to replac e its judgme nt for that of the . . . Commi ssion.” The court de scribed its only

duty as l imited – to determine w hether the re cord c ontained “substantial a nd materia l evidence to support the Commi ssion’s decision.” The Chance llor was of the opinion that the Commiss ion could have de termined the issue in fa vor of “ either side.”

On direc t appea l, the Court of Appea ls rever sed, holding that there was no mate rial evide nce to support the determination by the Commi ssion that there was no re asonable basis for termination. I n the assessment of

the Court of Appe als, there was no evidenc e to c ontradict Vincent’ s violation of De pa rt me nta l Ru le 10 4 g ov e rn ing pe rs on a l c on du c t. T he Cou rt of Ap pe a ls c on c lud e d t

h a t th e ru le reg ulated the c onduct of police office rs, not their intentions, and t h at Vi n cent’s conduct “unquestionably

ref lects adve rsely

on the member s of the Memphis Police Depa rtment, the Cityof Memphis, and the law enfor ceme nt pr ofession.” That Office r Vince nt knew that S.B. w as a minor

an d y et p u rp o s ef

u l l y wa t ch ed h er p er fo rm s ex u al l y ex p l i ci t ac t s wa s a c ri t i ca l fa ct o r i n t h ei r r u l i n g.

II. Ana lys is

Both the Chance ry Court a nd the Court of Appea ls c onsidered the appea l under t h e r u l es
ap p l i c ab l e t o t h e c o m m o n l a w w r i t o f c e r t i o r ar i

. P r i o r t o 1 9 8 9
, t h e e x c l u s i v e m e a n s o f ap p e a l b y a
mun ic ipa l e mpl oy e e fr om a de c isi on by

a c ivi l se rv ic e bo ardwa s b y c omm on la w w ri t of

c e rt ior ari

. Tidwell v. Cityof Memphis, 193 S.W

. 3 d 555, 559 (Tenn. 2006) ; see a lso Huddleston v. Cit y of Murfre esboro, 635 S.W.2d 694, 695-96 (Tenn. 1982). The leg islature, howe ver, a mended se ction 27-9-114 of

the Tenne ssee Code to provide t h e cu rrent means for judicial revie w of the de cisions of c ivi l se rv ic e c omm iss ion s:

(a )( 1) Con te ste d c a se he ari ng s b y c ivi l se rv ic e bo ard s o f a

. . . mu nic ipa lit y which af fec t the employ ment stat u s o f a civil service e mploy ee sha ll be conducte d in conformity

wit h contested c ase pr ocedur es under the Uniform Administrative Procedur es Ac t, compiled in titl e 4, cha pter 5, pa rt 3.

. . . . (b)( 1) Judi cial re view of de cisions by civil service boards of

a . . . municipality

which af fec ts the employ ment status of a

. . . city civil service employ ee
s h a ll b e in c o n f

o r mi ty w ith th e ju d ic ia l r e v ie w s ta n d ar d s u n d e r th e Uniform Administrative Procedur es Ac t, § 4-5-322. (2) Petitions for judicial revie w of decisions by a city . . . civil service board aff ecting the employ ment status of a c ivi l s er v ice e mploy ee sha ll be filed in the chanc ery court of the county

wher ein the loca l civil service boa rd is located.-6-

Te nn . Co de An n. § 27 -9 -1 14 (S up p. 20 03 ). Th us , in a c c or da nc e wi th the te rm s o f the statut e , th is Court will review the de cision of t he C ommissi on under the Uniform Administrative Proce dures Ac t

rathe r tha n th e c omm on la w w ri t of c e rt ior ari

.
The standa

rd for revie w on appea l in administrative proce eding s is g overne d by Tenne ssee Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 4 -5 -3 22 (h ), wh ic h auth or ize s c ou rt s to re vie w o r r e ma nda g e nc y de c isi on s. Under this provision, t he courts have a varie ty of statutory

g rounds for r ever sal or modifica tion when

“ the a dmi nis tr a tiv e fi nd ing s, inf e re nc e s, c on c lus ion s o r d e c isi on s” are a s f oll ow s:
(1 ) In v iol a tio n o f c on sti tut ion a l or statut ory pr ov isi on s; (2 ) In e xce ss o f the statut ory a uth or ity of the a g e nc y ; (3) Ma de upon unlawf

ul proce dure; (4 ) A rb itr ary

or c apr ic iou s o r c ha

ra c te ri zedby

abu se of

disc ret ion or

c le arl y
unwar rante d exercise of

discretion; or (5) Unsupported by

evidenc e that is both substantial and material in the light of the entire r ecor d. . . .

Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322( h) (Supp. 2003). A r eview by the Chance ry

Court of the dete rminations by the Civil S ervic e Commissi on is confined to a r eview of t h e record of the proce eding s. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5- 322(g ) (Supp. 2003). The re is no provision for a jury . I d.

Of the f ive s t at u t o ry g rounds for r ever sal, only the last two relate to the suffic iency of the evidenc e. I n the consideration of the application of (5), courts shall revie w “whatever in the rec ord fairly detra cts from its weig ht, but

. . . shall not substitute its judg ment for that of the ag ency . . . on question s o f f

a c t. ” T e n n

. Co d e A n n

. § 4

- 5

- 3 2 2 ( h ) ( Su p p

. 2 0 0 3 ) ; s e e a ls o G lu c k v

. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 15 S.W .3d 486, 490 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). The scope of revie w on di rec t appea l is the

same a s in the trial court. See W atts v. Civil Serv. B d. for Columbia, 606 S.W .2d 274, 277 (Tenn. 1980). I n J ackson Mobilphone Co. v. Tenn. Pub. Ser v. Comm’n, 876 S.W.2d 106 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993), the Court of Appe als confirmed the limited nature of revi ew under the Uniform Administrative Procedur es Ac t. That court obse rved tha t only those ag ency decisions not supported by substantial and material evidenc e qualifie d as ar bitrary and capricious but determined that even those dec isions with adequate e videntiary support might still be arbitra ry and capricious if caused by a cle ar e rr o r i n judgme nt. I d. at 110. Our Court of A ppeals wa rned a g ainst a mec hanica l application of the standard of revie w under

subsections (4) or

(5):

I n its broadest sense , the standar d require s the court to determine whe ther the administrative ag ency

has made a cle ar e rror in judgment. An a

rbitrary [or

c apr ic iou s] de c isi on is o ne that is no t ba se d on a ny c ou rs e of re a so nin g or

e xer c ise of judg ment , o r o n e t h at disreg ards the f acts or c ircumstance s of the ca se without some basis that would lead a rea sonable pe rson to rea ch the sa me conc lusion.

L ikewise, a

re v i ew ing c ourt should not apply Tenn. Code Ann. § 4- 25- 322(h)( 5)’s “substantial and materia l e vidence ” test mecha nically . I nstead, the c ourt-7-

should review the rec ord caref ully to determine w hether

the administrative ag ency ’s de c isi on is s up po rt e d b y

“ su c h re le va nt ev ide nc e a s a ra tio na l mi ndmig ht a c c e pt t o
su pp ort a ratio na l c on c lus ion .”

. . . Th e e vid e nc e wi ll b e su ff ic ie nt i f i t f

ur nis he s a
rea sonably

sound fac tual basis for the de cision being revie wed.

I d. at 110-111 (c itations omi tted).

By virtue of these g u i d el i n es, our review is conf ined to whether

the dec ision of the Commi ssion qualifies as either arbitra ry or capricious or, in the alternative, has insufficie nt support in the evidenc e. W hile the Chance llor, in this i nstance , appropriately rec og nized the principle that

a n a dmi nis tr a tiv e de c isi on sh ou ld not be dis tur be d whe n the re is sub sta nti a l or ma te ri a l e vid e nc e to

su pp ort on e of tw o re su lts , it is o ur c on c lus ion that e ve n u nd e r a lim ite d s c op e of

re vie w, the se fa c ts

war rant a result contra

ry to that of the Commi ssion. See Martin v. Siz emore , 78 S.W .3d 249, 276 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 1) (s ta tin g that r e je c tio n o f a n a dmi nis tr a tiv e a g e nc y 's fact ual f ind ing s is appropriate “if

a re asonable person would necessa rily draw a diffe rent c onclusion from the re cord” ).

The e ssential fac ts are inde ed undisputed. To his credit, Vince nt was coope rative w ith the investigating of

fice rs and c andidly

acknow ledg ed that he ha d been untr uthful about his own ag e and that he wa s f

ull y a wa re that S. B . w a s a min or . Ne ve rthe le ss, he int e nti on a lly ob se rv e d h e r s e xua lly expli cit acts via the I nterne t by web c amer a and pr ocee ded t o d evelop a persona l rather

than a pr of e ssi on a l a g e nd a . B y

his ow n a c c ou nt, Vi nc e nt l e ft op e n the a lte rn a tiv e of

a se xua l r e la tio ns hip with a minor. His acknow ledg ment that as a police office r, he had “mishandle d” the situation, by failing to r eport S.B.’s complaints to the authorities in F ay ette County or ot h er wi s e s ee king assistance from any

other a g ency , q u al i fi es as a conce ssion that his personal misconduct violated Depa rtmental Rule 104.

A re lati o n s h ip o f th is n a tu r e b e tw e e n a v e te r a n o f f ic e r , in v e s te d w ith th e p u b li c tr u st and

sw or n to pr ote c t a ndse rv e , a nda n u nd e ra g e fe ma le , a vic tim of s ex ua l a

bu se by a ste p- pa re nt, ref lects adve rsely

on the City and it s police department. F inally , even if Vincent’ s intentions were honorable , his conduct wa s not. There is simpl y no substantial and mater ial ev i d en ce which contra dicts his violation of a departmental rule. As indicated by our Court of Appe als, a diff ere nt result is not onlya re asonable alternative but is a co n clus ion nece ssary to the administration of justice.

Conclusion

Be cause it is our view that the Commiss ion erre d by reinstating Vince nt and bec ause the Cha nc e llo r f

a ile d to c or

re c t tha t dec isi on , we a ff

ir m the jud g me nt of the Cou rt of Ap pe a ls. Th e c os ts of the a ppeal a re ta x ed to the appe llant, J ack V incent, and his sure ty , for whic h execution sha ll issue i f n e c e s s ar y.-8- ___________________________________ GA RY R. WA DE , JUST I CE