The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1917-03-06
COUNCIL HAS NO POWER
OVER SCHOOL B0ARG
Nty Attorney Pollard, Apropos OF
Thomas Charges, Says Board Mem.
beers and Superintendent Oniccrs.
POINTS OUT HIS RECOURSE
Only Courts or Superior School Au-
thorttics Have Jurisdiction TO Inves-
nvatc and Punish For Violation OF
Iaw-Rcmedy Plain.

The council Of the city Of Richmond
has no jurisdiction over the school
board or division superintendent Of
schools.
City Attorney II. r. Pollard on yes.
terday rendered a decision in the mat
tor of the jurisdiction Of council in
matters affecting these officials in con-
nection with certain charges filed with
council by Robert n. Thomas, a re-
Gently dismissed teacher.
Mr.. Pollard points out that the Of
hcials in question are state officers
and that grievances against a school
board may be subject of grand jury
investi CATION or may be Investigated
and adjusted by their superior school
authorities, appeals being in order all
the way up to the state board OF edu-
cation.
Even should the council investigate,
" would have no power TO punish
Mi. Poliard's decision follows:
Text Of Decision.
Common Council.
Richmond, Va.
Gentlemen:
IN response to a preamble and reso-
luton adopted By s)u on February
8. 1917, which is in the following
leaguaze:
Whereas K. y. Thomas has pre-
scented to this body petition asking
CITY school board be invest gated by
the council of the city of Richmond:
therefore.
BE 1t resolved by the council of the
clay OF RIchmond:
That the city attorney be, and he
Is hereby. requested TO report in writ
Ing To this body at its next regular
meeting what action. If any, can he
legally taken b. the council of the
- ty.l,v 4.
ton"
beg 20 report;
J. THAT bs v.t'ue OF the constl'u-
Ton %! tins state article IN and the
xi~tQtca pa s-ca in pursuance thereof
u 81 the public school system of this
s,ate - under the management and
control OF the state board OF ecuca-
ton. local ii boards, the super
trtenJeut % "a olic instruction and
HE Division superinteudents, All the
members Of said boa and other Of
hc,rs employed ~ - boards are
ss'e I'll s:s, and no .t,lect to the
control direction or fnaf> gement OF
the 2oVuln iBe bodies u tie COUNTIES,
7 ties OF towrs Of the eosu .eonv ,'''
..ee opinion OF cit, attorney dated
bruaFy -. l9eT; opinions t,jty -
torney 1905. page 81: opinion OF
rty sitornev dated October 81. tsfl:
:1i: opi0'ou az city attorney dated
Ar"a 4, ltl3; Opinions CITY Attornes
1$i2-tS. page 81: opinion OF city at
tuNcy dated October / D. 1918, Opin-
p to- CITY Aftorue,- 1919, page e4S.t
. From the foregoing II necesSarilv
fu.'o"s TIA 10 action can legally bC
E@n by ths council OF the CITY %
Richmond which wouid result n the
\ .Eoysi OF any OF the members OF
tie school board OF of J. A. t. Chand-
T. division superintendent OF schools
for the city OF Richmond. though
~se Ihenl 1ers and said division sup
inf @rdsnt we're found to he sailtN
u :ae oTen~es charged against then,
$50 " ltl4a wai II ts5r petitioner.
Nil Robert y. Thomas alleges re ~
T. pageI 80 sUGs:anf{a'e The extent
a. which the council could possibly
60, sho1ld THE charges he sustained,
would he 20 call the attention o; the
StdAe OF the hustings court Of the city
NJ Richmond. the commonwealth
sftorney for the cstN OF Richmond ana
any grsud JuGy inraneled by said
.ohr; 70 the alleged charges. and IN
connection herewith Ia. before them
~ reslit OF s.t invsstis e ton which
The council might make. bat any find
.ug OF the lou.ict Of the city al Rich
nond In tae premises would not bs
evidence Is gainst the persons affected.
RRd could not have any more weight
than the complaint OF the petitioner.
NJ. Rooe.t y. Thomas. BY an appeal
~ him directly 10 the grand jury OF
10 the officers OF Inc court above men
toned
:. The spe clftr cha ge ia the petit
to.a made that The city school board
has Violated section Of cha pter :,
rage 5S, Richmond Cit Code 1910, by
agreeing with an architect not 20 re
anire any certified check of s per
cent Of the contract price of any a.
copied design, IN nay opinion has no
application TO coz >acts made by the
cit, school board, the members of
said board. IS ia"Tejnbetore stated. not
beng city officers,
s., Not on4$ n-4y he grand jury take
f.ogloiaance OF lie charges III the Pc
n;ion made. but find by regulation
81. made by the state board of edu-
cation, in pursuance of the express
provisions Of section 1872 OF article IN
Of the constitution. that;
In all cases not otherwise provided
Tor an appeal may within ninety days
he taken to the DIVISION superinten-
dent concerning the acts OF any per-
son connected With the school system
or the action of any school board
within his bounds, by any TEACHER or
school oficer. or by Ave or more in
fsrested heads OF families who may
feel themselves aggrieved, and from
the division superintendent of schools
TO the superintendent of public in
rruction. who. IL, he cannot satisfac-
torily adjust the same. shall, in his
discretion. grant an appeal to the
state board VI education. and that
hoard shall finally decide all questions
nj issue
am Of opinion that these two