Opinion ID: 1269888
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Analysis of petition

Text: 3. The application contained five alleged fact or facts upon which the ground or grounds are based, [2] contending that the school board member: (a) has violated State and County School Board policy; (b) has violated the Georgia Open and Public Meetings law; (c) has violated the terms of a 1973 Federal Court order on desegregation; (d) has failed to prevent students from out-of-county or from out-of-district from illegally attending county schools; and, (e) has failed to pursue policies which would allow Meriwether County to take advantage of $6.5 million dollars in State funds. 4. (a) The first allegation charges a violation of school board policy. It does not identify the policy, or any act or omission that might violate any policy. (b) The second allegation charges a violation of the Open Meetings Act. It does not identify any meeting of the school board that was closed to the public and at which public business (not exempt by the express terms of the Open Meetings Act) was discussed. (c) The third allegation charges a violation of a court order. There is no specific identification of any aspect of the order, or of any transgression. (d) Allegation (e) falls somewhat closer to the mark of adequate pleading. However, its elements remain unclear in that it speaks only of a failure to pursue policies which would allow Meriwether County to take advantage of $6.5 million dollars in State funds. The policies not pursued are unidentified; nor is there pleaded any likely result of an adequate pursuit of any policy; nor does the allegation identify the purposes for which the alleged State funds have been allocated; nor how much of those funds might have been devoted to the benefit of Meriwether County; nor to what end. 5. (a) The allegations (a) through (c) are nothing more than conclusions. [3] They fail to set out the alleged fact or facts upon which such ground or grounds are based (OCGA § 21-4-6 (f)). Allegation (e), also, is inadequate. (b) The trial court correctly interpreted the grounds (a) through (c), and ground (e), as insufficient. 6. Allegation (d), however, states with adequate particularity acts or omissions that may constitute grounds for recall, in that it is specific enough  in the context of the controversy  to inform the public and the school board member of the substance of the complaint. While it may not qualify as perfect pleading, our law requires no such perfection. 7. (a) Allegations (a) through (c) and (e) of the petition for recall must be expunged or obliterated from the petition in the form in which it is submitted to the people. (b) Allegation (d) is sufficient [4] to require the holding of a recall election.