*1 jury charge on it. fused to All the Justices concur. affirmed.
Lloyd Murray, appellant. D. Attorney, Cheney, Stephen
Dupont Archer, Assis- K. J. Attorney Attorney, General, Bowers, J. Susan Michael tant District Peggy Boleyn, Attorney Katz, General, Assistant R. Senior V. Staff Attorney, et DeKALB COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT al. DeKALB COUNTY.
(440 SE2d Justice. Sears-Collins, appeal appellant, the is whether the The issue raised (the “District”), appellee, or the DeKalb DeKalb School District (the improvements “County”), leading a DeKalb school. We conclude road1 improvements. responsible road is building Kingway purchased a school on The District a site for part Kingway Drive the DeKalb is Drive County public inter- can be reached its County agreed Rock The District and the section with Shadow that provements Kingway Road. building Kingway im- would necessitate of a school on Drive it safe for students and Drive make disagreed residents, them should as to which of portion improvements did not involve the and would require road rights the school improvements included to be titled in the Kingway widening Rock with Shadow Drive its intersection Road. occupied. This has now been built and or the should whether the District
followed to determine During litigation, Kingway Drive. par- provided judgment that the that entered into a consent party question, with each ties would make the part opinion of a to a references to “road” (2). roadways referring system. located to drives or See OCGA 32-4-1 We are not § non-public property, entirely property, that are used or on other road, county public from on the school (1). road, highway, municipal public 32-4-1 or a state costs, percent advancing the court would deter- mine, claims, parties’ party on the based costs of At oral admitted completed. appeal have now been stems parties’ summary judg- from the trial court’s denial motions for appeal, party ment. On contends that the other is *2 as a matter of law. hold We the County bear the must costs and reverse the de- summary judgment. nial of District’s motion 1. We first address the District’s it contention that cannot consti- tutionally expend its tax funds to District’s contention correct. Constitution, VIII, Georgia VI, (b),
The 1983 Par. I Art. Sec. vides that expended only tax funds shall be support
[s]chool schools, public and maintenance of vocational-techni- schools, public education, necessary cal and activities or inci- thereto, including dental purposes.2 school lunch The issue is whether the road incidental” to schools and Although education. provision powers have held that “vests broad in school districts to things properly to be determined or incidental Fletcher, Russell public education,” power must and does have its limits. Those limits can be by examining discerned synergistic relationship that exists be- tween the District providing and the services citizens of County. powers provide broad and duties to numerous County many services that benefit all the citizens ways, see IX, Art. III Constitution, Sec. Pars. I and Georgia the 1983 has similarly power services, broad to tax spend provide IV, Art. Sec. Par. I Georgia of the 1983 OCGA 48- authority, hand, 5-220. The District’s on the other is principally providing aimed at opportunities educational young people County, thereby benefitting all of the citizens of the VIII, V, Art. (school I Sec. Par. of the 1983 Constitution dis- 2 Furthermore, provides that school funds may per- shall be used be used to salaries facilities, buses, including sonnel and to the utilization of school school activities, including literary events, extracurricular interscholastic music and programs athletic within individual schools and between schools in the same or in systems sponsored by different school when such activities are local boards of educa- integral part program, purpose. tion as an total school and for no other authority education, have “establish tricts, their boards limits”). The District has the education,” their schools within and maintain support to tax “for (a), may only spend seen, VI, and, VIII, we have Par. pub- and incidental to funds matters (b). foregoing public education, id. Par. I dem- lic schools and County generally the District that the District and onstrates two different functioning spheres, to en- with the youth func- the education of hance tioning provide range citi- services to the a broad other responsibilities indication that some zens. This division provide expenditures and ben- sources District’s efits areas reserved with the resolution of a similar
These are consistent supra, involving parties. In Russell v. these same dispute School we resolved a County concerning re- which of them should be and DeKalb crossing guards quired provide funds “to property.” purpose Id. at 854. to and from school held was not We crossing powers that because
guards by any statute, “the broad Constitution vests *3 things properly determined to in school districts to 854, education,” id. be- and or incidental to be safety crossing program in to and of the children a insure the cause property service, was a the District author- was from school crossing Applying guards, id. at 855. for the ized expenditure Russell, school tax see that the of discussed above we by insuring of the funds that benefitted the education they they safely from school into once could cross to and stray generally any did reserved had arrived there and to the expending Here, find different matter. we a stray too far from tax funds would school the District’s principal educating young people in favor of task of duty viding County generally has a citizens that the benefit all provide. Although do the road conclude indirectly by insuring that a benefit the District safe, the the will are not to school buses travel on portion be required of and the road improvement rights way belonging of to the of safety County. Moreover, the concern of for the entering leaving by Kingway the District’s in and Drive was not portions travelling did not abut of road that school but danger property. Further, chil- was not limited to school school dren but to all citizens County, school chil- of area residents and 882 Finally, rights improving county purchasing
dren alike. of sphere roads fall within the of services that the Constitution to the Par. Ill assign and laws See (1) (a) (4) (county “shall 1983 construct, plan, improve, control, designate, manage, and maintain an adequate county responsi- shall have control construction, maintenance, bility for all or other work related to the (6) system”); (county to tax for the roads). conclusion, only stray the road principal responsibility furthering from the District’s the education children, also benefit the citizens of in way generally reserved to we hold that the expenses are not and incidental” to education paid may not be for with school funds. If we were to reach a contrary then holding, arguably precious school districts could use to improve dangerous educational funds intersections road condi- along tions all routes used school buses.3 Having 2. may determined that the District not constitutionally improvements, any representa funds the road tion by supervisor the District’s contrary may of construction Chatham not bind the District Assn. Education, Educators v. Bd. Public (204 138) (1974). SE2d holdings 2, supra, Divisions moot several other why made the District regarding should be reversed. the Justices concur. Justice, concurring.
This case again why illustrates once the various branches local together spirit work of cooperation to accom- plish greatest good taxpayers without needless waste of public funds. City Atlanta, See Atlanta Bd. Education 716) (1992); City Collins, Atlanta v. 141) (1992); City City Atlanta, Roswell v. *4 28) (1991). Here, the taxes both source, are derived from the same the citizens of when, nationally, 1996, 1,620,000 young people At time from 1992 to ages school; 3,600,000 complete high 16 and will fail to poverty; infants will be born into 7,911,532 public 599,076 suspended; age school students bewill under will be offenses, 359,600 offenses, drug 338,292 arrested for alcohol-related another and another crimes, Wright Edelman, Success, pp. violent see Marian Measure of 85-86 (1992), Georgia’s cannot districts afford their resources on endeavors not curbing focused on the current national human deficit. attorney fees the burden same citizens cast County. Upon these In my in this of both action. expenses representation Georgia, in rural northwest years of local boards, cities, cooperation between school strong spirit observed a authorities, beneficiary cooper- of such with the ultimate counties metropolitan Government areas the local citizens. being ation cooperation. such well to emulate would do Sams, Burnette, Candler, Mark G. Gary Joyner M. & & Weekes Burnette, appellants. Wilson, Montgomery, & Attorney, Johnson
Robert E. Johnson, Albert S. A INQUIRY CONCERNING IN THE MATTER OF: 93-154.
JUDGE NO.
Per curiam. complaint judicial receipt alleging of a handwritten
Following Larry Cannon, Judge E. Probate by Respondent, Judge misconduct Qualifications Commission notified Re- the Judicial Rabun Judge investigation. response, an spondent it would conduct wrongdoing. of its inves- allegations As result Cannon denied the Qualifications Respondent Commission served tigation, the Judicial which, subsequently Proceedings with a Notice of Formal amended, process dispose or of cita- alleged Respondent failed to and Fish Division by Rangers Game tions filed named (DNR); persons stated to at- of Natural Resources Department the citations that there were process to discuss the failure to tempting violations, game fish that he did many dealing too laws with laws, law enforce- that he could not stand a named agree with DNR, anyone; dis- that he was not accountable to ment officer of evidence; and he would stated that hearing missed citations without Following the by particular Ranger. DNR accept cases initiated Qualifications Com- taking depositions hearing, the Judicial failed, Respondent ways al- mission as fact that found Proceedings, of Formal leged the amended Notice pre- in the manner perform judicial his duties Probate Court and Rangers; filed DNR respect scribed law with citations specifically his intense dis- Respondent personal feelings, allowed his judge; his actions as a Ranger, improperly control like a named forthrightly Respondent openly address and that failed