O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 20-2-61 (2019)

Fundamental roles of local boards of education and local school superintendents

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The fundamental role of a local board of education shall be to establish policy for the local school system with the focus on student achievement. The fundamental role of a local school superintendent shall be to implement the policy established by the local board. It shall not be the role of the local board of education or individual members of such board to micromanage the superintendent in executing his or her duties, but it shall be the duty of the local board to hold the local school superintendent accountable in the performance of his or her duties; provided, however, that requesting and reviewing financial data and documents shall not constitute micromanaging. Local board of education members should work together with the entire local board of education and shall not have authority as independent elected officials but shall only be authorized to take official action as members of the board as a whole. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to alter, limit, expand, or enlarge any powers, duties, or responsibilities of local boards of education, local board members, or local school superintendents.

ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUC.

(b) Except as may be allowed by law, no local board of education shall delegate or attempt to delegate its policy-making functions.

History

Code 1981, § 20-2-61, enacted by Ga. L. 2010, p. 452, § 6/SB 84; Ga. L. 2020, p. 62, § 1-4/SB 68. The 2020 amendment, effective July 1, 2021, added “; provided, however, that requesting and reviewing financial data and documents shall not constitute micromanaging” at the end of the third sentence in subsection (a).

Annotations

Editor’s notes. This Code section formerly pertained to reorganizing schools and fixing the number of grades at each. The former Code section was based on Ga. L. 1953, Nov.Dec. Sess., p. 282, § 1 and was repealed by Ga. L. 1985, p. 1657, § 2, effective July 1, 1986.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Constitutionality of statute providing for removal from office. - Georgia Supreme Court held that the removal of local school board members under O.C.G.A. § 20-2-73 was not an unconstitutional infringement upon the governing authority of local school boards, nor was it a violation of any other constitutional provision or right. DeKalb County Sch. Dist. v. Ga. State Bd. of Educ., 294 Ga. 349, 751 S.E.2d 827, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 1005 (2013). Whether characterized as setting a qualification for continued service on the

local board in the extraordinary circumstance of an imminent loss of accreditation, or whether characterized as providing for removal for malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, O.C.G.A. § 20-2-73 was held by the Georgia Supreme Court to be a permissible exercise of the legislative power to provide for the removal for cause of members of local boards. DeKalb County Sch. Dist. v. Ga. State Bd. of Educ., 294 Ga. 349, 751 S.E.2d 827, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 1005 (2013).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2013–2013 · leading case: DeKalb Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Georgia State Bd. of Educ., 751 S.E.2d 827 (Ga. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

DeKalb Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Georgia State Bd. of Educ., 751 S.E.2d 827 (Ga. 2013). · cites it 2× “When the conduct of a board threatens the school system with an imminent loss of its accreditation, it matters not to the public or the children of the school system whether it is the fault of a single board member, the fault of every board member, or the fault of no one in…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.