State Codes and Statutes
Statutes > Missouri > T11 > C162 > 162_631Jurisdiction of circuit court over board--how exercised.
162.631. 1. The circuit court of the city has jurisdictionover the members of the board of education and its officers torequire them to account for their official conduct in themanagement and disposition of the funds, property and businesscommitted to their charge; to order, decree and compel payment bythem to the public school fund of all sums of money, and of thevalue of all property which may have been improperly retained bythem, or transferred to others, or which may have been lost orwasted by any violation of their duties or abuse of their powersas such members or officers of the board; to suspend any memberor officer from exercising his office, whensoever it appears thathe has abused his trust or become disqualified; to remove anymember or officer upon proof or conviction of gross misconduct ordisqualification for his office; to restrain and prevent anyalienation of property of the public schools by members orofficers, in cases where it is threatened, or there is goodreason to apprehend that it is intended to be made in fraud ofthe rights and interests of the public schools.
2. The jurisdiction conferred by this section shall beexercised as in ordinary cases upon petition, filed by or at theinstance of any member or officer of the board, or at theinstance of any ten citizens and householders of the city whojoin in the petition, verified by the affidavit of at least oneof them. The petition shall be heard in a summary manner afterten days' notice in writing to the member or officer complainedof; and an appeal shall lie from the judgment of the circuitcourt as in other causes, and shall be speedily determined; butan appeal does not operate under any condition as a supersedeasof a judgment of suspension or removal from office.
(L. 1963 p. 200 § 3-63)(Source: RSMo 1959 § 165.583)
(1960) Evidence justified removal of respondent from office of president of board of education for gross misconduct on ground he had directed board's employees to work on house owned by relatives and directed payment of employees from public funds and appeal would not be dismissed because respondent's term of office had expired when case was argued since whether alleged conduct constituted gross misconduct was matter of public importance and controversy still existed as to whether respondent should repay certain sums to board. Antoine v. McCaffery (A.), 335 S.W.2d 474.
