Effective 28 Aug 1963

162.631. Jurisdiction of circuit court over board — how exercised. — 1. The circuit court of the city has jurisdiction over the members of the board of education and its officers to require them to account for their official conduct in the management and disposition of the funds, property and business committed to their charge; to order, decree and compel payment by them to the public school fund of all sums of money, and of the value of all property which may have been improperly retained by them, or transferred to others, or which may have been lost or wasted by any violation of their duties or abuse of their powers as such members or officers of the board; to suspend any member or officer from exercising his office, whensoever it appears that he has abused his trust or become disqualified; to remove any member or officer upon proof or conviction of gross misconduct or disqualification for his office; to restrain and prevent any alienation of property of the public schools by members or officers, in cases where it is threatened, or there is good reason to apprehend that it is intended to be made in fraud of the rights and interests of the public schools.

2. The jurisdiction conferred by this section shall be exercised as in ordinary cases upon petition, filed by or at the instance of any member or officer of the board, or at the instance of any ten citizens and householders of the city who join in the petition, verified by the affidavit of at least one of them. The petition shall be heard in a summary manner after ten days' notice in writing to the member or officer complained of; and an appeal shall lie from the judgment of the circuit court as in other causes, and shall be speedily determined; but an appeal does not operate under any condition as a supersedeas of 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.