213 V 1-- EJ4-S IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA AT RICID10ND RECORD NO. 7988

Transcription

1 - --~ V 1-- EJ4-S IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA AT RICID10ND RECORD NO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA EDSON M. LYNN, JR. GEORGE R. STRINGER, JR. JOHN ROY DOGGETT. HOMER AKERS MRS. GEORGE P. MULLEN REGIS R. LACEY Appellants vs. T. CLAY WOOD ELLIS B. HAWKINS JOHN R. PATTIE WILLIAM T. DUNN THOMAS 0. BEANE PAUL J. ARRINGTON Appellees L: RICHMOND, VIRGINIA APPELLANTS AND APPELLEES APPENDIX Charles s. Perry R. Terrence Ney BOOTHE, PRICHARD & DUDLEY P. o. Box 528 Manassas, Virginia Floyd Caldwell Bagley County Attorney Prince William County Manassas, Virginia Thomas G. Underwood Owens, Underwood & Beane, Attys. 9403~A Grant Avenue Manassas, virginia Counsel for Appellees: Counsel for Appellants

2 . 'INDEX Page Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Petitionfor Temporary Injunction filed January 3, Answer to Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Petition for Temporary Injunction filed January 5, Final Decree entered February 28, Notice of Appeal and Assignment of Error filed February 29, Excerpts from Opinion of Attorney General December 9, Opinion of Attorney General-December 30,

3 '.. il, VIRGINIA T. CLAY WOOD ELLIS B. HAWKINS JOHN F. PATTIE WILLIAM T. DUNN THOMAS 0. BEANE and PAUL J o ARRINGTON IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY Plaintiffs and Petitioners v. CHANCERY NO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA VERNON DAWSON 921 Driftwood Lane Woodbridge, Virginia GEORGE R. STRINGER, JR. 209 Riverview Drive Triangle, Virginia JOHN ROY DOGGETT 9205 Centreville Road Manassas, Virginia HOMER AKERS 4406 Shari Court Catharpin, Virginia JACQUELINE (MRS. GEORGE P. MULLEN Lake Jackson Manassas, Virginia REGIS R. LACEY Brook Drive Dale City Defendants 0-1-

4 "MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PETITION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION. TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Comes now your Plaintiffs and Petitioners and respectfully set forth the following: I. That plaintiffs and petitioners who are residents and voters of Prince William County, are duly appointed and duly qualified trustees of the Prince William County School Board, having been appointed for terms of four years each, to-wit: T. Clay Wood and John Fo Pattie for terms commencing July 1, 1968 and expiring June 30, 1972, Ellis Bo Hawkins and William To Dunn for terms commencing July 1, 1968 and expiring June 30, 1973, Thomas o. Beane for a term commencing July 1, 1970 and expiring June 30, 1974; and Paul Jo Arrington for a term commencing July 1, 1971 and expiring June 30, II. That on or about November 3, 1970, the voters of Prince William County in a public referendun voted that the County of Prince William, effective January 1, 1972, change its county system of government to the county executive form as authorized under Chapter 13, Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Code of Virginia of 1950 as amended. On or about November 2, 1971, the voters of Prince William County, Virginia elected the following individuals, namely : c. Scott Winfield, Dr. Alfred Jo Ferlazzo, Vernon D. Dawson, Donald Turner, Roy w. Doggett, Charles Jo Colgan and Ralph Mauller, to take -2- f'"''"

5 office as Supervisors of Prince William County, Virginia,.I effective January 1, 1972, under the county executive system of government. IIIo That under the provisions of Chapter 13, Article 2, Sections and of the Code of Virginia of 1950 as amended, under the county executive form of government, the Trustees of the Prince William County School Board are to be appointed by the Board of Supervisors of Prince William County, Virginia; However, Section 15ol-609ol specifically states that 11 Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceeding sections, in any county which hereafter adopts the county executive form of organization and government under this article, the trustees of the county school board in office on June twenty-seven, nineteen hundred sixty-six and those hereafter appointed shall be appointed or reappointed as the case may be of for terms of four years each, except that initial appointments hereunder may be for terms of one to four years, respectively, so as to provide staggered terms for such trustees... IV. That on January 1, 1972, the new Board of Supervisors of Prince William County, Virginia, met in an organizational 0 meeting and proceeded by a majority vote to appoint new Trustees of the Prince William County School Board to-wit: Jacqueline Mullen, Homer Akers, Regis Lacey, John Roy Doggett, -3-

6 George Ro Stringer, Jr., PaulK. Boots and Vernon Dawson, and did not reappoint any of your plaintiffs and petitioners as said Trusteeso That with the exception of Paul Ko Boots, none of these new appointees are now serving as said Trustees, in addition the said Vernon Dawson s appointment was in direct violation of Section of the Code of Virginia of 1950 as amendedo Vo That such an action by the Board of Supervisors of Prince William County, Virginia is in direct conflict with the provisions of Section of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, which specifically requires that in any county which hereafter adopts the county executive form of government that the trustees of the county school board in office, shall be reappointed for terms of four years each, with an allowance for initial appointment to be for terms of one to four years to provide for staggered terms. VI. Your plaintiffs and petitioners assert that because of the facts as outlined, an actual controversy has arisen, that the above cited action of the Board of Supervisors of Prince William County, Virginia has adversely affected your plaintiffs' right to be reappointed as Trustees of the Prince William County School Board, in that their right to be so reappointed has been deniedo VIIo Your plaintiffs and petitioners further assert that -4-

7 if the. ap?ve named individuals, appointed by the Board of Supervisors of Prince William County on January 1, 1972, to take office as Trustees of the Prince William County School Board, are allowed to assume office and officially meet as the Prince William County School Board, that your plaintiffs and petitioners will not only suffer irreparable injury as the rightful Trustees of the Prince William County School Board, but that your plaintiffs and petitioners as residents and voters of Prince William County, Virginia, will suffer irreparable damage, if these individuals are allowed to qualify as Trustees of the Prince William County School Board and formerly meet as the Prince William County School Board, ans pass resolutions and expend county funds, in direct conflict with the stated directives of Code section of the Code of Virginia of 1950 as amendedo Wherefore, your plaintiffs and petitioners pray as follows: 1. That an injunction be immediately issued by this Honorable Court temporarily enjoining and restraining the Board of Supervisors of Prince William County, Virginia, from considering and/or passing any further resolutions 0 concerning the appointment of Trustees of the Prince William County School Board, and further temporarily restraining and -5-

8 enjoin;ing the implementation of a resolution passed by the said Board of Supervisors of Prince William County, Virginia, on January 1, 1972, by which the said Board of Supervisors attempted to appoint individuals other than your plaintiffs and petitioners to the position of Trustees of the Prince William County School Board, and further enjoining and restraining those above named individuals who were appointed Trustees of the Prince William County School Board by resolution of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors on January 1, 1971, who are not presently serving as a said trustee, from taking the oath of office _and sitting as the Prince William County School Board, until such time as this Honorable Court can rule on the Motion for Declaratory Judgement. 2. That a Declaratory Judgement be rendered.and entered declaring that Code Section ol of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, requires that the Board of Supervisors of Prince William County, Virginia, which came into being January 1, 1972 under the county executive form of government, appoint as Trustees of the Prince William County School Board your plaintiffs and petitioners, who 0 were duly qualified Trustees of the Prince William County School Board as of the date of the new county executive -6-

9 government went into effect, for terms of four years each, or for staggered terms of one to four years so that not more than two of the said Trustees terms will expire in any one year, as provided for by Section of the Code of Virginiao 3. That a decree be issued by this Court ordering the said Board of Supervisors of Prince William County, Virginia, to immediately proceed to appoint your plaintiffs and petitioners to their lawful offices as Trustees of the Prince William County School Board for the -.terms as required by law. 4. That your plaintiffs and petitioners be awarded their costs and attorney s fees in this mattero 5. That your plaintiffs and petitioners be awarded such other and further relief as shall be necessary and proper in this premise. To CLAY WOOD ELLIS B. HAWKINS JOHN F. PATTIE WILLIAM To DUNN THOMAS.O. BEANE and PAUL J. ARRINGTON Plaintiffs and Petitioners By: S/ Thomas G. Underwood THOMi\S Go UNDERWOOD Counsel for Plaintiffs and Petitioners -7-

10 OWENS, UNDERWOOD & BEANE Attorneys at Law 8403-A Grant Avenue Manassas, Virginia BY: S/ Thomas G. Underwood Counsel for Plaintiffs and Petitioners COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA County of Prince William, to-wit: THIS DAY in my County of Prince William, State of Virginia, came THOMAS o. BEANE, and after being first duly. dworn, made oath in due form of law that the facts and stateme~ts set forth in the foregoing Petition are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. S/ Thomas o. Beane THOMAS 0. BEANE TAKEN, SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me in my County of Prince William, State of Virginia this 3rd day of January, MY COMMISSION EXPIRES S/ Carole Ro Miller NOTARY PUBLIC FILED WITH THE CLERK 3 JANUARY

11 I. ~ J V I R G I' N I A: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY T. CLAY WOOD, et al Plaintiffs } vs CHANCERY NO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA and others Defendants ANSWER TO MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND PETITION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION Comes now the defendants, the Board of Supervisors of Prince William County, Edson Lynn, George R. Stringer, Jro, John Roy Doggett, Homer Akers, Jacqueline Mullen and Regis R. Lacey, by Counsel, and in answer to the Motion filed herein, state as follows: lo They admit that the persons referred to in paragraph I were appointed as members of the Prince William Co~ty School Board on the dates and for the terms alleged, but are without sufficient knowledge or information at th.is time to admit or deny that the plaintiffs are residents and voters of Prince William County, Virginia or that they were duly appointed and duly qualified as members of the Prince William County School Boardo The defendants specifically -9-

12 deny that the plaintiffs were duly appointed and duly ;. \. qualified 11 Trustees 11 of the Prince William County School Bo~rd. 2. They admit the allegations of paragraph II. 3. They deny the allegations of paragraph IIIo 4. They admit that on January 1, 1972, the new Board of Supervisors of Prince William County, Virginia met in an organizational meeting and appointed Trustees of the Prince William County School Board, to-wit: Jacqueline Mullen, Homer Akers, Regis Lacey, John Roy Doggett, George R. Stringer, Jr., Paul K. Boots ~nd.vernon Dawson and did not reappoint any of your plaintiffs and petitioners as said. Trustees, as alleged in paragraph IV of the MOtion filed herein. 5. They deny that none of the new appointees are now serving as Trustees. 6. They further state that at a meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Prince William County held on January 3, 1972, Vernon Dawson tendered his resignation as a Trustee of the Prince William County School and that Edson Mo Lynn was duly appointed by a majority vote of those Supervisors in attendance. 7. They further state that all Trustees o f Prince Willi am County School Board have qualified and taken the -10-

13 oath of office and that the allegation that vernon Dawson's appointment was in violation of Section of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, is now mooto 8. They deny the allegations of paragraphs V, VI and VII. 9. As a specific defense, they state that the appointment of the Trustees of the Prince William County School Board is an administrative and legal function of the Board of Supervisors and that the Board of Supervisors of Prince William County were justified in the action taken and were.acting within the purview of their authority. WHEREFORE, your defendants pray that the Motion for Temporary Injunction be denied and that a Declaratory Judgment be entered, declaring that the newly appointed Trustees of the Prince William County School Board have been duly appointed and qualified and have such further relief as may be necessary. BOOTHE, PRICHARD & DUDLEY P.o. Box 528 Manassas, Virginia BY: S/Charles s. Perry Counsel o THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA Edson M. Lynn George R. Stringer, Jr. John Roy Doggett Homer Akers Jacqueline Mullen Regis R. Lacey By Counsel

14 '~. ~'. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing Answer to MOtion for Declaratory Judgment and Petition for Temporary Injunction was hand-delivered to Thomas G. Underwood, Esqo at 121 N. Grant Avenue, Manassas, Virginia, this 5th day of January, 1972o COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA S/ Charles s. Perry Charles s. Perry The County of Prince William, to-wit: THIS DAY in my County of Prince William, State of Virginia, came CHARLES s. PERRY, and after being first duly sworn, made oath in due form that he is Agent and Attorney for the defendants and that the facts and statements set forth in the foregoing Answer ar~ true and correct to the best of his knowledge and beliefo S/ Charles s. Perry CHARLES S. PERRY TAKEN, SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me in my County of Prince William, S~te of Virginia, this 5th day of January, My Commission Expires : S/ Donna B. Harris NOTARY PUBLIC FILED WITH THE CLERK 5 January

15 ,.. tj VIRGINIA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY./ T. CLAY WOOD, et al Plaintiffs and Petitioners vs. CHANCERY NO BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, et: al Defendants THIS CAUSE came on for hearing before.this Court on January 5, 1972, and on January 19, 1972, upon the motion of plaintiffs and petitioners for a decla~atory judgment and petition for temporary injunction, upon the demurrer filed by the defendants, and upon the answer to the motion for declaratory judgment and petition for temporary injunction filed by defendants. At the hearing on January 5, 1972, all parties were represented by counsel and certain stipulations of fact were made, certain evidence was introduced, and oral argument was heard on the demurrer filed by the defendants. UPON CONSIDERATION of the argument on the demurrer, the Court being of the opinion that the demurrer should be overruled, it is hereby ADJU~GED, ORDERED and DECREED that -13-

16 c-!,., the demurrer be, and the same hereby is overruled, to which ruling of the Court defendants by counsel excepted, and UPON FURTHER CONSIDERATION of a motion by the defendants to strike WILLIAM T. DUNN' as a party plaintiff, the Court being of the opinion that the motion should be overruled, it is hereby ADJUDGED, ORDERED and DECREED that the motion be, and the same hereby is, overruled, to which ruling of the Court defendants by counsel excepted, and IT FURTHER APPEARING to the Court that the plaintiffs and petitioners are residents and voters of Prince William C~unty, Virginia, and as such, were duly appointed and qualified as Trustees and Members of the Prince William County School Board for the following terms, to-wit: T. CLAY WOOD and JOHN F. PATTIE for terms commencing July 1, and expiring June 30, 1972: ELLIS B. HAWKINS for a term commencing July 1, 1969 and expiring June 30, 1973: THOMAS o. BEANE for a term commencing July 1, 1970 and expiring June 30, 1974: PAUL J. ARRINGTON for a term commencing July 1, 1971 and expiring June. 30, 1975: WILLIAM T. DUNN for a term commencing September 30, 1969 and expiring June 30, 1973: and PAUL K. BOOTS for a term commencing July 1, 1971 and expiring June 30, 1975, and -14-

17 ,. t IT FuRTHER APPEARING to the Court that on November 3, 1970, the voters of Prince William County by public referendum voted to change the form of government of the County to the County Executive Form, ef.fective January 1, 1972, and IT FURTHER APPEARING that on Nove~her 2, 1971, C. SCOTT WINFIELD 1 ALFRED J. FERLAZZO 1 VERNON D. DAWSON 1 DONALD TURNER, ROY W. DOGGETT, CHARLES J. COLGAN and RALPH MAULLER, were duly elected to the Board ~f County Supervisors of Prince William County for terms of four years, beginning January.1, 1972, and that on such latter date at a meeting of the Board of County Supervisors the following persons were appointed to the Prince William County School Board for the following terms, to-wit: JACQUELINE MULLEN, three years: HOMER AKERS, one year:. PAUL K. BOOTS, two years: REGIS LACY, two years: VERNON DAWSON, one year, GEORGE R. STRINGER, JR., two years: and JOHN ROY DOGGETT, three years, and that with the exception of the said PAUL K. BOOTS, none of the aforementioned persons appointed January 1, 1972, was serving as a member of the School Board prior to January 1, 1972, and IT APPEARING THAT on January 3, 1972, the.aforesaid VERNQN DAWSON, a member of the Board of County Supervisors -15-

18 informed~'the Board of County Supervisors that he would not qualify as a member of the County School Board and that EDSON M. LYNN, JR. was then appointed by the aforesaid County Board of Supervisors to the said Schpol Board for a term of one year, and IT FURTHER APPEARING that upon joint motion of the plaintiffs and defendants herein, the said VERNON DAWSON was dismissed as a party defendant and the said EDSON M. LYNN, JR. added as a party defendant to this suit; and IT FURTHER APPEARS from the evidence that the members of the School Board appointed on January 1, 1972 and January 3,1972, qualified by taking the required oath of office, and IT FURTHER APPEARING to the Court that counsel for all parties agree that the effective date of the alteration of the boundary lines of the various magister1al districts of the County did not become efrective until December 31,1971, the Court therefore rules that WILLIAM T. DUNN, member from Gainesville Magisterial District, was properly in office on December 31, AND THE COURT being of the opinion that the issue presented is that of interpretation of Section.lS.l of the Code of Virginia, as amended, upon consideration of -16-

19 '. 0 t the pleadings, the testimony and other evidence presented and upon argument of counsel together with memoranda submitted by counsel, is of the opinion that pursuant to said Section 15o of the Code aforesa id, the County Board of Supervisors of Prince William County was and is required to appoint the members of the Prince William County School Board in office on December 31, 1971 for terms of four (4 years each, beginning January 1, 1972, or at their option for staggered terms. T.HE COURT FURTHER having considered the issue raised by the defendants by counsel in argument and in memorandum that the plaintiffs interpretation of Section of the Code of Virginia, as amended, would render said statute violative of the Virginia Constitution, Article IV, Section 12, is further of the opinion that this application does not render the aforesaid statute violative of Article rv, Section 12 of the Virginia Constitution. WHEREUPON, it is ADJUDGED, ORDERED and DECREED that the appointment of those persons to the Prince William County School Board made by the County Board of Supervisors on January 1, 1972 and January 3, 1972, as set forth hereinabove be and the same is hereby declared null and void and without

20 '~. t J force and effect with the exception of the said PAUL K. BOOTS, and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the members or trustees of the Prince William C.ounty School Board in office on December 31, 1971, shall continue to hold office as the School Board for terms of four years each, beginning January 1,.1972, unless the Board-of County Supervisors shall follow the mandate of Section 15.1~609.1 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, to appoint or reappoint such members or trustees in office Decembe~ 31, 1971 for terms of four years or at their option for staggered terms as provided by law, then in such event, said members or trustees of the Prince William County School Board in office on December 31, 1971, shall serve for the terms for which they are so appointed. AND THIS DECREE IS FINAL. ENTERED this 28th day of ~F~eb~r~u~a~rv~,l972. S/ Arthur w. Sinclair ARTHUR W. SINCLAIR, Judge, Circuit Court of Prince William County, VirgL'"lia -18-

21 Seen and Exception Noted as to 'the' inclusion of the ruling on Article IV, Section 12 of the Constitution of Virginia. '-- S/ Thomas G. Underwood THOMAS G. UNDERWOOD, Counsel for Plaintiffs and Petitioners Seen and Exception noted: BOOTHE, PRICHARD & DUDLEY 9304 Peabody Street Manassas, Virginia By; S/ Charles s. Perry. CHARLES S. PERRY Counsel for Defendants S/ F. c. Bagley FLOYD C. BAGLEY County Attorney -19-

22 ,.. ". VIRGINIA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY T. CLAY vtood, et al Plaintiffs VSo CHANCERY NO THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY Defendants NOTICE OF APPEAL AND ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR TO THE HONORABLE L. E. ATHEY, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY: Defendants, by counsel, hereby give notice of appeal from a final judgment entered herein on the 28th day of F_eb r_u_a_ry~------' The said Defendants will apply to the Supreme Court of Virginia for a writ of error to said judgment and set forth the following assignments of error: 1. The Circuit Court erred in ruling that of the Virginia Code required the Board of Supervisors to reappoint the for.mer School Board. 2. The Circuit Court erred in overruling the motion by defendants to strike William T. Dunn.as a party plaintiffo 0 3o The effect of the Circuit Court's erroneous ruling that S required the Board of Supervisors to reappoint the for.mer School Board is to render

23 viola~~v~ of the Virginia Constitution. 4. The transcript of the hearing of this cause will be filed herein. THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF PRINCE WILLIA.t1 COUNTY, VIRGINIA BY: CHARLES S. PERRY, Counsel BOOTHE 1 PRICHARD & DUDLEY 9304 Peabody Street Manassas, Virginia FLOYD C. BAGLEY County Attorney CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal and Assignments of Error was mailed, postage prepaid to Thomas G. underwood, Counsel for Plaintiffs, Owens, Underwood and Beane, 9403-A Grant Avenue, Manassas, Virginia this 29th day of February, 1972o S/ Charles s. Perry CHARLES S. PERRY FILED WITH THE CLERK 29 FEBRUARY

24 Opinions of the Attorney General of Virginia dated December 9, 1971 and December 30, 1971 introduced as exhibits by the appellees. See page 5 of transcript dated Wednesday, January 19, Following is the material portion of the opinion dated December 9, * * * "This is. in reply to your letter _of December 6, 1971, in which you advised that Prince William County has approved the adoption of the County Executive form of government to be effective January 1, 1972, and requested my opinion on six questions which have arisen during the planning for the transition. These questions read : * * * "3. May the new Board of County Supervisors appoint the members of the School Board without regard to those presently serving? Va. Code and 22-80, read in conjunction with Va. Code , would seem to require the reappointment of the old School Board members. But the Board of Supervisors has reapportioned Prince William County effective_ December 31, 1971 in accordance with Va. Code and, as I interpret your opinion dated June 3, 1971, addressed to the Commonwealth's Attorney for King George County, the existing positions on the school board will be vacated by force of law when the new election districts become effective on December 31, Since the School Board offices will be vacant on January 1, 1972,.when the -22-

25 Board of County Supervisors takes office under the County Executive Form, I feel that the Board of County Supervisors may appoint an entirely new School Board regardless of Va. Code * * * "I shall answer your questions seriatim: * * * "3. Section of the Code, as amended, provides as follows: "Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding sections, in any county which hereafter adopts the county executive form of organization and government under this article, the trustees of the county school boards in office on June twenty-seven, nineteen hundred sixty-six, and those hereafter appointed shall be appointed or reappointed, as the case may be, for terms of four years each, except that initial appointments hereunder may be for terms of one to four years, respectively,. so as to provide staggered terms for such trustees." Under this section the new Board of County Supervisors must appoint as members of the School Board the trustees of the county School Board in office prior to December 31, 1971, who would continue to serve de facto until the new board is constituted." * * * Opinion dated December 30, 1971: * * * "This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1971, -23-

26 which reads, in part, as follows: "I have been asked to seek a further opinion and clarification of a portion of your opinion to me dated December 9, "Your paragraph three (3 concerning the appointment of the school board I feel needs clarification. Specifically, does Section of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, require that the existing school board of Prince William County be reappointed by the incoming Board of Supervisors, and, if so, for what term?" I am of the opinion that ~ of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended, requires the incoming Board of Supervisors to reappoint the existing school board members of Prince William County. The statute provides that the terms of the members shall be four years, except that the initial appointments may be for terms of one to four years, respectively, so as to provide staggered terms. Whether the terms are staggered is discretionary with the Board of Supervisors. Since there are seven members on the school board, should the Board of Supervisors decide to stagger their terms, they should be staggered in accordance with th~ provisions of ~ of the Code. This provides that if there be more than four members, one shall be appointed for a term of one year, one for a term of two years, one for a term of three years, and one for a term of four years, and the remaining members shall be appointed for the longest term possible, not exceeding four years. Of couse, should the -24-

27 Board of Supervisors decide not to stagger the te~ms, all members shall be appointed for a term of four years. * * *