Following a tumultuous meeting of the board of education Monday afternoon, its chair and vice chair have filed a civil lawsuit against fellow board members to nullify the board’s previous action of accepting superintendent Dr. Troy Journigan’s resignation and the subsequent offer of the top job to deputy superintendent Geneva Braziel.

According to a copy of the civil proceeding, a restraining order was signed Monday at 4:41 p.m. by Superior Court Judge William Pryor in an attempt by Simmons and Manson to keep any action the board took at its Oct. 14 meeting from being upheld — particularly any measures taken on a new contract for a superintendent — until the status of Journigan’s resignation is resolved. The restraining order further asks that defendants Mark Archer, Becky Brock and Jeff McAfee be prevented from taking any action without the knowledge of all the members of the board of education and usurping the role of chairperson without Manson and Simmons’ knowledge and

consent. The restraining order is set to be in place for 30 days.

It is unclear if the restraining order is enacted retroactively, and if it would nullify any board action since Oct. 14 — including accepting Journigan’s resignation and extending an offer to Braziel. Also unclear is the status of the adoption of the board’s Fiscal Year 2009 budget and setting of its millage rate, which occurred Monday — after Oct. 14 — potentially pushing an already overdue budget that has caused both the school board and county to borrow money to keep operations afloat.

In the civil lawsuit, Simmons and Manson contend that since the executive session on Oct. 14 was not included on the meeting agenda, which according to Georgia law is to be prepared before a meeting, to enter the session was illegal. Board policy, though, indicates that the board may make additions or deletions to the agenda through a vote of the majority of the members.

The suit also alleges that Archer, Brock and McAfee have met illegally concerning Braziel’s possible hiring as the new superintendent, and that Archer acted unilaterally during the selection process, improperly assuming the role of chairman. The suit alleges that Archer, Brock and McAfee deprived Simmons and Manson of their rights to full participation in action taken on behalf of the board.

Simmons and Manson ask the court for the following:

— That the court issue a temporary restraining order temporarily enjoining Defendants Archer, Brock and McAfee from taking any actions without the knowledge and consent of the chairperson and vice chairperson or from usurping the role of the chairperson;

— That the court temporarily enjoin the board from taking any action in its board meeting on any new contract until this matter has been resolved or until the board has followed the proper procedures in selecting a new superintendent;

— That the court seal the plaintiffs’ affidavit;

— That the court set down at the earliest possible time a hearing on an interlocutory injunction in this cause;

— That upon the said hearing in this cause, the court issue an interlocutory injunction prohibiting defendants from the above-stated actions;

— That upon a final hearing in this cause, the said interlocutory injunction be made permanent;

— That the plaintiffs be awarded attorney’s fees and cost for prosecution of this injunction;

— For such other relief as this court seem just and proper.

Simmons and Manson’s attorney also filed a certification giving notice that he was representing them in the matter and asked the court to forgo giving proper notice to opposing counsel and defendants since the meeting was less than two hours away and since he had no phone numbers for any of the defendants. Their attorney did say he had attempted to make contact with the board attorney in the certification letter.

A hearing on the suit, expect to require two days, is tentatively scheduled for Friday, Nov. 7 before Superior Court Judge James Cline.