Authority and Discretion. The Board shall exercise its discretionary authority in good faith when determining that a reduction in force (RIF) is necessary. Should it become necessary, a fair and equitable system for determination shall be followed. Conditions justifying a Reduction In Force include but are not limited to those indicated below. The Bernalillo Public School District has the authority to discharge licensed personnel, including licensed instructors with three or more consecutive years of service. The Board has the jurisdiction to revise the instructional program and decrease personnel in the district at any time during the school year. The District will provide the Association with thirty (30) days notice of an impending layoff. If requested by the Association during this thirty (30) day period, the District will meet with the Association and allow the Association to make recommendations regarding the impending layoff. For information purposes only, employees may refer to the appropriate State Board of Education Regulation.
Authority and Discretion. The NMTs also specifically limited responsibility for executing a criminal enterprise to defendants who possessed a certain degree of authority and discretion with regard to the actions that connected them to the enterprise. That limitation is both implicit and explicit in the judgments. It is implicit in the tribunals‟ consistent emphasis on the authority and discretion of the defendants they convicted for executing a criminal enterprise. In the Justice case, Tribunal III noted that Mettgenberg “exercised wide 62 Justice, III TWC 1128. 63 Xxxx, V TWC 1107-08. 64 Justice, III TWC 1120. 65 Id. at 1095. 66 Id. at 1155. 67 Xxxx, V TWC 998. 68 Ministries, XIV TWC 548. 69 Einsatzgruppen, IV TWC 569. 70 Xxxx, V TWC 989. 71 Ministries, XIV TWC 611. discretion and had extensive authority”72 and von Ammon “held an executive position of responsibility involving the exercise of personal discretion” concerning the Night and Fog program.73 In Xxxx, Tribunal II pointed out that Xxxxxxxxxxxx “was not a mere employee of the WVHA, but held a responsible and authoritative position in this organization,”74 and that Xxxxxxx “was more than a mere bookkeeper,” because “he exercised discretion and judgment and made many important decisions.”75 And in Ministries, Tribunal IV convicted Xxxxxx for participating in the plan to murder downed Allied flyers because he was “selected to occupy a position of considerable delicacy,” not “a mere messenger boy,”76 and convicted Xxxxxxx for participating in the perversion of the Ministry of Justice because he was not “a notary public certifying the acts of others,” but “possessed sufficient rank to interpose and exercise judgment and power.”77 The tribunals also explicitly relied on the “authority and discretion” requirement to acquit defendants accused of executing a criminal enterprise. Two examples are particularly notable. The first is the Ministries tribunal‟s explanation of why Xxxxxxxx von Xxxxxxx could not be held responsible for helping to implement the concentration-camp program: As Minister of Finance the defendant furnished the means by which the concentration camps were purchased, constructed, and maintained, but it is clear that he neither originated nor planned these matters, and the funds were provided by him on Xxxxxx'x express orders. They were Xxxxx funds and not Xxxxxxxx xxx Xxxxxxx's, and he had no discretion with respect to their disposition. His act in disbursing them for these purposes was actually clerical, and we can...
