standard of review on affirmative defense of statute of limitations in KPMG Peat Marwick v. HCH, 988 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Tex.1999)). 8 . Tex. Educ.Code Ann. § 22.051 (Vernon 1996). 9 . Tex. Educ.Code Ann. § 8.006 (Vernon Supp. 2000). 10 . See City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650, 653 (Tex.1994). 11 . See Tex. Educ.Code Ann. § 22.051(a) (Vernon 1996) (Emphasis added). 12 . Downing v. Brown, 935 S.W.2d 112, 114 (Tex.1996). 13 . Id. 14 . Id. 15 . City of Wichita Falls v. Norman, 963 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1998, pet. dism’d w.o.j.). 16 . Kassen v. Hatley, 887 S.W.2d 4, 11 (Tex.1994). 17 . 935 S.W.2d 112 (Tex.1996). 18 . Id. at 114. 19 . Id. 20 . Id. 21 . Id. 22 . Id. 23 . See Nuchia v. Woodruff, 956 S.W.2d 612, 619-20 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>); Cortez v. Weatherford Indep. Sch. Dist., 925
holding that appeal from a decision of the attorney general denying legal representation was before the appellate division as of right to review the final decision of a state officer holding chief of police an executive officer because a member of the executive branch and an officer holding that statements made only to supervisor and chief by police officer were matters of public concern holding the chief of police was an atwill employee because the parties agreed that the chief of police was an appointed officer and the citys charter stated that officers shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor with consent of the council holding that chief of police was entitled to immunity for demoting police officer pending appeal of hearing officers decision to contrary because although statute made hearing officers decision final and binding statute nowhere addressed enforceability of decision pending appeal thus chief of polices action was discretionary