Emerson v. Buck

• Decision Date: 01 March 1921
• Citation: 130 N.E. 584,230 N.Y. 380
• Parties: EMERSON et al. Board of Education v. BUCK et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

230 N.Y. 380

130 N.E. 584

EMERSON et al. Board of Education

v.BUCK et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Decided March 1, 1921.

In the matter of the application of Edwards D. Emerson and others, constituting the Board of Education of the City of Buffalo, for mandamus, against George S. Buck and others, constituting the Council of the City of Buffalo, and others. From an order of the Appellate Division (194 App. Div. 81,185 N. Y. Supp. 730) affirming an order of the Special Term granting motion for peremptory writ of mandamus, defendants appeal.

Orders of the Appellate Division and Special Term reversed, and writ dismissed.

Crane, J., dissenting.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

William S. Rann, corporation counsel, and Hamilton Ward, both of Buffalo, for appellants.

Simon Fleischmann, Louis E. Desbecker and Adrian Block, all of Buffalo, for respondents.

ANDREWS, J.

[1] As the Special Term granted a peremptory writ of mandamus on the application of the respondents, we must assume, in the consideration of this case, that every fact alleged by the appellants is true. With this rule in mind, it appears that chapter 217 of the Laws of 1914 provided a consistent scheme for the government of the city of Buffalo. Both the legislative and the executive and administrative powers of the city were vested in a council consisting of the mayor and four councilmen. Representing the city in the latter capacity, the state intrusted to it not only purely municipal functions, but as its agent certain governmental duties also. Matters relating to local police, to local fire protection, to the public health, and to public education were placed under its authority. These powers were to be exercised through various departments, at the head of each of which a councilman was to be placed. One of these, the department of public affairs, included within its jurisdiction the matter of public instruction, headed by a board of education elected by the council. Under its control this board was given authority over the public schools and their expenditures. The council also chose a superintendent of schools with immediate supervision over them. He hired and discharged teachers, subject, however, to the provisions of the charter and to the ordinances or regulations of the city. The terms of such teachers and their compensation were prescribed by the council. To obtain the necessary funds it prepared annually an estimate of the amount to be raised by a general tax to carry on the city government for the next fiscal year. As to the amount of this estimate it was not limited save by the constitutional provision that taxes to be raised should not exceed 2 per cent. of the assessed valuation of the real and personal estate of the city. Article 8, § 10. Nor was any attempt made by the Legislature to partition the money to be raised among the different city purposes. Had it chosen, doubtless it might have done so. It might have required, as it had done in the city of New York, that a percentage should be devoted to education. It might have deprived the city of any control over this subject. It might have vested the whole authority in the state officers and provided the necessary support by state taxation, but it did not. Therefore, in making its estimate, the council alone was to decide how the general fund, necessarily limited in amount by the constitutional provision, should be apportioned among the various objects for which it was required.

For the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1920, the limit which might be raised by taxation in Buffalo was $23,885,249.12. The board of education prepared an estimate of the sum it would require for that year. It asked for $5,336,830, of which sum it stated it would need $4,750,465 for salaries. This total was made up in great detail. Like estimates were prepared by other departments. Of all the total was $25,461,478.60. The council decided that the tax levy should be limited to $23,635,084.28. This left $250,164.83 for contingencies. It reduced these estimates made by the other departments by $1,328,164.13, as far, it claims, as it could go with due regard to the interests of the city. In doing so the estimates of some departments were fixed below the amounts granted them for 1919. Sixty-two patrolmen and seven firemen were eliminated. So were six visitors in the department of welfare. It also reduced the estimate of the board of education by $498,230. The papers before us are not as clear as we might wish as to precisely how this was done. Evidently the council took the estimates as to the salaries and reduced them by $343,929. The balance of the reduction seems to have been for items for maintenance. Its final action does not appear. We assume that it included in its budget a sum of $4,838,600 which total, when raised by taxation, would be paid into the city treasury to the credit of the board. In the previous year the same board had asked for $3,458,912. This reduction did not require the discharge of any employee or the decrease of any existing salary. Assuming the whole amount labeled ‘maintenance’ was used for that purpose, it would prevent increases of salaries and the hiring of new employees for the succeeding year. Some of these new positions were to be filled by teachers. Some were not. Another chauffeur was desired and repair men, the last a duplication of existing positions under the city government. This reduction will not cripple or interfere with the general work of the board, and the amount allowed is adequate and sufficient for its purposes. No assertion is made that the council acted in bad faith.

Admitting that under the charter the council might do as it did, the board claims that, because of chapter 786 of the Laws of 1917 and chapter 645 of the Laws of 1919, this power no longer exists in so far as it restricts the board as to the number of its employees and the salary they shall receive. It does concede the power as to the maintenance items. But as to the others it is said the board may now fix such salaries and engage such employees as it may think wise. The council must then accept its estimate without criticism and allow the money required to meet it, however much the other activities of the city may suffer. In this the state but applies to Buffalo the rule that exists in certain other localities. Therefore the board by mandamus seeks to compel the council to include in its tax levy the full amount asked for for this purpose. At the Special Term a peremptory mandamus to that effect was granted, and this order was affirmed by the Appellate Division.

The general purpose of these statutes is clear. Largely it was the intent that the state should reassume the power over education which it had hitherto given to the municipalities. By creating independent boards of education under its own authority it was thought that political entanglements might be avoided. It was believed a higher class of instruction would result by insuring teachers at least a minimum salary, by giving their appointment and the question of increased compensation to its agents, and by making their position permanent. All this was done. Those matters were left to the board. But was the power so conferred unqualified? Whatever the board chose to ask, that must the city grant? Or must it act within the limits of the appropriations made for its benefit? Who was to determine whether in any year it should use $5,000,000 or $15,000,000, the board or the city?

Chapter 786 of the Laws of 1917 is made an article of the Educational Law (Consol. Laws, c. 16). So far as the city of Buffalo is concerned, it created a new board with all the control over educational matters formerly possessed by the city, except that the latter might still fix the compensation of teachers and other employees. Even this power, however, was not untrammeled. These salaries were to continue to be on the same basis as when the act went into effect. As...