Beer v. City of Fraser Civil Service Com'n, Docket No. 58593

• Decision Date: 15 September 1983
• Docket Number: Docket No. 58593
• Citation: 127 Mich.App. 239,338 N.W.2d 197
• Parties: Charles D. BEER, Appointing Authority, and The City of Fraser, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY OF FRASER CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee. 127 Mich.App. 239, 338 N.W.2d 197
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 197

338 N.W.2d 197

Charles D. BEER, Appointing Authority, and The City of Fraser, a Municipal Corporation Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY OF FRASER CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 58593.

127 Mich.App. 239, 338 N.W.2d 197

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Oct. 15, 1982.

Decided March 25, 1983.

Released for Publication Sept. 15, 1983.

[127 MICHAPP 240] Bieber, Golden, Brennan, Matranga, McKinnon & Sable, P.C. by David A. McKinnon, Mount Clemens, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Emil E. Cardamone, Warren, for defendant-appellee.

Before T.M. BURNS, P.J., and V.J. BRENNAN and WAHLS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Charles Beer, City Administrator for the City of Fraser, suspended city police Sergeant Norman Spinelli for 30 days and recommended his permanent suspension to the city's civil service commission. Sergeant Spinelli appealed the administrator's suspension to defendant commission, which conducted a hearing. On April 15, 1981, the commission reversed Spinelli's suspension and ordered that he be reinstated.

Charles Beer, as city appointing authority, and the City of Fraser thereafter filed an action for superintending control against the civil service commission, contending that the commission's action[127 MICHAPP 241] was contrary to law because there was no evidence to support the decision to reinstate Spinelli. Plaintiffs sought an order from the circuit court compelling the commission to suspend and discharge Sergeant Spinelli. Defendant commission filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that under the firemen and policemen's civil service act, specifically M.C.L. Sec. 38.514; M.S.A. Sec. 5.3364, only the "person removed" may appeal the commission's decision and that the city and city manager have no standing to appeal the commission's decision.

The circuit court granted the commission's motion, relying upon Hendricks v. Sterling Heights Police & Fire Dep't Civil Service Comm., 85 Mich.App. 646, 272 N.W.2d 170 (1978), lv. den. 405 Mich. 826 (1979). Plaintiffs appeal as of right.

In Hendricks, a suspended Sterling Heights police officer appealed to the Sterling Heights Civil Service Commission and the commission ruled his suspension improper and ordered his reinstatement. The city manager then filed a complaint for superintending control in the circuit court, seeking reversal of the commission's ruling. The circuit judge reversed, but this Court vacated the decision of the circuit court and reinstated the decision of the civil service commission, holding that the city manager lacked standing to obtain review of the commission's decision in the circuit court and, therefore, the circuit court's order on appeal was void.

The Court in Hendricks noted that, although the issue was one of first impression in Michigan, the Court was following the majority of other jurisdictions in holding that an administrative officer of a governmental entity (or the governmental entity itself) lacks standing to appeal the decision of a [127 MICHAPP 242] reviewing agency of such governmental entity, except to the extent that legislation gives the officer the right to do so. The Court went on to find that, while the applicable legislation, the firemen and policemen's civil service act, M.C.L.A. Sec. 38.501 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 5.3351 et seq., provides for appeal to circuit court by the removed employee, it is silent with respect to any appeal by the city or its administrator. The Court interpreted that silence as indicating that the Legislature considered the decision of a city's civil service commission as a final decision of the city and thus the city would not appeal its own decision.

With the exception that the city, as well as the city appointing authority, has sought to challenge the commission's decision in the instant case, the facts here are virtually identical to those before the Court in Hendricks. The Court in Hendricks, however, failed to take into account the unique nature of the action brought in circuit court. At issue was not whether the city or city official had authority to appeal to the judiciary the decision of the civil service commission; rather, the issue was whether the city or city official had standing to seek an order for superintending control against the commission where it was alleged that the commission acted unlawfully. These are separate and distinct actions with different parties and different purposes.

The process of seeking an order of superintending control is not an appeal. It is an original...