Buchanan v. Wood
Decision Date | 04 June 1986 |
Citation | 720 P.2d 1285,79 Or.App. 722 |
Parties | Dennis BUCHANAN, in his capacity as County Executive, and Multnomah County, a home rule political subdivision of the State of Oregon, Respondents-Cross- Appellants, v. Daniel E. WOOD, Appellant-Cross-Respondent. A8306-04179; CA A32883. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Susan E. Watts, Portland, argued the cause for appellant-cross-respondent. With her on the briefs were Jack L. Kennedy and Kennedy, King & Zimmer, Portland.
John B. Leahy, County Counsel, Portland, argued the cause for respondent-cross-appellant. With him on the briefs was Jane Ellen Stonecipher, Asst. County Counsel, Portland.
Before JOSEPH, C.J., * and WARDEN and NEWMAN, JJ.
Defendant appeals a judgment declaring that the Court Reorganization Act (the Act) 1 preempted a Multnomah County Home Rule charter provision 2 for election of a District Court Clerk and that defendant was not entitled to a salary for the position. Plaintiffs cross-appeal from the award of attorney fees to defendant for trial and for appeal. 3 ORS 19.010(1) and ORS 19.010(2). We affirm on the appeal and reverse on the cross-appeal.
It is not disputed that the Act created state employed district court clerks and district court administrators to perform "duties, powers and functions" that, under prior law, had been performed by county employed clerks and court administrators. 4
On May 18, 1982, however, the voters of the county, by initiative Measure 6, amended the charter to provide for the election of a county employed district court clerk. The initiative provided:
The explanation in the Voters Pamphlet specified that the functions of the district court clerk were to be those "presently performed by the District Court Administrator selected by a majority of the county's 13 district court judges."
On August 26, 1982, the Board of County Commissioners appointed defendant district court clerk pending the election of a clerk. Before his appointment, defendant was assistant to the district court administrator. The Board also adopted Ordinance No. 336 which provided:
"The district court clerk of Multnomah County shall assist in the performance of the duties of the District Court Administrator under the supervision of the District Court Administrator."
In a special election in September, 1982, the county voters failed to repeal the May amendment. In the November, 1982, general election, the voters elected defendant to be district court clerk and approved a salary for the position of $30,130 per year.
As assistant to the district court administrator, defendant became a state employe on January 1, 1983, and the state paid him a salary for that position. 5 Defendant also received a salary from the county as district court clerk, although the Board did not assign duties to him in place of or in addition to those that he performed as a state employe. 6 Defendant performed no services as district court clerk after December 31, 1982.
In April, 1983, plaintiff Buchanan, as County Executive, directed the county comptroller to withhold defendant's county salary. Thereafter, the county filed this action to determine if the Act abolished the county office of district court clerk and if defendant was entitled to a salary for that office after December 31, 1982. Defendant counterclaimed for the amount of his salary from April 30, 1983, and for his attorney fees.
In his first assignment, defendant asserts that the court erred in ruling that the Act preempted the charter amendment of May, 1982, creating the elective office of district court clerk. Defendant concedes that under the Act the state took over the duties that, pursuant to the May measure, the Board had assigned to him as district court clerk, but he argues that the Board should have assigned to him other duties that the state did not take over.
Defendant, however, misdescribes the nature of the office of district court clerk that the voters created. The wording of the initiative amending the charter and the explanation in the Voters' Pamphlet show that the May, 1982, initiative gave to that office the particular functions that the district court administrator then performed. The functions that the initiative gave were taken over by the state pursuant to the Act. See Or.Laws 1981 (Special Session), ch. 3, § 12. The Act and the amended county charter conflicted, assigning the same functions to different offices.
Our resolution of the conflict necessarily involves defendant's second assignment, in which he argues that Article VI, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution precludes the state from preempting the county office. 7 Plaintiff responds that defendant's argument is a claim that the Act is unconstitutional and that, because defendant did not plead unconstitutionality as an affirmative defense, we should not consider it. ORCP 19 B. Defendant did, however, raise the issue both before and after trial, and it was argued extensively below. Plaintiff was not prejudiced by defendant's failure to plead unconstitutionality. Moreover, we cannot resolve the conflict between the state law and the county charter without resort to the constitution. Accordingly, we consider defendant's argument.
Defendant correctly asserts that the state's legislative power is limited by Article VI, section 10, which states:
That provision gives "home rule" counties authority over "matters of county concern." See also Caffey v. Lane County, 298 Or. 183, 187, 691 P.2d 94 (1984). Legislative enactments, however, remain preeminent in substantive matters of statewide concern. See Pacific N.W. Bell v. Multnomah Co., 68 Or.App. 375, 378, 681 P.2d 797, rev. den. 297 Or. 547 (1984). The leading cases on conflicts between local "home rule" authority and state legislative power concern state constitutional provisions on city home rule, 8 which differ from Article VI, section 10. The city home rule provisions create an analogous sphere of local authority and, accordingly, we rely on them to resolve the conflict here. See Multnomah Kennel Club v. Dept. of Rev., 295 Or. 279, 666 P.2d 1327 (1983); Schmidt v. Masters, 7 Or.App. 421, 428, 490 P.2d 1029 (1971), rev. den. (1972). 9
Two types of state statutes impinge on local autonomy: "those which regulate the organization of local government and those which deal with substantive state policy and affect local government." City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, 292 Or. 266, 275, 639 P.2d 90 (1981). We are faced here with the latter kind, because the organization of the court system is of paramount state concern. The effect of the Act on county governments is a result of the state's implementation of its substantive policy. In such a case, the state statute "prevails over contrary policies preferred by some local governments if it is clearly intended to do so, unless the law is shown to be irreconcilable with the local community's freedom to choose its own political form." LaGrande/Astoria v. PERB, 281 Or. 137, 156, 576 P.2d 1204, aff'd on rehearing 284 Or. 173, 586 P.2d 765 (1978). (Footnote omitted.)
Contrary to the suggestion in the dissent, the voters intended to, and did create, the office of district court clerk to perform specific functions--those that the district court administrator then performed. The state's intention to preempt those functions is clear. The dissent concedes that the act preempted all of those functions, but suggests that the county "office" remained in existence and that the salary continued to attach to it. To suggest such a result overlooks the intent of the voters when they adopted the initiative. Their intent to create this elective office of district court clerk is inseparable from their intent to give it the functions that the district court administrator then performed. The state's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
THUNDERBIRD MOBILE CLUB v. WILSONVILLE
... ... Paul A. Diller, The Partly Fulfilled Promise of Home Rule in Oregon, 87 Or. L.Rev. 939, 962 n 119 (2009). Cf., Buchanan v. Wood, 79 Or.App. 722, 731 n. 1, 720 P.2d 1285 (1986) (Joseph, C. J., dissenting) ("I do not necessarily agree that LaGrande/Astoria v. PERB has ... ...
-
State ex rel. Benzinger v. Oregon Dept. of Ins. and Finance
... ... Nevertheless, the court awarded fees. There is no authority to award attorney fees to a nonprevailing party. Buchanan [122 Or.App. 21] v. Wood, 79 Or.App. 722, 729-30, 720 P.2d 1285, rev. den. 302 Or. 158, 727 P.2d 128 (1986). See also Lewis v. Dept. of Rev., 294 ... ...
- Buchanan v. Wood
-
Chapter §10.5 COUNTY HOME RULE
...Employes Ret. Bd., 281 Or 137, 147, 576 P2d 1204, aff'd on reh'g, 284 Or 173, 586 P2d 765 (1978); Buchanan v. Wood, 79 Or App 722, 727-28, 720 P2d 1285 (1986); ThunderbirdMobile Club, LLC v. City of Wilsonville, 234 Or App 457, 473 n 6, 228 P3d 650, rev den, 348 Or 524 (2010) (commenting on......
-
Chapter § 10.5
...aspects of city and county home rule are the same. See, e.g., La Grande I, 281 Or at 147; Buchanan v. Wood, 79 Or App 722, 727-28, 720 P2d 1285, rev den, 302 Or 158 (1986); Thunderbird Mobile Club, L.L.C., 234 Or App at 473 n 6 (commenting on similar interpretations of city and county home-......