Cahalan v. Wayne County Bd. of Com'rs
| Decision Date | 15 October 1979 |
| Docket Number | 43720 and 43569,43676,43488,Docket Nos. 43365 |
| Citation | 93 Mich.App. 114,286 N.W.2d 62 |
| Parties | William L. CAHALAN, Prosecuting Attorney of Wayne County, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAYNE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS et al., Defendants-Appellees. Raymond WOJTOWICZ, Wayne County Treasurer, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAYNE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS et al., Defendants-Appellees. James R. KILLEEN, Wayne County Clerk, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAYNE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS et al., Defendants-Appellees. Forest E. YOUNGBLOOD, Register of Deeds for Wayne County, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WAYNE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS et al., Defendants-Appellants. Charles N. YOUNGBLOOD, Wayne County Drain Commissioner, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAYNE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
David W. Berry, Detroit, for Wayne Drain Comm.
Raymond W. Krolikowski, Detroit, for Wayne County Treasurer.
William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Detroit, for Wayne County Prosecutor.
James F. Finn, Detroit, for County Clerk & Register of Deeds.
George H. Cross, Detroit, for defendants-appellees.
Before BASHARA, P. J., and HOLBROOK and DANER, * JJ.
Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief in the Wayne County Circuit Court from budgetary reductions adopted by the Wayne County Board of Commissioners for fiscal year 1978-79. The gravamen of the complaints was that implementation of the adopted budget would render the plaintiffs unable to perform the functions of their offices as mandated by the constitution and laws of the State of Michigan. These cases were consolidated and heard together.
The plaintiffs are elected executive officers of Wayne County. The prosecutor, clerk, treasurer and register of deeds are constitutional officers pursuant to Const.1963, art. 7, § 4. The drain commissioner is a statutory officer pursuant to M.C.L. § 280.21; M.S.A. § 11.1021. The defendants are the Wayne County Board of Commissioners, Wayne County Board of Auditors, Wayne County Civil Service Commission, and the "Task Force" (a group of nonelected individuals designated by the Ways and Means Committee of the Wayne County Board of Commissioners). Each of the defendants played a significant part in the formulation of the budget.
The defendants originally prepared and adopted a budget for fiscal year 1978-79 which included cuts for most county departments. Notwithstanding these reductions, the budget reflected an approximate 15 million dollar deficit.
On November 17, 1978, the Michigan Municipal Finance Commission ordered the county to take immediate steps to eliminate the deficit which had accumulated over several years. The budgetary process was reopened, and proceeded with the object of eliminating the county's deficit. All department heads, including the plaintiffs, were afforded an opportunity to be heard during the budgetary process. Following a preliminary budgetary phase, the Board of Auditors went through the various departmental requests and made certain deletions. Even with these reductions, however, there were insufficient revenues to retire the accumulated deficit. Consequently, the Board of Auditors recommended a system of "mandatory credits" to the Board of Commissioners. The mandatory credit amounted to a 15% reduction in personnel services for each of the county's departments.
The Board of Commissioners accepted a modified version of the plan. Consequently, the commissioners requested that all department heads, including the plaintiffs, submit a plan to effect the equivalent of a 15% reduction in personnel costs. At this time, the commissioners also ordered their financial advisor to personally make budget cuts "for any department which failed to submit any plan or a totally viable plan".
Among the plaintiffs, only the register of deeds presented a plan to effect the reductions, but the plan was rejected because it was premised on increased revenues being derived from the Register of Deeds' Tract Index Department. The other plaintiffs either ignored the request to submit a budget effectuating the cuts or responded that no further deletions could be made if they were to carry out their statutorily mandated functions. In the absence of viable plans to effect the budget reduction, the county's fiscal advisor submitted his own plans to the Board of Commissioners. Each of the plans concerning the plaintiffs were adopted by the commissioners, resulting in this action.
The trial court 1 found, upon extensive proofs, that the Board of Commissioners, as the county's legislative branch of government, was not without restrictions upon its power with regard to the administration of functions mandated by the state Legislature. The trial court further found that the scheme adopted by the commissioners to effect the budget cuts was arbitrary and capricious because it did not take into consideration priorities between state mandated and other functions. The court ultimately held that if the adopted budget was implemented, all of the plaintiffs except the register of deeds could fulfill their statutory duties. From this determination, the plaintiffs, excluding the register of deeds, appeal. The defendants also appeal, contending that the separation of powers doctrine precludes judicial review of their budgetary decisions.
It is elementary that the separation of powers doctrine mandates the preservation of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government as entities distinct from one another, Const.1963, art. 3, § 2. The judiciary will not interfere with the discretionary actions of legislative bodies. As noted by our Supreme Court in Detroit v. Circuit Judge of Wayne County, 79 Mich. 384, 387, 44 N.W. 622, 623 (1890).
.
This, however, does not mean that all appropriations decisions of the boards of commissioners are exempt from judicial review. Whenever a board fails to perform duties imposed by the state Legislature or constitution, the courts will not hesitate to order performance. Stowell v. Board of Supervisors for Jackson County, 57 Mich. 31, 23 N.W. 557 (1885); Wayne County Jail Inmates v. Wayne County Sheriff, 391 Mich. 359, 216 N.W.2d 910 (1974); King v. Director of Midland County Department of Social Services, 73 Mich.App. 253, 251 N.W.2d 270 (1977). As Justice Kavanagh wrote in Wayne County Jail Inmates, supra, 391 Mich. 364, 216 N.W.2d 912:
"While it is true that local boards of commissioners have legislative powers in some matters, in carrying out the duties imposed upon them by the legislature their function is executive or administrative, and they have no legislative function in the premises."
We cannot hold that every appropriations decision rendered by the county boards is exempt from judicial review. To do so would be to ignore the mandates of the Legislature. Where the Legislature has statutorily imposed on the county executive officers various duties and obligations, the county boards of commissioners must budget sums sufficient to allow the executive officers to carry out their duties and obligations.
This is by no means a novel or unwarranted extension of existing law. In King, supra, 73 Mich.App. 260, 251 N.W.2d 274, we held that the Midland County Board of Commissioners did not have unfettered discretion to determine the sum to be appropriated for the maintenance of various welfare services within the county. We noted that Michigan law requires the county to maintain a general assistance program 2 and held:
"If the amount of the appropriation was completely within the discretion of the board, the board could relieve itself of its responsibility of maintaining the general assistance program simply by appropriating insufficient funds."
Just as every appropriations decision is not exempt from judicial review, not all budgetary decisions made by the county boards are reviewable. We are fully cognizant of the limitations placed upon our power of review by the separation of powers doctrine. Furthermore, we welcome these limitations as we have no desire to become the final arbiter of all budgetary disputes. The judiciary will not involve itself with the truly discretionary appropriations decisions of a county board, unless the action taken is so capricious or arbitrary as to evidence a total failure to exercise discretion. Veldman v. Grand Rapids, 275 Mich. 100, 265 N.W. 790 (1936). Thus, in Brownstown Twp. v. Wayne County, 68 Mich.App. 244, 242 N.W.2d 538 (1976), Lv. den. 399 Mich. 831 (1977), we refused to order the Wayne County Board of Commissioners to allocate funds to operate a road patrol, because there was no statutory or common law duty requiring the sheriff to perform such a service, nor any proof that the Board's decision not to fund the road patrol was a product of caprice or arbitrariness. By necessary implication, however, had the Court found such a duty, it would have ordered the commissioners to fund the road patrol.
In the instant case, the trial court concluded that the defendant Board of Commissioners acted arbitrarily and capriciously in adopting a scheme whereby all county departments were required to reduce their budgets by an amount equivalent to 15% of their personnel costs. We disagree. Our review of the record leads us to the conclusion that serious thought was given by the defendant Board in determining the most equitable and efficacious means of implementing the budget cuts. The Board genuinely believed that all of the services it was funding were important enough so that all should be treated alike. Our...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Smith
...cannot interfere with the legitimate discretion of any other department of government." See also Wayne Co. Prosecutor v. Wayne Co. Bd of Comm'rs, 93 Mich.App. 114, 121, 286 N.W.2d 62 (1979) ("The judiciary will not interfere with the discretionary actions of the legislative The Legislature ......
-
46th Circuit v. Crawford County
...to compel funding is limited to those appropriations required to meet "critical judicial needs." Wayne Co. Prosecutor v. Wayne Co. Bd. of Comm'rs, 93 Mich.App. 114, 286 N.W.2d 62 (1979). In Wayne Co. Prosecutor, several county executive officers sought an injunction against budget cuts prop......
-
46th Circuit Trial Ct. v. CRAWFORD CTY.
...v. Wayne Co., 383 Mich. 10, 33, 172 N.W.2d 436 (1969) (Wayne I) (opinion by Black, J.). 26. Wayne Co. Prosecutor v. Wayne Co. Bd. of Comm'rs, 93 Mich.App. 114, 124, 286 N.W.2d 62 (1979). See also Wayne Co. Sheriff v. Wayne Co. Bd. of Comm'rs, 148 Mich.App. 702, 708, 385 N.W.2d 267 27. MCR 2......
-
Employees and Judge of Second Judicial Dist. Court, Second Div. v. Hillsdale County
...Judges, supra, 386 Mich. 9, 190 N.W.2d 228, and further defined by the Court of Appeals in Wayne Co. Prosecutor v. Wayne Co. Bd. of Comm'rs., 93 Mich.App. 114, 124, 286 N.W.2d 62 (1979), wherein the Court "A serviceable level of funding is the minimum budgetary appropriation at which statut......