County Dept. of Public Welfare of Marion County v. City-County Council of Marion County, CITY-COUNTY

• Decision Date: 23 December 1975
• Docket Number: CITY-COUNTY,No. 1--375A61,1--375A61
• Parties: The COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE OF MARION COUNTY, and Ellzabeth Samkowski, as Director of the Marion County Department of Public Welfare and in her individual capacity, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TheCOUNCIL OF MARION COUNTY et al., and Willam S. Mercurl, Edward G. Hoffmann, Jr. and Lawrence L. Buell, as Commissioners of Marion County, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 656

338 N.E.2d 656

167 Ind.App. 334

The COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE OF MARION COUNTY,

and Ellzabeth Samkowski, as Director of the Marion

County Department of Public Welfare and in her individual capacity, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL OF MARION COUNTY et al., and Willam

S. Mercurl, Edward G. Hoffmann, Jr. and Lawrence

L. Buell, as Commissioners of Marion

County, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1--375A61.

Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District.

Dec. 23, 1975.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 20, 1976.

Robert W. Geddes, Smith & Jones, Carl J. Meyer, Rhoads, Meyer, Buehl & Cutter, Indianapolis, Seth B. Lewis, Lewis & Hardin, Danville, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Gary R. Landau, Theodore Sendak, Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, E. Alonzo Deckard, Lind, Deckard, O'Brien & Lawson, Danville, for defendants-appellees.

ROBERTSON, Chief Judge.

The Marion County Welfare Department brings this appeal from the trial court's denial of a petition for mandate seeking to compel the City-County Council (Council) of Marion County to effectuate a salary increase for department employees.

The primary issue upon appeal is whether the refusal of the council to grant the salary increase was in violation of state law.

Finding no error, we affirm the trial court's denial of the petition for mandate.

Indiana accepted all of the provisions and benefits of the federal Social Security Act by adopting IC 1971, 12--1--2--12 (Burns Code Ed.). In order to comply with the federal act and its requlations, the Indiana General Assembly placed all county welfare department employees under the State Personnel Act. IC 1971, 4--15--2--1 et seq. (Burns Code Ed.). Specifically, IC 1971, 4--15--2--3(a)(1) (Burns Code Ed., Supp. 1975) provides:

'(a) 'state service' means public service by: (1) employees and officers, including the director of the county departments of public welfare . . ..'

With respect to compensation, the State Personnel Act requires a classification plan grouping all positions into classes based upon duties, authority and responsibility. IC 1971, 4--15--2--9 (Burns Code Ed.). The State Personnel Director has the responsibility for preparing the plan for all employees in 'state service'. The plan takes effect when adopted by the State Personnel Board and approved by the State Budget Agency. IC 1971, 4--15--2--11 (Burns Code Ed.). As to the compensation of county welfare employees, IC 1971, 17--1--24--18.1 provides in pertinent part:

'The county council shall establish the compensation of the director of county welfare and other officers and employees of the county department of public welfare within the salary ranges of the pay plan adopted by the Indiana personnel board and approved by the state budget committee pursuant to IC 1971, 12--1--3 (12--1--3--1--12--1--3--11) and IC 1971, 4--15--2 (4--15--2--1--4--15--2--46).'

On April 19, 1974, the State Personnel Director recommended, the Personnel Board adopted, and the State Budget Agency approved, a seven and one-half (7.5%) percent general salary increase in the pay of 'state service' employees.

The Board of Directors of the Marion County Welfare Department approved this general salary increase to become effective for all employees of the county welfare department on May 1, 1974. On June 17, 1974, the Marion County Welfare Director appeared before the council and requested that the general salary increase be adopted. The council refused to effectuate the increase for the remainder of 1974. However, at its regularly scheduled budget meeting in September, the council did adopt the pay plan to take effect for 1975.

The county welfare department filed suit seeking a writ of mandate to compel the council to establish the pay increase for the remainder of 1974. The court refused to grant the petition and the county welfare department brings this appeal.

The county welfare department contends that the council violated state law by refusing to establish the pay increase to take effect during 1974, as did the pay increase for state employees.

IC 1971, 17--1--24--18.1 (Burns Code Ed.) quoted above, imposes a clear duty upon a county council to establish the compensation of county welfare employees in accordance with state pay plans. After the state pay plans were adjusted to incorporate the salary increase, the council was under a duty to effectuate the increase for county welfare employees. However, that statutory provision does not specify when the county council must take that action.

The county welfare department argues that 1971, 17--1--24--18.1 (Burns Code Ed.) imposed a duty upon the council to adopt the salary increase to become effective at the same time as the increase for state employees took effect. The statute provides otherwise.

IC 1971, 17--1--24--18.3 (Burns Code Ed., Supp.1975) entitled 'Procedures for implementation,' provides in part:

'. . . The county council...