District Court of Multnomah County v. Multnomah County
| Decision Date | 21 April 1975 |
| Parties | . MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Oregon, et al., Defendants, Kenneth C. Dixson, Appellant. Court of Appeals of Oregon |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Robert P. Johnson, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Malcolm J. Montague, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Williams, Montague, Stark, Hiefield & Norville, P.C., Portland.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and FOLEY and HOWELL, JJ.
This is a declaratory judgment proceeding in which the plaintiff, the District Court of Oregon for Multnomah County, seeks a decree holding that an order of the Civil Service Commission of Multnomah County reinstating an assistant court administrator was void and holding that the Civil Service Commission lacks the jurisdiction to review the discharge of an assistant court administrator by the district court. The circuit court found for the plaintiff, and defendant Kenneth C. Dixson appeals.
The defendant Dixson was hired by the Municipal Court of Portland on September 27, 1971, as a Temporary Clerk 2. Shortly thereafter he was appointed to the newlycreated position of assistant court administrator for the municipal court. The ordinance creating this position specified that it was a classified position under civil service. However, Dixson was appointed to the position without taking a civil service examination. All parties agree that Dixson did not acquire civil service status during the time he was employed by the Municipal Court of Portland.
On January 1, 1972, the Municipal Court of Portland was merged with the District Court for Multnomah County. Dixson was continued in his position as assistant court administrator. On February 8, 1972, the Multnomah County Civil Service Commission received a list from the executive assistant to the Board of County Commissioners showing those employees of the municipal court to be 'transferred under civil service to the Dept. of Judicial Administration.' Among those on the list was Dixson. After Dixson's name was a 'T' apparently indicating temporary.
On March 2, 1973, Dixson was discharged from his position by the presiding judge of the district court. Dixson appealed his discharge to the Multnomah County Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission determined, after a hearing, that the discharge was without cause and held that Dixson was entitled to reinstatement. Following the ruling of the Civil Service Commission, the district court brought this declaratory judgment proceeding to declare that the order of the Commission was void and that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to review the discharge of an assistant court administrator by the district court.
Defendant argues, as a threshold question, that only this court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Multnomah County Civil Service Commission. He apparently bases this contention solely on the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act. He is not correct. The APA applies only to state as distinguished from local agencies. ORS 183.310(1). 1
The plaintiff prayed for a declaration 'that the purported reinstatement of Kenneth C. Dixson by the Multnomah County Civil Service Commission was and is void and invalid.' If the defendant never acquired civil service status with Multnomah County, then the Civil Service Commission would be without jurisdiction to order his reinstatement. We hold that Kenneth C. Dixson never acquired civil service status with the county and thus the Civil Service Commission was without jurisdiction to order his reinstatement.
As noted above, Dixson had not acquired civil service status during the time he was employed by the Municipal Court of Portland. At the time of the merger of the courts, Dixson's name was submitted to the Civil Service Commission along with the names of employees who had acquired civil service status with Portland. This process of submitting the names of civil service employees from one governmental unit to the civil service commission of another governmental unti for automatic induction into that governmental unit's civil service system is known as 'blanketing in' and is apparently done under authority of ORS 236.610(1):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Federation of Parole and Probation Officers v. State By and Through Oregon Dept. of Corrections
...the context of ORS 236.610(1) requires a review of the two cases that have directly interpreted it. The first, Dist. Ct. v. Multnomah Co., 21 Or.App. 161, 534 P.2d 207 (1975), presented the question of whether a discharged public employe who had not taken a civil service exam before his hir......
-
Circuit Court of Oregon, Fifteenth Judicial Dist., Juvenile Judge v. AFSCME, Local 502-A
...deemed by the courts to be most desirable." 16 Or.App. at 13-15, 516 P.2d 1307. (Emphasis in original.) See also Dist. Ct. v. Multnomah Co., 21 Or.App. 161, 534 P.2d 207 (1975), where we found it unnecessary to decide whether a court could invoke inherent power to dismiss an employee who cl......
-
Davis v. Wasco Intermediate Educ. Dist.
...not applicable to teachers. Five arguments are advanced in support of this conclusion. The first relies upon District Court v. Multnomah County, 21 Or.App. 161, 534 P.2d 207 (1975). That case involved the question of the employment rights of the court administrator of the Portland Municipal......