Heidtman v. City of Shaker Heights

Decision Date13 April 1955
Docket NumberNo. 34065,34065
Citation56 O.O. 171,163 Ohio St. 109,126 N.E.2d 138
Parties, 56 O.O. 171 HEIDTMAN et al., Appellees, v. CITY OF SHAKER HEIGHTS et al., Appellants.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where a statute is silent as to the meaning of a word contained therein and that word has both a wide and a restricted meaning, courts in interpreting such a statute must give such word a meaning consistent with other provisions of the statute and the objective to be achieved thereby.

2. The word, 'politics,' as used in Section 486-23, General Code, Section 143.41, Revised Code, must be defined as politics in its narrower partisan sense, and activities of municipal employees in the classified service in circulating an initiative petition seeking enactment of an ordinance relating to their employment do not constitute a taking part in politics as that term is used in such section.

Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.

On March 27, 1953, Alvin R. Heidtman, Frank J. Schieferstein, John J. Rafter, and Shaker Heights Fire Fighters Association, Local No. 516, International Association of Fire Fighters, A.F.L., filed a petition in the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County for a declaratory judgment and other relief against the city of Shaker Heights, John W. Barkley, Mayor, Robert D. Templeman, Wilson D. Stapleton, John H. Lansdale, Jr., R. Scott Mueller, Joseph R. Fawcett, Robert B. Denison, and William R. Van Aken, Members of Council, Ralph W. Jones, Director of Law, and Thomas E. Cook, Director of Finance and Auditor, of the city of Shaker Heights.

In the Court of Common Pleas, the fire fighters association was dismissed as a party by the court, which dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 119 N.E.2d 644. With reference to such dismissal, there is no appeal before us.

Plaintiffs allege that they bring the action on behalf of themselves and others who are so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all before the court, but who have a common interest with plaintiffs to determine 'whether an initiative petition seeking enactment of an ordinance to establish the three-platoon system in the fire department and filed in accordance with the general laws of Ohio and the charter provisions of the defendant city of Shaker Heights, properly may be rejected as defective by the officials and council of the defendant city on the ground that the circulation of the initiative petition and parts thereof by the members of its fire department constituted political activity in violation of Section 486-23 of the General Code of Ohio.'

Plaintiffs pray that the court entertain the action; that it enter a judgment declaring the legal rights, status and relations of the plaintiffs as affected by Section 486-23, General Code; and that the court declare that such section does not render invalid an initiative petition circulated by employees of the city in its classified service in the fire department, that the initiative petition, proper as to form and content and filed in accordance with the general laws of Ohio and the charter provisions of the city, require the city council, in accordance with the provisions of the city's charter, to refer the petition to a committee for public hearing on the proposed ordinance and final action, all in accordance with the provisions of section 1, article III of the charter of the city, that it is the duty of defendant officials to grant, allow and make proper provisions to accord to plaintiffs their rights established in said section 1, article III, to enforce the performance of the duties enjoined by such charter by appropriate writ, and that plaintiffs have such other and further relief as to the court seems appropriate under the circumstances.

All the defendants filed an amended joint answer and cross-petition, to which amended answer plaintiffs filed an amended reply, and to which amended cross-petition plaintiffs filed an amended answer.

An agreed statement of facts was filed in the Common Pleas Court, which is in part as follows:

'The foregoing cause having been submitted to the Court of Common Pleas on the pleadings, argument of counsel and oral representations of counsel for all parties that the allegations of the petition seeking a declaratory judgment were not controverted by defendants' amended joint answer and cross-petition, all as more fully set forth in the journal entry of the Court of Common Pleas, filed November 27, 1953, counsel for the respective parties now submit this agreed statement of facts which may be filed as part of the original papers in the above-entitled cause.

'(1) Plaintiffs Heidtman, Schieferstein and Rafter are employees of the city of Shaker Heights, Ohio employed in the classified service of said city as firemen in its fire department and constituted a committee of petitioners who as residents, registered voters and taxpayers of the city of Shaker Heights caused to be circulated an initiative petition seeking enactment by ordinance of the three-platoon system for firemen. Shaker Heights Fire Fighters Association, Local No. 516, International Association of Fire Fighters, American Federation of Labor, is an unincorporated association with which the individual plaintiffs are affiliated as members.

'(2) The defendant city of Shaker Heights is a municipal corporation and the individual defendants are the councilmen and officers of the city of Shaker Heights.

'(3) The Charter of the City of Shaker Heights contains the following provisions respecting initiative:

'Article III

'Section 1. Initiative. The electors of the city shall have power to propose any ordinance or resolution, except an ordinance for the appropriation of money or an ordinance making a tax levy, and to adopt or reject the same at the polls, such power being known as the initiative. An initiated ordinance or resolution may be submitted to the council by petition signed by at least five per cent (5 per cent) of the registered electors of the city. When so submitted, the council shall forthwith determine the sufficiency of the petition and if found sufficient, shall at once have the proposed ordinance or resolution read and referred to an appropriate committee which may be a committee of the whole. Provisions shall be made for public hearings on the proposed ordinance or resolution not later than 30 days after the date on which such ordinance or resolution was submitted to the council. The council shall within 40 days after such ordinance or resolution is submitted, take final action thereon, either enacting or rejecting the proposed ordinance or resolution. If the council fails or refuses to pass such proposed ordinance or resolution or passes it in some form different from that set forth in the petition thereof, the committee of the petitioners may require that it be submitted to a vote of the electors either in its original form or in the amended form, by filing with the council an additional petition signed by at least two per cent (2 per cent) of registered electors of the city, and if said additional petition is signed by at least five per cent (5 per cent) of such registered electors, the date of the election may be fixed therein, not less than 60 days from the time of filing such additional petition. Such additional petition shall be filed within 10 days after the final action on such ordinance or resolution by the council. The council shall thereupon provide for submitting such ordinance or resolution to the vote of the electors at the date so fixed, or at the next general election occurring more than 60 days from the filing of such additional petition, if no date be so fixed therein.

'* * *

'Section 3. Petitions. An initiative or referendum petition may be circulated in separate parts; but each part shall contain a full and correct copy of the title and text of the proposed or referred ordinance or resolution, and the separate parts shall be bound together and presented as one instrument. Each signer shall be a registered elector of this city and shall sign his name in ink or indelible pencil and shall place on the petition his name, his place of residence by street and number, and the date of signing the petition. The form of affidavit provided for nominating petitions by general law, and the other requirements of general law regulating nominating, initiative and referendum petitions shall apply in the case of initiative and referendum in this city.

'(4) Plaintiffs Heidtman, Schieferstein and Rafter, constituting the committee of petitioners did on January 17, 1953, file with Thomas E. Cook, Director of the Finance Department and city Auditor of said city of Shaker Heights, a duly verified copy of the title and text of a proposed ordinance a true copy of which was attached to the original petition on file in this cause, and thereafter an initiative petition was distributed and circulated as parts thereof by firemen, members of the plaintiff association, all employees in the classified service of the Fire Department of the City of Shaker Heights, Ohio.

'(5) On January 26, 1953, plaintiffs Heidtman, Schieferstein and Rafter, constituting the committee of petitioners, filed with Thomas E. Cook, an initiative petition in 50 parts, in accordance with the provisions of Article III, Sections 1 and 3 of the aforesaid Charter of the City of Shaker Heights, each part petition containing a full and correct copy of the title and text of the proposed ordinance. A true copy of the initiative petition as circulated was attached to the original petition on file in this cause.

'(6) Plaintiffs Heidtman, Schieferstein and Rafter on January 29, 1953, filed with Thomas E. Cook, in accordance with the provisions of Section 4227-9 General Code of Ohio, (Revised Code § 731.35) their sworn statement as circulators.

'(7) The Board of Elections of Cuyahoga County, state of Ohio, having had referred to it by defendants, the initiative petition to determine...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Cincinnati v. Ohio Council 8, American Fedn. of State, Cty. & Mun. Emp., AFL-CIO, AFL-CIO
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • August 27, 1991
    ...in the charter cannot be fairly read to encompass interest groups such as we have discussed here. Cf. Heidtman v. Shaker Heights (1955), 163 Ohio St. 109, 56 O.O. 171, 126 N.E.2d 138 (prohibition against "tak[ing] part in politics" in predecessor to R.C. 124.57 will be read as encompassing ......
  • Gray v. City of Toledo
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • March 10, 1971
    ..."the word, `politics' * * * must be defined as politics in its narrower partisan sense * * *." Heidtman v. City of Shaker Heights, 163 Ohio St. 109 at 119-120, 126 N.E.2d 138, at 139 (1955). In declaring a litigant's rights under a state statute this Court must read the statute in light of ......
  • Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County v. Poe
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • October 21, 1964
    ...without any particular regard to fitness or any other characteristic except partisan political activity. Heidtman v. City of Shaker Heights, 163 Ohio St. 109, 126 N.E.2d 138; 2 Yokley's, Municipal Corporations, Sec. In the case of the City of Knoxville v. Smith, 176 Tenn. 73, 77, 138 S.W.2d......
  • Freedom v. Saenz
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 20, 2010
    ...Court's precedents supported “decision to limit the phrase ‘political actions' to partisan politics”); Heidtman v. City of Shaker Heights, 163 Ohio St. 109, 126 N.E.2d 138, 142-43 (1955) (city employee's circulating of initiative petition did not violate local prohibition on “political acti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT