Henry v. City of Pontiac, 16

• Decision Date: 28 June 1961
• Docket Number: No. 16,16
• Citation: 109 N.W.2d 835,363 Mich. 302
• Parties: Milton R. HENRY, Robert A. Landry, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF PONTIAC, a Michigan Municipal Corporation, Ada Evans, Philip E. Rowston, Floyd P. Miles, John A. Dugan, and Wesley J. Wood, City Commissioners of the City of Pontiac, Defendants and Appellees.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 835

109 N.W.2d 835

363 Mich. 302

Milton R. HENRY, Robert A. Landry, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF PONTIAC, a Michigan Municipal Corporation, Ada Evans, Philip E. Rowston, Floyd P. Miles, John A Dugan, and Wesley J. Wood, City Commissioners of the City of Pontiac, Defendants and Appellees.

No. 16.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 28, 1961.

Milton R. Henry, Pontiac, in pro. per., for plaintiffs and appellants.

William A. Ewart, Pontiac, for defendants and appellees.

Before the Entire Bench.

BLACK, Justice (for affirmance).

Pursuant to resolution of the Pontiac city commission the proposal in question, to amend the Pontiac city charter, was submitted to the electors at the April, 1960 election. The purpose of the proposal appeared on the ballot as follows:

'Statement of Purpose--Shall Chapter III of the City Charter be amended by repealing Sections 51 to 58 except Sections 53 and 57 and by adding Sections 59 to 62 inclusive; to provide for the appointment and removal of the chief of police and dismissal of police officers; to remove the board's power to aodpt rules for duties of police officers; to authorize the chief of police to define duties of officers and prescribe rules for performance thereof and impose penalties for violations; to continue in office the present Trial Board; and to provide for citizen complaints against officers.'

The proposal was adopted, 4,606 electors voting in favor, and 4,043 voting against.

By this bill for declaratory relief plaintiffs assail the apparently adopted amendment, alleging that it is duplicitous under section 21 of the Home Rule City Act* and that it should have been submitted to the electors in separate portions. Judge Ziem held against plaintiffs. They have appealed.

Plaintiffs contend the proposal embraces three separate subjects, as follows:

'1. The amendment embraced the establishment of a trial board.

'2. It concerned the question of the removal of the chief of police from the protection of the trial board and his placement under the city manager, so far as his right to tenure is concerned.

'3. It involved the city manager's rights to fix and determine the number of police and fire department personnel, and the adoption of a scheme for the accomplishment of reduction of personnel in these departments for reasons of economy.'

We are referred to 3 cases, with respect to which counsel draw different conclusions as they accept or reject validity of the amendment as proposed and approved. These cases are Kelly v. Laing, 259 Mich. 212, 242 N.W. 891; Michigan Public Service Co. v. City of Cheboygan, 324 Mich. 309, 37 N.W.2d 116, and House v. City of Saginaw, 334 Mich. 241, 54 N.W.2d 314. In the Kelly case it was said generally of said section 21, referring to the section as it stood at the time (C.L.1929, § 2257):

'It was the intention of the Legislature to provide for orderly change of the charter, not to encourage or sanction confusion in city government. To carry out its intention and to avoid absurdity of result, it is necessary that all proposals pertaining to the same subject and directed to the same purpose be treated as one amendment, as they are in fact, and be voted on as such, although they contemplate change of more than one section.' 259 Mich. at page 215, 242 N.W. at page 892.

This quotation stands today as an excellent guide for relevant application of said section 21. The quoted bolstering amendment of the section, employing as it does the expression 'more than 1 related proposition,' makes such conclusion clear if clarity was not present before. So it remains necessary that amendatory proposals pertaining to the same subject and directed 'to the same purpose be treated as one amendment' and 'voted on as such.'

The amendment plaintiffs would invalidate pertains...