Lucas v. Board of County Road Com'rs of Wayne County
| Decision Date | 16 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | 71499,Docket Nos. 71018 |
| Citation | 131 Mich.App. 642,348 N.W.2d 660 |
| Parties | William LUCAS, Wayne County Chief Executive, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOARD OF COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF WAYNE, a Michigan public body corporate, Claude Dukes, Grace Hampton and Harold Bondy, in their individual and official capacities and as members of the Board of County Road Commissioners, Defendants-Appellants, Wayne County Government Bar Association, Michigan AFSCME Council 25 and County Road Association of Michigan, Intervening Defendants. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
John D. O'Hair, Corporation Counsel, and Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone by David Olmstead and Larry J. Saylor and Cynthia B. Faulhaber, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.
Bodman, Longley & Dahling by Joseph A. Sullivan and James J. Walsh and Charles N. Raimi, Detroit, for defendants-appellants.
T. John Lesinski, Detroit, for Wayne County Government Bar Association.
Downs, Zagaroli & Downs, P.C. by Tom Downs, Lansing, for County Road Association of Michigan.
Before HOLBROOK, P.J., and ALLEN and LAMB, * JJ.
May the elected Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a charter county having a population exceeding 1,500,000 which has adopted a charter form of government pursuant to the enabling act for charter counties, M.C.L. Sec. 45.501 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 5.302(1) et seq., remove incumbent road commissioners and make appointments to fill the vacancies thereby created? On April 26, 1983, the Circuit Court for Wayne County answered this question of first impression in the affirmative and granted summary judgment for plaintiff. On April 27, 1983, plaintiff terminated the individual defendants and appointed their successors. On April 29, 1983, the circuit court ordered a stay of its April 26, 1983, order of summary judgment.
In Docket No. 71499 plaintiff appeals as of right from the order of stay, and in Docket No. 71018 defendants appeal from the order of summary judgment. The two appeals were consolidated by order of this Court and argued before the Court July 25, 1983.
The basic facts are straightforward and uncontested. Plaintiff is William Lucas, elected County Executive (CEO) of Wayne County. Defendant Board of County Road Commissioners of Wayne County (Board) is the statutory corporate body created pursuant to the county road act, M.C.L. Sec. 224.1 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 9.101 et seq., responsible for the county road system and highways in Wayne County, Detroit Metropolitan and Willow Run Airports and county parks. Defendants Claude Dukes, Grace Hampton and Harold Bondy (individual defendants) are the incumbent members of the Board, having been appointed to those positions by the Wayne County Board of Commissioners pursuant to Sec. 6 of the county road law, M.C.L. Sec. 224.6; M.S.A. Sec. 9.106. Intervening defendant Wayne County Government Bar Association (WCGBA) is the collective bargaining representative for seven attorneys employed by defendant Board.
Pursuant to Const. 1963, art. 7, Sec. 2, and the enabling legislation enacted in accordance therewith known as the county charter act, M.C.L. Sec. 45.501 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 5.302(1) et seq., a home rule charter was adopted June 16, 1981, by the Wayne County Charter Commission, and approved by the voters of Wayne County on November 3, 1981. In November, 1982, William Lucas was elected Chief Executive Officer. On December 21, 1982, plaintiff filed a complaint in circuit court seeking injunctive relief and alleging that defendant Board and the individual defendants were in breach of their fiduciary duty by negotiating labor contracts with the WCGBA. On January 13, 1983, plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting for the first time On January 25, 1983, defendant Board and the individual defendants filed their motion for summary judgment under GCR 1963, 117.2(1). The basis for that motion was defendants' assertion that plaintiff lacked authority to remove incumbent road commissioners and appoint their successors. The parties filed answers to each other's motion for summary judgment and submitted briefs in support of their respective positions. The matter was transferred to Judge Irwin H. Burdick who, after extensive oral argument on April 14, 1983, announced from the bench that he would issue a decision by April 26, 1983. On April 26, Judge Burdick issued a lengthy written opinion in which he concluded that Sec. 14(d)(ii) of the county charter act, M.C.L. Sec. 45.514(d)(ii); M.S.A. Sec. 5.302(14)(d)(ii) **, gave plaintiff the authority he claimed to remove incumbent road commissioners and appoint their successors. Judge Burdick also entered an order which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
the pivotal claim in this litigation--that plaintiff as CEO has the authority to summarily remove the individual defendants from their office as road commissioners and appoint their successors to serve at his pleasure. On the following day, plaintiff moved for summary judgment.
In separate actions, each party appealed as of right from Judge Burdick's orders. As noted earlier, the two appeals were consolidated and on July 22, 1983, motions to intervene as defendants by Michigan AFSCME Council 25 and County Road Association of Michigan were granted by this Court. In Docket No. 71018, the principal defendants raise four issues for review. A fifth and new issue is raised by intervening defendant County Road Association of Michigan. The sole issue presented in Docket No. 71499 concerns the status of the order of stay as granted by the trial court and as subsequently modified by order of this Court.
Does the implementing legislation for counties having a
population of over 1,500,000, 1980 PA 7 (MCL 45.514[d][ii]
; MSA 5.302[d][ii], violate the Michigan Constitution 1963, article 4, section 29
, the prohibition of local acts?
In 1966, pursuant to the authority conferred upon Michigan counties in Const. 1963, art. 7, Sec. 2, to adopt a charter form of government, the Legislature passed 1966 P.A. 293. M.C.L. Sec. 45.501 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 5.302(1) et seq. The act gave all counties the power to adopt, amend or repeal a charter form of government. The only distinction among counties on the basis of population was the number of charter commissioners and county commissioners. The smaller the county population, the fewer the number of commissioners allowed. Since the top population figure stated in the act was 600,000, none of the population figures applied only to one county. However, in 1980, the Legislature in response to special problems existing in Wayne County passed 1980 P.A. 7. That act gave special statutory authority for county charters applicable only to a county with a population over 1,500,000. Based on the 1980 federal census, the special authority so conferred applied only to Wayne County.
Section 14(d) of 1966 P.A. 293, applicable to all counties, contained a provision saying "[N]othing in the charter shall be in derogation of the powers and duties of county road commissioners in the exercise of their statutory duties concerning the preservation of a county road system". However, upon passage of 1980 P.A. 7, former Sec. 14(d) was broken into parts (i) and (ii). Part (i) reads in part: "In a county having a population of less than 1,500,000, the charter shall not be in derogation of the powers and duties of the county road commission in the exercise of their statutory Because Sec. 14(d)(ii) of 1980 P.A. 7 applies only to one county, defendants argue that it is a special act which is prohibited by Const.1963, art. 4, Sec. 29, unless approved by two-thirds of the members of both houses of the Legislature and approved by a majority of the voters of the district affected. Because these procedures were not followed, defendants claim the charter provision under which plaintiff acted was invalid. In support of this claim, defendants strongly rely upon Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc. v. Romulus, 400 Mich. 337, 254 N.W.2d 555 (1977), and Attorney General, ex rel. Dingeman v. Lacy, 180 Mich. 329, 146 N.W. 871 (1914).
duties concerning the preservation of a county road system". Part (ii) commences with the language "[i]n a county having a population of 1,500,000 or more" and then goes on to authorize a three-member road commission which "shall be appointed by either the elected county executive or the chief administrative officer". It is under Sec. 14(d)(ii) that plaintiff finds the authority to appoint road commissioners of his own choice.
The fact that a legislative act contains a population classification which limits the geographical application of the act does not necessarily make the act local or special. If the population classification has a reasonable relation to the purpose of the statute and the statute applies whenever the population classification is met, an act containing such a classification is not thereby made local or special. Dearborn v. Wayne County Bd. of Supervisors, 275 Mich. 151, 266 N.W. 304 (1936); Chamski v. Wayne County Bd. of Auditors, 288 Mich. 238, 284 N.W. 711 (1939); The Irishman's Lot, Inc. v. Secretary of State, 338 Mich. 662, 62 N.W.2d 668 (1954).
The statute in question concerns the organization of county government, sometimes referred to as "the dark continent" of American government. The least student of urban sociology knows that metropolitan population centers have far greater problems than rural areas with respect to crime and thus the law enforcement services necessary to preserve the public peace, with respect to indigency, and its associated problems of housing, sanitation, and medical treatment, as well as in respect to many other facets of life, such as emergency preparedness, toxic wastes, traffic flow (hence the specific focus on removing the independence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. Detroit School Reform Bd.
...Borden's Farm Prods. Co., Inc., v. Baldwin, 293 U.S. 194, 209, 55 S.Ct. 187, 79 L.Ed. 281 (1934)). In Lucas v. Board of County Road Commissioners, 131 Mich.App. 642, 348 N.W.2d 660 (1984), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a statute permitting the chief executive officer of a county w......
-
Moore v. School Reform Bd. of City of Detroit
...rules that were different from those applicable to residents of other counties. In contrast, in Lucas v. Board of County Road Commissioners, 131 Mich.App. 642, 348 N.W.2d 660 (1984), the court held that a statute that applied only to Wayne County was not a prohibited local act. The statute ......
-
House Speaker v. Governor
...the final determination. Thus, the role of the board is one that is advisory in nature. See, e.g., Lucas v. Wayne Co. Bd. of Road Comm'rs, 131 Mich.App. 642, 662, 348 N.W.2d 660 (1984). The Governor has not delegated decision-making powers to the science board, because the ultimate decision......
-
Mothering Justice v. State
... ... Board of State Canvassers, MCL 168.475(1), which ... Wayne County v Hathcock , 471 Mich. 445, 468-469; 684 ... state." Lucas v Bd of Co Rd Comm'rs of Wayne ... Co , 131 ... ...