Mangus v. Ashley
| Decision Date | 05 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | 23580,Nos. 23568,23569,s. 23568 |
| Citation | 199 W.Va. 651,487 S.E.2d 309 |
| Parties | Jimmy Lee MANGUS, Jr. and Richard D. Clarkson, Petitioners Below, Appellants, v. Arden D. ASHLEY, Sheriff of Kanawha County, and Kanawha County Deputy Sheriffs' Civil Service Commission, Respondents Below, Appellees, and J.W. JOHNSON, II, Petitioner Below, v. The CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION FOR DEPUTY SHERIFFS FOR KANAWHA COUNTY, and James C. Peterson, Kenneth Blake and William C. Porth, Constituting Members of the Said Commission, and Arden D. Ashley, Sheriff of Kanawha County, Respondents Below, and M.A. STILTNER and B.J. VanMeter, Petitioners Below, v. Art ASHLEY, Sheriff of Kanawha County, and the Kanawha County Deputy Sheriffs' Civil Service Commission, Respondents Below. Jimmy Lee MANGUS, Jr. and Richard D. Clarkson, Petitioners Below, v. Arden D. ASHLEY, Sheriff of Kanawha County, and Kanawha County Deputy Sheriffs' Civil Service Commission, Respondents Below, and J.W. JOHNSON, II, Petitioner Below, v. The CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION FOR DEPUTY SHERIFFS FOR KANAWHA COUNTY, and James C. Peterson, Kenneth Blake and William C. Porth, Constituting Members of the Said Commission, and Arden D. Ashley, Sheriff of Kanawha County, Respondents Below, and M.A. STILTNER and B.J. VanMeter, Petitioners Below, Appellants, v. Art ASHLEY, Sheriff of Kanawha County, and the Kanawha County Deputy Sheriffs' Civil Service Commission, Respondents Below, Appellees. Jimmy Lee MANGUS, Jr. and Richard D. Clarkson, et al. Petitioners Below, Gary R. Adkins and Raymond J. Flint, Petitioners Below, Appellants, v. Arden D. ASHLEY, Sheriff of Kanawha County, and Kanawha County Deputy Sheriffs' Civil Service Commission, Respondents Below, Appellees, and J.W. JOHNSON, II, Petitioner Below, v. The CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION FOR DEPUTY SHERIFFS FOR KANAWHA COUNTY, and James C. Peterson, Kenneth Blake and William C. Porth, Constituting Members of the Said Commission, and Arden D. Ashley, Sheriff of Kanawha County, Respondents Below, and M.A. STILTNER and B.J. VanMeter, Petitioners Below, v. Art ASHLEY, |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. " Syllabus Point 1, Johnson v. Ashley, 190 W.Va. 678, 441 S.E.2d 399 (1994).
2. "Statutes which relate to the same subject matter should be read and applied together so that the Legislature's intention can be gathered from the whole of the enactments." Syllabus Point 3, Smith v. State Workmen's Compensation Com'r, 159 W.Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975).
3. W. Va.Code, 7-14-1 [1991] and W.Va.Code, 7-14-13 [1991] when read in pari materia and in light of this Court's prior cases establish that the categories of criteria for deputy sheriff promotions are: (1) qualifications as shown by previous service and experience; and (2) merit and fitness as ascertained by competitive examinations to be provided by the civil service commission. Previous service means performance appraisals; experience means seniority.
4. In the face of clear errors in the process of selecting deputy sheriffs for promotion, a sheriff may withdraw a notice of vacancies and list of persons eligible for promotion.
Arden J. Curry, II, Pauley, Curry, Sturgeon & Vanderford, Charleston, for Appellants Mangus and Clarkson.
James S. Chase, Robinson & McElwee, Charleston, for Appellees Civil Service Comm'n, Blake and Porth.
Phillip D. Gaujot, Cross Lanes, for Appellee Ashley.
Duane C. Rosenlieb, Jr., St. Albans, for Appellants Stiltner and VanMeter.
James C. Stucky, Charleston, for J.W. Johnson.
Gary R. Adkins, Appellant, Pro se.
Michael J. Del Guidice, Ciccarello, Del Guidice & LaFon, Charleston, for Amicus Curiae Randy West, et al.
Raymond J. Flint, Appellant, Pro se.
The appellants in this case, who at the times pertinent to this appeal were serving as Kanawha County deputy sheriffs, contend that performance appraisals may not be used in selecting deputies for promotion. The appellants contend that only seniority and scores on competitive examinations are legitimate selection criteria. The circuit court approved the use of seniority, examinations, and performance appraisals; and we affirm this ruling.
The appellants also contend that the Kanawha County Sheriff was not entitled to withdraw a notice of vacancies and list of eligible deputies who had been selected for promotion, after the Sheriff determined that the selection process was flawed. We affirm the circuit court's ruling that the Sheriff properly withdrew the notice and list.
In early 1993 the appellee Sheriff of Kanawha County ("Sheriff Ashley") and the appellee Civil Service Commission for Deputy Sheriffs for Kanawha County (the "Commission") sought to promote nine members of the Kanawha County Sheriff's Department from the grade of deputy sheriff to the grade of corporal. The rules of the Commission established a system for selecting deputies for promotion from among the applicants for promotion. The system assigned points to each applicant for each of three categories: (1) competitive examination scores; (2) seniority; and (3) individualized performance appraisals, which were prepared by personnel within the Sheriff's Department.
On April 26, 1993, using the combined total point scores of the applicants, the Commission certified the top nine applicants for promotion. On April 28, 1993, various deputies who were not certified in the top nine for promotion filed suit in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County and obtained an order enjoining Sheriff Ashley from promoting the previously certified nine deputies. By order dated July 23, 1993, the circuit court dismissed the injunction action on the grounds that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before the Commission.
Meanwhile, during the pendency of the injunction action, Sheriff Ashley withdrew his previously issued notice of vacancies on the ground that flaws existed in the performance appraisals used in selecting the candidates to be promoted. 1 The Commission thereafter held hearings concerning the selection of deputy sheriffs for promotion. By order dated March 21, 1994, the Commission ruled that: (1) the governing law concerning promotion of deputy sheriffs requires the consideration of performance appraisals; and (2) because of flaws in the selection process, Sheriff Ashley correctly withdrew the notice of vacancies.
On April 8, 1994, appellants Jimmie Lee Mangus and Richard D. Clarkson filed suit in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the Commission to certify Mangus and Clarkson as eligible for promotion to the rank of corporal and compelling Sheriff Ashley to promote Mangus and Clarkson to the rank of corporal effective April 26, 1993, with full back pay and full seniority. 2 On April 8, 1994, J.W. Johnson, II also filed a civil action seeking the same relief that Mangus requested. Three days later, on April 11, 1994, appellants M.A. Stiltner and B.J. VanMeter filed a civil action raising similar issues and seeking similar relief.
By order dated December 19, 1994, the three mandamus petitions were consolidated into one proceeding. After briefing, Special Judge Holliday denied the three petitions for writ of mandamus by order entered December 29, 1995. 3 These consolidated appeals followed.
Meanwhile, in 1995 and 1996 the Commission held a series of public meetings to address promotion criteria and the need to remedy the Sheriff's Department's depleted rank structure. These meetings resulted in the promulgation of new rules governing promotions within the Department. Like the previous rules, the new rules ranked applicants for promotion by their total of points awarded for seniority, scores on competitive examinations, and the results of performance appraisals--but the relative weight assigned to each factor was changed somewhat.
After the promulgation of the new rules, Sheriff Ashley notified the Commission of 23 vacancies for the rank of corporal and requested that the Commission certify a list of deputies eligible to be promoted. On June 19, 1996, the Commission administered a written examination and thereafter employing the newly adopted rules certified a new list of eligibles. In July of 1996, 22 deputy sheriffs were promoted to the grade of corporal. Among the deputies promoted were deputies Mangus, Clarkson, Flint, Adkins and Stiltner. 4
The two principal issues raised in the consolidated appeals are governed by separate standards of review. Appellants' first assignment of error asks this Court to rule that statutory law prohibits the use of performance appraisals in making promotional selections for deputy sheriffs. Where the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review. Syllabus Point 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).
Appellants' second assignment of error relates to Sheriff Ashley's withdrawal of the notice of vacancies. The Commission made a finding of fact that flaws existed in the performance appraisals used to certify the list of eligibles. Based on this finding of fact, the Commission determined that Sheriff Ashley correctly withdrew the notice of vacancies and list of eligibles. "A final order of a police civil service...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W. Va. Consol. Pub. Ret. Bd. v. Wood
...must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Mangus v. Ashley, 199 W.Va. 651, 658, 487 S.E.2d 309, 316 (1997) (citations omitted). Absent obvious indication of intent to add only subsequent military engagements, the Board's argu......
-
Osborne v. US
...all of its parts operative and effective. Syl. pt. 7, Ex parte Watson, 82 W.Va. 201, 95 S.E. 648 (1918). Accord Mangus v. Ashley, 199 W.Va. 651, 658, 487 S.E.2d 309, 316 (1997) ("`"[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says t......
-
Fisk v. Lemons, 24029
...statute[.]" Syl. Pt. 1, in part, Owens-Illinois Glass Co. v. Battle, 151 W.Va. 655, 154 S.E.2d 854 (1967). See Mangus v. Ashley, 199 W.Va. 651, 656, 487 S.E.2d 309, 314 (1997) ("It is axiomatic that a court must whenever possible read statutes dealing with the same subject matter in pari ma......
-
State Va. v. Gibson, 35520.
...must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Mangus v. Ashley, 199 W.Va. 651, 658, 487 S.E.2d 309, 316 (1997) (citation omitted). For these reasons, we conclude that the words “a conviction” indicate that the defendant's third o......