Reed v. City of Youngstown, 37116

• Citation: 173 Ohio St. 265,181 N.E.2d 700
• Decision Date: 04 April 1962
• Docket Number: No. 37116,37116
• Parties: , 19 O.O.2d 119 REED et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF YOUNGSTOWN et al., Appellees.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio

Page 265

173 Ohio St. 265

181 N.E.2d 700, 19 O.O.2d 119

REED et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF YOUNGSTOWN et al., Appellees.

No. 37116.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

April 4, 1962.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Because of section 52 of the Youngstown charter, the general statutes of the state relating to municipal civil Service, as existing at any particular time, represent a part of the Youngstown charter at that time even though those statutes may be identified as parts of the Revised Code.

2. No ordinance can conflict with the provisions of a city charter and be effective.

3. An ordinance requiring retirement of classified civil service employees of a city at 65 years of age conflicts with provisions in a city charter to the effect that the tenure of every employee in the classified service of a city shall be during good behavior and efficient service.

In June 1960, Youngstown enacted an ordinance reciting that 'whereas, it is in the interest of the efficiency of the * * * police department * * * that members thereof * * * of 65 * * * who * * * have served 33 years * * * shall be retired' and providing that 'all members of the * * * police department * * * shall be honorably retired on and after August 1, 1960, if then being 65 * * * and if then having completed 33 years of service * * *.'

Reed, the surviving plaintiff in the instant case, who is hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and who is well over 65 and has served in the police department for more than 33 years, instituted an action in the Common Pleas Court to enjoin enforcement against him of that ordinance on the ground that the ordinance conflicts with section 52 of the charter of Youngstown.

The Common Pleas Court rendered judgment against plaintiff and the Court of Appeals, in an appeal on questions of law and fact, also rendered judgment against plaintiff. The cause is now before this court on appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

James E. Bennett, Sr., and Edward L. Williams, Youngstown, for appellants.

Russell G. Mock, Director of Law, S. Samuel Fekett, John J. Leskovyansky and William J. Higgins, Youngstown, for appellees.

TAFT, Judge.

Several years after the original adoption of the charter of Youngstown, that charter was amended by adoption by the voters of section 52 thereof which reads in part:

'All of the provisions of the General Code of the state of Ohio relating to municipal civil service are hereby adopted and made a part of this charter * * *.'

When section 52 was adopted in 1935, the General Code represented the revision and consolidation of the general statutes of the state as then in effect. Section 13765, General Code. See also Section 1.01, Revised Code. By adopting and making the portion of the General Code relating to municipal civil service a part of the Youngstown charter, the people of Youngstown clearly expressed their intention to incorporate into and as a part of their charter all general statutes of the state relating to municipal civil service. Hence, because of section 52 of the Youngstown charter, the general statutes of the state relating to municipal civil service , as existing at any particular time, represent a part of the Youngstown charter at that time even though those statutes may be identified as parts of the Revised Code rather than of the General Code. See also Section 1.24, Revised Code.

Thus, by reason of section 52 of the Youngstown charter, those provisions of Section 143.27, Revised Code (formerly Section 486-17a, General Code) which read as follows are a part of the Youngstown charter:

'The tenure of every * * * employee in the classified service of the state and the * * * cities * * * thereof [in the instant case, of Youngstown] * * * shall be during good behavior and efficient service * * *.'

No ordinance in conflict with a charter provision can be effective.

This raises the question whether the ordinance requiring retirement at 65 does conflict with those statutory provisions which have been made a part of the charter of Youngstown.

Unless we disregard our holdings in Verberg v. Board of Education (1939), 135 Ohio St. 246, 20 N.E.2d 368, and State ex rel. Daly v. City of Toledo (1943), 142 Ohio St. 123, 50 N.E.2d 338, we must conclude that they do so conflict.

In the Verberg case, as stated at the beginning of the opinion 'the single question' was 'whether a board of education' had 'authority to adopt and enforce a rule requiring the retirement of its employees * * * within the classified service' at 65. In support of the unanimous holding that it did not, it is stated in the opinion by Matthias, J.:

'Under the provisions of * * * the retirement act, an employee * * * is required * * * to retire at seventy * * *. Although possibly contributing to cause inefficiency, age in itself * * * is not made a ground for removal. * * * The effect of the resolution in question is to specify a new and additional ground for removal of employees, the enforcement of which would result in the dismissal of employees * * * in violation of the positive and mandatory requirements of Section 486-17a, General Code.'

State ex rel. Daly v. Toledo...