Risi v. City of Norwalk

• Decision Date: 24 June 1957
• Citation: 134 A.2d 514,144 Conn. 525
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: George RISI et al. v. CITY OF NORWALK. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 514

134 A.2d 514

144 Conn. 525

George RISI et al. v. CITY OF NORWALK.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 24, 1957.

Sidney Vogel, Norwalk, for appellants (plaintiffs).

Vincent D. Flaherty, Norwalk, for appellee (defendant).

Before O'SULLIVAN, C. J., and BALDWIN, WYNNE, DALY and KING, JJ.

O'SULLIVAN, Chief Justice.

The defendant, a municipal corporation, maintains a police department. The plaintiffs, twenty in number, are all of the commissioned officers below the rank of chief and above that of patrolman. The direction and control of the department is in a police board, one of whose duties is to fix the salaries of the officers and patrolmen. Prior to June 22, 1953, the jurisdiction of the department had been confined to the central area of the city, the outlying sections being the responsibility of constables and the state police. On that date, pursuant to legislation enacted by the 1953 General Assembly and to the favorable result of a referendum, the police service was extended, as of the following September 1, to include all of the territory within the city limits. 26 Spec.Laws p. 1148.

Early in 1953, the police board had conferred with a committee of the plaintiffs to discuss the matter of salaries for the fiscal year commencing on September 1. The board agreed to submit to the board of estimate and taxation, the budget-making and tax-laying body of the city, a salary schedule calling for the increases requested by the committee. Thereafter, the police board included the schedule in the departmental estimate which it presented to the board of estimate and taxation. The latter board, however, refused to include in the city budget the amount of the increases or to appropriate funds necessary to pay them. To meet the burden which the extended service placed upon the department, thirteen additional patrolmen, but no new commissioned officers, were added to the force. So far as the officers were concerned, this resulted in an increase in the duties of command and supervision and in the amount of time consumed in carrying out the additional responsibility.

Although presented in various ways, the fundamental point in this case is whether the board of estimate and taxation was obligated to provide funds to pay the salary increases proposed by the police board for the commissioned officers.

In 1935, the General Assembly created the Norwalk police board. 22 Spec.Laws p. 291. The first section of the act empowers the board to fix the salaries and compensation of all officers and members of the police department. It also provides that the board 'shall render annually * * * to the board of estimate and taxation, a full statement of its disbursements and expenditures in [the police] department during the preceding year, with a report of the condition of said department, and an estimate of the necessary expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year.' The General Assembly also set up the board of estimate and taxation. 16 Spec.Laws p. 1066, §§ 88, 89, as amended. Under the provisions of those sections, each department of the city must submit to that board, through the comptroller, an estimate of the amount of money which those in charge of the department believe necessary to run it for the fiscal year. The board of estimate and taxation is then required to 'hear all the parties who may desire to be heard relative to any alterations in said estimates' and it 'may make any alterations in said estimates * * * as it deems proper. Said board, having made such alterations, if any, shall prepare a statement of appropriations and tax rates which it purposes to make and levy, and cause the same to be published in a daily newspaper published in said city * * *. Said board shall [thereafter] hold a meeting * * * in July in each year, and at said meeting may make such further alterations in such estimates, appropriations and tax rates as it shall deem proper * * *.' 16 Spec.Laws p. 1067, as amended, 26 Spec.Laws pp. 886, 887.

In the face of the recited facts and the pertinent legislation just quoted, this court is confronted with substantially the same problem as that considered by us in deciding controversies between boards of education and boards of finance. Fowler v. Town of Enfield, 138 Conn. 521, 86 A.2d 662; Bialeck v. City of Hartford, 135 Conn. 551, 66 A.2d 610; Board of Education of Town of Stamford v. Board of Finance, 127 Conn. 345, 16 A.2d 601; Groton & Stonington Traction Co. v. Town of Groton, 115 Conn. 151, 160...