Rynerson v. City of Franklin
| Decision Date | 12 September 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 41A05-9412-CV-488,41A05-9412-CV-488 |
| Citation | 655 N.E.2d 126 |
| Parties | Larry J. RYNERSON, Appellant-Petitioner, v. CITY OF FRANKLIN, Indiana, Appellee-Respondent. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Larry J. Rynerson appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of the City of Franklin, Indiana. We restate the dispositive issue as whether due process permits a city attorney for a third class city to temporarily resign from a Board of Public Works and Safety in order to serve as an advocate in a city police officer's disciplinary proceeding before the Board.
Rynerson was a patrolman with the Franklin Police Department. On May 10, 1990, the Board of Public Works and Safety of the City of Franklin ("Safety Board") conducted a hearing on disciplinary charges brought against Rynerson by Franklin Police Chief William McCarty.
The Safety Board was comprised of three members: Mayor Eddy M. Teets, Loren Wilham, and city attorney James Acher. Acher temporarily stepped down from his position on the Safety Board for the purpose of representing Chief McCarty at the hearing. The voting members of the Safety Board, Mayor Teets and Wilham, found Rynerson guilty of five counts of neglect of duty and three counts of conduct unbecoming an officer. The Safety Board dismissed Rynerson from the police department.
This appeal follows the trial court's review of the administrative decision of the Safety Board. "A decision of the Safety Board is considered prima facie correct, and the burden of proof is on the party appealing." Ind.Code 36-8-3-4(h). Administrative decisions are reviewed "for jurisdiction, compliance with proper legal procedures, compliance with substantive law, and a basis in substantial evidence." Adkins v. City of Tell City (1993), Ind.App., 625 N.E.2d 1298, 1302; Phegley v. Indiana Dep't of Highways (1990), Ind.App., 564 N.E.2d 291, 293-94, trans. denied.
This Court need only determine that the board adhered to proper legal procedures and did not violate any statutory or constitutional provisions. So long as the board's findings were supported by substantial evidence, they will be upheld.
Drake v. City of Gary (1983), Ind.App., 449 N.E.2d 624, 627-28.
Rynerson argues that he was denied procedural due process because city attorney Acher, a Safety Board member, represented Chief McCarty in the allegations against Rynerson. Indiana Code 36-8-3-4 governs the procedures for the discipline, demotion and dismissal of police officers and fire fighters, and states in relevant part:
If the corporation counsel or city attorney is a member of the safety board of a city, the counsel or attorney may not participate as a safety board member in a disciplinary hearing concerning a member of either department.
I.C. 36-8-3-4(c). The record reflects that city attorney Acher and the Safety Board strictly adhered to a procedure through which Acher temporarily resigned from, and did not participate as a member of, the Safety Board during every matter that came before the Safety Board concerning the allegations against Rynerson. During the disciplinary hearing, Acher acted solely as an advocate and played no part in the decision-making process of the Safety Board. The ultimate decision to dismiss Rynerson was reached by the remaining two Safety Board members.
In essence, Rynerson argues that it was a prima facie due process violation for Acher to prosecute an action before a Board upon which he normally serves as a voting member and to which he would return once the disciplinary proceeding was concluded. Rynerson posits that the Safety Board must afford him the greatest degree of procedural safeguards reasonable under the circumstances, and concludes that such prohibits the city attorney from prosecuting a disciplinary action before his fellow Safety Board members. We agree.
Indiana courts have discussed the due process limits placed upon city attorneys who serve on local safety boards in a series of cases that primarily deal with situations in which the city attorneys serve as both prosecutors and decision-makers in disciplinary proceedings. We have consistently held that due process forbids city attorneys from serving dual capacities as advocates and decision-makers in proceedings before safety boards. City of Mishawaka v. Stewart (1974), 261 Ind. 670, 310 N.E.2d 65, 69-70, Martincich v. City of Hammond (1981), Ind.App., 419 N.E.2d 240, 244, and City of Hammond v. State ex rel. Jefferson (1980), Ind.App., 411 N.E.2d 152, 153. However, the question of whether a city attorney who appears as an advocate in disciplinary proceedings before a safety board upon which he also serves as a member violates due process is a question of first impression in Indiana.
We discussed a related matter in the case of Connell v. City of Logansport (1979), Ind.App., 397 N.E.2d 1058, 1061-62. Therein, a city attorney temporarily resigned from a safety board in order to serve as an advocate in a disciplinary proceeding before the board, while a resident freeholder took his place on the board. The petitioner argued that this procedure created an improperly constituted board as required by statute. We held that this procedure resulted in a properly constituted board under the statutes, and in a cursory statement noted that such was in accord with the Stewart decision. Id. The Connell case did not raise the issue of whether due process prohibits a city attorney from prosecuting an action before his fellow safety board members. Today for the first time that question is squarely before us.
Our Supreme Court first discussed what due process requires in a disciplinary hearing before local safety boards in Stewart. The Stewart Court recognized that the purpose of a disciplinary hearing is to protect the accused employee, and that therefore a formal procedure is required. 310 N.E.2d at 68. On this point the Court opined:
We acknowledge that the proceedings before administrative bodies are not required to be conducted with all of the procedural safeguards afforded by judicial proceedings, even when such proceedings are judicial in nature. We accept a lower standard in proceedings before quasi-judicial bodies because it would be unworkable to do otherwise. There are, nevertheless, standards below which we should not go. These standards, logically, should be at the highest level that is workable under the circumstances.
Id. (emphasis added). The Supreme Court concluded that, due to the great deference we must afford the Safety Board's factual determinations, it is imperative that a "strict test of impartiality" be applied to the fact finding hearing before the Safety Board. Id. at 69. "[T]he fact finding process should be free of suspicion or appearance of impropriety." Id.
The City of Franklin is a third class city. See I.C. 36-4-1-1. Under Indiana law, the city attorney of a third class city is the head of the department of law for the city. I.C. 36-4-9-11(b). As such, the city attorney must "commence all proceedings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rynerson v. City of Franklin
...Works and Safety temporarily resigns from the Board in order to prosecute a disciplinary action before that Board." Rynerson v. City of Franklin, 655 N.E.2d 126, 129 (1995). The Court of Appeals reasoned as In third class cities, the city attorney is appointed by the city executive. I.C. 36......
-
Baseball, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
...to provide a neutral hearing officer." Brief of Appellant at 36. In support of its contention, Baseball cites Rynerson v. City of Franklin, 655 N.E.2d 126 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), without The Rynerson facts, however, are inapposite to those before us. There, this court held unconstitutional the s......