Seattle Police Officers Guild v. City of Seattle
| Decision Date | 16 September 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 49299-3-I., No. 48499-1-I |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | SEATTLE POLICE OFFICERS GUILD, a Washington nonprofit corporation, Respondent, Dennis P. Ramm, Tim D. Greeley, and Keith Swank, Appellants, v. The CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation, City of Seattle Public Safety Civil Service Commission and Norm Stamper, Chief of Police of Seattle Police Department, Respondents. Dennis L. Hossfeld, Appellant, v. The City of Seattle, a municipal corporation, City of Seattle Public Safety Civil Service Commission and Norm Stamper, Chief of Police of Seattle Police Department, Respondents. |
Jason Harold Grover, Bellevue, WA, for Appellant Hossfeld.
Paul Andrew Olsen, Seattle City Attorneys Office, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
William Michael Taylor, Seattle, WA for Appellant Ramm.
Appellants, police officers who were passed up for promotion by candidates who scored lower on the civil service exam, argue that Seattle's Public Safety Civil Service system grants too much discretion to the Chief of Police in the promotional process. The Supreme Court has held that some degree of discretion in the appointing authority, specifically allowing the Chief of Police to choose from the top three candidates, substantially complies with state law. Seattle's ordinance allows promotion from the top 5 or top 25 percent of qualified candidates, whichever is greater. We hold that the portion of Seattle's ordinance which allows the Chief of Police to select from the top 25 percent of the candidate pool grants the Chief too much discretion and thus, does not substantially accomplish the purposes of state civil service law. The "rule of five," however, does substantially accomplish those purposes. Under the valid "rule of five" provision, as under a valid "rule of three" provision, appellants could have been properly passed over each opportunity for promotion. Appellants have therefore failed to articulate how they were caused any harm. We affirm.
Since the 1930s, the State of Washington has required municipalities to provide civil service rights for employees of police and fire departments. Yakima v. Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 469, 117 Wash.2d 655, 664-65, 818 P.2d 1076 (1991). Chapter 41.12 RCW establishes a prototype civil service system that communities may use to fill this requirement. A large number of Washington cities simply adopt the procedures and policies contained in chapter 41.12 RCW as their own. Chapter 41.12 RCW requires that the top candidate on the civil service register be promoted. Other cities take a more selective approach, adopting some of the procedures in chapter 41.12 RCW, but enacting provisions unique to the city. Still others, including Seattle, have enacted entire civil service systems pursuant to RCW 41.12.010, which states, in relevant part: "The provisions of this chapter shall have no application to cities and towns which ... shall ... provide for civil service in the police department by local charter or other regulations which ... substantially accomplish the purpose of this chapter."
In 1978, Seattle instituted a separate civil service system for officers in the police and fire departments. See The 1978 City of Seattle Public Safety Civil Service Ordinance, codified at SMC §§ 4.08.010, et. seq. Section 2 of the ordinance sets forth its purposes as follows:
The general purpose of this chapter is to establish a civil service system for employees in the Police and Fire Departments of the City, governing appointments, promotions, layoffs, recruitment, retention, classifications, removals and discipline, pursuant to Charter Article XVI, all in substantial compliance with RCW Chapters 41.08, 41.12, 41.56. All appointments and promotions to Police and Fire Department positions, retention therein and removal therefrom shall be made on the basis and policies hereinafter specified as in said state law.
Seattle, WA., Ordinance 107791 § 2 (Jan. 1, 1979). The ordinance also establishes Seattle's Public Safety Civil Service Commission (PSCSC) and authorizes it to develop rules and regulations for administration of the civil service system. SMC 4.08.040; SMC 4.08.070.
Under the ordinance and the PSCSC rules, the promotional process for police officers begins with a civil service examination. The examination is created, administered and graded by the PSCSC. SMC 4.08.070(c); PSCSC Rule 9. When grading is complete, the PSCSC creates a promotional register that contains the names of all eligible candidates in rank order. PSCSC Rule 10.01. The register indicates each successful candidate's written exam score, oral exam score, "service credit[s]", and total score.1 As a general rule, the PSCSC conducts examinations every two years, and each promotional register has a two-year life span.
When the police department needs to fill vacancies in the supervisory ranks, the Chief of Police submits a "request for certification" to the PSCSC. PSCSC Rule 11.03. The request identifies the title of the available position and the number of positions available. In response to the request, the PSCSC provides a "certification" which is essentially a list of candidates from which the Chief of Police may select officers to promote. PSCSC Rule 11.05; SMC § 4.08.070(F). The number of candidates listed on a certification depends upon the number of positions to be filled. SMC § 4.08.070(F). When one position is available, PSCSC certifies at least the top five candidates or 25 percent of the eligibility list, whichever is greater. SMC § 4.08.070(F); PSCSC Rule 11.05(c)(1). When multiple positions are available, the PSCSC adds one additional name for each available position. SMC § 4.08.070(F); PSCSC Rule 11.05(c)(1).
When filling a position, the Chief of Police must select a candidate from the PSCSC certification. SMC § 4.08.070(F). The Chief of Police, however, does not have to promote candidates in the order in which they appear on the certification. SMC § 4.08.110(A). The Chief of Police has discretion to promote any candidate on the certification. SMC § 4.08.110(A). Chief of Police Norm Stamper admitted that he viewed the certification as a horizontal plane and used his subjective judgment in making promotions.
Appellant Dennis Hossfeld is a detective with the Seattle Police Department. On August 14, 1993, the Seattle Police Department held an examination for police sergeant. Hossfeld took the examination and received a passing score. The list of eligible sergeant candidates, ranked from 1 to 70, remained effective through December 14, 1995, and 26 promotions were made from this 1993-1995 list. Hossfeld was ranked 28th on the promotion list, but was never promoted.
On December 8, 1998, Hossfeld filed suit against the City of Seattle, Seattle Public Safety Civil Service Commission (PSCSC) and Chief of Police Norm Stamper (hereinafter, collectively (the City)), alleging that Seattle's Public Safety Civil Service Ordinance 107791 and PSCSC Rule 11 do not substantially accomplish the purpose of chapter 41.12 RCW. Specifically, Hossfeld alleged that the provisions in Seattle's ordinance permitting the Chief of Police to exercise discretion in promoting from the top 5 or top 25 percent of a civil service register, whichever number is greater, does not substantially accomplish the purpose of chapter 41.12 RCW.2 The appeal was consolidated with the following suit.
The Seattle Police Officers' Guild (Guild) filed suit against the City of Seattle, PSCSC and Chief of Police Norm Stamper (the City) on July 21, 1999, making the same allegations as Hossfeld. Eight individual members of the Seattle Police Department moved to intervene, alleging additionally that they were improperly passed over for promotion. The officers included the following three appellants. Officer Tim Greeley took the 1995 examination for Sergeant. He scored 5 out of 82 successful candidates on the exam. The City promoted 29 successful candidates from this civil service register. Greeley was never promoted. Greeley claims that he was never able to learn why he was not promoted, except for "unsubstantiated references to anecdotal hearsay and rumors." Officer Keith Swank scored 20 out of 74 successful candidates on the 1997 sergeants' exam. The City promoted 18 officers with lower scores on the exam from the list. Swank was never promoted to sergeant, nor was he able to learn why he was not promoted. Sergeant Dennis Ramm scored 6 out of 15 successful candidates on the 1995 lieutenants' list. The City promoted 7 sergeants with lower scores than Ramm. He was never promoted to lieutenant and was never able to learn why he was not promoted.
The trial court granted the City's motion for summary judgment against the intervening officers on the issue of validity of the ordinance. The Guild stipulated to a dismissal of its case against the City. Intervenors Ramm, Greeley and Swank timely appealed the summary judgment order against them.
When reviewing the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, the standard of review is de novo. This court engages in the same inquiry as the trial court. Benjamin v. Washington State Bar Ass'n, 138 Wash.2d 506, 515, 980 P.2d 742 (1999). Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Clements v. Travelers Indem. Co., 121 Wash.2d 243, 249, 850 P.2d 1298 (1993); CR 56(c). If any portion of Seattle's civil service ordinance is invalid, the ordinance requires that we sever the invalid portion and uphold the remainder of the ordinance. SMC § 4.08 ().
Promotion from among the top 3 of a civil service register has been held to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seattle Police Officers Guild v. City of Seattle
...Atty. Gen., of WA/UW Division, Frederick E. Wollett, Seattle, for respondents. BRIDGE, J. In Seattle Police Officers Guild v. City of Seattle, 113 Wash.App. 431, 439, 53 P.3d 1036 (2002), the Court of Appeals held that the city of Seattle's (City) practice of certifying five police officers......
-
Johnson, Christenson, Viger Constructors, Inc. v. Perry, Shelton, Walker & Associates, No. 56028-0-I (Wash. App. 5/30/2006)
...`counterclaim' was extinguished by operation of law 30 days after the summary judgment order was filed. In Police Guild v. City of Seattle, 113 Wn. App. 431, 441, 53 P.3d 1036 (2002), aff'd, 151 Wn.2d 823 (2004), this court held that a request for fees under RCW 4.84.185 is `not strictly sp......
-
Vahle v. City of Lakewood
...municipalities to provide civil service rights for employees of the police and fire departments." Seattle Police Officers Guild v. City of Seattle, 113 Wn. App. 431, 434, 53 P.3d 1036 (2002), aff'd, 151 Wn.2d 823 (2004) (citing City of Yakima v. Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 469, 117 ......
-
Vahle v. City of Lakewood
...contained either the names of the top 25 percent of eligible candidates or the top five eligible candidates, whichever number was larger. Id. at 435. The officers argued that the system promotion failed to substantially accomplish chapter 41.12 RCW's purpose of providing promotion based on ......