State Dept. of Civil Service v. Parking Authority of City of Trenton
Decision Date | 04 August 1953 |
Docket Number | No. L--5337,L--5337 |
Parties | STATE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE v. PARKING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF TRENTON et al. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
Theodore D. Parsons, Atty. Gen. (John W. Griggs, Deputy Atty. Gen., appearing), for the plaintiff.
John J. Connell, Trenton, for the defendants.
This cause came on for a hearing and argument to determine whether or no the employees of the Parking Authority of the City of Trenton, and Mary G. Roebling, individually and as chairman of said authority, are subject to the provisions of Title 11 of the Revised Statutes (Civil Service Act), N.J.S.A. Plaintiff requests defendants submit for classification the names, salaries and compensation of all its (the parking authority's) employees, as of July 30, 1952, and complains of defendants' failure so to do.
The defendants in their answer contend that they have no employees subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Act; that the act (Title 11) does not apply to the defendant parking authority, and that the employees of the parking authority are not employees of the City of Trenton so as to come within the purview of the Civil Service Act.
Counsel filed briefs and argued orally. Affidavits supporting the motions are before the court. For the plaintiff the affidavit of Louis J. Russo sets forth that on or about November 7, 1911 the electorate of the City of Trenton by referendum adopted Title 11 of the Revised Statutes of New Jersey, N.J.S.A. The defendants submit the affidavit of W. Enos Wetzel, treasurer of the Trenton parking authority, which among other matters sets forth the ordinance creating the authority under N.J.S.A. 40:11A--1 et seq., and states that having been duly incorporated, the Parking Authority of the City of Trenton entered upon the exercise and performance of its duties as provided by the statute. We quote paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the affidavit of Mr. Wetzel:
Defendants submit that the 'device of the authority is a relatively new one--that its function is to permit the accomplishment of a public purpose by the creation of a public corporation--to get around the debt limitations of a governmental subdivision.' 'Such authority shall constitute an agency and instrumentality of the municipality or county creating it.' N.J.S.A. 40:11A--4.
The enabling act provides: 'The governing body shall appoint five persons as commissioners of the authority.' Ibid. Also, 'No commissioner of any authority may be an officer or employee of the municipality or county for which the authority is created.' N.J.S.A. 40:11A--5. 'The authority shall select a chairman and a vice-chairman from among its commissioners, and it may employ a secretary, technical experts and such other officers, agents and employees, permanent and temporary, as it may require, and shall determine their qualifications, duties and compensation.' Ibid. 'An authority shall constitute a public body corporate and politic, exercising public and essential governmental functions, and having all the powers necessary or convenient to carry out and effectuate the purposes and provisions of this chapter.' N.J.S.A. 40:11A--1 to 40:11A--25. Then the statute (N.J.S.A. 40:11A--6) goes on to provide 'including the following powers in addition to others herein granted.' (These are set forth in subsections (a) to (k). The powers, without enumerating them, are broad and are justifiable in the exercise of the police power of government. Moreover, it has the right of eminent domain and the right to issue bonds which 'shall not be a debt of the State or any political subdivision thereof and neither the State nor any political subdivision thereof shall be liable thereon, nor in any event shall such bonds or obligations be payable out of any funds or properties Other than those of said authority.' (Italics the court's). On the termination of the authority's existence, the authority's property goes back to the municipality or county creating it.
The Civil Service Act, Title 11 of Revised Statutes of New Jersey, N.J.S.A., which by referendum of the legal voters of the City of Trenton was adopted on or about November 7, 1911, operates directly upon and subjects to its provisions all persons 'in the civil service of the state.' R.S. 11:4--2, N.J.S.A. There could be no impact of the provisions of the Civil Service Law upon a county, municipality or school district except through a referendum as provided in chapter 20 of Title 11.
Reference has been made to authorities and their relationship to the Civil Service Act. These so-called state and other authorities constitute independent bodies corporate and politic. Subject to exception, their employees are not in civil service of the State of New Jersey, but in the service of these independent corporations. In fact, the Civil Service Act made no provisions for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. John P. Callaghan Co.
...State v. Parking Authority of the City of Trenton, 29 N.J.Super. 335, 339, 102 A.2d 669, 671 (App.Div.1954), affirming 27 N.J.Super. 284, 99 A.2d 177 (Law Div.1953). It cannot create an obligation or debt of the State or any political subdivision of the State. DeLorenzo v. City of Hackensac......
-
United States v. State of NJ
...New Jersey Civil Service Act. N.J.S.A. 11:19-1 et seq.; N.J.S.A. 11:20-1 et seq.; State Department of Civil Service v. Parking Authority of City of Trenton, 27 N.J.Super. 284, 99 A.2d 177 (Law Div.1953), aff'd, 29 N.J.Super. 335, 102 A.2d 669 (App. Div.1954).17 The purpose of requiring thes......
-
City of Dearborn v. Michigan Turnpike Authority
...are not tax supported, the authority is separate from the government and autonomous. State Department of Civil Service v. Parking Authority of City of Trenton, 27 N.J.Super. 284, 99 A.2d 177; Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. West Virginia Turnpike Commission, D.C., 109 F.Supp. 286; Helveri......
-
Board of Trustees of Free Public Library of Union City, Hudson County v. Union City, Hudson County
...aff'd 15 N.J. 334, 104 A.2d 685 (1954), involving boulevard commissioners of Hudson County; compare State v. Parking Authority, Trenton, 27 N.J.Super. 284, 99 A.2d 177 (Law Div.1953), aff'd 29 N.J.Super. 335, 102 A.2d 669 (App.Div.1954); Monte v. Milat, 17 N.J.Super. 260, 85 A.2d 822 (Law I......