State ex rel. McGinnis v. Police Civil Service Commission of Golden Valley
| Decision Date | 27 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 37262,37262 |
| Citation | 253 Minn. 62,91 N.W.2d 154 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota ex rel. AL McGINNIS, Respondent, v. POLICE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF GOLDEN VALLEY et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A court must not exercise nonjudicial functions by setting aside legislative or administrative orders without limiting its inquiry to the reasonableness of that order.
2. Complete jurisdiction of administrative, legislative, or quasi-judicial functions cannot be directly or indirectly conferred upon the courts but a limited jurisdiction by way of certiorari, and in some cases by statutory appeal, may be so conferred.
3. The discharge of a municipal employee is an administrative function although performed in a judicial manner.
4. The character of an action alone does not determine whether a given function is judicial or nonjudicial for the purpose of determining which branch of the government that function falls into.
5. A court by itself or through a jury may not find the facts, de novo, which are necessary to determine whether a municipal employee should be retained rather than discharged.
6. That portion of M.S.A. § 197.46 providing for an appeal to the district court may not be given effect as that section conflicts with Minn.Const. art. 3, § 1, and prior decisions of this court.
7. A department head or chief deputy of a department head is among those excluded from the operation of § 197.46. Held, where a particular position or job is covered by civil service, in determining whether one in that job or position is a department head or chief deputy of a department head consideration may not be given to the fact that such position is not for a term or does not carry with it the power to hire and fire subordinates.
Stanley D. Kane, Minneapolis, Kenneth Culp Davis, Minneapolis, of counsel, for appellants.
Hvass, Weisman, Peterson, King & Schwappach, Simon A. Weisman, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Miles Lord, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Houston, Sol. Gen., St. Paul, amici curiae.
Appeal from an order of the district court denying a motion of the village of Golden Valley 1 for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative for a new trial.
This case concerns the discharge of Al McGinnis, a municipal employee of the village of Golden Valley. The case was commenced August 10, 1955, when the village served an order of suspension and charges against McGinnis, its chief of police, which charges were denied in a general denial entered by McGinnis. Following this, hearings were held before the Golden Valley Police Civil Service Commission which made findings of fact, conclusions, and ordered the discharge of McGinnis as chief of police.
On October 4, 1955, the village was served with a notice of appeal under M.S.A. § 197.46 of the Veterans' Preference Law and the next day it was served with a notice of appeal under § 419.12 of the Police Civil Service Commissions Act. A motion was then made by the village to dismiss the appeal under the Veterans' Preference Law and to try the appeal under the civil service act. It was also sought by the village, in the event that the district court held the Veterans' Preference Law applicable, to limit the issue to the reasonableness of the action of the Civil Service Commission. An affidavit was then filed by counsel for the village in support of this motion. No counteraffidavit was offered by the chief of police. It was stated in the affidavit that on April 17, 1948, the Police Civil Service Commission of Golden Valley, in conjunction with the State Civil Service Commission and the Department of Internal Security of the University of Minnesota, conducted an examination for the position of police chief of the Golden Valley police force; that the specifications for the position of police chief in the notice of examination stated that the chief's duties would be to have the chief administrative responsibility for the maintenance of order and the enforcement of laws and ordinances and to direct and coordinate all activities of the police department. In the specifications, examples of the work of the chief of police were listed as follows:
1. Review the acts and reports of subordinate officers.
2. Submit reports to the city.
3. Make personal inspection of police beats.
4. Make assignments to officers.
5. Confer with other officers of the village on law enforcement matters.
6. Assist in the selection of new members for the police force, and in the training and promotion of the police personnel.
7. Analyze crime and police conditions and plan prevention work.
8. Explain the functions of the police department to the public.
9. To maintain contacts with other police departments and with professional police organizations.
The district court, holding that the chief of police was not a department head or chief deputy, ordered that the appeal should be tried under § 197.46. It further ordered that the issues would be framed upon motion of either party and that the trial would be by jury. Following this, the district court ordered that the issues to be submitted to the jury would be substantially as follows: (a) Was Al McGinnis guilty of misconduct in office? (b) Was Al McGinnis guilty of inefficiency in office?
The case then proceeded to trial de novo in connection with the above-stated issues. The trial court refused to consider the transcript of the proceedings before the Civil Service Commission. At the conclusion of the trial the following interrogatories were given to the jury:
(1) Was Al McGinnis during the period in question guilty of inefficiency as chief of police of the Village of Golden Valley?
(2) Was Al McGinnis during the period in question guilty of misconduct as chief of police of the Village of Golden Valley?
The jury was instructed that a finding of either inefficiency or misconduct is ground for removal from office. The jury answered 'No' to both interrogatories. The court, after reciting the answers to the above interrogatories, reversed, vacated, and set aside the order of the Golden Valley Police Civil Service Commission.
Assignments of error which are necessary to a determination of this case on appeal are as follows: (1) The holding that a de novo review by the trial court of this case was constitutional, and (2) the holding that the chief of police was not a department head or chief deputy and therefore did not come within the exclusion of § 197.46. We are therefore confronted with two issues: (1) The propriety of that part of § 197.46 which provides the method of review by the district court in cases such as the one at bar; and (2) whether or not the chief of police of Golden Valley was a department head or chief deputy under § 197.46.
1--2. Section 197.46 deals with veterans' privileges and provides that honorably discharged veterans in certain public employment shall not be removed from that job or employment except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing, upon due notice, upon stated charges in writing. This section also details certain things with respect to the hearing provided for; appeals from the decision to the district court; and the method of review in the district court. The village does not question the preference provided for in the above section. 2 We are here concerned only with that part of the above section dealing with the procedure for review by the district court of a decision of the board. This portion reads:
The essence of the dispute between the parties lies in the contention of the village that the proper method of review by the district court should be to determine whether the board's action in discharging an employee was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or, in other words, whether or not there is any evidence to support the findings and conclusions of the board. The village points out that in the case at bar a full hearing was had before the Police Civil Service Commission of the Village of Golden Valley and that after findings of fact had been made the chief of police was duly discharged. The district court disregarded this determination and submitted to the jury the questions whether the chief of police was guilty of inefficiency or misconduct. Evidence was taken and the questions of inefficiency and misconduct were determined do novo as if the civil service commission had never determined them. Not only was a completely new record of evidence prepared but the court allowed the jury to substitute its judgment on all questions for that of the commission. The village contends that a court may not substitute its judgment for that of an administrative agency if the function is administrative and that the function herein involved, namely, the discharge of a municipal employee, is a nonjudicial function.
This court has long recognized that a court must not exercise nonjudicial functions by setting aside legislative or administrative orders without limiting its inquiry to the reasonableness of that order. Steenerson v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 69 Minn. 353, 72 N.W. 713; State v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 130 Minn. 57, 153 N.W. 247; State v. Duluth, M. & I.R. Ry. Co., 246 Minn. 383, 75 N.W.2d 398.
In 1897 this court in Steenerson v. Great Northern Ry. Co., supra, had before it the issue of the scope of review of orders from the Railroad and Warehouse Commission. It was determined that the court's review should be limited to an examination of matters of fact to ascertain whether there was any evidence reasonably tending to support the findings of fact disputed and to an examination of questions of law arising on the facts conceded. In coming to this determination our court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weeks v. Personnel Bd. of Review of Town of North Kingstown, 74-317-A
...or administrative in nature. See City of Aurora v. Schoberlein, 230 Ill. 496, 82 N.E. 860 (1907); State ex rel. McGinnis v. Police Civil Serv. Comm'n, 253 Minn. 62, 91 N.W.2d 154 (1958); City of Meridian v. Davidson, 211 Miss. 683, 53 So.2d 48 (1951). Others which reject de novo review but ......
-
State ex rel. Turnbladh v. District Court, Ramsey County, Second Judicial Dist.
...body in determining whether or not to discharge an employee is an administrative function. State ex rel. McGinnis v. Police Civil Service Comm., 253 Minn. 62, 91 N.W.2d 154; Sellin v. City of Duluth, 248 Minn. 333, 80 N.W.2d 67; State ex rel. Ging v. Board of Education, 213 Minn. 550, 7 N.W......
-
Benell v. City of Virginia
...determination whether the commission's action in adopting the resolution was arbitrary or unreasonable. State ex rel. McGinnis v. Police Civil Service Comm., 253 Minn. 62, 91 N.W.2d 154; Nelson v. Reid and Wackman, 228 Minn. 137, 36 N.W.2d 544; State ex rel. Ging v. Board of Education, 213 ......
-
Dietz v. Dodge County
...the issuance of writ of certiorari. See, e.g., State ex rel. Furlong v. McColl, 127 Minn. at 160, 149 N.W. 11; State ex rel. McGinnis, 253 Minn. at 70-71, 91 N.W.2d 154. Third, whether she entered into a "for cause" or "at will" employment contract is a question of law that is appropriate f......