State ex rel. Sessions v. Bartle, 49191

• Citation: 359 S.W.2d 716
• Decision Date: 10 September 1962
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 49191,49191,2
• Parties: STATE of Missouri at the Relation of Rev. Will A. SESSIONS, Jr., et al., Appellants. v. H. Roe BARTLE, Mayor of Kansas City, Missouri, et al., Respondents
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 716

359 S.W.2d 716

STATE of Missouri at the Relation of Rev. Will A. SESSIONS, Jr., et al., Appellants. v. H. Roe BARTLE, Mayor of Kansas City, Missouri, et al., Respondents.

No. 49191.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

Sept. 10, 1962.

John J. Manning and Robert S. Fousek, Kansas City, for appellants.

Keith Wilson, Jr., City Counselor, Robert A. Meyers and John J. Cosgrove, Associate City Counselors, Kansas City, for respondents.

STORCKMAN, Judge.

This is a mandamus action which seeks to compel the City of Kansas City through its council and duly authorized officials to direct an election for the purpose of submitting to the electorate an ordinance proposed by initiative petitions. The plaintiffs are five electors of Kansas City nominated as a Committee of Petitioners and authorized to file the initative petitions in accordance with Sec. 443 of the Charter of Kansas City. The defendants' answer alleged that the initiative measure was an appropriation ordinance which made no provision for new revenue to defray the increased expenditures in violation of Sec. 51, Art. III, of the 1945 Constitution of Missouri, V.A.M.S., and that the initiative ordinance, if adopted, would deprive the city council of control over city finances and would disrupt budgetary plans in violation of Sec. 89 of Art. 4 of the Charter of Kansas City. The plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and the cause was submitted to the court on the pleadings and the exhibits annexed. The judgment rendered on November 7, 1961, denied plaintiffs' motion for judgment and dismissed plaintiffs' petition with prejudice as prayed for in defendants' answer. The plaintiffs appealed.

The sufficiency of the initiative petitions and the correctness of the procedures in obtaining and presenting them are not controverted. The plaintiffs' principal contention on appeal is that the proposed initiative ordinance does not violate Sec. 51 of Art. III because it is not an appropriation ordinance.

The proposed ordinance would amend the Administrative Code of Kansas City, Missouri, 1956, by repealing Secs. 221, 222, 223, 231, and 247 of the Classification and Compensation Plan and by enacting in lieu thereof new sections of like number and subject matter. The sections of the proposed ordinance classify positions in the city service and establish standard basic salaries for the various positions. The services dealt with are the Fire Fighting Group of the Fire Fighting Service, the Fire Motor Operator Group of the Fire Service, the Fire Personnel Instruction Group of the Fire Service, the Building Safety Group of the Inspectional, Investigational and Examining Service, and the Electrical Operator Group of the Skilled, Semiskilled and Unskilled Labor Service. In general the proposed ordinance sets up qualifications for the various classifications usually based on length of service and in some instances establishes the number of normal working and on-duty hours per week with provisions for overtime compensation, the length of shifts, and the time of change. In all instances the proposed ordinance fixes the standard basic salary for all classes of positions established.

In conclusion the ordinance provides that 'the changes in the salary schedules herein provided shall take effect at the beginning of the first payroll period following the enactment date of this Ordinance.' Appendix C attached to the plaintiffs' petition is a copy of the resolution of the city council declaring its intention not to pass the proposed measure. The resolution describes the proposed ordinance as 'increasing the salaries of the various classifications of employees in the Fire Department' and declares that 'the granting of such increases in salaries would require large appropriations of money in excess of that now appropriated for the payment of salaries'.

The pertinent portion of Sec. 51 of Art. III reads as follows: 'The initiative shall not be used for the appropriation of money other than a new revenues created and provided for thereby, or for any other purpose prohibited by this constitution.' The nature of the initiative activity sought to be prevented by this constitutional provision appears in the remarks of the Committee on Initiative and Referendum of the 1943-1944 Constitutional Convention, File No. 4, p. 6, as follows: 'This section is entirely new. The restriction upon the use of the initiative for appropriation of money is suggested mainly by the cogent reasoning of the Supreme Court of Missouri in the case of Moore v. Brown, decided by that court on November 12, 1942, reported in 350 Mo....