State v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of City of Bridgeport

• Decision Date: 17 February 1942
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. MeNAMARA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF CITY OF BRIDGEPORT.

24 A.2d 846

STATE ex rel. MeNAMARA

v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF CITY OF BRIDGEPORT.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Feb. 17, 1942.

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Inglis, Judge.

Mandamus proceeding by the State, on the relation of Margaret D. McNamara, against the Civil Service Commission of the City of Bridgeport, to compel the defendant to review the dismissal of the relator from the position of assistant tax collector. From a judgment of the Superior Court in Fairfield County on a trial to the court that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue commanding the defendant to hear and decide the matter, the defendant appeals.

No error.

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and AVERY, BROWN, JENNINGS, and ELLS, JJ.

Harry Schwartz and Walter Werner, both of Bridgeport (John V. Donnelly, all of Bridgeport, on the brief), for appellant (defendant).

Philip Reich, of Bridgeport (Samuel Reich, of Bridgeport, on the brief), for appellee (plaintiff).

JENNINGS, Judge.

The sole question in this case is whether the position of assistant tax collector held by Margaret D. McNamara, hereinafter called the plaintiff, is excluded from the classified service in Bridgeport by virtue of 22 Special Laws, p. 262, § 3, § 205(b) of the 1939 revision of the Bridgeport charter, which places in the unclassified service "all executive offices or positions specifically created by charter and the method of filling which is now governed by specific and express provisions of the charter." Since the position fulfills the two conditions stated, it is only necessary to determine whether the plaintiff held an executive office or position.

The following facts appear in the finding and are not disputed in any respect material to this appeal: A civil service commission for Bridgeport was established by 22 Special Laws p. 261, Sp.No. 407, Charter Revision, 1939, Chap. 16. Under 15 Special Laws 1907 p. 534, § 102, Charter Revision, 1939, § 109, "The collector shall have power to appoint an assistant collector to assist him in the performance of his duties, whose term of office shall be at the pleasure of the collector and for the faithful performance of whose duties the collector shall be answerable and responsible to the city. * * *" The plaintiff was appointed assistant tax collector by Howard S. Challenger, tax collector, in 1926 and continued to hold this position until the receipt of the notice of discharge hereinafter quoted.

On March 22, 1937, the plaintiff received from the civil service commission of the city of Bridgeport a communication which read, in part, as follows:

"You are hereby notified that the position you are holding has been allocated to the class of Assistant Tax Collector.

"The official meaning of your title is indicated in the class specification of that title in 'The Specifications for the Classified Service.' See the back of this notice for excerpts of the civil service rules governing the allocation of positions."

The duties of the assistant tax collector under the supervision and control of the tax collector are numerous and varied. She has general charge of the office and its personnel (a minimum of twelve), directs the employees in their work, arranges vacations, receives their reports, consults with taxpayers in arrears and makes decisions as to installment payments, assists in the fixing of general policies, prepares all alias tax warrants, distributes them to the tax marshals and handles the accounts of the latter, and has been given authority by the tax collector to perform all duties required by law of the tax collector except the making of policies for the conduct of the office, the signing of tax liens and releases thereof, and the signing of alias tax warrants. She also writes or dictates much of the office correspondence and acts as chief clerk and office manager. As such she is required to use her judgment and discretion but in all things does so subject to the control and direction of the tax collector.

The plaintiff continued as assistant tax collector until on February 8, 1941, she received the following notice from the tax collector:

"I beg to advise you that your services as Assistant Tax Collector are hereby terminated as of the close of business on Saturday, February 8, 1941.

"Please govern yourself accordingly."

On February 11, 1941, the plaintiff appealed from this decision to the civil service commission, but the latter refused to hear the appeal on the ground that the plaintiff held no position in the classified service and that it was therefore without jurisdiction.

On these facts the trial court concluded in substance that the position of assistant tax collector was not an executive position in the sense in which those words are used in the section quoted but that she was, on the contrary, in the classified service. Judgment was therefore rendered commanding the defendant to set a date for hearing the plaintiff's appeal.

The question involves statutory construction in the light of applicable facts. This process consists of the ascertainment of the intent of the legislature (Bridgeman v. City of Derby, 104 Conn. 1, 8, 132 A. 25), and the object of the legislation is to be considered in solving the problem. Donnelly v. City of New Haven, 95 Conn. 647, 667, 111 A. 897; People's Holding Co. v. Bray, 118 Conn. 568, 571, 173 A. 233. Soon after the formation of political parties in this country, the maxim "To the victor belong the spoils" became current and its wide application...