State v. Kansas City
Decision Date | 15 March 1926 |
Citation | 281 S.W. 426 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. STOMP v. KANSAS CITY et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John I. Williamson, Darius A. Brown, and John G. Park, all of Kansas City (R. E. Ball and Milton Schwind, both of Kansas City, of counsel), for relator.
Solon T. Gilmore, City Counselor, F. W. McAllister, Cyrus Crane, J. S. Cannon, and E. F. Halstead, all of Kansas City, far defendants.
This is an original proceeding in mandamus to compel reinstatement of relator in the position of motor driver in the fire department of the city of Kansas City, Mo., from which position he was removed on or about December 5, 1924, by the board of fire and water commissioners and chief of fire department of said city; and to compel payment to relator of the salary attached to said position since the date of relator's removal. In support of his petition relator suggests that the jurisdiction of this court is invoked because: "(a) Constitutional questions are involved ; (b) the validity of the `new charter' of Kansas City is in issue; (c) numerous lawsuits turning upon the same questions here raised are now pending; and (d) the public welfare of Kansas City is vitally affected by these issues, and their speedy and authoritative decision will avoid intolerable confusion in the affairs of that city."
In his brief relator says that the principal questions involved are:
This case was argued and submitted along with the case of State ex rel. Otto, Atty. Gen., v. Kansas City et al., reported in 276 S. W. 389, and by agreement and request of counsel all matters of attack upon the new charter of Kansas City in both cases, including constitutional questions therein raised, were considered and disposed of in this reported decision, and we there held this new charter valid. However, if relator's removal was illegal on any ground, he can in mandamus seek reinstatement and also payment of the salary of which he has been thus deprived. State ex rel. v. Walbridge, 54 S. W. 447, 153 Mo. 194, loc. cit. 204. Having heard this case on the above-agreed submission we will entertain jurisdiction.
Relator was an employee of the fire department under the civil service law contained in article 15 of the charter of Kansas City then in effect, and which became effective September 3, 1908. The authority relied upon by defendants to remove relator is found in section 10 of said article 15, as follows:
The head of the fire department had the power to remove or discharge relator whenever in his opinion the good of the public service required the exercise of such power. State en rel. Hamilton v. Kansas City, 259 S. W. 1045, 303 Mo. 50. It is admitted that relator was not removed because of his political or religious beliefs or opinions. At the time of his removal relator was motor driver in the fire department and in the competitive class of the city service. Consequently, the method of his removal must not contravene the last clause of section 10 above quoted. State ex rel. Hamilton v. Kansas City, supra. Whether or not it does is the sole question left in the case. This inquiry should be met with a full understanding of the facts.
From the agreed facts upon which this case was submitted, it appears that City Ordinance No. 38227, approved July 16, 1920, adopted the general schedule of all the agents and employees of the fire department fixed by the board of fire and water commissioners on July 12, 1920, and included 100 motor drivers, each at an annual salary of $1,680, and 165 first grade' fireman (all capacities), as required and when employed, each at an annual salary of $1,560; the latter number being subsequently increased to 175 and salary raised to $1,620 per annum. Section 3 of this ordinance also provided that all vacancies, except the position of substitute or second grade fireman, occurring in any position in the competitive class of classified service in the fire department should be filled by promotion to be determined, on recommendation of the chief of fire department, by the board of fire and water commissioners, approved by the board of civil service.
Relator's civil service record shows that on October 7, 1912, he was appointed to the position of first grade fireman at an annual salary, of $1,020, which was raised by ordinance March 19, 1918, to $1,200, again raised by ordinance May 5, 1919, to $1,320, again raised by ordinance July 16, 1920, to $1,620, and on December 24, 1920, he was promoted, under competitive promotional examination given October 20, 1920, by the civil service board, to the position of motor driver at an annual salary of $1,680.
The following pertinent rules and regulations of the Kansas City fire department were in effect and operation at the time of relator's removal:
On April 27, 1922, defendant fire chief issued the following general order:
"The commanding officer of day shift of each company, under the supervision of assistant and district chiefs, shall hold daily drills in quarters (excepting Sundays) in methods of fire practice and the use and handling of ladders, tools, and appliances, so that all members may become proficient and expert in all branches of the service."
Under date of September 4, 1924, said fire chief issued the following general order, directed to assistant and district chiefs, captains, and lieutenants:
On or about November 21, 1924, District Chief and Drillmaster H. V. Ishum received written communication from said fire chief advising him that 21 employees, including relator, had been notified to present themselves at fire headquarters at 2 o'clock p. m., Monday November 24, 1924, "for an efficiency examination as to their capability of actively performing the duties of a member of the fire department," and he was requested to submit an individual report, in duplicate, upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial