State v. Kansas City

Decision Date15 March 1926
Citation281 S.W. 426
PartiesSTATE ex rel. STOMP v. KANSAS CITY et al.
CourtMissouri 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.

ATWOOD, J.

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:

"(1) Is the so-called `new charter' of Kansas City, claimed to have been adopted February 22, 1925, a valid charter?

"(2) Is a member of the competitive class of the city's civil service entitled to receive written detailed statement of charges and to notice and hearing before discharge?"

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:

"Such heads of departments shall respectively have power to remove or discharge any person holding any office, position, or employment in their respective departments whenever, in their opinion, the good of the public service requires the exercise of such power. It shall be the duty of a discharging officer, upon request of a discharged person, at any time after discharge, to give such person a correct statement in writing of the reasons for hie discharge. No person in the city's service shall be removed, reduced in grade or salary, or transferred because of political or religious beliefs or opinions of such persons; nor shall any person in the competitive class of the city service be removed, reduced in grade or salary or transferred without first having received a written statement setting forth in detail the reasons therefor, and at the option of the person who shall have been removed, reduced, or transferred, a copy of such statement shall be filed in the office of the civil service commissioners, together with reply, if any made thereto, by the person removed, and the whole shall be filed and preserved in the office of said commissioners and be open to public inspection."

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:

"Article II. Chief of Department.

"See. 1. Chief shall have supreme command and management of the entire department and be designated and known as chief of fire department.

"Sec. 2. He shall be responsible for the discipline and proper conduct of the department as a whole, the enforcement of all laws, ordinances and regulations pertaining thereto, and for the care and condition of the houses, hose carriages, engines, and all other property belonging to the department.

"Sec. 3. He shall have power to assign all his subordinates and companies to fire duty, and may make transfers, assignments, and details as in his judgment may be for the best interests of the service."

"Article III. Assistant Chief.

"Sec. 3. He shall annually visit each department house and cause a test to be made of each company, in the performance of their respective duties, viz., hitching, coupling, throwing water, raising and climbing ladders, etc., and enter a correct record of same in the journal at headquarters."

"Article VIII. Surgeon.

"Sec. 1. The surgeon shall be directly responsible to the chief for the management of his office, and shall keep an accurate record of all examinations and recommendations made by him; such record to be the property of the department.

"Sec. 2. He shall render to the chief of department a weekly statement of the condition of all men under his care."

"Article IX. Foreman.

"Sec. 17. See that members are properly drilled in all that pertains to efficient fire duty and give special attention to the drill of substitutes and probationary members. * * *

"Article XVI. General Rules.

"Sec. 4. All members of the fire department shall perform such duties as may be required of them by the chief, his assistants, or the foreman of their respective companies, and shall wear such uniforms, caps, badges, and other insignia as the chief and the committee on fire department may direct."

"Article XVIII. Drill Practice.

"Sec. 1. Company drills will be regulated from department headquarters, and will be held at the school of instruction located at engine house No. 8."

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:

"From this date forward Lieut. H. V. Ishum is assigned as department drillmaster, and he will have complete charge of training and drilling the members of the department at the drill towers at the various stations. Whenever he deems it necessary to order members to the drill tower, he will do so. I want every man to obey his orders; for his orders are mine."

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

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT