State v. Kansas City

• Decision Date: 06 March 1923
• Docket Number: No. 14573.,14573.
• Citation: 250 S.W. 927,213 Mo. App. 349
• Parties: STATE ex rel. RAWLINGS v. KANSAS CITY at al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

250 S.W. 927

213 Mo. App. 349

STATE ex rel. RAWLINGS v. KANSAS CITY at al.

No. 14573.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 6, 1923.

Rehearing Denied April 2, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Thad B. Landon, Judge.

Application by the State, on the relation of James W. Rawlings, for writ of mandamus, against Kansas City and others. A peremptory writ was issued, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

John B. Pew, F. M. Hayward, M. A. Fyke, and George Kingsley, all of Kansas City, for appellants.

John I. Williamson and Park & Brown, all of Kansas City, for respondent.

TRIMBLE, P. J.

Relator seeks, by mandamus, to compel the proper authorities of Kansas City to restore him to, and pay him the salary of, a position he held in the water department, under the city charter's civil service law. The trial court found for him, and, on October 15, 1921, issued the peremptory writ commanding that he be restored to his position and paid the salary thereof from June 15, 1918, the date he was discharged, to the date of his restoration. The city and its authorities at once appealed.

Relator, from 14 years of age, had worked as helper in a plumbing shop. He became a journeyman plumber at 19, and at 24 he was the inspector of plumbing in the National Waterworks Company, the then owner of the waterworks of Kansas City and was the only inspector of plumbing the company had. Upon the city's purchase of the waterworks in September, 1895, relator moved his office to the city hall and continued there in the same position he had held before. On or about June 1, 1911, his position was called "inspector of new plumbing" and on June 24th of that year he took the civil service examination for that position, receiving a grade of 96.4 per cent. which gave him first rank, and his name was certified for appointment, and he was duly appointed, under the civil service regulations, to said position at a salary of $1,020 per year, and in which he performed the same duties as before.

Afterwards, the board of fire and water commissioners, pursuant to section 3, art. 11, of the Charter of Kansas City, created the position of assistant chief inspector in the inspection division of the waterworks, and authorized the assessor and collector of water rates to appoint and employ a man to fill said position subject to civil service regulations. Relator stood the civil service examination for this newly created position, received the highest grade, was certified for appointment, and on August 6, 1913, was regularly and duly appointed assistant chief inspector and as such assumed part charge of the inspection division of the waterworks system, a Mr. Long being chief inspector. The evidence is that there was no difference in the duties of the chief inspector and the assistant chief inspector. They performed the duties of the office jointly. Shortly thereafter, however, Mr. Long seems to have left the water department, and, when he did so, relator continued to perform the same duties as before, except that he was now in full charge of the inspection division, the assessor and collector of water rates having directed him to take fall charge thereof. Under section 6, art. 11, of the Charter, the fire and water board appoints the assessor and collector of water rates, and he appoints, subject to civil service laws, such employés under him as the board authorizes.

Afterward the fire and water board, on or before September 25, 1914, passed a resolution making a general schedule of the number, grade, and compensation of the agents and employés in the water department. In the inspection division, this schedule made no provision for the position of either assistant chief inspector or chief inspector, by those names, but did provide for one "deputy assessor" at a salary of $1,200 per year and other employés. The city council, by ordinance, duly approved this schedule on September 25, 1914. This action on the part of the fire and water board did not create a new office but merely changed the name of the position of chief inspector to that of deputy assessor. That the fire and water board so recognized it will be shown a little later on. That the civil service commission regarded it as a mere change of title in the office is shown by the fact that, on its card containing its record of relator, it noted "title changed by ordinance to deputy assessor 9-25-14," which last was the date of the ordinance above mentioned.

On or prior to June 2, 1916, the fire and water board again made provision as before for one "deputy assessor," but at a salary of $1,500 per year, which was concurred in and approved by the council on that date, and again the civil service board noted on Rawlings' record card: "Salary raised by' ordinance 6-2-16 to $1,500." On or prior to June 19, 1917, the fire and water board, in a similar general schedule, again provided for the inspection division one "chief inspector or deputy assessor," this time raising his salary to $1,800 per year, which the council approved on that date, and likewise the same was noted by the civil service board on relator's card. Again, on or before, March 19, 1918, the fire and water board, in another general schedule, provided for the inspection division one "chief inspector or deputy assessor" at a salary of $2,160 per year, and the raise in salary was noted as before by the civil service board on its card of relator's record, together with the date of the ordinance approving the schedule. Relator was recognized by all the authorities over him, or having aught to do with him, as chief inspector or deputy assessor; pay rolls were made out, certified to and duly honored, bearing his name as deputy assessor; the inspection division was under the jurisdiction of the assessor of water rates, and hence the name of the position, which was not changed in the least as to duties, could be called, and was called, "deputy assessor" instead of chief inspector, and occasionally it was termed "chief inspector or deputy assessor."

Some time in June, 1918, relator was called into the assessor's office and was told another man would be put in his place. Relator asked if there was any complaint of anything wrong with his work, and was told there was not, that "it was politics," and that the assessor had done all he could to prevent his discharge. We do not find any denial of this in the record, but, no matter whether there is or not, the trial court found that relator "was removed and discharged from his said position because of political beliefs and opinions, and such discharge was in direct violation of the express provisions of the charter of Kansas City." The returns to the alternative writ stated, and there was some attempt to show, that relator was told at the time of his discharge that it was because a "practical plumber" was required, but it is conceded that no inquiry was made by the assessor to ascertain whether or not relator had been or was a practical plumber.

Section 17 of article 15 of the charter requires a vacancy to be reported to the civil service board, but there is no evidence that any such report of a vacancy in the chief inspectorship was made, nor was any vacancy reported when the position was named deputy assessor. However, after relator was discharged, the fire and water board, on June 18, 1918, adopted another schedule providing for one "chief inspector (inspection division)" at a salary of $2,160 per year, which was approved by ordinance of that date, and on the relator's card in the records of the civil service board was indorsed "position abolished by ordinance 6-18-18" when the city clerk so certified to the civil service board. The evidence shows, and the trial court so found, that the duties of the position thus renamed "chief inspector (inspection division)" remained the same as those of chief inspector or deputy assessor. Indeed there was no attempt or effort whatever to affect or change the duties, and the trial court found that the "position of chief inspector or deputy assessor, filled by relator prior to the 15th of nine, 1918, and from which relator was wrongfully discharged, was not abolished by ordinance or ordinances of the common council of Kansas City," and that, after the discharge of relator, another was appointed who had the same work and duties as relator had when filling the position of deputy assessor or chief inspector.

The assessor, after the discharge relator, filled the place by appointing another man; and some two or three weeks after relator's discharge the new appointee was given a noncompetitive examination and a provisional appointment for 60 days and later he took the civil service examination and was certified by the board to the position of chief inspector.

After his discharge on June 23, 1918, relator "stayed around" the office for several weeks, and for some months was led to believe by the assessor and a member of the water board that there was a chance of his being reinstated and that they were doing what they could to bring that about or to make a place for him. When relator became convinced that there was no hope of the authorities reinstating him, this suit was brought on the 31st of March, 1919.

There can be no doubt, and there is indeed no question, but that article 15 of the Charter, adopted by the people of Kansas City, has provided a complete civil service law governing the tenure of positions held by city employés, including the one to which relator seeks to be reinstated. Nor is it necessary to state the object and purpose of the civil service laws, or to reiterate that such laws are for the good of the public service. That is already firmly established. Gracey v. St. Louis, 213 Mo. 384, 393, 111 S. W. 1159; State ex rel. v. Kansas City, 206 Mo. App. 17, 25, 226 S. W. 986. It follows, therefore, that in a case like this, which has to do with the application and enforcement of the law, courts have only two main questions to...