Sussex County Mun. Utilities Authority, Matter of

• Decision Date: 18 January 1985
• Citation: 486 A.2d 932,198 N.J.Super. 214
• Parties: In the Matter of SUSSEX COUNTY MUNICIPAL UTILITIES AUTHORITY.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 214

198 N.J.Super. 214

486 A.2d 932

In the Matter of SUSSEX COUNTY MUNICIPAL UTILITIES AUTHORITY.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division.

Argued Sept. 26, 1984.

Decided Jan. 18, 1985.

Edward J. Buzak, Montville, argued the cause for appellant, Sussex County Municipal Utilities Authority (Edward J. Buzak and Valerie K. Bollheimer, Montville, on the brief).

Lewis A. Scheindlin, Deputy Atty. Gen., argued the cause for respondent, Civil Service Commission (Irwin I. Kimmelman, Atty. Gen. of N.J., attorney; James J. Ciancia, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel; Lewis A. Scheindlin, on the brief).

Before Judges FRITZ, GAULKIN and LONG.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

FRITZ, P.J.A.D.

This appeal requires a determination of the narrow question as to whether a county municipal utilities authority is subject to the statutory provisions governing civil service. The Civil Service Commission, affirming a determination of the Director of the Division of Local Government Services, answered this inquiry in the affirmative. The Authority appeals, asserting that proper interpretation of N.J.S.A. 40:14B-1 et seq., the municipal and county utilities authorities law, removes such authorities from the civil service umbrella. It argues further that the provisions of N.J.S.A. 11:1-1 et seq., the civil service law, "cannot be made applicable to the ... Authority as a consequence of the Authority's relationship to the County of Sussex." We now affirm.

The competing entities here are both creatures of statute. In such case it is our obligation to discern the intent of the Legislature--the only source of the authority of each--respecting the question at hand and on that basis announce our conclusion. The standards and guidelines for statutory construction are myriad and have been the subject of as many notable opinions as there are individual canons. One postulate stands out among all these: If the intention of the Legislature is apparent from the words used, i.e., the plain meaning of the statute involved, then the statute is not open to construction or interpretation, "and to do so in a case where not required is to do violence to the doctrine of the separation of powers." Watt v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Franklin, 21 N.J. 274, 277, 121 A.2d 499 (1956).

We are persuaded that that injunction applies here. We are convinced that the words used by the Legislature in N.J.S.A. 40:14B-18 clearly manifest an intent that, other than with respect to those specifically excepted thereby, appointees and employees of utilities authorities should be subject to the provisions of the civil service statutes.

The cited statute is as follows:

40:14B-18. Election of officers; appointment of employees

Every municipal authority, upon the first appointment of its members and thereafter on or after February 1 in each year, shall annually elect from among its members a chairman and a vice-chairman who shall hold office until February 1 next ensuing and until their respective successors have been appointed and have qualified. Every municipal authority may also appoint and employ, full- or part-time, without regard to the provisions of Title 11 of the Revised Statutes, a secretary, an executive director, managerial personnel, technical advisers and experts, professional employees, and persons who shall render professional services as set forth in section 5 of P.L.1971, c. 198 (C. 40A:11-5) as the authority may determine necessary for its efficient operations, and it shall determine their qualifications, terms of office, for periods not to exceed 5 years, duties and compensation and enter into contracts therefor, for periods not to exceed 5 years, as it deems necessary. Such municipal authority may also appoint and employ such other agents and employees as it may require and determine their duties and compensation. The provisions of this section with regard to terms shall not apply to the positions of general counsel and consulting engineer.

Had the Legislature intended that the utilities authorities were in no wise to be subject to the civil service laws, language exempting certain positions from "the provisions of Title 11 of the Revised Statutes" would have been unnecessary and would be superfluous. Without particular regard for the honored maxim inclusio unius est exclusio alterius we note with respect the established proposition that "legislative language must not, if reasonably avoidable, be found to be...