Terry v. Civil Service Commission
| Decision Date | 29 January 1952 |
| Citation | 108 Cal.App.2d 861,240 P.2d 691 |
| Parties | TERRY et al. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al. Civ. 14795. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Dion R. Holm, City Atty., City and County of San Francisco, Norman Sanford Wolff, Deputy City Atty., San Francisco, for appellants.
Adams & Reynolds, John Adams, Jr. and R. J. Reynolds, all of San Francisco, for respondents.
Respondents, citizens of the United States and residents of San Francisco for over nine years, were denied the right to take a civil service examination for playground director solely because they were not graduates of one of the limited number of colleges accredited by the Civil Service Commission. The commission, by rule, has provided that only graduates of certain designated colleges can qualify to take the examination. The day before this particular examination was to be given the respondents applied to the trial court for an alternative writ of mandate. The writ was issued and, at the same time, the trial court ordered the commission to permit the five respondents to take the examination, pending further orders of the court. Pursuant to this order the respondents were permitted to take the examination. Several months later the hearing on the writ was had, and, at its conclusion, the judge gave it as his opinion that the challenged rule was arbitrary, unreasonable and void, and ordered findings prepared accordingly. Before the findings were signed, the examination papers were graded and it was discovered that all five of the respondents had failed to make a passing grade. The commission thereupon moved to dismiss on the ground that the proceeding was moot. The motion was denied, and a judgment granting the peremptory writ was entered. The judgment declares that the rule in question is 'arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory as between residents and citizens of San Francisco * * * with substantially equal educational qualifications' and that its adoption by the commission constituted an abuse of discretion. The commission appeals, contending that its accreditation rule, as a matter of law and fact, is fair and reasonable, and that the finding to the contrary is totally unsupported. The commission also contends, as it did before the trial court, that, since respondents failed in the examination, the entire proceeding is moot.
Facts:
The Civil Service Commission announced that on April 8, 1949, an examination would be given for the position of playground director. In its official scope circular the duties of that position were described as follows:
The minimum requirements for this position were fixed by the commission and set forth in its circular as follows:
'Minimum Requirements: Either
'1. Graduation from a university* or college* which shall have included courses or extra-curricular work which indicates an interest or aptitude for recreation work. Applicants shall state on the application blank the nature of their university work which indicates such interest in recreation work; or
'2. Two years of college* education, and at least one year of first class paid experience within the last five years as a playground director or in related recreational work.
'3. Successful completion of the two-year college course in recreational leadership given by the City College of San Francisco.
'* University or college education to be acceptable must be in universities or colleges on the accepted list of the Association of American Universities, or the Northwest Association of Secondary and Higher Schools.'
It was stipulated that each of the respondents filed an application, in proper form, to take the examination in question; that with each application there was filed an official transcript of the applicant's record indicating that each applicant was a graduate of a university or college, and that each had taken such courses and had participated in extra-curricular work as to indicate 'an interest or aptitude for recreation work' as set forth in the circular. It was further stipulated that the respondents' applications were denied and that such denial was based solely on the fact that the colleges and universities from which respondents graduated were not on the list accredited by the Association of American Universities or the Northwest Association of Secondary and Higher Schools.
It should be here pointed out that the list of accredited colleges published by the Association of American Universities is a 'dead' list for the reason that that association ceased to publish such a list in 1948.
The examination announcement was released by the commission in February of 1949. The parties stipulated that at that time there were five regional associations that accredited colleges and universities within their respective areas, and that such associations were:
The North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools;
The Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools;
The New England Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools;
The Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools;
The Northwest Association of Secondary and Higher Schools.
It was further stipulated that each of respondents is a citizen and resident of San Francisco, and is a graduate of a college or university that is an accredited member of the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools.
The stipulation then sets forth a table showing the number of colleges and universities accredited by the regional associations, and the number in each region accredited up to 1948 by the Association of American Universities. The substance of this table is that, in all but the New England association, there are substantially more schools accredited by the regional associations than were formerly accredited by the national one. The northwest association is limited to colleges in California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Alaska.
It was stipulated that 336 persons applied to take the examination here involved, that 208 qualified and that 188, exclusive of the five respondents, actually took the examination.
The evidence establishes, without contradiction, that there is little or no difference in the standards used by the five regional associations to accredit colleges and that, in educational circles, the accreditations are inter-changeable. Herman A. Spindt, Director of Admissions of the University of California at Berkeley, so testified. He further testified that the University of California accepts the judgment of any of these regional associations in admitting students. P. F. Valentine, Dean of Instruction of San Francisco State College, and chairman of a committee that determines the admission policies of that school, agreed with Spindt, and further testified that his school accepts students from other accredited schools on an equal basis. It was his opinion that there was no reason to discriminate between the accredited schools of the various associations. He stated that he was familiar with the accreditation standards of the southern association and of the northwest association and that there was no substantial difference between the standards adopted by each. There was other evidence that other groups accept the regional associations' recommendations inter-changeably.
William L. Henderson, Personnel Director and Executive Secretary of the Civil Service Commission, testified that the duties of playground director as set forth in the scope circular have been the same for the past twenty years, but that the 'Minimum Requirements' have been changed. Upon until 1947 the requirement was 'graduation from a recognized university or college with major work in recreation, physical education, sociology or child psychology.' Henderson testified further that the requirement that the applicant must be a graduate of a college accredited by either the national association or the northwest association was added after the 1947 examination for this position, and was added at his suggestion. He attempted to justify the limitation to colleges accredited by these two associations on the ground that the commission, in the past, had occasionally run into difficulty in determining what was a 'recognized university or college' within the meaning of the old rule. He felt that a fixed standard was needed so that the nature of the educational requirement would be clearly indicated. He also felt that a sufficient number of San Francisco citizens could qualify under the new rule so as to assure sufficient applicants for the available jobs. Thus, he gave two reasons for the new rule. Expressed in his own language these two reasons were: 'One, we wanted to establish a definite fixed standard which everyone would understand and we could administer and, secondly, we wanted to assure adequate competition by qualified persons.' He finally explained: 'Now, we had to draw the line somewhere and we drew it at that point.'
Henderson stated that graduates in the northwest area included the bulk of all applicants, but he admitted that he had made no population or other studies in reference to the problem. Prior to the war, according to Henderson, eighty per cent of the persons in the municipal service, who had to be college graduates, came from the five colleges located around San Francisco Bay. Henderson had no idea how many citizens of San Francisco were graduates of colleges outside the northwest area. He was of the opinion that about half the colleges of the United States would be included...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Voices of Wetlands v. State Water Res. Bd.
...process is rendered moot simply because the challenged proceedings were undertaken and completed. (Cf., Terry v. Civil Service Commission (1952) 108 Cal.App.2d 861, 871-872, 240 P.2d 691 [mandamus proceedings to enforce petitioners' right to take civil service examination were not rendered ......
-
Cooperrider v. Civil Service Com.
...1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600) and the right to apply for public service positions without invidious discrimination. (Terry v. Civil Service Commission, 108 Cal.App.2d 861, 870, 240 P.2d 691.) As to the right to travel, the Commission relies on Ector v. City of Torrance, supra, 10 Cal.3d 129, 109 Ca......
-
Lucchesi v. City of San Jose
...unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown or there has been arbitrary, fraudulent or capricious conduct (Terry v. Civil Service Commission, 108 Cal.App.2d 861, 240 P.2d 691; Almassy v. L. A. County Civil Service Com., 34 Cal.2d 387, 210 P.2d 503; California Assn. of Professional Employees......
-
Di Giorgio Fruit Corp. v. Department of Employment
...Comm., 34 Cal.2d 387, 390, 210 P.2d 503; Kirstowsky v. Superior Court, 143 Cal.App.2d 745, 749, 300 P.2d 163; Terry v. Civil Service Commission, 108 Cal.App.2d 861, 872, 240 [56 Cal.2d 59] P.2d 691; Rattray v. Scudder, 67 Cal.App.2d 123, 127-128, 153 P.2d The Wagner-Peyser Act, enacted in 1......