Tisdale v. Clay
Decision Date | 12 November 1998 |
Docket Number | No. 97-CA-01076-SCT.,97-CA-01076-SCT. |
Parties | William M. TISDALE v. Wilchie CLAY, Willie A. Cook, Cloyd Garth and Dee Riley, Serving as Aldermen of the City of Aberdeen in Their Individual Wards. |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Jan P. Patterson, Aberdeen, Claude A. Chamberlain, for Appellant.
Dewitt T. Hicks, Jr., Columbus, for Appellees.
Before PITTMAN, P.J., and JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr. and SMITH, JJ.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
¶ 1. The appellant, William M. Tisdale (hereinafter "Mayor"), along with Robert D. Patterson, City Attorney at the time, and Kelly Tucker, one of the five members of the Board of Aldermen, filed suit for declaratory judgment against the appellees, Wilchie Clay, Willie A. Cook, Cloyd Garth and Dee Riley, the other four members of the Board of Aldermen (hereinafter "Aldermen"). Robert D. Patterson withdrew from the case before trial and Alderman Kelly Tucker declined to join in the appeal.
¶ 2. In his complaint for declaratory judgment, Mayor cited a dispute between Mayor and Aldermen as to which had the power to appoint the persons to serve as city attorney, municipal judge, public defender, and the subordinate officers and department leaders of the City, and which had the authority to exercise direct supervisory control over the City employees and supervisors in each department, and which had the responsibility for the operations of the City. He asked the court to declare that Aberdeen's Special Charter, enacted in 1854, gives that authority to Mayor. Aldermen answered that Aldermen, not Mayor, have the prerogative and duty under the City Charter to appoint the city attorney, the city judge and public defender, as well as the other subordinate officers.
¶ 3. The three Chancellors of the First Judicial District recused themselves and this Court subsequently appointed Honorable Bill Lutz, Chancellor of the Eleventh Chancery Court District, to preside and conduct the proceedings in this case.
¶ 4. After being advised by counsel for Mayor and for Aldermen that there were no issues of fact to be determined by the Court, Chancellor Lutz requested simultaneous briefs from both sides on the issues of law, stipulation of facts, and a stipulation of what to include in the trial record. Counsel for both sides agreed that the entire court file, the stipulations to Chancellor Lutz, and the simultaneous briefs of Counsel would comprise the record.
¶ 5. On August 14, 1997, Chancellor Lutz filed his Opinion and Judgment in which he held that the City Council, which consists of Mayor and Aldermen, have the authority to appoint the city attorney, city judge, public defender and any other subordinate officer the Council determines is appropriate, and that the Council has the authority to establish the term of office for each officer. The Chancellor further held that the Mayor has the authority to appoint a replacement should a subordinate officer be unable to complete the term established for that subordinate office.
¶ 6. Aggrieved, Mayor filed this notice of appeal. Mayor raises four issues on appeal:
¶ 7. This Court will address each of these issues in turn. The standard of review in the present case is de novo. This Court in Stevenson v. Stevenson, 579 So.2d 550, 553 (Miss.1991) (quoting Planters Bank & Trust Co. v. Sklar, 555 So.2d 1024, 1028 (Miss. 1990)), stated, "[w]hen the determination is one of law rather than fact, `the familiar manifest error/substantial evidence rule does not prevent this Court from conducting a de novo review of the chancellor's finding.'"
I. WHETHER SECTION 21 OF THE SPECIAL CHARTER OF THE CITY OF ABERDEEN GRANTS TO THE MAYOR THE USUAL POWERS INHERENT IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT AS SET OUT IN ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION OF 1890.
¶ 9. The Chancellor correctly states that § 21 of the Special Charter of Aberdeen gives the Mayor the power to appoint subordinate officers only to fill a vacancy of an officer who was properly appointed by the city council but then fails to serve out his full term. Furthermore, the City of Aberdeen in April of 1958 passed Council Resolution No. 246 which expressly provided that:
The city council shall annually appoint the said city attorney or attorney at law for the municipality for a term to expire not later than the first Tuesday of May of each year, prescribe his duties, and fix his compensation as provided by law.
¶ 10. The Mayor argues that when the Charter states that he has "power to fill all vacancies that may occur in the subordinate offices of the City" that it implies the Mayor's power of appointment to any offices not specifically granted to the council. This is an incorrect reading of the City of Aberdeen Special Charter because the Charter specifically gives such power to the city council, not the Mayor. Section 8 of the Special Charter of Aberdeen grants the city council, "to be constituted by said mayor and selectmen," the power to appoint a city clerk, assistant Marshall for keeping order, tax assessor, tax collector, treasurer, city surveyor, "and appoint such...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tallahatchie Valley Electric Power Association v. MISS. PROPANE GAS …
...evidence rule does not prevent this Court from conducting a de novo review of the chancellor's finding.'" Tisdale v. Clay, 728 So.2d 1084, 1085 (Miss.1998) (quoting Stevenson v. Stevenson, 579 So.2d 550, 552-53 DISCUSSION I. WHETHER TVEPA EXCEEDED ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY BY ACQUIRING AN INT......
-
Myers v. City of McComb
...or suggest otherwise, including In re Grant, 631 So.2d 758 (Miss.1994), Jordan, 669 So.2d at 752 (plurality opinion), and Tisdale v. Clay, 728 So.2d 1084 (Miss.1998).5 ¶ 20. "[T]here is no natural law of separation of powers. Rather, the powers of government are separate only insofar as the......
-
Jordan v. McAdams
...suits to settle disputes between mayors and city councils. We are aware of similar reported Mississippi cases. See, e.g., Tisdale v. Clay, 728 So. 2d 1084 (Miss. 1998), overruled in part on other grounds by Myers v. City of McComb, 943 So. 2d 1, 6 (¶19) (Miss. 2006); Jordan v. Smith, 669 So......
-
Tisdale v. City Council of City of Aberdeen, 2002-CA-00182-SCT.
...evidence rule does not prevent this Court from conducting a de novo review of the [trial judge's] findings." Tisdale v. Clay, 728 So.2d 1084, 1086 (Miss.1998) ("Tisdale I"). DISCUSSION ¶ 6. Art. 4, § 88, Miss. Const., The legislature shall pass general laws, under which local and private in......