Town of Wallingford v. Board of Ed. of Town of Wallingford
| Decision Date | 18 May 1965 |
| Citation | 210 A.2d 446,152 Conn. 568 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | The TOWN OF WALLINGFORD v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the TOWN OF WALLINGFORD et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Matthew G. Galligan, Wallingford, with whom was William H. Regan, Wallingford, for plaintiff.
J. Read Murphy, Hartford, with whom was James P. Sandler, for defendants.
William W. Sprague, Hartford, filed a brief as amicus curiae but did not argue the cause.
Before KING, C. J., and MURPHY, ALCORN, COMPLEY and SHANNON, JJ.
This action was brought on behalf of the town of Wallingford to enjoin its board of education from entering into a contract with a labor union fixing the conditions of employment of certain nonprofessional personnel and to enjoin the board from employing nonprofessional personnel in disregard of the civil service regulations of the town. The plaintiff also seeks a declaratory judgment determining whether the nonprofessional employees of the board of education are subject to the provisions of the town charter relating to civil service.
The parties have reserved the case on stipulated facts for the advice of this court on four questions. An answer to the fourth question, set forth in the footnote, 1 is determinative of all questions reserved. It should be noted with respect to that question that the plaintiff town makes no claim that the personnel director has any power to promulgate the civil service regulations. The portion of the question at issue is whether the personnel director may enforce the regulations as stated.
The agreed statement of facts incorporates, by reference, the full text of the Wallingford charter and the correspondence exchanged between the parties resulting in the litigation. The parties have agreed that the charter was enacted under the so-called Home Rule Act. General Statutes, C. 99. They have further agreed that chapter 11 of the charter creates a department of personnel and pensions and that chapter 14 establishes a classified service for municipal employees, which is administered by the personnel director. If we assume, as the parties have agreed, that Wallingford has legally adopted a civil service system for town employees, question four, briefly stated, is whether the board of education's nonprofessional personnel are outside the pale of that system.
The additional stipulated facts, as supplemented by the material portions of the documents incorporated by reference, disclose the following: Chapter 11 of the charter establishes a department of personnel and pensions which is authorized to provide for the appointment, promotion and removal of all personnel in the administrative service of the town, subject to rules and regulations adopted under the provisions of chapter 14. The head of the department is the personnel director, who is appointed, and may be removed, by the mayor. Howard K. Jones is the personnel director. The defendants are the members of the Wallingford board of education established under the General Statutes. Chapter 10 of the charter recognizes the board of education as the agency responsible for the conduct of the educational system of the town in accordance with the provisions of the charter. Chapter 14 of the charter provides, in § 1, that all officers and employees in the classified service of the town shall be appointed on the basis of merit and in conformity with recognized principles of personnel administration. Section 2 of that chapter provides that the classified service, under a plan to be initiated by the mayor and pursuant to personnel rules which he must cause to be prepared, shall include appointees to all positions now or hereafter created except, among others, 'professional employees of the board of education'. The parties have agreed that professional employees include 'superintendent, principals, administrators of teaching, teachers, nurses, guidance counselors and the like', while those included within the classified service are 'custodians, secretaries, cafeteria employees, etc.'
The personnel director advised the defendants, in substance, that under the charter future appointments of nonprofessional employees should be made in conformity with the rules and regulations of the personnel department. The defendants replied, in substance, that the sole responsibility for the employment of both professional and nonprofessional personnel resided with the board of education. On that premise, the defendants have negotiated a proposed contract with a labor union relating to hours, wages, holidays and vacations, sick leave, leaves of absence and seniority and grievance procedures covering employees of the board of education identified therein as 'custodians and matrons holding union membership'. The record fails to indicate what proportion of the nonprofessional employees within the agreed meaning of that term are embraced within the contract description of 'custodians and matrons holding union membership'.
The parties correctly concede that a municipality can exercise only those powers expressly granted to it or necessary to enable it to discharge its duties and carry out its objects and purposes. Bredice v. City of Norwalk, 152 Conn. 287, 292, 206 A.2d 433; Old Colony Gardens, Inc. v. City of Stamford, 147 Conn. 60, 62, 156 A.2d 515. The fact is not disputed that the town board of education is an agency of the state in charge of education in the town. Board of Education of Town of Ellington v. Town of Ellington, 151 Conn. 1, 6, 193 A.2d 466; State ex rel. Town of Huntington v. Huntington School Committee, 82 Conn. 563, 566, 74 A. 882. It is equally clear that, while the state has granted broad powers to local boards of education, those powers are not unlimited. Herzig v. Board of Education, 152 Conn. 144, 150, 204 A.2d 827.
The defendants claim that, since General Statutes, § 10-220 entrusts them with the 'care, maintenance and operation of buildings, lands, apparatus and other property used for school purposes', they necessarily have the unrestricted power to employ, on such terms as they deem fit, the personnel necessary to carry out those functions. They fail to mention that it would appear from § 10-203 that the control of town schoolhouses is recognized as resting in the hands of others than the board of education. It is to be noted, further, that no express power to employ persons to carry out their duties under § 10-220 is conferred on the board although other sections of the statutes do expressly empower them to employ certain personnel. § 10-21 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caulfield v. Noble
...yield to the superior power of the state. See Larke v. Morrissey, 155 Conn. 163, 174, 230 A.2d 562 (1967); Wallingford v. Board of Education, 152 Conn. 568, 574, 210 A.2d 446 (1965); Delinks v. McGowan, 148 Conn. 614, 623, 173 A.2d 488 (1961); Jennings v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 140 ......
-
Cahill v. Board of Ed. of City of Stamford
...A.2d 88 (42 Conn.L.J., No. 8, pp. 42, 43) (1980); Mase v. Meriden, 164 Conn. 65, 67, 316 A.2d 754 (1972); Wallingford v. Board of Education, 152 Conn. 568, 573-74, 210 A.2d 446 (1965); Keegan v. Thompson, 103 Conn. 418, 422-23, 130 A. 707 (1925). Thus, a local board of education is bound by......
-
Board of Education v. Naugatuck
...powers must yield to the superior power of the state when the two enter a field of statewide concern." Wallingford v. Board of Education, 152 Conn. 568, 574, 210 A.2d 446 (1965). Here, the borough's budget amendment intrudes into an area of statewide concern, public education, and conflicts......
-
Richards v. Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of Wilton
...as any of these powers are inconsistent with § 10-220, they must yield to the superior powers of the state. Wallingford v. Board of Education, 152 Conn. 568, 574, 210 A.2d 446; Sheehan v. Altschuler, 148 Conn. 517, 521, 172 A.2d 897. So long as the property is committed to school use, the c......