Webb v. Dorlac

• Decision Date: 03 March 1924
• Docket Number: 10562.
• Citation: 75 Colo. 49,224 P. 220
• Parties: WEBB et al. v. DORLAC, City Auditor.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

224 P. 220

75 Colo. 49

WEBB et al. v. DORLAC, City Auditor.

No. 10562.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

March 3, 1924

Error to District Court, El Paso County; Arthur Cornforth, Judge.

Mandamus proceeding by Rueben M. Webb and others against Leo A Dorlac, as Auditor of the City of Colorado Springs. From a judgment denying the writ, plaintiffs bring error.

Reversed and remanded.

Samuel H. Kinsley and Leon H. Snyder, both of Colorado Springs, for plaintiffs in error.

P. M Kistler, of Colorado Springs, for defendant in error.

TELLER C.J.

The city of Colorado Springs is operating under a charter adopted by the people under the authority of article 20 of the state Constitution. In April, 1921, at a general municipal election in said city, an initiated ordinance was adopted by which the compensation of the members of the police department of the city was fixed. In January, 1922, the city council, on its own motion, submitted at a special municipal election an ordinance repealing the ordinance first mentioned, and it was adopted. Thereafter the council, by ordinance, fixed the compensation of police officers at a lower rate than that prescribed by the first mentioned ordinance. The plaintiffs in error, police officers, sought by mandamus to compel the auditor of the city to issue warrants for salaries at the rate fixed in the ordinance of April 1921. The trial court denied the writ, holding that the first mentioned ordinance was void, because the council alone had the right to fix the salaries of the officers in question.

The court relied upon section 132 of the Charter, which provides that, 'except as herein otherwise provided, the council shall by ordinance, fix the compensation of salaried employees etc.' The court was of the opinion that the exception 'as otherwise provided' referred to the board of directors of the public library, and the park commission, both boards being, by sections 61 and 62, respectively, continued in power, with the functions and duties established by the statutes.

The statutes to which the charter refers provide that park commissioners and directors of public libraries shall receive no compensation; they are therefore not salaried employees, and cannot be supposed to have been included in the exception in section 132. The exception must apply to some other provision of the charter, and there is nothing to which it is applicable except the provisions hereinafter discussed.

The matter of submitting ordinances to a vote is covered by article 15 of the Charter, which includes sections 120 to 128, inclusive. Section 121 requires the council either to pass without alteration, subject to a referendary vote, any ordinance proposed by a petition signed by at least 15 per cent. of the voters, or to call a special or a general municipal election, at which such proposed ordinance shall be submitted.

Section 122 has to do with proposed ordinances submitted by a petition of not less than 5 per cent. nor more than 15 per cent. of the voters. An ordinance thus proposed is to be submitted at the next general municipal election occurring not less than 30 days thereafter.

Manifestly, these sections are intended to govern in the matter of submitting ordinances generally.

Section 127 covers a special subject. It provides that----

'The council may submit a proposition for the repeal or amendment of any ordinance so adopted by electoral vote, to be voted upon at any succeeding general municipal election, and should such proposition so submitted receive a majority of the votes cast...