Case Title: Will v. City of Herington

Citation: 201 Kan. 627, 443 P.2d 667

Docket Number: 45,093

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1968-07-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
201 Kan. 627 (1968)
443 P.2d 667
MARVIN WILL, Appellee,
v.
THE CITY OF HERINGTON, KANSAS, (JOHN A. NAGELY, Mayor; D.C. MEULI, Commissioner of Finance & Revenue; LESTER B. BEAMES, Commissioner of Streets & Public Utilities), Appellant.
No. 45,093

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 13, 1968.
Thomas J. Butler, Jr., city attorney and Edwin G. Westerhaus, of Marion, argued the cause and were on the brief for the appellant.
John F. Christner, of Abilene, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HARMAN, C.:
This contest concerns a city's liability for compensation of a member of its police department.
Herington is a city of the second class with a mayor-commission form of government. Appellee Marvin Will, a resident of Herington, became a police officer of that city in the summer of 1965. On August 1, 1966, one Charles Edmonson, who had previously been appointed assistant chief of police, resigned. Edmonson had received a salary of $390.00 per month for that classification according to city ordinance. While serving in that position he wore a badge marked "Captain" and worked the shift from 7:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. There is no salary classification for captain under the city ordinances. Upon the resignation of Edmonson the chief of police gave the captain's badge to appellee. Appellee assumed the shift formerly worked by Edmonson and performed the same *628 duties including the exercise of authority over two patrolmen. The chief of police informed the city clerk that appellee's salary was to be raised to $390.00 per month, and after August 1, 1966, appellee was paid at this rate instead of at the lesser rate for a patrolman. At no time was appellee's promotion or pay increase brought before the city commission except for the fact the members did sign his increased paycheck.
On September 16, 1966, the chief of police, on instructions of the mayor, informed appellee he was fired from the police department. The chief gave appellee no reason for the discharge.
At a regular meeting of the city commission held September 20, 1966, the subject of appellee being a police officer came up. Commissioner Meuli testified that at this meeting he stated that if the chief of police and the mayor felt appellee should be relieved of his duties, then he would go along and confirm their action and at this point he left the meeting. He further testified that while he was present at the meeting no matter regarding the appellee was voted upon by the commission. The city clerk, who writes the minutes of the commission meetings, testified that at the September 20th meeting, she left the room and did not hear any motion made by Commissioner Meuli, nor did she know of any vote thereon. The minute record of that meeting recited the following:
At the September 27, 1966, meeting of the city commission the minutes of the September 20th meeting were read and approved.
Appellee did not seek other gainful employment from September 16, 1966, but was at all times thereafter ready, willing and able to return to work for the Herington police department if called upon to do so. Neither appellee nor Edmonson had ever taken an oath of office as assistant chief of police or furnished a bond therefor.
Appellee brought this action to regain his position as assistant chief and to obtain compensation for the period following September 15, 1966, until properly discharged. Issues were joined and trial had upon evidence presented by both sides. On March 28, *629 1967, the trial court held for appellee, ruling he was properly appointed to but improperly discharged from the office and decreeing he was entitled to pay at the rate of $390.00 until properly discharged. Appellee claims pay only to the period ending May 15, 1967.
The ultimate issues are the legality of appellee's appointment and removal, and we note first certain statutes and ordinances of the city.
Under K.S.A. Chapter 14, Cities of the Second Class, Part II, Commission Government, we find the following:
Section 1-101, Article I of Ordinance No. 742, entitled Appointive Officers, provides:
Section 1-102 of the same ordinance provides that every appointive officer of the city shall qualify for office by taking and subscribing to a prescribed oath of office, and that any person so appointed shall receive from the city clerk a certificate of appointment.
Section 1-103 provides:
Section 1-104 provides:
Section 1-105 provides that in case of any vacancy of an appointive office the board of commissioners shall by majority vote appoint some suitable person to fill the unexpired term.
Section 1-106 provides that the assistant chief of police shall furnish bond in the sum of $500.00.
The city points out that only a de jure officer is entitled to pay, citing several of our cases including Garfield Township v. Crocker, 63 Kan. 272, 65 Pac. 273, in which this court stated:
and further said:
The city also avers that, under our decisions, this rule is not restricted in its application to officers to the emoluments of which there are more than one claimant, again citing Garfield Township as well as later cases.
The city contends appellee was not a de jure officer, that at best he was only a de facto officer and as such cannot maintain an action *631 for compensation, arguing he could not become assistant chief of police without formal appointment by the city commission in compliance with K.S.A. 14-1504.
We dealt with a similar situation in Riggs v. City of Beloit, 199 Kan. 425, 429 P.2d 821. Beloit is a city of the second class with a mayor-council form of government. Riggs was appointed a police officer by the police chief of that city after consultation and with the consent of the mayor. He was furnished certain indicia of office and took an oath of office administered by the city clerk. At that time no formal action was taken by the city council confirming his appointment. He was not then a resident of Beloit but resided in a nearby town. Soon thereafter he moved to Beloit. From the time of his initial appointment he performed the duties of a police officer for Beloit. His salary as a patrolman was listed in the regular bimonthly payroll ordinances which were approved by the mayor and adopted by unanimous vote of all councilmen. He received seven checks pursuant to these ordinances. He was summarily discharged by the chief of police due to a personality clash between the two officers. He was not accorded a hearing by the mayor and council. In Riggs' action for salary for the remainder of his term the city contended he had never been a de jure officer for want of formal appointment by the governing body. This court rejected the contention, holding that the applicable statutes prescribed no particular requirement or formal method as to how the mayor shall appoint or the consent of the councilmen shall be given, and further, that no formal method was prescribed with respect to the entry of such appointment on the journals of the city. Riggs was held to be a de jure officer, upon the basis that the payroll ordinances constituted his appointment by the mayor by and with the consent of the city council, in substantial compliance with the applicable statute.
We think the rationale of Riggs pertinent and should control as to appellee's appointment here  he likewise was paid as assistant chief of police by the city's governing body, the appointing authority. The statutory language governing mayor-council cities of the second class differs somewhat from that of mayor-commission cities of the second class, but the difference is nonessential. Each provides for appointment by the governing body. As aptly said in Riggs, "... the important question is the substance of the matter and not mere form and ceremony of the governing body." (p. 428.)
It must be noted in Riggs the city clerk administered an oath of *632 office and that appellee here took no oath and furnished no bond as prescribed by ordinance. The city further contends this omission is fatal to appellee's cause.
In Mechem's Public Offices and Officers, § 255, p. 163, respecting oaths of office, it is stated:
Comment was made on the point in Bailey v. Turner, 108 Kan. 856, 197 Pac. 214:
In State, ex rel., v. Matassarin, 114 Kan. 244, 217 Pac. 930, this court, concerned with the effect of failure of a public appointee to file his oath of office, said:
The record is silent as to the circumstances of appellee's failure to file oath and bond but, at least, there is no indication the omission was due to any intentional or conscious neglect on his part. Apparently, in the mode of his predecessor, he assumed the duties of the office in good faith.
The ordinances contain no provision that such omission shall operate as a forfeiture of the office or create a vacancy and the city took no steps to have a forfeiture declared or oust appellee for such failure. Under all the circumstances we hold appellee was a de jure officer.
We turn now to the legality of appellee's removal from office. The city contends its action complied with K.S.A. 14-1503 in that under the last sentence thereof a chief of police may, with the consent of the board of commissioners, discharge any subordinate under his direction for neglect of duty or disobedience of his orders. Unquestionably, where the facts warrant, a chief of police has this power; however, under the record here, that authority was never exercised. To permit the city later to cloak the discharge *633 under a different guise would do violence to the stipulated facts that the chief of police discharged appellee upon instructions of the mayor, with no reason being given.
According to section 1-101 of city ordinance 742 the city's assistant chief of police is an appointive officer (such appointment being authorized by K.S.A. 14-1501), as distinguished from a mere employee. The first sentence of K.S.A. 14-1503 provides that the board of commissioners may remove an appointive officer for cause. The same proviso appears in section 1-104 of the ordinance. Hence the question seems to be whether appellee was in fact properly removed for cause.
In Wichita Council v. Security Benefit Ass'n, 138 Kan. 841, 28 P.2d 976, this court was concerned with a proviso authorizing action "for cause," and said:
And in Riggs v. City of Beloit, supra, this court ruled that the statute applicable to removal of police officers in cities of the second class with mayor-council form of government (K.S.A. 14-822) contemplated a hearing and that a de jure police officer was entitled to a hearing before the governing body prior to discharge. Although the statutory language with which we are concerned here is somewhat different, again we see no reason for making a distinction between mayor-council and mayor-commission form of government for second-class cities in the removal of a police officer. Each statute authorizes removal action by the respective governing bodies for good cause, thus a hearing is indicated.
The veracity of the minutes of the commission's September 20th meeting, brought into question, is not of great import. Taking the minutes at face value, and disregarding their contradiction found in the testimony, it is clear appellee was never accorded the requisite charge, notice or hearing prior to discharge. The minutes do evidence the only action taken by the governing body in its consideration *634 of appellee's removal. Hence appellee's removal must be held to be ineffectual and his discharge unlawful.
Finally, the city contends the trial court erred in failing to consider lack of mitigation of damages by appellee because he did not seek other gainful employment after his purported discharge so as to lessen his damages. It cites familiar law applicable to breach of contract and trespass cases to the effect that one is bound, as far as reasonably possible, to reduce his damage. This action is distinguishable from that line of cases. Breach of contract is not involved and the action is not one for damages. Rather, it is one based upon an officer's statutory right to his office. If lawfully entitled to the office, the right to compensation attached to the office and may be recovered in full regardless of any service rendered or of earnings elsewhere in other employment, dependent, of course, upon the officer's ability and willingness to perform in the office. In Riggs we approved a judgment granting compensation to the officer for the remainder of the term for which he was appointed.
The trial court correctly ruled as to appellee's compensation and its judgment is affirmed.
APPROVED BY THE COURT.