Title: Ex Parte City of Florence

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

417 So. 2d 191 (1982)
Ex parte CITY OF FLORENCE, Alabama, a Municipal Corporation, et al.
In re Britt HENDON, et al.
v.
CITY OF FLORENCE.
80-405.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
May 7, 1982.
Rehearing Denied June 11, 1982.
*192 Frank V. Potts of Potts, Young & Blasingame and Arnold Teks, Florence, for petitioners.
J. Wm. Thomason of Thomason & Russell, Bessemer, Clarence M. Small of Rives, Peterson, Pettus, Conway, Elliott & Small, Birmingham, Charles D. Rosser of Rosser & Munsey, Tuscumbia, for respondent.
EMBRY, Justice.
We granted the writ of certiorari in this case to review the reversal by the Court of Civil Appeals, 417 So. 2d 186, of a summary judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County against twenty-eight City of Florence police officers, who had appealed de novo to the circuit court their dismissal by the Civil Service Board of the City of Florence on charges filed against them by the Chief of Police of the City of Florence.
The Court of Civil Appeals determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact to prevent summary judgment as to: "(1) whether the policemen committed acts justifying adverse personnel action; (2) whether the terminations were motivated by a desire to suppress the policemen's First Amendment right of association with a union; and (3) whether the policemen were afforded procedural due process." However, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed summary judgment on the basis that the issue of punishment was a question for the jury, even though holding that the undisputed facts justified disciplinary action as a matter of law.
On certiorari, we are concerned only with whether the Court of Civil Appeals erred in reversing summary judgment on the issue of punishment. Although the briefs of the twenty-eight policemen address other issues decided below, those issues are not properly before this court.
Before addressing whether the issue of punishment precluded summary judgment against the police officers, we look to the underlying facts and progression of this case summarized by the Court of Civil Appeals, as follows:
The rationale employed by the Court of Civil Appeals in its determination that summary judgment was improper, was stated as follows:
The implied reference to the police chief's discretion to determine punishment, and the direct reference to the Civil Service Board's authority to substitute its judgment of appropriate punishment for that of the police chief, are more fully understood in light of an earlier passage in the opinion, which reads:
It is axiomatic that administrative rules and regulations must be consistent with the constitutional or statutory authority by which their promulgation is authorized. See C. Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 31.02 (4th ed. 1973), "A regulation... which operates to create a rule out of harmony with the statute, is a mere *194 nullity." Lynch v. Tilden Produce Co., 265 U.S. 315, 44 S. Ct. 488, 68 L. Ed. 1034 (1924). This is because an administrative board or agency is purely a creature of the legislature, and has only those powers conferred upon it by its creator. Woodruff v. Beeland, 220 Ala. 652, 127 So. 235 (1930).
The rules and regulations of the Police Department and the Civil Service Board, referred to supra, granting discretionary disciplinary authority to the Chief of Police and Civil Service Board respectively, must be examined in light of Act No. 437, Acts of Alabama 1947, the legislation which created the Civil Service Board of the City of Florence and placed the Police Department, among others, under its authority. The pertinent provisions of Act No. 437 read:
Of acute significance is the mandatory language of Section 14 which declares that any city employee governed by civil service rules "shall be dismissed" for a willful or culpably negligent violation of the provisions of the article. (It is quite apparent that the phrase "this article" is used synonymously with "this act" throughout Act No. 437.)
*195 The provisions of the act subject to violation include, as stated in Section 1, "good behavior, efficiency, and obedience to such reasonable rules and regulations as may, from time to time, be prescribed by the civil service board."
Consequently, when an individual governed by the act is found to have violated these rules and regulations "willfully or through culpable negligence," the mandatory punishment is dismissal from service with the city. To the extent that the rules and regulations in question purport to grant to the chief of police and Civil Service Board the discretionary authority to impose various types or degrees of punishment, those rules and regulations are void as in conflict with the provisions of Act No. 437, where it is found that the violation supporting disciplinary action was committed willfully or through culpable negligence.
This is not to say, however, that the chief of police and civil service board do not have discretionary power to determine appropriate punishment where there is a simple finding of a rules infraction, unaccompanied by a finding that the violation occurred willfully or through culpable negligence.
We note, nevertheless, that whatever discretionary powers of punishment the chief of police may possess, they do not include the authority to dismiss a police officer governed by the act. Such an individual may be dismissed from city service only when he or she has been "found guilty after a trial before the civil service board."
The last sentence of Section 1 states: "Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent or preclude the removal of any officer ... by the Civil Service Board in the manner hereinafter prescribed." The first sentence of Section 4 provides the board with authority to "make rules and regulations to carry out the purpose of this article, and for ... removals in accordance with its provisions...." It is fundamental that procedures by which disciplinary sanctions are imposed must comport with statutory requirements. C. Rhyne, The Law of Local Government Operations, § 13.14 (1980).
The remaining question is whether the twenty-eight police officers were dismissed for violations committed willfully or through culpable negligence. Regarding the actions of the police officers which gave rise to disciplinary measures against them, the Court of Civil Appeals found:
The Court of Appeals did not specifically address the question of whether the violations were committed willfully or through culpable negligence. However, because the evidence concerning the infractions is undisputed, we may examine the record for purposes of clarification and resolve that question.
In Life Insurance Company of Georgia v. Miller, 292 Ala. 525, 296 So. 2d 900 (1974), this court observed:
Concomitantly with its summary judgment, the trial court issued an outstanding memorandum opinion, which has been very helpful to our understanding and resolution of the issues presented. Excerpting from that memorandum opinion, we note the following findings of fact by the trial court, amplifying those of the appellate court:
It is clear from the undisputed evidence that the police officers' absence from work was, at some point, due to their willful refusal to return to work after being ordered to do so. By willfully refusing to return to work, each officer subjected himself to mandatory dismissal under Act 437.
With dismissal expressly required by the act, there was no issue of punishment to be considered by the civil service board, nor by the jury on de novo appeal to circuit court. Accordingly, the trial court correctly entered summary judgment because there was no genuine issue as to any material fact for the jury's determination. Campbell v. Alabama Power Co., 378 So. 2d 718 (Ala. 1979).
We wish to emphasize that our decision does not hinge on a reevaluation of the Court of Civil Appeals' findings of fact, but rather on a review of its application of law to the undisputed facts. As this court said in Life Insurance Company of Georgia v. Miller, supra:
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals is reversed and that court is hereby directed to enter its judgment consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TORBERT, C. J., and FAULKNER, JONES, SHORES, BEATTY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
MADDOX and ALMON, JJ., not sitting.