I N TH E CO UR T OF A PP EALS S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA D I V I S I O N T WO
B A R B A R A L a W A L L , P im a C o u n ty A t t o r n e y, Pl ai nt i ff/A ppel l ee,

v. PI M A C OU NTY M ERI T SYSTEM C O M M IS S IO N ; G E O R G IA BR OUS S E AU, Ch a i r ma n ; M I KE HELLO N, RI CH AR D H UFF, M AN UEL M E D IN A , an d M IK E M IN C H E F F , in t heiroff i ci al capac i t i es,

D efen dan t s/A pp el l ants , and J O A N N SC A M M O N , a s i ngl e w om an,

R e a l P a rtyin In ter e st/A p p e llan t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- C V 2005- 0140

DEPA RTM ENT B O P I N I O N

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERI OR CO UR T OF PI M A C OU NTY

C aus e N o. C
- 20053047 H onor abl e C arm i ne C or nel i o, J udge REV ERSED A ND REM AN DED M A R 15 2 006 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWOP im a C o u n tyM e rit S y ste m R u le 1 2 o u tli n e s a th re e -ste p p ro c e d u re f o r th e c o u n tyto 1 t erm i nat e an e m pl oy ee. T he empl oy ee i s fi r s tgi ven a not i ce of i nt entt o t erm i nat e, aft er w hi ch ther e mustbe a pr e- act i on m eet i ng betw een the s upervi s orand the empl oy ee, fol l ow ed b y a n o rd e r o f te rm in a tio n , w h ic h th e e m p lo y e e m a ya p p e a l to th e C o m m is s io n . See M e rit S y s . R . 1 2 , a v a ila b le a t ht tp: //w w w . pi m a. gov/hr/pdf/ M er i t R ul es . pdf. 2 B arbar a LaW al l , Pi m a C ount yA t t or ney B yL es l i e K
. L ynch
Co r e y& K i me B yB a rryM . C o re ya n d Ja so n E . S m ith
J oann Scamm on T ucs on A t t or ney s forPl ai nt i ff/A ppel l ee
T ucs on A tto rn e y s f

o r D e f e n d a n ts/A p p e llan ts

T ucs on I n Pr opr i a Per s ona
B R A M M E R , J udge. ¶1 T he Pi m a C ou n tyM er i tSy s t em C om m i s s i on appea l s fr om a dec i s i on of the
s uper i orcour ti n a s peci al act i on fi l ed byB arbar a LaW al l , t he Pi m a C ount yA t t or ney . T he t r i al cour t found the C om m i s s i on l acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o heara cl ai m of coe r ced r es i gnat i on byan empl oy ee of the co u nt yat t or ney ’ s offi ce ( PC A O ) , r eal par t yi n i nt er es tJ oann Scamm on. W e r ever s e. Fac t ualand Pr oc e dur al Backg r ound ¶2 Scamm on r es i gned fr om herpos i t i on w i t h t he PC A O eff ect i ve J une 1, 2004. T he PC A O had pr evi ous l ym ai l ed Scamm on a not i ce o f inte ntt o t erm i nat e her , buts he appar ent l yhad notr ead the not i ce befor e s he s ubm i t t ed her r es i gnat i on. Scamm on fi l ed an 13

a d m in istra tiv e a p p e a l w ith th e C o m m iss io n o n Ju n e 4 , alle g in g h e r re sig n a tio n a s a v ictim
w i t nes s advoca t e for t he PC A O had been coer ced and s he had s uffe red a “cons t ruct i ve ter m in a tio n a n d u n law f u l d isc rim in a tio n .” T h e P C A O f iled a m o tio n to d ism iss th e a p p e a l,
as s er t i ng a l ack of

s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on. T he C om m i s s i on deni ed t he mot i on, but
c o n tin u e d th e a p p e a l p e n d in g th e f ili n g o f th e P C A O ’s s p e c ial a c tio n in su p e rio r c o u rt. ¶3 T he s peci al act i on compl ai nt al l eged the C om m i s s i on had exc eede d i t s s ubj ect
m a tter ju risd ictio n in d e n y in g th e m o tio n to d ism iss th e a p p e a l. F o llo w in g o ra l ar g u m e n t, t he tr i al cour trul ed the C om m i s s i on “l acks author i t yt o hearM s . Scamm on’ s A ppeal
. ” The t r i al cour tnot ed “[ i ] ti s undi s put ed thatM s . Scamm on w as not term i nat ed pur s uantt o t he t h r e e - s t e p p r o c e d u r e s e tf o rt h i n t h e P i ma Count y M e r i t S y s t e m Ru l e s , a n d t h a tt h e P i ma C o u n ty A tt o rne y ’s O ff

ice ne v er i ssu ed a w ri tt en N o ti ce o f T erm ination
. ” T h e tri al c o u rt determ in e d th e e n a b lin g sta tu tes f o r th e C o m m iss io n , A .R .S . § § 1 1 -3 5 1 th rough 11 -356, m ust be cons t rued narr ow l yand the C om m i s s i on m ayonl y hear an em pl oy ee’ s appea l fol l ow i ng
a w r i t t en or dert erm i nat i ng t hatempl oy ee. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. D i s cus s i on ¶4 W e rev iew a tri al co u rt ’s interpre tat ion o f rules an d statu tes d e n o v o . P i ma C o u n ty v . P im a C o u n ty L a w E n fo rc e m e n t Me rit S

y s. C o u n c il (H

ar vey ) , 211 A r i z. 224, ¶ 13, 119 P.3d 1 0 2 7 , 1 0 30 ( 2005)
. T he s t atut es ati s s ue ar e A
. R
. S. §§ 11- 351 t hr ough 11- 356,
w hi ch govern county empl oy ee mer i ts y s t ems. T hes e s t atut es perm i ta county , byr es ol ut i on
o f its b o a rd o f

su p e rv iso rs, to “ a d o p t a lim ited c o u n tye m p lo y e e m e rit sy ste m f o r a n ya n d a ll4

county. . . empl oy ees . ” § 1 1 -35 2 (A ). Sect i on 11- 353 m andat es t hatt he boar d, aft er adopt i ng s uch a r es ol ut i on, appoi nta mer i ts y s t em com m i s s i on. Sect i on 11- 354 defi nes t he p o w e rs a n d d u ties o f

a c o m m iss io n a s th o s e “ n e c e ss a ryto c a rryo u t th e p ro v isio n s o f th is art i cl e. ” T he p rocedu re for em ploy ee app eal s i s setforth in § 11 -356, w hich provides:

A
. A n yo f

f ice r o r e m p lo y e e in th e c las sif ied c iv il s ervi ce maybe di s m i s s ed, s us pended o r r educe d i n r ank or compensa t i on byt he appoi nt i ng author i t y aft er appoi nt m entor p ro m o tio n is c o m p lete o n lyb yw ritten o rd e r, sta tin g sp e c if ica lly the rea so n s fo r th e ac ti o n . T h e o rde r sha ll b e f il ed w ith the c lerk of the boar d of s upervi s or s and a copyt her eof s hal l be furni s hed t o t he per s on t o be di s m i s s ed, s us pended orr educe d. B
. T he off

i ceroremploy ee mayw i t hi n t en day s aft er pr es ent at i on t o hi m of t he orde r , appea l fr om t he or dert hr ough t he cl erk of the comm i s s i on. U pon t he fi l i ng of the appe al , t he cl erk s hal l for t hw i t h t r ans m i tt he or derand ap p eal t o t he comm i s s i on forhear i ng. C
. W i t hi n t w entyday s fr om t he fi l i ng of t he appe al , t he c o mmi s s i o n s h a l l c o mme n c e t h e he a r i n g a n d e i t h e ra f f i r m, m odi fyorr evoke the or der
. T he appel l antm ayappea r per s onal l y , pr oduce e vi dence , have couns el and, i f r eques t ed by t he appe l l ant , a publ i c hea r i ng. D
. T he f

ind ing s an d d ec isi o n o f th e c o m m issi o n sh all be fi nal , and s hal l be s ubj ect t o admi ni s t r at i ve re vi ew as pr ovi ded i n t i t l e 12, chapt er7, ar t i cl e 6. T h e P im a C o u n tyM e rit S y ste m R u les (M S R ) sta te: “ F o r th e p u rp o se s o f e m p lo y e e a p p e a ls p u rs u a n t to th e s e R u le s , a re s ig n a tio n in lie u o f d is m is s a l sh a ll b e d e e m e d to b e a d is m is s a l.” M S R 1 .2 9 , a v a i l a b l e at h ttp ://w w w .p im a .g o v /h r/p d f /M e ri tR u le s .p d f. B e c a u s e M S R 1 4 .1 pe r mi t s a n e mpl oy e e t o app e a l a di s mi s s a l t o t he Com mi s s i on , i t t he r e fo r e a pp e a r s t he M SRA s t he t r i al cour t not ed, t he C om m i s s i on bel i eves t hati t s j ur i s di ct i on hi nges on t he 2 fac tual det erm i nat i on o f w hetherScamm on’ s di s m i s s al w as coer ced a nd t hati ts houl d be perm i t t ed t o deci de thi s fac tual i s s ue t o det erm i ne i f i tcan pr oper l y exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on. T he trial c o u rt p o in ted o u t: “T h e C o m m iss io n h a s n o t cle a r ly s tate d
. . . w h a t w ill o c c u r if it m akes a fi ndi ng of coe r ci on” and he ar s t he appe al
. I n i t s openi ng br i ef, t he C om m i s s i on cl ai m s t he PC A O w oul d have t o “s ubs t ant i at e a bas i s for di s m i s s al ” at a hear i ng befor e the C om m i s s i on i f i tfound Scamm on’ s r es i gnat i on had bee n coer ced. A per s onnel act i on form di ffe r s fr om a not i ce of i nt entt o t erm i nat e. T he l at t eri s t he 3 fi r s ts t ep i n t he M SR t erm i nat i on pr ocedur e, w hi l e a per s onnel act i on form i s a r ecor d of a compl et ed act i on, i n t hi s cas e, t he PC A O ’ s acc ept ance of Scamm on’ s r es i gnat i o n . T he C om m i s s i on has att ache d a not i ce of i nt entt o t erm i nat e as A ppendi x 3 t o i t s openi ng br i ef and w hatpurpor t s t o be a pe r s onnel act i on form r el at i ng to Scam m on as A ppendi x 5. Be c a u s e t h e s e i t e ms a r e n o tp a r to f t h e r e c o r d o n a p p e a l , h o we v e r , we d o n o tc o n s i d e rt h e m. See Lewis v. O l i ver , 178 A r i z. 330, 338, 873 P. 2d 668, 676 ( A pp. 1993) ; A r i z. R
. C i v. A pp. P. 11 ( a ) , 17 B A
. R. S. 5 al l ow an em pl oy ee t o appea l a “r es i gnat i on i n l i eu of di s m i s s al
. ” The C om m i s s i on ar gued t o t he tr i al cour tt hata coe r ced r es i gnat i on or cons t ruct i ve di s char ge i s a “r es i gnat i on i n l i eu of di s m i s s al , ” w hi ch perm i t s Scamm on t o appea l t o t he C om m i s s i on i f i tfi nds herr es i gnat i on
w a s i n v o l u n t a r y. 2 ¶5 T he C om m i s s i on cont ends a “per s onnel act i on form , ” t he offi ci al r ec o rd of Scamm on’ s r es ign at i on, can c ons t i tut e a “ w r i t t en or der ” meet i ng t he r equi r ement s of § 11- 356( A )
. H ow ever , the C om m i s s i on di d notm ake thi s ar gum enti n t he tr i al cour tand,

3 th e re f o re , h a s w a iv e d it. S ee C o h n v. Ind u s. C o m m ’n , 178 A r i z. 395, 398, 874 P. 2d 315, 318 ( 1994)
. E ven i f the ar gu m en t w ere notw ai ved, t he tr i al cour tm ade a fac tual fi ndi ng t hat t her e w as no w r i t t en or derof t erm i nat i on, and no per s onnel act i on form i s i n t he r ecor d on
a p p e a l. W e p re s u m e th e re c o rd s u p p o rt s th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s f in d in g . See Bakerv. B aker , 183 A ri z . 7 0 , 7 3 , 9 0 0 P .2 d 7 6 4 , 7 6 7 (A p p . 1 9 9 5 ).6

¶6 T h e C o m m issi o n arg u es th e c o u n tym eritco m m issi o n en ab li n g statu tes are
r emedi al i n natur e and s houl d be “l i ber al l y cons t rued t o achi eve the s peci al purpos e of the
s t atut e[s ]
. ” R emed ial st atut es “ar e des i gned t o r edr es s exi s t i ng gr i evanc es and i nt r oduce
r egul at i ons conduci ve t o t he publ i c good. ” Sel l i ngerv. Fr eeway Mobi l e H om e Sal es , I

nc. , 1 1 0 A riz . 5 7 3 , 5 7 6 , 5 2 1 P .2 d 1 1 1 9 , 1 1 2 2 (1 9 7 4 ). “ [ W ]e c o n stru e re m e d ial s tatu tes lib e ra lly t o achi eve the s peci al purpos e underl y ing the l egi s l at i on. ” Sp eci al Fu ndD i v. v. Indus. C o m m ’n ( B u rr e ll) , 191 A r i z. 149, ¶ 9, 953 P. 2d 541, 544 ( 1998)
. B ut , w e nee d notdeci de i f the s t atut es ar e r emedi al i n natur e bec aus e A
. R
. S. § 1- 211( B ) r equi r es “[s ] t atut es [t o] be l i ber al l ycons t rued t o eff ect t hei r obj ect s and t o pr om ot e j us t i ce. ” A nd “the pr i m aryrul e of
s t atut or ycons t ruct i on i s t o fi nd and gi ve ef fec tt o l egi s l at i ve i nt ent . ” M a i lBo x e s , Et c . , U. S
. A. v. Ind u s. C o m m ’n , 1 8 1 A riz
. 1 1 9 , 1 2 1 , 8 8 8 P .2 d 7 7 7 , 7 7 9 ( 1 9 9 5 ); s ee al s o H ol l and v. W i l l i am s Mountai n C oalC o. , 256 F. 3d 819, 823 ( D
. C
. C i r . 2001) ( beca us e al l s t atut es s eek t o r emedys om e pr obl em, r emedi al di s t i nct i on i s m eani ngl es s )
. A l t hough w e w i l l cons t rue th e s ta tu te s in q u e s tio n lib e ra lly, H ar vey di ct at es t hatan age ncys uch as t he C om m i s s i on has
n o in h e re n t p o w e rs. “ B e c a u se a d m in istra tiv e a g e n c ies d e riv e th e ir p o w e rs f ro m th e ir enabl i ng l egi s l at i on, t hei r author i t y cannot exce ed t hat gr ant ed by t he l egi s l atur e. ” H ar vey , 211 A r i z. 224, ¶ 13, 119 P. 3d at1030. ¶7 T he PC A O i ns i s t s t he l anguage of § 11- 356 unambi guo u s l yl i m i t s t he j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u n t y e mp l o y e e me r i t s y s t e m t o wr i t t e n o r d e r s b e c a u s e § 1 1
- 3 5 6 ( A) al l ow s a di s m i s s al “onl ybyw r i t t en or der ” and § 11- 356( B ) onl y perm i t s an appea l of s uch7

or der
. T he PC A O ar gues , t her efor e, t hat beca us e Scamm on r es i gned, t he C om m i s s i on l acks ju ri s d ic tio n , e v e n if

th a t r e s ig n a tio n w a s c o e rc e d o r w a s a c o n s tru c tiv e d is c h a rg e . S e e Ma il B oxes , E t c. , 1 8 1 A riz . at 1 2 1 , 8 8 8 P .2 d a t 7 7 9 (if lan g u a g e o f

sta tu te is u n a m b ig u o u s, it is
c o n c lu siv e , a b se n t c lea rlye x p re ss e d leg isla tiv e in ten t to c o n tra ry ); H ar vey , 211 A r i z. 224, ¶ 13, 119 P. 3d at1030 ( admi ni s t r at i ve age ncy ’ s pow ercanno t ex ce ed thatgr ant ed by legislatu re). W e d isa g re e . T h e lan g u a g e in q u e stio n is n o t a ju r is d ic ti o n a l re q u ire m e n t. I ns t ead, i tpr ot ect s an empl oy ee by d ict at i ng t he t erm i nat i on pr ocedur e and r equi r i ng d o c u m e n tatio n o f

th e re a so n s f

o r a d isc h a rg e . It d o e s n o t li m it th e ju risd ictio n o f th e c o u n ty
m e rit sy ste m c o m m iss io n to c a se s inv o lv in g w ritten o rd e rs. T h a t ju risd ictio n is g ra n ted in § 11- 352, w hi ch perm i t s count i es t o cr eat e a mer i ts y s t em com m i s s i on, and i n § 11 -354,
w h ich g ra n ts th a t c o m m iss io n th e p o w e rs n e c e ss a ry to a c c o m p lish th e p u rp o se s o f th e m e rit
s y s t e m. ¶8 A dm i ni s t r at i ve agenci es “have no comm on l aw ori nher entpow er s . ” Ke n da ll
v . M a lco lm , 98 A r i z. 329, 334, 404 P. 2d 414, 417 ( 1965)
. T hi s does notm ean, how ever , t hat t hos e pow er s m us tbe, as t he PC A O cl ai m s , “s peci fi ca ll ygr ant ed bys t atut e. ” S e e O ra c le Sch. D is t . N

o. 2 v. Ma m m o th High Sch. D is t . N o. 88 , 130 A r i z. 41, 43, 633 P. 2d 450, 453 ( A pp. 1981) ( “A boar d orcomm i s s i on . . . h as onl yl i m i t ed pow er s and i tcan e xer ci s e no p o w e r s w h i c h a r e n o te x p r e s s l y ori m pl i edl y gr ant ed .”) ( e m p h a sis a d d e d ); s ee al s o Long v. N apol i tano , 2 0 3 A riz . 2 4 7 , ¶ 4 4 , 5 3 P .3 d 1 7 2 , 1 8 5 (A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) (“ [ W ]h a t a s tatu te n e c e ss a rily i m pl i es i s as m uch a pa r tof the s t atut e as w hati s expl i ci t l y s t at ed. ”)
. T hatan empl oy erunder8

§ 1 1 -3 5 6 (A ) m a y o n ly d ism iss a n e m p lo y e e b y a w ritten o rd e r ne c e ss a rily im p lies th e m e rit
s y s t em com m i s s i on has author i t yt o ens ur e thatpr ocedur e i s fol l ow ed. ¶9 M or eover , t o r ead t he “w r i t t en orde r ” l anguage as a j ur i s di ct i onal r equi r ement
w o u ld b e d ire c tlya t o d d s w ith th e c lea rlye x p re ss e d leg isla tiv e in ten t o f th e c o u n ty m e rit
s y s t em st atut es . T he purpos e of the s y s t em i s s t at ed as f o l l ow s : “The goal s and func t i ons of county em p loy ee mer i ts y s t ems ar e des i gned t o pr ot ect em pl oyee s . ” 19 81 A ri z. S ess. L a w s, c h . 2 7 3 , § 1 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); see a lso W o lki n v. C ivi l Ser vice C o m m ’n , 21 A r i z. A pp. 341, 345, 519 P. 2d 194, 198 ( 1974) ( purpos e of ci vi l s ervi ce c om m i s s i on i s “t o pr ovi de for t he ‘
. . . s ecur i t yof the fai t hful empl oy ee by gi vi ng hi m perm anenc e of empl oym ent . . . and to f re e s u c h e m p lo y e e f

ro m th e f e a r o f p o litic a l a n d p e rs o n a l p re ju d ic ia l r e p ri s a l’ ” ), quot i ng 15 A m . J ur . 2d C i vi lSer vi ce § 1 (1 9 6 4 ). W e f a il t o se e h o w a llo w in g a n e m p lo y e r to a v o id countym er i ts y s t em com m i s s i on r evi ew bycoer ci ng an em pl oy ee’ s r es i gnat i on w oul d s erve th e s ta te d le g is la tiv e p u rp o s e o f p ro te c tin g e m p lo y e e s . ¶10 Fur t her , w hen the l egi s l atur e enact ed t he countym er i ts y s t em st atut es i n 1969, t he l egi s l atur e expr es s ed i t s i nt entt hatt he mer i t s y s t em be “adapt abl e t o [the county ’ s ] s i ze
a n d typ e .” 1 9 6 9 A riz . S e ss . L a w s, c h . 1 1 7 , § 1 . T h e leg isla tu re a lso g ra n ted c o u n tym e rit
s y s t em com m i s s i ons pow er s “nec es s ary t o carr youtt he pr ovi s i ons of thi s ar t i cl e. ” § 11- 354. T h is in ten d e d a d a p tab ili tya n d g ra n t o f a u th o rityw o u ld b e su p e rf lu o u s if th e c o u n ty m e rit
s y s t em com m i s s i on w er e l i m i t ed t o r evi ew i ng w r i t t en or der s of t erm i nat i on w i t h vi r tual l ynoW e not e that§ 11- 355 s eems t o gr ant a county m er i t s y s t em comm i s s i on t he pow er 4 t o es t abl i s h qual i fi cat i ons and s t andar ds for county pos i t i ons . T he s ect i on pr ovi des : “The m in im u m q u a lific a tio n s o r sta n d a rd s p re sc rib e d f o r a n y c las s o r g ra d e o f

e m p lo ym e n t sh a ll notbe l es s t han thos e pr es cr i bed byl aw fort he cl as s orgr ade of countyoffi cer s and empl oy ees . ” W e d o n o t se e, how ever , how a gene r al i nt entof ada pt abi l i t yand gr antof authori t ycou l d refer s olel yt o the pow er t o est abli sh qu al i fi cat i on s and class i fi cat i on s. 9 ot herpow er s or dut i es . M or eover , w e bel i eve t he l egi s l atur e i m pl i ci t l y expr es s ed a ge ner al 4 i nt e ntt o g r a nta c omm i s s i on j ur i s di c t i on t o a dd r e s s a l l mat t e r s r e l a t e d t o d i s m i ssal s,
s us p e n s i o n s , o rr e d u c t i o n s i n r a n k b yr e q u i r i n g th a ta l l s u c h e v e n t s b e e x e c u t e d b ywri t t en
o rd e r a n d b y g iv in g a c o m m is s io n a u th o ri ty to h e a r a p p e a ls f ro m s u c h o rd e rs . See § 11- 356. T h u s, w e d ed u ce the leg isl ature d id n o t i n tend to li m ita c o u n tym eritsy stem co m m issi o n ’s
re v ie w to te rm in a tio n s b yw ri tte n o rd e rs . ¶11 O urs upr eme cour t ’ s deci s i on i n B u rr e ll l ends s uppor t t o t hi s concl us i on. T he
s t at ut e ati s s ue i n B u rr e llw as A
. R
. S
. § 2 3-106 5(C ), a com po nen tof A ri zon a’s w orkers ’ compensa t i on act . 191 A r i z. 149, ¶ 9, 953 P. 2d at545. A tt hatt i m e, § 23- 1065( C ) r equi r ed
an em pl oy er s eeki ng contr i but i on fr om t he S peci al Fund D i vi s i on t o pr oduce w r i t t en r ecor ds demonstr at i ng i t s aw ar enes s of an e m pl oy ee’ s pr e- exi s t i ng di s abi l i t y . 191 A r i z. 149, ¶ 10, 953 P. 2d at545. T he court found t hat r equi r ement w as “‘ m er el yevi dent i ary ’ ” and r efus ed t o cons t rue i ti n a w ay t hat w oul d defe at t he purpos e of t he s t atut e, “t o pr om ot e the hi r i ng of d i s a b l e d o r h a n d i c a p p e d w or ker s . ” Id., q u o ti n gS p ec ial Fu n d

D iv. v. Ind u s. C o m m ’n , 189 A ri z . 1 6 2 , 1 6 5 , 9 3 9 P .2 d 7 9 5 , 7 9 8 (A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) ( e m p h a s is d e le te d ).10

¶12 A d m itte d ly, B u rr e ll i s di s t i ngui s habl e fr om t he pr es ent cas e. A w r i t i ng exi s t ed i n B u rr e llt h a t made i t c l e a rt h e e mp l o y e rh a d b e e n a wa r e t h e e mp l o y e e s u f f e r e d f r o m a d is a b ility, b u t th e w ri tin g d id n o t sta te th e n a tu re o f th e d is a b ility. Id
. ¶ 2. T hatt he empl oy er h a d b e e n a w a re o f

th e n a tu re o f

th e d is a b ility w a s p ro v e d b yte s tim o n y . I d. ¶ 3 . H e re , in contr as t , t her e i s no w r i t t en or deratal l
. H ow ever , w e fi nd t he under l y i ng r eas oni ng of B u rr e llc o m p e lli n g . T o c o n stru e th e w ritten o rd e r re q u ire m e n t as ju risd ictio n a l w o u ld
c o n t r a ve ne t he pu rp o s e o f t h e c o u n t yme r i ts y s t e m c o mmi s s i o n s t a tu t e s . As o u rs u p r e me
c o u rt d id in B u rr e ll , “[w ] e t her efor e i nt erpr et t he st atut e i n t he mannert hatbes tcarr i es out t he l egi s l at i ve purpos e. ” I d. ¶ 10. ¶13 R oss v. A ri zona Stat e P ersonne lB oa rd , 185 A r i z. 430, 916 P. 2d 1146 ( A pp. 1995) , i s al s o cons i s t entw i t h ourconcl us i o n . R o ss, a st at e empl oy ee, “[i ] n a s t r es s ful
m om entatw or k,
. . . t ol d hers uper i or s , ‘I gi ve up. I qui t . ’ ” Id
. at431, 916 P. 2d at1147. R oss m ai ntai ned she had no ti ntended t he st at em ent as a res i gn at i on , bu ti nst ead, as a
m a n if e s ta tio n o f h e r in te n t to c e a s e w o rk in g o n a p a rt ic u la r p roje c t. Id
. at 431- 32, 916 P. 2d at1147- 48. H erempl oy er, the A r i zona D epart m entof Tra ns por t at i on, i nt erpr et ed her
s t at ementas a r es i gnat i on and “t ol d her s he coul d notr etur n t o w or k beca us e herr es i gnat i on had bee n acc ept ed. ” Id
. at432, 916 P. 2d at1148. R os s appea l ed w hats he ca l l ed her “di s mi s s a l , ” b u t t h e s t a t e p e r s o n n e l b o a r d d e c l i n e d t o h e a r h e r a p p e a l , c l a i mi n g i t l acke d ju ri s d ic tio n . Id
.11

¶14 T he s t a t e p e r s o n n e l b o a r d ’ s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f i t s o wn ru l e s o n l y p e r mi t t ed an ap p ea l fr om a w r i t t en “di s ci pl i naryact i on. ” Id
. a t4 3 3 , 9 1 6 P. 2 d a t1 1 4 9
. Th e c o n t r o l l i ng sta tu te s tate d : “T h e p e rso n n e l b o a rd sh a ll h e a r an d re v iew a p p e a ls as p ro v id e d in th is a rticle
r el at i ng t o di s m i s s al fr om stat e servi ce, s us pens i on form or e than fort yw or ki ng hour s or d em o ti o n resu lt in g f

rom d isci p li n aryac ti o n as d ef ined in the p erso n n el rules.” T h e term

“ d is c ip lin a ry a c tio n ” w a s n o t d e f in e d in th e ru le s . Id
. at 4 3 3 , 9 1 6 P
. 2 d at 11 4 9
. T h e b o ard cont ended the t erm w as defi n ed b yt he pr ocedur e i t s rul es m andat ed, t hati s , an empl oy er in itia te s a d is c ip lin a ry a c tio n i n a w ri tin g d e ta ilin g th e c h a rg e s a g a in s t th e e m p lo y e e . Id
. T her efor e, t he boar d ar gued, i tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o heart he appe al beca us e ther e w as no
s u c h w ri tin g . Id . H o w e v e r, th e c o u rt ru led : “ W e c a n n o t a g re e th a t an e m p lo y e e ’s r ig h t to
a p p e a l to th e B o a rd is c o n d itio n e d o n th e e m p lo y e r’ s c o m p lia n c e w ith th e p e rs o n n e l ru le s .” Id
. T he co urtheld that, befo re t he bo ard c ou l d determ i ne w hetheri thad j uri sdi ct i on , i tm ust fi r s tdet erm i ne i f ther e had be en a “ di s m i s s al
. ” Id
. ¶15 R oss i s notdi r ectl y o n poi nt . T he ena bl i ng s t atut es fort he s t at e per s onnel boar d gi ve i ta br oaderr ange of pow er s and dut i es t han the s t atut es at issue her e gi ve the C o m m issi o n . M o reo v er, th e le g is la ture d id n o t con d it ion the s tat e p erso n n el bo ard ’s juri sd ict ion o n the e x ist en ce o f a w ri tt en o rde r, b u t on lyo n the e x ist en ce o f a d isci p li n ary
ac ti o n . Instea d , it w a s th e b o a rd’s ru les th at req u ir ed a w ri tt en d isci p li n aryac ti o n . In contr as t , t he w r i t t en orde r l anguage centr al t o t hi s cas e i s cont ai ned i n § 11- 356. W e not e, h o w e v e r, th a t a n a d m in is tr a tiv e ru le h a s th e s a m e e f f e c t a n d f o rc e a s a s ta tu te . See G i bbons12

v. A riz. C o rp . C o m m ’n , 9 5 A riz . 3 4 3 , 3 4 7 , 3 9 0 P .2 d 5 8 2 , 5 8 5 (1 9 6 4 ). F u rth e r, w e a g re e w ith R oss ’ s gui di ng pr i nci pl e: an empl oy ee’ s r i ghtto a dm i ni s t r at i ve r evi ew s houl d notbe evi s cer at ed byt he empl oy er ’ s fai l ur e t o fol l ow t he s t atut or ypr ocedur e. N ot hi ng i n t he
s t atut es s ugges t s t he l egi s l atur e cont empl at ed ordes i r ed s uch an out come. ¶16 T he C om m i s s i on al s o ci t es cas es fr om ot herj ur i s di ct i ons addr es s i ng s i m i l ar l anguage i n m er i t orci vi l s ervi ce c om m i s s i on s t atut es . I n H a b e re r v . W

o o db u ry C o u n ty , 560 N
. W
. 2d 571, 574 ( I ow a 1997) , t he I ow a Supr eme Court found a ci vi l s ervice com m i s s i on
c o u l d e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r a c o n s t ru c t i v e d i s c h a r g e c l a i m. T h e c o n t r o l l i n g s t a tu t e , I o wa C o d e A n n . § 3 4 1 A
. 1 2 , p erm itted a n em p loy ee ’s rem o v al “o n lyu p o n w ri tt en ac cu sat io n .” T he courtfound the ci vi l s ervi ce c om m i s s i on had j ur i s di ct i on d espi t e the l ack of a w r i t t en
acc u s a t i o n b e c a u s e a c o n s t ru c t i v e d i s c h a r g e c o n s t i tu t e s a “ r e mov a l ” “ a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t he
a c tio n s o f

a n e m p lo y e r.” 5 6 0 N .W .2 d a t 5 7 4
. ¶17 T he W i s cons i n Supr eme C our tr eac hed a s i m i l arconcl us i on i n W atki ns v. Mi lw aukee C ount

y C i vi lSer vi ce Com m is s i on , 276 N
. W
. 2d 775 ( W i s . 1979)
. T he governi ng
s t atut e r equi r ed the empl oy ert o m ake char ges i n w r i t i ng, but t he cour t found the ci vi l s ervi ce
c o m m is s io n h a d ju ri s d i c tio n to h e a r a c la im o f c o e rc e d re s ig n a tio n . Id
. at 78 0
. T h e c o u rt reli ed o n the pu rpo se of the civil serv ice co m m issi o n , to give em p loy ee s “se cu ri tyo f ten u re and i m par t i al eval uat i on, ” and not ed coe r ced r es i gnat i ons “pos e[] s er i ous pos s i bi l it ies of abus e. ” I

d. a t 7 7 9
.13

¶18 T h e W ash ing ton C o u rto f A p p ea ls co n stru ed a m e ri t co m m issi o n statu tory
s cheme s i m i l ar t o A r i zona’ s i n Mi cone v. Tow n of St ei l acoom C i vi lSer vi ce Com m is s i on , 722 P
. 2 d 1 3 6 9 (W ash
. C t. A p p . 1 9 8 6 ). T h e c o u rtsan cti o n ed a c ivil serv ice c o m m is s io n ’s
c o n d u c tin g a ju ri s d ic tio n a l h e a ri n g o n a n a lle g a tio n o f c o e rc e d re s ig n a tio n . I

d. at1371. T he
s ta tu te in q u e s tio n p e rm itte d a n e m p lo y e e to b e d is m is s e d “ o n ly u p o n w ri tte n a c c u s a tio n .” Id
. T he cour t found a coer ced ori nvol unt aryr es i gnat i on w as “equi val entt o a di s char ge” a nd
w o u ld “n o t com p lyw ith the p roc ed u ral requ ir em en t[] [o f a w ri tt en ac cu sati o n ].” A c c o rd in g ly , the c o u rt h e ld a c o e rc e d o r v o lu n tar yre sig n a tio n f e ll w ith in th e m e rit
c o m m is s io n ’s ju ri s d ic tio n . Id
. ¶19 W e fi nd i ns t ruct i ve the ca s es t he C om m i s s i on ci t es . E ach j ur i s di ct i on has t r eat ed a w r i t t en or deroracc us at i on r equi r ement as a pr ocedur al bur den on the empl oy er , not a j ur i s di ct i onal l i m i ton t he merit orci vi l s ervi ce c om m i s s i on. A nd t he courti n Mi cone
a u t ho ri zed the com m i ssi on t o hear an appea l w hen an em ploy er fai l ed t o com ply w i t h its pr ocedur al bur den r athert han l i m i t i ng t he comm i s s i on’ s abi l i t yt o pr ocee d. T he PC A O ci t es
no cas es , and w e have found none, i n w hi ch a c our thas rul ed that“w r i t t en orde r ” or“w r i t t en
acc us at i on” l anguage l i m i t s t he j ur i s di ct i on of a mer i torci vi l s ervi ce c om m i s s i on. ¶20 W e fi nd t he “w r i t t en or der ” l anguage of § 11- 356 to b e a pr ocedur al
r equi r ementt hatan empl oy er , her e t he PC A O , m us t fol l ow . I t i s nota j ur i s di ct i onal l i m i ton the c o u n tym eritsy stem co m m issi o n . T o h o ld o therw ise w o u ld co n tr ad ictthe leg isl ature ’s14

expr es s i nt entt o pr ot ect empl oy ees fr om i m pr operdi s m i s s al s . A ccor di ngl y , w e r ever s e the t r i al cour t ’ s rul i ng and r emand t he ca s e forfur t herpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s deci s i on.

J
. W I L L I A M B R A M M E R , J R
. , J udge CO NC UR RI NG:

PE T E R J
. E C K E R ST R O M , Pr es i di ng J udge

J O SE PH W
. H O W A R D , J udge