Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-03-31
Attorney Nye Submits Opinion as
To Police Department Payroll.
NOW UP TO CAPT. BURBIDGE
Unless lie Act. IN the Meter Patrols
men win Have 10 Wait Tor
Their Salaries

| In reply 10 the request OF Nlty Nuul-
! tor Reiser for an opinion as to whether
or not It Is absolutely necessary for
the payroll Of the police department to
be- certified by the head Of the depart
ment, city Attorney Nye has rendered
an opinion to the effect that such GER
tihcation Is necessary. The payroll of
that department was returned because
ii was certified by George A. sheets,
who Mr. Rcser holds is not the legal
ly confirmed head OF the department
Pending the settlement OF that question
the city auditor thought II advisable to
get an opinion as TO whether or not the
payrolls could be paid without being
certified 10 so that the patr0lmen would
not have to wait for their salaries. AS
the city attorney has decided that they
must be certified the payrolls win not
be paid unless Capt Burbidge certiies
them,
The opinion Of the city attorney fol-
lows In full;
NYEs OPINION.
Dear Sir.-Replying to your commun-
icatlon Of March o. In which you ask
for Information as to whether or not II
Is absolutely necessary for the police
department payroll TO be certified to
by the head of the department before
II can be paid by the auditor and a.
to whether chapter Is OF the ordinances
published In 1894 applies to the police
department as Wen as to departments
from which employees may be removed
at will by the head Of the department,
and also as TO whether or not absence
from the payroll Of the name OF
legally appointed officer who, according
to the records, has not been removed or
suspended, would justify the auditor in
refusing TO pay such persons salary,
permit me to say.
Chapter IS OF the ordinances pub
lshed in 1894 makes no discrimination,
and seems TO contemplate no distinc-
ton between the police department and
any other department, as for example,
the street department. The ordinance
is broad enough 70 cover all depart
ments In respect to which In the past
II has been customary to have a pay
roll or statement as the basis FOR the
payment Of employees. Evidently the
intent of the ordinance was to prevent
the unlawful padding of payrolls. and
to require for the Information OF the
council and the auditor, the statement
of the hebd Of the department under
oath as TO the number and character
OF the employees In his department
together with their time OF service since
the last payroll was passed.
Some such verifcatlon is really neces-
sary. even In the police department,
where the men are appointed by the
head Of the department and confirmed
by the council, particularly as a source
OF information 70 the auditor, for the
reason that the existing ordinance pro-
vldes that the head Of the department
may suspend any member for a period
not to exceed 10 days, and IN case OF
such suspension requires only that he
notify the city council. Thus, any such /
would come within the !
knowledge Of the auditor only by accI- /
dent and not in the regular routine, a /
verified payroll produces notice OF such /
to the auditor, and operates /
as source Of protection as well as OF /
information TO him.
In this connection, permit me to say, /
that In my opinion. the question which /
YOU suggest as to who Is the respond
bic head of the police department does
not properly enter into the question be-
fore u.s. for the reason that the or
dinance says that the certllication shan
be by the chief or head Of the depart
ment, and n the auditor has any doubt
In his own mind as 10 the correctness
Of payroll certified by the head Of any
department.. it Is In my opinion, only
Incumbent upon him TO satisfy himself
from sources other than the certified
payroll The mere certdcation Of
payroll by the head OF n department
hoes not make II incumbent upon the
auditor to draw warrants IN accordance
with the payroll so certified neithe-
does II limit the auditor In his inquir-
les concerning the lryrOlL The re-
luirement of the ordinance is simply
upon the head Of the de-
and upon the council and the
auditor In requiring that payroll
must be certified before il can be acted
upon The limitation Of the ordinance
extends no further.
Replying 10 your last question, pea
NIT me 10 say:
That under ordinary circumstances
the auditor would not be justified In
drawing a warrant for a person as a
member OF a department when his
name did not appear on the payroll.
az before indicated. tho
investigation is not limited
10 the certified payroll, and Il he is
satisfied that a person has served the
city In any department and Is entitled
10 be paid for his services. he may
draw a warrant TO cover
the amount due regardless Of whether
pr not such persons name appears up
On a regularly certified payroll
II this does not answer your inquir-
les fully ! shall be pleased 10 advise
YOU further upon receipt " another
Very respectfully.
tSigned.) GEORGE l.. NYE.