The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1911-02-16
SALARY RAISE
NOT LAWFUL
Firemen and Police Must
Draw Former Pay.
DECISION BY CIRCUIT COURT
Salaries Cannot be RAISED
During Terms.
Terms Of Firemen and Police Extend
During Good Bebavior-Question Il
One OF Many COMPREHENSIVE
riOn Officers Badly Disappointed.

Members OF the Marion police and
fire departments cannot. for the pres
ent at least. receive the increased sal
aries granted them by tho city coun-
ell in December, 1910. The increase
went into effect January I of this year
and the men have already received
one pay under the new scale. Ac-
cording to n decision of the circuit
court rendered at Painesville, Ohio,
city officials in Ohio have no right
TO raise or decrease the salaries of po-
lice and nremen during the terms of
those officers and as a result the or
dinance passed by the Marion coun-
ell Is Illegal. City Solicitor Boyd, who
received a copy of the Painesville
courts ruling. has directed that the
local flremen and police be put back
on their old salaries until this matter
Is finally disposed Of. There is also
probability that the Increase of $40
n month granted to Humane Officer
j. w. Ulsh will also be knocked out.
This increase went into effect the first
day of February, his salary being in
creased from $50 to $40 a month.
The ruling of this court will have
bearing not only in Marion, but in
other cities throughout the state,
where the police and hremen have had
their salaries raised during the past
few years. The court decided that
under the civil service provisions the
term of n policeman or fireman eX-
tends during good behavior The law
reads that city council cannot raise
or lower an officials salary during
his term. AS result. a cop or fire.
man has to work for the same salary
just as long as he behaves If he
doesn't behave he gets fired. The To-
cal officers are wondering which
course to pursue.
The Marion police and firemen, like
all others in the state, have been un-
der civil service since 1903. Accord
ing 10 this ruling the salaries then
I'm effect would have to be put into
force today. In 1907 the council pass
ed an ordinance fixing these officials
salaries at $50 a month during the frs.
year of service, $50 during the second
year and s65 during the third year
and every year thereafter. Captains
salar ries were placed al $3.50 a month
and the chiefs at $50 n month. In
1910 an ordinance, to take effect the
first of 1911, was passed increasing
patrolmen's and flremen's salaries to
s55 month during the first six
months, $50 during the second six,
and $40 month for all time there
after. The captains had their pay
raised to $50 month, the chief OF
the fire department TO s95. while the
chief of police was not favored with
an increase.
The heads of these departments
claimed that 1t was necessary to raise
salaries in order to get men to take
the places. The old scale was not
sufficient under the increased cost of
living. The local flremen and police
are greatly disappointed because OF
this unfavorable turn but are hoping
that something will be done to make
Il possible to get their increased pay.
Following Is part OF an article taken
from today's Cleveland Plain Dealer
in regard to the Painesvllle ruling:
"A decision of the circuit court OF
Painesvlle to the effect that city
councils have no authority to increase
or diminish salaries of policemen
while in office may prevent members
of the police or fire departments or
any other city officeholders under
civil service from obtaining salary in
creases, unless the supreme court re-
verses the lower courts finding.
"1he decision was given by the cir
cult court in the case of Spaller versus
the city of Painesville, and in the
opinion of officials who received the
first inkling of the matter yesterday
il will have an important bearing on
the salary situation at the city hall
"'Under this decision it would seem
that the salaries of city employees al
ready in civil service offices could not
be raised. said Councilman Kitchens,
chairman OF the special committee of
the council that Is now investigating
the salary adjustment question, when
told of the case last evening. 'Ordi-
nances might be passed affecting the
salaries of employees to be appointed
in the future, but present occupants
of city civil service positions cannot
receive salary increases II my under
standing of the decision is correct. l
have not studied the situation but
this is what believe the effect of the
decision to be-
THE decision also may have a
sweeping effect in the matter of
raises already allowed city employees
under civil service. Since the es-
of civil service in the |
police and fire departments many |
salary raising ordinances hava
been passed. If the decision of the |
circuit court stands, teach member |
OF the police and fire department !
may be reduced to the salary that |
went to his office at the time of his |
appointment, should the general |
question be raised by a taxpayer. at
torneys stated last evening.
I'm the Painesville case. which
raised this question. 1t was Patrolman
Edward Spaller who began man
damus proceedings to compel the city |
auditor and city treasurer to issue
and deliver warrant in his favor for
a sum which he claims Is due him for
salary as policeman and to compel
the city treasurer to pay such war;
rant, .,.g bf. r., lad,
va In July, sloOs, the Palnsyille coun-
iiir fixed the salary OF a patrolman
II the Painaavilla nOlica departmanf |