The Semi-weekly Madison County Democrat. (London, Ohio) 1923-19??, 1933-03-03
APPOINTMENT
AT HOME VOID
CONTINUED From Page One)

y
home, and that the board had no le-
gal right to appoint superintendent
and matron at the home from the
list.
The entire case revolves about the
change of the civil service commits
sion of list of eligible persons for
the positions on the grounds that sew
eral of the couples certified in the
first instance have small children of
their own and in ruling that this fact
barred them from being appointed.
The court holds in the decision that
the appointment of Supt. and Mrs
d. G. Kilgore is void and that no
future salaries can be paid them, but
that they are entitled to their sal
aries up to the time the decision was
filed. The couple has been in charge
of the home since the death of Supt
B. F. Linson some time ago, serving
under a provisional appointment ano
later by appointment of the board OF
trustees.
The future status of the matter re-
mains as yet in doubt, since it is ex.
pected that the state civil service
commission will take the case to the
supreme court.
Briefly, the decision states that or
July 7, 1882, seven couples-Mr. ane
Mrs. Raymond Laird, Mr.. and Mrs
John Houston, Mr.. and Mrs. t. w
Eagleton, Mr.. and Mrs. Clarence
Woosley, Mr.. and Mrs. E.. F. Hodson
Mr.. and Mrs. Silas Ruff and Supt
and Mrs. d. G. kilgore-took civil
service examination for the positions
involved and that the names of the
seven were certified by the commits
sion to the board of trustees of the
home in the order named above.
Following the Withdrawal from
consideration of the Hodsons and
Ruffs, the trustees recommended tc
the commission that only those with
out small children of their own be con-
sidered as eligible for the positions
and in line with this, the commission
revised the list and submitted the
names of the Houstons, Eagletons
and Kilgeres as the first three eligi-
BILE. Supt. and Mrs. Kilgore were
appointed to the positions under this
list, being third in the new list.
The plaintiff contended that the
commission had no right to divide the
eligible list after the examination
and the defendant contended that the
plaintiff had no authority to bring
such an action.
The court decision states that "the
commission has broad discretionary
powers in determining the qualifica-
tions of persons who may take an
examination for particular position
\ but having once fixed these qualifi-
cations, the statute is mandatory
that all persons having these qualifl-
cations are entitled to take the ex-
aninations and those having received
the necessary grade must be placed
upon the eligible list.
Having made up an eligible list
the commission must certify to the
appointing board Of officers those
persons standing highest and the ap-
pointing board or officer must ap-
point one of these in the list. The
commission has no discretion whom
shall be appointed as the board must
appoint one of the persons listed.
"If the commission has the power
to change the qualifications of per-
son on the eligible list or if the
board or officer had the power to
refuse to appoint one of the three
certified, the whole purpose and in
tent Of civil service would be de-
stroyed.
at is not the purpose of this de-
cision to hold that the commission
may not abolish the eligible list i
has and establish class or eligible
list composed of husbands and wives
without small children and for the
particular positions of superintendent,
and matron of the Madison county
children's home, but it is clear thai
If the commission has such power
the commission must before the ex
animation, make such class ant
thereby disqualify those with small
children