Source: http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/065wn2d/065wn2d0320.htm
Timestamp: 2019-11-12 20:36:26
Document Index: 82129018

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 16', '§ 14', 'Art. 6', '§ 4', '§ 19', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 16']

65 Wn.2d 320, ALTO L. PATTON, Appellant, V. BURTON J. WHEELON et al., Respondents
[No. 37254. Department One. Supreme Court December 3, 1964.]
ALTO L. PATTON, Appellant, V. BURTON J. WHEELON et al.,
[1] Municipal Corporations - Civil Service Commission - Reviewing Activities. The Seattle Civil Service Commission is a supervisory or reviewing agency only where the actions under investigation affect the administration of the civil service system (Seattle charter, Art. 16, § 14), and proper inquiry may be made into violations of the charter, city ordinances, and the commission's rules and regulations directly pertaining to the administration of the classified civil service; however, before an individual can place a claim or controversy before the commission which it is under a duty to investigate, he must claim a right or privilege arising out of the classified civil service.
[2] Same - Civil Service Commission - Police Officers. Investigations into alleged misconduct of Seattle police officers is the direct responsibility of the chief of police and ultimately of the mayor (Seattle charter, Art. 6, § 4); and the fact that the Seattle Civil Service Commission, in the course of an investigation into actions affecting the administration of the civil service system, may incidentally look into such alleged misconduct, neither enlarges nor limits its powers and duties.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 602707, Donald L. Gaines, J., entered July 2, 1963. Affirmed.
«*» Reported in 396 P. (2d) 985.
[2] See Ann. 28 A.L.R. 727; Am. Jur.y Sheriffs, Police, and Constables (1st ed. § 19).
Dec. 1964] PATTON v. WHEELON 321
Mandamus to compel civil service investigation. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment denying the writ.
Philip L. Burton, for appellant.
A. L. Newbould and Jerry F. King, for respondents.
By affidavit and sworn application for a writ of mandamus, plaintiff relates that, on February 1, 1963, several policemen forced open a window in her house to remove her minor children therefrom, used unreasonable and unlawful force in taking her children into custody, and that, during her absence, two unidentified police officers, acting without lawful authority from any court, but pretending to possess a valid search warrant, made an illegal entry and search of her home. She says she has been unsuccessful in attempting to identify these latter officers.
Plaintiff also filed with the civil service commission a demand that it investigate the same charges set forth in her complaint lodged to the mayor. From refusal to conduct such an inquiry, the plaintiff brought this application for a writ of mandamus to compel the investigation, and seeks a declaratory judgment confirming the civil service commission's powers and duty to do so under the Seattle
322 PATTON v. WHEELON [65 Wn. (2d)
charter, Art. 16. She brings this appeal from a judgment denying the mandamus and the declaratory judgment.
"The chief of police shall manage the police department, and shall prescribe rules and regulations, consistent with
Dec. 1964] PATTON v. WHEELON 323
law, for its government and control; provided, that the chief of police shall be responsible to the mayor for the administration of the police department and the enforcement of law."
In the early days of civil service, this court made a distinction between the powers to investigate and the power of removal, but did not touch upon the duty to investigate. Easson v. Seattle, 32 Wash. 405, 73 Pac. 496 (1903). In that case, complaints made to the chief of police concerning the conduct of an employee in the department produced the same results as in the instant case. Following investigation, the chief of police found the complaint groundless and refused to dismiss the employee. Whereupon, the civil service commission initiated an investigation into the charges and ordered the employee dismissed. In a suit by the discharged employee for reinstatement and to recover back wages, we held that the commission was without power of dismissal under the Seattle charter. The case went no further; it neither delimited the powers nor declared any duty with respect tot he investigative authority of the commission, and, hence, is of little help in resolving the problem before us.
"Every officer of employee in the classified civil service shall hold office until removed or retired. Any officer or employee whose appointment is complete may be removed by the appointing power only upon the filing with the commission of a statement in writing of the reasons therefor. Any officer or employee so removed may within ten days after his removal demand an investigation. The commission shall forthwith make such investigation and its finding
324 PATTON v. WHEELON [65 Wn. (2d)
and decision shall be certified to the appointing officer, and if the removal is not sustained thereby, the officer or employee so removed shall at once be re-instated.
[l, 2] Accordingly, Art. 16 of the charter, relating to the civil service system of Seattle, should be interpreted in context with the provision of the charter which places responsibility for the official conduct of police officers in the chief of police and the mayor. When read in this context, the charter does not make the commission a supervisory or reviewing agency unless the actions under investigation or scrutiny affect the administration of the civil service system.
"The commission shall investigate the administration of this article and of its rules and the action of the examiners herein provided for, and the conduct and action of the appointees in the classified service, confers the power and duty to investigate not the general conduct of the several municipal departments of government but the particular conduct of the civil service system in all its aspects.
We conclude then that this provision, considered in context with the whole charter, empowers the commission to investigate the selection, appointment, tenure, discharge and retirement of all persons seeking membership in or covered into the classified civil service. It embraces the
Dec. 1964] PATTON v. WHEELON 325
power and duty to investigate such matters as fairness and honesty in the conduct of examinations, promotions, and tenure of employment, and to look into accusations of favoritism, dishonesty, and unlawful and unfair discriminatory practices in the administration of the classified civil service. Tn short, the charter vests in the commission power and duty to investigate any violations of the charter, city ordinances, and the commission's rules and regulations directly pertaining to the administration of the classified civil service system. That in the course of its investigation the commission may incidentally encounter or look into the misconduct, misbehavior or incompetence of city employees or officials neither enlarges nor limits its powers and duties. The civil service commission is and remains a quasi-judicial organ of municipal government created to adjudicate controversies arising under and out of the classified civil service system.
OTT, C. J., HILL, ROSELLINI, and HUNTER, JJ., concur.