Case Name: FLOYD A. RAINS, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA et al., Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1951-05-18
Citations: 37 Cal. 2d 263
Docket Number: S. F. No. 18068
Parties: FLOYD A. RAINS, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 263–269

Head Matter:
[S. F. No. 18068.
In Bank.
May 18, 1951.]
FLOYD A. RAINS, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA et al., Respondents.
Todd & Todd and Henry C. Todd for Appellant.
Francis W. Collins, District Attorney, and Charles Hemmings, Deputy District Attorney, for Respondents.

Opinion:
GIBSON, C. J.
Plaintiff, suing as a taxpayer, seeks to enjoin certain officials of Contra Costa County from paying compensation to, or certifying the appointment of, defendant Degnan as medical director of the county hospital, and to have an ordinance, which removed the medical director and others from civil service, declared invalid. Judgment was entered for defendants, and plaintiff has appealed.
In May, 1944, the hoard of supervisors adopted ordinance 325 establishing a merit system for county employees pursuant to the County Civil Service Enabling Act, now sections 31100-31113 of the Government Code. All employees were thereby placed under civil service except elected officials, casual employees of county institutions, members of commissions, persons serving without compensation, and certain investigators and others employed by the sheriff and district attorney. Thereafter, as required hy the enabling act, ordinance 325 was submitted to and ratified by the electors of the county. The ordinance provided that it could be amended by a four-fifths vote of the supervisors without approval by the people, but that "no amendment repealing this Ordinance shall be effective unless the proposition of its repeal shall first have been submitted" to the electors and approved by a majority vote.
In 1948, by four-fifths vote, the supervisors adopted ordinance 471 which amended ordinance 325 by including in the exempt categories the medical director of the county hospital and all physicians and surgeons serving the county. Defendant Degnan, a doctor of medicine, was thereafter appointed medical director without being required to take a civil service examination, and plaintiff seeks to prevent payment of his salary, claiming that ordinance 471 is invalid and ineffective.
The principal question is whether ordinance 471 amounts to a repeal within the meaning of the provision of ordinance 325 that no repeal shall be effective until approved by the voters. This provision refers to both amendment and repeal, and it appears that the clear intent of the ordinance is to deprive the supervisors of the power to destroy or substantially impair the civil service system without approval by the voters, but at the same time to permit the supervisors to amend the ordinance and make such changes and modifications as would not constitute a substantial impairment of the system. This is in accord with the general definitions of the terms, since repeal ordinarily means revocation, rescission, abrogation or destruction, whereas amendment involves an alteration or change, as by addition, taking away or modification. (Webster's New Internat. Dict.; 3 Words and Phrases, 319-321; 37 Words and Phrases, 5-6.)
In this case ordinance 471 removed from civil service a very limited class of employees consisting of the medical doctors serving the county. The type of work done by medical men, the times and hours when such work must be done, possible difficulties in obtaining medical men in that county for civil service positions, the general scarcity of doctors, and many other factors may have influenced the supervisors to conclude that the system as a whole would work more efficiently, and that the county would derive greater benefits, if this limited professional group were excluded. While opinions differ as to the advisability of bringing or retaining certain kinds of employees under civil service, experience may demonstrate the wisdom of adding certain classes or eliminating others, and here both the language and the general purpose of ordinance 325 are consistent with permitting some degree of elasticity. The record does not indicate that ordinance 471 was part of an attempt to destroy the civil service system by piecemeal amendment, and we cannot say that there was any substantial impairment. Accordingly, it must be held that the supervisors had power to adopt ordinance 471 and that it was not a repeal within the meaning of ordinance 325.
Other contentions made by plaintiff are without substantial merit and need not be discussed. Likewise, in view of our determination that ordinance 471 was a valid amendment of ordinance 325, we need not pass on the further question whether the supervisors could limit their power to take future legislative action by specifying in ordinance 325 the manner in which it might be modified or repealed.
The judgment is affirmed.
Shenk, J., Edmonds, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., and Spence, J., concurred.