Opinion ID: 2520215
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: legal sufficiency of the petition

Text: ¶ 10 This Court has long held that the powers of initiative and referendum reserved to the people of a municipality, apply only to legislative matters and not to administrative acts. [7] The line between legislative matters and administrative acts is not always clear. [8] As a general rule, [a]ctions relating to subjects of a permanent and general character are usually regarded as legislative, and those providing for subjects of a temporary and special character are regarded as administrative. [9] Essentially, if the proposed initiative would put into execution previously declared policies or laws, it is administrative in nature. [10] When an extensive knowledge of fiscal matters are of prime importance in the decision-making process which [is] the topic of the initiative petition, the petition is usually administrative. [11] Because wages, benefits, working conditions, and hiring and firing decisions require a comprehensive knowledge of a municipality's fiscal affairs, decisions regarding personnel matters are usually administrative. [12] ¶ 11 In In re Supreme Court Adjudication of Sufficiency of Initiative Petition of Tulsa, [13] the City Auditor of Tulsa had determined that an initiative petition establishing a minimum number of police officers and setting salaries for police officers was legally insufficient. [14] This Court upheld the auditor's finding because the subject of the petition was administrative in nature. [15] ¶ 12 In Fite, the initiative petition proposed collective bargaining and binding arbitration for firefighters and police officers of the City of Muskogee. [16] Because of the impermanence of economic conditions effecting decisions involving wages, hours or other conditions of employment, the subject of the initiative petition, collective bargaining and arbitration, was administrative. [17] ¶ 13 In Fite and Initiative Petition in Tulsa, the subject matter of the petitions, personnel matters, was the determining factor. The fact that the petitions in these cases required binding arbitration was not decisive. The Petition in this case involves the same subject matter as the petitions in Fite and Initiative Petition of Tulsa: employee wages, hours and other conditions of employment. Thus, the subject of the Petition in this case is administrative, not legislative, and contravenes article XVIII, section 4(a) of the Oklahoma Constitution. ¶ 14 The Proponents rely on Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Choctaw. [18] In Fraternal Order of Police, this Court upheld the Fire and Police Arbitration Act [19] (the Act) against an attack that it violated title XVIII, section 4(a) of the Oklahoma Constitution. This Court found it unnecessary to address whether the Act was administrative because it was not presented through the initiative process and, thus, not restricted by title XVIII, section 4(a). Proponents' reliance on Fraternal Order of Police is misplaced.