Opinion ID: 1608200
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statutory Authority for Probationary Promotion

Text: ¶ 15. As a preliminary matter, we note the question certified to this court: Does a police chief and a police and fire commission have authority to promote police officers within a department on a probationary basis and, if so, pursuant to what authority? [6] ¶ 16. Kraus asserts that he was not subject to probation because there is no statute granting either the Chief or the PFC authority to impose a probationary period on newly promoted sergeants. Kraus maintains that, in the absence of express statutory authority for probationary promotion, he attained the permanent rank of sergeant at the moment he was promoted on November 25, 1997. [3] ¶ 17. We conclude that there is a statutory basis for the PFC to impose probationary periods upon newly promoted officers. Wisconsin Stat. § 62.13(4) grants police chiefs and PFCs broad powers relating to the selection and appointment of subordinates. See Racine Police & Fire Comm'n v. Stanfield, 70 Wis. 2d 395, 402, 234 N.W.2d 307 (1975). The language in subsection (4) and the rule-making authority in Wis. Stat. § 62.13(6) are the source for the Waukesha PFC and Chief Sharrock's shared authority to make promotional appointments on a probationary basis. The fact that Wis. Stat. § 62.13 does not expressly mention probation cannot be interpreted reasonably to mean that the legislature has precluded the use of this common and effective management tool for evaluating candidates. Nowhere has the legislature expressly withdrawn the power of chiefs and PFCs to use probation in promotions. ¶ 18. We note, first, that Wis. Stat. § 62.13(4)(a) grants chiefs of police the authority and duty to appoint subordinates subject to approval by the board. Wis. Stat. § 62.13(4)(a). [7] The paragraph further provides that such appointments are to be made by promotion from within when this can be done with advantage. Id. The quoted language anticipates an exercise of judgment: the chief and the PFC are given authority to determine whether qualified officers exist within a department and who among them should be promoted. See Glendale Prof'l Policemen's Ass'n v. City of Glendale, 83 Wis. 2d 90, 102-03, 106-07, 264 N.W.2d 594 (1978). The appointing authorities must be vested with reasonable means to help them exercise sound judgment. ¶ 19. Second, Wis. Stat. § 62.13(6)(a)1. gives the PFC authority to organize fire and police departments and to prescribe rules and regulations for their control and management. Wisconsin Stat. § 62.13(4)(c) pinpoints PFC authority to classify positions. Together, these provisions authorize the PFC to establish classifications of employees, including probationary employees and probationary promotees. ¶ 20. Third, Wis. Stat. § 62.13(4)(c) grants to the PFC the authority to adopt rules calculated to secure the best service in the departments when making appointments. Wisconsin Stat. § 62.13(4)(c) provides: For the choosing of such list [of candidates for appointment] the board shall adopt, and may repeal or modify, rules calculated to secure the best service in the departments. These rules shall provide for examination of physical and educational qualifications and experience, and may provide such competitive examinations as the board shall determine, and for the classification of positions with special examination for each class. The board shall print and distribute the rules and all changes in them, at city expense. Wis. Stat. § 62.13(4)(c) (emphasis added). ¶ 21. Even though this paragraph's reference to rules focuses on the choosing of [a] list (as opposed to a more discretionary promotion process) as a prelude to appointment, it is broad enough to permit the imposition of a probationary period upon persons who are appointed from the list. Moreover, the paragraph cannot be viewed as stripping PFCs of their power to make rules in connection with other appointments to secure the best service in the departments. The ultimate objective of any method of appointment is to secure high-quality people to serve the public. ¶ 22. Fourth, both Wis. Stat. § 62.13(4)(c) and (d) [8] address the power to examine candidates for appointment. Paragraph (c) speaks of the classification of positions with special examination for each class. Paragraph (d) was interpreted in Kaiser, 104 Wis. 2d at 503, to provide that boards of police shall examine candidates to determine their qualifications. ¶ 23. These paragraphs mention examinations as well as the authority of the PFC to set the scope and nature of the examinations. Probation is a form of examination, and one that is highly effective in the realm of law enforcement. It allows chiefs and PFCs to ascertain whether newly placed subordinates are suited for the positions for which they have been selected. ¶ 24. There is a specific reference to probation for law enforcement officers in another statute. See Wis. Stat. § 165.85(4)(b). This provision prohibits the appointment of a person as a law enforcement officer, except on a temporary or probationary basis, unless the person has already satisfactorily completed a preparatory program of law enforcement training approved by the Law Enforcement Standards Board and been certified by the Board as being qualified to be a law enforcement officer. Id. The principal purpose of this statute appears to be to use probation as a means of enforcing the requirements for law enforcement training. The statute does not require probation for all new law enforcement officers because it does not require probation for fully trained and certified officers. ¶ 25. At the same time, however, Wis. Stat. § 165.85(4)(c) authorizes the Law Enforcement Standards Board to fix, by rule, such other minimum qualifications for the employment of law enforcement . . . officers as relate to the competence and reliability of persons to assume and discharge the responsibilities of law enforcement. Using this authority, the Board could establish the completion of a probationary period as a required qualification. ¶ 26. In any event, Wis. Stat. § 165.85(4)(e) pointedly acknowledges that the statute does not preclude any law enforcement agency from setting recruit training and employment standards which are higher than the minimum standards set by the board. Wis. Stat. § 165.85(4)(e). This language concedes PFC authority to require probation for recruits, even if they are already certified as qualified. ¶ 27. There has long been a question about the source of authority for probation in the hiring of police officers. In Kaiser, this court relied upon Wis. Stat. § 165.85(4)(b), noting that there was no claim that Kaiser had the requisite training or status to be hired as other than a probationary officer. Kaiser, 104 Wis. 2d at 502 n.2. The court also relied upon the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Wauwatosa and its nonsupervisory police officers. Id. at 502. There is little doubt that Wis. Stat. § 165.85(4) effectively imposes probation on virtually all new officers in relation to their training and also permits PFCs to require probation to supplement the standards set out in the statute. ¶ 28. Nonetheless, police officer probationary hires predate the enactment of Wis. Stat. § 165.85(4), which took effect in 1970. See § 6, ch. 466, Laws of 1969 (effective March 19, 1970). [9] In addition, Wis. Stat. § 165.85(4) applies only to law enforcement officers, not firefighters. Hence, § 165.85(4) may not be cited as the authority for probationary hires for firefighters, even though firefighters are often subject to probation after being hired. [10] Consequently, there must be some additional source of authority for probationary hires for law enforcement officers and firefighters besides § 165.85(4). ¶ 29. The origin of police and fire commissions dates back more than a century. In 1897 the legislature approved Chapter 247, an act to establish a board of police and fire commissioners in cities of the second and third class. The chapter included the following provisions: Section 2. After this act goes into effect, no person shall be appointed to any position, either on the police force or in the fire department in any such city except with the approval of the board. Section 3. As soon as possible after the first members of said board shall enter upon their offices in any city, said board shall prepare and adopt such rules and regulations to govern the selection and appointment of persons to be thereafter employed in either the police or fire department of such city, as in the judgment of said board shall be adapted to secure the best service for the public in each department. Such rules and regulations shall provide for ascertaining, as far as possible, the physical qualifications, the educational qualifications, and habits, and the reputation and standing and experience of all applicants for positions, and they may provide for the competitive examination of all applicants, in such subjects as shall be deemed proper, for the purpose of best determining their qualifications for the positions sought. Such rules and regulations may provide for the classifications of positions in the service and for a special course of inquiry and examination for candidates for each class. All rules and regulations adopted shall be subject to modifications or repeal by the board, at any time. §§ 2-3, ch. 247, Laws of 1897 (emphasis added). ¶ 30. The language in Section 3 was clearly broad enough to authorize probationary appointments. It was part of Wisconsin law approximately eight years before the legislature required probationary periods for most state employees. See § 9, ch. 363, Laws of 1905. ¶ 31. In 1921 the legislature consolidated, renumbered, and revised the statute relating to PFCs, creating Wis. Stat. § 62.13. See §§ 53-60, ch. 242, Laws of 1921. The revision caused the specific rule-making authority for selection and appointment to become less explicit. Nonetheless, the 1921 revision retained sweeping authority, set out elsewhere in the same statute, [t]o prescribe rules and regulations for the control and management of said departments. Wis. Stat. § 959-40m (1919); Wis. Stat. § 62.13(6) (1921). Consequently, there is scant evidence that the 1921 legislature intended to narrow the rule-making authority of PFCs. [4] ¶ 32. We acknowledge that the powers of government agencies are generally limited to those conferred expressly or by fair implication by statute. See GTE N. Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 176 Wis. 2d 559, 564, 500 N.W.2d 284 (1993) (citing Mid-Plains Telephone v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 56 Wis. 2d 780, 786, 202 N.W.2d 907 (1973)). We believe, however, that the authority for probationary hires is fairly implied in the appointment power found in Wis. Stat. § 62.13(4) and buttressed by the rule-making authority in Wis. Stat. § 62.13(6). The power to examine and appoint police officers and fire-fighters implies authority to use reasonable tools to facilitate the power for lawful objectives. ¶ 33. Probationary periods have been part of prudent hiring and sound management for many years. [11] We see no reason why appointing authorities may not rely on probationary promotions as well as probationary hires, using the same statutory authority, because both probationary periods are a reasonable means to implement the appointment power to secure the best service in the departments. See Wis. Stat. § 62.13(4)(c). The practice of promotional probation is consistent with the statement of policy articulated in Wis. Stat. § 165.85(1). [12] ¶ 34. The authority to use probationary periods as part of the appointment process is not undermined by the absence of specific language regarding probation in Wis. Stat. § 62.13(4). Numerous management tools integrally related to appointment, such as interviews, references, and letters of recommendation, are not expressly enumerated in that statute. These tools are not forbidden simply because they are not enumerated. ¶ 35. We suspect the legislature did not provide explicit statutory authority for probationary periods for law enforcement officers before 1970 because the practice of imposing probation developed naturally without legislation. Public employees, like private sector employees, were employed at will until the legislature began to create statutory protections for them. There was no need to authorize probationary periods before these protections were enacted. Later, probationary periods were used in tandem with employment protections because they made statutory employment protections rational. ¶ 36. Kraus's primary argument against PFC authority to promote on a probationary basis is founded upon an incorrect negative inference that is based upon a misinterpretation of applicable law. Kraus points to the language regarding police officer probation found in Wis. Stat. § 165.85. Under sub-section (4), entitled Required standards, the legislature has outlined various mandatory training and qualification requirements for newly hired law enforcement personnel in the state. In particular, Wis. Stat. § 165.85(4)(b)1. provides: No person may be appointed as a law enforcement or tribal law enforcement officer, except on a temporary or probationary basis, unless the person has satisfactorily completed a preparatory program of law enforcement training approved by the board and has been certified by the board as being qualified to be a law enforcement or tribal law enforcement officer. . . . The period of temporary or probationary employment established at the time of initial employment shall not be extended by more than one year for an officer lacking the training qualifications required by the board. The total period during which a person may serve as a law enforcement and tribal law enforcement officer on a temporary or probationary basis without completing a preparatory program of law enforcement training approved by the board shall not exceed 2 years . . . . Wis. Stat. § 165.85(4)(b)1. (emphasis added). ¶ 37. Kraus contends that, inasmuch as § 165.85(4)(b) requires one year of probation for all newly hired law enforcement officers, the Wisconsin Statutes do not permit probationary status for any officers who are not within one year of having been hired. The use of probation, he argues, is confined to that period. ¶ 38. We disagree. The statute does not require that newly hired law enforcement officers go through a one-year probationary period if they have fully satisfied state training requirements and been properly certified before they are hired. As a result, there is little force to the argument that the legislature insisted on probation for new law enforcement hires and prohibited probation for everyone else. That argument, of course, would exclude probation for firefighters altogether. Even if the gist of the law enforcement training statute were to require probation for all newly appointed law enforcement officers, it would not follow that these are the only circumstances in which probationary appointment is permitted. The statute's silence on the use of probationary periods in other circumstances implies no more than that state law does not require probationary periods for promotional appointments and in certain other contexts. [13] ¶ 39. Public policy strongly supports allowing chiefs of police and PFCs to use probationary promotions. Probationary periods are an effective means of securing quality law enforcement in this state. As we first expressed in Kaiser when analyzing Wis. Stat. § 62.13(4), There is no doubt that the use of a probationary period is an excellent means of examining candidates and is well-suited to securing the best service available. It enables the board to better evaluate a potential officer's skill and character. Probation is a continuation of the hiring process. Kaiser, 104 Wis. 2d at 504. [14] While the analysis in Kaiser involved newly hired police officers, we view probation as a continuation of the entire appointment process, including promotion, not just the initial hiring process. ¶ 40. Kraus maintains that Kaiser's rationale is inapplicable because a chief has ample opportunity to observe candidates for promotion who have previously worked within the department and to adequately evaluate their skills, performance, and competence based on this observation. Thus, he reasons, it is not necessary, as a matter of public policy, to subject promotees to probation in order to promote in a manner calculated to secure the best service in the departments. ¶ 41. We find Kraus's depiction of the rigors of selecting qualified individuals to serve in a supervisory capacity in law enforcement too simplistic. Although a lot may be gleaned from an individual's history as a patrol officer, it is difficult to assess with any certainty how the officer's traits and knowledge at the lower rank will translate into the skills needed to perform well as a sergeant. The higher position requires skills, such as leadership and supervision, that may not be manifested during an officer's tenure on patrol duty. The probationary period is definitely a part of the promotional process and may very well be the only real safeguard a department has against being saddled with officers who are unsuited to fill supervisory roles. Benjamin Shimberg & Robert J. di Grazia, Promotion, in Police Personnel Administration 122 (O. Glenn Stahl & Richard A. Staufenberger eds., 1974). ¶ 42. Some years ago, the superintendent of the Ohio State Highway Patrol observed that, prior to the advent of police schools, field instruction constituted practically the whole training process. George Mingle, Police Personnel Evaluation and Development, 30 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 277, 277 (1946). He explained that the Highway Patrol had developed a checklist of criteria by which to evaluate officers. [15] ¶ 43. The superintendent observed that some of the factors, like honesty, loyalty, and courage, appear to be strictly personal qualities which have a direct bearing on a [person's] value as a police officer. Id. at 283. Others have to do with some particular skill or ability[]. Id. The qualities of leadership, organization and direction of work, and discipline, are some which . . . particularly apply to supervisory officers. Id. (emphasis added). ¶ 44. We agree with the description of sergeants supplied by the Waukesha PFC, as stated in its brief before this court: Sergeants who are promoted from the ranks face a difficult transition. They go from labor to management. They are now asked to assert discipline and control over employees who were recently their equals. They are asked to assign officers to different tasks, some desirable, some not so desirable. They must do performance evaluations for the patrol officers under their command. They must order their former fellows to re-write poorly written reports. They must tell them when, where, and how long they can take lunch breaks. They may order them to increase traffic enforcement activities. They must properly supervise on-scene crime investigations. ¶ 45. The Waukesha PFC's description is confirmed in a recent text on police supervision, which states: Many sergeants (due to insecurity, immaturity, poor training, or the inability to cope with criticism) fear the thought of judging their subordinates and use all sorts of excuses to avoid it. They claim that it takes too much time away from their other duties, strains personal relationships, is ignored by management, and is almost always perceived by fellow employees as an unwarranted intrusion in their professional lives. These rationalizations are unacceptable. Sergeants must be prepared to accept responsibility for meaningful performance appraisal. Harry W. More, et al., Effective Police Supervision 188 (3d ed. 1999). ¶ 46. The evaluation of supervisory personnel may be more difficult than the evaluation of patrol officers. O.W. Wilson (1900-1972), the legendary Dean of the School of Criminology at the University of California, Berkeley, and Superintendent of Police in Chicago, wrote that the complexity in the evaluation of police personnel derives from the fact that they involve the appraisal of human qualities. O.W. Wilson, Problems in Police Personnel Administration, 43 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 840, 840 (1953). He added: The need for more than average intelligence in police service stems from the necessity of dealing with extremely complex situations and of matching wits with malefactors, some of whom are extremely intelligent though frequently otherwise deficient. The need for high ethical standards springs from the nature of police work; it involves dealing with many persons who are ethically deficient; it also frequently presents unusual opportunities and temptations that require more than average moral stamina to withstand. The need for emotional stability arises from the grave nature of the responsibilities that are imposed on policemen and the authority that is theirs. The need for a suitable personality grows from the fact that the principal duties of policemen involve dealing with other personsgetting them to conform to regulations and to do what the policeman wants with minimum friction and resentment. Id. at 841. ¶ 47. These passages underscore the value of probation in evaluating both supervisors and officers and the reasonableness in doing so to effect statutory objectives. ¶ 48. To sum up, pre-employment training and non-supervisory patrol duty do not necessarily predict a person's actual performance in a supervisory capacity. We conclude that Wis. Stat. §§ 62.13(4) and 62.13(6), as well as sound public policy, support probationary promotions in municipal police departments.