Opinion ID: 2521390
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Validity of the City's Certification Procedure

Text: In 1937, the legislature created a civil service system for city police departments to achieve the following purposes: (1) provide for promotion on the basis of merit, (2) give police officers tenure, and (3) provide for a civil service commission to administer the system and to investigate, by public hearing, removals, suspensions, demotions, and discharges by the appointing power to determine whether such action was or was not made for political or religious reasons and whether it was or was not made in good faith for cause.[ [7] ] Reynolds v. Kirkland Police Comm'n, 62 Wash.2d 720, 725, 384 P.2d 819 (1963) (emphasis added). Civil service systems were enacted to eliminate the practice of favoritism by state and city officials. See City of Yakima v. Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, Local 469, 117 Wash.2d 655, 664, 818 P.2d 1076 (1991) ([i]n essence, the civil service system was designed to replace the spoils system with a merit system); see also Gogerty v. Dep't of Insts., 71 Wash.2d 1, 4-5, 426 P.2d 476 (1967) ([t]his declared purpose is clearly within the traditional principle of the merit system of public employment, i.e. the delimitation or elimination of the spoils system). We have explained that a merit system is one that require[s] public officials to hire, promote and discharge employees based on merit rather than political affiliation, religion, favoritism or race. Fire Fighters, 117 Wash.2d at 664, 818 P.2d 1076. Chapter 41.12 RCW establishes a prototype civil service system for cities. The prototype requires that a city's civil service commission certify the person ranked highest on the eligibility list for promotion to positions declared vacant by the appointing authority (the rule of one). RCW 41.12.100. The appointing authority must appoint the certified individual. Id. Thus, the appointing authority has no discretion in making the promotion selection. Chapter 41.12 RCW does not require strict adherence to its prototype civil service system. Rather, it specifically provides that [ t]he provisions of this chapter shall have no application to cities and towns which at the present time have provided for civil service in the police department or which shall subsequently provide for civil service in the police department by local charter or other regulations which said local charter or regulations substantially accomplish the purpose of this chapter, nor to cities having a police force of not more than two persons including the chief of police. RCW 41.12.010 (emphasis added). The City exercised that authority under RCW 41.12.010 in 1978 and permitted its civil service commission to certify the names of candidates in the top twenty-five (25) percent of the eligible register, or the top five (5) candidates, whichever number is larger. (rule of five or 25 percent). Former SMC 4.08.070(F); PSCSC Rule 11.05(c)(1). Consequently, the appointing power, Chief Stamper, possessed considerable discretion in choosing which officers to promote. Ramm contends that the City's promotion procedures afforded the appointing authority too much discretion, contrary to chapter 41.12 RCW's purpose of providing for promotion on the basis of merit, and therefore do not substantially accomplish the purpose of the chapter. The Court of Appeals considered whether the City's rule of five or 25 percent fell within the authority afforded to cities by the legislature in RCW 41.12.010. Seattle Police Officers Guild, 113 Wash.App. at 438-39, 53 P.3d 1036. The court concluded that certification of the top 25 percent afforded too much discretion to the Chief and failed to substantially accomplish the purpose of chapter 41.12 RCW since the City did not produce any authority that justified the rule and no Washington municipality used the rule of 25 percent at the time of the statute's enactment. Id. at 439, 53 P.3d 1036. However, the court upheld the validity of the City's rule of five under the rationale that [t]he `rule of five' is substantially similar to the `rule of three,' id., which we upheld in International Ass'n of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, Local 404 v. City of Walla Walla, 90 Wash.2d 828, 586 P.2d 479 (1978). In Local 404, we considered whether the city of Walla Walla's certification of the top three performers on the civil service exam (rule of three) substantially accomplishes the purpose of chapter 41.08 RCW, a statute governing civil service rights of city fire department employees. [8] RCW 41.08.010. We held that the legislature intended to provide flexibility and discretion for cities in RCW 41.08.010 by its use of the word substantially. Id. at 831-32, 586 P.2d 479. Further, we reasoned that the legislature could have specified that cities enact a rule of one since at least two cities used the rule of three in 1935 at the time of passage of chapter 41.08 RCW. Id. We noted that the rule of one was not of such overriding concern that it is essential under RCW 41.08, and the rule of three was `a well-established and well-recognized method of carrying out and accomplishing the purposes of civil service.' Id. at 832, 586 P.2d 479 (quoting Bellingham Firefighters Local 106 v. City of Bellingham, 15 Wash.App. 662, 666, 551 P.2d 142 (1976)). [9] Thus, we upheld the city of Walla Walla's rule of three. Ramm contends that we justified our decision in Local 404 to uphold the rule of three, in part, because it was a recognized and acceptable method in civil service systems. [10] Local 404, 90 Wash.2d at 832, 586 P.2d 479. In Local 404, however, we reached our decision to uphold the rule of three by interpreting the meaning of, substantially accomplish the purpose in RCW 41.08.010. Id. at 831-32, 586 P.2d 479. We concluded that by use of this language the legislature intended that cities retain flexibility and discretion over their civil service systems. [11] Id. Indeed, the statute expressly states that cities must accomplish only the purpose rather than follow the particular methods prescribed by chapter 41.12 RCW. RCW 41.12.010. Ramm has not demonstrated how the City's rule of five fails to substantially accomplish chapter 41.12 RCW's purpose of ensuring that its officers receive promotions based on merit. On its face, the City's civil service ordinance honors merit principles by granting employees the right to compete openly for positions on the basis of knowledge, skills, and abilities. SMC 4.08.140(A). The City's system ensures that officers qualify for promotional opportunities based on their performance on the civil service exam. Id. Further, Ramm has failed to establish that the City awarded promotions other than on the basis of merit in practice. [12] While Chief Stamper stated that officers should attempt to personally meet him and members of the SLT team in order to improve their chances of promotion, a practice that arguably raises an inference of favoritism, it is difficult to argue that this practice would not occur under the already permissible rule of three. See Local 404, 90 Wash.2d at 832, 586 P.2d 479. Although Ramm argues that the legislature has not historically permitted certification of more than three candidates, in fact, our legislature has enacted a statute for state civil service employees that permits [c]ertification of names for vacancies, including departmental promotions, with the number of names equal to six more names than there are vacancies to be filled.  [13] RCW 41.06.150(2) (effective until June 30, 2004) (emphasis added). [14] Like 41.12 RCW, the state employees' civil service statute requires promotion based on merit principles. RCW 41.06.010. [15] The legislature obviously believed that certifying more than three names for promotions could accomplish this purpose. [16] Since the legislature has concluded that RCW 41.06.150(2) meets the purpose of promoting state employees based on merit principles, the City's rule of five certainly can substantially accomplish this same purpose. RCW 41.12.010. Lastly, Ramm asserts that if we find that the rule of five substantially accomplishes the purposes of chapter 41.12 RCW there will be no limit on an appointing authority's discretion. However, we do not make this decision without legislative guidance. As noted above, the legislature has determined that certification of six more names than there are vacancies to be filled satisfies the purpose of ensuring that state appointing authorities promote on the basis of merit. RCW 41.06.150(2). Thus, we hold that cities will substantially accomplish the purpose of chapter 41.12 RCW so long as the established civil service system provides for appointment by certification of no greater than six more names than there are vacancies to be filled. [17] Id. Designation of civil service certification procedures that accomplish the purpose of providing for promotion on the basis of merit is a legislative function, and we will adhere to the legislature's benchmark when considering whether cities' civil service ordinances have accomplished this purpose. [18]