Opinion ID: 1436223
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The previous majority opinion.

Text: In considering the opinion by the majority which reaffirm(s) the constitutionality of the challenged statutes it is first important to bear in mind that the majority would not only reaffirm the result reached by its previous majority opinion, but would also reaffirm the new rule of legislative supremacy as stated in that opinion, including the basis for that rule in the newly recognized distinction between matters of the structure or procedures of government and matters of substantive policy. [1] It is also important to bear in mind that the result of the adoption of that rule, based upon this distinction, is not only to affirm the validity of the current statute requiring cities to provide insurance policies and retirement benefits to policemen and firemen in accordance with the requirements of the state Public Employes Retirement System, but to hold that under that rule the legislature is empowered to impose upon cities the financial burden of payment of these or other benefits to all city employees, including all clerks, janitors and street cleaners, and in amounts as required by statute, and to provide by general laws that cities must conform to requirements prescribed by the legislature as to any and all substantive matters that it may choose to impose upon cities. The importance of recognizing the broad sweep and the needless overkill of the previous majority opinion is emphasized by the fact that at the argument on rehearing the attorney representing the cities conceded, in response to a question, that these statutes involving policemen and firemen might be valid even under the test as previously established and recognized by unanimous opinions of this court for a period of over 40 years. [2] The primary concern of the cities is not so much the result in this case, but the result that would be required in future cases by the adoption of a new rule of legislative supremacy under which the state legislature may overrule provisions of city charters and ordinance provisions as to matters of substantive policy and also as to any matter involving the structure and procedures of local government in which there is a need to safeguard the interests of persons or entities.