Opinion ID: 1192428
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: barth is entitled to additional wages for the period beginning october 5, 1993.

Text: The commissioners assert that Barth is not entitled to additional wages as the director for the period beginning October 5, 1993. We disagree. The Idaho Constitution states that the sheriff ... shall be empowered by the county commissioners to appoint such deputies ... as the business of [the] office may require, said deputies ... to receive such compensation as may be fixed by the county commissioners. Idaho Const. art. XVIII, § 6. As we have pointed out above, this section of the constitution grants the power to authorize a deputy position only to the commissioners. Before the commissioners may authorize the position, they must first determine whether a new deputy is necessary. Taylor, 6 Idaho at 470, 56 P. at 169-70. Once the commissioners empower the sheriff to appoint a deputy, however, the county is liable for the deputy's wages. Idaho Const. art. XVIII, § 6 ([D]eputies [are] ... to receive such compensation as may be fixed by the county commissioners.). As originally drafted, part of article XVIII, section 6 of the Idaho Constitution read: The county commissioners may employ such deputies and clerical assistants for the clerk of the district court, auditor and recorder and sheriff as may be necessary. 2 Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention of Idaho 1813-14 (I.W.Hart, ed.). One delegate, Mr. Heyburn, worried that this wording would allow the commissioners, in case they chose to be too stubborn, to appoint a deputy for sheriff against his protest.... [T]he language ... would place the power entirely in the hands of the commissioners to make an appointment against his protest, which ... is not right. Id. at 1816. There were two main reasons the framers did not want the power to appoint left with the commissioners. First, because a sheriff put up a bond which made the sheriff responsible for the work of the deputies, delegate Morgan reasoned that certainly the commissioners ought not to have the power to appoint a [person] not selected by [the sheriff]. Id. at 1817. Second, the framers recognized that there could be political conflicts between the commissioners and the sheriff. As delegate Mayhew explained: My idea about ... [the sheriff's office] is that ... [it is a] political office[], and when a [person] is elected to that position, let [that person's] politics be what they may, whether democratic or republican, it is [that person's] prerogative to say who [that person's] deputies shall be. If the county commissioners have a contrary view of politics, then there comes a clash, and if they are bull-headed and strong-headed, it will have a tendency to create that turmoil and dissatisfaction and dissension in the counties that will be almost impossible to reconcile. Id. at 1818. The framers therefore decided that it would be best to give the sheriff the power to appoint deputies without giving power to the county commissioners to interfere. Id. at 1819. They then amended article XVIII, section 6 to read almost exactly as it does today. They decided that the amended section authorizes ... [the office of the sheriff] to appoint such [deputies] as [the office] require[s], and then the commissioners fix the pay, but they cannot appoint. Id. This history of article XVIII, section 6 reaffirms the plain meaning of the section itself. The framers intended to prohibit the commissioners from interfering with the sheriff's power to appoint deputies the commissioners had authorized. Boughton v. Price, 70 Idaho 243, 215 P.2d 286 (1950) is cited by the commissioners for the proposition that they may impose greater qualifications for a position than the constitution imposes. In Boughton, the constitutional article at issue listed the qualifications for district judges. The legislature added to those qualifications. The Court ruled that this was permissible because the constitution only set out the minimum qualifications. In the present case, article XVIII, section 6 does not set out minimum qualifications to which the commissioners may add. Rather, it specifically grants to the sheriff the power to appoint deputies to positions authorized by the commissioners. Barton v. Alexander, 27 Idaho 286, 148 P. 471 (1915), cited by the commissioners in support of their imposition of qualifications for deputies, is also distinguishable from this case. In Barton, there was no specific constitutional provision granting the authority to appoint to the party protesting the qualifications. Although the commissioners have the sole authority to authorize the hiring of deputies, the commissioners do not have the authority to impose qualifications to be followed in hiring these deputies.