Court Opinion

ID: 9722262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:22:37.349584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:33.288024
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(iMssenting). The dispute in the case at bar focuses on what duties of the Office of Sheriff are so crucial and peculiar to the maintenance of the constitutional role of that office that the duties cannot be regulated by the legislature or by the county through power delegated to it by the legislature.
Although the court officer may perform tasks which are peculiar to and characteristic of the Office of Sheriff, I dissent because I conclude, as did Circuit Judge P. Charles Jones, that the assignment of a deputy to act as a court officer is not a duty peculiar to and characteristic of the Office of Sheriff. Judge Jones concluded that the sheriff’s appointment of the court officer can be regulated by the legislature, reasoning as follows:
“Taken together, these decisions [Brunst, supra and Buech, supra] establish that ‘important’ duties, functions and powers ‘generally recognized . . . [as] belonging to *320[the sheriff] . . . when the constitution was adopted/ which are ‘peculiar to’ and give ‘character and distinction to the office’ of Sheriff, repose exclusively in the Sheriff and may not be exercised by, nor delegated to, any other official or body.
“I believe that under this test, work assignment labor relations issues are not relegated by Art. VI, Sec. 4 solely to the authority of Sheriffs. The legislature is thus free to allocate power to bargain on these issues between Sheriffs and Counties as it sees fit.
“While internal management of the Sheriff’s Department is doubtless ‘important’, and quite possibly a power generally recognized as ‘belonging to the Sheriff when the Constitution was adopted,’ I believe it neither is ‘peculiar to’ nor gives ‘character and distinction to' the office of Sheriff. Under the reasoning in Buech, supra, numerous other officials, both elected and appointed, are responsible for the internal management of their offices. Indeed, to require a constitutional amendment for every change in Sheriff’s Department internal management would be to stretch the state ‘on a bed of Procrustes.’ Buech, supra at 482.
“Thus, Art. VI, Sec. 4, Wis. Const., does not restrain the legislature from rendering Sheriffs agents of counties for purposes of collective bargaining regarding deputies’ work assignments.” Memorandum decision of the Circuit Court at 7-8.
The majority holds that more facts are needed to determine the functions of the court officer. I conclude that regardless of whether the court officer “attends upon the court” or represents the sheriff in court, the assignment of a deputy as a court officer can be reasonably regulated. While the duties performed by a court officer may be part of the constitutional duties of the Office of Sheriff (as is the operation of a jail), the assignment of the deputy to act as court officer may be regulated by the legislature (as is the assignment of a deputy to work in the jail).
Although there is an important relationship between the circuit court and the deputy sheriff who attends *321upon the court, this case does not pose the issue of the powers of the circuit court over its attendant.
For the foregoing reasons, I dissent.