Court Opinion

ID: 9663818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:51:57.460694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:57.425112
License: Public Domain

Becker, J.
I concur in the opinion. Due to failure of the parties to raise the point, an important facet of this case is not treated sufficiently. The opinion states: “Plaintiffs contend this statutory enactment is not applicable but refer us to no other law under which a municipal employee may appeal to the Civil Service Commission.” We should recognize Code, 1966, sections 365.18, 365.19 and 365.20 do not contemplate jurisdiction in the Civil Service Commission to review actions of the city council in passing and adopting city ordinances.
If validity of an ordinance is to be challenged, it must be by direct resort to the courts; not by appeal to a commission which is the creation of the council from which appeal is attempted. The city council can create and abolish a Civil Service Commission. If it dispenses with the services of such commission it exercises the commission’s power itself, Code, 1966, section 365.3. Under such circumstances the entire legislative plan as well as the words of the applicable sections indicate sections 365.18, 365.19 and 365.20 do not contemplate appeal from council action to the commission. Therefore, even if the notice of appeal had been timely filed, the commission would be without jurisdiction in this case.
While this point was not sufficiently raised by the parties it should not be overlooked. To do so creates the impression the commission has jurisdiction. This would be a false impression.
Stuart and Mason, JJ., join in this special concurrence.