Court Opinion

ID: 9629685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:47:21.803522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:56.599486
License: Public Domain

Wright, C.J.
(dissenting) — I dissent.
Any discussion of this problem must of necessity start with the fundamental rule that a municipal corporation such as the City of Walla Walla possesses only such powers as are conferred by statute, or arise from necessary implication from the provisions of a statute. In State ex rel. Elwood v. Lovering, 78 Wash. 624, 626, 139 P. 617 (1914), we said: "A city has only such powers as are granted by the legislature or are necessarily implied in the exercise of its governmental powers and police functions." See also State ex rel. Clausen v. Burr, 65 Wash. 524, 118 P. 639 (1911) and Campbell v. Saunders, 86 Wn.2d 572, 546 P.2d 922 (1976).
The authority of the City to establish a civil service system must, if such authority is to exist at all, come from statute. The system in use in Walla Walla diifers from the system provided by statute. A city is permitted by statute to establish a civil service system for the fire department if such system will "substantially accomplish the purpose of this chapter." RCW 41.08.
The question in this case may be narrowly stated. Do the ordinances of the City of Walla Walla "substantially accomplish the purpose of" RCW 41.08?
Discussion centers around the "rule of one” and the "rule of three." Those terms simply mean that after a civil service examination has been held and the results certified under the "rule of one," the one highest person in the examination gets the employment or promotion. Under the "rule of three," the three highest names are certified to the appointing authority who then selects one name from the three.
*834We must, therefore, consider if an ordinance which contains the "rule of three" will "substantially accomplish the purpose of" the statute which calls for the "rule of one."
There are several indications that the legislature definitely intended to place fire departments under the "rule of one." (1) The language of the statute is clear. (2) The legislature had other enactments for other classes of employment which provided for the "rule of three." (3) The legislature made adequate provision for discretion under the "rule of one."
The language of the statute is clear. RCW 41.08.040(9) states "the name of the person highest on the eligible list". The language in both sections is clearly singular. When the language of a statutory provision is plain there is no room for construction or interpretation. State v. Houck, 32 Wn.2d 681, 203 P.2d 693 (1949); Shelton Hotel Co. v. Bates, 4 Wn.2d 498, 104 P.2d 478 (1940); State v. Roth, 78 Wn.2d 711, 479 P.2d 55 (1971); State ex rel. Hagan v. Chinook Hotel, Inc., 65 Wn.2d 573, 399 P.2d 8 (1965).
Other acts of the legislature provide for the "rule of three" in regard to the employment of many classes of public employees. There is a presumption when the legislature makes different provisions in different enactments it was intended to make a difference. Cf. State v. Roth, supra at 715; RCW 41.06.150. The legislature is presumed to know of other enactments. Thurston County v. Gorton, 85 Wn.2d 133, 530 P.2d 309 (1975); Daly v. Chapman, 85 Wn.2d 780, 539 P.2d 831 (1975).
The legislature made provision for the exercise of discretion in the appointing process. RCW 41.08.100 provides for a probationary period. The opening words on the provision for a probationary period are: "To enable the appointing power to exercise a choice in the filling of positions". It is clear this is the method selected for the opportunity to be given the appointing power to exercise a choice. It scarcely requires discussion to point out that an appointing power is *835in a much better position to objectively evaluate the performance of a person under job conditions when such person is given an actual tryout on the job. An exercise of a choice under such a situation is also far less apt to be tainted by the spoils system, or by personal or political considerations.
There is a fundamental difference between the "rule of one" and the "rule of three." In the "rule of one," selection is based on merit alone. In the "rule of three," merit enters into the selection only to a limited extent. The final choice is given to the appointing authority. It is only a matter of degree and not a difference in kind whether the appointment is made from a list of 3 or a list of 25, or in fact, from a list of 100, names. If the selection can be other than the one best, the element of absolute integrity is gone; politics can enter in. Such a system does not "substantially accomplish the purpose of" RCW 41.08. For that reason, I would affirm the trial court.
Rosellini, J., concurs with Wright, C.J.
Reconsideration denied December 14, 1978.