Court Opinion

ID: 9576974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:30:28.388355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:46.523937
License: Public Domain

Benham, Presiding Justice,
dissenting.
The issue in Case No. S95A0135 is whether the constitutional amendment authorizing legislation creating a merit system for Gwinnett County employees extends merit system coverage to a deputy clerk appointed and then discharged by the Clerk of the Superior Court of Gwinnett County. The issue in Case No. S95X0136 is whether the county is responsible for the attorney fees incurred by the superior court clerk in pursuing this declaratory judgment action with private counsel. The majority concludes that not a single employee of the superior court clerk qualifies as a county employee cov*510ered by the merit system, and holds that the county must pay the clerk’s “reasonable attorney fees.” I disagree with both determinations as well as the method of constitutional interpretation employed to reach the coverage conclusion.9
The majority’s analysis of the constitutional amendment is somewhat limited. It makes the observation that, in passing a variety of constitutional amendments authorizing legislation creating individual county merit systems, the General Assembly employed differing phraseology to describe the county personnel to be covered by the various counties’ individual merit systems. Because some constitutional amendments authorized coverage for “county employees” and “certain employees of . . . the office of the clerk of superior court” (Floyd County); or for “county employees” and employees and deputies of county officers (Fulton and DeKalb counties), the majority at 506 concludes that the language of Gwinnett County’s amendment (“all present and future employees of Gwinnett County other than elected officials”) is “insufficient to bring employees of the Clerk of the Superior Court within its coverage.” In essence, the majority is stating that it is the General Assembly’s perception of the breadth of its legislation, the General Assembly’s concern that its legislation might be interpreted as not being as inclusive as it desired, which controls the judicial interpretation of the legislation feared to be inadequate. In contrast, I believe that this court should examine the merits of the questioned legislation and not rely solely on the General Assembly’s perceptions of inadequacy.
1. Since 1817, the clerks of the superior court have had the power to appoint a deputy or deputies whose powers and duties are the same as those of the clerk for as long as the clerk remains in office. OCGA § 15-6-59 (b). However, if the positions in the clerk’s office are subject to the merit system, the clerk’s authority to appoint deputies pursuant to § 15-6-59 (b) “is limited to vacancies created by the removal of employees in the manner provided under the applicable personnel or civil service system or vacancies created when employees resign or retire.” Wayne County v. Herrin, 210 Ga. App. 747, 753 (437 SE2d 793) (1993). A merit system of employment applicable to Gwin-nett County had its inception during the 1968 session of the General Assembly, which passed a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment which authorized the legislature to provide by law for the *511creation of a merit system of employment “for any or all present and future employees of Gwinnett County, other than officials elected by the people.” Ga. L. 1968, p. 1884, § 1. After the constitutional amendment was ratified by the voters, the General Assembly passed local legislation called the “Gwinnett County Merit System Act” (Ga. L. 1969, p. 3051 et seq.), which provided coverage to “all appointed offices and positions of trust or employment in the service of Gwinnett County, except those placed in the unclassified service by this Act.” Id. at § 2. Members of the unclassified service were statutorily identified as
[o]fficers elected by the people and persons appointed to fill vacancies to such elective offices; [o]fficers and employees specifically exempted by law . . . [and] . . . department heads such as the . . . chief deputy clerk of the Superior Court. . . .
Id. at § 9. The Act was subsequently amended in 1987 to also exempt from merit system coverage
[personnel employed by the . . . clerk of the superior court . . . who are employed or to be employed in an upper managerial or upper supervisory capacity and who consent in writing to accept such upper managerial or upper supervisory positions knowing that such employment is an ‘unclassified service’ as defined under this Act.
Ga. L. 1987, p. 5388, § 1.
For me, the question is one of construction of the constitutional amendment ratified in 1968. It is simply whether the employees of the Office of the Clerk of the Superior Court of Gwinnett County qualify as “employees of Gwinnett County, other than officials elected by the people.” As the employees of the clerk’s office are not elected by the people, the only issue is whether they are “employees of Gwinnett County.”
“ ‘It is, of course, fundamental that “the cardinal rule to guide the construction of laws is, first, to ascertain the legislative intent and purpose in enacting the law, and then to give it that construction which will effectuate the legislative intent and purpose.” [Cits.]’ ” Although “the legislative intent prevails over the literal import of words” [cit.], “where a constitutional provision or statute is plain and susceptible of but one natural and reasonable construction, the court has no authority to place a different construction upon it, but must construe it according to its terms. [Cits.]” [Cit.] *512“In other words the language being plain, and not leading to absurd or wholly impracticable consequences, it is the sole evidence of the ultimate legislative intent.” [Cits.]
(Emphasis supplied.) Hollowell v. Jove, 247 Ga. 678, 681 (279 SE2d 430) (1981). See also Van Dyck v. Van Dyck, 262 Ga. 720, 721 (425 SE2d 853) (1993). The constitutional amendment “is plain and susceptible of but one natural and reasonable construction”: one who qualifies as an unelected employee of Gwinnett County is entitled to merit system coverage. I suggest that it is clear that one is an employee of Gwinnett County if one is on a regular payroll maintained by Gwinnett County and Gwinnett County is the payor of the wages or salary one receives as compensation for one’s toil. Thus, the constitutional amendment authorizes the creation of a merit system which covers all those persons who regularly receive payment from Gwinnett County in exchange for services rendered on behalf of the county, except those persons elected to office in Gwinnett County. The local legislation passed pursuant to the authority given in the constitutional amendment more narrowly defines the employees covered by the merit system by excluding from coverage a list of non-elected persons receiving payroll checks from Gwinnett County, and that list includes the chief deputy clerk of the superior court (Ga. L. 1969, p. 3051, § 9) and upper managerial and supervisory personnel who agree to assume the unclassified post. Ga. L. 1987, p. 5388, § 1. In light of the constitutional amendment and the local legislation that followed, I must conclude that all employees of the superior court clerk’s office except the chief deputy clerk and those who are in supervisory or managerial positions and have agreed in writing to accept those positions knowing they are not covered by the county merit system, are within the coverage of the county merit system. Consequently, I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that no employee of the clerk’s office is covered by the county merit system, and I would reverse the trial court’s judgment holding that the merit system did not cover deputy clerks.
2. The clerk of Gwinnett Superior Court contends that no employee of an elected public official having statutory authority to appoint deputies is an employee of the county. In support of his position, the clerk cites a number of appellate decisions in which deputy sheriffs were described as employees of the sheriff rather than employees of the county. See, e.g., Drost v. Robinson, 194 Ga. 703 (22 SE2d 475) (1942); Bd. of Commrs. of Richmond County v. Whittle, 180 Ga. 166 (178 SE 534) (1934). No appellate decision, however, has applied the holdings of those cases in a case involving a deputy clerk, and with good reason. In Whittle, this court held that a law which required the sheriff to submit to the county board of commissioners *513the number of deputies and a recommendation as to their salaries in order that the board might fix the salaries for the next year did not authorize the board to abolish the office of deputy sheriff or to discharge or control deputies the sheriff had appointed. The court noted that the sheriff had then, as the sheriff has now, the statutory authority to appoint deputies (OCGA § 15-16-23) and observed that the sheriff and his bond were liable for the conduct of the deputy sheriffs he appointed. Up until 1994, sheriffs were required to post bond “conditioned for the faithful performance of their duties as sheriffs, by themselves, their deputies, and their jailers. . . .” Ga. L. 1994, p. 747, § 1. Sheriffs are also statutorily liable for the misconduct of their deputies and their jailers. OCGA § 15-16-24. In contrast, the clerk of superior court does not post a bond conditioned for the faithful performance of the clerk’s deputies’ duties; rather, the clerk can require the deputy clerk to post a bond binding the deputy for faithful performance. OCGA § 15-6-59 (a), (b). In addition, no statute makes a clerk liable for the misconduct of the deputy clerks. Case law has carved out a niche for deputy sheriffs, but there is no support for the contention set forth by the clerk in this case — that the narrow niche is in reality a chasm swallowing all personnel employed by an elected county officer with authority to appoint deputies. See Henderson v. Sherrington, 256 Ga. XXVIII (1986).
3. Because I conclude that the superior court clerk should not have been successful in his pursuit of a declaratory judgment releasing him from the constraints of the county merit system when dealing with his employees, the trial court was correct in denying the clerk’s application for attorney fees even under the majority’s new rule authorizing county payment of attorney fees incurred by a county official who successfully asserts a legal position that the local government attorney cannot or will not assert on behalf of the county official. I am, however, troubled by the majority’s approval of county officials filing suits in their official capacities (other than suits filed in the regular course of business, e.g., tax forfeitures) and then turning to the county’s governing authority for payment of attorney fees expended pursuing the unauthorized litigation. It is of particular concern in this case where this declaratory judgment action was resolved by the trial court despite the fact that the merit system appeals process had already upheld the clerk’s termination of the deputy clerk. The clerk’s declaratory judgment action would have been a “case or controversy” only had the merit system appeals process upheld the position of the employee against whom action was taken and the clerk had refused to abide by that decision, thereby forcing the employee to bring an action against the clerk. See, e.g., Burbridge v. Hensley, 194 Ga. App. 523 (391 SE2d 5) (1990). See also Civil Svc. Bd. of Fulton County v. MacNeill, 201 Ga. 643 (40 SE2d 655) (1946) and MacNeill *514v. Wood, 198 Ga. 150 (31 SE2d 14) (1944).
Decided May 30, 1995
Reconsideration denied June 30, 1995.
Caryl B. Sumner, John E. Underwood, William J. Linkous III, Boyce, Ekonomou & Atkinson, Richard A. Carothers, Lee W. Fitzpatrick, for appellants.
Rowe & Lawler, Thomas C. Lawler III, H. Patterson Garner, for appellees.
4. The majority deemed “without merit” the county’s assertion that the trial court erred when it refused to order the joinder, as necessary parties to the action, of the employees of the clerk’s office. See OCGA § 9-11-19. A merit system creates a constitutionally-protected contract between the employees covered and the government employer. Clark v. State Personnel Bd., 252 Ga. 548, 550 (314 SE2d 658) (1984). The employees of the clerk’s office should have been joined in this suit as they certainly had an interest relating to the subject matter of the action, and the disposition of the action adverse to their interest in their absence will impair or impede their ability to protect their interest in the future. OCGA § 9-11-19 (a) (2).
In sum, I believe the employees of the Office of the Clerk of Superior Court should have been joined as parties in this action; that only those employees who hold positions described in Ga. L. 1969, p. 3051, § 9 and Ga. L. 1987, p. 5388, § 1 are exempt from coverage of the Gwinnett County Merit System Act, and that the clerk of superior court is not entitled to reimbursement for the reasonable attorney fees he expended initiating and pursuing this declaratory judgment action. As a result, I respectfully dissent.

 In holding that the employees of the clerk’s office are not covered by the constitutional amendment because they are employees of an elected county official and the amendment does not specifically cover employees of elected county officials, the majority has overruled its affirmance of the Superior Court of Gwinnett County in Henderson v. Sherrington, 256 Ga. XXVIII (1986), wherein the superior court held that the employees of the Gwinnett County tax commissioner, an elected official, were covered by the county’s merit system.