Court Opinion

ID: 9657493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:27:51.892223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:45.581236
License: Public Domain

*627Williams, C.J.
(concurring). While I concur with Justice Levin’s opinion holding that § 213 of 1985 PA 103, creating the Board of Workers’ Compensation Magistrates, is constitutional, I write specially to emphasize several points I think are particularly important.
The issue presented in this case is whether the Board of Workers’ Compensation Magistrates, the duties of which are adjudicative, who adjudicate individually, but who may perform certain administrative functions collectively, falls within the "members of boards and commissions” exception of the civil service amendment to the 1963 Constitution, art 11, § 5. My concurrence is based upon the following reasoning.
First, the primary rule of construction in interpreting constitutional language is that, wherever possible, an interpretation that does not create constitutional invalidity is preferred to one that does. Council No 11, AFSCME v Civil Service Comm, 408 Mich 385, 405; 292 NW2d 442 (1980). To the same effect is People v Bricker, 389 Mich 524, 528; 208 NW2d 172 (1973):
We are duty bound under the Michigan Constitution to preserve the laws of this state and to that end to construe them if we can so that they conform to Federal and state constitutional requirements.
Second, in order to clarify the meaning of a constitutional provision, the circumstances surrounding its adoption can be examined. Council No 11, supra. The focus of those who enacted the civil service amendment, Const 1908, art 6, § 22, in 1940 was not only to eradicate the "evils in state civil service under the spoils system,” Council No 11, 401, but to provide sufficient exemptions to *628permit the operation of representative government with public responsibility. Such exemptions included "members of boards and commissions.”
At this juncture, it is important to carefully consider the exact language1 of the civil service amendment and the circumstances surrounding its adoption. As to the exact language, the pertinent text reads as follows:
The classified state civil service shall consist of all positions in the state service except those filled by popular election, heads of principal departments, members of boards and commissions, the principal executive officer of boards and commissions heading principal departments, employees of courts of record, employees of the legislature, employees of the state institutions of higher education, all persons in the armed forces of the state, eight exempt positions in the office of the governor, and within each principal department, when *629requested by the department head, two other exempt positions, one of which shall be policy-making. The civil service commission may exempt three additional positions of a policy-making nature within each principal department. [Const 1963, art 11, § 5. Emphasis added.]
As to the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the civil service amendment, it is important to note that at the time the 1940 amendment was adopted there existed legislation touching upon two points in question here. First, legislation created a board having solely adjudicative duties. Second, legislation created at least two multimember boards or commissions which performed their primary functions through individual members. The Unemployment Compensation Appeal Board consisted of three members, to be appointed by the Governor, and had solely adjudicative duties. See 1937 PA 347.2 At the same time, the decision of an individual deputy member of the Industrial Accident Board (later referred to as compensation commissioners) would stand as the decision of the board or the commissioners unless review was timely sought. 1921 PA 43, 60. In addition, existing legislation provided that "The [liquor control] commission shall have the right and power to suspend or revoke and any commissioner designated by the chairman shall have the right and power to suspend pending a prompt hearing any and all licenses . . . .” 1937 PA 281, § 20. Thus, it was well within the contemplation of those who framed the amendment to "except” from the classified civil service 1) a "board” which performed solely adjudicative functions similar to the one at *630issue in this case, and 2) a multimember commission which could perform its primary functions through individual commissioners.
Third, the instant Board of Magistrates has the necessary attributes of a "board” as that term has been interpreted by this Court in the only case considering the meaning of that term for purposes of the civil service amendment. In Case v Liquor Control Comm, 314 Mich 632; 23 NW2d 109 (1946), we held that the act creating the Liquor Control Commission and its Board of Hearing Examiners did not violate the amendment because the board was 1) a body of importance and dignity, and 2) independent from the appellate functions of the Liquor Control Commission.3 Notably absent from this Court’s discussion was any requirement that the board undertake collective action in order to qualify as a board within the meaning of the amendment. In addition, the enacters of the 1963 Constitution retained the exact language of the 1940 amendment, presumably with knowledge of this Court’s construction in Case.
Consonant with Case, the legislation before us creates a board of considerable importance and dignity. The magistrates are appointed by the Governor and may be removed by the Governor only for good cause. MCL 418.213(1), (2); MSA 17.237(213X1), (2). The magistrates have significant functions which are new responsibilities in comparison with those exercised by their predecessors, the hearing examiners: They must prepare written findings of fact and conclusions of law, MCL 418.847(2); MSA 17.237(847X2), and their decisions are reviewable only for legal error and are consid*631ered conclusive if supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the record, MCL 418.861a(3); MSA 17.237(861a)(3). A magistrate’s decision in disputes over claims of $2,000 or less is final and nonappealable in the absence of fraud. MCL 418.841(9); MSA 17.237(841X9). In addition to its adjudicative duties, the newly created board has certain quasi-legislative and quasi-executive responsibilities: It has the authority to make rules and regulations to govern its own administrative hearing procedures, and it has the authority to hire and fire its own employees. MCL 418.213(6), (7); MSA 17.237(213)(6), (7).
The Board of Magistrates is also independent. The legislation characterizes the board as an "autonomous entity” and an "independent body.” MCL 418.213(1), (7); MSA 17.237(213X1), (7). The board is separate from the outgoing Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, the new Workers’ Compensation Appeal Commission, and the remainder of the Department of Labor. The chairperson of the board has the general supervisory control over the board’s employees and its work schedule. MCL 418.213(3); MSA 17.237(213X3). In addition, the members’ appointment by the Governor and the board’s ability to create its own administrative hearing procedures and to hire and fire employees enhance its autonomy from other seats of power. MCL 418.213(6), (7); MSA 17.237(213X6), (7).
The Board of Magistrates is also independent in its adjudicative role. The outcome of cases heard by the board, while ultimately reviewable by the appellate commission for errors of law or sufficiency of the evidence, is not subject to direction by a supervisory authority.
While the Board of Magistrates is not required to deliberate collectively on matters within its adjudicative authority, it may act collectively in *632its quasi-legislative and quasi-executive functions. However, Case does not impose a collective-action requirement on the term "board” as it appears in the civil service amendment.4
The fourth and final reason for finding this statute constitutional is that treating this board as exempt from civil service requirements comports with the underlying purpose of the civil service amendment. This purpose was to protect the great bulk of civil servants from partisan hiring and firing while at the same time permitting popular representation and public accountability where appropriate to good government.
This exception not only comports with a reasonable and historically consistent analysis of the constitutional language, but also serves the intended constitutional purpose of permitting necessary flexibility in the system, thereby both providing job protection from partisan politics and maintaining public accountability. In this connection, it is appropriate to note that the Board of Magistrates was the creation of a genuine and widely supported movement, especially by those both in management and labor interested in the effective and economical operation of the workers’ compensation system, to make the system more efficient by giving greater public representation and responsibility to those who perform the particular functions clothed in the public interest. These magistrates are key performers, not the "mere employees” that this Court in Case sought to protect from an overreaching, partisan Legislature. Case, supra, 641. The legislation received *633bipartisan support throughout its history. It was enacted by a Democratic House and a Republican Senate, and signed by a Democratic Governor with the general acclaim of the media and the public.
Lastly, the newly created Qualifications Advisory Committee, which will develop a qualifications examination and forward to the Governor names of qualified applicants for magistrate positions, ensures against the possibility of mere partisan maneuvering. The fixed terms of office for the magistrates, with removal only for cause, will also make their employment secure from partisan swings in government. Thus, the legislation strikes a healthy balance, as intended by the constitution, between insulating the magistrates from partisan pressures and keeping them mindful of their weighty responsibility to the public.
Therefore, because the instant legislation lies within a reasonable construction of the language and intentions of the civil service amendment, and does not open the door for evasion of the protective purposes of the amendment, I would find that the Board of Magistrates is a "board” within the intended meaning of the amendment and is, therefore, properly excepted from the civil service.
In summary, two rules of constitutional construction primarily compelled this analysis: the presumption of constitutionality, and the requirement that the constitution be construed in light of circumstances known to the framers at the time of the enactment of the civil service amendment. Legislation existing at that time permitted "boards” with solely adjudicative functions and boards and commissions which performed their primary functions through individual members. Thus, while the attributes of quasi-legislative or quasi-executive policy-making and collective action are relevant to the determination whether a board *634is legitimately excepted from the civil service, such attributes are not necessarily determinative of the legitimate exception. Additional attributes which are relevant to this analysis are the independence, importance, and dignity of the board, and the degree to which the legislation strikes the balance intended by the constitution between protection against partisan politics and maintenance of representative and responsible government. Application of these factors to the instant legislation leads to the conclusion that the Workers’ Compensation Board of Magistrates is properly excepted from the civil service.
Because the circuit court found the legislation unconstitutional on its face, it did not decide the plaintiffs’ other claims for relief. Finding the legislation facially constitutional, we would remand this case to the circuit court for further proceedings on plaintiffs’ remaining claims.
Cavanagh and Boyle, JJ., concurred with Williams, C.J.

 The exact language of the amendment is significant with respect to another argument, namely that all excepted or exempted positions are "policy-making.” It is true that many of the excepted positions are policy-making, including most but not all "those filled by popular election, heads of principal departments,” etc. On the other hand, as to "employees of the legislature,” while many assist in the making of policy, it is the legislators that make the policy, and certainly the door attendants et al., while they perform valuable functions, cannot be considered policy-makers. As for "employees of the state institutions of higher education [and] all persons in the armed forces of the state,” it is clear that the vast majority of them do not perform policy-making functions. Finally, it is clear that the drafters of the civil service amendment recognized that the exemptions included both policy-making and non-policy-making positions. The drafters permitted "two other exempt positions, one of which shall be policy-making.” (Emphasis added.)
In addition, contemporary reference to the Unemployment Compensation Appeal Board indicates that the exception for "boards” included the adjudicative function. We recognize that it is often said that judicial leading opinions enunciate "policy,” but, if that is indeed "policy,” it is not executive or legislative policy of which we believe the amendment speaks. In conclusion, therefore, we would find that whereas a "policy-making” factor may argue for the inclusion of a function within the "exceptions” to civil service coverage, it is not a sine qua non, as it is obvious that non-"policy-making” exceptions are also clearly contemplated and specified by the amendment.

 The minutes of a March 6, 1941, meeting of the Civil Service Commission show that an order was adopted by the commission stating that among the boards and commissions exempt from the state civil service is the Unemployment Compensation Appeal Board.

 This concurrence should not be read to imply that merely because a body created by the Legislature has importance, dignity, and independence it is required to be exempt from civü service. The Legislature merely has the choice of placing it inside or outside that system if the body has these attributes.

 At the time the civil service amendment was adopted, the Civil Service Commission exempted, as a commission, the State Racing Commission, which consisted only of the Racing Commissioner. This commissioner then and now acted alone, performing no actions collectively. MCL 431.62; MSA 18.966(32). Yet his exemption from the civil service has never been questioned.