Court Opinion

ID: 9670134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:15:19.489807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:02.731167
License: Public Domain

Snell, J.
(concurring specially) — I concur in the result but am fearful that conclusions or at least inferences, neither intended nor required by the opinion, may be drawn by casual reading.
Court bailiffs are by statute “regarded as deputy sheriffs, for whose acts the sheriff shall be responsible.” If bailiffs are to be regarded as deputy sheriffs their appointment and service is governed by the same procedure. Section 337.7, Code of Iowa. *504The sheriff may also appoint deputies under section 341.1. In each instance the persons so appointed are responsible to the sheriff.
The number of bailiffs is controlled by the Judge. Section 337.7. Otherwise, the number of deputies is controlled by the board of supervisors. Section 341.1. In this statute the words “with the approval”, referring to the board of supervisors, appear twice. I think they apply to original appointments. The board may not act arbitrarily or capriciously but it may establish standards and within those standards veto appointments.
State ex rel. Kuhlemeier v. Rhein relied on by the majority is not authority for the proposition that an elected officer may make appointments in disregard of the board. In that case the county treasurer designated a depository. The designation was approved.
Subsequently, the board attempted to rescind its approval and make its own designation. The case holds that the board does not have an original power of designation. It does not hold that the board has no power of veto.
I agree that the board has no power to discharge a deputy. That power is in the principal, i.e., the sheriff. In the instant case the board is attempting to terminate appointments. There is no authority for such action.
Chapter 97B of the Code establishes a retirement system, provides for its administration and the payment of benefits upon retirement thereunder. It has nothing to do with the original power of appointment or discharge.
Section 97B.46 provides that a member of the system may. on the request of the employer, remain in service after attaining the age of 70 years. The plaintiffs iu the instant ease were in service by proper appointment. The sheriff, who by statute is their responsible principal, asked that they remain in service. This was within his authority under section 97B.46.
I would so limit our holding.
Thompson, J., joins in special concurrence.