Court Opinion

ID: 9883997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:30:14.926122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:34.158893
License: Public Domain

FORSBERG, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. As the majority correctly points out, all employees of the City of Minneapolis are in the classified service unless specifically excluded. I am unable to agree that Chapter 108 specifically excluded Inspectors of Police from the classified service.
Prior to the enactment of Chapter 108, the position of Inspector was filled by appointment of the chief of police, subject to approval by the Civil Service Commission. Chapter 108 removed only the requirement of Commission approval.
The majority concludes that the “return” privilege of Chapter 108 would be unnecessary for an individual already in the classified service. In my opinion, the “return” privilege was merely precautionary. The position of Inspector is a hybrid: subject to all Civil Service Commission rules, but not subject to competitive testing, as are all other civil service jobs. The “return” privilege merely guarantees that an individual accepting the temporary classification of Inspector will not risk forfeiting his or her permanent classification. This interpretation is bolstered by the language of section 3 allowing time spent in the temporary classification of Inspector to be credited to that person’s permanent classification.
If the legislature had intended to place Inspectors of Police in the unclassified service, it would have done so in unambiguous *131language. The subsequent history of Chapter 108 shows that the legislature did not do so. In 1969 the legislature amended Chapter 108. 1969 Minn.Laws ch. 604. One day after Chapter 604 was enacted, the legislature placed certain employees in the city coordinator’s office in the unclassified service. 1969 Minn.Laws ch. 690. The two enactments, placed side by side, show the following:
Chapter 604 — S.F. No. 2248 [Adopted May 23, 1969]
An act relating to the Minneapolis police department, providing for title of chief and for certain employee appointments; amending Laws 1961, Chapter 108, Sections 1 and 2.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota:
Section 1. Laws 1961, Chapter 108, Section 1 is amended to read:
Sec. 1 Minneapolis, city of; police department. Notwithstanding any provisions of the Minneapolis city charter, veterans’ preference, or civil service law, rule, or regulation to the contrary, the superintendent of police of the city of Minneapolis shall after the effective date of this act have the title and be designated as the chief of police of the city of Minneapolis and may appoint three deputy chiefs of police, five inspectors of police, the supervisor of the morals and narcotics section, and the supervisor of license inspection, such personnel to be appointed from among the members of the Minneapolis police department holding at least the rank of patrolman, (emphasis added)
Chapter 690 — S.F. No. 2060 [Adopted May 24, 1969]
An act providing for certain positions in the city coordinator’s department of the city of Minneapolis to be in the unclassified service.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota:
Section 1. Minneapolis, city of; coordinator’s department; employees. Notwithstanding any provisions of the Minneapolis city charter, veterans preference act, or civil service rule, law or regulation to the contrary, the city coordinator of the city of Minneapolis may appoint any suitable persons to serve in the coordinator’s department of " said city under the direction of the city coordinator as assistant coordinator for administrator services, director of planning and development, director of environmental control and director of human resources and may designate such positions by such titles as it shall determine. Any person presently holding or who shall be hereafter appointed to any such position shall be in the unclassified service of the city and shall serve at the pleasure of the city coordinator. Persons holding the positions shall be entitled to the same employee benefits as persons in the classified service, (emphasis added)
These two laws, passed within a day of each other, relate to the same subject matter; one unambiguously places certain employees in the unclassified service, while the other does not.
In 1966, the Commission enacted Rule 3.01, which stated:
The following positions are in the classified service but are filled, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 1961, Chapter 108, through appointments by the Superintendent of Police from members of the police service: Police Inspector, Deputy Police Inspector, Detective Inspector, License Inspector and Head of Morals Squad.
Mpls. Civil Serv. Com’n Rule 3.01 (1966). Rule 3.01 was amended in 1976 to read:
Rule 3.01 CLASSIFIED AND UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.
* * * * * *
B. Classified positions — Appointments Not Subject to Competitive Examinations.
* * * * * *
2. positions filled by appointment by the Superintendent of Police from members of the Police service: Police Inspector; Deputy Police Inspector; Detective Inspector; License Inspector; Head of *132Morals Squad — Laws of 1961, Chapter 108.
Mpls. Civil Serv. Com’n Rule 3.01 (1976).
Thus, for 21 years, the Commission has treated the Inspector position as classified, but not subject to competitive examinations. The 1976 version of Rule 3.01 is not different in substance from the 1966 version. Under these circumstances, the legislature’s action in 1969 reenacting Chapter 108 without specifying that Inspectors are in the unclassified service is particularly persuasive evidence that Inspectors were not removed from the classified service in either 1961 or 1969.
Reenactment of a statutory provision without change in the face of a consistent administrative construction is persuasive of a legislative recognition and approval of such construction.
In re Cold Spring Granite Co., 271 Minn. 460, 469, 136 N.W.2d 782, 788 (1965) (emphasis added). In light of the legislature’s reenactment without change of Chapter 108 three years after Rule 3.01 was promulgated, I would conclude that the legislature approved of the language of the Rule.
Furthermore, the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that:
[sjtatutes relating to the same general subject matter are in pari materia and are to be construed together, because presumably they were enacted in accord with the same general legislative policy and were intended to be a harmonious and uniform system of law.
State ex rel. Interstate Air-Parts, Inc. v. Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Airport Commission, 223 Minn. 175, 183-84, 25 N.W.2d 718, 724 (1947).
Applying this doctrine to the statutes in question, it is clear that the legislature knew how to put employees unambiguously in the unclassified service, and equally clear that it did not do so in the case of Chapter 108. Bouza argues that Chapter 108 is ambiguous because it does not specifically state whether Police Inspectors are classified or unclassified. Under the Minneapolis Charter,' however, all employees are classified unless specifically excluded. Failure to state that a particular position is not specifically excluded every time the legislature mentions the position should not result in its becoming unclassified.
The original petition from Carl Johnson and H. Bud Hawkins to the Minneapolis City Council asked that Police Inspectors be placed in the unclassified service. Minutes of the City Council regarding the city's proposal also indicate the city asked the legislature to place these positions in the unclassified service. Chapter 108 makes no mention of the unclassified service. Minutes of the City Council from after Chapter 108 were passed, relating to the required city approval before Chapter 108 could take effect, make no mention of the unclassified service; rather, the resolution of approval stated:
Resolved by the City Council of the City of Minneapolis:
That, whereas the Legislature of the State of Minnesota has passed a law providing for assignment of employees within the Police Department of the City of Minneapolis, said law being Chapter 108 of the Laws for 1961 * * *.
(Emphasis added.)
These minutes of the City Council are strong evidence that the city asked for legislation placing Police Inspectors in the unclassified service, but the legislature refused to do what the city wanted.
In addition to interpretation of Chapter 108, it is clear that the collective bargaining agreement between the city and the Federation gives the Commission jurisdiction over Inspectors of Police. Under the Public Employees Labor Relations Act, Minn.Stat. § 179A.07, subd. 2 (1984), the provisions of the agreement supersede the Civil Service Commission rules found in the Minneapolis City Charter. Section 1.2 of the agreement provides:
Section 1.2 Duty assignments shall be made by the Department which are consistent with Minneapolis civil service job classifications. Disputes which may arise over alleged ‘working out of class’ violations (i.e. violations of Minneapolis Civil Service Commission Rule No. 3.07), shall be submitted by the Federation to *133the Minneapolis Civil Service Commission for resolution.
(Emphasis added.) Under Section 1.2, the Commission has jurisdiction to settle this dispute over an allegation that Inspectors of Police were working out of class in commanding a precinct. The contract clearly strengthens the decision of the Civil Service Commission that it had jurisdiction over Inspectors.
Finally, the majority questions the wisdom of allowing Chief Bouza to appoint Inspectors but not allowing him to determine what their duties will be. That is a decision for the legislature, not this court, to make. Norris Grain Co. v. Nordaas, 232 Minn. 91, 109-10, 46 N.W.2d 94, 105 (1951).