Butler Davis v. Local 2033

No. 14883 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980

DONALD E. BUTLER: DONALD W. DAVIS et al., Intervening Plaintiffs and Appellants,

LOCAL 2033 M R I C A N FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES et al., Petitioner and Counter-Respondent and Respondent, VS . BUTTE-SILVER BOW et al., Respondents, Counter-Petitioners and Respondents.

Appeal from: District Court of the Second Judicial District, Honorable Peter G. Meloy, Judge presiding Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Knight, Dahood, Mackay and McLean, Anaconda, Montana Bernard J. Everett argued, Anaconda, Montana For Petitioner and Counter-Respondent and Respondent: M.F. Hennessey argued, Butte, Montana For Respondents, Counter-Petitioners and Respondents: John G. Winston, County Attorney, Butte, Montana Robert M. McCarthy, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Butte, Montana

Submitted: January 14, 1980 Decided : FEB 6 - Filed: FEB F: - 1SRP

Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t .

his i s a n a p p e a l from a summary judgment i n f a v o r o f r e s p o n d e n t s B u t t e - S i l v e r Bow and t h e "Union" i s s u e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , s i t t i n g i n t h e County o f S i l v e r Bow.

On F e b r u a r y 22, 1 9 7 8 , r e s p o n d e n t L o c a l 2033 American F e d e r a t i o n o f S t a t e , County a n d M u n i c i p a l Employees, AFL-CIO ( U n i o n ) , f i l e d a p e t i t i o n and c o m p l a i n t f o r d e c l a r a t o r y judgment i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s -t r i c t , i n a n d f o r t h e County o f S i v e r BOW, S t a t e o f Montana. This a c t i o n w a s brought a g a i n s t respondents Butte-Silver Bow, S t a t e o f Montana, and s o u g h t a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment i n t e r p r e t i n g c e r t a i n p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e newly formed c o n s o l i -d a t e d C i t y and County government o f B u t t e - S i l v e r BOW, Montana, d e a l i n g w i t h p r o m o t i o n s i n t h e S h e r i f f s Department p r i o r t o o r during consolidation.

On May 1 7 , 1978, B u t t e - S i l v e r Bow f i l e d i t s answer t o t h e p e t i t i o n b r o u g h t by t h e Union a l o n g w i t h a c o u n t e r -complaint.

On J a n u a r y 1 7 , 1979, t h e u n i o n and B u t t e - S i l v e r Bow s t i p u l a t e d and a g r e e d t o d e c l a r e n u l l and v o i d p r o m o t i o n t o h i g h e r r a n k s w i t h i n t h e S i l v e r Bow County S h e r i f f s Department r e c e i v e d by i n t e r v e n i n g p l a i n t i f f s / a p p e l l a n t s , Donald E. B u t l e r , Donald W. D a v i s , F r e d E. Guay, H e r b e r t R. M i l l e r , Raymond W. R u s s e l l a n d G a l e E. Wood ( " S h e r i f f ' s O f f i c e r s " ) .

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d a p r o p o s e d o r d e r b a s e d upon t h i s s t i p u l a t i o n d e c l a r i n g t h e p r o m o t i o n s r e c e i v e d by t h e S h e r i f f ' s O f f i c e r s n u l l a n d v o i d and f u r t h e r o r d e r i n g t h e S h e r i f f ' s O f f i c e r s among o t h e r s t o a p p e a r b e f o r e t h e c o u r t t o show c a u s e why t h e o r d e r s h o u l d n o t become f i n a l .

The s h e r i f f ' s O f f i c e r s moved t h e c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o Rule 2 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) M.R.Civ.P. t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h e a c t i o n ; t h i s motion w a s g r a n t e d and a c o m p l a i n t i n i n t e r v e n t i o n was f i l e d .

On A p r i l 1 9 , 1979, a l l t h e p a r t i e s moved f o r summary judgment. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s s u e d i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t

and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law and o r d e r on J u n e 11, 1979, d e c l a r i n g t h e S h e r i f f ' s O f f i c e r s ' promotions n u l l and v o i d . Appellant

o f f i c e r s bring t h i s appeal.

On A p r i l 1 2 , 1977, S h e r i f f George P a t r i c k Hagel, t h e d u l y e l e c t e d , q u a l i f i e d and a c t i n g S h e r i f f of S i l v e r Bow County promoted t h e s i x o f f i c e r s named h e r e i n t o h i g h e r r a n k s w i t h i n t h a t Department. The promotions t h e y r e c e i v e d were e i t h e r from d e p u t y t o s e r g e a n t o r s e r g e a n t t o l i e u t e n a n t of t h e S i l v e r Bow County S h e r i f f s Department.

On May 2, 1977, t h e C i t y of B u t t e and County of S i l v e r Bow c o n s o l i d a t e d t h e i r l o c a l governments i n t o one u n i f i e d government under one c h a r t e r . The new government was t o have t h e s t a t u s of a c o u n t y and i n c o r p o r a t e d m u n i c i p a l i t y and was named B u t t e - S i l v e r BOW, Montana. The c h a r t e r had been a d o p t e d by t h e v o t e r s on November 2 , 1976 and by i t s t e r m s was n o t t o become e f f e c t i v e u n t i l May 2, 1977.

S e c t i o n 5.05 o f t h e Butte-Silver Bow C h a r t e r s e t f o r t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s g o v e r n i n g t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e law e n f o r c e -ment d e p a r t m e n t f o r t h e new government. The new law e n f o r c e -ment d e p a r t m e n t was t o be formed by combining t h e former C i t y o f B u t t e P o l i c e Department and t h e S h e r i f f s Department of S i l v e r Bow County under t h e S h e r i f f of ~ u t t e - S i l v e r Bow. Section 5.05 ( f ) provides a s follows:

"The sheriff shall so organize the new department as to recognize the existing ranks attained by members of the exist- - police and sheriff departments." ing (Emphasis added.) Following their promotions the six appellant Sheriff's

Officers assumed the duties of their new ranks under the Silver Bow County Sheriffs Department. On May 2, 1977, the

effective date of the Butte-Silver Bow Charter, the new law enforcement department was organized and the six appellant Sheriff's Officers retained their ranks pursuant to section 5.05(f) of the new charter. On May 4, 1977, the Commissioners of the newly formed government of Butte-Silver Bow met and passed Emergency Ordinance No. 2 to govern the method of selection, examin- ation and confirmation of all appointments and promotions within the new law enforcement agency. Section 15 of the Emergency Ordinance provided it would become effective upon passage and approval. It was approved by Chief Executive Mario Micone on May 10, 1977. The District Court declared the promotion received by

the six appellant Sheriff's Officers null and void. The following issues have been presented to this Court

for review: 1. Did the District Court err in ruling that under

Section 5.05 (f) of the Butte-Silver Bow Charter, the pro- motions of appellants on April 11, 1977 were null and void? 2. Did the District Court err in ruling that Sheriff Hagel did not have authority to promote the appellant Sher- iff's Officers on April 11, 1977? The first step in resolving this case is to determine

the date the charter became operative. Then it becomes n e c e s s a r y t o d e t e r m i n e what e f f e c t t h i s o p e r a t i v e d a t e h a s on t h e l a n g u a g e i n s e c t i o n 5.05 of t h e c h a r t e r .

S e c t i o n 10.02 o f t h e B u t t e - S i l v e r Bow C h a r t e r p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ t l h i s c h a r t e r s h a l l become e f f e c t i v e on May 2, 1977." T h i s l a n g u a g e i s s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d and l e a v e s l i t t l e room f o r d o u b t a s t o i t s meaning.

S e c t i o n 5.05 d e a l s w i t h t h e Chief Law Enforcement O f f i c e r and p r o v i d e s :

"The S h e r i f f s h a l l b e t h e c h i e f law e n f o r c e - ment o f f i c e r o f t h e government and s h a l l have t h e d u t i e s and powers p r o v i d e d by t h i s c h a r t e r , l a w , ordinance o r r e s o l u t i o n subject t o the following provisions:

" ( a ) The e x i s t i n q p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t o f t h e C i t y of B u t t e and t h e s h e r i f f ' s d e p a r t m e n t o f S i l v e r Bow s h a l l be combined i n t o one d e p a r t m e n t under t h e c o n t r o l and s u p e r - v i s i o n of t h e s h e r i f f . The p r e s e n t c h i e f o f p o l i c e o f t h e C i t y o f B u t t e s h a l l be t h e u n d e r s h e r i f f and s h a l l be p a i d a t l e a s t t h e same s a l a r y r e c e i v e d a t t h e t i m e of t h e a d o p t i o n of t h i s c h a r t e r .

" ( b ) The p r e s e n t members o f t h e C i t y of B u t t e p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t and t h e d e p u t y s h e r - i f f s of S i l v e r Bow County s h a l l be members o f t h e new d e p a r t m e n t and have t h e same t e n u r e r i g h t s p r o v i d e d by s t a t e law.

" ( c ) The p r e s e n t members o f b o t h e x i s t i n g d e p a r t m e n t s s h a l l r e c e i v e t h e same compen- s a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g b a s e pay and l o n g e v i t y a l l o w a n c e s , a s t h e y now r e c e i v e u n t i l s u c h t i m e a s t h e c o u n c i l o f commissioners a d o p t s a s a l a r y s c h e d u l e f o r members of t h e new department.

" ( d ) A l l a p p o i n t m e n t s t o t h e new d e p a r t m e n t s h a l l be made p u r s u a n t t o t h e M e t r o p o l i t a n P o l i c e Law of t h e s t a t e , ( C h a p t e r 1 8 , T i t l e 11, Revised Codes o f Montana, 1947) except:

" ( 1 ) T h a t t h e s h e r i f f s h a l l have t h e powers t h e r e i n g i v e n t o t h e mayor i n a mayor-council form o f m u n i c i p a l government, t h e c o u n c i l o f commissioners s h a l l have t h e powers o f t h e c i t y c o u n c i l , and t h e c l e r k and r e c o r d e r s h a l l have t h e powers of a c i t y c l e r k , and;

" ( 2 ) members of t h e d e p a r t m e n t may be can- d i d a t e s f o r any e l e c t e d o f f i c e and may p a r - t i c i p a t e i n p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s notwith- standing t h e provisions of the Metropolitan P o l i c e Law of t h e s t a t e .

" ( e ) The c o u n c i l o f commissioners s h a l l e s t a b l i s h by o r d i n a n c e a Law Enforcement Commission c o n s i s t i n g o f f i v e ( 5 ) members which s h a l l have t h e powers and perform t h e d u t i e s r e q u i r e d o f p o l i c e commissions by t h e M e t r o p o l i t a n P o l i c e Law and such o t h e r d u t i e s a s t h e o r d i n a n c e may p r o v i d e .

" ( f ) The s h e r i f f s h a l l s o o r g a n i z e t h e new department a s t o recognize the e x i s t i n g r a n k s a t t a i n e d by members o f t h e e x i s t i n g p o l i c e and s h e r i f f d e p a r t m e n t s .

" ( g ) A l l pension r i g h t s p r e s e n t l y provided by s t a t e l a w t o members o f t h e e x i s t i n g C i t y o f B u t t e p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t and t h e members o f t h e s h e r i f f ' s d e p a r t m e n t of t h e County o f S i l v e r Bow s h a l l c o n t i n u e i n f u l l f o r c e and e f f e c t , p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e c o u n c i l o f commissioners may by o r d i n a n c e i n c r e a s e t h e p e n s i o n b e n e f i t s , and may i n t h e f u - t u r e p r o v i d e f o r a uniform p e n s i o n system i f t h e s a m e i s p e r m i t t e d by s t a t e l a w .

" ( h ) When a vacancy o c c u r s i n t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e undersheriff a f t e r t h e adoption of t h i s c h a r t e r , t h e s h e r i f f may f i l l s u c h vacancy by a p p o i n t i n g a p e r s o n , q u a l i f i e d by t r a i n i n g and e x p e r i e n c e , t o f i l l s u c h p o s i t i o n w i t h o u t t h e a p p r o v a l of t h e p o l i c e commission o r c o u n c i l o f commissioners, b u t s u c h a p p o i n t e e s h a l l a c q u i r e no t e n u r e r i g h t s except those established tenure r i g h t s he h a s a t t h e t i m e of h i s a p p o i n t - ment. I f such a p p o i n t e d u n d e r s h e r i f f s h a l l have been a member o f t h e d e p a r t m e n t p r i o r t o h i s a p p o i n t m e n t and n o t c o n t i n u e d i n such p o s i t i o n by t h e s h e r i f f he s h a l l r e v e r t t o t h e former r a n k he h e l d w i t h i n t h e d e p a r t - ment. A l l o t h e r p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n - the d e p a r t m e n t s h a l l be e s t a b l i s h e d & s u c h o r d i n a n c e s - -e c o u n c i l o f c o m m i s s i o n e r s as t h s h a l l adopt. " (Emphasis added. )

The emphasized p h r a s e s form t h e b a s i s f o r t h e c o n t r o -versy presented here.

A p p e l l a n t s c o n t e n d t h a t s e c t i o n 10.02 of t h e c h a r t e r c o n t r o l s and t h a t t h e c h a r t e r d i d n o t become e f f e c t i v e f o r any r e a s o n u n t i l t h a t d a t e . They a r g u e t h a t t h e r u l e s governing e f f e c t i v e d a t e s of c h a r t e r s a r e s i m i l a r t o those g o v e r n i n g e f f e c t i v e d a t e s o f s t a t u t e s and c i t e t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t s t a t u t e s become e f f e c t i v e on t h e d a t e p r e s c r i b e d i n the statute.

R e s p o n d e n t s , however, d i s a g r e e and s e e k t o have c e r t a i n s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 5.05 b e e f f e c t i v e from t h e

t i m e t h e c h a r t e r was p a s s e d on November 2 , 1976. They a r g u e t h a t t o r e a c h a n y o t h e r c o n c l u s i o n would e f f e c t i v e l y d i s -

e n f r a n c h i s e t h e e l e c t o r a t e ' s power t o d e t e r m i n e t h e make-up o f t h e B u t t e - S i l v e r Bow Law Enforcement Department and would c o n t r a v e n e A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 1 o f t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i -t u t i o n dealing with popular sovereignty. I n support of t h i s p r e m i s e t h a t t h e word " e x i s t i n g " means a s o f t h e d a t e o f a p p r o v a l and n o t t h e d a t e t h e c h a r t e r becomes e f f e c t i v e , r e s p o n d e n t s c i t e a n o b s c u r e A r i z o n a c a s e , Flowing Wells Co.

v . C u l i n ( 1 9 0 8 ) , 1 A r i z . 425, 95 P. 111, which i n t e r p r e t s a 1

s t a t u t e concerning corporate d i s s o l u t i o n . A reading of t h e c a s e i n d i c a t e s i t i s of no h e l p t o t h e r e s o l u t i o n of t h i s problem.

I t i s t h e g e n e r a l r u l e i n Montana t h a t a s t a t u t e s p e a k s a s o f t h e t i m e when i t t a k e s e f f e c t and n o t a s o f t h e t i m e i t was p a s s e d . P e t e r s o n v . L i v e s t o c k Commission ( 1 9 4 7 ) , 120 Mt. 1 4 0 , 1 8 1 P.2d 1 5 2 , 156.

I n P e t e r s o n t h e p l a i n t i f f had made a n a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e L i v e s t o c k Comrnmission t o o p e r a t e a l i v e s t o c k m a r k e t a t Polson. The L i v e s t o c k Commission d e n i e d M r . Peterson's a p p l i c a t i o n on t h e ground t h a t t h e p o l i c y e x p r e s s e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n C h a p t e r 1 9 3 o f t h e Laws o f Montana, 1945 was t h a t t h e L i v e s t o c k Commission s h o u l d n o t g r a n t l i c e n s e s t o m a r k e t s i n l o c a l areas c o n t i g u o u s t o p r e v i o u s l y e s t a b l i s h e d

and s u c c e s s f u l m a r k e t s . c his C o u r t n o t e d t h a t t h e law r u l e d upon by t h e Commission was n o t i n e f f e c t when t h e c om mission

denied P e t e r s o n ' s a p p l i c a t i o n . W e stated:

"'We do n o t s e e how a n a c t which d o e s n o t by i t s own t e r m s become a r u l e of c o n d u c t u n t i l a f u t u r e t i m e c a n be s a i d t o d i s p l a c e a n o t h e r e x i s t i n g r u l e on t h e same s u b j e c t d u r i n g t h e i n t e r v a l between t h e t i m e of i t s e n a c t m e n t and t h e t i m e i t becomes o p e r a t i v e , even though t h e e x i s t i n g r u l e be i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h i t , i n t h e a b s e n c e of some e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d d e c l a r a t i o n of a p u r p o s e t h a t such s h a l l be the result. Legislation is not effective for any p u r p o s e u n t i l i t becomes o p e r a t i v e . ' " 1 8 1 P.2d a t 156, c i t i n g S t a t e v. N o r t h e r n Pac. Ry. Co. ( 1 9 0 8 ) , 36 Mont. 582, 93 P . 945.

The r a t i o n a l e a p p l i e d t o e f f e c t i v e d a t e s o f s t a t u t e s h a s a l s o been a p p l i e d by some c o u r t s t o c h a r t e r s of municip a l corporations. "The t i m e when a new c h a r t e r , o r an amendment of a n e x i s t i n g c h a r t e r , a d o p t e d by t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y t a k e s e f f e c t i s sometimes f i x e d . . . by the charter or amendment i t s e l f . . .A new c h a r t e r o r a n amendment t o a c h a r t e r o r d i n a r i l y i s t o be c o n s t r u e d t o o p e r a t e p r o s p e c t -i v e l y r a t h e r than retroactively." 62 C.J.S. Municipal C o r p o r a t i o n s , S 95, p. 224. See a l s o S t a t e v . Devin ( 1 9 4 6 ) , 26 Wash.2d 333, 173 P.2d 994; S t a t e v . Kirby ( 1 9 4 2 ) , 349 Mo.

Respondent t r e a t s s e c t i o n 1 0 . 0 2 a s a g e n e r a l p r o v i s i o n and u r g e s t h i s C o u r t t o h o l d t h a t t h e s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 5.05 c o n t r o l .

This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n e s s e n t i a l l y puts the c a r t before t h e h o r s e and a s k s t h i s C o u r t t o s t a t e t h a t t h e c h a r t e r became e f f e c t i v e on one d a t e , b u t t h a t c e r t a i n of i t s p r o -v i s i o n s became o p e r a b l e b e f o r e t h e c h a r t e r i t s e l f became operable. T h i s c o n c l u s i o n c a n n o t l o g i c a l l y be s u p p o r t e d . The c h a r t e r s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e s f o r an e f f e c t i v e d a t e ; t h i s e f f e c t i v e d a t e a c c o r d i n g t o s e c t i o n 10.02 a p p l i e s t o t h e whole c h a r t e r . There i s n o t h i n g i n t h e c h a r t e r t o i n -d i c a t e an e f f e c t i v e d a t e o t h e r than t h a t set f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 10.02. The l a n g u a g e i n s e c t i o n 5.05 h a s no e f f e c t u n t i l t h e c h a r t e r becomes o p e r a t i v e , t h e r e f o r e , t h e p r o m o t i o n s o f t h e o f f i c e r s i f v a l i d would have t o b e r e c o g n i z e d .

The v a l i d i t y o f t h e s e p r o m o t i o n s r e s t s on t h e power o f t h e s h e r i f f t o make them and i s t h e s e c o n d i s s u e f a c i n g t h i s Court.

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d t h a t S h e r i f f Hagel d i d n o t have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o promote o r c r e a t e new r a n k s w i t h i n t h e S i l v e r Bow County S h e r i f f s Department a f t e r November 2, 1976.

Appellants contend t h i s holding i s i n c o n s i s t e n t with w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d p r i n c i p l e s o f common and s t a t u t o r y law. They c i t e hornbook l a w f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a modern s h e r i f f h a s a u t h o r i t y t o o r g a n i z e and a d m i n i s t e r h i s dep a r t m e n t u n l e s s p r o h i b i t e d o r l i m i t e d by s t a t u t e . They s u b m i t t h a t M o n t a n a ' s s t a t u t o r y scheme d o e s n o t l i m i t t h e power and a u t h o r i t y o f t h e s h e r i f f t o o r g a n i z e h i s d e p a r t -ment. S e c t i o n 7-32-2101, MCA, e t s e q .

R e s p o n d e n t s c o n t e n d t h a t u n d e r Montana l a w , a s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e i s l i m i t e d i n t h e amount o f d e p u t i e s i t may h a v e , however, t h e Board o f County Commissioners may i f it d e s i r e s expand t h e number o f d e p u t i e s . Respondents s u b m i t t h a t t h e S h e r i f f had t o have t h e c o n s e n t and a p p r o v a l o f t h e County Commissioners b e f o r e s u c h p r o m o t i o n s a r e v a l i d .

Montana l a w i n t h i s a r e a i s s c a r c e . I t appears t h a t t h e rank i n a s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e i s limited t o e i t h e r an u n d e r s h e r i f f o r a d e p u t y s h e r i f f and t h a t i n c o u n t i e s t h e s i z e o f S i l v e r Bow t h e number o f d e p u t i e s i s l i m i t e d t o s i x ( s e c t i o n 7-32-2103, MCA).

The Board o f County Commissioners i s g i v e n a g e n e r a l power t o a p p o i n t a g r e a t e r number o f c o u n t y d e p u t y o f f i c e r s than the rna*mum number allowed by law when in the judgment

of the Board, such greater number of deputies is needed for the faithful and prompt discharge of the duties of any county office (section 7-4-2402, MCA). This statute has been applied by this Court to appointment of additional deputies in the sheriff's office. Rusch v. Board of County Commissioners (1948), 121 Mont. 162, 191 P.2d 670; Hogan v. Cascade County (1907), 36 Mont. 183, 92 P. 529; Jobb v. County of Meagher (1897), 20 Mont. 424, 51 P. 1034. It follows that the Board of County Commissioners would have to approve the appointments especially where, as here, new positions were created. No approval was sought or received from the Commission for the contested appointments. The ap- pointments were therefore void and the District Court acted properly in disallowing them. The judgment of the District Court is hereby affirmed.

We concur.

Chief Justice

CLkC, Q * Justices V Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea, deeming himself disqualified, did not participate in this case.