Butler Davis v. Local 2033 ( 1980 )

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 munici-
p 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 de-
p 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.