CR 97-184 Appointment Police Civil Service Commission MemberOctober 6, 1997
Proposed Action
Overview
teven C. Mielke
City Manager
S Y
0
Council Report 97 -184
APPOINTMENT OF POLICE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MEMBER
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to direct the City Attorney's office to
prepare an ordinance amendment which would bring the Hopkins Civil Service ordinance into
consistency with the state statute.
Adoption of this motion will delay the appointment of a Civil Service Commission member until
such time as the Police Civil Service Commission ordinance is brought into conformance and
consistency with state law.
During the review of potential candidates for the Police Civil Service Commission, it was
identified that our existing Civil Service Commission ordinance precludes membership by those
employed in public service at the local, county, state, or federal level.
The Council asked the City Attorney's office to review this issue and to bring back
recommendations for Council consideration on the issue of membership, prior to the Council
making an appointment.
The City Attorney's office has completed its review and has indicated that, in fact, one of our
existing members as well as one of the potential members, would be ineligible for office, based
upon his interpretation of the ordinance. As such, staff is recommending that the ordinance be
modified to conform to state law.
Primary Issues to Consider
What would happen if no change is made to the ordinance?
What options exist for the City Council?
Supporting Information
Memorandum, Wynn Curtiss, September 12, 1997
Council Report 97 -184
Page 2
Primary issues to consider
What if no changes are made to the existing ordinance?
1. According to the City Attorney's memorandum, one of our current two members would
become ineligible to continue serving on the Civil Service Commission, and the
Council would be precluded from appointing other public employees from serving on
the commission.
What options exist for the City Council?
1. Direct the City Attorney's office to initiate an ordinance amending the Civil Service
Commission membership guidelines.
By following this course, the Council would be indicating its desire to bring the city's
ordinance into conformity with state statute, and to allow public employees to serve on
the commission. This option would not preclude the Council from making an immediate
appointment, but it would have to be the candidate who is not currently a public
employee.
2. Determine that the Council prefers the more strict language in the Hopkins ordinance
and take no action to amend the ordinance.
Should the Council accept this option, there would then be a finding that one of our
current commission members is ineligible due to his employment with Hennepin County,
and there would exist two openings to fill on the commission. Under this option the
Council could still appoint one additional member to the commission, but that person
could not be a public employee.
3. Take no action and ask for additional information.
Should the Council wish to have additional information, they can specify what is needed
and direct staff or the City Attorney's office to find that information.
city ofxopkins
1010 First Street South • g(opkins, MW 55343 -7573 • Phone: 612 -935 -8474 Fax 612 -935 -1834
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 12, 1997
TO: Steve Mielke
FROM: Wynn Curtiss
RE: Membership of the Police Civil Service Commission
This Memorandum is in response to a request by the City Council for clarification as to
persons eligible to serve on the Hopkins Police Civil Service Commission.
Minn. Stat. 419.01, et seq. (the "Statute ") provides for the establishment by municipalities
of a police civil service commission, and sets forth a statutory framework establishing the authority
and obligations of commmission members. Hopkins, by virtue of Hopkins City Code Section
320.01, et seq. (the "Ordinance "), adopted the Statute as follows:
"There is created and continued, a police civil service commission with the powers
and duties provided in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 419.01 to 419.18."
As we discovered at the meeting on September 9, 1997, there is a discrepancy between the
Statute's membership criteria and the Ordinance's membership criteria. The Statute reads, in part,
as follows:
"No commissioner shall ... hold any elected office under the city, the United States,
the State of Minnesota or any public corporation or political subdivision thereof, or
employment under the city, or employment under a political department or police
department of a n y city ...."
Minn. Stat. 419.02, Subd. 1.
The Ordinance reads, in part as follows:
"No commissioner shall ... hold any other office or employment under the city, the
United States, the State of Minnesota, or any public corporation or political
subdivision ...."
HCC Section 320.03.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
The obvious difference is that the Ordinance disqualifies from commission membership any
person employed by a political corporation or a political subdivision, regardless of the position held.
Conversely, the Statute excludes from commission membership only those persons who hold
elective office in any political subdivision or who are employed by the City of Hopkins or another
city police department.
A review of the history of the Statute reveals that its original language was identical to the
Hopkins ordinance. However, when the statutory language was changed, the Hopkins ordinance was
not updated to reflect that change.
Assuming the City Council wishes to be consistent with the Statute, the current ordinance
would need to be changed. Two options are available. First, the Ordinance could be changed by
deleting Sections 320.03 through 320.43 and, in their place, adopting language which simply
declares that the City adopts the Statute and all futures changes to that section. Alternatively, each
section of the Ordinance could be reviewed and changed to reflect changes in the Statute which have
occurred since the adoption of the Ordinance. Obviously, the downside to the latter option is that
it would be necessary to constantly review and compare the Statute and the Ordinance to determine
that they are, in fact, identical. If the City Council's intent is to simply adopt the Statute without
deviation, the former approach would be more appropriate and effective.
An additional issue which needs to be addressed is the status of Commissioner John
Hutchinson, who I understand is employed by Hennepin County. Such employment presumably
disqualifies him pursuant to the Ordinance, although he would be eligible pursuant to the Statutory
standard. In my opinion, it is necessary to change the Ordinance to reflect the statutory criteria if
Commissioner Hutchinson is to continue in his position. A second issue is the effect of
Commissioner Hutchinson's status on past decisions. In Huff v. Sauer, 68 N.W.2d 252 (1955), the
Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that actions of a validly created police civil service commission
would not be nullified by the fact one of the commissioners was, in fact, ineligible. It is significant
to note that among the commission actions which were upheld despite the ineligible commissioner
was the termination of a police officer. Although it would be prudent to change the Ordinance's
membership eligibility provision, I do not believe any action taken by the commission since
Commissioner Hutchinson became a member is void as a result of his participation.
It is my opinion the Ordinance language regarding membership eligibility is clear and
unambiguous. If the City Council desires to ' allow public employees to serve as commission
members, it is my opinion the Ordinance needs to be amended to conform to the provisions currently
in the statute. If the City Council determines that it wishes to amend the Ordinance, I will prepare
the documents necessary to make such changes in whatever manner the City Council prefers.
njj
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me.
W C