Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/1981 Civil Service Commission May 21, 1981 Chairperson Braun called the meeting to order. Members Present: Braun, Eibey, Furgerson Members Absent: Randall Other Present: Tom Pierce, Vic Kennedy, Stan Stapella, Junior Grimm, Al Meyer, Roger Mogle, Jim Rodemeyer and Michelle Temeyer. Motion by Eibey to approve the minutes of April 16, 1981. Seconded by Braun. Motion carried. The first discussion item was the fire promotional exams scheduled for June 4, 1981 at 1:00 P.M. at the Main Fire Station. Thirty-nine (39) persons will be testing for lieutenant and twenty-seven (27) persons will be testing for fire code operator. It was moved by Eibey, seconded by Braun that the Clerk write a letter permitting those who will be on vacation to take the exam in Ames within the week of June 4, 1981. The motion carried. The police recruit exams were discussed. It was reported that during the month of June 2 criteria will be established for testing with testing to take place in August. Assistant City Attorney, Vic Kennedy, summarized the District Court Decision No. 59711 regarding the police promotional exams. A copy of this decision is attached and is made an official part of the record. No action was taken. A letter from David Dutton written on behalf of John Weires dated April 30, 1981 was reviewed. The opinion of the Commission was that it was not within their jurisdiction and should be referred and discussed by the Police and Fire Pension Board. Personnel Director Mogle explained the elimination of two (2) Clerk II positions in the Office of the City Clerk. Assistant City Attorney stated that the Civil Service law requires that the City Council notify the Civil Service of such action prior to a adoption of a resolution eliminating those positions. The Commission officially recognized this as an agenda item and filed the oral report with the Commission. The Chairman called for additional business. There being none, it was moved by Eibey, seconded by Braun to adjourn. The motion carried. Michelle Temeyer Deputy City Clerk IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR BLACK HAWK COUNTY LARRY HAHN, ROBERT ANTON, ) KENNETH BURRINGTON, and ) WILLIAM TRAMMEL, ) ) Plaintiffs , ) No . 59711 ) vs . ) FINDg' 1GS OF FACT CONCLDSIQNS OP LAW CITY OF WATERLOO, IOWA, ) +-JUDGMENT:.AND DECREE WATERLOO CIVIL SERVICE ) COMMISSION, LARRY DOLAN, MICHAEL BEENER, HARRY ) • HELGESEN, RANDALL ) 7 SCHOENFELDER and ROBERT ) SHAFER, ) v- `'' ) c.. Defendants . ) April 23rd, 1981, this captioned action was heard in open court . The plaintiffs appeared in person and with their counsel, Steven W. Bianco, Attorney at Law of Iowa City, Iowa. The City of Waterloo and the Waterloo Civil Service Commission was represented by Victor N. Kennedy, City Attorney for Waterloo, Iowa . The defendants Larry Dolan, Michael Beener, Harry Helgesen, Randall Schoenfelder, and Robert Shafer appeared in person and by their attorney David J . Dutton of the Law Firm of Mosier, Thomas , Beatty, Dutton, Braun & Staack, Waterloo, Iowa . The plaintiffs requested the Court to take judicial notice of District Court File No . 57409, the pleadings, and the Judgment and Decree therein. In that action, Robert Anton, Kenneth R. Burrington, and Larry Hahn, along with one Junior H. Grimm, individually and as members and representatives of all persons similarly situated in the Waterloo Police Department , brought an action against the City of Waterloo and the Waterloo Civil Service Commission, demanding a declaratory judgment . No witnesses were called by the plaintiff in this present action. In argument , plaintiffs demanded relief by way of enforcement of the Judgment and Decree in Black Hawk County Equity No . 57409 . FINDINGS OF FACT • 1 . September 12th, 1979, in Cause No . 57409 for this County, Judgment and Decree was filed, holding that the Civil Service certifi- -2- cation list which resulted from written examinations April 3rd, 1978, and the oral interviews of April 25th, 1978, promotional- evaluation sheets previously prepared were found invalid since such did not conform to the requirements of Chapter 400 of the Iowa Code , titled "Civil Service . " 2 . The Court ' s Order set aside the May 26, 1978 certifi- cation list for the rank of leiutenant, detective-sergeant, natrol- sargeant, captain, and assistant chief. The Waterloo Civil Service Commission was directed to conduct new promotional examinations for those and any other positions as may be found necessary to comply with the provisions of Chapter 400 . 3 . The Order in 57409 further addressed the status of Larry Dolan, Michael Beener, Harry Helgesen, Randall Schoenfelder, and Robert Shafer, all of whom had been promoted to sergeant, captain, and assistant chief from the then existing certification list and the testing procedure , which was then held invalid, holding that such promotions shall remain in full force and effect , finding that those individuals were not a part of the lawsuit and, therefore, not within the jurisdiction of the Court in that declaratory judgment action . 4 . Testimony in this case shows that the declaratory judgment action not only demanded that the testing procedure and the certification lists be found invalid, but also that any promotions attained by the five mentioned police officers be set aside . It now appears that the five officers were available and could have been named parties and brought into the lawsuit then befdre the Court . 5 . It is found as a fact that these officers were not named parties in the declaratory judgment action, 57409 , and did not participate in the lawsuit. 6 . The City of Waterloo, in defending that action for declaratory judgment , did not take any depositions , did not call any witnesses, and did not use any experts, and did not consult with the five promoted officers ; nor did it make any attempt to defend the testing and promotional procedures then in question. --3-- 7 . The following facts have been established : a. That the declaratory judgment action filed by plaintiffs sought not only the invalidation of the promotional tests and procedures, but also the invalidation of the promotions of the five defendant officers in this action. b . That the plaintiffs knew at the time of the filing of the declaratory judgment action that the five officers had been promoted, pursuant to the challanged procedure , and that the five defendant officers were available and could have been made and named parties subject to the jurisdiction of the Court in that action. c . That the five officers were not named parties and did not participate in the declaratory judgment action; nor were they represented in that action by counsel or by any other party having the same interest as these defendant officers . d. That the defendant officers were unaware, until the Judgment and Decree, that their promotions were being challenged, and at least one of the defendant officers had been led to believe by one or more of the plaintiffs that no such challenge to the promotions would be made . e . That the Court, in its Decree, specifically excludes from the effects of such decree the promotions of the five officers who are defendants in the instant action. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 . The Court finds that it has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter. 2. Plaintiffs seek a Writ of Mandamus, compelling the Waterloo Civil Service Commission to remove the five defendant officers from their present position and thereafter hold competitive promotional examinations to fill the then existing vacancies as those awe created as a result of such Order. 3 . In determining whether a Writ of Mandamus should be issued to compel the Civil Service Commission to act, this Court must -4- not only consider the nature of Mandamus but must find a legal duty to act on the part of the Civil Service Commission . 4 . The nature of a Mandamus action is set forth in Chapter 661 .1 of the Iowa Code as follows : "This action of Mandamus is brought to obtain an Order demanding an inferior tribunal, board, corporation, or person to do or not to do an act, the performance or omission of which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station. " 5 . The plaintiffs argue that the defendant officers are bound by the ruling in Cause No . 57409 even though they were not parties to that action. 6 . Plaintiffs appear to reason that the relationship of the defendant officers to the defendant City of Waterloo and the Civil Service Commission was of a "representative" nature . Thus being represented, their right and entitlement to the promotions has been adjudicated. 7 . '►Issue preclusion, " plaintiffs contend, has been established by : a. The issue concluded is identical . b . The issue has been raised and litigated in the prior action. c . The issue must have been material and relevant to the disposition of the prior action. d . The determination made of the issue in the prior action must have been necessary and essential to the resulting Judgment . This Court concludes thatthh mere establishment of the four prerequisites does not mean that the Court will grant issue preclusion. Mutuality is lacking in the instant case , and additional circumstances and considerations must be looked at before deciding whether the parties must relitigate the underlying issues . -5- 8 . It is apparent that the trial Court in the declaratory judgment action did not consider the five officers or the matter of their promotions to be before him. This Court concludes, therefore, that the five defendant officers were not afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of the validity of their promotions in Cause No. 57409 . 9. One of the underlying bases for the doctrine of issue preclusion is judicial economy. The failure of the plaintiffs to join the five officers in the declaratory judgment action is another circumstance upon which denial of issue preclusion must rest. Although the defendant City indicates that the Commission is ready and able to carry out the order revising its promotion procedures, it is presently under a temporary injunction obtained by the five defendant officers not to do so. It would be unjust to these defendants to hold new promotional examinations prior to a final determination to determine whether the plaintiffs will appeal this ruling or possibly commence an action to relitigate the validity of the promotion of the five officers, defendants in this action. JUDGMENT AND DECREE IT IS NOW ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED: 1. That the plaintiffs ' Request for a Writ of Mandamus, compelling the City of Waterloo and the Waterloo Civil Service Commission to declare null and void the promotions of Larry Dolan, Michael Beener, Harry Helgesen, Randall Schoenfelder, and Robert Shafer, is hereby denied. 2 . Plaintiffs ' Request for Writ of Mandamus compelling the City of Waterloo and the Waterloo Civil Service Commission to hold new promotional examinations and certify new lists of eligible candidates will be granted upon the filing by the plaintiffs in this action, on behalf of themselves and those others whom they represent, their election not to pursue any further legal action on the question ', of the validity of the promotions granted to officers Larry Dolan, Michael Beener, Harry Helgesen, Randall Schoenfelder, and Robert Shafer. 3 . The Temporary Injunction shall remain in effect until the plaintiffs either elect to waive their rights to pursue any -6- further legal action to demote these officers or until the matter of their promotions has been fully relitigated and resolved. 4 . A Permanent Injunction is hereby granted restraining the Waterloo Civil Service Commission from any voluntary action whereby said Commission would seek to invalidate the promotions of Larry Dolan, Michael Beener, Harry Helgesen, Randall Schoenfelder, and Robert Shafer upon any basis pertaining to the validity or the invalidity of the promotional examination and evaluation process which was the subject of the declaratory judgment action, Cause No. 57409 . Costs of this action are taxed to the plaintiffs in the amount of $ Dated this 19th day of May, 1981 . BY THE COURT: dge