1. Resolving Courthouse Conflicts NCO School David Vestal January 19, 2005

2. Goal of this Class Develop an understanding of relationship between BOS and other elected officials

3. Why is This Important? Knowing who is responsible for what may reduce tensions in the courthouse.

4. There are Six Cases That Tell Us About This Issue... n Smith v. Newell n McMurry v. BOS of Lee County n Smith v. BOS of Des Moines County n Meyer v. Colin n Erickson-Puttmann v. Gill n Warren County BOH v. Warren County BOS

5. There are also about a dozen Attorney General’s opinions that add to what we know.

6. Smith V. Newell (1962): n §331.903 says elected officials may appoint deputies, assistants and clerks, but only “with the approval of the board.” n In this case, the supervisors refused to approve the appointment of a certain deputy on account of age.

7. Question Presented: n Who has primary responsibility for selecting those to be appointed by the elected officials, the elected officials or the BOS? n Answer: The elected official

8. “It is the responsibility of the sheriff to keep the peace in the county, and to employ deputies who will properly assist him. This responsibility does not rest in the board of supervisors…”

9. As to these appointees, the elected official is their employer. They are responsible to the elected official, and the elected official is responsible for their work. “The board of supervisors have no control over them”

10. Smith v. Newell also discussed the extent of the supervisors’ authority regarding appointments.

11. McMurry v. Board of Supervisors of Lee County (1978) n Supervisors set a two-year employment requirement for deputies of all elected officials, and set sick leave policies for all offices.

12. Question presented: Can supervisors decide personnel policies for other elected officials? n Answer: No

13. Authority over personnel matters resides with the elected officials unless a statute expressly gives the authority to the BOS

14. BOS can establish sick leave and vacation policies for personnel in county offices other than the elected officials and the deputies.

15. Why that distinction? n Because 331.904(4) allows the BOS to “fix all compensation for extra help and clerks appointed by the principal officers.” n Sick leave and vacation are “compensation”

16. McMurry makes two important distinctions: n Deputies versus clerks, assistants and other help n Compensation issues versus job- related issues

17. Note what happened in these two cases: n In Smith v. Newell the BOS rejected a specific appointment n In McMurry the BOS adopted a blanket policy on filling vacancies in county jobs n But the result in each case was the same

18. The elected official, not the BOS, gets to decide who fits the bill. n Authority over personnel matters resides with the elected principals unless a statute expressly gives the authority to the BOS

19. Smith v. Board of Supervisors of Des Moines County (1982) n Supervisors required centralized purchasing by all elected officials

20. Question Presented: Can the supervisors impose a centralized purchasing policy on other elected officials? n Answer: Yes

21. Analysis: 331.322(5) expressly requires the county to provide the county officers with “fuel, lights and office supplies,” and thus has the right to choose how that is accomplished.

22. The issue of the independent authority of the other elected officials was not raised. It was four years after McMurry, but that case was not even mentioned.

23. Meyer v. Colin (Nebraska 1979) n County supervisors told other elected officials not to budget for salary increases for their employees, and established a “salary fund” instead.

24. Question Presented: Does precluding elected officials from deciding on budgets within their offices unduly hinder the other elected officials in the conduct of their duties? n Answer: No

25. The practice was upheld, but the Court said that supervisors generally cannot exercise their authority in a way that interferes with the operation of the office of another elected official.

26. Erickson-Puttmann v. Gill (Iowa Federal District Court 2002) n Facts: Plaintiff was employed by board of supervisors as social services director; n Defendant was county auditor/recorder; n Claim was that Gill created a hostile work environment through a series of false accusations; n Plaintiff complained to Board at least three times with no success.

27. Gill cont’d n Question Presented: Does the Board of Supervisors have a responsibility to police the conduct of other elected officials? n Answer: Yes, at least when that conduct affects board of supervisors employees n Analysis: Gill dismissed from lawsuit; county kept in because supervisors failed to control the conduct of another elected official;

28. Gill cont’d n Suggestion that supervisors should have: n “used its budgetary powers over (Gill) to attempt to conform (his) behavior;” n written a letter of warning much earlier than it did; n threatened to commence a removal action per Iowa Code chapter 66

29. Gil cont’d n “While Iowa Code chapter 331 is entirely silent with respect to granting the county board of supervisors direct supervisory responsibilities over the offices of county auditor or county recorder, the Board is not quite as toothless to protect its employees from harassment by a county official as it professes.”

30. Gill cont’d n Result was a $25,000 judgment against county. n Decision does not cite any earlier cases discussing the autonomy of elected officials, such as McMurry

31. Warren County BOH v. Warren County BOS (2002) n BOH fired sanitarian, then the BOS reinstated him. n Chapter 137 says personnel decisions made by BOH. n BOH adopted county employment handbook. n BOH has delegated previous personnel decisions to BOS.

32. BOH v. BOS cont’d n Question Presented: Can past actions of the BOH constitute a delegation of current personnel decision to BOS. n Answer: Supreme Court says NO.

33. BOH v. BOS cont’d The Court said that the power to hire employees is specifically given to the BOH, and if there was going to be a delegation, there would have to be “evidence of a board resolution or other specific transfer of power.”

34. BOH v. BOS cont’d Even if a given case there is such a delegation, the BOH is free to revoke or change the delegation. This must be done by the same type of procedures that created the delegation.

35. BOH v. BOS cont’d The analogy is that if an elected official surrenders some statutory power to the BOS, this is only binding if there is evidence of a specific transfer of power. It can always be revoked.

36. Vestal’s 4-Part Theory of Resolving Courthouse Disputes

37. 1. When the supervisors are given express authority by statute over other elected officials, that controls.

38. For Instance, supervisors have statutory authority to: n Determine the number of deputies each elected official shall have; n approve deputy appointments made by other elected officials; n approve the budget requests of other elected officials;

39. n approve specific claims for expenses incurred by other elected officials; and n require that elected officials report on the duties of their office

40. 2. Even when supervisors have statutory authority over other elected officials, it must be exercised in a reasonable and limited manner.

41. For instance: n Meyer v. Colin case from Nebraska regarding budget reductions; n Smith v. Newell case regarding power to review deputy, assistant and clerk appointments said the scope of that authority is limited by a “reasonableness” requirement

42. 3. Supervisors can regulate the conduct of other elected officials when it comes to minor, housekeeping functions of county government.

43. For Example: n County-wide purchasing policies; n county-wide policies on selling county property; n county-wide record retention policies; n county-wide policies on health insurance; and n county-wide policies on pay periods.

44. This can only occur so long “as its effect on the ability of elected county officers to conduct their substantive business is insignificant.” Attorney General Opinion 6-19-85

45. 4. Without specific statutory authority, supervisors may not interfere with an elected official’s ability to perform his or her official duties.

46. For example, supervisors may not: n Require that other elected officials adopt a county-wide policy regarding longevity pay for deputies; n discipline employees of other elected officials; or n refuse a particular claim, as long as it is part of an approved budget.

47. Now there is the narrow “Gill exception” to rule #4: “Without specific statutory authority, supervisors may not interfere with an elected official’s ability to perform his or her official duties – unless that official performs his duties in a way that harms board of supervisors’ employees.”

48. If board of supervisors’ employees are being harassed by another elected official, the board has a duty to intervene.

49. Courthouse Hours n Who decides when the courthouse is open?

50. According to the Attorney General’s opinions, the supervisors determine when the courthouse is open, but the individual elected officials determine when their individual offices will be open.

51. Employee Handbooks and Personnel Policies It is preferable to have all elected officials agreeing on matters such as office hours, use of paid vacation leave, smoking policies and requests for time off.

52. But, if there is no agreement, can the supervisors require that other elected officials abide by their policies? n No

53. Generally, Supervisors can only regulate how other elected officials perform their job duties in four circumstances:

54. n The issue has to do with the elected official’s budget n The supervisors have express statutory authority n It involves “minor, housekeeping functions” of government n The elected officials agree to be regulated

55. All county officials need to heed the message in McMurry, where the Iowa Supreme Court acknowledged the relative autonomy of elected officials.

56. “Iowa law vests elected county officials with considerable autonomy, and holds these officers accountable to the electorate rather than to the Board of Supervisors.” Attorney General’s Opinion 6-19-85

57. Organizational Chart of County Government Supervisors Sheriff - Recorder - Treasurer - Auditor - Attorney

58. Organizational Chart of County Government Public Sheriff - Recorder - Treasurer - Auditor - Attorney- Supervisors