Bales v. City of Fort Smith, Ark.
2017 Ark. App. 443
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Don Paul Bales, a Fort Smith police sergeant, was terminated on October 20, 2014 and appealed to the Fort Smith Civil Service Commission (Commission). Hearings occurred November 3–4, 2014; the Commission announced and signed an initial order on November 4, 2014.
- Arkansas Code § 14-51-308(e)(1)(B)(i) requires filing a notice of appeal with the Commission within 30 days of the Commission’s decision to trigger the Commission preparing a written order and transcript for circuit-court filing.
- Bales mailed a notice of appeal postmarked December 4, 2014 and emailed a courtesy copy on December 5, 2014; the Commission’s formal written findings and final order were dated December 11, 2014.
- Bales filed a circuit-court complaint on January 12, 2015; the City moved to dismiss asserting the notice to the Commission was untimely under § 14-51-308.
- The circuit court first denied a motion to dismiss (finding Rule 9 compliance), but later granted dismissal, holding Bales failed to file his notice with the Commission within 30 days of the November 4 decision and thus the court lacked jurisdiction. Bales appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Bales’s Argument | City’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 30‑day filing requirement in Ark. Code § 14‑51‑308 is jurisdictional | § 14‑51‑308 only defines the right/procedure to obtain a written order; Rule 9 governs circuit‑court jurisdiction, so the statute is not jurisdictional | § 14‑51‑308’s filing requirement is jurisdictional and must be strictly met before circuit court may exercise jurisdiction | The statute’s filing requirement is jurisdictional; strict compliance required |
| When the 30‑day clock began (Nov 4 vs Nov 5, 2014) | Clock began on Dec 11 (date of final written order); alternatively Nov 5 because initial action occurred after business hours | Clock began Nov 4, 2014—the Commission announced, signed, and notarized the order that day | Clock began Nov 4, 2014; Bales’s filing on Dec 5 was one day late |
| Whether substantial compliance or City’s conduct cured lateness | Substantial compliance (mail/postmark) and City’s prior statements conceding timeliness cured defect | Jurisdictional defects cannot be waived by the City; strict compliance required | Substantial compliance and alleged concessions do not cure jurisdictional defect; jurisdiction cannot be waived |
| Interaction of § 14‑51‑308 and Rule 9 | Rule 9 controls perfection in circuit court after statutory requirements are met; statute triggers Commission duties and is a prerequisite | Same: statute applies first and is jurisdictional, then Rule 9 governs subsequent circuit‑court procedure | § 14‑51‑308 and Rule 9 are interrelated; statutory filing requirement is a jurisdictional prerequisite to Rule 9 procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrows v. City of Fort Smith, 360 S.W.3d 117 (Ark. 2010) (civil-service appeal process: statute provides right and procedure; court rules fill procedural gaps)
- Clark v. Pine Bluff Civ. Serv. Comm’n, 120 S.W.3d 541 (Ark. 2003) (Rule 9 compliance is mandatory and jurisdictional for administrative appeals)
- Evins v. Carvin, 426 S.W.3d 549 (Ark. App. 2013) (statutory and rule interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Odyssey Healthcare Operating A. LP v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 469 S.W.3d 381 (Ark. App. 2015) (jurisdictional challenges may be raised at any time)
- Russell v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., ? (Ark. App. 2014) (jurisdictional issues cannot be waived)