315 Conn. 37
Conn.2014Background
- Plaintiffs are Meriden taxpayers who sued via quo warranto after the city council appointed Michael D. Quinn as corporation counsel without a recommendation from the newly elected mayor, Manuel A. Santos.
- Santos was sworn in December 12, 2013; the city council had scheduled and posted a December 2, 2013 meeting (set without Santos’s input) at which the council considered and appointed Quinn.
- Quinn had previously been appointed as corporation counsel under the prior mayor (Michael Rohde) and was not recommended by Santos for reappointment.
- Meriden City Charter § C7-3 vests appointment authority for corporation counsel in the city council but does not mention the mayor; § C3-3J mandates that “The mayor shall recommend any and all appointments” to positions within the council’s appointing power and prescribes a multi-step recommendation/rejection process.
- The trial court granted the writ of quo warranto, concluding the council’s appointment was invalid because the charter required a mayoral recommendation; the defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Meriden City Charter requires the mayor to recommend all appointments to offices/positions within the city council’s appointing power, including corporation counsel | The charter’s § C3-3J plainly and unambiguously makes mayoral recommendation a mandatory prerequisite to council appointments; failure to follow it voids the appointment | § C7-3 gives the council appointment power and lacks a cross-reference to § C3-3J; long-standing practice and separation-of-powers concerns show council’s exclusive authority; extratextual evidence (practice) should inform interpretation | The charter’s § C3-3J unambiguously requires the mayor’s recommendation for such appointments; council's appointment without that recommendation was invalid and quo warranto removal was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Bateson v. Weddle, 306 Conn. 1 (court enforces strict compliance with charter appointment modes)
- Stewart v. Watertown, 303 Conn. 699 (rules on statutory interpretation principles applied to charters)
- State ex rel. Gaski v. Basile, 174 Conn. 36 (requires strict compliance with charter-prescribed forms for appointments)
- National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550 (examined role of historical practice and purposive aids when text is ambiguous; discussed by parties but not controlling here)