Dwayne Cales v. Town of Meadow Bridge
239 W. Va. 288
| W. Va. | 2017Background
- Dwayne Cales was appointed to his third term on the Meadow Bridge Sanitary Board and served as vice chairman; the Town Council removed him by majority vote under Municipal Code § 3-112.
- Cales filed a petition for a writ of mandamus arguing he was a "municipal officer" protected by W. Va. Code § 6-6-7, so removal required the statute’s multi-step removal procedure.
- Respondents (Town and council members) moved to dismiss, arguing sanitary board members are not municipal officers under § 6-6-7 and that Municipal Code § 3-112 allowed removal at the council’s pleasure.
- The circuit court denied relief, holding the position was not a municipal office and § 6-6-7 protections did not apply; it emphasized statutory/ordinance language and policy concerns about burdening local government and courts.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals applied de novo review of the mandamus claim and affirmed: sanitary board members are not municipal officers for purposes of § 6-6-7, so Cales had no clear legal right to mandamus relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a municipal sanitary board member (vice chairman) is a "municipal officer" protected by W. Va. Code § 6-6-7 | Cales: position created by statute, fixed term, bonded/handled funds, oath taken, duties and tenure prescribed — thus an "office" subject to § 6-6-7 removal protections | Town: board members are appointed under municipal ordinance, not designated municipal officers; council retention of appointment/removal power and absence of prescribed officer qualifications or required bond/oath show they are not officers; Municipal Code § 3-112 permits removal at pleasure | Court: Not an officer under Carson factors; sanitary board members are not representatives of the sovereign and § 6-6-7 does not apply; removal under municipal ordinance was lawful |
| Whether § 6-6-7 should be read with § 6-6-8 to cover officers without fixed terms | Cales: statutes should be read in pari materia; showing fixed term under § 16-13-18 suffices | Town: statutory delegation to municipalities and ordinance control govern removal; applying § 6-6-7 broadly would upend municipal governance and burden courts | Court: rejected extension; § 6-6-7 protections not appropriate for sanitary board members; policy considerations weigh against broad application |
| Whether municipal ordinance (Municipal Code § 3-112) is superseded by § 6-6-7 when removing board appointees | Cales: statutory office character should override removal-at-pleasure ordinance | Town: ordinance exercise of delegated authority governs; board had not adopted bylaws displacing ordinance | Court: ordinance governed removal here; no bylaws existed to displace Municipal Code; § 6-6-7 not triggered |
| Public policy implications of applying § 6-6-7 to appointed municipal board members | Cales: (implicit) protections necessary for officeholders with statutory duties | Town: applying § 6-6-7 would impose heavy administrative and judicial burdens and improperly displace elected officials’ oversight | Court: agreed with policy concerns; extending § 6-6-7 would create impractical burdens and was not intended by legislature |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Carson v. Wood, 154 W. Va. 397, 175 S.E.2d 482 (W. Va. 1970) (sets multi-factor test for distinguishing an "office" from mere employment)
- Christopher v. City of Fairmont, 167 W. Va. 710, 280 S.E.2d 284 (W. Va. 1981) (applies Carson factors to find a municipal worker was an employee, not an officer)
- Harrison Cty. Comm’n v. Harrison Cty. Assessor, 222 W. Va. 25, 658 S.E.2d 555 (W. Va. 2008) (mandamus standard of review and prerequisites)
- Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W. Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (W. Va. 1995) (de novo review applies to statutory interpretation issues)
- State ex rel. Key v. Bond, 94 W. Va. 255, 118 S.E. 276 (W. Va. 1923) (distinguishes public office from employment; duties, continuity, and sovereign functions relevant)
- Town of Davis v. Filler, 47 W. Va. 413, 25 S.E. 6 (W. Va. 1900) (historical precedent recognizing appointing power implies removal unless law restrains it)