Meade v. City of Philadelphia
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 68
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- BRT members relinquished assessment responsibilities; MOU dated October 5, 2009 vested assessments in Finance Director; BRT heard appeals for six-month term renewals.
- MOU not renewed; City Council voted December 17, 2009 to remove BRT duties and create two new agencies and abolish the BRT.
- Voter referendum approved transferring both assessment and appellate functions; salary for new board set, leading to subsequent salary actions.
- March 8, 2010 BRT sought injunction; April 22, 2010 salary reductions enacted for BRT members; October 1, 2010 duties were purportedly reduced by reorganization.
- Supreme Court later issued BRT II limiting authority to remove appellate function; salary dispute remained, leading to the current mid-term salary- reduction challenge.
- Common Pleas Court held Nigro and Goldsmith public officers under Article III, Section 27 and unconstitutional mid-term salary reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Nigro and Goldsmith public officers under Art. III, §27? | Nigro/Goldsmith: yes, based on Richie and BRT II, with six-year terms and public functions. | City: no, officers serve at pleasure; no definite term to shield from mid-term changes. | Yes; they are public officers under §27. |
| Does removal at pleasure defeat a definite term for public officers? | Defendants' removal power does not negate six-year appointment term in statute. | Removal at pleasure erodes the definite term requirement for a public officer. | No; term is definite per statute despite removal power. |
| Does mid-term salary reduction violate Art. III, §27? | Salary reductions during term are prohibited for public officers. | Changes in duties/demonstrated reduced responsibilities may justify salary adjustments. | Yes; mid-term salary reduction violates §27. |
| Does consolidation/diminution of duties affect the applicability of §27 to salary? | Duties reduction cannot shield from salary protections under §27. | Duties reduction could be the basis for permissible compensation adjustments. | No; court rejects indirect evasion; §27 applies regardless of duty changes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Revision of Taxes v. City of Philadelphia, 607 Pa. 104 (Pa. 2010) (BRT II; authority to remove appellate function reserved to General Assembly; salary issues unresolved)
- Richie v. City of Philadelphia, 225 Pa. 511 (Pa. 1909) (office with grave public functions; public officer status under §27)
- Buckwalter v. Borough of Phoenixville, 603 Pa. 534 (Pa. 2009) (state may not alter midterm compensation; municipalities bound by same constraint)
- Sellers v. School District of Upper Moreland Township, 385 Pa. 278 (Pa. 1956) (inexorable prohibition on midterm salary increases; cannot evade via indirect means)
- Houseman v. Commonwealth ex rel. Tener, 100 Pa. 222 (Pa. 1882) (importance of appointed officers; removal power and definite term implications)
- Richie (1908 Superior Court), 37 Pa. Super. 190 (Pa. 1908) (analyze public officer status for assessors; early articulation of criteria)