Miller v. Board of Wabaunsee County Comm'rs
111569
| Kan. | Mar 10, 2017Background
- Robert K. Miller was appointed Wabaunsee County Appraiser for a 2009–2013 term and had an employment contract addressing discipline.
- In March 2011 the Wabaunsee County Board met in executive session, demanded Miller resign or be terminated; he refused.
- On March 21, 2011 the Board voted to terminate Miller and stopped his salary and benefits.
- Miller requested administrative review under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 19-431; an ALJ initially ordered reinstatement and back pay for failure to follow the contract; on remand the ALJ deferred to the Board and upheld termination.
- The district court and the Court of Appeals affirmed the deferred-review result; this appeal asks whether the Board could immediately end Miller’s employment, salary, and benefits under K.S.A. 19-431.
- The Kansas Supreme Court reversed: it held a Board’s termination is conditional where the appraiser timely requests review and the Director of Property Valuation (PVD) has final authority; Miller was entitled to back pay through the term expiration.
Issues
| Issue | Miller's Argument | Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 19-431 permits a county board to immediately end an appraiser’s employment, salary, and benefits upon "termination" | Miller: "Termination" by the Board does not end salary/benefits if the appraiser timely requests PVD review; Board’s act is effectively a suspension | Board: Plain meaning of "terminate" lets the Board end employment and stop pay immediately | Held: Board may only temporarily relieve duties; if appraiser timely requests review the PVD has ultimate authority and salary/benefits continue until PVD order or appraiser declines review |
| Effect of legislative text ambiguity and canons of construction | Miller: Statute read as whole, in pari materia with PVD supervisory statutes, shows Board’s power is conditional | Board: Statute’s plain word "terminate" authorizes immediate effect | Held: Text reviewed as a whole plus legislative history and in pari materia canon show termination is conditional when review is sought |
| Whether Kennedy v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs requires a different result or controls | Miller: Relies on Kennedy to argue terminated appraiser must receive pay pending review | Board: Kennedy does not control factual/statutory question here | Held: Kennedy addressed due process and did not decide whether a board may immediately end pay; it does not control the present statutory interpretation question |
| Standard of review for PVD hearing (concurring view) | Miller: PVD hearing should be de novo and not deferential | Board: PVD need not substitute de novo factfinding for Board’s decision (argued at earlier levels) | Held: Majority resolves statutory question; concurring justice states PVD hearing is de novo and not required to defer to the Board |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennedy v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 264 Kan. 776 (1998) (addressed due process of pretermination procedures for county appraisers)
- K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281 (1988) (statutory interpretation requires reading the statute’s language and design as a whole)
- McManaman v. Board of County Commissioners, 205 Kan. 118 (1970) (discussion of PVD’s supervisory role over county appraisers and uniformity in valuation administration)