Schwartzenberger v. McKenzie County Board of County Commissioners
901 N.W.2d 64
| N.D. | 2017Background
- McKenzie County Sheriff Gary Schwartzenberger sued the McKenzie County Board of County Commissioners seeking a writ of prohibition to stop the Board from disciplining Lt. Michael Schmitz (up to and including termination) and from pursuing removal of the sheriff.
- Board hired an outside investigator after an internal complaint and, following the investigation, voted to discipline Schmitz, place him on unpaid administrative leave, and asked the acting state’s attorney to prepare a petition to remove the sheriff.
- The district court denied the writ, ruling the Board had supervisory authority to ensure county officers’ personnel actions comply with county policies and that the employee had an adequate remedy in a suit against the county.
- Schwartzenberger appealed; the Board argued the appeal was moot because Schmitz was later terminated for unrelated reasons and surrendered his peace officer license.
- The Supreme Court held the dispute was not moot because it involved a recurring, statewide public-interest question about the respective authority of elected county commissioners and sheriffs.
- On the merits, the Court concluded the Board lacked authority to impose discipline up to and including termination against a deputy in the sheriff’s office and reversed the district court’s denial of the writ of prohibition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the county board may impose disciplinary action up to termination on a deputy in the sheriff’s office | Schwartzenberger: sheriff has exclusive authority to hire/fire and manage internal personnel; Board may only supervise legality/compliance | Board: supervisory duty over county officers allows involvement where sheriff fails to perform; not exclusive authority for either side | Held: Sheriff has authority to discipline deputies; Board may not impose termination absent personnel policies that do not usurp the sheriff’s authority — Board lacked authority here |
| Whether county personnel policies gave the Board authority to discipline sheriff’s deputies | Sheriff: policies do not and cannot confer power to usurp sheriff’s hiring/firing authority | Board: its personnel policies apply to all county employees and can constrain officer actions | Held: McKenzie County personnel policies did not grant the Board authority to terminate a deputy in the sheriff’s office |
| Mootness of appeal given subsequent termination of the deputy | Sheriff: issue remains because it raises statewide public-interest questions about allocation of authority | Board: later events removed any live controversy so appeal is moot | Held: Not moot — issue involves the authority of elected county officials and is of great public interest |
| Availability of an adequate remedy at law (writ vs. suit by employee) | Sheriff: allowing employee suit against county does not resolve competing claims of authority between sheriff and Board | Board: employee could challenge Board action in court, so writ unnecessary | Held: District court erred — employee’s remedy against county does not resolve the inter-branch authority conflict; writ appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Old Broadway Corp. v. Backes, 450 N.W.2d 734 (N.D. 1990) (standard and discretion for issuing writs of prohibition)
- Bland v. Comm’n on Med. Competency, 557 N.W.2d 379 (N.D. 1996) (mootness and public‑interest exception)
- Scofield v. Wilcox, 156 N.W. 918 (N.D. 1916) (deputies are county employees though appointed by sheriff)
- Carlson v. Dunn County, 409 N.W.2d 111 (N.D. 1987) (sheriff appoints deputies subject to board’s budget/salary limits)
- Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Nielander, 62 P.3d 247 (Kan. 2003) (sheriff has authority to hire/fire deputies; board may adopt personnel policies but may not usurp sheriff’s hiring/firing power)