*1 612 Carolina, North stages also Hewett in the other mentioned See v.
sentence as Cox, supra. both Compare United Blea proceedings. v. of 162, Behrens, 84 v. U.S. S.Ct. States 375 supporting III. Additional authorities v. Fleenor 295., 11 also L.Ed.2d 224.” expressed supra, Applica- the views are: 982, Hammond, A. 132 Cir.), F.2d (6 116 1428, 1, Gault, 41, 387 87 S.Ct. U.S. L.R. 1241. 1451, 527; v. 18 Gideon Wain- L.Ed.2d 792, 335, 344-345, wright, 372 83 S.Ct. U.S. Supportive foregoing views is Scheetz, 796-797, 799; People Douglas 9 v. L.Ed.2d rel. Fulton v. comment State ex California, 353, 356— 874, 372 Iowa, axio- U.S. 166 887: “It State 811; 816-817, 358, 814, L.Ed.2d liberty 83 9 is to be restrained S.Ct. matic where * * Illinois, People Griffin v. of the State process *.” there must due 589-590, 12, 16-18, 351 U.S. 76 S.Ct. now light foregoing I ask: State, 891; McNeely Fla. 100 L.Ed. v. here, Where, liberty is at defendant’s 522-523; v. 186 Cross App., So.2d stake, of due is he not entitled benefit Huff, 124, 127, and S.E.2d Ga. proba- mеaningful process notice and a —to Cochran, 163, 46 209 Miss. So.2d Mason hearing? tion revocation 106, 108. process of law apparent to me due in- with I reverse remand is here involved. structions, or- aside the that trial court set revoking probation, entered der heretofore By I that at II. the same token submit timely given defendant relative notice be stages hearing all the defend- hearing accord- probation, revocation of competent ant to benefit entitled held, benefit of be allowed ingly defendant counsel. thereof, if this stages at all counsel degree of With more than a minimal writ days then the done within held, Reed, logic the Glenn v. issue. U.S.Apр.D.C. a hear- 289 F.2d proba- ing which resulted revocation BECKER, JJ., join in this MASON tion was defendant neither invalid where dissent. had nor counsel. was offered assistance of And, Williard, Perry statement, cit.,
found this pertinent loc.
P.2d 1022: hold that counsel “We now only so desirable but is essential to trustworthy
fair that due process liberty in law when is at stake al., Appellants, Hubert R. BRIGHTMAN et right cludes a to counsel.” Tinson, Pa. Commonwealth v. The CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF the right 249 A.2d deals of a de- MOINES, Iowa, OF Leo CITY DES Danzinger, Chairman, Seymour representation by Wilton in a fendant counsel on, Hankins L. and Richard Members parole hearing, board recommitment Commission, Appellees. said constitutionally holding parolee then No. 53495. attorney, entitled assistance court found no basis be- for differentiation Supreme Court Iowa. probation tween revocation of before Oct. com- sentencing after with this marked ment, helped page A.2d: “We appellant’s determining
not at all in consti- rights by attaching
tutional artificial labels before us.” proceeding describe the
Stewart, Wimer, Joyce, Brennan & Moines, appel- Joyce, B. Des Joseph lants. McAllister, Wensel,
Lucier, & Swanson Swanson, Moines, by Gary Judkins, H. Des appellees. GARFIELD, Chief Justice. Des Plaintiffs 33 detectives appealed police who Moines force Commission, mission, votes, held herein called two it was “commission,” they jurisdiction'to plaintiffs hear the from what illegal filed with demotion it. claimed was city. action two assigned I. The errors coun- members sustained three *3 the single here combined claim into plaintiffs’ appeal on cil’s motion to dismiss holding the trial in the com- court erred jurisdiction the it was without ground it was properly mission decided without hear it. plaintiffs’ appeal. jurisdiction to entertain issued writ certi- The district court of little, dispute. factual There is commis- orari whether the determine prior years For more than SO June proper jurisdic- action exceeded sion’s service there was no civil classifica- (See illegally. tion it otherwise acted in Dur- tion of Des Moines. "detective” The Procedure). Rule Rules of Civil however, “patrol- ing period, that certain the to the matter was submitted court on specialized men” assigned duties secretary made return the writ the paid at a detectives and were rate argu- commission and briefs and of the equal police “sergeants.” least that of commis- ments the detectives the By on the above date the ordinance 6054 did held the commission sion. The court city established civil service classifi- the act not exceed its otherwise jurisdiction slightly pay cation of with detective lower illegally dismissing plaintiffs’ appeal sergeants. than that This difference of city so it council and on motion of pay August 26, continued until They denied relief to detectives. city when the by ordinаnce 6956 council appealed judg- from to us the adverse equalized pay detectives that ment. sergeants. (For fact disregard convenience we By effective March ordinance 7160 the commission are made members of pay city increased the of ser- it- along with the commission defendants geants than it did of detectives. more self.) Twenty-nine appeal undertook detectives this action commission from to the writ on which The return illegal in an de- claiming resulted the court certiorari action submitted to appel- motion. All but five of the ap- mainly plaintiffs’ notice consists de- lants with nine additional along here peal il- the commission from the claimed The held tectives-—33 all. legal city council enact- action of jurisdiction entertain the ing Decem- effective ordinance No. upheld appeal former and this was 26, 1966; city ber motion council’s district on review certiorari. We the com- appeal ground dismiss affirmed of the judgment district court to hear mission was without explained. Antrim hereinafter grounds it, thereto; ordi- plaintiffs’ resistance Comm, Des v. Civil 7427; argu- transcript nance oral Moines, Iowa, 154 711. by attorneys for to the commission ments detectives; and the a few docu- stated, illegal As the claimed ac- before transcript some mentary matters and which the detec- from members of among informal discussion appealed tives to the commission was commission, attorneys parties for the 7427 effective passage of ordinance meeting. who attended few others pay December increased the sergeants percent al- detectives five writ petition for the of certiorari percent. detectives contend leges thereto and the commission’s answer demotion, like illegal resulted in another proceeding with admits that without resulting effec- from ordinance 7160 ordinary com- merits the
fil 5 March their parties obtaining tive violation of objects and assist rights, chapter civil service justice. under 365 Cоde Code section 4.2. rights, preference 1966 and of soldiers’ here, applicable far as section 365.20 So chapter detectives many is an affirmance of states: “If there who are ex-service men. demotion, suspension, discharge may, rely rights,
II. Plaintiffs sections 365.27 person holding civil service he thereafter, in chapter dealing and 365.20 there- twenty with civil days within pertinent service. far as 365.27 So here commission. from to the civil service ” * * * provides: “The civil service commission shall have challenged pro- Plaintiffs have not enacting to hear all and determine cedure of involving matters alleged of civil serv- They have not ordinance 7427. *4 affirm, еmployees, and may modify, ice or legally enacted and was not the ordinance any reverse case published. on merits. com- before the Their claim pensation demoted, versed, he shall be reinstated as date charge, and shall be entitled to such com- may determine.” “If «‡ [*] his 5jc appeal suspension, discharged employee body taken having demotion, by jurisdiction suspended, or dis- re- ground. stated, rights under the civil tion dismissed out mission was that demotion jurisdiction to hear 365.18, the commission decided supra, a detectives’ ground it resulted service violation not set appeal on that in an chapter. As it was with- matter and out arbitrary of their sec- the writ on which the The return to Before quoting 365.20, it was submitted to the dis- certiorari action well to refer to 365.18 365.19. heard trict shows commission court former person holding reads: “No civil question. The last no other or decided provided service chapter this thing attorneys the com- for told demoted, removed, suspended hear jurisdiction mission was that its arbitrarily, except provided as otherwise to it. appeal was the matter submitted chapter, removed, this but de- counsel hearing Earlier moted, suspended by after a the commission had admitted majority vote the civil service commis- suspensions, demo- alleged in matters of sion, neglect duty, disobedienсe, mis- service em- discharges of civil tions or conduct, or perform failure his properly not al- plaintiffs had ployees argued but duties.” any leged demotion. Section 365.19 quote. is too In long to hereof, As in Division I III. stated pertinent part provides person it hav- plain- plaintiffs also most of these ing the appointing chapter Comm, of in Antrim v. tiffs may peremptorily suspend, demote or Iowa, Moines, Des discharge any subordinate under direc- his they or- claimed tion for neglect duty, disobedience re- effective March dinance 7160 orders, properly misconduct or failure to illegal Like or- their demotion. sulted perform report his duties. such ac- .A Dеcember dinance 7427 effective or, tion shall be city manager made to the police more pay of other increased him, if the action is to the it did that of Antrim than detectives. who shall according affirm or revoke it ap- other detectives undertook to the facts and merits of the case. peal the commission from their claimed demotion; illegal sustain- duty
It is the commission our construe these stat city’s special appearance liberally promote utes their ed the view to timely filed had been hear thereof jurisdiction to notice it was without ground create and city council can that since the appeal notice thereof because challenge such a provided sec- abolish commission days the 20 given within up- resort ordinance must direct court district supra; opinion concurring the courts. The and we in certiorari held not suf- point was concludes: “While holding. affirmed parties it should ficiently raised opinion implicit it is from our think creates the To so not be overlooked. do appeal timely if notice in Antrim that jurisdic- impression has the commission given commission were impression.” a false tion. This would be In to entertain it. have had joined in justices other Two gave such notice present case concurrence. to the commission. apрeal of their present certiorari action deciding the opinion, preceding summary of the expressed adopted trial the view headnotes, the “statute we states held Antrim, concurring is a demotion of providing that there ap- apparently with quoted of it much rights he person holding service civil up- proval the commission seeks days thereafter may within 20 ground Of the decision on such here. hold appli- the Civil Service Commission opinion is not concurring course the *5 right em- regard cable in precedent It for the there stated. view appeal basis ployees to Commission it recognizes is to be noted court’s by city had con- that their reclassification impression the opinion creates the com- demotion, a therefore Com- and stituted And, had Antrim. mission jurisdiction where notice mission lacked hereof, in Division II counsel stated municipal action was not appeal from before the com- given than six by employees until more mission on its motion n dismiss plaintiffs’ municipal action challenged months after appeal, it in mat- admitted had been taken.” had alleged ters of service demotion civil employees. opinion Excerpts is from the are: “It * * * is to us section 365.20 evident * * * city applicable controlling. It is true that whenever here and commission, appoints may it they prеmise upon which “Since it in such event the ordinance abolish adoption is sought administrative review powers duties the commission shall ordinance, offending of the alleged city revert to the Code section council. effective that enactment date of However, pursuaded are not we 365.3. point statutory is the commencement impression it that created follows period appeals could be within which their opinion not in Antrim is false. our lawfully taken. any suggested thought council has No abolishing the commission. circumstances we are satis- “Under the supports the has been view cited fied, plaintiffs’ an if there was invasion of expressed special in the concurrence rights, on the effective date occurred Antrim. right of of the ordinance. Their lawful accrued, manifestly
appeal they then chapter nothing in find pursue remedy provided with- failed precludes appeal an other statute which days law.” twenty prescribed plaintiffs the commission what from Antrim, contend their demotion violation concurring A after chapter. One such their under the in the stating writer concurs court’s not be right they is that demoted appeal opinion, expresses the view provided arbitrarily except as otherwise lie even if the commission would not 365.18, quoted report council and his action tо the chapter. Section passage it by in turn affirmed of Ordi- supra. As in Antrim appealed Comm., 711, 714, plain- nance 7427. Plaintiffs supra, 154 N.W.2d from affirmance. appeal commis- “attempted tiffs’ upon unavoidably a claim sion is based suggested fixing It has been IV. the ordinance demote served effect other members salaries of detectives and added) (emphasis them.” department police legislative, executive, not an the view ex- would, in function but preclude To such an limitation, in An- effect, pressed in the concurrence exception read trim, accepted by here, trial court expressed, the broad terms of there into (i. adhered e. thаt desire to, supra: “The civil service challenge the act the council jurisdiction to hear commission shall have law, citing proper court of involving the forum determine all matters Loveless, supra, 244 Iowa employees, Wood rights of civil service have previous- to which we 58 N.W.2d affirm, modify, reverse case ly referred). par. 344(f), merits.” See Rule Rules Russell, Procedure;
of Civil Wendelin v. fixing of salaries of We have held 192; N.W.2d is an ad- city employees such as firemen Pesch, 223, 228, Bergeson v. 254 Iowa Mur- legislative, act. ministrative, not 431, 433, citations. N.W.2d Gilman, 58, 60- 204 Iowa phy 62, 214 The action council which Loveless, upheld
we
Wood v.
in 122
A.L.R.
annotation
au-
“Salary
heading
contains
365.28.
reаl
thorized
con-
it would seem
Logically,
ordinances.
there
tention
was that
relied
dealing
proposition ordinances
general
as a
*6
not
office
was
in fact abolished
fixing of salaries
with the
council,
by the
(pages
244
925-926
employees
than those
other
officers and
Iowa, pages
N.W.2d.)
of 58
371-372
See
mere
by law are
specifically provided for
Gilman,
60-61,
Murphy
v.
204 Iowa
**
*.
ly administrative
character
Presumably complied rel. Klise v. manager 63, 67-73, 365.19, 430-441, requirement N.W.2d section provision; quotes the constitutional summarized Division II he Eads, 27, 30-31; Lampart, Sueppel Des Moines Iowa, US, 156 N.W.2d 116-117. 1033, 1036, 82 N.W.2d 721-722. in error provisions It the trial already quoted follows We without 363C.7, the commission was holding of section subd. * ** appeal, plaintiffs’ to hear power manager “shall have paid writ certiorari dismiss- quashing to be compensation fix except ing (of as other- their employees city), petition. however, to subject, provided, herein
wise express no the merits We chapters 70 and 365.” provisions plaintiffs’ appeal to the commission. We to a they were entitled only hold provision of thereon. powers granted other “All those any rights consider need exer municipal corporations may have plaintiffs who men except are ex-service council, con those cised Law, under Code the Soldiers Preference or by law upon some officer ferred chapter 70. prevail over dinance.” does 363C.7, reasons: subd. for at least two judgment is reversed The trial court’s exception expressed (1) Because of entry of the cause remanded for 363C.7, us, and (2) in 363.3 italicized sustaining the certiorari judgment writ of conferring special statute subd. 7 extent the civil service commis- manager cities plaintiffs’ appeal sion dismissed while government, manager form them a granting hearing. applicable all general is a statute 363.3 Reversed and remanded. towns. cities and LARSON, is a rule that where RAWLINGS fundamental LeGRAND, alone, JJ., concur. standing general statute, as a statute include the same matter SNELL, J., specially. concurs it, special act and thus conflict with exception quali to оr will be considered J., part. takes no MOORE, pre fication statute will general MASON, BECKER, JJ., STUART and Iowa, Halverson, it. vail over State *7 181, citations; dissent. 177, 155 State N.W.2d and 534-536, Flack, 529, 251 101 N.W. Iowa specially). (concurring SNELL, Justice 538-539, 535, citations. es
2d and in there my I because concur City Waverly, Iowa pecially Gade 251 question the factual within is narrow 528, 525, 473, 477, 101 N.W.2d and cita deter- jurisdiction the commission to tions. so, appellants If mine, were demoted. i. e. of the jurisdiction is the not within en V. think the action of commission to overrule the to a before the titled commission The council is the council. appeal with illegally, on their and it acted body. the enact right of council to 306, R.C.P., in meaning the of Rule thе salary for challenged the is ordinance dismissing on council’s court. was with asserting motion the commission City hear it. See jurisdiction out BECKER, (dissenting). Justice Comm., Sioux Service v. Civil I respectfully dissent. 1254, 835, Iowa and 78 N.W.2d this citations; majority I. As v. Pension Board of noted Butler 1034-1035, very another action certiorari which Dept., Police 259 Iowa mission, neglect duty, disobedience, Service Com- for Civil Antrim similar misconduct, Iowa, Moines, perform or properly failure to City of Des mission Upon case turned his prior duties. of these 711. The 365.18. grounds person Civil Service jurisdiction having appointing lack of power, notice give manager, may failure here the peremptor- due Commission ily only point raised suspend was the appeal. discharge any This or subordinate. The manager report was decisive the council case. and any suspension discharge he and makes special con- concurrence Antrim the council shall affirm or revoke ‘ac- question Service Com- sidered Civil cording to the facts merits of the case.’ proper mission even 365.19.” juris- given, no notice been contended had type case over this existed diction concept If the of demotion is added to contended Civil Service Commission and quote the above (which unnecessary clear this fact should have been made quotation case from whiсh taken) not raised and though even opinion, purpose civil act is service well Largely reasoning not reached. immediately stated. ap- Two factors are concurrence commission First, parent. the matters controlled to be no jurisdiction case it had this found administrative, are not legislative, court trial affirmed. nature second, council, as a legislative body, ap- an not considered findings of the II. It is submitted the pointive person body. trial commission jurisdiction was not have commission did Comm., In Misbach v. Civil Service but must be examined right we said: axiomatic that in more detail. “In appeal juris- cases the has commission, or- statute a creature of diction to hear and determine all matters dinance, to it given no has involving rights of civil service em- implica- necessary either ployees, affirm, re- modify or creation. the instruments verse case on its But merits.” Service, Am.Jur.2d, jurisdictional must base refer page 470. created in the statute. one No contend, instance, the Civil providing Civil Serv- The statutes Commission, statutory authority, without in the length quoted ice Commission public has employees’ over requoted will opinion and majority right bargain collectively. claimed construes majority here. Code, very broadly example Another is the illus- situation consideration sufficient Loveless, trated in 244 Iowa Wood v. сhapter, impact of other sections where, part N.W.2d 368 ordi- especially section 365.19. police department, nance restructuring the *8 Youngblade, 250 In O’Connor plaintiff’s inspector police job as was of 460, “I. 808, 457, 812, we said: involving a eliminated. “matter This I.C.A., 1958, Chapter 365, 1954 and Codes employee” .the rights of a civil service of and removal appointment pertains to go but to the commis- the contest did civil serv- positions under holding persons ; This directly courts. sion went plan manager In cities ice. is proper, for the commission police except chief of appointments, of actions designed pass the legislative on manager. by chief, fire are made pass designed of is the council. may re- be person A Section 365.15. of execu- acts the administrative a a suspended after or moved tives. service) com- (civil majority vote Law, Municipal Corporation Vol. Antieau, complained ordinance this case the 276, 278, which 22.13, pages 3, various pay scales entirely with deals of mu- compensation “Usually the “By states: majority: quote the
classifications. To employees can nicipal 1965, officers 8, March ordinance effective gov- by the fixed, decreased increased more sergeants pay increased corporation body erning Plaintiffs of detectives.” than it did that ** proper, *. as it deems illegal demotion. claim this constituted only the considering are At the moment we “ ** * Ordinarily, civil service state Commission power the Civil Service par- order no commissions have pass question. in- wages workers’ ticular n fails rec- májority opinion The III. creased. ordi- aspect ognize public policy an ordinance of whether of ac- of the class nance which takes out legislative a or administra- fixing salaries is As reviewable commission. tions up often where function comes most tive Comm., 200 Jenney said in v. Civil is validity aof claimed referendum vote “The 1959: ex challenged. Such a case is rel. State civil is a tribunal serviсe commission City Bellingham, Pike Wash. a by statute, created and is no sense Washington court’s 48 P.2d a limited Its record. analysis interesting: think the “While we field, a discre- somewhat narrow but wide provisions sufficiently of the charter are necessarily per- tion must be allowed ” broad to enable voters of * * * course of its Of formance duties. initiative, through deal with matter but chapter has been amended since 1925 within or munici- the realm of local affairs has not jurisdictional the broadened base business, strictly pal legislative whether been so as to allow the commission wide used, not, generally it is term legislative public its creator overrule always fixing obvious that of salariеs matters, per- from policy distinguished stage process legislative some a sonnel administrative matters. course, legislative function. Of author- could, ity unless restrained constitutional fixing This salaries for an en- ordinance provision, appropriation or charter make an police tire broad within the classification lump specified governmental pur- department designated legislative must be poses, leaving it to administrative officers supporting function. Some authorities legislative to fix the But salaries. view are order. required so, authority to do is not Yokley, Municipal Corporations, itself paid. Vol. establish salaries to be universally рage fixing 180states: know that this is almost “The so practice wages municipal employees leg- is a and that incident no other municipal government engages legis- function. the salaries more islative Where municipal employees prescribed by char- lative attention.” ter, they may changed not be ordinance It must be admitted there are situations body legislative or resolution of salary construed fixing might where
municipality. as an administrative function. Where “Where a formula is set the statute or ordinance good council acts in faith salary nothing in fixing compensation fixing for an office does position, formula, char- decision final and not sub- but fоllow *9 ject City by might acter to review the well be See Miller v. courts.” lost. legislative. 1. There is some conflict as whether seems to be that Annotation, fixing A.L.R. 782. an or ad of salaries is executive view ministrative function but better salary department’s entire structure is ad- Francisco, Cal.App. County and of San here, legislative, ministrative than I sub- where, rather as 109, But 102. 2d 344 P.2d Gilman, Murphy supra, mit v. should be by classification fixes salaries the council complexities of The with no overruled. range employees, a wide for fi- government (and municipal as individual regard to whether they are not same now nancing) as submitted it is punished preferred, be Murphy- when the case was in nature. legislativе the action is by legislative This borne out decided. Gilman, 204 Murphy v. Citation IV. revamping many action of the majority 679, 58, 214 N.W. statutes in 1951. *10 Green, power suspend settled in “8. He Pierce shall to or officer, discharge summarily any ap- 131 A.L.R. pointee, employee power or that he has III, V. Reference to Article section of appoint employ, subject, however to the brings the Iowa Constitution the whole provisions chapters 70 and 365.” problem sharp into The article focus. These sections bring do not the ordinance powers government reads: “The the purview within the of the Civil separate Iowa shall be divided three into Service Commission. Under section 363C.7 dеpartments Legislative, Execu- —the (16), manager prepare and must submit tive, person and the and no Judicial: an annual budget. This involves charged prop- powers the exercise of (and pay) employees. of civil service But erly belonging departments these one of such fiscal pur- matters are not within the appertaining shall exercise function view the Civil Service Commission. others, except either of the here- in cases expressly permitted.” inafter directed or (8) Sections 363C.7(7), (16) must all ignored This article often in connection interpreted purview within the of section long with cities and towns. Without dis- governing 363.3 body reads: “The sertation the rationale seems to be that cities municipal corporations all shall be the only are quasi-governmental at best bodies. council, mayor by chosen the electorate Yet, passes, they time as ever in- assume provided by chapter. as this All portions creasing government. of modern powers granted and other municipal cor- constitutionally rule” man- “Home now porations shall by council, be exercised dealings Direct dated. between cities except those conferred some officer rule, government the federal are the by law or All ordinance. executive func- exception. Most our citizens and powers tions shall by be exercised city subject to government. separation The mayor boards, and other officers and powers kept increasingly clause must neither the council nor the members thereof in mind when passing en- shall exercise executive functions unless abling statutes. conferred law.” we have Here a statute which creates hardly city suppose man- One would quasi-administrative quasi-judicial body, ager could fix salaries different from those part system, the court review fixed the council ordinance. city the actions of offi- administrative manager could override quarrel. cers. With I have no But if power is read But section into statute. review is еxtended to over provides: 363C.8 “The shall be manager submit, legislative body, actions of the I supervision under the direction III, Article both violated in its pleasure.” council and hold office at spirit. letter and its analysis. foregoing
This is the point quotes majority VI. The 363C.7(7) salaries, rela- aWhen council fixes es- powers tive manager. classification, Section pecially of an entire it acts 363C.7(8) pertinent. two sec- legislatively. also action re- This cannot be tions read: viewable Service Commission disrupting the entire “7. He employ, shall have government. form of reclassify, discharge all employees of requires, occasion The commission should be held to be fix compensation paid such without both from stand- employees, except point herein statutory otherwise (because construction provided, subject, however, provi- simply council is appointing not an chapters sions of 70 and 365. under the from statute) and *11 (be- structure governmental standpoint should a subordinate cause power to overrule public policy). a matter
body, least on right of is similar If altogether. joba abolish
city council act challenge the desire law. a court of forum proper 919, 58 Loveless, 244 Iowa Wood in this MASON, JJ., join
STUART
dissent. CLAYBURG, Jensen Helen M.
Elsie M. Clayburg, as Trus- M. Elsie tee, Appellants, WHITT, Whitt Roger Harriet
John Hackleman, Appellees. L. Charles
No. 53546.
Supreme Iowa. Court 14, 1969.
Oct. notes problem. majority Thе poses a say The majority seems the courts have that we held proposition for the case beyond power, quasi- have no that of a as employees fixing of salaries commission, judicial the legisla- to review legisla- administrative, a firemen council, tive citing action of the Article was, part, tive, based large act. The case III, Constitution; State ex rel. Klise requirement in stat- on the absence of Riverdale, 423, v. Town 244 Iowa 430- must be fixed salaries ute firemen’s 63, 441, 67-73; City 57 N.W.2d of Des could be by salaries ordinance. Since Lampart, Moines v. 248 Iowa by only, reasoned fixed resolution The Klise case deals with court, should be held of salaries fixing annexation and denominates a political As we administrative, legislative. be legislative function which cannot dele- 670, Burlington, 231 Iowa noted Glaser v. gated. City Lampart, Des Moines 709, changed was the statute 1 N.W.2d supra, subject deals same matter opinion and Murphy v. Gilman after (after statutory Both amendment). cases police- fixing for firemen of salaries can, hold do, jurisdic- the courts by ordinance, legis- was by men mandated accomplish measure of review. 6519, Code, has lature. Then section Lampart, Des Moines v. we replaced by entirely repealed and since been find : Much chapters 363A 363B. Murphy v. was rationale which Gilman carefully out Riverdale pоinted “It is by destroyed amendment of based was later Iowa, page 66 of 429 of 244 page being statute considered. against prohibition ‘The 57 N.W.2d: crea- delegation power courts authority The Murphy v. Gilman tion, of mu- and diminution enlargement weakened another The munici factor. nicipalities, legisla- does not mean pal salary subjected structure being court function provide for some ture cannot initiative referendum under section opinion (page proceedings.’ And that 6556, Code, (later as known section Denny quotes from 67) 57 N.W.2d 416.80, Code, 1946). This was real County, 143 Iowa Des Moines repealed core case. section was settled 1069: ‘It is well legislature general the 1951 new and no may provide Legislature this state that the enabling statute re and referen initiative power exercise place. dum has taken its which are judicially determine facts authority made the conditions on which Murphy Gilman, supra, Thus is a case whom is dele- officers exercised statute, 416.13, based on one and execu- gated exercise radically changed repealed, then ” power.’ tive another, and on which was repealed. also interpret The case not be should taken courts as construction of the and construe ordinances Constitution statutes, against governmental statutes we now have If it them. still even firmly fixing body, been considered the law that of an seem to have