Lead
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This case began innocuously enough when Johnson County Sheriffs Department Master Deputy Michael Maurer cracked a department vehicle’s windshield with a binder while attempting to shoo a bothersome horsefly. While the horsefly’s life may have
Maurer initially reported the incident by writing “Crack in windshield—rock” on a yellow sticky note and leaving the note for his commanding officer, Sergeant Joe Greenwood. The next morning, Maurer briefly spoke with Greenwood and advised him the crack on the windshield had “spiderwebbed” as the result of a rock chip. But another deputy who witnessed tire horsefly incident soon reported that Maurer caused tire damage when he hit the windshield with tire binder. Maurer eventually responded to questions regarding the incident in two separate written reports and disclosed additional facts regarding his role in damaging the windshield.
After an internal investigation and hearing before an internal review board, Johnson County Sheriff Frank Denning terminated Maurer’s employment for violating the department’s professional standard on truthfulness. In doing so, Denning adopted the position of the review board recommending termination based on Maurer’s false statements in the sticky note and his verbal statement to his commanding officer indicating the windshield damage was caused by a rock rather than Maurer’s own actions.
Maurer appealed to the Johnson County Sheriffs Civil Service Board (CSB), and the CSB reversed Denning’s decision and ordered Maurer’s reinstatement. Denning appealed to the district court, and the district court reversed the CSB’s decision and remanded the case to the CSB for further proceedings. Maurer appealed the district court’s decision to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning the district court’s decision to remand the case to the CSB for further proceedings was not a final order. On remand, the CSB reversed itself, upholding Denning’s decision to terminate Maurer. Maurer appealed to the district court, and the district court affirmed the CSB’s second decision. Maurer appealed to the Court of Appeals, and the panel majority affirmed both district court decisions, ultimately upholding Maurer’s termination. Judge Leben dissented and would have affirmed the CSB’s first decision upholding Maurer’s reinstatement. Denning v. Johnson County Sheriff's Civil Service Board,
We granted Maurer’s petition for review under K.S.A. 20-3018(b), obtaining jurisdiction under K.S.A. 60-2101(b). We affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the district court’s decision to vacate the CSB’s first decision, and thus we ultimately uphold Denning’s decision to terminate Maurer’s employment.
Discussion
Because the parties are familiar with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case and the Court of Appeals fully discussed both in Denning,
The Roles of the County Sheriff and a Sheriff s Civil Service Board
K.S.A. 19-805(a) permits a county sheriff to “appoint, promote, demote and dismiss additional deputies and assistants necessary to carry out the duties of the office, for whose official acts the sheriff is responsible.” But the sheriff s powers are not absolute. Instead, those powers are subject to some oversight by the board of county commissioners regarding personnel policies and procedures and pay plans and are subject to “any applicable bargaining agreements or civil service system.” K.S.A. 19-805(d).
Counties designated as “urban area” counties and counties having certain populations are required by statute to establish a sheriffs civil service system. K.S.A. 19-4303 et seq.
Regarding the dismissal or suspension of any permanent employee covered under a sheriffs civil service system, K.S.A. 19-4327 provides, in relevant part:
“(a) The sheriff may dismiss any permanent employee when [the sheriff] considers that the good of the service will be served thereby, and for disciplinary purposes may suspend without pay a permanent classified employee for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days, but no permanent employee shall be dismissed for political, religious or racial reasons.
A permanent employee can seek review of his or her dismissal by requesting a hearing before the applicable sheriff s civil service board. K.S.A. 19-4327(b). A sheriffs civil service board is authorized to receive evidence at the hearing and to determine the “reasonableness” of the sheriffs personnel decision. See K.S.A. 19-4311(h); K.S.A. 19-4327(b), (d). Finally, a sheriffs civil service board is authorized to approve or disapprove the sheriffs action and may order reinstatement of a dismissed deputy with back pay, sustain the dismissal, or sustain the dismissal with certain conditions. K.S.A. 19-4327(d).
Judicial Review of a Sheriff s Civil Sewice Board Decision
A party aggrieved by a sheriff s civil service board decision may seek judicial review of that decision under K.S.A. 60-2101(d). See Ratley v. Sheriffs Civil Service Board,
When an appeal is taken to the district court under K.S.A. 60-2101(d), the district court may not substitute its judgment for that of the political or taxing subdivision or agency, and the court’s scope of review is limited to determining whether the challenged order was within the subdivision or agency’s scope of authority; was substantially supported by the evidence; or was fraudulent, arbitrary, or capricious. Robinson v. City of Wichita Employees Retirement Bd. of Trustees,
As a matter of right, parties may appeal a district court’s final decision to the Court of Appeals, and that court can review any ruling or order from the beginning of the proceeding. See K.S.A. 60-2101; K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 60-2102; see also Olathe Hospital Foundation, Inc. v. Extendicare, Inc.,
When an appeal is made from a “political or taxing subdivision, or any agency thereof,” an appellate court reviews the decision as though the appeal had been made directly to the appellate court, i.e., no deference is accorded the district court’s decision. Robinson,
Finally, a party aggrieved by a decision from the Court of Appeals can petition this court for review. See K.S.A. 20-3018(b); K.S.A. 60-2101(b). This final level of judicial review is discretionary and governed by our rules of appellate practice. K.S.A. 20-3018(b); Supreme Court Rule 8.03 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 74). Unless limited by the order granting review, “the issues before the Supreme Court include all issues properly before the Court of Appeals which the petition for review or cross-petition allege were decided erroneously by the Court of Appeals.” Supreme Court Rule 8.03(g)(1) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 77).
With this background in mind, we turn to the two specific issues Maurer claims were erroneously decided by the Court of Appeals: (1) whether the CSR exceeded the scope of its authority in rendering its first decision and (2) whether the CSB’s first decision was substantially supported by the evidence. And, while we limit our review to these two issues, because this remains an appeal from a decision rendered by a political subdivision or agency thereof, we are guided by the same scope of review exercised by the district court and the Court of Appeals as set out above.
Notably, even though this case reaches us through Maurer’s petition for review, this multilayer judicial review process places the parties in the same positions as they were in the district court when Denning challenged the CSB’s first decision ordering Maurer’s reinstatement, i.e., Denning is on the offensive and Maurer is defending that decision.
The CSB exceeded its scope of authority and rendered a decision not substantially supported by the evidence.
Denning contends that in its first decision the CSB exceeded its scope of authority by reviewing his decision to terminate Maurer de novo and substituting its judgment for that of Denning. Relying on Board of Lincoln County Comm’rs v. Nielander,
Maurer contends the CSB acted within its scope of authority when it rendered its first decision, reversing Denning’s decision and ordering Maurer’s reinstatement. He argues the plain language of K.S.A. 19-4327 authorizes the CSB to conduct a de novo hearing, determine tire reasonableness of a sheriff s personnel decision, and, if appropriate, reverse the sheriff s decision and order the employee’s reinstatement. Maurer further argues Denning misplaces rebanee on Nielander, particularly in light of the Court of Appeals’ rejection of the same or similar argument in Zoellner v. Civil Service Bd. of Leavenworth County,
Standards of Review
“Administrative agencies are creatures of statute and their power is dependent upon authorizing statutes, therefore any exercise of authority claimed by the agency must come from within the statutes.” Pork Motel, Corp. v. Kansas Dept. of Health & Environment,
Similarly, whether the CSB’s decision is substantially supported by the evidence is
A sheriffs civil service board has authority to review and determine the reasonableness of a county sheriff s personnel decision.
To determine a sheriff s civil service board’s scope of authority we begin with its authorizing statutes. K.S.A. 19-4311(h) authorizes the board to “[cjonduct hearings and hear complaints by or against personnel for the purpose of demotion, suspensions or removal of personnel.” In conjunction with these hearings, the board may compel tire attendance of witnesses, take depositions, receive testimony, and seek contempt orders for witnesses who refuse to comply with subpoenas. K.S.A. 19-4311(i). K.S.A. 19-4327(b) and (d) further delineate the board’s powers and duties to consider dismissals and conduct hearings:
“(b) Any employee so dismissed or suspended may request in writing within thirty (30) days after receipt of such notification a hearing before the board to determine the reasonableness of such action and the board shall grant the employee a hearing within fifteen (15) days after receipt of such request.
[[Image here]]
“(d) After the hearing and consideration of the evidence for and against a dismissal, the board shall approve or disapprove such action and may make any one of the following appropriate orders: (1) Order the reinstatement of die employee and die payment to die employee of such salary as has been lost by reason of such dismissal. (2) Sustain the dismissal of such employee. (3) Except as provided above die board may sustain the dismissal, but may order die name of die dismissed employee returned to the appropriate registers, or may take steps to effect the transfer of such employee to a comparable position in another department.”
K.S.A. 19-4327(b) and (d) plainly authorize the sheriffs civil service board to receive and consider evidence “for and against a dismissal” in determining the “reasonableness” of the sheriff s personnel decision to approve or disapprove of the sheriff s decision, and to make appropriate orders based on its findings and conclusions. But Denning asks us to look beyond the plain language of K.S.A. 19-4327 to conclude that the CSB either lacked authority to review his personnel decision or had only limited authority. For the reasons discussed below, we decline to do so.
1. Nielander did not nullify the CSB’s authority under K S.A. 19-4327.
In arguing the CSB lacks authority to review his personnel decisions, Denning relies on Nielander. There, a sheriff and deputy sheriff appealed an injunction allowing the board of county commissioners to terminate the deputy sheriff s employment. The sheriff and deputy sheriff argued the board lacked the constitutional or statutory authority to hire or fire the duly appointed assistant to an elected county official. Agreeing with the appellants, the Nie-lander court ultimately concluded: “[Bjoards of county commissioners may establish personnel policies and procedures for all no-nelected county personnel . . . [and] collective bargaining agreements or a civil service system,” and “personnel actions taken by sheriffs are ‘subject to’ personnel policies . . . established by boards of county commissioners,” but “K.S.A. 19-805(d) does not give county commissioners the ability to supersede a sheriffs power to appoint, promote, demote, or dismiss his or her personnel.”
Denning would have us extend Nielander s holding that a board of county commissioners lacks authority to override a sheriff s personnel decision appealed to a sheriff s civil service board. But as Maurer argues, Denning’s rebanee on Nielander is misplaced, both because it contradicts the plain language of K.S.A. 19-4327(d), as just discussed, and because we agree with the Court of Appeals’ opinion in Zoellner rejecting this argument. See
2. A sheriffs civil service board’s authority is not limited to determining whether a sheriff dismissed an employee for discriminatory reasons.
To support Denning’s position in this case that the CSB has only limited authority to review his personnel decisions, Denning relies upon K.S.A. K.S.A. 19-805 and 19-4327. Construing both statutes together, he argues, requires that we limit the CSB’s role to consideration of “whether an officer was terminated for reasons of race, religion or politics.”
As previously discussed, K.S.A. 19-805(a) authorizes a county sheriff to make decisions regarding the hiring and firing of sheriffs deputies, but that power is not absolute. Rather, “[a]ny personnel action taken by the sheriff.. . shall be subject to . .. any applicable . . . civil service system.” K.S.A. 19-805(d).
In counties where a sheriff s civil service system has been established, a county sheriff “may dismiss any permanent employee when [the sheriff] considers that the good of the service will be served thereby . . . but no permanent employee shall be dismissed for political, religious or racial reasons.” K.S.A. 19-4327(a). And a sheriff s decision to suspend or dismiss an employee is subject to review by the sheriff s civil service board, which is authorized to determine the “reasonableness” of the sheriff s decision. K.S.A. 19-4327(b), (d). Notably, the provisions of K.S.A. 19-4327 mirror those governing personnel decisions and review of those decisions under the state civil service system. See K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 75-2949(a) (“An appointing authority may dismiss . . . any permanent employee . . . when the appointing authority considers the good of the service will be served thereby. ... No permanent employee . . . may be dismissed ... for political, religious, racial or other non-merit reasons.”); K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 75-2949(f) (“Any permanent employee finally dismissed, demoted or suspended, may request a hearing from the state civil service board to determine the reasonableness of such action.”).
Denning argues that reading tire provisions of K.S.A. 19-4327(a) and (b) together and in conjunction with K.S.A. 19-805(a) makes clear that reasonableness refers only to lawfulness—i.e., the CSB’s role is limited to determining whether the sheriff dismissed an employee for unlawful reasons such as race, religion, or politics.
But we cannot accept Denning’s tortured synthesis of K.S.A. 19-4327(a) and (b). K.S.A. 19-4327(a) makes clear that it can never be for the “good of the service” to dismiss a permanent employee for political, religious, or racial reasons. See Swezey v. State Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services,
For these reasons, we reject Denning’s argument that K.S.A. 19-4327(a) and (b) limit a sheriff s civil service board’s review to considering whether a sheriff dismissed a permanent employee for racial, religious, or political reasons.
The CSB exceeded its scope of authority in this case because it failed to understand or apply the reasonableness standard, and its failure to understand that standard is demonstrated by the lack of evidentiary support for its own decision.
Having concluded the CSB had authority to review and determine the reasonableness of Denning’s decision, we next consider whether it properly applied that standard in this case.
When the CSB conducts a hearing requested by a dismissed employee, it performs a “quasi-judicial” function, essentially sitting as an appeals board, and its role is to determine the reasonableness of die sheriff s personnel decision. K.S.A. 19-4327(b); see also Ratley,
Generally, a decision is reasonable if it is substantially supported by the evidence. See, e.g., In re Petition of City of Shawnee for Annexation of Land,
Accordingly, the CSB’s role here was to consider whether substantial competent evidence supported Denning’s decision dismissing Maurer. See K.S.A. 19-4327(b); Central Kansas Power Co.,
Here, the CSB failed to fulfill that role, thereby exceeding its scope of authority, by failing to understand the evidentiary footings of the reasonableness standard, as demonstrated by its decision. In its written order, the CSB made several factual findings, all of which are supported by evidence in the record and are either un-controverted or procedural facts. But, in the “findings and conclusions” section of the order, the CSB indicated it
“reviewed eveiy document introduced [and] considered the testimony of all of the witnesses and the legal arguments advanced by both parties in person and in writing. After a thorough review and consideration of the evidence, the CSB, on a 3 to 1 vote, hereby reverses the decision of the Sheriff and the Board of Inquiiy. The [CSB] finds that there was no evidence to support the finding that a violation of [the department’s policy on truthfulness] occurred. [The] CSB specifically finds and concludes that the two reports were, by all accounts, truthful. See testimony of Sergeant Greenwood beginning on page 68 of the CSB Transcript. In response to questions from counsel, Greenwood concedesthat the reports were truthful, the only issue was that he was ‘not as specific as [he] or Lieutenant Pinlcelman wanted him to be.’ CSB Transcript, p. 71.The mere fact that the first report was not as complete as desired does not rise to a violation of [tire department’s policy on truthfulness], Mr. Maurer at all times took responsibility. His only error was to fail to include in the first report that the item he tossed at the horsefly was a blue folder. Further, his immediate supervisor, Sergeant Greg Shelton, believes Maurer does a good job; shows up for work; knows and does what needs to be done and is rehable and truthful. He would like to have him back as an officer.”
As the Denning majority noted, “the words ‘reasonable’ or ‘reasonableness’ do not appear in either the oral or written CSB decisions.”
Viewing the record as a whole, we agree with the district court that the CSB exceeded its scope of authority by substituting its judgment for that of Denning, rather than applying the requisite reasonableness standard, because the CSB’s determination that no evidence existed to support Denning’s decision “was itself unreasonable, . . . arbitrary and capricious, and not supported by the uncontroverted facts of the case.”
First, as Denning argues and as both the district court and the Denning majority concluded, the CSB’s conclusion that there was “no evidence” to support Denning’s finding that Maurer violated the department’s truthfulness policy ignores evidence direcdy supporting Denning’s dismissal of Maurer. See
Similarly, the CSB’s finding that Maurer’s two written reports were “truthful” fails to take into account the full basis for Denning’s decisión. Specifically, Maurer was
“accused of. . . making false statements in the note that he left with the keys for Sgt. Greenwood and in his verbal statement to Sgt. Greenwood on the morning of July 27. He [was] also accused of. . . fading to disclose relevant information in his verbal report to Sgt. Greenwood diat same morning.” (Emphasis added.)
The CSB did not act reasonably when it failed to consider the primaiy basis for Denning’s decision—i.e., Maurer’s two false statements to Greenwood before he ever responded in written reports as well as his failure to disclose relevant information in those initial reports. As the Denning majority aptly recognized: “Half truths are untruths if they infer a conclusion different from what would have been concluded had the whole truth been told.”
Third, as discussed by the district court and the Denning majority, the record contains substantial evidence undermining the CSB’s conclusion that “Maurer at all times took responsibility.” See
For example, Captain William Rector interviewed Maurer as part of the internal investigation of the incident. In his interview, Maurer stated that he did not fully disclose his role in damaging the windshield “up front” because he did not “feel like [he] was fully responsible.” When asked directly why he decided to write “rock” on the sticky note, Maurer explained, “Well, it was just a small posty note, I didn’t have a whole lotta room to write anything on there and that was—.” Later, when Rector asked why Maurer did not clarify the “rock” statement with Sergeant Greenwood the next morning, Maurer stated, “I don’t feel like I was the sole reason why this windshield cracked so naturally I didn’t wanna jump up and down and claim full responsibility because there were other factors into [sic] this,” and “maybe I didn’t feel comfortable wanting to accept full responsibility
Finally, even though Sergeant Shelton testified Maurer did “a good job,” and that he would “take [Maurer] back” as an officer, Shelton’s testimony does not rebut the substantial evidence discussed above supporting Denning’s determination that Maurer violated department policy and his ultimate decision to terminate Maurer. ■ ■
Conclusion
In sum, we conclude the CSB exceeded its scope of authority because the CSB’s written order clearly demonstrates the CSB failed to understand and apply the reasonableness standard in reviewing Denning’s decision. Further, because the CSB’s decision was not substantially supported by the evidence, the CSB’s decision was itself unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the district court’s decision to vacate the CSB’s decision.
Affirmed.
# # #
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting: I agree with Judge Leben’s dissent in the Court of Appeals’ opinion in this case: “The civil-service board concluded that firing Maurer wasn’t reasonable, and we are not allowed to substitute our judgment for that of the administrative agency charged by statute with making such a decision.” Denning v. Johnson County Sheriff's Civil Service Board,