Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Defendants.
The Plaintiffs filed a Second Ex-Parte Motion for Preliminary Injunction on August 25,
2016, seeking to extend the Court's prior injunction. The parties stipulated to extend the
injunction until the parties were able to engage in discovery and litigate what rules should govern
any civil service action in this case. The parties came before the Court asking it to determine
whether the Idaho Falls Civil Service Rules (IFCSR) are in direct conflict with the Idaho
Statutory Civil Service Statutes. And if so, what part, if any, of the IFCSR is not preempted by
the ICSR. The method in which this question is presented to the Court is as a Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, but inasmuch as it is a request for a ruling on a question of law, the Court
will treat it as a Motion to Certify a Question of Law as well as a Motion to Extend the
Preliminary Injunction until the instant law suit is resolved. The Court has reviewed the motion,
complaint, and supporting documents and held a hearing on the matter. The Court rules as
follows:
The key issues in this motion are whether certain portions of the IFCSR are preempted by
State Law, and whether the conflict should result in the complete abdication of IFCSR or
whether one section can be severed from the rest of the rules'
Article 12 g2 of the Idaho Constitution states, that "any county or incorporated city or
town may make and enforce, within its limits, all such local police, sanitary and other regulations
as are not in conflict with its charter or with the general laws." Idaho Const. art. XII, $ 2. The
Idaho Supreme Court has stated further, that 'owhen part of a statute or ordinance is
unconstitutional and yet is not an integral or indispensable part of the measure, the invalid
portion may be stricken without affecting the remainder of the statute or ordinance. Voyles v.
City of Nampa,97 Idaho 597,600,548 P.2d 1217,1220 (1976). The principle of striking a
dispensable, unconstitutional part of a statute or ordinance permits the striking of a single word.
Id.
In this case, there is a potential conflict between the IFCSR and the State Civil Service
The civil service commission shall certit/ the names of not more
than three (3) applicants having the highest rating to the appointing
authority for each Promotion.
The state statute does not say anything about what should be done if more than one
promotion is filled at the same time; nor does it specifically prohibit this action. In fact, the state
ooall
statute specifically grants the civil service commission power to make necessary ru1es and
regulations to carry out the purposes of the civil service system." I.C. $50-1603. Therefore,
municipalities are allowed to interpret how to perform such a task on their own while staying
In order to stay in line with I.C. $50-1606, the ultimate effect of the civil service rule
allowing the appointment of more than one individual at a time must be the same as if each
individual were appointed separately. The effect of using IFCSR VILI to appoint more than one
individual at a time varies from the effect of following I.C. $50-1606 to appoint them separately.
Therefore, this portion of the rule is invalid because it is preempted by the state statute.
Invalidating this portion of the rule takes away the municipality's ability to appoint more
than one person at a time, but the rest of the rules stand on their own to assist the civil service
The parties will simply have to look to I.C.$50-1606 for direction instead of IFCSR VII.1.
Without a provision allowing for simultaneous appointment, IFCSR VII.5 no longer has
any purpose. However, this does not necessarily make it invalid. If the municipality drafts a
relevant. This rule is not in direct conflict with state law, therefore, it is valid'
II. APPr.rc,q,rroN
Based on this ruling, only a portion of IRCSR VII.I will need to be stricken. The words
..times the number of' and'onecessary to fill such position" can be removed from the rule and it
will still have effect, without violating I.C. $50-1606. After striking these portions, the amended
rule reads: ..the appointing authority shall request and the Commission shall certify to the
appointing authority as soon as possible after such request, from the eligible list the names and
III. ConclustoN
The above mentioned portions of IFCSR VII.I shall be stricken to erase the conflict
between it and the state statutes. The remainder of the IFCSR shall apply to the causes of action
in this case. Because the remainder of the IFCSR applies, the Court HEREBY extends the
preliminary injunction ordered on August 25,2016, until further order of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I hereby certify that on this day of DECEMBER, 2016, I did send a true and
correct copy of the forgoing document upon the parties listed below
my mailing, with the correct
- same to be placed in the respective courthouse mailbox;
postage th'o"orr; bV fai; b/causing the
or by causing the same to be delivered.
DENNIS P. WILKINSON
THOMPSON SMITH WOOLF ANDERSON
WILKINSON & BIRCH, PLLC
3480 Merlin Drive
Idaho Falls, ID 83404
Fax: 208.525.5266
BY:
OF LAW
DECISION AND ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CERTIFY A QUESTION
AND TO EXTEND THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION