The council, pursuant to recognized merit system principles of public employment, shall from time to time:
1. On a recommendation from the department head, classify or reclassify the specified positions occupied by law enforcement officers within the branch of government employing the officer and recommend schedules of salary and other compensation payable for the officer classification.
2. Review standards and qualifications of all positions that are classified and recommend any changes to the human resources director.
3. In consultation with the department head, provide a plan for fair and impartial selection, appointment, retention and separation or removal from service by resignation or dismissal of all classified law enforcement officers. Paragraph 4 of this section applies to appointments.
4. Provide a plan with recommendations for the promotion of law enforcement officers that shall give appropriate consideration to qualifications, record of performance, seniority and conduct within the field of law enforcement. Vacancies within a department shall be filled whenever possible by promotion within a department and shall be on the basis of competitive examination. If a vacancy occurs within a department, the council, on request, shall certify to the head of the department the names of officers in the order of the officer's relative excellence in the competitive examination from which certified list the appointment or promotion may be made.
5. Adopt rules necessary for the orderly administration of this article.
6. Hear and review appeals from any order of the department head in connection with suspension, demotion or dismissal of a classified law enforcement officer. If the order of the department head was for a suspension greater than sixteen hours, demotion or dismissal and the council exonerates the officer, the council may award, in whole or in part, the reasonable costs and attorney fees that the law enforcement officer incurred or were incurred on behalf of the law enforcement officer in connection with the appeal. The award of attorney fees by the council shall not exceed ten thousand dollars. An award of attorney fees does not apply if either of the following applies:
(a) The order of the department head was not for disciplinary purposes but was for administrative purposes such as a reduction in force.
(b) The disciplinary action related to off-duty activities unrelated to the required duties of the law enforcement officer. The council's determination shall be final except on appeal as provided in section 38-1004. If the department head appeals the decision of the council, the council's award of any costs or attorney fees to an officer shall be stayed pending the conclusion of the appeal. If the department head's decision is upheld on appeal, the award of costs or attorney fees in favor of the officer shall be reversed.
Notes of Decisions
Pima Cnty. v. Pima Cnty. Law Enf't Merit Sys. Council, 119 P.3d 1027 (Ariz. 2005).
· cites it 26× “We conclude that Pima County LEMSC Rule XIII-4(I) is consistent with A.R.S. § 38-1003. *226 I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶ 2 Deputy Harvey testified in a criminal ease that to effectuate an arrest, he had hit the arrestee with the butt of his gun and later slapped the…”
Smith v. Pima Cnty. Law Enf't Council, 548 P.2d 1151 (Ariz. 1976).
· cites it 23× “The Council must act according to A.R.S. § 38-1003 "pursuant to recognized merit system principles of public employment.”
Ayala v. Hill, 664 P.2d 238 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 8× “Appellant appealed his dismissal to the Commission, pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-1003. Evidentiary hearings were held before a hearing officer in late 1979 and early 1980.”
Stant v. City of Maricopa Emp. Merit Bd., 319 P.3d 1002 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “And we believe that any doubt caused by the inconsistent language in §§ 38-1003 and 38-1004 concerning appeals and certiorari "should be resolved in favor of the right to appeal.”
Pima Cnty. v. Pima Cnty. Law Enf't Merit Sys. Council, 99 P.3d 19 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 8× “The Council responds that it had authority under A.R.S. § 38-1003. We agree with Dupnik that the Council exceeded its statutory authority when it applied a nondeferential standard in reviewing Dup-nik’s personnel decision.”
Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff's Off. v. Maricopa Cnty. Emp. Merit Sys. Comm'n, 119 P.3d 1022 (Ariz. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Nevertheless, because the statute is silent as to a standard of review, we conclude that either approach is consistent with the mandate in A.R.S. § 38-1003 that county merit system commissions adopt rules consistent with "recognized merit system principles of public employment.”
Boyce v. City of Scottsdale, 756 P.2d 934 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 3× “We found, however, that since A.R.S. § 38-1003(5) provided for the commission to “[ajdopt such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the orderly administration of the provisions of this title,” the commission had the authority to adopt a rule providing for rehearing.”
Arizona Dep't of Pub. Saf. v. Dowd, 573 P.2d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “In appellee’s brief filed in this Court, and in the trial court’s written judgment, reference is made to A.R.S. §§ 38-1003 and 1004. These statutory sections are only applicable to merit systems established for certain law enforcement officers employed by counties, cities or…”
Pima Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't v. Smith, 760 P.2d 1095 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 6× “a majority of the Council determines that the action appealed from was arbitrary or taken without reasonable cause, the appeal shall be sustained; otherwise, the appeal shall be dismissed.”
Pinal Cnty. v. Pinal Cnty. Emp. Merit Sys. Comm'n, Serb, 116 P.3d 624 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “CV-04-0356-PR (Ariz. Mar. 22, 2005). We further note that the supreme court also granted review of a case in which Division One of this court affirmed the superior court’s judgment upholding a merit system commission’s decision to modify discipline (termination) a sheriff’s…”
Hamilton v. City of Mesa, 916 P.2d 1136 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
“section 38-1003 (1985) which requires “a plan for fair and impartial selection, appointment, retention and separation or removal from service by resignation or dismissal” must apply to the City of Mesa and that the City Manager cannot be fair minded since he approved the…”
Fernandez v. Garza, 354 P.2d 260 (Ariz. 1960).
“1 in essence urges that the court below lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, and accordingly the action should have been dismissed.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-1003(5) — 3 cases
Ayala v. Hill, 664 P.2d 238 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
“Appellant appealed his dismissal to the Commission, pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-1003. Evidentiary hearings were held before a hearing officer in late 1979 and early 1980.”
Boyce v. City of Scottsdale, 756 P.2d 934 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
“We found, however, that since A.R.S. § 38-1003(5) provided for the commission to “[ajdopt such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the orderly administration of the provisions of this title,” the commission had the authority to adopt a rule providing for rehearing.”
Pima Cnty. v. Pima Cnty. Law Enf't Merit Sys. Council, 119 P.3d 1027 (Ariz. 2005).
“We conclude that Pima County LEMSC Rule XIII-4(I) is consistent with A.R.S. § 38-1003. *226 I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶ 2 Deputy Harvey testified in a criminal ease that to effectuate an arrest, he had hit the arrestee with the butt of his gun and later slapped the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-1003(6) — 2 cases
Smith v. Pima Cnty. Law Enf't Council, 548 P.2d 1151 (Ariz. 1976).
“The Council must act according to A.R.S. § 38-1003 "pursuant to recognized merit system principles of public employment.”
Pima Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't v. Smith, 760 P.2d 1095 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
“a majority of the Council determines that the action appealed from was arbitrary or taken without reasonable cause, the appeal shall be sustained; otherwise, the appeal shall be dismissed.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-1003(6)(b) — 2 cases
Stant v. City of Maricopa Emp. Merit Bd., 319 P.3d 1002 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“And we believe that any doubt caused by the inconsistent language in §§ 38-1003 and 38-1004 concerning appeals and certiorari "should be resolved in favor of the right to appeal.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.