580 FULMER ET AL V. HOLCOMB, MAYOR 1261 W. L. FULMER Sr., Loyd Wayne BOWEN and Orville ADAIR v. Gerald HOLCOMB, Mayor of the City of Booneville, Arkansas 76-362 550 S.W. 2d 442 Opinion delivered May 16, 1977 (Division II) 1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS - HOUSING AUTHORITY COMMISSIONERS - REMOVAL BY MAYOR. - Ark. Stat. Ann. § 19-3010 (Repl. 1968) provides that a commissioner of a city housing authority created under the provisions of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 19- 3001 et seq. (Repl. 1968) may be removed by the mayor for inefficiency or neglect of duty after notice and hearing. 2. OFFICERS, PUBLIC - REMOVAL FROM OFFICE - "CAUSE," DEFINITION OF. - Where a statute provides for removal of a public officer "for cause," or "sufficient cause," the word "cause" means
ARK.] FULMER ET AL V. HOLCOMB, MAYOR 581 "legal cause," and not any cause which the party or parties having the authority to remove the public officer may think sufficient. 3. OFFICERS, PUBLIC - REMOVAL "FOR CAUSE" - WHAT CONSTITUTES. - Before a public officer can be removed "for cause," the cause must be one which specially relates to and affects the administration of the office, and must be restricted to something of a substantial nature directly affecting the rights and interests of the public. 4. HOUSING AUTHORITY COMMISSIONERS - REMOVAL - INEFFICIENCY & NEGLECT OF DUTY AS GROUNDS. - Removal for inefficiency and neglect of duty must be for matters relating to and affecting the proper administration of the office and of a substantial nature affecting the rights of the public. 5. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS - HOUSING AUTHORITY COM.- MISSIONERS - REMOVAL BY MAYOR, WHEN PERMITTED. - Ark. Stat. Ann. § 19-3010 (Repl. 1968) enables the mayor to remove commissioners of the city housing authority when there is substantial danger to the rights and interests of the public because of inefficiency, neglect or misconduct. 6. OFFICERS, PUBLIC - REMOVAL FOR CAUSE - WHAT CONSTITUTES. — Removal of public officers "for cause" means "just cause," and the cause stated mast not be a mere whim or subterfuge, but must be of substance relating to the character, neglect of duty or fitness of the person removed. 7. APPEAL & ERROR - HOUSING AUTHORITY COMMISSIONERS, REMOVAL OF - APPELLATE REVIEW. - Where an appeal iS taken from the action of a mayor in removing commissioners of the city housing authority from office under Ark. Stat. Ann. § 19- 3010 (Repl. 1968), the Supreme Court inspects the record to see whether the mayor had jurisdiction to remove the commissioners; whether he kept within that jurisdiction; whether the charges preferred were sufficient in law; and whether the evidence furnished any legal and sufficient basis for removal. 8. APPEAL & ERROR - EVIDENCE - APPELLATE REVIEW. - ID reviewing the evidence on appeal, the Supreme Court does not weigh it. 9. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS - HOUSING AUTHORITY COMMISSIONERS, REMOVAL OF - APPEAL OF MAYOR'S ACTION TO CIRCUIT COURT. - Where a mayor removed city housing authority commissioners and an appeal is taken, the circuit court hearing is not a trial de novo, but the real question for the circuit court is whether the mayor acted arbitrarily and without legally sufficient evidence, i.e., evidence of a substantial nature to support his action. 10. OFFICERS, PUBLIC - REMOVAL, ORDER OF - NECESSITY OF
582 FULMER ET AL V. HOLCOMB, MAYOR [261 SPECIFYING CAUSE. - An order of removal of a public officer should be quashed if it does not specify the particular charge or charges upon which the removal is based if there is any doubt about the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain any of the grounds charged. 1 1 . MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS - HOUSING AUTHORITY COMMISSIONERS, REMOVAL OF - FAILURE TO STATE CAUSE, EFFECT OF. — A form letter from the mayor to the commissioners of the city housing authority simply stating that they were being removed for cause, without stating the cause, was insufficient to meet procedural requirements where there was a failure of proof on at least one of the specified grounds for removal, and the judgment of the circuit court will be reversed and the order of removal of the commissioners quashed. Appeal from Logan Circuit Court, Southern District, David Partain, Judge; reversed. Warner & Smith, by: J. H. Evans, for appellants. C. Richard Lippard, for appellee. JOHN A. FOGLEMAN, Justice. Appellants were three of the five commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Booneville. Appellee is the mayor of the city. The mayor removed all the commissioners. Appellants filed their petition for certiorari in the Circuit Court of Logan County, seeking review of the proceedings for their removal. Writ of certiorari was granted to bring up the record of the proceedings. Thereafter the writ was denied and the action of the mayor sustained, the court holding that it was with sufficient legal cause and not arbitrary. Appellants' only point for reversal is the assertion that the circuit court erred "for the reason such removal was without legal cause." Although we find evidence of legal cause for removal of the commissioners which might well prevent us from saying that the action of the mayor was arbitrary, we find reversible error in the failure of the trial court to quash the removal of appellants for procedural reasons. The applicable statute is Ark. Stat. Ann. § 19-3010 (Repl. 1968) which provides that a commissioner of a housing authority created under the provisions of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 19-3001 et seq (Repl. 1968) may be removed by the mayor
ARK.] FULMER ET AL V. HOLCOMB, MAYOR 583 for inefficiency or neglect of duty after notice and hearing. The commissioners were charged with having failed to conduct meetings as required by the by-laws of the housing authority; having failed to designate successors as required by Ark. Stat. Ann. § 19-3006 (Repl. 1968); permitting an employee of the housing authority to use a truck for driving between his home and place of private employment and various other places not connected with his duties with the housing authority; permitting the executive director of the authority to sign the name of one of the appellants, Loyd Wayne Bowen, then chairman, to various checks, in violation of the by-laws; and failure to file reports of recommendation annually as required by Ark. Stat. Ann. § 19-3033 (Rept. 1968). Appellants argue that the case is governed by the definition of cause for removal stated in Carswell v. Hammock, 127 Ark. 110, 191 S.W. 935. They overlook the fact that the statute there involved only provided that removal be "for cause only" while the statute here specifically provides for removal "for inefficiency or neglect of duty or misconduct in office." In the former statute, cause was not defined. In the statute we are considering it is defined. Still, the principles stated in Carswell furnish guidance in this case. Cause was thus defined there: " 'Cause,' or 'sufficient cause,' means 'legal cause,' and not any cause which the Council may think sufficient. The cause must be one which specially relates to and affects the administration of the office, and must be restricted to something of a substantial nature directly affecting the rights and interests of the public." We would agree that a removal for inefficiency and neglect of duty must be for matters relating to and affecting the proper administration of the office and of a substantial nature affecting the rights of the public. Apparently, appellants feel that the public interests must have undergone appreciable damage before there could be a removal under the applicable statute—an attitude of waiting until the horse is stolen before locking the gate. We feel that the statute involved here enables the mayor to remove commissioners when
584 FULMER ET AL V. HOLCOMB, MAYOR 1261 there is substantial danger to the rights and interests of the public because of inefficiency, neglect or misconduct. The statement on removal for cause in Williams v. Dent, 207 Ark. 440, 181 S.W. 2d 29, is more appropriate here than that in Carswell, although we do not find any conflict. In Williams, "for cause" was taken to mean "just cause," and we said that the cause stated must not be a mere whim or subterfuge, but must be of substance relating to the character, neglect of duty or fitness of the person removed. It is in the light of the language of the statute applicable here and the statements in both Carswell and Williams that we view the evidence in a case such as this. The scope of our review is defined in Carswell. We inspect the record to see whether the mayor had jurisdiction to remove the commissioners; whether he kept within that jurisdiction; whether the charges preferred were sufficient in law; and whether the evidence furnished any legal and sufficient basis for removal. In revieWing the evidence, we do not weigh it and the circuit court hearing was not a trial de novo. The real question for the circuit court was whether the niayor acted arbitrarily and without legally sufficient evidence, i.e., evidence of a substantial nature, to support his action. The argument that the reappointment of Godfrey and the removal of appellants demonstrated that the mayor's action was arbitrary and capricious is not persuasive. There was evidence that Godfrey had advised the city officials that he would not accept reappointment if the board was to continue to be inactive, but if the board was to be active, he would be glad to serve. A cursory review of the record discloses that there may well have been sufficient evidence upon which the mayor could have found, without being unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, that certain of the specified grounds for removal had been sustained as cause for removal under the guidelines provided by the statute and by Carswell and Williams; however, we feel that there was a failure of proof on at least one of those specifications. Consequently, we must sustain appellants' argument that the order of removal must be quashed. It was in the form of a letter to the commissioners
ARK.1 585 simply stating that the removal was for cause, without stating the cause. In advancing this argument, appellants rely on Williams v. Dent, supra. Even though it might appear that there are factors distinguishing this case from that, it is clear that the opinion in Williams has previously been construed in Martin v. Cogbill, 214 Ark. 818, 218 S.W. 2d 94 in a manner which renders these factors insignificant. In short, the holding in Martin is that an order of removal in cases such as this should be quashed if it does not specify the particular charge or charges upon which the removal is based if there is any doubt about the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain any of the grounds charged. For this reason, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the order of removal of appellants is quashed. We agree. HARRIS, C. J., and BYRD and HICKMAN, J J.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.