OCR Text |
Show WHO APPOINTS? The appointment by the mayor of the clerk of the Health Department and his instructions to the appointee to perform the work of the office notwithstanding his failure of confirmation by the council is apparently intended as a test case to determine de-termine whether or" not he has the right to appoint ap-point subordinates in the various departments. The action of the mayor raises an interesting question regarding the legal status of the appointee. ap-pointee. The contention of the mayor and the city attorney is that the clerk of the health department de-partment is an officer of the city and therefore must be appointed by the mayor. If the mayor's contention is correct the appointee ap-pointee cannot, in view of the decision in the Sheets case, claim to be a legal officer until his appointment has been confirmed by the council. He occupies the status of a de facto officer and the courts have universally held that a de facto officer cannot recover compensation for his services. ser-vices. There is no doubt that the city council will refuse to pay the appointee Without his confirmation, confirma-tion, and it is consequently difficult to see how he will receive any compensation, if, as the mayor contends, he is a city officer. If on the other hand, as the Republican coun-oilmen coun-oilmen maintain, all the incumbents of the subordinate sub-ordinate positions in the appointive departments are merely employes and are consequently beyond be-yond the range of the appointive power of the mayor, the appointee might recover from the city for the actual worth of his services. That is the interesting phase of the situation. If tho appointee can collect for his services only as an appointee, then all the present employes of the different departments will receive compensation compen-sation as long as they perform their services. Consequently the mayor's scheme to oust the subordinates sub-ordinates and replace them with appointees, who would not be confirmed and who would be appointed ap-pointed as officers, would be nullified, as the unconfirmed un-confirmed officer cannot collect for his services whether legally or illegally appointed. That question was definitely settled by the Supreme Su-preme Court in the cases of George Sheets and Kendall vs. Raybould. The determination of tho case of the newly appointed clerk of the Health Department consequently con-sequently engrosses the attention of local politicians poli-ticians who are watching the vain glorious struggle strug-gle for supremacy in the patronage arena. |