IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF'THE SEVENTII JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TIIE

STATE OF IDAHO,IN AND FOR TIIE COT]NTY OF BONNEVILLE

TIM DOWNS, SPENCER STEELE, JOSH

DEEDE, ERTC ANDERSON, KYLE
CHRISTOPHERSON, LEENDERT BAN
HULTEN AND STEPHEN AVERY,
Case. No. CY 2016-4373
Plaintiffs,

VS. DECISION AND ORDER RE:

MOTION TO CERTIFY A QUESTION
THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, a municiPal OF LAW AND TO EXTEND THE
corporation and the IDAHO FALLS PRELIMINARY INJI.]NCTION
POLICE DEPARTMENT, a subdivision of
the CITY OF IDAHO FALLS,

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:

DECISION AND ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CERTIFY A QUESTION OF LAW

AND TO EXTEND THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
 L ANALYSIS

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

Rules. IFCSR VII.I states:

whenever a position or place of employment or vacancy in the
classified Civil Service is to be filled, the appointing authority shall
request and the Commission shall certifu to the appointing authority
as soon as possible after such request, from the eligible list the names
and records of three times the number of persons necessary to filI
such position based on their ranked scores.

IFCSR VVII.5 continues:

whenever the appointing offtcer, who shall have made a

requisition to filI a certain number of vacancies, shall appoint a
number smaller than the vacancies named he shall not make selection
from the whole number certified but only from the number of names

DECISION AND ORDERRE:PLAINTIFFS'MOTION TO CERTIFY A QUESTION OF LAW

AND TO EXTEND THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
 standing highest upon the list that would have been certified had the
requisitlon itut.d the number of vacancies which were actually filled.

Idaho Code $50-1606 states:

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

within the parameters of the statute.

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

commission in certifuing and the appointing authority in appointing individuals to promotions.

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

DECISION AND ORDER RE: PLANTIFFS' MOTION TO CERTIFY A QUESTION OF LAW

AND TO EXTEND THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
version IFCSR VIL1 that is consistent with I.C. $50-1606, IFCSR VII.5
will again become

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

records ofthree persons based on their ranked scores."

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.

Dated tnis 10*'|dayof December, 2016.

C. Steptr6ns, District Judge

DECISION AND ORDERRE: PLATNTIFFS'MOTION TO CERTIFY A QUESTION OF

LAW
AND TO EXTEND THE PRELIMINARY INJI.JNCTION
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS

KATHY HAMPTON
308 Constitution Way
PO Box 50220
Idaho Falls,ID 83405

IDAHO FALLS POLICE DEPARTMENT

MARK MCBRIDE
605 N. Capital Ave.
Idaho Falls, ID 83402

CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT

Bonneville County Idaho

BY:

OF LAW
DECISION AND ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CERTIFY A QUESTION
AND TO EXTEND THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION