Bybee v. Richards

California Court of Appeal Sep 29, 1933 No. Docket No. 5012.Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to his salary as probation officer because the attempted consolidation of his office with a non-existent welfare officer was void and any reduction in his salary during his term violated the county charter.

Issues

Whether the office of probation officer was validly consolidated with a welfare officer under the 1933 charter amendments.
Whether the county auditor may refuse to pay the salary of the probation officer based on the purported charter amendments.
Whether the reduction of the probation officer's salary during his term violates the county charter.

Disposition. Writ of mandate issued

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The amendment to article IY, section 2, of the Charter, which was adopted in 1933, to the effect that “The following offices are hereby consolidated: ... (e) The welfare officer shall be ex-officio probation officer”, is ineffectual and void”

“Moreover any attempt to reduce the salary of the probation officer of Butte County, during his term of office, is in direct violation of article XII, section 2, of the charter”

THOMPSON, J.

This is a petition for a writ of

mandamus

to compel the auditor of Butte County to draw a warrant in payment of the salary allowed by law for the services of the probation officer of that county for the month of August, 1933.

The petitioner, Bybee, was duly appointed probation officer of Butte County by the judge of that county pursuant to the provisions of the Juvenile Court Act of the state of California, November 23, 1932. (Stats. 1915, p. 1225, and amendments thereto; 2 Deering’s Gen. Laws of 1931, p. 2074, sec. 18, Act 3966.) This act contains the proviso that “In counties having a charter providing a method of appointment and tenure of office for probation officers, . . . such charter provision shall control”. The petitioner qualified as such probation officer and has performed the duties of that office since the time of his appointment. His salary was fixed by an amendment to the freeholder’s charter of Butte County in 1923 at $1500 a year. (Stats. 1923, p. 1554, art. Ill, sec. 6.) Article IY, section 1, of the Butte County Charter specifically includes in the designation of county officers that of “a probation officer”. Neither the office of probation officer nor the method of providing by law for his appointment has ever been modified or changed by the charter of Butte County or otherwise. The petitioner demanded of the respondent, as auditor of Butte County, a warrant to compensate him for his services for the month of August, 1933, which was refused. This petition for a writ of mandate was then filed.

[469]

The respondent contends that the office of probation officer was abolished or at least combined with that of welfare officer which was created by an amendment to the Butte County Charter which was adopted in June, 1933.

The respondent is in error regarding the effect of the amendments to the Charter of Butte County which were adopted in 1933. The office of welfare officer was not thereby or otherwise created, nor does any amendment to the charter combine the office of probation officer with that of welfare officer. The only amendments to the charter with relation thereto are as follows: The amendment to article III, section 3, provides, in part, “The board of supervisors shall fix the salaries and wages of all employees of the county not otherwise fixed by this charter, ... (1) The welfare and

Bybee v. Richards

AI Brief

THOMPSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief