Did Zachary need a separate ordinance to raise municipal civil-service pay rates already approved in its budget?

Plain-English summary

Zachary's civil-service board approved higher rates in its municipal employee pay plan, and the city council approved a budget reflecting those raises. A council member argued that the city still needed a separate ordinance. In 2005, the Attorney General disagreed. It concluded that changing pay rates did not change the provisions governing the Municipal Employees Civil Service, which was the kind of change for which the city charter required an ordinance.

The opinion also gave a second reason. Act 557 § 11 allowed the pay plan to change with the civil-service board's concurrence and the city governing authority's approval. The AG said that, even if a pay increase counted as a change to civil-service provisions, applying the charter's ordinance requirement in conflict with that state act would be invalid. It relied on the Louisiana Constitution's rule against municipal action inconsistent with state law. The opinion addressed this pay-plan increase and the approvals described in the request.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2005. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Did the council need a separate ordinance for the pay-rate increase?

The AG said no. It found the pay change did not alter the provisions governing civil service, so Zachary's charter ordinance clause did not apply to that increase.

What approvals did the state act require for a pay-plan change?

As quoted in the opinion, Act 557 § 11 required concurrence of the civil-service board and approval of Zachary's governing authority. The request described board approval and council approval of a budget reflecting the increase.

What if the charter were read to demand an ordinance anyway?

The AG said the local charter could not abridge the state act's pay-plan approval rule. It gave that as an alternative reason the charter clause could not invalidate the described increase.

Background and statutory framework

Zachary's charter Section 4-10 (E) required an ordinance for changes in civil-service governing provisions. The AG distinguished the pay rates from those provisions and read the charter alongside Act 557 § 11, which set the pay-plan approval path. It cited La. Const. Article VI, § 9 (B) for the priority of consistent state law over conflicting municipal authority.

Citations

• Act 557 § 11 (pay-plan change and approval provision quoted by the AG).
• La. Const. Article VI, § 9 (B) (state-law consistency rule cited in the opinion).
• Zachary Home Rule Charter, Section 4-10 (E) (ordinance rule addressed by the AG).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/05-0342

Original opinion text

November 9, 2005
OPINION No. 05-0342

77 – OFFICERS – Local & Municipal; Selection, Qualifications & Tenure; Vacancies
9 – CIVIL SERVICE

La. Const. Article VI, § 9 (B).
Act 557 § 11

William Joseph Cleveland, Esq. A mere increase in the rate of pay is not the same as a change in City Attorney, City of Zachary the provisions governing the Municipal Employees Civil Service.
An increase in the Pay Plan does not amount to a change in the
1413 Birdie Drive
provisions of the Municipal Employees Civil Service. If assuming,
Zachary, Louisiana 70791
for the sake of argument, that the increase does constitute a
change in the provisions of the Municipal Employees Civil Service, Section 4-10 (E) abridges a legislative act (§ 11 of Act 557) and is
Dear Mr. Cleveland: therefore invalid.

Your request for an Attorney General’s opinion has been referred to me for research and reply.

The issue presented here arose when the Municipal Employees Civil Service Board (“the Board”) adjusted and approved an increase in its Pay Plan. The City Council reviewed and discussed not only the adjustments to the Municipal Employees Civil Service, but also the changes to the Police and Fire Department Civil Service as well. The City’s annual budget for 2004-05 reflected the increase in pay for municipal employees. The City Council approved the budget, but did not vote separately on the increases in the Pay Plan. At least one member of the Council now contends that the increases in the Pay Plan had to be effectuated by separate ordinance. You, on the other hand, have rendered a legal opinion that says since the increase did not involve a change in the provisions governing Municipal Employees Civil Service, the City Council did not have to approve this change by ordinance. In other words, the Council did not have to use an ordinance because it approved the increase when it voted to pass the budget.

Section 4-10 (E) of the City of Zachary’s Home Rule Charter requires that a change in the provisions of the Municipal Employees Civil Service must be carried out by ordinance. Section 4-10 (E) reads as follows:

Section 4-10 Personnel Administration.

• • • E. Subsequent to the date this charter becomes fully effective, any change in the provisions governing the Municipal Employees

Page 2

William Joseph Cleveland, Esq.
City Attorney, City of Zachary
OPINION No. 05-0342
Page 2

Civil Service, other than those contained in this charter, shall be by ordinance.
* * *

Thus, the legal issue is whether an increase in the Pay Plan constitutes a change in the provisions governing the Municipal Employees Civil Service.

It appears that changing the pay plan by increasing salaries of civil service employees does not change any provision that governs Municipal Employees Civil Service. The provisions of the Municipal Employees Civil Service, as set forth in Act 557 § 11 entitled “Pay Plan,” remain the same. In fact, this Section gives the Board and the city governing authority the power to change the rates of pay and states in pertinent part as follows:

Such pay plan shall become effective when approved by the board and by the governing authority of the city of Zachary and may from time to time be changed or amended as circumstances warrant, with the concurrence of the board and the approval of the governing authority of the city.” [Emphasis added.]

Because the charter only mandates the use of an ordinance when a change in the provisions of the Municipal Employees Civil Service occurs, it is our opinion that a mere increase in the rate of pay is not the same as a change in the provisions governing the Municipal Employees Civil Service.

Furthermore, even if the pay increase were to qualify as a change in the provisions of the Municipal Employees Civil Service, these provisions would be in conflict with § 11 of Act 557 of 1974, which provides that a change occurs “with the concurrence of the board and the approval of the governing authority of the city.” It has long been the law that the legislature shall be paramount and that no municipality shall exercise any power or authority which is inconsistent therewith. La. Const. Article VI, § 9 (B). Thus, §11 of Act 557 of 1974 cannot be abridged, superseded or preempted by any local law.

In summary, an increase in the Pay Plan does not amount to a change in the provisions of the Municipal Employees Civil Service. If assuming, for the sake of argument, that the increase does constitute a change in the provisions of the Municipal Employees Civil Service, Section 4-10 (E) abridges a legislative act (§ 11 of Act 557) and is therefore invalid.

Page 3

William Joseph Cleveland, Esq.
City Attorney, City of Zachary
OPINION No. 05-0342
Page 3

We hope that this sufficiently answers your inquiries, but if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours very truly,

CHARLES C. FOTI, JR.
ATTORNEY GENERAL

By:________
Christopher D. Matchett
Assistant Attorney General

CCF,Jr.:CDM:lrs

Page 4

OPINION No. 05-0342

77 – OFFICERS – Local & Municipal; Selection, Qualifications & Tenure;
Vacancies

9 – CIVIL SERVICE

La. Const. Article VI, § 9 (B).
Act 557 § 11

A mere increase in the rate of pay is not the same as a change in the provisions governing the Municipal Employees Civil Service. An increase in the Pay Plan does not amount to a change in the provisions of the Municipal Employees Civil Service. If assuming, for the sake of argument, that the increase does constitute a change in the provisions of the Municipal Employees Civil Service, Section 4- 10 (E) abridges a legislative act (§ 11 of Act 557) and is therefore invalid.

William Joseph Cleveland, Esq.
City Attorney, City of Zachary
1413 Birdie Drive
Zachary, Louisiana 70791

Date Received:
CHRISTOPHER D. MATCHETT
Date Released: November 9, 2005
Assistant Attorney General