Summary
In Commonwealth ex rel. Hanson v. Reitz, 403 Pa. 434, 170 A.2d 111 (1961), we held that a "Mayor of a third class city lacks power to remove from office at his pleasure appointed members of an Authority created under [the Urban Redevelopment Law]."
Summary of this case from Com. ex Rel. Sortino v. SingleyOpinion
May 26, 1960.
April 18, 1961.
Constitutional law — Constitution of Pennsylvania — Article VI, § 4 — Legislatively created office — Redevelopment authorities — Members — Removal of incumbent — Mayor — Power of removal — Urban Redevelopment Law of 1945, P. L. 991.
1. In view of the provisions of the Urban Redevelopment Law of 1945, P.L. 991, § 6 (which provides that members of such an Authority shall be appointed for fixed terms, with staggered expiration dates) the mayor of a third class city (the appointing power) does not have power, under Article VI, § 4, of the State Constitution (which provides that "Appointed officers . . . may be removed at the pleasure of the power by which they shall have been appointed") to remove from office, at his pleasure, a member of a redevelopment authority created under that Act. [435-6]
2. Watson v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 386 Pa. 117, and Bowers v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 402 Pa. 542, followed. [435]
Mr. Justice MUSMANNO dissented.
Mr. Justice COHEN filed a dissenting opinion.
Before JONES, C. J., BELL, MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, BOK and EAGEN, JJ.
Appeal, No. 171, March T., 1960, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County, March T., 1960, No. 846, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. James Hanson et al. v. Warren G. Reitz et al. Judgment reversed.
Quo warranto. Before McDONALD and WOLFE, JJ.
Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings granted and judgment entered. Plaintiffs appealed.
Norman A. Krumenacker, with him Gleason Krumenacker, for appellants.
Samuel R. DiFrancesco, with him Gilbert E. Caroff, for appellees.
A majority of the court is of opinion that the rationale of our decision in Watson v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 386 Pa. 117, 125 A.2d 354, as applied by the decision for the court in Bowers v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 402 Pa. 542, 167 A.2d 480, determines the construction to be placed on Section 6 of the Urban Redevelopment Law of May 24, 1945, P.L. 991, 35 P. S. § 1705-1706, here involved, and that the mayor of a third class city lacks power to remove from office at his pleasure appointed members of an Authority created under that Act.
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the record remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Mr. Justice MUSMANNO dissents.
Most disquieting still is the evident facility with which the majority repudiates, without mentioning, two well-considered unanimous opinions of the full membership of this court in Commonwealth ex rel. Reinhardt v. Randall, 356 Pa. 302, 51 A.2d 751 (1947), and Commonwealth ex rel. Houlahen v. Flynn, 348 Pa. 101, 34 A.2d 59 (1943). (See Justice B. R. JONES' dissent in Bowers v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 402 Pa. 542, 167 A.2d 354 (1961).) I can only conclude that this is an obvious effort to bolster its own interpretation of Article VI, § 4 of the Commonwealth's Constitution. This interpretation contravenes the clear language of the Constitution which means just what it says, that "Appointed officers may be removed at the pleasure of the [appointing] power." (See my dissent in Bowers v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, supra.)
I dissent.