# Sumpter v. City of Moberly

> Supreme Court of Missouri · February 23, 1983 · 645 S.W.2d 359

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774450

## Case

- **Full name:** Larry SUMPTER, Terry Riles, Mike Congdon, John Stufflebean, Eugene Sims, Earl Lawson, Douglas Henry, Andrew Morrison, Robert Akers, Robert Dutton, Ronald Combs and Raymond Hill, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF MOBERLY, Missouri, Defendant-Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** February 23, 1983
- **Citations:** 645 S.W.2d 359
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Donnelly
- **Judges:** Finch, Donnelly, Rendlen, Welliver, Higgins, Gunn, Seiler, Billings
- **Cited by:** 16 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled by Independence-National Education Ass'n v. Independence School District, 2007 Mo. LEXIS 83 (2007).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774450

## Opinion text

DONNELLY, Judge,
dissenting.
In their motion for rehearing, appellants suggest that “the Court, in holding that a municipality may not enter into a binding enforceable collective bargaining agreement, misstates the issue.” I agree.
In my view, the opportunity presented on this appeal is one of accommodating, as much as possible, two concepts: (1) that there be full and meaningful communication between public employers and public employees so as to minimize strife and unrest and to maximize orderliness in the operation of Missouri government; and (2) that there can never be an analogy between public employees and private employees because of differences in the employment relationship arising out of the fact that the authority of a public body derives only from the consent of the people.
In practical effect, members of a city council are but trustees of the public — they *367 could not, if they would, pass an irrevocable ordinance when acting in the exercise of legislative discretion. No city council “could bind itself or its successor to make or continue any legislative act.” City of Springfield v. Clouse, 206 S.W.2d 539, 545 (Mo. banc 1947). On the other hand, legislative acts of a council remain viable unless and until amended or repealed by the council; they cannot be rendered ineffectual by an administrative official.
In Curators of the University of Missouri v. Public Service Employees Local No. 45, 520 S.W.2d 54, 57 (Mo. banc 1975), this Court observed:
The question then becomes: what are the respective rights and responsibilities of the parties under the Missouri Public Sector Labor Law? The Law gives public employees the vehicle for petitioning their employer through a designated representative. When this representative submits proposals and grievances relative to salaries and other conditions of employment, the public body or its designated representative must acknowledge such proposals and grievances and must discuss them with the bargaining representative. Generally, the public body will designate a representative to meet with the representative of the employees. In this event, the public body’s representative acts essentially as a hearer and a receptor of the employees’ petitions and remonstrances. His duty is to discuss them with the bargaining representative, and to fully apprise himself of the nature and extent of the proposals and grievances presented. The representative of the public body must then transmit to it, in written form, the proposals and grievances and the substance of the discussions. The public body must then give them its consideration “in the form of an ordinance, resolution, bill or other form required for adoption, modification or rejection.”
In my view, the following should be added to the Curators observation, supra:
If the public body, as a result of such consideration, and in the exercise of its legislative discretion, adopts an ordinance affecting the employment relation between the public body and certain of its employees, the terms and conditions of such ordinance shall govern and control such relation until modified or repealed by subsequent ordinance duly enacted by the public body.
In May 1980, the City Council of Moberly enacted an ordinance providing, in part, for the operation of its fire department. This ordinance was legislative in character, involved an exercise of the governmental power of the council and, therefore, can be amended or repealed. However, unless and until amended or repealed, its provisions should be honored.
I withdraw my concurrence and dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774450. Public record. Not legal advice.