Hall v. Tirey
1972 Okla. LEXIS 408, 501 P.2d 496, 1972 OK 118 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A governor's decision to remove a member of a quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial administrative board for cause is subject to judicial review. The proper procedure to obtain such review is not a direct action against the governor or under the Administrative Procedures Act, but through a writ of mandamus against state payroll officers to compel payment of the removed officer's salary.
Facts:
- L. C. Tirey, Jr. was an appointed member of the Oklahoma State Board for Property and Casualty Rates.
- While a rate hearing for Insurance Services Offices (ISO) was pending before the Board, Tirey placed a phone call to ISO's local counsel.
- Subsequently, a letter written by ISO's counsel was discovered, which stated in part: 'Chris Tirey called me at home last night... He is mad. I am keeping him cool for the time being but we can get him to blast the Attorney General whenever we want him to.'
- Based on this letter, Governor David Hall charged Tirey with violating statutes that prohibit private communication with a party and acting as an agent for a firm with proceedings before the Board.
- Governor Hall issued an executive order immediately suspending Tirey from his position.
- Tirey denied the charges, admitting he made the call but stating he only inquired if ISO planned to furnish information requested by the Attorney General and did not discuss any issues of fact or law.
- Following a hearing, Governor Hall issued a final order removing Tirey from his position on the Board.
Procedural Posture:
- L. C. Tirey, Jr. sought judicial review of his removal by Governor Hall in the district court.
- The district court ruled that the record contained no evidence constituting sufficient cause for removal and ordered Tirey reinstated to his position.
- Governor Hall, the appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. L. C. Tirey, Jr. is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a Governor's decision to remove a member of a quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial administrative board for cause subject to judicial review, and if so, what is the proper procedure to obtain such review?
Opinions:
Majority - McInerney, Justice
Yes, a Governor's decision to remove a member of a quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial administrative board for cause is subject to judicial review, and the proper procedure to obtain such review is a writ of mandamus against state payroll officers. The court reasoned that while the Governor generally has the power to remove his appointees for cause, the Legislature intended the State Board for Property and Casualty Rates to be an independent body, free from the Governor's political influence. This intent is demonstrated by the change in the law making board members serve fixed terms and removable only 'for cause,' rather than serving 'at the pleasure of the Governor.' Distinguishing this case from precedents involving purely executive officers, the court adopted the rationale of Humphrey's Executor v. United States, holding that to preserve the independence of such a quasi-judicial body, the Governor's removal power must be subject to judicial oversight. Because the Administrative Procedures Act does not apply and a direct suit against the Governor is impermissible, the court established a new procedural path: the removed official may seek a writ of mandamus against state payroll officers to compel payment of his salary. This action forces the court to determine the legality of the removal, with the burden of proof on the removed officer to show the removal was not for sufficient cause.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant check on the executive's power to remove members of independent state administrative boards in Oklahoma. By distinguishing between purely executive officers and members of quasi-judicial bodies, the court protects the independence of agencies designed to be insulated from political pressure. The ruling's most notable impact is the creation of a specific, albeit indirect, procedural mechanism for judicial review where none was provided by statute. This framework—a mandamus action against payroll officers—provides a novel solution for officials to challenge their removal without directly suing the Governor, thereby navigating issues of executive authority and sovereign immunity. This precedent will likely govern future disputes over the removal of officials from similar independent state commissions and boards.
