Opinion Letter No. 39-75

"Article VIII of the Charter of the City of St. Louis establishes a civil service system. Can the State place the employees of the Collector's Office of the City of St. Louis, a 'county office', under that civil service system by statutory provisions."

"A separate issue is whether § 58.760 (4) is unconstitutional as imposing an unlawful responsibility on the mayor of the city of St. Louis. Art. 6, § 22, of this state's constitution declares that:

"The constitutional vice urged by respondent is that the statute in question here imposes on, or allows, the mayor the right not only to call the election but to appoint a medical examiner and to fix the latter's compensation. This is allegedly an unconstitutional interference with the exercise of the duties of a municipal office in a charter city.

"The key to the applicability of Art. 6, § 22, is the distinction between municipal offices.and county offices. The constitutional provision covers only 'municipal office ... for any city.' The same question was resolved in Stemmler v. Einstein, supra, and Preisler v. Hayden, supra. Therein, it was decided that the status of a county office or officer was not subject to the restrictions found in § 22 of Art. 6. Relators are correct in urging that: '[t]here can be no question that the office of Medical Examiner ... is a county office; it replaces the county office of coroner.' The activity of the mayor, called for by the Act, creates no constitutional violation because such activity does not involve the city of St. Louis in its capacity as a city but as a county. In that capacity the mayor is subject to the general laws of the state. State ex rel. Burke v. Cervantes, 423 S.W. 2d 791 (Mo. 1968), relied on heavily by respondent, is clearly distinguishable in that it dealt with city policemen and firemen in connection with city affairs. The point is ruled against respondent."