(dissenting).
The majority is destroying an important protection for city employees provided for by the City of Scottsdale civil service system. Civil service was fathered by President Grover Cleveland to do away with the spoils system of employment and discharge *335of public employees. Its purposes have been well put by the Court of Appeals of New York:
“The civil service provisions of the Constitution and of the law were intended as a protection for the public and all the employees in the civil service as well as security for the individual employee.” (Emphasis supplied). Wood v. City of New York, 274 N.Y. 155, 161, 8 N.E.2d 316, 318.
The majority does not question the validity of a civil service system under which certain classes of employees may only be fired on recommendation of a civil service board. Welch v. State Board of Social Security and Welfare, 53 Ariz. 167, 87 P.2d 109. The majority reaches its result, however, by misapplying and refusing to give effect to the provisions of the City of Scottsdale charter. The pertinent provisions read:
“The city manager shall * * * have power and shall be required to:
“(2) Appoint and when necessary for the good of the service remove all officers and employees of the city except as otherwise provided by this charter * * * (Emphasis supplied). Art. 3, Sec. 3 Charter of Scottsdale.
The majority reaches its result through •failing to give'effect to the words of the charter “except as otherwise provided.” And what is otherwise provided in the charter ?
“The city council shall create a civil service board within one (1) year after the adoption of this charter by the voters.
* * * * * * “The civil service board'shall prescribe, amend and enforce rules for the employees of the town, except those 'elected by the people and also excluding all offices and department heads.' These rules shall have the effect of law after they have been approved by the’ city council.” Art. 4, Sec. 5 Charter of Scottsdale.
“Otherwise provided,” I think, means'that where the charter specifically provides for a civil service board with power to provide and enforce rules for certain classes of employees, the civil service board may of its own choosing and subject to the approval of the council, adopt rules having the effect of law. George v. Arizona Corporation Commission, 83 Ariz. 387, 322 P.2d 369; City of Phoenix v. Sittenfeld, 53 Ariz. 240, 88 P.2d 83; Cox v. Shreveport Packing Co., 28 So.2d 617 (La.App.1946), affd. 213 La. 53, 34 So.2d 373. '
The majority quotes extensively from Paddock v. Brisbois, 35 Ariz. 214, 276 P. 325. But that opinion does not square with the facts in the instant case. In Brisbois ■the court held the ordinance to be actually in .conflict with the charter and therefore *336•invalid. In Brisbois the then charter of the City of Phoenix stated that the city manager-alone had the power to hire and fire employees. In the instant case the city manager has the power to hire and fire employees “except as otherwise provided in this charter.” And the method otherwise provided is by the setting up of a civil service board and the adoption of rules that have the effect of law when approved by the city council which the city of Scottsdale has done by Ordinance No. 172.
There is no question but that the petitioners were subject to the power of the board and not subject to the power of the city manager, and for the foregoing reasons I respectfully dissent.