Colorado § 31-4-307 - Removal of officers - causes - notice.

§ 31-4-307. Removal of officers - causes - notice.

By a majority vote of all members of the board of trustees, the mayor, the clerk, the treasurer, any member of the board, or any other officer of the town may be removed from office. No such removal shall be made without a charge in writing and an opportunity of hearing being given unless the officer against whom the charge is made has moved out of the limits of the town. When any officer ceases to reside within the limits of the town, he may be removed from office pursuant to this section. A municipal judge may be removed during his term of office only for cause, as set forth in section 13-10-105 (2), C.R.S.

Source: L. 75: Entire title R&RE, p. 1034, § 1, effective July 1. L. 77: Entire section amended, p. 795, § 8, effective June 3. L. 81: Entire section amended, p. 1495, § 8, effective June 8. L. 91: Entire section amended, p. 746, § 17, effective April 4.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 31-3-306 as it existed prior to 1975.

ANNOTATION

Annotator's note. Since § 31-4-307 is similar to former § 31-3-306 prior to the 1975 repeal and reenactment of this title, and laws antecedent thereto, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.

Constitutional grounds for removal. Under this section the holder of an elective office, duly elected by the people, should not be removed except for official misconduct, such misconduct as affects the performance of his duties as an officer, and for offenses against the corporation of a character directly affecting its rights and interests, and this conclusion is clearly sustainable on constitutional grounds. Bd. of Trustees v. People ex rel. Keith, 13 Colo. App. 553, 59 P. 72 (1899).

The power of removal must be exercised under the same limitations, precautions, and sanctions as in other judicial proceedings, and the regularity of the proceedings and the legality of the removal must always be open to review in the courts. Bd. of Trustees v. People ex rel. Keith, 13 Colo. App. 553, 59 P. 72 (1899).

Mere recital in board minutes insufficient. Upon proceedings in mandamus, to contest the right of removal, it is incumbent upon the person or persons attempting to remove respondent to show that such charges were preferred, and that they were sustained by legal evidence, and the mere recital in the minutes of the board that there was evidence offered, and that the board found the accused guilty is not sufficient. Bd. of Trustees v. People ex rel. Keith, 13 Colo. App. 553, 59 P. 72 (1899).

Officer not within section. When no ordinance had ever been adopted by a town creating an office of deputy marshal and a plaintiff had never been hired or appointed other than as a deputy marshal, then he is not one of those town officers who is entitled to the protection of the removal provisions of the statute, and therefore he can be summarily discharged. Mitchell v. Town of Eaton, 176 Colo. 473, 491 P.2d 587 (1971).

Implicit right to discharge. Unless otherwise limited or restricted by statute or ordinance, implicit in the power of a city or town to hire is the power to discharge at any time without notice and without necessity of written charges and hearing thereon. Mitchell v. Town of Eaton, 176 Colo. 473, 491 P.2d 587 (1971).

PART 4

REQUIREMENTS AND COMPENSATION OF OFFICERS