Effective 28 Aug 2013

79.240. Removal of officers. — 1. The mayor may, with the consent of a majority of all the members elected to the board of aldermen, remove from office, for cause shown, any elective officer of the city, such officer being first given opportunity, together with his witnesses, to be heard before the board of aldermen sitting as a board of impeachment. Any elective officer, including the mayor, may in like manner, for cause shown, be removed from office by a two-thirds vote of all members elected to the board of aldermen, independently of the mayor's approval or recommendation. The mayor may, with the consent of a majority of all the members elected to the board of aldermen, remove from office any appointive officer of the city at will, and any such appointive officer may be so removed by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to the board of aldermen, independently of the mayor's approval or recommendation. The board of aldermen may pass ordinances regulating the manner of impeachments and removals.

2. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the mayor, with the consent of the majority of all the members elected to the board of aldermen, or the board of aldermen by a two-thirds vote of all its members, to remove or discharge any chief, as that term is defined in section 106.273.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 7107, A.L. 2013 H.B. 307)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 6957; 1919 § 8408; 1909 § 9310

(1980) City ordinance appearing to give administrator power to remove employees only for cause did not affect delegation of power by board of aldermen to remove employees "at will". State ex rel. Gorris v. Mussman (A.), 612 S.W.2d 357.

(1980) Statute with clause authorizing board of aldermen to make rules and regulations governing city administrator's power to appoint and discharge employees strongly suggests that legislature contemplated variations in extent of dismissal power delegated to city administrator. State ex rel. Gorris v. Mussman (A.), 612 S.W.2d 357.

(1981) Statute which authorized mayor of fourth class city, with consent of majority board of aldermen, to remove at will an appointive officer of city did not violate Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights of police officers who were "laid off". Amaan v. City of Eureka (Mo.), 615 S.W.2d 214.

(1986) An employee of a fourth class city whose employment is terminable at will has no property right in employment for purposes of federal civil rights action. Robinson v. City of Montgomery, 651 F.Supp. 493 (E.D. Mo.).