00610News From:
Municipal Research and Services Center
of Washington.
Service of Process on the Mayor is Required.
In Meadowdale Neighborhood Committee v. City of Edmonds
observed that courts would be called upon to decide, for
File No. 8466-6-1, Division One, the State Court of Appeals
example, whether delivery of the summons to a deputy mayor.
to mayor's administrative assistant, or to.
held on September 15, 1980 that service of process on the
secretary to the mayor is insufficient service of
is sufficient, or a
the secretary to an administrative assistant, and -others.
temporary.
upon s city in view of RCW 4.28.080(2). The relevant
Therefore the Court concluded that confusion and
process
part of this statute provides:
uncertainty can be avoided by interpreting the statute
according to its plain terms.
"The summons shall be served by delivering a
copy thereof, as follows:
11(2) If against any town or incorporated city in
The Washington
the state, to the mayor thereof."
Model Traffic ordinance
The plaintiff recognized that the general rule is that when a
statute designates .o particular person or officer upon whom
in an action against a
The replies received thus far to a survey letter from the
service of process is to be made
municipality, no other person or officer may be substituted.
Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington to
and
However, it was contended that service on the mayor's
on the mayor himself and
Washington cities and towns to determine what cities
towns have adopted the MTO (Ch. ,46.90 RCW), indicate that
secretary was, in essence, service
substantial compliance with
112 cities and towns have adopted it and several others are
that such ,service constitutes
RCW 4.28.080(2). The Court concluded that the doctrine of
giving serious consideration to adopting it.
substantial compliance is inapplicable when the issue is
The MTO developed in response to the pressing need of
whether service of. process, has been valid so as to subject. a
was
many cities, towns, and counties of the State 'of Washington
municipality to the court's jurisdiction.
for 'an economical and effective method `of keeping their
It is ;indicated that the process server never spoke with the
traffic ordinances up to date. It provides a uniform
of traffic laws which may adopted by cities
mayor .to make, arrangements for a mutually agreed upon
Also, the record, in the form of an
compilation
and towns .and counties by reference in whole or in part,
manner of delivery. .
affidavit by the mayor, made it clear that no one had been
. including all future amendments thereto. The Washington
that change adopted by the
appointed or delegated by the mayor to accept service for
MTO provides in effect any
legislature is also to automatically change local ordinances
the city.
accordingly, thus eliminating the need for local legislative
bloreover, the Court stated that the general rule is that
action unless the local authority (e.g., cities, towns, or
desires to specifically exclude the changes that are
strict compliance is required with statutes nami ng particular
counties)
persons upon whom service of process is to be made in
f court
made by the legislature.
actions against municipalities, citing a number o
decisions from other jurisdictions. Accordingly the Court
concluded that strict compliance with the statutory
requirements of service or process is the prerequisite to the
Court's acquiring jurisdiction over a city.
It was pointed out in a footnote that by RCW 4.28.080(2) the
legislature has designated the mayor to receive service of
process as agent for the city. No provision is made in this
statute for the mayor to appoint another to accept service on
his behalf for the city. It was also observed that no argument
was made supporting the contention that, by necessary
implication, RCW 4.28.080(2) empowers the mayor to
designate another to accept service. It is then concluded
that it would therefore seem that even if the mayor had
authorized the substitute secretary to accept service, such
attempted authorization would be ultra vires.
The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and
Ordinances has indicated that the observance of traffic rules
by the public is largely conditioned on clarity,
reasonableness, uniformity, and knowledge of the regulations
and that nonuniform laws and ordinances are a source of
inconvenience and hazard to both the motorist and the
pedestrian. In recognition of these matters a "Model Traffic
Ordinance" was developed by the above -mentioned National
Committee with the objective of encouraging states to
develop a model traffic ordinance to be enacted by the state
legislature in the form of an enabling act in the various
states. The Washington A1TO has been patterned after the
sections of the "Model Traffic Ordinance" of this National
Committee with certain adaptations.
A bill was therefore prepared to carry out the objectives of
this National Committee and to encourage highway safety by
Finally, the Court stated that there are public policy reasons providing current, uniform traffic ordinances. Other primary
for its decision. To hold otherwise under the instant factual objectives of this bill were to facilitate keeping local traffic
circumstances would open the door to a host of problems ordinances up to date and to adopt many Washington traffic
which would inevitably arise in similar situations. The Court statutes by reference to keep publication costs to a
Page 6 City News October 1980