Aguirre v. Dep't of Corr.

• Decision Date: 21 October 2014
• Docket Number: Docket No. 316918.
• Citation: 859 N.W.2d 267,307 Mich.App. 315
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
• Parties: AGUIRRE v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.

307 Mich.App. 315

859 N.W.2d 267

AGUIRRE

v.DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.

Docket No. 316918.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Oct. 14, 2014, at Lansing.

Decided Oct. 21, 2014, at 9:20 a.m.

Deborah Gordon Law (by Sarah S. Prescott, Bloomfield Hills), for plaintiffs.

Bill Schuette, Attorney General, Aaron D. Lindstrom, Solicitor General, Matthew Schneider, Chief Legal Counsel, and Jeanmarie Miller, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendants.

Before: METER, P.J., and WHITBECK and RIORDAN, JJ.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendants, the Department of Corrections (the Department) and the state of Michigan (collectively, “the State”), appeal as of right the trial court's order granting summary disposition in favor of plaintiffs, Robert Aguirre, James Atterberry, Sr., Ted Hammon, Artina Hardman, John Sullivan, and Laurin Thomas (collectively, “the members”), whose positions with the Michigan Parole and Commutation Board were eliminated when the Governor entered Executive Reorganization Order No. 2011–3. The members contend that this elimination violated the just-cause termination provisions of their employment contracts. Because ERO 2011–3 did not transfer the members' contracts and the Governor does not violate Article 5, § 10 of the Michigan Constitution when reorganizing a department under Article 5, § 2 of the Michigan Constitution in a way that eliminates positions, we reverse and remand.

I. FACTS

A. BACKGROUND FACTS

In 1992, the Michigan Legislature established “a parole board consisting of 10 members” within the Department.¹ In 2009, Governor Jennifer Granholm reorganized the Department,² abolished the parole board, and created the 15–member Parole and Commutation Board.³

The members were members of the Parole and Commutation Board. The members each received a letter of appointment from the Governor's office. Hardman's term was from April 19, 2009, to November 20, 2012, Sullivan, Aguirre, and Hammon's terms were from December 1, 2009, to November 30, 2013, and Thomas and Atterberry's terms were from December 1, 2010, to November 30, 2014.

B. ERO 2011–3

In 2011, by ERO 2011–3, Governor Rick Snyder abolished the Parole and Commutation Board and created a new Parole Board. ERO 2011–3 provided in § III(A) that the new Parole Board “shall consist of 10 members appointed by the Director of the Department of Corrections.” Section II(A) of ERO 2011–3 transferred to the new Parole Board

[a]ll of the authority, powers, duties, functions, responsibilities, records, personnel, property, and unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, or other funds of the Michigan Parole and Commutation Board[.]

Section V(B)⁴ provided that

[a]ll rules, orders, contracts, and agreements relating to the transfers under this Order lawfully adopted prior to the effective date of this Order shall continue to be effective until revised, amended, repealed, or rescinded.

ERO 2011–3 granted the director of the Department of Corrections the power to appoint Parole Board members. The director did not appoint any of the members to serve as members on the new Parole Board.

C. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The members filed suit on January 5, 2012, seeking damages for breach of contract and promissory estoppel. They claimed that the State breached their employment contracts by terminating their employment without just cause on April 15, 2011. On June 3, 2013, the State moved for summary disposition. The State contended that the Governor had permissibly reorganized the executive branch under Article 5, § 2 of the Michigan Constitution.

In their response, the members also moved for summary disposition. The members asserted that ERO 2011–3 had transferred their employment contracts from the Parole and Commutation Board to the Parole Board. The members contended that Article 5, § 2 does not authorize the Governor to breach existing employment contracts. And the members also asserted that their termination violated the Michigan Constitution's prohibition against the impairment of contracts.

D. THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING

Following a hearing on June 21, 2013, the trial court denied the State's motion for summary disposition and granted the members' motion for summary disposition. The trial court concluded that the members' letters of appointment continued to be effective after ERO 2011–3. The trial court also concluded that ERO 2011–3 transferred the members' contracts from the Parole and Commutation Board to the Parole Board. The trial court agreed that the Governor had authority to eliminate the members' positions, but concluded that their contracts remained valid and the termination breached their contracts. It thus granted the members' motion for summary disposition on liability and denied the State's motion for summary disposition.

II. INTERPRETING ERO 2011–3

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo the trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition.⁵ This Court reviews de novo issues of law, including issues of constitutional construction⁶ and the constitutionality and interpretation of an executive order.⁷

B. LEGAL STANDARDS

1. GENERAL STANDARDS OF INTERPRETATION

When interpreting constitutional provisions, this Court gives constitutional language the meaning that “reasonable minds, the great mass of people themselves, would give it.”⁸ We must also consider “the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the constitutional provision and the purpose sought to be accomplished....”⁹ We must avoid interpretations that create constitutional invalidity.¹⁰ We consider the administrating agency's interpretation “persuasive as to the meaning of the order unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the order.”¹¹

The purpose of interpretation is to determine the intent of the document's drafter.¹² When interpreting executive orders, this Court gives unambiguous orders the meanings that they clearly express.¹³ If possible, we must give effect to every word, sentence, and section.¹⁴ We construe executive orders as constitutional unless an order is clearly unconstitutional.¹⁵

2. ARTICLE 5, § 2 OF THE MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION

Article 5, § 2 of the Michigan Constitution provides that

the governor may make changes in the organization of the executive branch or in the assignment of functions among its units which he considers necessary for efficient administration.

“[T]his provision is clear and unambiguous.”¹⁶ It gives the Governor express authority to alter the executive branch in broad or limited fashions.¹⁷ Transferring the authority, duties, functions, and responsibilities of one department to another department changes the organization of the executive branch.¹⁸ The constitutional convention and the ratifying public intended Article 5, § 2 to “bestow upon the Governor considerable authority to reorganize the executive branch.”¹⁹ Thus, the Governor's power under this section is nearly plenary.²⁰

3. ARTICLE 5, § 10 OF THE MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION

Article 5, § 10 of the Michigan Constitution provides that

[t]he governor shall have power and it shall be his duty to inquire into the condition and administration of any public office and the acts of any public officer, elective or appointive. He may remove or suspend from office for gross neglect of duty or for corrupt conduct in office, or for any other misfeasance or malfeasance therein, any elective or appointive state officer, except legislative or judicial, and shall report the reasons for such removal or suspension to the legislature.

Article 5, § 10 “essentially provides that the Governor may only remove a public officer for good cause.”²¹

4. ARTICLE 1, § 10 OF THE MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION

Article 1, § 10 of the Michigan Constitution provides that “[n]o ... law impairing the obligation of contract shall be enacted.”

C. APPLYING THE STANDARDS

1. OVERVIEW

The State contends that ERO 2011–3 voided the members' agreements with the State. The members contend that ERO 2011–3 transferred their contracts to the Parole Board and, therefore, did not abolish their contracts. We conclude that ERO 2011–3 did not transfer the members' employment agreements to the Parole Board and that ERO 2011–3 permissibly eliminated the members' positions.

2. CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP

As an initial matter, we note that the State has not contended that the members did not have a contractual relationship with the State.²² Instead, the State contends that the Governor's removal of the members' positions did not violate the just-cause provision of the members' employment agreements. Therefore, we presume for the purposes of this appeal that a just-cause provision applied to the members' relationship with the State.

3. ABOLITION OF THE MEMBERS' POSITIONS

The State contends that the trial court erred when it determined that the State breached the members' contracts because ERO 2011–3 abolished the members' positions. We agree and conclude that the trial court erroneously determined that ERO 2011–3 transferred the members' employment to the Parole Board.

Section V(B) of ERO 2011–3 states that

[a]ll rules, orders, contracts, and agreements relating to the transfers under this Order lawfully adopted prior to the effective date of this Order shall continue to be effective until revised, amended, repealed, or rescinded.

Therefore, the question is whether the members had an order, contract, or agreement “relating to the transfers under this Order[.]” We conclude that the members did not have such a contract.

Among other things, ERO 2011–3 transferred “personnel” to the Parole Board.²³ The word “personnel” means “the body of persons employed in an organization.”²⁴ For the following reasons, we conclude that the Governor did not transfer the members when the Governor transferred “personnel.”

When an executive order uses language in one part of an order that it omits in another, we presume that the omission was intentional.²⁵ ERO 2011–3 repeatedly refers to the appointed members of the Parole Board as “members of the Board” in Section III, Subsections (A), (B), (C), and (E). ERO 2009–3 similarly...