Bel-O-Mar Interstate Planning Com'n v. West Virginia Com'n on Aging
| Decision Date | 10 December 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 21219,BEL-O-MAR,21219 |
| Citation | 423 S.E.2d 867,188 W.Va. 258 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | INTERSTATE PLANNING COMMISSION and Northern Panhandle Area Agency on Aging; Central West Virginia Area Agency on Aging; Mid-Ohio Valley Regional Council and Region V Area Agency on Aging; Region VI Planning and Development Council and Region VI Area on Aging; and Southeastern West Virginia Area on Aging, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees, v. WEST VIRGINIA COMMISSION ON AGING, a Public Corporation Established by Statute, Defendant Below, Appellant. |
Syllabus by the Court
" Syl. pt. 3, Gino's Pizza of West Hamlin v. WVHRC, 187 W.Va. 312, 418 S.E.2d 758 (1992).
Mario Palumbo, Paul E. Jordan, Monica A. Parrill, Charleston, for appellant.
G. Charles Hughes, Moundsville, for appellees.
This appeal by the West Virginia Commission on Aging ("WVCOA"), a public corporation established by statute, is from the final order of the Circuit Court of Marshall County entered January 16, 1992. The final order of the trial court reversed the August 23, 1991 decision of an administrative hearing examiner that upheld the WVCOA's decision to reduce the number of state area agencies on aging from nine to four. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the trial court erred in reversing the decision of the hearing examiner.
The WVCOA was created by statute in 1964 to act as an advocate for and coordinator of programs and services designed to aid the older people of West Virginia. W.Va.Code, 29-14-1, et seq. The statute grants responsibility to the WVCOA to act on behalf of the state when federal programs relating to older people necessitate state action:
The [WVCOA] shall constitute the designated state agency for handling all programs of the federal government relating to the aging requiring action within the state, which are not the specific responsibility of another state agency under the provisions of federal law or which have not been specifically entrusted to another state agency by the legislature.
The federal government provides appropriations to the states to benefit older people through the Older Americans Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 3001, et seq. The Older Americans Act outlines various "programs of grants" made available to the states for the benefit of older persons. The Act outlines various actions a state must take in order to participate in the "programs of grants." The Act does not mandate participation by the states.
To be eligible to participate in the "programs of grants" made available under the Older Americans Act, a state agency on aging (in West Virginia the WVCOA) must, "divide the State into district planning and service areas[.]" 1 Prior to May, 1991, the WVCOA had divided West Virginia into nine "planning and service areas." On May 24, 1991, the WVCOA passed a resolution reducing the number of "planning and service areas" from nine to four (the "reduction resolution").
It is clear from the record that the WVCOA passed the reduction resolution in response to what it perceived to be a mandate to do so by the West Virginia legislature. This perceived mandate was discerned through an examination of a statement placed in the 1991-92 West Virginia Budget Digest. 2 The Executive Director of the WVCOA testified that he conducted discussions with various legislators in an attempt to understand the intention of the legislature; he thereafter became convinced that the legislature intended the WVCOA to reduce the number of planning and service areas from nine to four.
Subsequent to the reduction resolution passed by the WVCOA, the five appellees, each an agency responsible for one of the nine planning and service areas to be redefined by the reduction resolution, sought an administrative hearing with the WVCOA to protest the resolution. 3
Appellees argued at the administrative hearing that the legislative intent gleaned from the Budget Digest was improperly relied upon by the WVCOA because it had not been authorized by a vote of the full legislature. They also contended that the reduction resolution violated the federal Older Americans Act ( 45 C.F.R. 1321.35(a)(1)).
After adducing testimony, the hearing examiner determined that the WVCOA's reduction resolution was not based upon any inadequacy on the part of the appellees but was the result of the WVCOA's understanding of legislative intent as gleaned from the Budget Digest and conversations with two key legislators. The hearing examiner upheld the reduction resolution of the WVCOA, stating:
This reduction in [planning and service areas] is ... supported by 45 C.F.R. § 1321.17(d), which requires the state to identify the geographic bounds of the planning and service areas....
WVCOA properly relies on 45 C.F.R. 1321.35(a)(1) and (3) which requires the state agency to withdraw an AAA's [area agency on aging] designation when the AAA no longer meets the requirements of the Older Americans Act and its regulations as implemented by the Commission on Aging through its state plan. As Dr. Brown [the Executive Director of the WVCOA] testified, the existing AAA's geographic boundaries no longer fit the reconfigured system of four AAA's. Also 45 C.F.R. § 1321.19(a)(2) requires the Commission to amend its state plan to reflect material changes in law, organization, policy or state agency operation. The WVCOA is reducing the number of AAA's in response to legislative mandate which caused the state agency to change its policy.
Appellees appealed the decision of the hearing examiner to the Circuit Court of Marshall County. The trial court held "that the hearing examiner rested his conclusions primarily on improper evidence," and therefore found in favor of the appellees. The "improper evidence" cited by the trial court included reliance by the Hearing Examiner on the Budget Digest and discussions between the Executive Director of the WVCOA and key legislators to determine "legislative intent" supporting the reduction resolution. The trial court also concluded that 45 C.F.R. § 1321.17(d) "which require[s] the state to identify the geographic bounds of the planning and service areas" was improperly relied upon by the hearing examiner.
Upon appeal to this Court, the appellants contend that the trial court erred by finding that the hearing examiner's reliance upon federal regulations supporting the reduction resolution was improper. Appellants state in their brief:
While much, if not most, of this controversy has evolved around the legitimate creation and use of the Budget Digest by legislators and administrators, the fact remains that redrawing of the boundaries of AAA's [Area Agency on Aging] and declining to renew grants and contracts previously awarded to the former AAA's is a legitimate use of the power and discretion of the Commission.
For the reasons that follow, we agree with the appellant's contention.
A close examination of the applicable law shows that the appellees lack a cause of action. The West Virginia Code does not mandate the creation of any "planning and service areas," and, at most, merely grants responsibility to the WVCOA as "the designated state agency for handling all programs of the federal government relating to the aging requiring action within the state[.]" W.Va.Code, 29-14-10 [1964].
Neither is creation of "planning and service areas" mandated by any provision of federal law. Instead, 45 C.F.R. § 1321.17(d) seeks only to induce the creation of planning and service areas by states through promises of federal grant money to those states which do so; 45 C.F.R. § 1321.17(d) states:
§ 1321.17 Content of State plan.
To receive a grant under this part, a State shall have an approved State plan as prescribed in section 307 of the Act. In addition to meeting the requirements of section 307, a State plan shall include:
(d) Identification of the geographic boundaries of each planning and service area and of area agencies on aging designated for each planning and service area, if appropriate.
(emphasis added). Similarly, 42 U.S.C. § 3025(a)(1)(E) (see supra n. 1) also only encourages states to create planning and service areas "in order for a State to be eligible to participate in programs of grants" from the federal government.
Appellees argue, however, that 45 C.F.R. § 1321.35(a)(1) limits when the WVCOA may reduce the number of planning and service areas to situations where an area agency does not meet the requirements of the Older Americans Act. It is undisputed that each of the appellees met the requirements of the Older Americans Act at the time the reduction resolution was passed. Nonetheless, close scrutiny of 45 C.F.R. 1321.35(a)(1) shows that the section only mandates when a state agency must "withdraw [an] area agency designation." 45...
To continue reading
Request your trial