Gilstrap v. South Carolina Budget and Control Bd., 23711

• Decision Date: 09 September 1992
• Docket Number: No. 23711,23711
• Citation: 310 S.C. 210,423 S.E.2d 101
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: James A. GILSTRAP, Jr., as natural guardian and next friend of Nicole L. Gilstrap, a minor; Judge W. Fair; Linda L. Bush; Sheila C. Gallager; Elaine Suddeth; Betty Morris; Patricia Thomas, personally and as natural guardian and next friend of Donald Carson, a minor; Brenda Rose Wallace, personally and as natural guardian and next friend of Chartava Wallace, a minor; and Marlboro County School District, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTH CAROLINA BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, Defendant. RICHLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Lexington Medical Center, Greenville Hospital System, Spartanburg Regional Medical Center, Loris Community Hospital, Anderson Memorial Hospital, South Carolina Hospital Association, and Carrie M. Cain, Plaintiffs, v. The Honorable Carroll A. CAMPBELL, Jr., Governor of the State of South Carolina, as Ex-Officio Chairman and member of the State Budget and Control Board, Grady L. Patterson, Jr., Treasurer of the State of South Carolina, Earl E. Morris, Jr., Comptroller General of the State of South Carolina, John Drummond, Chairman of the Finance Committee of the South Carolina Senate, and William D. Boan, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the South Carolina House of Representatives, all as Ex-Officio Members of the State Budget and Control Board, Defendants. SOUTH CAROLINA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. SOUTH CAROLINA BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, Defendant. . Heard

Page 101

423 S.E.2d 101

310 S.C. 210

James A. GILSTRAP, Jr., as natural guardian and next friend

of Nicole L. Gilstrap, a minor; Judge W. Fair; Linda L.

Bush; Sheila C. Gallager; Elaine Suddeth; Betty Morris;

Patricia Thomas, personally and as natural guardian and next

friend of Donald Carson, a minor; Brenda Rose Wallace,

personally and as natural guardian and next friend of

Chartava Wallace, a minor; and Marlboro County School

District, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTH CAROLINA BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, Defendant.

RICHLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Lexington Medical Center,

Greenville Hospital System, Spartanburg Regional Medical

Center, Loris Community Hospital, Anderson Memorial

Hospital, South Carolina Hospital Association, and Carrie M.

Cain, Plaintiffs, v. The Honorable Carroll A. CAMPBELL, Jr., Governor of the

State of South Carolina, as Ex-Officio Chairman and member

of the State Budget and Control Board, Grady L. Patterson,

Jr., Treasurer of the State of South Carolina, Earl E.

Morris, Jr., Comptroller General of the State of South

Carolina, John Drummond, Chairman of the Finance Committee

of the South Carolina Senate, and William D. Boan, Chairman

of the Ways and Means Committee of the South Carolina House

of Representatives, all as Ex-Officio Members of the State

Budget and Control Board, Defendants.

SOUTH CAROLINA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. SOUTH CAROLINA BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, Defendant.

No. 23711.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard Sept. 9, 1992.

Decided Sept. 15, 1992.

Richard Mark Gergel and W. Allen Nickles, III of Gergel, Burnette, Nickles & Grant, Columbia, for plaintiffs James A. Gilstrap, Jr., et al.

Michael W. Tighe, Steven M. Anastasion, and Louis H. Lang of Callison Tighe Robinson & Anastasion, Columbia, for plaintiffs Richland Memorial Hosp., et al.

Kenneth L. Childs, David E. Dubberly, and Geoffrey R. Bonham of Childs & Duff, P.A., Columbia, for plaintiffs South Carolina School Boards Ass'n.

Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Joseph D. Shine, Columbia, for defendants South Carolina Budget and Control Bd., et al.

John Moylan, Columbia, for amicus curiae Nick A. Theodore, Lieutenant Governor and President of the South Carolina Senate, et al.

Sol. Wade S. Kolb, Jr., Sumter, for amicus curiae South Carolina Solicitors Ass'n.

PER CURIAM:

These actions for injunctive relief to prohibit the South Carolina Budget and Control Board (the Board) from implementing its proposed plan for budget reductions for the 1992-1993 fiscal year are in this Court's original jurisdiction by consent of the parties. We grant plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief.

On August 22, 1992, the Board adopted a plan to reduce appropriations under the 1992 Appropriations Act (the Act) because of revenue shortfall projections of approximately $200 million. The reductions were based on the rate of growth in each agency's budget over the past year. Plaintiffs contend that the Board improperly adopted this plan in that it exceeded the authority granted to it by the Legislature. We agree.

Initially, the Board asserts that none of the plaintiffs have standing to contest the Board's action. The allegations of individualized injuries by the plaintiffs are sufficient to show standing. Citizens for Lee County, Inc. v. Lee County, --- S.C. ----, 416 S.E.2d 641 (1992); S.C. Wildlife Federation v. S.C. Coastal Council, 296 S.C. 187, 371 S.E.2d 521 (1988). Further, the questions involved here are of such wide concern that the rules on standing will not be inflexibly applied. Thompson v. S.C. Commission on Alcohol & Drug Abuse, 267 S.C. 463, 229 S.E.2d 718 (1976).

The Act, from which the Board's authority to reduce the rate of expenditure is derived, provides, in part:

Any appropriations made herein or by special act now or hereafter, are hereby declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate, the purpose being to make them payable in full in the amount named herein, if necessary, but only in the event the aggregate revenues available during the period for which the appropriation is made are sufficient to pay them in full. The State Budget and Control Board shall have full power and authority to survey the progress of the collection of revenue and the expenditure of funds by all departments and institutions. If the Budget and Control Board determines that a deficit may occur, it shall utilize such funds as may be available to avoid a year end deficit and thereafter take such action as is necessary to restrict the rate of expenditure as provided in this section of this Act. No institution, activity, program, item, special appropriation, or allocation for which the General Assembly has provided funding in any part of this Act shall be discontinued, deleted, or deferred by the Budget and Control Board. Any reduction of rate of expenditure by the said Board, under authority of this Act, shall be applied as uniformly as may be practicable ....

Act No. 501, § 14N.2, 1992 S.C. Acts 160 (emphasis added). The primary rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature. Spartanburg County D.S.S. v. Little, --- S.C. ----, 420 S.E.2d 499 (1992); Burns v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 297 S.C. 520, 377 S.E.2d 569 (1989).

The language of the statute itself supports the plaintiffs' assertion that the Board acted outside its authority. The words used in a statute must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resorting to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operation. Hitachi Data Systems Corp. v. Leatherman, --- S.C. ----, 420 S.E.2d 843 (1992); Burns v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., supra. In interpreting a statute, the terms must be construed in context and their meaning determined by looking at the other terms used in the statute. Southern Mutual Church Ins. Co. v. S.C. Windstorm & Hail Underwriting Ass'n, --- S.C. ----, 412 S.E.2d 377 (1991). A provision should be given a reasonable and practical construction consistent with the purpose and policy of the Act. Gardner v. Biggart, --- S.C. ----, 417 S.E.2d 858 (1992); Laurens County School Districts 55 and 56 v. Cox, --- S.C. ----, 417 S.E.2d 560 (1992).

In reading the phrase declaring all appropriations "to be maximum, conditional and proportionate" in conjunction with the phrase that all reductions "be applied as uniformly as may be practicable," the legislative intent is apparent. The statute gives the Board the authority to make reductions only across the board based on the total appropriations. To construe this section otherwise would contravene the intent of the Legislature to appropriate funds in the proportions set forth in the Act.

In addition to the clear language of the statute, the actions of the Board itself indicate that it did not believe it had the authority to impose more than across the board proportional cuts. Since the language allowing the Board to reduce appropriations in the event of a revenue shortfall was first included in the appropriations act of 1933 ¹, budget cuts made by the Board have been made proportionately. ² The failure of an administrative agency to exercise a power it claims to possess is a significant factor in determining whether the power was actually conferred. Federal Trade Commission v. Bunte Bros., Inc., 312 U.S. 349, 61 S.Ct. 580, 85 L.Ed. 881 (1941).

Further, at a Board meeting held on December 17, 1991, a provision which would allow reductions based on growth of the agencies' budgets over the last three fiscal years was proposed by the Board to be included in the Act. The minutes of that meeting indicate that the members knew such a provision in the Act would be a change in the authority given to them.

Where an administrative agency has consistently applied a statute in a particular manner, its construction should not be overturned absent cogent reasons. S.C. Cable Television Ass'n v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., --- S.C. ----, 417 S.E.2d 586 (1992); Emerson Electric Co. v. Wasson, 287 S.C. 394, 339 S.E.2d 118 (1986). It is apparent that the Board previously construed the Act as limiting its authority to making proportionate across the board cuts. The Board's current interpretation is in conflict with the legislative and administrative history of the Act. It appears to be based solely on the effect it would have on the various state agencies and, at best, has been in existence only since February of 1991. Deferring to this interpretation would be inappropriate. Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital, 488 U.S. 204, 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988).

The Legislature has expressed its approval of...