Hechler v. McCuskey
| Decision Date | 09 December 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 17958,17958 |
| Citation | 179 W.Va. 129,365 S.E.2d 793 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ken HECHLER, Secretary of State, A. James Manchin, Treasurer of State, and Charles G. Brown, Attorney General v. John F. McCUSKEY, Commissioner of Finance and Administration, et al. |
Syllabus by the Court
When the Legislature passes a budget bill that: (1) fails to provide for a necessary government expenditure; (2) deviates from established custom and usage; (3) inserts a note in the legislative digest that implies that funds from a new source should be used to pay for that necessary expenditure; (4) fails to appropriate funds to the new source for that purpose, the budget bill is ambiguous and this Court will construe the bill in such a way as to achieve the most practical result.
Stephen D. Herndon, Sol. Gen., for petitioners.
The General Services Division of the Department of Finance and Administration provides mail service for all state agencies in the Capitol Complex. The enabling legislation for central mailing was passed in 1934. W.Va.Code, 5A-4-2 [1934] et seq. The central mailing office was placed under the auspices of Finance and Administration in 1957. W.Va.Code, 5A-4-5 [1961]. 1 Like many state programs, the Legislature never specifically delegated to Finance and Administration the duty to pay postage fees for various state agencies. Rather, money for the payment of postage was simply appropriated to Finance and Administration through the Budget. Since 1934, it has been the custom of Finance and Administration to request and receive annually a large line item in the State Budget for central mailing. Traditionally, none of the state agencies requested or received a line item in the Budget for mailing because Finance and Administration bore the cost for all state agency postal fees.
During the 1987 Session of the West Virginia Legislature, the Senate Committee on Government Operations acted on a recommendation of the Governor's Management Task Force and urged the Senate to appropriate adequate funds for postage expenses to each state agency to eliminate the lump sum appropriated to the Department of Finance and Administration. In response to this cost-cutting theory of individual agency responsibility, two different bills were introduced regarding postal service, Senate Bill 100 and House Bill 2100. 2 Both bills gave Finance and Administration seed capital to create a revolving fund for postage fees. Both bills required each agency to reimburse Finance and Administration for postal fees: "Each spending unit shall be charged monthly for all meter service and shall refund to the revolving fund such amounts." House Bill 2100 at 15, Senate Bill 100 at 21.
Although the above language is identical in both the House and Senate bills, the two bills differed as to where the language should appear. The Senate bill required amending the language in the statute pertaining to Finance and Administration, W.Va.Code, 5A-4-5 [1961]. The House bill, however, merely placed the enabling language in the fiscal 1988 budget digest.
Because the House and Senate were deadlocked in their attempt to pass a budget bill, a conference committee consisting of five members of each House was formed to arbitrate a compromise. The conference committee's result is Enrolled Committee Substitute for House Bill 2100. This bill was adopted as the fiscal 1988 Budget Bill and was passed by both Houses on May 14, 1987. See Acts and Resolutions of the W.Va. Legislature, Ch. 29, Title 2 [1987]. The fiscal 1988 Budget Bill chose House Bill 2100's method regarding postal service charges and inserted the language in the fiscal 1988 budget digest under the Finance and Administration "unclassified line item," 3 rather than altering W.Va.Code, 5A-4-5 [1961].
Significantly, the fiscal 1988 Budget Bill made no specific appropriation for postage to the Department of Finance and Administration. In addition, the total general revenue appropriation for the Department of Finance and Administration was reduced by more than 39 percent or $2.8 million dollars. Combining these events with the legislative intent language of the fiscal 1988 Digest of the Enrolled Budget Bill for appropriation to Finance and Administration, the Commissioner of the Department of Finance and Administration presumed that the legislature had shifted the burden of state postage to each individual agency. Based on this surmise, the Commissioner of the Department of Finance and Administration developed a new system for funding expenses of the central mailing office.
Under this new system, Finance and Administration was to provide the funds to be used for postage "start up money" for each agency. Invoices with an administrative fee of twenty percent were sent to user agencies by the central mailing office on 27 July 1987. After a review of the anticipated start-up and associated costs with the Office of the Auditor, the Auditor approved new invoices containing an administrative fee of fifteen percent which were then prepared and sent to user agencies on 7 August 1987. Each state agency was to be invoiced monthly and the fifteen percent administrative fee was added to pay for meter service and non-personnel costs. All user agencies have either paid or attempted to pay their invoices, with the exception of the three petitioners. 4
Petitioners and respondents then argued back and forth concerning which department now has the duty to pay postage for state agencies in the capitol complex. On 1 July 1987, Dennis Stewart advised the Secretary of State that the mail for his office was being returned as he had not made arrangements for billing procedures. By letter dated 6 July 1987, the Secretary of State agreed to pay the invoices pending the outcome of this litigation, but failed to do so. On 9 July 1987, the Commissioner of Finance and Administration advised each of the petitioners that mail services would be discontinued for their offices effective 14 September 1987 if their invoices were not paid. Petitioners filed this petition for a writ of mandamus on 26 August 1987, seeking to compel the Department of Finance and Administration to post mail delivered to it by petitioners at the cost of the Department of Finance and Administration.
The sole issue in this case is whether the duty of paying postage effectively can be amended or altered through the Budget process. Petitioners assert that in order to require petitioners to pay their own postage costs, the Legislature must act affirmatively by statute or resolution rather than by using the legislative digest of the 1988 Budget Bill to alter custom and usage. We agree and award the writ.
W.Va.Code, 5A-4-2 [1961] and W.Va.Code, 5A-4-5 [1961] place the mailing office under the auspices of Finance and Administration and set forth the duties of that office; both of these Code sections, however, are silent concerning which spending unit pays for the postage. Although the 1986 Budget Act for fiscal year 1987, and many of its predecessors, provided funding for postage to the Department of Finance and Administration, the Budget Act for fiscal year 1988 failed to do so. 5 We find great significance in the fact that the Budget Conference Committee chose to adopt the method concerning postage fees of House Bill 2100 over the method of Senate Bill 100. House Bill 2100 merely inserted the language that each agency shall be charged monthly for all meter service in the Budget Bill Legislative Digest. Senate Bill 100, on the other hand, sought to set up the revolving fund repayment to Finance and Administration by amending W.Va.Code, 5A-4-5 [1961] as opposed to mere language in the fiscal 1988 Legislative Digest.
[179 W.Va. 132] See Enrolled Committee Substitute for House Bill 2100. The petitioners' budget appropriation also did not contain a line item for postage. Therefore, an examination of the language of the Budget Act for fiscal year 1988 does not clearly show whether funds were appropriated to the petitioners or respondents for metering service.
In the case of an ambiguous statute, custom and usage may be resorted to as an aid to construe the statute. Robertson v. Hatcher, 148 W.Va. 239, 135 S.E.2d 675 (1964). See, Brady v. Reiner, 157 W.Va. 10, 198 S.E.2d 812 (1973). Since 1934, Finance and Administration has customarily paid the postage for all state agencies having their offices in the capitol complex. Petitioners, therefore, relied on Finance and Administration to pay their agencies' postage and did not, in fiscal 1988, request money for postage costs in their budgets. We believe that to hold that Finance and Administration no longer bears the postage burden would be unfair to these agencies. Had they had some warning that postage customs were to be altered, they could have requested line items for postage and brought the problem to the Legislature's attention.
When the intent of a statute is not clear on its face, the well-established canons of construction are called forth to interpret its meaning. The cardinal rule in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
STATE EX REL. v. Tomblin
...all of the funds appropriated in certain line items in the "budget bill" were included in that line item. See Hechler v. McCuskey, 179 W.Va. 129, 133, 365 S.E.2d 793, 797 (1987) (stating that "[t]he Legislature uses this [Budget] Digest as its detailed explanation concerning the manner in w......
-
Dadisman v. Moore
...law with W.Va. Const. art. VI, § 51 the procedure for enacting budget and supplementary appropriation bills. Hechler v. McCuskey, 179 W.Va. 129, 365 S.E.2d 793 (1987); see O'Connor v. Margolin, 170 W.Va. 762, 296 S.E.2d 892 (1982). The Legislature's improper expiration of the appropriations......
-
In re Greg H.
...effect to the intent of the Legislature. State ex rel. Goff v. Merrifield, 191 W.Va. 473, 446 S.E.2d 695 (1994); Hechler v. McCuskey, 179 W.Va. 129, 365 S.E.2d 793 (1987); State ex rel. Simpkins v. Harvey, 172 W.Va. 312, 305 S.E.2d 268 (1983). While there may be rare circumstances where a s......
-
Sniffin v. Cline
...to the intentions of the Legislature. State ex rel. Goff v. Merrifield, 191 W.Va. 473, 446 S.E.2d 695 (1994); Hechler v. McCuskey, 179 W.Va. 129, 365 S.E.2d 793 (1987); State ex rel. Simpkins v. Harvey, 172 W.Va. 312, 305 S.E.2d 268 (1983). In the construction of a statute, the intentions o......