Jarrett Printing Co. v. Riley, 21477

• Decision Date: 09 December 1992
• Docket Number: No. 21477,21477
• Citation: 188 W.Va. 393,424 S.E.2d 738
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: JARRETT PRINTING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Ronald RILEY, as Director of the Purchasing Division of the Department of Administration of the State of West Virginia; Gaston Caperton, as Governor of West Virginia; and BJW Printing and Office Supplies, Respondents.

Page 738

424 S.E.2d 738

188 W.Va. 393

JARRETT PRINTING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Ronald RILEY, as Director of the Purchasing Division of the

Department of Administration of the State of West Virginia;

Gaston Caperton, as Governor of West Virginia; and BJW

Printing and Office Supplies, Respondents.

No. 21477.

Supreme Court of Appeals of

West Virginia.

Submitted Dec. 2, 1992.

Decided Dec. 9, 1992.

Syllabus by the Court

1. "Where a provision of a constitution is clear in its terms and of plain interpretation to any ordinary and reasonable mind, it should be applied and not construed." Syl. Pt. 3, State ex rel. Smith v. Gore, 150 W.Va. 71, 143 S.E.2d 791 (1965).

2. "Courts are not concerned with the wisdom or expediencies of constitutional provisions, and the duty of the judiciary is merely to carry out the provisions of the plain language stated in the constitution." Syl. Pt. 3, State ex rel. Casey v. Pauley, 158 W.Va. 298, 210 S.E.2d 649 (1975).

3. The plain and unambiguous meaning of W.Va. Const. Art. 6, § 34, is to prohibit a legislator from having any interest in a legislative printing contract.

4. A special relationship exists between husband and wife; mutual liabilities growing out of the family relationship create, on the part of each, an interest in the contracts of the other.

5. The award of a legislative printing contract to the spouse of a legislator is a sufficient interest on the part of that legislator to bring the contract within the prohibition of W.Va. Const. Art. 6, § 34.

Charles McElwee, Robinson & McElwee, Charleston, for petitioner.

Jeffrey Matherly, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Charles Lorensen, Mark Ferguson, George, Ferguson & Lorensen, Charleston, for respondents.

NEELY, Justice.

In this case, we are presented with a petition for a writ of mandamus under our original jurisdiction. We are asked to determine whether the constitutional provision that prohibits state legislators and officers from having any interest in legislative printing contracts bars an award of such a contract to the spouse of a legislator. We find that a legislator who is the spouse of an owner of a contracting printer does have an interest in such a contract. Therefore, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

On 15 July 1992, at the opening of sealed bids in response to a solicitation for specified printing and binding services for the West Virginia House of Delegates, Jarrett Printing was deemed the lowest responsible bidder. The sole shareholder of Jarrett Printing is H. Jarrett Walker. Mr. Walker is the husband of Martha Walker. Martha Walker was a member of the House of Delegates until December 1, 1992; she is currently a member of the State Senate. ¹ Upon realizing the potential constitutional violation, the Speaker of the House, The Honorable Robert Chambers, decided that W.Va. Const. Art. 6, § 34, disqualified Jarrett Printing and suggested to Ronald Riley, Director of the Purchasing Division, that the contract should be awarded to BJW Printing.

Before making his final decision, the Governor of West Virginia, The Honorable Gaston Caperton, requested an opinion from the attorney general about the applicability of W.Va. Const. Art. 6, § 34 to Jarrett Printing. The attorney general issued an opinion, dated 10 November 1992, that determined that awarding the contract to Jarrett Printing would violate W.Va. Const. Art. 6, § 34. Thereafter, the Governor wrote to Mr. Walker and informed him that he would have approved the contract were it not for the attorney general's opinion. Upon receiving that notice, Jarrett Printing petitioned this court, asking for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to let, and approve the letting of, the legislative printing contract to Jarrett Printing.

W.Va. Const. Art. 6, § 34 provides:

The legislature shall provide by law that the fuel, stationery and printing paper, furnished for the use of the State; the copying, printing, binding and distributing the laws and journals; and all other printing ordered by the legislature, shall be let by contract to the lowest responsible bidder, bidding under a maximum price to be fixed by the legislature; and no member or officer thereof, or officer of the State, shall be interested, directly or indirectly, in such contract, but all such contracts shall be subject to the approval of the governor, and in case of his disapproval of any such contract, there shall be a reletting of the same in such manner as may be prescribed by law. [Emphasis added]

When we interpret a constitutional provision, we must keep in mind that, "[w]here a provision of a constitution is clear in its terms and of plain interpretation to any ordinary and reasonable mind, it should be applied and not construed." Syl. Pt. 3, State ex rel. Smith v. Gore, 150 W.Va. 71, 143 S.E.2d 791 (1965). Furthermore, "[c]ourts are not concerned with the wisdom or expediencies of constitutional provisions, and the duty of the judiciary is merely to carry out the provisions of the plain language stated in the constitution." Syl. Pt. 3, State ex rel. Casey v. Pauley, 158 W.Va. 298, 210 S.E.2d 649 (1975).

Here, the plain and unambiguous meaning of W.Va. Const. Art. 6, § 34, is to prohibit a legislator from having any interest in a legislative printing contract. It makes no difference that the...