Lynch v. Gallia Cty. Bd. of Commrs.

• Decision Date: 16 July 1997
• Docket Number: No. 96-876,96-876
• Citation: 79 Ohio St.3d 251,680 N.E.2d 1222
• Parties: LYNCH et al., Appellants, v. GALLIA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS et al., Appellees; Gallia County Veterans Service Commission et al., Appellants.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 251

79 Ohio St.3d 251

680 N.E.2d 1222

LYNCH et al., Appellants, v. GALLIA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS et al., Appellees; Gallia County Veterans Service Commission et al., Appellants.

No. 96-876.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted April 2, 1997.

Decided July 16, 1997.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

R.C. 5901.11 imposes a mandatory duty upon a board of county commissioners to fund a lawful budget request of a veterans service commission up to the five-tenths mill limitation set forth in the statute.

In March 1995, the Gallia County Veterans Service Commission ("VSC"), appellant, submitted a revised proposed budget of $168,561 to the Gallia County Board of Commissioners ("Board"), appellee. After holding a budget hearing, the Board decided to appropriate only $127,559.40 to the VSC.

In April 1995, appellants Rhonda Lynch and Steven Swords, two former VSC employees, filed a complaint against the VSC and the Board. Lynch and Swords claimed that they were terminated from employment with the VSC because the Board refused to fully fund the VSC's budget request. Their suit alleged violations of Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.Code, and state law. In its answer, the VSC filed a cross-claim against the Board seeking injunctive relief, or in the alternative, mandamus, for the Board's refusal to appropriate the monies requested.

Pursuant to a joint motion filed in April 1995 by the parties, the trial court bifurcated the cross-claim from the plaintiffs' claims and stayed the issues submitted by Lynch and Swords. Thereafter, the VSC and the Board filed motions for summary judgment.

In its summary judgment motion, the Board argued that amended R.C. 5901.11 gives the Board discretion to review and, where appropriate, revise the budget of the VSC. In its motion for summary judgment, the VSC argued the opposite, i.e., that the amended statute eliminated the Board's discretionary power to revise the budget request, and instead, imposes a mandatory duty upon the Board to approve any amount submitted by the VSC up to the five-tenths of a mill ceiling set forth in the statute.

The trial court agreed with the VSC. In doing so, the court considered the language of R.C. 5901.11 and determined that the deletion of the word "revise" coupled with the addition of the mandatory language of "shall appropriate funds to the commission" in the statute divested the Board of any discretion in reducing the VSC's budget. The court issued a writ of mandamus ordering the Board to appropriate the entire sum requested by the VSC.

The court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court. In construing R.C. 5901.11, the appellate court found that the Board retained discretion to modify the VSC's budget despite the statutory amendments. Specifically, the court of appeals stated that the new language granting a hearing before the Board would be superfluous if there were no discretion on the part of the Board. The appellate court remanded the matter to the common pleas court to determine whether the Board had abused its discretion in failing to fully fund the budget request of the VSC.

The cause is now before this court upon the allowance of a discretionary appeal.

Michael A. Moses, Columbus, for appellants Rhonda Lynch and Steven Swords.

Downes & Hurst, Rufus B. Hurst and Cheri B. Hass, Columbus; Beran, Piper, Tarkowsky, Fitzgerald & Theis Co., L.P.A., and Bruce A. Curry, Mansfield, for appellees Gallia County Board of Commissioners.

Mowery, Brown & Blume and J. Rick Brown, Wheelersburg, for appellant Gallia County Veterans Service Commission.

Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Andrew M. Kaplan and Scott A. Carroll, Cincinnati, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio State Association of Veterans Service Commissions.

Ronald J. O'Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Bonnie L. Maxton, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Franklin County Board of Commissioners.

FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, Sr., Justice.

In this case we are asked to decide whether R.C. 5901.11, as amended July 1994, prohibits the board of county commissioners from revising a proposed budget submitted by a veterans service commission. For the following reasons, we hold that R.C. 5901.11 imposes a mandatory duty upon the board of county commissioners to fund a lawful budget request of a veterans service commission up to the five-tenths mill limitation set forth in the statute. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals.

R.C. Chapter 5901 provides for a comprehensive plan of services and benefits to needy veterans of the armed forces. Pursuant to this chapter, veterans service commissions in each county throughout the state are charged with ensuring that these mandates are met. See R.C. 5901.02. In order to discharge their obligations, R.C. 5901.11 contains the statutory authority for funding the commissions.

R.C. 5901.11, as amended by Am.Sub.H.B. No. 448 in 1994, provides as follows:

"On or before the last Monday in May in each year, the veterans service commission shall meet and determine in an itemized manner the probable amount necessary for the aid and financial assistance of persons entitled to such aid and assistance and for the operation of the veterans service office for the ensuing year. After determining the probable amount necessary for such purposes, the commission shall prepare and submit a budget in the manner specified in division (C) of section 5705.28 of the Revised Code to the board of county commissioners which may review the proposed budget and shall appropriate funds to the commission pursuant to Title III, section 5705.05, and sections 5705.38 to 5705.41 of the Revised Code. The board, at its June session, shall make the necessary levy, not to exceed five-tenths of a mill per dollar on the assessed value of the property of the county, to raise the amount that the board approves. The veterans service commission may, prior to the first day in October, in any year, submit to the board of county commissioners a written request for a hearing before the board to discuss the commission's budget request for the ensuing fiscal year. Upon receiving this request, the board shall provide for such a hearing at a regular or special meeting of the board to be held no later than fourteen days prior to the board's adoption of a permanent appropriation measure under section 5705.38 of the Revised Code." (Emphasis added.) The prior version of the statute, as amended in 1988, specifically stated that the board of county commissioners may "review and revise the budget requests." ¹ (Emphasis added.) The 1994 amendment, 145 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 6094-6095, however, eliminated the words "and revise" and changed the language to "review the proposed budget and shall appropriate funds to the commission pursuant to Title III, section 5705.05, and sections 5705.38 to 5705.41 of the Revised Code." Furthermore, the new language added that upon request by the veterans service commission, a hearing before the board of county commissioners could be held to discuss the commission's budget request.

When confronted with amendments to a statute, an interpreting court must presume that the amendments were made to change the effect and operation of the law. Leader v. Glander (1948), 149 Ohio St. 1, 5, 36 O.O. 326, 328, 77 N.E.2d 69, 71. However, a reviewing court must not construe a statute so as to supply words that are omitted. State v. S.R. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 590, 595, 589 N.E.2d 1319, 1323. In aiding a court, R.C. 1.49 allows the court to consider the following when construing the intention of the General Assembly:

"(A) The object sought to be attained;

"(B) The circumstances under which the statute was enacted;

"(C) The legislative history;

"(D) The common law or former statutory provisions, including laws upon the same or similar subjects;

"(E) The consequences of a particular construction;

"(F) The administrative construction of the statute."

Up until 1988, the statute gave the board of county commissioners no discretion over the veterans service commission's budget. Former R.C. 5901.11, effective October 1, 1953, provided that the soldiers' relief commission (now veterans service commission) "shall certify" the probable amount necessary for furnishing relief, and the board of county commissioners "shall make the necessary levy." ²

In 1962, this court interpreted this version of R.C. 5901.11 and held that boards of county commissioners had no authority to revise the certified budget of the soldiers' relief commissions. State ex rel. Binder v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1962), 174 Ohio St. 23, 21 O.O.2d 251, 186 N.E.2d 476. Binder held that mandamus would issue to require appropriation of the amount requested by the soldiers' relief commission, where there was no question that the request was in conformity with R.C. Chapter 5901. The court held that "[t]his and related sections of the Code make it a mandatory duty of the Board of County Commissioners to provide the sum certified for the use of the Soldiers' Relief Commission." Id. at 23, 21 O.O.2d at 251, 186 N.E.2d at 476.

This was the law until 1988. On September 14, 1988, R.C. 5901.11 was amended to state that the board of county commissioners "may review and revise the budget requests." The words added by the General Assembly expressed a clear departure from the Binder decision and manifested an intent to give the board discretion over the veterans service commission budget.

In State ex rel. Veterans Service Office of Pickaway Cty. v. Pickaway Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 461, 575 N.E.2d 206, the court confirmed this intention. In its opinion, this court emphasized the significance of the General Assembly's addition of the phrase "review and revise the budget requests" and determined that the new language gave the board of county commissioners discretion to revise the budget request, and the veterans service commission was not entitled to automatic appropriation of...