Municipality of Anchorage v. Repasky

• Decision Date: 26 October 2001
• Docket Number: No. S-8985.,S-8985.
• Parties: MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE, Appellant, v. John REPASKY, Jr., Nathan L. Powell, Sandra A. Groeneveld, and Joseph D. Brammer, individually and each as the parent and representative of a minor child, Appellees. Municipality of Anchorage, Appellant, v. Sharon Long, Appellee.
• Court: Alaska Supreme Court

34 P.3d 302

MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE, Appellant, v. John REPASKY, Jr., Nathan L. Powell, Sandra A. Groeneveld, and Joseph D. Brammer, individually and each as the parent and representative of a minor child, Appellees. Municipality of Anchorage, Appellant, v. Sharon Long, Appellee.

No. S-8985.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

October 26, 2001.

William A. Greene, Deputy Municipal Attorney, and Mary K. Hughes, Municipal Attorney, Anchorage, for Appellant.

John E. Havelock, Anchorage, for Appellees John Repasky, Jr., Nathan L. Powell, Sandra A. Groeneveld, and Joseph D. Brammer.

Joe P. Josephson, Josephson & Associates, Anchorage, for Appellee Sharon Long.

Howard S. Trickey and Andrena L. Stone, Jermain, Dunnagan & Owens, P.C., Anchorage, for Amicus Curiae Anchorage School District. Before MATTHEWS, Chief Justice, EASTAUGH, BRYNER, and CARPENETI, Justices.

OPINION

EASTAUGH, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

In 1995 and again in 1997, after the Anchorage Assembly enacted ordinances for the Anchorage School District's annual budgets and for the local source appropriations for those budgets, Anchorage Mayor Rick Mystrom invoked the item veto power and reduced the total amount of each budget and local source appropriation. Was this a valid exercise of the mayor's veto power? We hold that it was. We conclude that the item veto power granted by the Anchorage Municipal Charter extends to the assembly's school district budget and local source appropriation ordinances. We also conclude that Alaska law does not prevent home rule municipalities from granting this power to their mayors. We therefore reverse the superior court decision which held that the charter does not confer this power on the Anchorage mayor.

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

These appeals concern the process used to determine the Anchorage School District's budgets and local source appropriations for 1995-96 and 1997-98. Anchorage is a home rule municipality.¹ Per the Alaska Statutes, the Anchorage Municipal Charter, and the Anchorage Municipal Code, the Anchorage School Board must submit the school district's annual budget to the Anchorage Municipal Assembly for approval.² The assembly may approve, reduce, or increase the total amount of the school budget and the amount of the local contribution to the school budget,³ but it may not modify individual items within the budget.⁴ If the assembly does not act within thirty days, the school board's budget proposal becomes the school district's budget and local source appropriation without further assembly action.⁵

In February 1995 the school board submitted a proposed school district budget of about $353 million for the 1995-96 school year, about $87 million of which was to be appropriated from local sources. On March 28, 1995, the assembly enacted Anchorage Ordinance (AO) 95-60, which reduced by exactly $1 million dollars both the total amount of the district's proposed budget and the amount to be appropriated from local sources. On April 3 Mayor Rick Mystrom took what he termed a "line item veto action" and reduced the total amounts of the budget and the local source appropriation as approved by the assembly by an additional $2,344,430. The assembly's attempt to override the veto failed. The 1995-96 school district budget was accordingly reduced to about $350 million, about $84 million of which was appropriated from local sources.

The events in 1997 were similar. The school board sent the assembly a proposed budget of about $362 million for the 1997-98 school year, about $100 million of which was to be appropriated from local sources. A week later the assembly enacted AO 97-49, which reduced by exactly $1 million both the district's proposed budget and the proposed local source appropriation. Three days later the mayor exercised what he called his "line item veto" power and reduced by a further $2 million both the total budget and the local source appropriation. No motion to override this veto was presented to the assembly for consideration. The 1997-98 school budget was accordingly reduced to about $359 million, about $100 million of which was appropriated from local sources.

This litigation began when John Repasky Jr., and others, who had sued the Anchorage School District about another dispute, amended their complaint, challenging the mayor's authority to veto the district's 1995-96 and 1997-98 budgets. Both sides moved for summary judgment on the issue of the mayor's veto authority. While that action was proceeding, Sharon Long sued the municipality to challenge the 1997 veto.

The superior court consolidated the cases for oral argument and entered a decision resolving both cases. It ruled that the mayor did not have authority to veto the assembly's total school budget or the local source appropriation for the school budget. The municipality appealed in both cases and we consolidated the cases on appeal. The parties permitted the school district to file an amicus brief.⁶

III. DISCUSSION

May the Anchorage mayor veto or reduce the total amounts of the assembly's school budget and local source appropriation ordinances? We first consider whether the Anchorage charter grants the mayor any veto power over school budget and local source appropriation ordinances. If it does, we must then consider whether that power is "substantially irreconcilable" with the state education scheme reflected in Alaska law.

A. Standard of Review

We review grants of summary judgment de novo and will affirm if there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.⁷ We apply our independent judgment when interpreting the Alaska Statutes.⁸ Because the municipality's charter is a constitutional document⁹ and its code is a statutory document, we apply our independent judgment in interpreting the charter and code.

B. Overview of the Mayoral Veto Power and the School Budget Process

1. Local government and the mayoral veto

The Alaska Constitution vests "all local government powers" in boroughs and cities.¹⁰ It authorizes the voters of a first class city or borough to adopt a home rule charter¹¹ and provides that "[a] home rule borough or city may exercise all legislative powers not prohibited by law or by charter."¹² Title 29 of the Alaska Statutes delineates both the powers and structures of local governments.

The Municipality of Anchorage is a home rule municipality.¹³ It was incorporated as a unified municipality in September 1975, when voters adopted by referendum its constitutional document, the Home Rule Charter for the Municipality of Anchorage.¹⁴ Its executive and administrative power is vested in the mayor.¹⁵ Its legislative power is vested in the assembly.¹⁶ Since 1990 subsection 5.02(c) of the charter has expressly granted the mayor both a general and a "line item" veto power.¹⁷ As we will see, it is important to the outcome of these cases that Anchorage is a home rule municipality.

2. The education budget process

Article VII, section 1 of the Alaska Constitution mandates that "[t]he legislature shall by general law establish and maintain a system of public schools open to all children of the state...." To this end, Title 14 of the Alaska Statutes creates Alaska's public education system.¹⁸ The legislature delegated the state's authority to manage the operations of the schools to local school districts.¹⁹

The Anchorage School District is geographically coextensive with the Municipality of Anchorage.²⁰ The municipality, as required by statute,²¹ established the Anchorage School Board²² and charged it with operating the municipality's schools.²³ Although the school board is elected by the same voters who elect the municipal assembly, and is part of the municipality, "it is a legislative body with legal responsibilities which in important respects are distinct from those exercised by the assembly."²⁴ Further, while the legislature has delegated significant local control over education, this court has made it clear that the Alaska Constitution mandates "pervasive state authority in the field of education."²⁵

The relationship between the school board and the assembly in the school district budget process is established by AS 14.14.060,²⁶ which corresponds to Anchorage charter section 6.05²⁷ and Anchorage Municipal Code section 6.10.050. These provisions require the school board to submit the district's annual budget to the assembly for approval.²⁸ Within thirty days after receiving the budget, the assembly may approve, reduce, or increase the total amount of the district's budget.²⁹ The assembly may modify the budget only as to the total amount; it may not modify individual items within the budget.³⁰ The assembly must approve the budget as amended and must determine the total amount of local source money³¹ and appropriate the necessary funds.³² If the assembly does not act in a timely manner, the amounts the school board proposes become the school district's budget and local source appropriation.³³

The municipality by ordinance has added a School Budget Advisory Commission to this process.³⁴ Composed of members appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the assembly, the commission advises the assembly on the details of the school budget and recommends what action should be taken on the budget.³⁵

C. Does Subsection 5.02(c) of the Charter Give the Mayor Power to Veto and Reduce the Assembly's School District Budget and Local Source Appropriation Ordinances?

In interpreting a constitutional document such as the Anchorage charter,³⁶ we first look to its language.³⁷ We therefore begin with the text of charter subsection 5.02(c), which provides in pertinent part: "The mayor has the veto power. The mayor also has line item veto power. The mayor may, by veto, strike or reduce items in a budget or appropriation measure."³⁸

We first consider whether the charter gives the mayor power to veto the assembly's school budget ordinance in its entirety. We next consider whether the...