Rogers v. Excise Bd. of Greer County
| Decision Date | 26 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 59259,59259 |
| Citation | 701 P.2d 754,1984 OK 95 |
| Parties | Alfred ROGERS, Greer County Sheriff, Appellee, v. The EXCISE BOARD OF GREER COUNTY, State of Oklahoma; and Clinton Nesmith, as Chairman, and Lois M. Norman and J.F. Heatly, as members of the Excise Board of Greer County, State of Oklahoma, Appellants. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
James P. Garrett, Dist. Atty. and Charles C. Callaway, Asst. Dist. Atty., Mangum, for appellants.
Mathew Salter, Mangum, for appellee.
The Greer County Excise Board (Board), appellant, contends that the trial court erred when it issued a writ of mandamus compelling the Board to set the 1982-83 Greer County Sheriff's appropriations at the sum requested by the Sheriff; the writ also invalidated the 1982-83 Greer County Budget. The issues presented are whether the Board had discretionary authority to adjust budgeted items which had been submitted in an estimate of needs by the Sheriff of Greer County, whether the Board abused its discretion when it refused to approve the Sheriff's proposed estimate of needs, whether the Sheriff was allowed to participate in a meaningful pre-budget planning session, and whether the Board violated the open meeting law during the course of the budgetary process.
On October 11, 1982, the Sheriff of Greer County filed an application for a writ of mandamus seeking appropriations to pay for an additional deputy sheriff for the fiscal year July 1, 1982--June 30, 1983. The Sheriff alleged that the Board's decision denying his request for funds for an additional deputy sheriff violated the open meeting law, 25 O.S. 1981 § 301 et seq. and that the Board had a duty to approve and appropriate funds for the requested budget pursuant to 68 O.S. 1981 § 2486. 1 The application was amended October 18, 1982, to include the allegation that the Board had acted arbitrarily and capriciously. The trial court issued an alternative writ which directed the Board to approve the Sheriff's budget as submitted, or to show cause why it should not be approved. The Board answered that it had lawfully appropriated $13,049.56 less than the Sheriff's original request. The evidence at the show cause hearing was limited to the question of the Board's authority to exercise discretion in reduction of the Sheriff's estimate of needs in purported violation of 68 O.S. 1981 § 2487(5). 2 The trial court issued a writ of mandamus October 22, 1982, directing the Board to increase the appropriations to the Sheriff's office by $13,049.56.
The trial court held that as a matter of law the Board lacked discretion to strike items from the Sheriff's budget and that the budget reduction violated 68 O.S. 1981 § 2487(5) because the revenue was available to fund the sheriff's estimate of needs. The Board was ordered to appropriate the exact sum to all county offices which had been requested in the estimate of needs. In order to balance the budget, the trial court ordered a reduction in funds appropriated by the Board to the County's general budget.
The Board lodged an appeal on October 28, 1982. The next day, the Board filed a motion to stay proceedings in the district court and on November 1, 1982, the Sheriff sought to have the Board cited for contempt. The trial court issued a show cause order November 3, 1982 and on the same day the Court granted the Board's motion to stay observing that the Board had perfected an appeal. 3 The court suspended all proceedings in the cause until January 7, 1983 stating that on that date it would enter any order which might be necessary. The court acknowledged that it issued the writ without hearing evidence on three issues contained in the sheriff's application--whether the board had set the sheriff's budget on a legal holiday, whether the Board had arbitrarily reduced the budget, and whether the Board's budgetary process violated the open meeting law. The Court apparently determined that it had continuing jurisdiction to adjust the county budget and it ordered that further proceedings on the petition for the writ of mandamus would be conducted on November 16, 1982. At the reconvened hearing on November 16, 1982, the trial court found that the Board had violated the open meeting law, that the sheriff was not afforded a meaningful budget-planning conference, and that the Board had abused its discretion when it deleted funding for an additional deputy from the sheriff's estimate of needs. Thereupon, the court declared that the entire Greer County budget for fiscal year 1982-83 was null and void. The Board timely filed an amended petition on November 24, 1982. The trial court on January 7, 1983, reviewed its November 3, 1982, order which stayed the October 22, 1982 order, and the November 17, 1982 order and left the stay in full force and effect until March 15, 1983 pending determination of the appeal. The stay order was dissolved by the trial court on March 15, 1983, and the Board sought and obtained a writ of prohibition from this Court on March 28, 1983 which prevented the enforcement of the writs of the judgments.
The Board, relying on 19 O.S. 1981 § 180.65(F), (G) 4 and on 68 O.S. 1981 § 2487(2), 5 contends that it had statutory authority to eliminate budgeted items submitted by any county officer which are in excess of needs, and that approval of funding is solely the responsibility of the Board. The Board also relies on Summey v. Tisdale, 658 P.2d 464, 468-69 (Okla.1982) which was decided while the appeal from the October 22, 1982 order was pending. In Summey, this Court held that a county excise board is empowered to delete items from an estimate of needs if the Board determines that the items are in excess of needs. The Sheriff acknowledges that under Summey the Board has discretionary authority to examine and to adjust items contained in an estimate of needs. However, the Sheriff argues that the Board violated the Summey doctrine because it acted arbitrarily and capriciously.
Although for purposes of appeal the parties have treated the writs issued by the trial court on October 22, 1982 and November 16, 1982 as an incorporated comprehensive order, the orders are distinct; each order of mandamus is plagued with separate peculiar defects. For clarity of disposition on appeal the writs will be discussed separately.
IF ITEMS BUDGETED BY COUNTY OFFICERS ARE EXCESSIVE THE
COUNTY EXCISE BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY TO REDUCE
THE PROPOSED BUDGET.
A.
THE OCTOBER 22, 1982, ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS WAS
ERRONEOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW.
The basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus on October 22, 1982, was the trial court's conclusion that pursuant to 68 O.S. 1981 § 2486 the Board was precluded from denying any lawful appropriations if sufficient revenue is available for funding 6 and that even if the Board were empowered to reduce budget requests, the Board failed to follow the method prescribed by 68 O.S. 1981 § 2487(5). The trial court relied on the interpretation of § 2486 discussed in Neel v. Bd. of Co. Commr's. of Cherokee Co., 617 P.2d 201, 204 (Okla.1980) which involved a pay increase for the deputies of county officials for the fiscal year 1977-78. In Neel, this Court held that county excise boards were unauthorized to reduce budgeted items unless adequate funding was unavailable. The statute as it existed when Neel was decided did not empower excise boards to delete items considered in estimates of needs.
The trial court's reliance on Neel is misplaced. The statutory scheme controlling county budgets was amended in 1979. 7 The 1979 amendments granted salary and staff reviewing authority to the county excise board, required the boards to meet with county officers to discuss anticipated personnel needs and to disclose estimated county revenue, and granted authority to the boards to examine estimates of needs and to eliminate excessive requests. 8 The statutory amendments and the prerogative of county excise boards was discussed by this court in Summey v. Tisdale, 658 P.2d 464, 468-70 (Okla.1982). In Summey, we held that the statutory amendments authorized county excise boards to review budget requests and to strike or disregard any item which was determined to be in excess of needs as long as the exercise of the authority was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
We find that Summey is controlling as the trial court's finding that the Board failed to follow the statutory scheme of reductions prescribed by 68 O.S. 1981 § 2487(5), even though the Board's authority to reduce budget requests was conceded. Summey recognizes that the board possesses discretionary authority to reduce estimate of needs pursuant to 68 O.S. 1981 § 2487(2) and 19 O.S. 1981 § 180.65(F),(G). The trial court erred in its determination that the excise board did not have the right to strike items in excess of needs and that the statutory scheme of reduction contained in Section 2487(5) must be followed by the board in making any reductions. 9
DISCRETION WAS CORRECT. HOWEVER, RELIEF CANNOT BE
GRANTED BECAUSE THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ENDED.
The Board timely perfected an appeal from the judgment entering a writ of mandamus on October 28, 1982, and on November 16, 1982, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the three issues not heard on October 22, 1981. 10 The court held that the board's meeting on Labor Day, September 6, 1982, a legal holiday, was not in and of itself an illegal act, that the board's reduction of the Sheriff's was arbitrary and capricious and that the Labor Day meeting violated the notice provisions of the Open Meeting Act. Thereafter, the court declared that the entire county budget for the fiscal year 1982-83 was null and void.
The Board filed an amended petition in error to include alleged errors in the November hearing. The Board alleges that the issuance of the November writ was outside the scope of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v. White
...cause, see discussion pp. 261-262, infra, moots any argument concerning the practical effect of our ruling. In Rogers v. Excise Bd. of Greer County, 701 P.2d 754, 761 (Okla.1984), we recognized that although the decision in a cause was necessary because of the possibility of repetition, the......
-
City of Oklahoma City v. Oklahoma Tax Com'n
...Petition No. 5, 185 Okl. 393, 92 P.2d 374, 375 [1939]; Ham v. McNeil, 27 Okl. 773, 117 P. 207 [1911].10 Rogers v. Excise Bd. of Greer County, Okl., 701 P.2d 754, 761 [1985]; Lawrence v. Cleveland County Home Loan Auth., supra note 5 at 315; Edwards v. Hanna Lumber Co., supra note 9 at 981; ......
-
Tulsa Indus. Auth. v. City of Tulsa, 105,460.
...87 P.3d 598, 601, citing Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Grand River Dam Authority, 1986 OK 20, 720 P.2d 713, 720; Rogers v. Excise Bd. of Greer County, 1984 OK 95, 701 P.2d 754, 761. 24. In a strict sense, a “right of action” refers to a right to a remedy, usually a particular remedy, and its ......
-
Clay v. Independent School Dist. No. 1 of Tulsa County
...an abuse of discretion on the part of the county board. Summey v. Tisdale, 658 P.2d 464, 469-470 (Okla.1982); Rogers v. Excise Bd. of Greer County, 701 P.2d 754, 760 (Okla.1984). They must then show on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to award relief. Beatrice ......