Roy v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 29 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 54454,54455 and 54453,s. 54454 |
| Citation | 294 So.2d 507 |
| Parties | Anthony J. ROY, Jr. v. Honorable Edwin W. EDWARDS et al. W. Davis COTTON et al. v. The LOUISIANA BOARD OF REGENTS et al. Anthony J. ROY et al. v. Honorable Edwin W. EDWARDS et al. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., William R. Carruth, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant-relator.
Chris J. Roy, Alexandria, W. S. McKenzie, Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-respondent in No. 54453.
Gravel, Roy & Burnes, Robert L. Royer, Chris J. Roy, Alexandria, for plaintiff-appellee in 54454.
John V. Parker, Sanders, Miller, Downing & Kean, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee in 54455.
W. S. McKenizie, Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant in 54455.
Petitioners in these consolidated cases sought a declaratory judgment decreeing Act 712 of 1972 unconstitutional insofar as it affects the Board of Supervisors of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College and the State Board of Education; they further sought the act to be declared unconstitutional in its entirety, as well as a permanent injunction prohibiting its implementation.
The district court declared Act 712 of 1972 unconstitutional in its entirely and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting implementation of said act. From this judgment, defendants moved for a suspensive appeal. Shortly thereafter, the record was lodged in this Court. Defendants then applied to this Court for writs to review their denial of a suspensive appeal by the trial judge. The writ was granted. In the meantime, the appeal was specially assigned for hearing.
The primary issue presented for our resolution is whether Act 712 of 1972 is unconstitutional insofar as it conflicts with Article XII, Section 7(A) of the Louisiana Constitution.
Those provisions of the Louisiana Constitution pertinent to our consideration of the constitutionality of Act 712 of 1972 are Article III, Section 32 and Article XII, Section 7.
Section 32 of Article III of the Louisiana Constitution provides:
'The Legislature is authorized to provide for the merger or consolidation into one department of all executive and administrative offices, boards or commissions, whether created in this Constitution or otherwise, whose duties or functions are of a similar nature or character, and, in the event of any such consolidation or merger, to reduce the number of officers at the end of their current term.'
Section 7 of Article XII of the Louisiana Constitution provides in pertinent part:
'A. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana state university.
'Except as otherwise provided in this Section, the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College shall be under the direction, control, supervision and management of a body corporate to be known as the 'Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College,' * * *
* * *
'(4) The Legislature shall at any time have the right to abolish the Louisiana Coordinating Council for Higher Education.'
Act 712 of 1972 (R.S. 17:3121 et seq.) establishes the Louisiana Board of Regents and provides for its membership. R.S. 17:3132. It provides the basic powers and authority of the Board of Regents as follows:
'The government, supervision, management, administration and direction of all public institutions of higher education in this state shall be entrusted to and be the responsibility of the Louisiana Board of Regents, effective July 1, 1974.'
It purports, under authority of Section 32 of Article III of the Constitution, to abolish the L.S.U. Board and the Louisiana Coordinating Council for Higher Education effective January 1, 1974, merging and consolidating all of their powers, duties and functions into the Board of Regents. It further transfers to the Board of Regents, effective January 1, 1974, those functions of the State Board of Education relating to the government, supervision, management, administration and direction of institutions of higher education. R.S. 17:3133, subd. A. In addition, it transfers to the Board of Regents, subject to certain restrictions, all lands, records, money, funds, papers, choses in action, equipment and other property belonging to or heretofore used or possessed by the governing boards merged and consolidated into the Board of Regents. R.S. 17:3133, subd. C.
Defendants contend that Section 32 of Article III of the Constitution authorized the legislature to enact Act 712 of 1972 and, therefore, the act is constitutionally sound. Petitioners contend that the act conflicts with Section 7 of Article XII of the Constitution and, for that reason, is unconstitutional. Petitioners argue, in the alternative, that Section 32 of Article III is inapplicable to the L.S.U. Board since that board is neither an 'executive and administrative' office, board or commission nor are its duties or functions 'of a similar nature or character' with the State Board of Education and the Coordinating Council.
Recently, in the case of Student Gov. Ass'n of L.S.U., Etc. v. Board of Sup'rs., 262 La. 849, 264 So.2d 916 (1972), we had an occasion to pass upon the authority of the legislature to pass an act which infringed upon the powers of the governing authority of the L.S.U. Board given to said board by Article XII, Section 7 of the Constitution. In holding the particular statute unconstitutional, we stated:
'The history of this constitutional provision is well known. In his 1940 message to the Legislature, the Governor of Louisiana recommended legislation 'which will guarantee a depoliticalization of our . . . universities.' Later in the message, he noted that Louisiana State University had been 'the storm center' of a politicalized educational system. (footnote omitted)
'To carry out this recommendation, four members of the Senate introduced a Joint Resolution amending Article XII, Section 7 of the Constitution vesting the 'direction, control, supervision and management' of the affairs of the University in the Board of Supervisors. Adopted by the legislature as Act 397 of 1940, this amendment to our Constitution was ratified by the People in general election. It is quite clear that the purpose of this amending, in keeping with the executive recommendation, was to remove the administration of the daily affairs of the University from both the Governor and Legislature and place them under a non-political board.
'Act No. 668 of 1968 amending Section 7 fortifies the above construction. To provide for the Louisiana Coordinating Council for Higher Education, the constitutional amendment was enacted creating the Council and defining its powers. The following words were added at the beginning of the section: 'Except as otherwise provided in the Section . . .' This means, in context, that no governmental authority other than the Coordinating Council for Higher Education (created by Subdivision C, added to Section 7 by the 1968 amendment) can intrude into the administration of the affairs of the University. Under the terms of the amendment, even the right of the Coordinating Council to do so is severely limited.
'Our interpretation that the intent of the constitution is to grant exclusive administrative power to the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University is reinforced by the quite different provision with regard to the State Board of Education. This latter board is constitutionally recognized by the same Section 7 as having 'supervision of all other higher educational institutions, Subject to such laws as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State in Interest of A.C.
...portions removed, given the dominant purpose of the enactment. See Lauga, supra; State v. Johnson, 343 So.2d 705 (La.1977); Roy v. Edwards, 294 So.2d 507 (La.1974); and Gaudet v. Economical Super Market, 237 La. 1082, 112 So.2d 720 As mentioned previously, the express legislative intent was......
-
Succession of Lauga
...when the general object of the act can be achieved without the invalid part, the act will be upheld. State v. Johnson, id.; Roy v. Edwards, 294 So.2d 507 (La.1974); Gaudet v. Economical Super Market, 237 La. 1082, 112 So.2d 720 (1959); Pollitt v. Connick, 596 F.Supp. 261 (E.D.La.1984); 2 Si......
-
Polk v. Edwards
...Conversely, however, when the general object of the act can be achieved without the invalid part, the act will be upheld. Roy v. Edwards, 294 So.2d 507 (La.1974); State v. Johnson, 343 So.2d 705 In this case, we must consider whether La.Rev.Stat.Ann. Sec. 4:625(A), which excludes employees ......
-
State v. Spooner, 87-KK-0892
...the legislature would not have enacted the statute without this provision." State v. 1971 Green GMC Van, 354 So.2d at 487; Roy v. Edwards, 294 So.2d 507 (La.1974). Forfeiture of currency remains permissible, but the state must prove that the currency is derivative For the reasons assigned, ......