Wvu Bd. of Gov'Rs v. Wv Hi. Ed. Pol. Com'n

• Decision Date: 24 May 2007
• Docket Number: No. 33208.,33208.
• Citation: 653 S.E.2d 649
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: The WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY BOARD OF GOVERNORS, the Staff Council of West Virginia University, Terry Nebel, and Charles L. Miller, Jr., Plaintiffs Below, Appellants v. The WEST VIRGINIA HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY COMMISSION, Defendant Below, Appellee.

653 S.E.2d 649

The WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY BOARD OF GOVERNORS, the Staff Council of West Virginia University, Terry Nebel, and Charles L. Miller, Jr., Plaintiffs Below, Appellants v. The WEST VIRGINIA HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY COMMISSION, Defendant Below, Appellee.

No. 33208.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted April 18, 2007.

Decided May 24, 2007.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1. "Where the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review." Syl. Pt. 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).

2. "Interpreting a statute or an administrative rule or regulation presents a purely legal question subject to de novo review." Syl. Pt. 1, Appalachian Power Co. v. State Tax Dept. of West Virginia, 195 W.Va. 573, 466 S.E.2d 424 (1995).

3. Rules and regulations promulgated or amended by the Higher Education Policy Commission without compliance with the Higher Education Rule Making Act, West Virginia Code § 29A-3A-1, et seq. (2001) (Repl.Vol.2002), are void.

4. "Where the language of a statute is free from ambiguity, its plain meaning is to be accepted and applied without resort to interpretation." Syl. Pt. 2, Crockett v. Andrews, 153 W.Va. 714, 172 S.E.2d 384 (1970).

5. "Generally the words of a statute are to be given their ordinary and familiar significance and meaning, and regard is to be had for their general and proper use." Syl. Pt. 4, State v. General Daniel Morgan Post No. 548, V.F. W., 144 W.Va. 137, 107 S.E.2d 353 (1959).

6. West Virginia Code § 18B-2A-4(j) (2005) (Supp.2006) provides that the Board of Governor's administration of the system for the management of personnel affairs is subject to the Higher Education Policy Commission's rules. Affording the word "administer" its common meaning, the statute thus includes acts of procedural control, direction, and discharge of duties encompassed within the management of personnel matters.

7. "The general rule of statutory construction requires that a specific statute be given precedence over a general statute relating to the same subject matter where the two cannot be reconciled." Syl. Pt. 1, UMWA by Trumka v. Kingdon, 174 W.Va. 330, 325 S.E.2d 120 (1984).

8. "`"`A statute should be so read and applied as to make it accord with the spirit purposes and objects of the general system of law of which it is intended to form a part; it being presumed that the legislators who drafted and passed it were familiar with all existing law, applicable to the subject matter, whether constitutional, statutory or common, and intended the statute to harmonize completely with the same and aid in the effectuation of the general purpose and design thereof, if it terms are consistent therewith.' Syllabus Point 5, State v. Snyder, 64 W.Va. 659, 63 S.E. 385 (1908)." Syl. Pt. 1, State ex rel. Simpkins v. Harvey, , 305 S.E.2d 268 (1983).' Syl. Pt. 3, Shell v. Bechtold, 175 W.Va. 792, 338 S.E.2d 393 (1985) [(per curiam)]." Syl. Pt. 1, State v. White, 188 W.Va. 534, 425 S.E.2d 210 (1992).

9. "Statutes which relate to the same subject matter should be read and applied together so that the Legislature's intention can be gathered from the whole of the enactments." Syl. Pt. 3, Smith v. State Workmen's Compen. Commr., 159 W.Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975).

10. "Statutes which relate to the same persons or things, or to the same class of persons or things, or statutes which have a common purpose will be regarded in pari materia to assure recognition and implementation of the legislative intent." Syl. Pt. 5, in part, Fruehauf Corp. v. Huntington Moving & Storage Co., 159 W.Va. 14, 217 S.E.2d 907 (1975).

11. The authority granted to the Higher Education Policy Commission by West Virginia Code §§ 18B-9-1 (2004) and 18B-9-4(a) (2001) (Repl.Vol.2004)to establish and maintain a personnel classification system does not encompass the right to set and control compensation and salary requirements for classified staff employed by West Virginia University.

Robert M. Bastress, Jr., Franklin D. Cleckley, Morgantown, for the Appellants.

Bruce Ray Walker, WV Higher Education Policy Commission, Charleston, for the Appellee.

ALBRIGHT, Justice:

This is an appeal by the West Virginia University Board of Governors; The Staff Council of West Virginia University; Terry Nebel; and Charles L. Miller, Jr., (hereinafter collectively referenced as "Appellants" or "WVU Board of Governors") from a summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action granted by the Circuit Court of Kanawha County in favor of the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission (hereinafter "Commission"). The summary judgment allows the Commission to exercise authority to require all higher education classified employees to be paid at or above the "zero step" for their paygrade on the salary schedule set forth in West Virginia Code § 18B-9-3 (2001) (Repl.Vol.2004). On appeal of the lower court's decision, the Appellants maintain that the lower court erred in finding that the Commission has the authority to compel the West Virginia University Board of Governors to alter its salary policy for classified staff. Subsequent to thorough review of the record, arguments of counsel, applicable precedent, and statutory authority, this Court reverses the determination of the lower court and finds that the WVU Board of Governors has authority to establish a uniform and equitable salary policy for its classified staff that cannot be overridden by the Commission.¹

I. Procedural History

The fundamental controversy in this appeal involves the relationship between the Higher Education Policy Commission and the Appellant WVU Board of Governors, the relative responsibilities of the two entities, and the grant of statutory authority to establish salary schedules for classified employees. The Commission contends that the relevant statutory scheme authorizes it to establish a classification system and to require the individual Boards of Governors to maintain certain base salaries for their employees. On the contrary, the Appellants contend that the Commission is exceeding its statutory mandate by attempting to exercise authority over the salary schedules properly adopted by the WVU Board of Governors.

The litigation presently at issue was initiated when the WVU Board of Governors, contrary to the expressed instruction of the Commission, directed its administration to delay implementation of the provisions of the Commission's rule, West Virginia Code of State Regulations § 133-8-12 (hereinafter "C.S.R. § 133-8-12"), to bring all current and new employees to the zero step pay rate by July 1, 2005. An action for declaratory judgment was thereafter brought in the lower court seeking a ruling that the WVU Board of Governors was not required to comply with the Commission's directive to pay all WVU classified employees at or above the zero step for their paygrade. The lower court granted summary judgment to the Commission, and the Appellants now appeal that ruling.

II. Standard of Review

This Court has consistently held that questions of law and questions of statutory interpretation are subject to a de novo review. In syllabus point one of Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995), this Court explained: "Where the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review." See also Ewing v. Board of Educ. of County of Summers, 202 W.Va. 228, 503 S.E.2d 541 (1998); University of West Virginia Bd. of Trustees ex rel. West Virginia University v. Fox, 197 W.Va. 91, 475 S.E.2d 91 (1996).

In syllabus point one of Appalachian Power Company v. State Tax Department of West Virginia, 195 W.Va. 573, 466 S.E.2d 424 (1995), this Court stated that "[i]nterpreting a statute or an administrative rule or regulation presents a purely legal question subject to de novo review." In State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 194 W.Va. 770, 461 S.E.2d 516 (1995), this Court also clarified that "[a]s a result of this inquiry being strictly a matter of statutory construction, our power of interpretive scrutiny is plenary." 194 W.Va. at 776, 461 S.E.2d at 522. With those standards of review as our foundation, we proceed to a resolution of this matter.

III. Discussion

The governing authority for the institutions of higher learning in this state has undergone extensive restructuring within the past several decades. The recent history of these alterations, culminating in the creation of the entities serving as an Appellant and the Appellee in the present case, can be summarized briefly. The West Virginia Board of Governors existed as the primary governing authority prior to the 1969 creation of the West Virginia Board of Regents. See West Virginia Code § 18-26-1, et seq. (1969). In 1989, the West Virginia Legislature abolished the Board of Regents and divided its powers between the University of West Virginia Board of Trustees, to govern the West Virginia University system, and the Board of Directors of The State College System, to govern the state colleges, community colleges, and other post-secondary education systems. See generally, University of West Virginia Bd. of Trustees ex rel. West Virginia University v. Graf, 205 W.Va. 118, 516 S.E.2d 741 (1998); City of Morgantown v. Ducker, 153 W.Va. 121, 168 S.E.2d 298 (1969).

In 2000, the West Virginia Legislature abolished the University of West Virginia Board of Trustees and the Board of Directors of The State College System.² See generally, Trimble v. West Virginia Bd. of Directors, 209 W.Va. 420, 549 S.E.2d 294 (2001). The Legislature replaced those two entities with (1) an Institutional Board of Governors for each higher education institution, an example of which is the Appellant WVU Board of Governors; and (2) the West Virginia Higher Education...