Title: Lynch v. Gallia Cty. Bd. of Commrs.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

LYNCH ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. GALLIA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ET AL., 
APPELLEES; GALLIA COUNTY VETERANS SERVICE COMMISSION ET AL., APPELLANTS. 
[Cite as Lynch v. Gallia Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 251.] 
Veterans — 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. 
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. 
(No. 96-876 — Submitted April 2, 1997 at the Athens County Session — Decided 
July 16, 1997.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Gallia County, No. 95CA13. 
 
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 
 
2
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. 
___________________ 
 
3
 
Michael A. Moses, for appellants Rhonda Lynch and Steven Swords. 
 
Downes & Hurst, Rufus B. Hurst and Cheri B. Hass; Beran, Piper, 
Tarkowsky, Fitzgerald & Theis Co., L.P.A., and Bruce A. Curry, for appellees 
Gallia County Board of Commissioners. 
 
Mowery, Brown & Blume and J. Rick Brown, for appellant Gallia County 
Veterans Service Commission. 
 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Andrew M. Kaplan and Scott A. Carroll, 
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., J.  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. 
 
4
 
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 
 
5
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 
 
6
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 all monies requested. 
 
Thus, prior to the 1994 amendment, the General Assembly had passed 
complete budget control from the veterans service commissions in 1953 to the 
boards of county commissioners in 1988.  To effect that change, the General 
Assembly relied on the deletion and addition of key words.  The most important of 
those words was “revise.” 
 
7
 
However, the Board argues that when read in context, the new changes do 
not reflect an intention by the General Assembly to divest control from the boards 
of county commissioners.  Specifically, the Board mentions other additional 
language in the statute.  For example, the term “proposed” that modifies the term 
“budget,” and the phrase “amount that the board approves,” demonstrate the intent 
that the Board retain discretion to approve all, or only a portion of, the VSC’s 
budget request.  If the Board were required to approve any amount the VSC 
requests, the Board argues, such words or phrases would not be needed. 
 
Additionally, the Board argues that the addition of the phrase “shall 
appropriate funds” is taken out of context by the VSC.  When read in its entirety, 
the new language reads, “shall appropriate funds to the commission pursuant to 
Title III, section 5705.05, and sections 5705.38 to 5705.41 of the Revised Code.”  
Thus, the Board believes that, when read as a whole, the language only requires 
the Board to appropriate funds in accordance with the other statutory mandates of 
the Revised Code.  The Board asserts that had the General Assembly wanted the 
Board to appropriate all funds requested by the VSC, it could have returned to the 
language of the 1953 statute, which used the words “the board * * * shall make the 
necessary levy.” 
 
The Board also distinguishes the fact that the General Assembly eliminated 
the word “revise” when referring to the Board’s powers, by pointing out that the 
new statute establishes a hearing process by which the VSC can request a 
discussion of budget appropriations.  The Board contends that if it were required 
to approve any budget requested by the VSC, there would be no purpose for a 
hearing. 
 
The Board’s interpretation assumes that R.C. 5901.11 operates in a vacuum.  
However, we do not believe that R.C. 5901.11 can be read in such a manner.  
 
8
Instead, we find that the language of R.C. 5901.11, when viewed in its full 
context, has a specific purpose and forms part of a comprehensive overall statutory 
scheme.  This comprehensive statutory scheme gives meaning to the board of 
county commissioners’ review of proposed veterans service commission budgets 
and to the hearing procedure established by the statute. 
 
For instance, to be lawful, a budget must comply with a number of 
requirements.  These include the Revised Code sections to which R.C. 5901.11 
refers, and other code sections that are necessarily involved in the budgeting 
process and in the operation of a veterans service commission.  
 
For example, a budget proposal must be in the proper form prescribed by 
the taxing authority or State Auditor pursuant to R.C. 5705.28(C), one of the 
statutes mentioned in the 1994 amended version of R.C. 5901.11.  R.C. 
5705.28(C) further requires that the form be submitted by a certain deadline.  R.C. 
5705.40, also mentioned in R.C. 5901.11, sets forth criteria for any budget item 
that is included to cover unforeseen contingencies. 
 
Other sections of R.C. Chapter 5901 impose further conditions which a 
board of county commissioners must review to assure the propriety of a veterans 
service commission budget request.  For instance, R.C. 5901.06 and 5901.07 set 
forth the qualifications of certain veterans service commission employees and 
require that they be classified employees.  These sections call into play the laws 
governing the classified civil service and a board of county commissioners’ 
discretionary review could detect budget changes that were inconsistent with these 
laws. 
 
Furthermore, R.C. 5901.11 itself limits a proper proposed budget to an 
amount “not to exceed five-tenths of a mill per dollar on the assessed value of the 
property of the county.”  Additionally, R.C. 5901.25 through 5901.32 are 
 
9
mandatory provisions directing the veterans service commission to assist in the 
burial of indigent veterans.  A lawful commission budget must include funding for 
this activity.  R.C. 5901.11.  Finally, basic flaws such as mathematical errors may 
be detected through board review.  Id. 
 
We believe this interpretation of R.C. 5901.11 gives meaning to the 
“review” and hearing process provided by the statute.  The board review of the 
budget can, and should, result in rejection of an unlawful budget request, but not 
revision of a lawful request.  This is the interpretation given to R.C. 5901.11 in 
State ex rel. Semetko v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1971), 30 Ohio App.2d 130, 
59 O.O.2d 239, 283 N.E.2d 648. 
 
Semetko reviewed the statute which had been interpreted by this court in 
Binder.  In Semetko, the Lucas County Soldiers’ Relief Commission had departed 
from the procedures and duties set forth in R.C. Chapter 5901, and had arranged to 
process vouchers for soldiers’ relief through the county welfare department 
without documenting the financial needs of veterans as provided by law.  The 
board of county commissioners appropriated only a portion of the funds requested, 
and the soldiers’ relief commission requested a “further review of the sum 
previously certified to the [board],” but the board declined to budget a further 
amount.  Id. at 132, 59 O.O.2d at 240, 283 N.E.2d at 650.  The court found the 
budget request to be unlawful, and refused to issue a writ of mandamus 
compelling the board to appropriate the amount requested. 
 
Although Semetko reviewed a prior version of R.C. 5901.11, its analysis is 
applicable to the present version of the statute.  Should the board of county 
commissioners’ review uncover an unlawful budget request, the hearing procedure 
prescribed by the statute offers the veterans service commission an opportunity to 
seek reconsideration of the board’s determination, before resorting to a lawsuit. 
 
10
 
The history of R.C. 5901.11 demonstrates that the General Assembly 
intended veterans service commissions to have authority over their budgets, 
without discretionary oversight by the boards of county commissioners.  While 
this state of the law was interrupted during 1988-1994, the General Assembly 
returned budgetary authority to the veterans service commissions after this court’s 
decision in Pickaway County.  A legislative amendment must be presumed to 
change the effect and operation of the law.  Leader, 149 Ohio St. at 5, 36 O.O. at 
328, 77 N.E.2d at 71. 
 
The return of budgetary authority to the veterans service commissions will 
not bring about the dire consequences predicted by the Board. Under the law 
established by this court, neither the boards of county commissioners nor the 
veterans service commissions will be permitted to abuse their discretion.  See, e.g., 
Binder, Pickaway County, and State ex rel. Durkin v. Youngstown City Council 
(1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 132, 134, 9 OBR 382, 384, 459 N.E.2d 213, 215. 
 
Understandably, as the Board states, the legislature has an interest in putting 
the veterans service commission “on equal footing with other departments and 
agencies within the counties,” but the statutory language and history belie such an 
intent in R.C. 5901.11.   Amicus Ohio State Association of Veterans Service 
Commissions explains that veterans service commissions enjoy a unique history 
and status.  They are vested with a special public trust to see that those who have 
served our country receive a decent burial and are remembered with honor, and 
that they and their families are kept from indigency.  We agree with amicus that 
the General Assembly has balanced the veterans service commissions’ mandate 
with a power in the boards of county commissioners to review the budget, and to 
reject it in the case of any failure to conform to applicable law.  However, boards 
 
11
of county commissioners are not permitted to revise lawful veterans service 
commission budgets. 
 
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the 
decision of the trial court is reinstated. 
Judgment reversed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., 
concur. 
 
COOK, J., dissents. 
FOOTNOTES: 
1. 
Former R.C. 5901.11, effective September 14, 1988, read 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 indigent persons 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 and revise 
the budget requests.  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.”  (Emphasis added.)  
(142 Ohio Laws, Part III, 4689.) 
2. 
Former R.C. 5901.11, 1953 H.B. No. 1, effective October 1, 1953, provided: 
 
“On the last Monday in May in each year, the soldiers’ relief commission 
shall meet and determine from the lists provided for in section 5901.08 of the 
Revised Code the probable amount necessary for the aid and relief of indigent 
persons for the ensuing year, together with an amount sufficient, in the judgment 
 
12
of the commission, to furnish relief to any such indigent persons not named on 
such lists, whose rights to relief are established to the satisfaction of the 
commission.  After determining the probable amount necessary for such purpose, 
the commission shall certify it to the board of county commissioners, which, 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 required 
relief.”  (Emphasis added.) 
 
 
COOK, J., dissenting.  I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals 
and adopt its opinion on the issue appealed here.