Source: http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/049wn2d/049wn2d0533.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:13:16+00:00

Document:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE - POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES - STATUTORY BASIS AND LIMITATION. The state capitol committee is an administrative agency created by statute, with only those powers expressly given to it by statute or necessarily implied therefrom; and it has no common-law or inherent powers.
 SAME. Where a person or board is charged by law with a specific duty, and the means for its performance are appointed by law, there is no room for implied powers, and the means appointed must be followed however inadequate may be the result.
 SAME. Laws of 1955, chapter 279, § 5 (RCW 79.24.200), designating the manner and method of depositing money to the capitol building bond redemption fund for the redemption of the bond issue authorized by such chapter, did not create a reserve fund, to secure the payment of the principal and interest on such bonds and to be paid into the capital building bond redemption fund from money which normally would be paid into the capitol building construction fund, over and above the moneys required by the Laws of 1955, chapter 279, § 5; and the state capitol committee did not have the power to provide by resolution for such a reserve fund, the remedy being with the legislature and not the state capitol committee or the judiciary if the manner and method provided by statute for redeeming the bonds produces a result which is thought to be inadequate as affecting the marketability of the bonds.
Application filed in the supreme court May 24, 1956, for a writ of mandate directing the state treasurer to refrain from paying certain sums into the capitol building bond redemption fund. Granted.
The Attorney General and Clyde A. Barnard, Assistant, for relator.
Preston, Thorgrimson & Horowitz, Special Assistant Attorneys General, for respondents.
This action challenges the validity of a specific section of a resolution adopted by the state capitol committee authorizing a bond issue.
«1» Reported in 304 P. (2d) 663.
 See 42 Am. Jur. 316.
The state capitol committee is composed of the governor, the state auditor, and the commissioner of public lands, ex E officio. RCW 43.34.010.
"All revenues received from leases and sales of lands, timber, and other products on the surface or beneath the surface of the lands granted to the state by the United States pursuant to an act of congress approved February 22, 1889, for capitol building purposes, shall be paid into the capitol building construction fund." (Italics ours.)Laws of 1951, chapter 22, p. 43 (uncodified), as amended by Laws of 1953, chapter 187, p. 398 (uncodified), authorized the state capitol committee to construct a state office building and to issue bonds payable from the capitol building bond redemption fund, in accordance with the terms of the statute.
The state employees' retirement system (RCW 41.40.020 et seq.) is the owner of bonds, totaling $2,800,000, issued by the state capitol committee.
January 9, 1956, the board of the state employees' retirement system expressed its willingness to the state capitol committee to purchase, up to a maximum of $4,300,000, the new issue of bonds authorized by the 1955 legislature (RCW 79.24.200); provided, there be a covenant in the bond indenture for a reserve amount of two years' principal and interest payments, in addition to the amount required for the bond redemption fund as provided by statute.
May 21, 1956, three things happened. We set them forth chronologically.
First: The state capitol committee offered to sell to the state employees' retirement system capitol building bonds in the amount of $4,300,000. From this principal, $2,800,000 will be used to retire bonds already issued to and held by the system.
interest on such bonds and to be used to make up any deficiency that may occur in the annual amounts required to be paid into said Bond Redemption Fund for the payment of such principal and interest . . ."
". . . for the payment into the capitol building bond redemption fund created by said chapter 279 of certain reserve moneys, and confirming the sale of said bonds."
Section 4 of the resolution is, substantially, in the language of Laws of 1955, chapter 279, § 5 (quoted supra). It provides that each year the state treasurer shall deposit into the capitol building bond redemption fund all receipts that would otherwise be deposited in the capitol building construction fund, until the total equals the amount, certified annually to the treasurer by the state capitol committee, necessary to pay interest and redeem bonds during the ensuing twelve calendar months.
receipts and revenues of the State Capitol Committee and to credit the same to or pay the same into said Bond Redemption Fund.
"Said $600,000 or any part thereof in said Fund are hereby designated as reserve moneys, and the State Capitol Committee agrees, when said sum of $600,000 has been paid into such Bond Redemption Fund, that it will at all times maintain that amount therein until there is a sufficient amount in such Bond Redemption Fund to redeem and retire all of the bonds authorized herein outstanding with interest due to such date of redemption.
"Any interest earned by the investment of these reserve moneys or any part thereof shall be credited to such Bond Redemption Fund.
The subject matter of § 5 of the bond resolution (quoted supra) does not appear in the statute authorizing the issuance of bonds.
authorized by Laws of 1955, chapter 279, § 5. The state capitol committee (respondent) is also directed to refrain from issuing and selling said bonds, with a covenant that the payment of principal and interest thereon is additionally secured by payment into the bond redemption fund of the reserve moneys, authorized by § 5 (quoted supra) of the resolution adopted by the state capitol committee on May 21, 1956. The respondents were directed to show cause, on a certain date, why they should not be so restrained.
 The parties are agreed that the state capitol committee is an administrative agency created by statute; that it has only those powers expressly given to it by statute or necessarily implied therefrom. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Denney, 155 Wash. 544, 546, 285 Pac. 452 (1930). The committee has no common-law or inherent powers.
Section 5 of the bond resolution provides for two things: (a) it withholds from the capitol building construction fund an additional $120,000 a year for five years, and such further sums as may be necessary to maintain the $600,000 reserve while any bonds are outstanding; and (b) it makes the maintenance of the additional reserve fund a "prior claim and charge . . . superior to all other claims or charges" (except for the claim established by § 4 of the resolution) against the funds which normally would be deposited in the capitol building construction fund.
The crux of the problem is: May the power to adopt § 5 of the bond resolution (quoted supra) be implied from the statute? (Laws of 1955, chapter 279).
Respondents contend that the Laws of 1955, chapter 279, establish a legislative intent that the funds, to accomplish the purpose announced, be raised by the sale of the bonds authorized; that the covenant for the additional reserve fund is necessary "to enable the bonds to be sold and to provide the funds for the purposes set forth in said act."
fund. These affidavits were made after issuance of the alternative writ of mandate in this action..
"That the covenants set forth in Sections 5 and 6 of said bond resolution of the State Capitol Committee . . . were necessary in order to enable the State Capitol Committee to sell such bonds; . . ."
Under the facts of this case, it is a non sequitur to say that an implied power to create an additional reserve fund arises from either the marketability or nonmarketability of the bonds. It is one thing to interpret the language of a statute to carry out the manifest intent of the legislature (in which category respondents' authorities fall), and an entirely different matter to add, by implication, to a statute which is complete in itself, simply because the result intended by the legislature may be doubtful in the minds of certain individuals.
which is thought to be inadequate (upon which we express no opinion), the remedy is with the legislature and not the state capitol committee or the judiciary.
The alternative writ of mandate, heretofore issued, should be made permanent.
DONWORTH, C.J., SCHWELLENBACH, HILL, FINLEY, ROSELLINI, and OTT, JJ., concur.

References: § 5
 § 5
 § 5
 § 5
 § 5
 § 5
 v. 
 § 4
 § 5