Source: http://ksag.washburnlaw.edu/opinions/2002/2002-052.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 02:47:17+00:00

Document:
The Secretary of Transportation may delegate to a chief administrative officer, staff assistant, or employee the duty of attending meetings of the Board of Directors of the Information Network of Kansas (INK). The authority of the chief administrative officer, staff assistant, or employee to vote on matters before the Board is dependent on the extent of authority delegated by the Secretary of Transportation. The Secretary of Revenue is authorized to delegate to division heads any duties and powers conferred upon the Secretary of Revenue. The authority of the division heads to exercise such duties and powers is subject only to any limitations imposed by the Secretary of Revenue. Therefore, the Secretary of Revenue may delegate to division heads the duty of attending meetings of the Board of INK, and the authority of the division heads to vote is dependent on the extent of authority delegated by the Secretary of Revenue. Neither the President of Kansas, Inc. nor the Director of Information Systems and Communications has the authority to appoint a person to serve on the Board of INK in the President's or Director's absence. Cited herein: K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 74-5095; 74-50,151, as amended by L. 2002, Ch. 151, § 5; 74-8002; 74-8005; 74-8009a; K.S.A. 74-9303; 74-9304; 75-412; 75-4701; 75-4713; K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 75-5001; K.S.A. 75-5005; 75-5006; 75-5007; 75-5008; 75-5009; 75-5010; 75-5015; K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 75-5101; K.S.A. 75-5102; 75-5105; 75-5110; 75-5117; 75-5121; 75-5127; 75-5134.
As Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Information Network of Kansas, Inc., you request our opinion regarding whether any member of the Board may designate a representative who will attend Board meetings in the member's stead. You also ask whether such a designated representative may cast votes on matters that are presented to the Board and, if so, whether the authority to vote must be issue specific. In Attorney General Opinion No. 2002-46, we addressed the authority of the Secretary of State and the Board members who represented the associations. This opinion addresses the authority of the cabinet secretaries, President of Kansas, Inc., and the Director of Information Systems and Communications.
INK serves in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of Administration, Division of Information Services and Communications, and other State agencies regarding the manner in which data is provided to the public, gathers advice from the users of the established system, and determines charges for the services that are provided to subscribers of the system. The Board has been left on its own to determine how these functions should be performed and possesses discretion in determining any charges subscribers may be required to pay. The functions of the Board are largely discretionary and, therefore, may not be delegated absent express or necessarily implied statutory authority. We note that the agencies discussed in this opinion, unlike the Secretary of State discussed in Attorney General Opinion No. 2002-46, are creatures of statute with no constitutional or inherent powers.
In reviewing the authority of the state treasurer and the auditor general to designate appointees who may serve on the Corporation Tax Appeal Board, the Court reviewed the language in statutes conferring upon the state treasurer and the auditor general the authority to appoint deputies.
In a dissenting opinion, two justices stated that the fact the Corporation Tax Appeal Board "performs quasi-judicial functions is not determinative of the question as to whether or not a deputy may properly sit thereon."(20) The justices noted that the Board had long regarded serving on the Board as "one of the 'duties of the office' within the meaning of the statutory provisions" that established the authority of the state treasurer and the auditor general to appoint deputies.(21) The administrative interpretation of the statutes, therefore, recognized the authority of the officers to designate appointees to serve on the Board.(22) They further noted that the State treasurer was ex officio member on 14 other boards and commissions while the auditor general was ex officio member on 7 other boards and commissions.(23) "Such a multiplicity of assignments suggests that the legislature could not reasonably expect them to be performed by 1 [sic] person."(24) The dissenting justices believed that the Corporation Tax Appeal Board was properly constituted.(25) Because the arguments of the dissenting justices do have some merit, we apply those arguments in determining the authority of the members of INK to designate appointees to serve in their absence.
Exercising the authority granted under subsection (b)(3) of K.S.A. 74-9303, the Governor has appointed the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Revenue as members of the Board of Directors of INK.
These statutory provisions clearly authorize the chief administrative officers, staff assistants, and employees to act for and exercise certain powers of the Secretary of Transportation. The ability of the officer, assistant, or employee to act for and exercise the powers of the Secretary of Transportation is subject to the extent outlined by the Secretary's delegation. Therefore, the Secretary of Transportation may delegate to a chief administrative officer, staff assistant, or employee the duty to attend meetings of the Board of Directors of INK. The authority of the chief administrative officer, staff assistant, or employee to vote is dependent on the extent of authority delegated by the Secretary of Transportation.
The language in these provisions mirrors the language in K.S.A. 75-5015. The Legislature clearly authorizes the Secretary of Revenue to delegate to division heads any duties and powers conferred upon the Secretary of Revenue. The authority of the division heads to exercise such duties and powers is subject only to any limitations imposed by the Secretary of Revenue. Therefore, the authority of the division heads to vote at INK Board meetings is dependent on the extent of authority delegated by the Secretary of Revenue.
The fact that the Legislature grants a governmental entity "authority to employ agents, statisticians, experts, attorneys, and other assistants and employees as may be necessary to perform its duties does not give the [governmental entity] authority directly or by implication [authority] to deputize [sic] those matters which are quasi judicial in character. . . . If . . . the [governmental entity] is given authority by the Legislature to deputize [sic] quasi judicial matters to others, it may do so."(47) The authority of the President of Kansas, Inc. to employ and terminate employees as designated by the members of Kansas, Inc. does not by itself confer authority upon the President to delegate the duties of the President. We have been unable to locate any other statute that authorizes the President of Kansas, Inc. to delegate the President's duties.
Applying the arguments asserted by the dissenting justices in Detroit Edison Co.(48) also fails to indicate any authority of the President of Kansas, Inc. to delegate the duty of attending meetings of the Board for INK. While deference is given to the interpretation of a statute by an administrative agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing the statute, particularly when the agency is one of special competence and experience, the agency's interpretation is persuasive rather than binding on the court.(49) The statutes applicable to the Secretary of State, Secretary of Transportation, and Secretary of Revenue expressly provide for the appointment of officers and employees who may perform the duties of the Secretaries. There is no similar language in K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 74-8005. The interpretation of K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 74-8005 by the Board exceeds any authority conferred upon the President of Kansas, Inc.
Further, the officers in Detroit Edison Co. were required by state statutes to serve on several boards and commissions. The President of Kansas, Inc. is an ex officio member of only three boards or commissions: the Community Strategic Planning Grant Committee,(50) the review panel for the Kansas Economic Opportunity Initiatives Fund,(51) and the Board of INK. The review panel for the Kansas Economic Opportunity Initiatives Fund meets annually.(52) It is not our intention to establish a particular number of boards or commissions upon which an officer may be required to serve before an officer may be deemed to have authority to delegate such duties. We do believe, however, that assignment to three boards, one of which meets annually, does not meet the "multiplicity of assignments"(53) that the dissenting justices in Detroit Edison Co. believed suggested an inference by the Legislature that the duties could be delegated. The President of Kansas, Inc. does not have the authority to appoint a person to serve on the Board of INK in the President's absence.
The statutory provision that authorizes the Director of Information Systems and Communications to prescribe the duties of deputy directors is similar to provisions applicable to the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Revenue. The authority of the Director, however, ends with prescribing the duties of the deputy directors. Unlike K.S.A. 75-5015 and 75-5127, K.S.A. 75-4701 does not include a provision that expressly authorizes the Director to delegate the Director's duties to the deputy directors. The statute also lacks a provision similar to one set forth in K.S.A. 75-412 that expressly authorizes the assistant and deputy assistant secretaries of state to perform the duties devolved by law upon the Secretary of State. The Director of Information Systems and Communications does not have express statutory authority to appoint a person to serve on the Board of INK in the Director's absence.
Applying the arguments of the dissenting justices in Detroit Edison Co. does not provide an inference of authority to appoint a person to serve on the Board of INK in the Director's absence. As occurs in the Board's interpretation of the authority of the President of Kansas, Inc., the Board through its interpretation of K.S.A. 75-4701 extends to the Director authority that does not exist in the statute. Also, as far as we have been able to determine, the Director is statutorily designated as an ex officio member of only two boards: the Board of INK and the Telecommunications Negotiating Committee.(59) The Director is given authority under K.S.A. 75-4713 to appoint another person to the Telecommunications Negotiating Committee.(60) The Director is not, by statute at least, faced with the "multiplicity of assignments" addressed by the dissenting justices in Detroit Edison Co. The Director of Information Systems and Communications is not authorized to appoint a person to serve on the Board of INK in the Director's absence.
In review, the Secretary of Transportation may delegate to a chief administrative officer, staff assistant, or employee the duty of attending meetings of the Board of Directors for the INK. The authority of the chief administrative officer, staff assistant, or employee to vote on matters before the Board is dependent on the extent of authority delegated by the Secretary of Transportation. The Secretary of Revenue is authorized to delegate to division heads any duties and powers conferred upon the Secretary of Revenue. The authority of the division heads to exercise such duties and powers is subject only to any limitations imposed by the Secretary of Revenue. Therefore, the Secretary of Revenue may delegate to division heads the duty of attending meetings of the Board of INK and the authority of the division heads to vote is dependent on the extent of authority delegated by the Secretary of Revenue. Neither the President of Kansas, Inc. nor the Director of Information Systems and Communications has the authority to appoint a person to serve on the Board of INK in the President's or Director's absence.
4. Attorney General Opinion No. 2002-46.
6. Coffman v. Fisher, 203 Kan. 618, 624 (1969), quoting Moore v. Wilson, 84 Kan. 745, 747 (1911).
7. 63C Am.Jur.2d Public Officers and Employees § 234 (1997).
8. 105 N.W.2d 110 (Mich. 1960).
9. The Corporation Tax Appeal Board performed a judicial or quasi-judicial function rather than a pure executive function. The case, however, provides guidance in determining whether members of the Board of INK may delegate their duty to attend Board meetings.
10. Detroit Edison Co. v. Michigan Corp. and Securities Comm'n, 105 N.W.2d 110, 111 (Mich. 1960).
13. Id. at 112, quoting P.A. 1917, No. 153.
14. Id., quoting C.L.S. 1956, § 14.35 (Stat. Ann. 1952 Rev. § 3.188).
16. Id. at 112, quoting Rev. Stat. 1846, § 9.
17. Id., quoting Rev. Stat. 1846, § 26.
26. K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 75-5001(a).
33. K.S.A. 75-5015(a) (emphasis added).
34. K.S.A. 75-5005 (emphasis added).
35. K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 75-5101.
42. K.S.A. 75-5127 (emphasis added). See also K.S.A. 75-5134 ("[t]he manager of revenue analysis shall exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions assigned or delegated by the secretary of revenue or prescribed by law").
43. K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 74-8009a(a).
44. K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 74-8005(a).
45. K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 74-8005(b).
46. K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 74-8005(b)(1).
47. State Tax Comm' of Utah v. Katsis, 62 P.2d 120, 122 (Ut. 1936). As was previously noted, INK does not perform judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Cases regarding such functions, however, provide guidance in determining the authority of the members of INK to delegate their executive function.
48. 105 N.W.2d 110 (Mich. 1960).
49. CPI Qualified Plan Consultants, Inc., Delaware, v. Kansas Dept. of Human Resources, No. 86,799 (Kan. January 25, 2002); Matjasich v. Kansas Dept. of Human Resources, 271 Kan. 246, 250-51 (2001).
50. K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 74-5095.
51. K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 74-50,151, as amended by L. 151, § 5.
52. K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 74-5095.
53. Detroit Edison Co., 105 N.W.2d at 114.

References: § 5
 v. 
 v. 
 § 234
 v. 
 § 14
 § 3
 § 9
 § 26
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 5