Opinion ID: 1281896
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: applicability of as 44.77

Text: The question of whether the claims procedure mandated by AS 44.77 applies to contract claims against the legislative branch is one of first impression for this court. The resolution of this issue involves general statutory interpretation. As such, this court possesses the special competency to independently interpret the breadth of AS 44.77. See Wien Air Alaska v. Department of Revenue, 647 P.2d 1087, 1090 (Alaska 1982); Weaver Brothers, Inc. v. Alaska Transportation Commission, 588 P.2d 819, 821 (Alaska 1978). The Alaska Constitution, article II, section 21, requires the legislature to establish procedures for suits against the State. The legislature implemented this mandate through the adoption of AS 09.50.250-09.50.300, covering Claims Against State. AS 09.50.250 provides in pertinent part: A person or corporation having a contract, quasi-contract, or tort claim against the state may bring an action against the state in the superior court. A person who may present his claim under AS 44.77 may not bring an action under this section except as set out in AS 44.77.040(c). (emphasis added). Title 44 of the Alaska Statutes covers State Government, with Chapter 77 controlling Claims Against the State. Specifically, AS 44.77.010(a) provides: Every claim for reimbursement for money expended, or for compensation for labor, materials, or supplies furnished, or services given to or for the state, whether based on a contract or on a ratification, shall be promptly presented to the appropriate administrative or executive officer for approval and payment. If the administrative or executive officer disallows any part of the claim, the claimant may obtain review of the decision by the Department of Administration (Department), if application is made within sixty days. AS 44.77.020. The Department then makes a decision which the claimant can appeal at a hearing. AS 44.77.030-44.77.040. At that point, if the claimant does not accept the Department's final decision, AS 44.77.040(c) provides: the claimant may bring an action under AS 09.50.250-09.50.300 if it is brought within 30 days after the claimant receives notice of the decision of the department. A claimant may also bring an action under AS 09.50.250-09.50.300 at any time after one year has elapsed since the presentation of the claim under AS 44.77.010, if no decision has been made by the department. It is undisputed that Dupere did not follow the administrative appeal procedure of AS 44.77.040(c). The issue is whether AS 44.77 applies to actions for breach of contract against the Alaska Legislature, making that procedure mandatory in the case at bar. The State contends that the right to sue the State found in AS 09.50.250 is conditional upon compliance with AS 44.77, because the State's waiver of immunity is effective only to the extent that a claimant follows the required procedures. State v. ZIA, Inc., 556 P.2d 1257, 1259 n. 2, 1263 (Alaska 1976). The State argues that under AS 44.77.020.030 Dupere was required to bring his claim before the Department within sixty days after the Legislative Council originally denied payment. Dupere does not take issue with the State's construction of AS 09.50.250 and 44.77 per se; rather, he argues that the claims procedure set out by the latter statute applies only to executive branch departments and agencies. Dupere distinguishes ZIA on the grounds that it involved an executive branch agency. For the reasons expressed below, we interpret AS 44.77 as mandating a procedure for specific types of claims against all three branches of state government. [3] While much of Title 44 concerns executive branch matters, it does not encompass strictly executive matters as the superior court indicated. On the contrary, Title 44 contains chapters which pertain to State government in general, e.g., Chapters 3-12 concerning sovereignty, site, symbols and holidays, and Chapters 68-99 covering state property, claims and liability, independent state boards, associations, commissions and corporations. The title of AS 44.77, Claims Against the State, indicates that it refers to claims against the state in general, not only those against the executive branch. The reference in AS 44.77.010(a) to administrative or executive officers also indicates that the procedure is not limited to claims against the executive branch. The subcategory of claims presented under AS 44.77 appears to be defined on the basis of the type of claim rather than by the branch of government against which the claim is brought. In State v. Haley, 687 P.2d 305 (Alaska 1984), Haley, a legislative research assistant, brought a wrongful discharge claim against defendants nearly identical to those in the case at bar. Haley was not required to submit her claim for administrative review under AS 44.77.010-.060. The reason her claim did not fall under AS 44.77 was because it was not a claim for services given to or for the State. Id. at 318 n. 9. The reason was not because her claim was against the legislative branch instead of the executive branch. Claims against the legislative branch are not excluded in the wording of AS 44.77. The only express exception to AS 44.77 provides that 44.77.010-.060 [does] not apply to any department in the executive branch which has adopted a mandatory claims and appeal procedure. AS 44.77.070. The fact that AS 44.77.070 singles out for exemption certain executive branch departments implies that the claims procedure applies to the balance of the executive branch and other governmental branches. [4] We disagree with the superior court's suggestion that the application of AS 44.77 to legislative branch contracts could raise problems with the doctrine of separation of powers. The separation of powers doctrine must be considered along with the complementary doctrine of checks and balances. See Bradner v. Hammond, 553 P.2d 1, 5 (Alaska 1976). No separation of powers problem is raised by the application of the claims procedure outlined in AS 44.77 and AS 09.50.250-.300 to the legislative branch. On the contrary, these statutes circumscribe the authority of the Department of Administration to ensure that the department's procedural role does not interfere with the legislative function. The Department of Administration may issue a warrant against the proper legislative appropriation for the sum the department finds due the claimant if a sufficient appropriation exists for payment, or the department may recommend to the legislature that it appropriate a sum to cover the payment. AS 44.77.040(b); AS 09.50.270. The Department of Administration, like the judiciary, cannot intrude upon the legislature's power to appropriate funds. Thus, there is no separation of powers problem in making review of a claim against the legislature by the executive Department of Administration a prerequisite to judicial review.