Opinion ID: 1805246
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Authority of Board of Regents to Complete a Sale of WOI-TV.

Text: The district court held that the board of regents was empowered to sell state assets under its control by virtue of the broad administrative authority granted to it under Iowa Code chapter 262. Although the petitioners strongly dispute that contention, we believe that the court was correct on this issue. The board of regents is authorized by statute to [m]anage and control the property, both real and personal, belonging to the [regents'] institutions. Iowa Code § 262.9(4) (1991). That the board may dispose of assets of the institutions under its control is contemplated by Iowa Code section 262.11, which requires a recorded roll call vote of the members of the board on action to dispose of lands and other property of the institutions under the board's control. Although it is provided that the board must secure approval of the Executive Council as to the sale of real property, a similar restriction is not found concerning the sale of other types of assets. [2] In addition to the statutes granting authority to manage and control the property of the institutions under its jurisdiction, the board is granted the power to [p]erform all other acts necessary and proper for the execution of the powers and duties conferred by law upon it. Iowa Code § 262.9(12) (1991). In determining the scope of this broad general grant of authority, there are practical reasons for sustaining the board's authority to complete the transaction challenged in the present litigation. The record is clear that all of the critical aspects of the decision to sell WOI-TV were considered in the context of Iowa State University's educational mission as a land grant institution. Within this context, the board determined that the favorable impact that the cash proceeds from this sale will have on the university's land grant mission outweigh any benefits from continuing to retain the television station. Although reasonable minds might differ concerning the validity of the board's determination, it may not be disputed that this was the type of long-term educational planning decision that the board was empowered to make. Obviously, if the authority of an administrative agency to formulate a policy does not carry with it the power to implement that policy, the agency is handicapped in its ability to fulfill its function. For that reason, we have recognized that the authority of agencies with broad policy-making functions is broad and plenary in the absence of statutory limitations. See Porter v. Iowa State Highway Comm'n, 241 Iowa 1208, 1216, 44 N.W.2d 682, 687 (1950). We are not suggesting that the legislature may not place specific controls on the actions of those administrative bodies that it creates. We are only stating that, at the time of the challenged transaction, there was no statutory restriction limiting the board's authority to act in the manner it did. The Governor's veto of the 1992 enactments by the General Assembly was, in effect, a rejection, within the established political process, of the restriction contained in the vetoed bill. Moreover, the vetoed enactment did not serve to annul the challenged action of the board based on the restrictions placed on administrative agency rule making by Article III, Section 40 of the Iowa Constitution. The limitation on rule making is not relevant here because the board was not required to enact a rule to deal with a nonrecurring policy decision within its general authority. [3]