Opinion ID: 1454494
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Regents' RegulationsInappropriate and Unreasonable?

Text: Peck argues that K.A.R. 88-3-2 is inappropriate, unreasonable, vague, ambiguous, and so subject to misconstruction as to be inadequate for its intended use. He asserts that the regulation's intended purpose is to advise students how residence may be established and to aid the decision maker in determining residence. He contends the regulation does not explain that proof of residence consists of only two factors, physical presence and intent to remain indefinitely. Peck asserts the regulation does not explain that the factors have probative value only as they relate to the subjective intent to remain. He complains that K.A.R. 88-3-2 sets forth exclusive factors which are essential to the establishment of residence and precludes other factors worthy of consideration. Peck's arguments are conclusions and are not convincing. The Board of Regents argues that the regulations set forth criteria and guidelines to be used by educational institutions in order that the institutions may be virtually certain that students have the requisite intent to remain in Kansas indefinitely before granting them resident status for fee purposes. These criteria are necessary when the issue is as nebulous as a student's subjective intent to be a resident of Kansas. To be valid, administrative regulations must be appropriate and reasonable. Halford, 234 Kan. at 940, 677 P.2d 975. The test of whether an administrative regulation is void for vagueness is whether it delineates its reach in words of common understanding. Smaldone v. United States, 458 F.Supp. 1000, 1003 (D.Kan. 1978). The United States Supreme Court has said that states can establish such reasonable criteria for in-state status as to make virtually certain that students who are not, in fact, bona fide residents of the state, but who have come there solely for educational purposes, cannot take advantage of the in-state rates. (Emphasis added.) Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 453-54, 93 S.Ct. 2230, 2237, 37 L.Ed.2d 63 (1973). Any determination of domicile seeks to use objective criteria to establish a subjective concept, i.e., intent to remain in the state indefinitely. The concept is not subject to a formula, but depends upon the facts of each case. The relative weight to be given each objective factor is not capable of quantification. The question to be answered in each case is whether the student came to the state solely to attend school or whether the student intends to make this state his or her home. Hooban v. Boling, 503 F.2d 648, 652 (6th Cir.), cert. denied 421 U.S. 920, 95 S.Ct. 1585, 43 L.Ed.2d 788 (1974). To permit a student to announce the intention of becoming a permanent resident of the state on the day of the student's arrival, to accept a biased and self-serving statement as the truth, and to permit the student to reinforce the statement by registering a car and securing a driver's license in this state would simply place a premium on deception. Arizona Board of Regents v. Harper, 108 Ariz. 223, 227-28, 495 P.2d 453 (1972). Regulations in Hawaii for determining resident status of students, which are similar to those in the case at bar, were approved by the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. The court stated: We also recognize that states have an especially difficult administrative problem in determining the residency of college students coming from out of state, for many (and sometimes all) of the local contacts they establish are fully as consistent with an intent to leave upon conclusion of the course of study as with an intent to remain indefinitely. Hasse v. Board of Regents of University of Hawaii, 363 F.Supp. 677, 679 (D.Hawaii 1973). K.A.R. 88-3-2 first defines residence in subsection (a) as continuous physical presence and intent to make Kansas a permanent home, not only while attending the educational institution, but indefinitely thereafter as well. Subsection (b) then lists eight factors (the eight are not conclusive or limiting) that are intended to be objective criteria probative of intent. The regulation does not state that these factors go to the issue of intent; however, this does not make them inappropriate, unreasonable, or vague. Subsection (c) lists nine factors which will not be evidence of residence standing alone. These nine factors are easily accomplished by any nonresident student. The Board of Regents is justified in considering the nine secondary factors, standing alone, as not probative of the issue of intent. K.A.R. 88-3-2 states the type of factors that will be considered probative of resident status in words of common understanding. It is not necessary to explain that these factors relate to intent. K.A.R. 88-3-2 is appropriate and reasonable and is not impermissibly vague. Peck has not sustained his burden to show that the regulation is invalid.