Opinion ID: 1165012
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Legislature's Power to Dispose of University Lands

Text: As discussed above, the trial court concluded that the disposal of university land without compensation violated a trust created by the 1929 Act. The court further concluded, however, that the state legislature had no power to dispose of university land without the express permission of the Board of Regents. The court reasoned that AS 38.05.030(a) prevents any disposal of university lands by the Commissioner of Natural Resources without the approval of the Board of Regents, and, because this was a disposal of land without the Board's approval, it was invalid. While we agree with the trial judge's conclusion that this was a disposal of land, we conclude that AS 38.05.030(a) only covers disposals of land by the Commissioner of Natural Resources. [9] The creation of Chugach State Park was a disposal by the legislature, not by administrative action, and therefore AS 38.05.030(a) is inapplicable. The university argues, on the basis of article VII, section 2, of the Alaska Constitution, that the legislature cannot control university land. That section provides: The University of Alaska is hereby established as the state university and constitutes a body corporate. It shall have title to all real and personal property now or hereafter set aside for or conveyed to it. Its property shall be administered and disposed of according to law. The trial court concluded: The apparent intention of the framers of the Constitution was to insure that the University had legal title to all land and property actually utilized by it in its educational capacity. This is a reasonable interpretation of the section, and in fact the legislature has given title to lands in the area of the Fairbanks campus to the university. Ch. 182, § 3(c), SLA 1978. Moreover, the university takes any land it may have title to according to law. As the state points out, only the legislature can make laws effecting the disposal of land, not the Board of Regents, [10] so even if the university did have title to the land, the legislature would still be empowered to dispose of it. [11] The only veto power the Board of Regents has over disposals of land is defined by statute. Consequently, we believe that the legislature was free to dispose of this land without obtaining the approval of the university. In any event, as the federal patent makes clear, the state, not the university, was the grantee. The natural resources article of the Alaska Constitution grants extensive powers to the legislature to control state lands. Article VIII, section 2, provides that The legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people. It is clear that these lands belong to the state. Additionally, article VIII, section 7, provides for reserving from the public lands areas which have recreational value. The university objects to this interpretation of the natural resources article which allows the legislature wide latitude of control over its lands. It contends that it allows politics to intrude into the management of university affairs. However, if the trust fund for university lands is fully compensated at the appraised value of the property, as Lassen requires, it is difficult to imagine how the legislature can have any impact on university policy or academic freedom. [12] Thus we hold that the legislature had the power to dispose of the land in question.