Opinion ID: 1857259
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Legality of Board's Action.

Text: The Fishers' second argument on appeal is that the district court erred in finding that Chickasaw County and the Board acted legally in ordering the involuntary transfer of the Fishers and in finding the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Our rule provides that unless otherwise specially provided by statute, the judgment on certiorari shall be limited to sustaining the proceedings below, or annulling the same wholly or in part, to the extent that they were illegal or in excess of jurisdiction.... Iowa R. Civ. P. 316. Generally, illegality exists when the findings on which the court has based its conclusions of law do not have substantial evidentiary support or when the court has not applied the proper rule of law. Iowa Dep't of Transp. v. Iowa Dist. Ct. for Poweshiek County, 530 N.W.2d 725, 726 (Iowa 1995). The burden of showing illegality rests upon the party making that assertion. Thompson v. City of Osage, 421 N.W.2d 529, 531 (Iowa 1988). An illegality is established if an inferior board's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. City of Cedar Rapids v. Municipal Fire & Police Retirement Sys., 526 N.W.2d 284, 287 (Iowa 1995). Evidence is substantial when a reasonable mind could accept it as adequate to reach the same findings. Id. (citation omitted). The Fishers argue the Board exercised a quasi-judicial function in its decision to transfer the Fishers from Liberty Square. They urge the involuntary transfer of residents of a residential care facility is not allowed except for medical reasons, the welfare of the residents, or for nonpayment of costs. See 481 Iowa Admin. Code r. 63.34(1) (1991) (emphasis added). They claim the Board considered its own best interests, not the Fishers' best interests. By its very nature, the Board must have some flexibility in its decision-making process. The power of a county is vested in its board of supervisors. Iowa Code § 331.301(2). By statute, a county may, except as expressly limited by the Constitution, and if not inconsistent with the laws of the general assembly, exercise any power and perform any function it deems appropriate to protect and preserve the rights, privileges, and property of the county or of its residents, and to preserve and improve the peace, safety, health, welfare, comfort, and convenience of its residents.... Id. § 331.301(1). In exercising its discretion, the Board addressed two main considerations. The first concern of the Board was the best interests of the Fishers. Before passing its resolution, the Board consulted several professionals in the mental health field to determine whether Heritage could meet the needs of the Fishers. The Board considered the opinion of Donna Meck, the mental health judicial advocate for the first, second, and seventh judicial districts. Meck's position as an advocate requires her to preserve the rights of those individuals under court commitment or adjudged to be incompetent. She met with the Fishers to discuss the proposed move. In her opinion, the move to Heritage would not be necessarily adverse, and the Fishers would readily adjust to the new environment. Her testimony was based on fourteen years of experience and numerous examples of individuals who had lived for long periods of time in one place and then had to move. The Board also talked with Sharon Trewin, the Fishers' case manager. She, too, had visited with the Fishers. In her opinion, the Fishers would be capable of adjusting to the move and there would be no long-term adverse effects. In regard to potential employment for the Fishers in New Hampton, the Board consulted Theresa D'Lobassa, the vocational supervisor of Comprehensive Systems. In her opinion, Comprehensive Systems in New Hampton would provide comparable or better opportunities for the Fishers than those at Comprehensive Systems in Charles City. Finally, the Board consulted Elaine Sweet, a case management supervisor and Heritage administrator. She had spent some time with the Fishers and talked to the Board about the care the Fishers would receive at Heritage. At the district court hearing, Sweet testified that the Fishers would receive as good or better care living at Heritage where many recreational activities are available. Any short-term trauma would be easily handled because Heritage has twenty-four hour access to psychologists and psychiatrists. The Board's other concern involved financial considerations. As the county of legal settlement, Chickasaw County is required to pay for ... the treatment, training, instruction, care, habitation, support and transportation... provided to the Fishers. Iowa Code § 222.60. Even though the overall cost for room, board, and services may be the same at both Liberty Square and Heritage, Chickasaw County would save a substantial amount of money by transferring the Fishers. For individuals whose legal settlement is in Chickasaw County, Heritage accepts their SSI and SSA as payment in full for room, board, and services. Heritage is able to do this because most of its operating costs are fixed and do not vary as residents come and go. In contrast, if the Fishers continued living outside Chickasaw County, the County would still be required to pay the actual cost for their services, which is a sum exceeding $37,000 annually. This is a substantial amount and is one that a fiscally responsible county should consider, particularly when the projected cost to Chickasaw County for services in Floyd County for the Fisher family, over their expected lifetime at Liberty Square, would be approximately one million dollars. Although cost should not be the only factor considered, it can play a role in the Board's decision-making process. The Board's action was not illegal and was supported by substantial evidence. We conclude the district court correctly sustained the action of the Board. AFFIRMED.