Opinion ID: 1454494
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The Validity of the Board of Regents' Regulations

Text: Peck argues that K.A.R. 88-3-2(a), which defines residence for fee purposes, is invalid and contrary to law because it adds requirements to the K.S.A. 76-729(c)(4) definition of domiciliary resident. Rules and regulations of an administrative agency, to be valid, must be within the statutory authority conferred upon the agency. If they go beyond such statutory authority or are otherwise inconsistent with the law, the rules and regulations are void. Halford v. City of Topeka, 234 Kan. 934, 939-40, 677 P.2d 975 (1984). Administrative regulations are presumed valid, and one who attacks them has the burden of showing their invalidity. Capital Electric Line Builders, Inc. v. Lennen, 232 Kan. 379, 383, 654 P.2d 464 (1982). An administrative regulation must be construed in harmony with a statute relating to the same subject matter to the end that both may be given effect if possible. Kansas Comm'n On Civil Rights v. City of Topeka Street Dept., 212 Kan. 398, Syl. ¶ 5, 511 P.2d 253, cert. denied 414 U.S. 1066, 94 S.Ct. 573, 38 L.Ed.2d 470 (1973). K.S.A. 76-730 requires the Board of Regents to adopt rules and regulations establishing guidelines for determination of residence so long as such criteria or guidelines are not in conflict with the provisions of this act. K.S.A. 76-729(c)(4) defines domiciliary resident as a person who has present and fixed residence in Kansas where the person intends to remain for an indefinite period and to which the person intends to return following absence. K.A.R. 88-3-2(a) defines residence for fee purposes as a person's place of habitation, to which, whenever the person is absent, the person has the intention of returning. A person shall not be considered a resident of Kansas unless that person is in continuous physical residence and intends to make Kansas a permanent home, not only while in attendance at an educational institution, but indefinitely thereafter as well. Peck asserts that K.A.R. 88-3-2(a) conflicts with K.S.A. 76-729(c)(4) because it adds the requirement of continuous physical presence and intent to make Kansas a permanent home, not only while in attendance at an educational institution, but indefinitely thereafter as well. K.A.R. 88-3-2(a). Peck's assertions are not persuasive. The definition contained in K.A.R. 88-3-2(a) does not add conflicting or additional requirements. It simply seeks to clarify the definition in K.S.A. 76-729(c)(4). The definition of domiciliary residence in K.S.A. 76-729(c)(4) refers to an indefinite period. Permanent home is a clarification of residence for an indefinite period. The phrase not only while in attendance at an educational institution, but indefinitely thereafter as well, is designed to differentiate nonresident students who reside in Kansas solely to attend school from bona fide residents who attend school in Kansas and intend to be residents of Kansas. Peck challenges the last sentence of K.A.R. 88-3-2(b). This sentence states: No factor shall be considered in support of a claim for resident status unless the factor has existed for at least one year prior to enrollment. Peck contends this provision is an impermissible attempt to amend the Kansas rules of evidence and is, therefore, contrary to law. Peck's contention lacks merit. K.A.R. 88-3-2 does not limit the evidence that an applicant for resident status may present. In the case at bar, Peck was allowed to supplement his evidence until the hearing occurred. K.A.R. 88-3-2 informs the applicant of the relevant weight evidence will be given in advance of applying for resident status. K.A.R. 88-3-2 does not attempt to amend the rules of evidence. The at least one year challenged provision of K.A.R. 88-3-2(b) is not contrary to law. The element of a student's intent is difficult to ascertain. Requiring a student to demonstrate that probative factors have been in existence for at least one year enables the Residence Committee to determine that the K.S.A. 76-729 required intent has been in existence for at least 12 months. Linking the broad authority K.S.A. 76-730 confers on the Board of Regents with the definition of domiciliary resident appearing in K.S.A. 76-729(c)(4), we hold K.A.R. 88-3-2 is not invalid as being contrary to law.