Opinion ID: 2184987
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Determination of county costs under sec. 49.52 (2) (a) 4.

Text: Appellants contend that the action in mandamus is improper because respondents did not establish a clear legal right to the performance of a duty which is positive, plain and unequivocal, and which does not require the exercise of discretion. However, the right of respondents to be reimbursed for excess costs, excluding general relief, is positive, plain and unequivocal, and an administrative officer has no discretion to disregard the language of a statute in performing his duties. It seems that the administrator misunderstands his discretion here. `Every statute to some extent requires construction by the public officer whose duties may be defined therein. Such officer must read the law, and he must therefore, in a certain sense, construe it, in order to form a judgment from its language what duty he is directed by the statute to perform. But that does not necessarily and in all cases make the duty of the officer anything other than a purely ministerial one. If the law direct him to perform an act in regard to which no discretion is committed to him, and which, upon the facts existing, he is bound to perform, then that act is ministerial, although depending upon a statute which requires, in some degree, a construction of its language by the officer.' Roberts v. United States ex rel. Valentine (1900), 176 U. S. 221, 231, 20 Sup. Ct. 376, 44 L. Ed. 443, as cited in  State ex rel. Krause v. Jones (1928), 196 Wis. 464, 468, 220 N. W. 373. Walter Laev, Inc. v. Karns (1968), 40 Wis. 2d 114, 119, 120, 161 N. W. 2d 227. Appellants also contend that, since appellant Schmidt is charged by law with the administration of sec. 49.52 (2) (a) 4, Stats., his interpretation of the statute is entitled to great weight. However, the rule that the practical interpretation of a statute by the officers charged with its enforcement is entitled to great weight in construing a statute, does not apply unless the administrative practice is long continued, substantially uniform and without challenge by government authorities and courts. Department of Taxation v. Miller (1942), 239 Wis. 507, 300 N. W. 903, 2 N. W. 2d 362. In this case the administrative construction was not long continued and met with immediate challenge by the county government officials directly interested in its application. One of the reasons for the weight accorded long, continued construction by administrative officers charged with interpreting the statute, is the apparent acquiescence of the legislature in this interpretation. Marinette T. & W. RR. Co. v. Railroad Comm. (1928), 195 Wis. 462, 218 N. W. 724; Union Free High School Dist. v. Union Free High School Dist. (1934), 216 Wis. 102, 256 N. W. 788; City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee County (1940), 236 Wis. 7, 294 N. W. 51; Forsberg Paper Box Co. v. Department of Taxation (1961), 14 Wis. 2d 93, 109 N. W. 2d 457; Green v. Jones (1964), 23 Wis. 2d 551, 128 N. W. 2d 1. Nor is this a case of apparent legislative acquiescence in administrative interpretation. Subsequent to the request of the counties for correction of the computation of excess costs, two bills were introduced in the legislature in late 1967 to amend the language of sec. 49.52 (2) (a) 4, so as to include the costs of general relief in computing excess costs; and neither bill was passed. Moreover, administrative interpretation of a statute is of significance only where there is an ambiguity in the  statute. The practical interpretation by an administrative officer cannot overcome the plain wording of an unambiguous statute. Chicago & N. W. Ry. v. Public Service Comm. (1969), 42 Wis. 2d 274, 166 N. W. 2d 143; National Amusement Co. v. Department of Revenue (1969), 41 Wis. 2d 261, 163 N. W. 2d 625; Nelson v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. (1966), 29 Wis. 2d 315, 139 N. W. 2d 33. Sec. 49.52 (2) (a) 4, Stats., specifically refers to the cost to any county as determined under this section. The cost as determined under that section specifically excludes general relief. The intent of the legislature, as expressed in the language of the statute, was to provide that the counties be reimbursed for excess costs in 1966-67 in the categories of aid enumerated in that section. On this appeal, it is conceded by appellants that costs for general relief must be excluded for the year 1966-67. However, appellants argue that sec. 49.52 (2) (a) 4, Stats., is silent with regard to whether general relief should be excluded for the 1964-65 base year. The statute refers to 1964-65 as the base year. This must mean the base year for the costs referred to in that section which excludes the cost of general relief. Appellants also contend that the necessity of recomputation of the figures to be included in the various enumerated categories for the year 1964-65 makes reimbursement of the amount due respondents sufficiently uncertain so as to preclude respondent from resorting to mandamus. However, the uncontradicted testimony at the trial clearly showed that with the exception of the general relief figures, the amounts in the formula expended by the counties for the enumerated categories of public assistance were correct. Appellants contend, however, that the figures must be recomputed because the passage of ch. 590, Laws of 1965, effective July 1, 1966, resulted in the shift of general relief benefits in 1964-65  to some of the enumerated assistance programs in 1966-67. However, there is nothing in the excess cost provision, sec. 49.52 (2) (a) 4, Stats., which calls for the exercise of any discretion in compensating for the shift in 1966-67 from general relief to categorical aids. The testimony at trial showed that appellant Schmidt relied primarily on the Task Force Report for his interpretation of the statute in deciding what categories of assistance were to be included in the excess cost formula, and chose to ignore the mandate of the legislature. However, the intentions of the Task Force committee cannot be used to change the meaning of an unambiguous wording of a statute. . . . [L]egislative acts must be construed from their own language, uninfluenced by what the persons introducing or preparing the bill actually intended to accomplish by it. . . . Estate of Matzke (1947), 250 Wis. 204, 208, 26 N. W. 2d 659. . . . The meaning of a legislative act must be determined from what it saysnot by what the framer of the act intended to say or what he thought he was saying. The question always is what did the legislature mean, not what the framer meant, and that meaning must be drawn from the language used in the act in view of the purpose of the legislature as expressed in its act or facts of which the court can take judicial notice. Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Comm. (1942), 241 Wis. 200, 208, 5 N. W. 2d 743.