Opinion ID: 1723670
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Majority's Interpretation of the Act and the Proper Interpretation

Text: The only issue on appeal is whether the project to build a recreational facility initiated by Western Michigan University was sponsored or financed in whole or in part by the state. The majority asserts that the statute unambiguously provides that this project was sponsored and financed by the state because Western Michigan University is `the state' for purposes of the act. See Op., p. 832. I do not believe that this conclusion is required by the plain meaning of the act. In fact, the majority's interpretation of the word state in the phrase sponsored or financed in whole or in part by the state is contradicted by the statute's usage of the word state in the very same statute in its third element. The majority concludes that the term state in this phrase unambiguously includes state universities like Western Michigan, but also unambiguously excludes local school boards. See Op., p. 833. [1] In contrast, in requiring that a project subject to the prevailing wage act be a state project, the statute clearly provides that an improvement by a local school board is a  state project. A state project is defined by the act as a new construction, alteration, repair, installation, painting, decorating, completion, demolition, conditioning, reconditioning, or improvement of public buildings, schools, works, bridges, highways, or roads authorized by a contracting agent. M.C.L. § 408.551(b); M.S.A. § 17.256(1)(b) (emphasis added). The statute defines a contracting agent as any officer, school board, board or commission of the state, or a state institution supported in whole or in part by state funds, authorized to enter into a contract for a state project or to perform a state project by the direct employment of labor. M.C.L. § 408.551(c); M.S.A. § 17.256(1)(c) (emphasis added). Thus, there can be no dispute that, according to the statute, a local school board may begin a state project. The majority's interpretation, however, creates an inconsistency in the statute: a project by a local school board may be a  state project under the statute's third element, but, at the same time, a local school board is not part of the state for the purposes of the fifth element. See Op., p. 833. This contradiction manifests the fallacy of the majority's claim that it is expounding on the unambiguous, plain meaning of the word state. The analysis is flawed for a second reason. The majority's novel interpretation of the statute renders superfluous the first of the five elements, i.e., that the project be with a contracting agent, where the contracting agent is a state institution. The statute provides that a state institution that is supported by state funds like Western Michigan University is a contracting agent under the act. [2] The university concedes on appeal the point that Western Michigan University is a contracting agent. Where an employer like Western Michigan University meets the statute's first element of the test (involve a contracting agent) because it is a state institution, it will then, according to the majority's interpretation, always meet the fifth element that the project be sponsored or financed... by the state because Western Michigan University is the state. The majority attempts to address this claim that its interpretation renders part of the statute to be mere surplusage as the Court of Appeals concluded, see 212 Mich.App. 22, 26, 536 N.W.2d 609 (1995), by noting that there are other entities defined by the act as contracting agent[s] that are not part of the state for whom the fifth element would be relevant. See Op., pp. 832-833. Nevertheless, the statute's fifth requirement would still be redundant for state contracting agents (as interpreted by the majority). The rules of statutory construction require that this Court read separate provisions of a statute consistently as a whole to ensure that each provision is given effect. Gebhardt v. O'Rourke, 444 Mich. 535, 542, 510 N.W.2d 900 (1994). By analogy, this Court should interpret a statute to ensure that an interpretation of one provision does not render another superfluous in a substantial number of cases. The Legislature likely did not intend to create such a cumbersome, awkward statute. The majority's error is rooted in its mistaken belief that the word state is unambiguous in the phrase sponsored or financed in whole or in part by the state. In my opinion, the word state may be construed narrowly to include only the three branches of state government (executive, legislative, and judiciary) and the agencies they operate. Or, the state may be construed broadly to include the three branches of state government and their agencies as well as all municipalities and institutions that are created by the state. Traditionally, cities, like state universities and colleges, are considered municipal corporations and creatures of the state. Sinas v. City of Lansing, 382 Mich. 407, 411, 170 N.W.2d 23 (1969). The word state in the fifth element may also plausibly be interpreted, as advanced by the majority, to include all state governmental agencies, and state institutions, like state universities and state mental health facilities, but not smaller units of government created by the state. This Court should examine the purpose of this fifth element and examine it in the context of the earlier provisions to discern its meaning here. The focus of the fifth element is on whether the project is  sponsored or financed  by the state government, not on whether the agency or institution initiating the project is a governmental entity. The statute ensures the latter point in its first element, by guaranteeing that the project is with a contracting agent. Every entity listed in the definition of contracting agent could be loosely described as a state actor. In focusing on whether the project is financed or sponsored by the state, the statute's fifth element appears to ensure that either the Legislature has authorized funds for the project or there has been a state action by one of the three branches of government to sponsor the project. The act, however, provides no definition of the terms sponsor or finance. The Department of Labor has defined these terms for its administrative use in its policy and procedural manual from 1992 as follows: Financed in whole or in part by the statemeans providing or making state monies available for capital outlay or debt service.