Opinion ID: 1355008
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the county commission

Text: A brief review of the role a county commission plays in incorporation proceedings is in order. Statutes such as those in West Virginia which delegate to another body, such as the county commission, a role in the formation of political districts or municipal corporations have been subject to repeated constitutional attacks over the years for violating the constitutional limitation separating the powers of government. See Wiseman v. Calvert, 134 W.Va. 303, 59 S.E.2d 445 (1950); Annot., 69 A.L.R. 266 (1930). Many statutes have been struck down because they permitted a court in its discretion, or if justice and equity require, or if [it] is of the opinion that the prayer of the petition should be granted, to grant the relief prayed for. Lyon v. City of Payette, 38 Idaho 705, 224 P. 793 (1924). The invalid statutes vested the tribunal with discretion as to whether the property should be incorporated, thus constituting an unconstitutional delegation of power. As stated in West v. West Virginia Fair Association, 97 W.Va. 10, 15, 125 S.E. 353, 355-56 (1924) and Wiseman v. Calvert, 134 W.Va. 303, 316, 59 S.E.2d 445, 453 (1950): It is very generally held that the legislative department of the government cannot delegate its power of legislation to either of the other co-ordinate branches of the government, but it may delegate the power to determine some fact or state of things upon which it will make its own action or grant depend. The power to create municipalities cannot be delegated, but the Legislature may confer upon a court or some administrative officer or board the power to perform some judicial or ministerial act in the formation of such public corporations, or to ascertain and determine whether the conditions prescribed by the statute as to the formation of corporations and the granting of the charter has properly come into existence. This same idea was expressed several years earlier in Morris v. Taylor, 70 W.Va. 618, 622, 74 S.E. 872, 874 (1912): The legislature has granted that right [to form municipal corporations] to all of the people of the state, who put themselves within the conditions annexed. What the court determines is whether the people desiring to form such a corporation have put themselves within those conditions . . . Having ascertained that, the court awards a certificate of incorporation, just as the Secretary of State issues the certificate of incorporation to a joint stock company . . . The court has no initiative. Its sole power is to veto . . . . The county commission, then, acts as an agency of the legislature performing a ministerial act in the formation of public corporations. When a petition by freeholders for incorporation of a city, town or village pursuant to W.Va.Code § 8-2-1 is filed with the county commission under W.Va.Code § 8-2-2 the petition is then set for hearing and a determination by the commission as to whether the requirements of §§ 1 and 2 have been met. If the requirements have not been met, the petition will be dismissed. If the requirements are met, proceedings must then go forward for posting bond, taking a census, conducting an election, and satisfying other statutory requirements for incorporation of the city. The purpose of the petition is to provide an orderly process for initiating an election to vindicate constitutional rights to local self-government. The Court is aware that W.Va.Code § 8-2-1 purports to vest discretion in the county commission to set the exact boundaries of the proposed municipality. We need not determine at this point whether that part of the statute violates the principles of separation of power discussed above. Any such exercise of discretion would have to be reasonably based upon and supported by the record. A close review of the record in this case reveals that there is nothing to justify an exercise of discretion which would alter the boundaries from those proposed by the petitioners. [3] The evidence of record adverse to petitioners regarding boundaries is that the proposed municipality is long and narrow [4] and that the corporate objectors want their property excluded so they would not have to pay tax. Neither of these considerations would support any deviation from the boundaries proposed by the petitioners.