Court Opinion

ID: 9673670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:16:15.281075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:23.445209
License: Public Domain

BARHAM, Justice,
(dissenting).
This suit was filed by the Student Government association of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College of the Main Campus at Baton Rouge against the Board of Supervisors and certain administrative officers of that university seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The Student Government Association asked, that R.S. .17:1803 be recognized as applicable; to L. S.U. and that the Board be ordered to adhere to that state law. The statute in question, R.S. 17:1803 (Acts 1958, No. 297), limits to $1.00 the fine that may be imposed by any state college or university for violation of a parking regulation established by the governing authority of the institution. ’ ...
The regulations to be observed by1' students, faculty, staff, and other person's operating motor vehicles oil the campus óf L.S.U. effective September, 1969, were compiled by the Dean of Student Affairs, approved by the Chancellor, and' ratified and adopted by resolution of February 6, 1970, by the Board of Supervisors; Similar regulations were reissued by the Dean of Student Affairs and approved by the Chancellor, to be effective as .of. Septem*863ber, 1970, without aiw action by the Board. A summary of the 1970 rules was printed in a pamphlet, “Traffic and Parking Regulations”, and distributed to all interested persons.
The pamphlet states that operation of a motor vehicle on the campus is a privilege and that all such vehicles1 must be registered with the proper authorities. All registered vehicles are assigned parking zones. Between the hours of 7:00 a. m. and 4:00 p. m. on Mondays through Fridays there are certain official areas of the campus that are restricted to the students. In some areas the students may not drive or park their vehicles. These are denoted by an orange-red color on the map in the pamphlet. In other areas the students may not park since all parking is reserved for staff. This area is colored pink-red on the map. Numerous other limitations and restrictions are enumerated.
In providing penalties the violations are divided into two classes. Class “A” includes parking in this official area during the hours of restriction, and the fine for that violation is $5.00 with a ban of the vehicle from the campus for a minimum of two months for three such violations in that Class “A” category. All other parking violations are under Class “B”, and the penalty is assessed at $1.00 with a two-month ban for any four Class “B” violations.
It is obvious that the fine for the Class “A” parking violation is contrary to the prohibition of the statute, which reads:
“§ 1803. Parking violations on campuses of state owned colleges and universities; maximum fine
“The fine which may be imposed for violation of any parking regulation established by the governing authority of any state supported college or university in this state, including Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, where the violation occurred upon streets and roadways of such college or university, shall not exceed the sum of one dollar.”
The district court reasoned that the Board of Supervisors was under a constitutional duty and had constitutional authority (Article XII, Section 7) to regulate the university, but was subject to the requirement that it act in accordance with the laws of the state, including R.S. 17:1803. It found that this law does not infringe upon the power of the Board to control and regulate traffic. The purpose of the law was interpreted simply to set a monetary limit for parking violations. The district court granted the Student Government Association’s motion for summary judgment and declared that R.S. 17:1803 *865was applicable to and binding upon the Board of Supervisors of L.S.U. and prohibited the imposition of a fine of more than $1.00 for any parking violation at L. S.U. where the violation occurred on the streets and roadways of the university.
On appeal the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the district court. 251 So.2d 428. It reasoned that the constitutional amendment which granted authority to the Board for the management of the university was not self-executory (Article XII, Section 7), and that it was limited to the creation of an agency whose rights, powers, and duties are to be prescribed by the Legislature, and it held that the Legislature had expressly reserved to itself the authority to control the powers of the Board under the statutory law that set forth in detail the nature and function of the Board, R.S. 17:1421-74, the Louisiana State University Code.
We granted writs in this case for consideration and clarification of the relationship between the Board of Supervisors and the Legislature, and of how Article XII, Section 7, of the Constitution and R.S. 17:1421-74 affect that relationship. And more particularly, we felt it necessary to determine whether the statutory limitation of $1.00 for parking violations on state-supported campuses is applicable to L.S.U. and the Board of Supervisors.
In an attempt to divorce political manipulation from the administration of L.S.U. the Legislature proposed a constitutional amendment (Acts 1940, No. 397) which was approved by the voters and became the first paragraph of Article XII, Section 7, providing that: “The Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College shall be under the direction, control, supervision and management of a body corporate to be known as the ‘Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College,’ * * This same article by prior enactment created the State Board of Education to supervise all other higher educational institutions. The article has remained basically the same since the 1940 amendment, except for the 1968 legislation authorizing the creation of a coordinating-council for higher education.
Determination of whether a constitutional provision is self-operative is not an easy task. The general criterion used in such considerations is the assessment of the intention of the legislation. This is ascertained from the language used, the object to be accomplished, and the surrounding circumstances. Coguenham v. Avoca Drainage Dist., 130 La. 323, 57 So. 989 (1912).
The Board of Supervisors takes the position that with the adoption of this constitutional provision it was created and became a distinct and separate unit of government with the inherent power to govern itself, free of interference by the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of govern*867ment. In support of its position it cites State ex rel. Bourgeois v. Board of Sup’rs of Louisiana State Univ., etc., 205 La. 177, 17 So.2d 25 (1944), as recognition by this court that except in instances where the action has been arbitrary or capricious, the judiciary has no right to substitute its judgment for that of the Board of Supervisors which derives its authority from the Constitution. The Board urges that this recognition should be extended to include the Legislature.
The Bourgeois case does correctly recognize the judicial limitation on the review of rulings by self-governing bodies. That case does not, however, recognize this limitation because the source of the Board’s authority is a constitutional provision granting absolute and independent power over the university. The cases cited as support for this judicial limitation in Bourgeois do not deal with constitutionally created agencies, but simply recognize a general rule of law that courts will not interject their interpretation of factual circumstances where a duly constituted administrative board has made a finding that has not been shown to be arbitrary or capricious.
Article XII, Section 7, created the Board of Supervisors with the authority to direct, control, supervise, and manage L.S. U., but it did not grant such powers so as to make that Board a separate unit of government. There are numerous boards created by the Constitution with similar language used to denote their authority. Article VI, Section 4, establishes and provides for the powers of the Public Service Commission, yet there is extensive statutory regulation of that board, R.S. 45:1161-1202. In some instances the constitutional provision sets forth in detail the functioning of the agency, in others the Legislature is expessly granted the authority to create the agency and enact appropriate laws for its regulation, and in still others the agency is simply created without any specificity. Article XII, Section 7, falls into the last category. In making such comparisons Article VI, Section 1, is interesting. Subsection (A) creates the Wild Life and Fisheries Commission, granting to it general control, management, supervision, and direction over such activities, and then goes into detail outlining the various aspects of the commission’s function. Subsection (D) specifically declares Subsection (A) to be self-operative, and yet recognizes the power and authority of the Legislature to act. See R.S. 56:1-1453 which deal in detail with the functioning of the commission.
Considering that the same or similar language has been used in various constitutional provisions to indicate the authority of the agency created by the particular provision there can be no emphasis placed on the language of the pertinent constitutional article here. It cannot be said that *869“direction, control, supervision and management” denotes absolute authority under Article XII, Section 7, and something less under other constitutional provisions. The intention of Article XII, Section 7, must be ascertained elsewhere.
The best illustration of the intent of Article XII, Section 7, is found in the simultaneous enactment of Acts 1940, No. 196, which by its very existence acknowledges the necessity of legislation to make that constitutional provision operative. That act was adopted for the following purpose, according to its enacting clause:
“To create a governing body for the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College to carry into effect Section 7 of Article XII of the Constitution of Louisiana; to prescribe the powers, authority and duties of such governing body; to regulate the organization, administration and operation of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College; to provide that no future statute shall be deemed to affect any provision of this act unless the legislative intent thereto shall appear from express language or by necessary implication;* to repeal specifically certain laws, and to repeal all laws or parts of laws in conflict herewith.” (Emphasis supplied.)
It is apparent from this clause that this legislation, which has now become R.S. 17:1421-74, was to implement in detail the constitutional provision creating the governing body for the administration of the university. It did not and cannot, however, prevail over the constitutional provision for there is no question of the supremacy of the Constitution over statutory law. If that constitutional provision had not received the approval of a majority of the voters of the state, Acts 1940, No. 196, would have had no effect for there would have been no Section 7 of Article XII of the Constitution to carry into effect.
It is contended by the Board that this cannot be given such meaning since it was enacted five months before the date of the constitutional amendment, and cannot be considered as “subsequent” legislation. Yet the Board gives no explanation as to why the Legislature passed such an act specifically stating as its purpose “to carry into effect Section 7 of Article XII”.2 *871Nor does the Board say what effect should be given to Acts 1940, No. 196 (R.S. 17:1421-74). If its argument that it is a •separate unit of government free of all interference from the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government is followed through to its logical end, then these statutes and any legislation that has been ■or will be passed is inapplicable to the Board of Supervisors and its administration of the university.
The Board points out that since the adoption of the special constitutional provision (Article XII, Section 7) for L.S.U. in 1940, there has not been a single statutory word enacted by the Legislature to limit or restrict, in any manner, either the University Code (R.S. 17:1421-74) or the constitutional provision. It does acknowledge that there has been legislation adding to the powers of the Board, citing as examples that creating the new colleges at Shreveport-Bossier City, the Medical School at Shreveport, and LSU-NO. However, it would seem to follow from the argument of the Board that if it were truly independent of the Legislature, there could be no legislation of any kind that would affect the Board in any way.
Other legislation has been passed since the approval in 1940 of the Board of Supervisors. R.S. 17:1802 (Acts 1954, No. 200) authorized and directed L.S.U. to cooperate with the Cordell Hull Foundation in its educational activities. This cooperation included waiver of tuition fees for students receiving aid from the Foundation. By Acts 1971, No. 26 (R.S. 17:1611 — 1644), a new retirement system was provided for L.S.U. Certainly this legislation affects the Board of Supervisors.
The adoption of Article XII, Section 7, created the Board of Supervisors and provided for its composition, the terms of office, and the selection of officers. These were reiterated and all other details and aspects pertinent' to the functioning of the Board are provided in R.S. 17:1421-74. Thus it cannot be said that the Board does not enjoy vast authority over the administration of the university which cannot be interfered with. But at the same time, that Board is subject to compliance with the University Code (R.S. 17:1421-74) and other applicable statutory laws, so long as these laws do not infringe upon the constitutional authority granted to the Board.3
*873The real question presented for determination in this case, then, is not whether Article XII, Section 7, is self-operative, but is whether R.S. 17:1803 infringes upon the constitutional authority of the Board. The answer to this question must be “no”. As noted earlier, the Board of Supervisors has approved a comprehensive program for the control and regulation of motor vehicles on the campus. The statutory limitation on fines affects only one aspect oE that program and in no way renders the system inoperative. Further, the Board's regulations show that there are other sanctions that can be used if the university were to find that a fine of $1.00 was insufficient to effectively prevent violations of this particular parking restriction.
For these reasons I respectfully dissent.

. The vehicles referred to are those driven by faculty, staff, students, and employees of agencies housed on the campus.

 See Fn. 3, infra.

. In fact, tlie Board's brief sliows support for our interpretation of the relationship between Article XII, Section 7, and B..S. 17:1421-74. It points out that in 1970 when the Legislature proposed a change in’ the composition and terms of the Board, it passed a statutory amendment to.R.S. 17:1453 and 1454, but with the express proviso that it was to become effective only if the proposed constitutional amendment to Article XII, Section 7, which provided the same changes, was adopted. Since the constitutional amendment failed to get a majority of the votes of the people, the statutory amendment was without effect. This is a good illustration of the supremacy of the constitutional provision and a modification *871of the statutory law when the former is changed so that the two remain in accord. The Legislature has adopted the easiest means to bring about that change by passing the statutory amendment with its application to be held in abeyance until approval of the constitutional amendment.

. The necessity for compliance is expressly declared by the Legislature in R.S. 17:1425 (Acts 1940, No. 196, Aft. 4, Sec. 22) which jirovides: “No legislation hereafter adopted shall be deemed to include, affect or apply to the university, its board of supervisors, officers and 'em-’ ployees, unless such legislative intent ap*873pears from the express language of such legislation or results from necessary implication.” R.S. 17:1803 expressly includes L.S.U., so that the prerequisite of R.S. 17 :1425 has been met.