Day v. State
Opinion
If an association employs a legislative counsel or agent during a session of the Indiana General Assembly, the association must file an expense statement with the secretary of state within thirty days .after the session adjourns. 1 Failure to file within the thirty days after adjournment is a felony. 2 Wesley L. Day, President of the Indiana Society of Professional Land Surveyors, was found guilty by the trial court of failing to file the expense statement for his association. 3 Day contends that the evidence was insufficient. We agree, and we reverse.
Day appointed Nelson Prall to take care of the association’s legislative business. Later, January 17, 1974, he filed a statement with the secretary of. state which listed Prall as the *71 association’s lobbyist for the 98th Indiana General Assembly. 4 Thirty days after the adjournment of the 98th Indiana General Assembly, February 15, 1974, no expense statement had been filed for the association.
. On March 19, 1974, one day after the expense statement was required to be filed, Day learned from a friend, who reported a newspaper account, that an affidavit had been filed against him. Later, on March 28, 1974, Day filed the required expense statement for the association with the secretary of state. 5
There is no evidence that Day as a “person” paid Prall any compensation. There is no evidence that Day was even aware of any compensation to Prall prior to March 19, 1974, when a friend told him about the affidavit filed against him. Prall’s testimony suggests that the secretary of the association paid Prall three hundred fifty-two dollars ($352.00). 6 If Day as a “person” under the statute, IC 1971, 2-4-3-4 (Burns Code Ed.), did not employ and compensate Prall, Day’s violation of the statute must be *72 predicated upon his status as an official or as a member of the association. 7
In IC 1971, 2-4-3-4 (Burns Code Ed.), the legislature has imposed a duty to file a statement of expenses upon every “person, firm, corporation or association employing legislative counsel or agents.” The State urges a statutory construction which would impose the duty of filing a statement of expenses upon all officers and all members of the association with knowledge of payments made or expenses incurred for a legislative agent. This we cannot do. The statute is not ambiguous. The statute clearly imposes the duty on the association as a separate entity — not on the officers or members of the association. In other sections of the Lobbyist Act, the legislature has expressed the intent to impose a duty on officers of associations. See IC 1971, 2-4-3-1 (Burns Code Ed.) (duty to register lobbyists is placed on the “association, or any officer or employee of [the] association. . . .”) ; id. 2-4-3-6 (the treasurer of the unincorporated association must keep a complete and detailed record of funds collected or expended to promote or oppose legislation and must report to the secretary of state) . 8 If the legislature had *73 intended to impose the duty to file a statement of expenses on officers and members of the association, it would have expressed such intent as it did in other sections of the Lobbyist Act.
Section 2-4-3-4 is a regulatory statute, and criminal penalties are invoked for its violation. Such a statute must be strictly construed. See, e.g., Meade Elec. Co. v. Hagberg (1959), 129 Ind. App. 631, 159 N.E. 2d 408.
The legislature has recognized the separate existence of an association for the purpose of imposing a duty upon the association to file a statement of expenses paid or incurred in connection with the employment of legislative counsel or agents. 9 The statute imposed no duty upon Day as an officer and member of the association to file an expense statement.
We reverse.
Note. — Reported at 341 N.E.2d 209.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
341 N.E.2d 209 (Day v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.