Opinion No. 80-169 (1980) Ag

CourtOklahoma Attorney General Reports
DecidedDecember 23, 1980
StatusPublished

This text of Opinion No. 80-169 (1980) Ag (Opinion No. 80-169 (1980) Ag) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oklahoma Attorney General Reports primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Opinion No. 80-169 (1980) Ag, (Okla. Super. Ct. 1980).

Opinion

The office of the Attorney General is in receipt of your opinion request, wherein you ask, in effect, the following question: May the Department of Wildlife Conservation pay the cost of optional dependent coverage for its employees? The Department of Wildlife Conservation is a constitutionally created body. Okla. Const., Article XXVI, Section 1 through Article XXVI, Section 4. Also, there are specific statutes found at 29 O.S. 1-101 [29-1-101], et seq. (1971), which executes the above-cited constitutional amendments relating to the Department of Wildlife Conservation. The Oklahoma Group Health and Life Insurance Board, hereinafter referred to as the "Board," 74 O.S. 1303 [74-1303](2) (1977). The Board is created pursuant to 74 O.S. 1301 [74-1301] et seq. (1971). The purpose of the State Employees Group Health Life Insurance Act, hereinafter referred to as the "Act," is stated as follows in 74 O.S. 1302 [74-1302] (1971): "It is hereby declared that the purpose of this statute is: "(a) To provide uniformity in Accident and Health Insurance and/or Benefits Coverage and Life Insurance on all employees of the State of Oklahoma; "(b) To enable the state to attract and retain qualified employees by providing health and life insurance benefits similar to those commonly provided in private industry; "(c) To recognize and protect the state's investment in each permanent employee by promoting and preserving good health and longevity among state employees; "(d) To recognize a service to the state by elected and appointed officials by extending to them the same health and life insurance benefits as are provided herein for state employees; and "(e) To recognize long and faithful service, and to encourage employees to remain in state service until eligible for retirement by providing health and life insurance benefits for employees." Title 74 O.S. 1303 [74-1303](b) (1977) defines what "employee" means as related to the State Employees Group Health and Life Insurance Act. " 'Employee' means and includes each officer or employee in the service of the State of Oklahoma who, after January 1, 1966 received his compensation for service rendered to the State of Oklahoma on a warrant issued pursuant to a payroll certified by a department or by an elected or duly appointed officer of the state or who receives payment for the performance of personal services on a warrant issued pursuant to a payroll certified by a department and drawn by the State Auditor upon the State Treasurer against appropriations made by the Legislature from any state fund or against trust funds held by the State Treasurer, who is employed in a position normally requiring actual performance of duty during not less than one thousand (1,000) hours per year, and whose employment is not seasonal or temporary, except that a person elected by popular vote will be considered an employee during his tenure in office. Provided, however, that employees who are otherwise eligible who are on approved sick leave without pay shall be eligible to continue coverage during such leave not to exceed twelve (12) months from the date the employee goes on such leave provided the employee pays the full premiums due." Title 74 O.S. 1303 [74-1303] (1977) also contains other definitions relevant to this opinion. Title 74 O.S. 1303 [74-1303](d) (1977) defines "health insurance plan" to mean "a self-insured plan by the State of Oklahoma for the purpose of paying the cost of hospital and medical care up to maximum coverage provided by the Act." The Act includes provisions for coverage of dependents. 74 O.S. 1303 [74-1303](f) and 74 O.S. 1309 [74-1309] (1977). The exemptions from the Oklahoma Group Health and Life Insurance Act are found in 74 O.S. 1314 [74-1314] (1977). That section states as follows: "The provisions of the State Employees Group Health and Life Insurance Act shall not apply to the employees and officers of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission nor to the Oklahoma State System of Higher Education nor to the Commissioners of the State Department of Transportation nor to any member of an administrative board or commission of any agency, board, authority or commission of the State of Oklahoma unless such member is a full-time salaried employee; provided, however, that said Oklahoma Employment Security Commission and any state system or institution of higher education may elect to come under the provisions of said act." The Department of Wildlife Conservation is not enumerated as an exempted state agency from the Group Health Life Insurance Act. However, there appears to be a conflict between the authority of the Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Commission to govern by rule and regulation and the Department of Wildlife Conservation under the Constitution, Article XXVI, Section 1 and the exercise of the authority of the Legislature to provide generally for the compensation of health and welfare of state employees. The Department of Wildlife Conservation Commission is not exempt from the Administrative Procedures Act and, therefore, comes within the purview of the definitions of the Administrative Procedures Act. 75 O.S. 301 [75-301] et seq. (1971). In the case of Ray v. Thompson, Okl. 458 P.2d 300 (1969), the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma construed the authority of the Commission to "govern" the department as being restrictive to its "internal management" when there arose a conflict between the constitutional authority of the Commission and the application of the Administrative Procedures Act. 75 O.S. 301 [75-301] et seq. (1971). The court in Ray v. Thompson, supra, did not elaborate on what functions of the Wildlife Conservation Department fall within its internal management. Title 75 O.S. 301 [75-301](2) (1978) gives a definition of a rule as follows: " 'Rule' means any agency statement of general applicability and future effect that implements, interprets or prescribes substantive law or policy, or prescribes the procedure or practice requirements of the agency. The term includes the amendment or repeal of a prior rule but does not include (A) the issuance, renewal or denial of licenses; (B) the approval, disapproval or prescription of rates; (C) statements concerning only the internal management of an agency and not affecting private rights or procedures available to the public; (D) interagency memoranda; or (E) declaratory rulings issued pursuant to 75 O.S. 308 [75-308] of this title; . . ." Thus, the question resolves around what constitutes internal management. In a law review article, "Oklahoma's New Administrative Procedure Act," authored by Maurice H. Merrill, 17 Okl. L. Rev. 1, (1964) at pg. 9, a cursory view of what internal management, pursuant to 75 O.S. 301 [75-301](2) (1978), is given: "The third exception, 'statements concerning only the internal management of an agency and not affecting private rights or procedures available to the public,' obviously, is intended to exclude the 'housekeeping' functions of agencies, as distinguished from the occasions when they are establishing norms for the conduct of the public.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Department of the Air Force v. Rose
425 U.S. 352 (Supreme Court, 1976)
W. S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson Investment Co.
1963 OK 298 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1963)
Poschman v. Dumke
31 Cal. App. 3d 932 (California Court of Appeal, 1973)
Pannell v. Farmers Union Co-Op. Gin Ass'n
1943 OK 256 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1943)
Casualty Reciprocal Exchange v. Sutfin
1945 OK 302 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1945)
In re State Board of Medical Examiners
1949 OK 100 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1949)
Ray v. Thompson
458 P.2d 300 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1969)
Rooker v. Rooker
29 Ohio St. 1 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1875)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Opinion No. 80-169 (1980) Ag, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/opinion-no-80-169-1980-ag-oklaag-1980.