[208]*208WARREN, J.
Plaintiff appeals a judgment dismissing his claim for misapplication of public funds under ORS 294.100(2) for failure to allege facts sufficient to constitute a claim for relief. ORCP 21A(8). We affirm.
Plaintiff alleges that he is a property owner and registered voter in McMinnville School District No. 40 (District), has children in a school administered by District and pays taxes for support of District’s schools. Defendants are public officials who are members of the District School Board (Board). District’s school teachers are represented by the Mid-Valley Bargaining Council (MVBC). In February, 1990, MVBC called a strike by District’s teachers. During the strike, District hired teachers to substitute for the striking teachers. The amended complaint also alleges, in part:
“7. Defendants proceeded to knowingly employ and to pay from public tax funds the salaries and expenses of numerous persons who were professional strikebreakers and illegal employees under ORS 662.205 to 662.225. Defendants knowing [sic] and intentionally paid several thousand dollars of public tax money to these employees for their salaries and expenses during the MVBC strike.
“8. Defendants’ purpose in hiring or offering to hire and in paying these funds to the illegal employees was to assist the District in its effort to defeat the MVBC strike through the employment of professional strikebreakers, all in violation of ORS 662.205 to 662.225. Oregon law forbids the hiring of such employees and does not authorize the payment by defendants from public tax funds of the salaries and expenses of such employees.
“9. By knowingly and intentionally paying thousands of dollars of public tax money to these employees, whose hiring was forbidden by law, and whose payment for services is not authorized by law, defendants have misapplied substantial amounts of public tax money, for which defendants are liable under ORS 294.100.”
A motion under ORCP 21A(8) admits the well-pleaded allegations of fact in the complaint. We determine only whether those facts are sufficient to state a claim. Keltner v. Washington County, 310 Or 499, 502, 800 P2d 752 (1990). Our inquiry is whether plaintiffs allegations state a claim under ORS 294.100, which provides, in part:
[209]*209“(1) It is unlawful for any public official to expend any money in excess of the amounts, or for any other or different purpose than provided by law.
“(2) Any public official who expends any public money in excess of the amounts, or for any other or different purpose or purposes than authorized by law, shall be civilly liable for the return of the money by suit of the district attorney of the district where the offense is committed, or at the suit of any taxpayer of such district.”
Plaintiff argues that, although District has the general statutory authority to hire teachers and “transact all business,” ORS 342.505 and ORS 332.072,1 it did not have authority to hire professional strikebreakers2 as substitute teachers because of ORS 662.215.3 Therefore, the payment for services of professional strikebreakers was an expenditure [210]*210of public money for a “different purpose than authorized by law” and is actionable under ORS 294.100(2).
Under ORS 662.215, employers are prohibited from knowingly employing a professional strikebreaker to replace an employee involved in a strike. Defendants contend that that statute is inapplicable, because public bodies and public officials are not “employers” as defined in ORS 662.205(2).4 If defendants are correct, they did not violate ORS 662.215 as alleged by plaintiff, even if they did hire professional strikebreakers.
Our role in construing a statute is to discern the intent of the legislature, ORS 174.020, beginning with the words of the statute. ORS 174.010; Whipple v. Howser, 291 Or 475, 479, 632 P2d 782 (1981). However, when those words do not provide sufficient insight into the legislature’s intent, they are ambiguous, and we must look beyond those words to divine that intent. Mattiza v. Foster, 311 Or 1, 4, 803 P2d 723 (1991). No matter how broad the apparent meaning of a statute may be, if we cannot tell whether the legislature intended a statute to apply in a particular context, we must resort to extrinsic aids to construction.
ORS 662.205(2) provides:
“ ‘Employer’ means any person, partnership, firm, corporation, association or other entity, or any agent thereof, that employs an individual to perform services for a wage or salary.”
That statute does not unambiguously include school districts and public officials within the definition of “employer.” A school district is not a person, firm, partnership, association or corporation. It is a school district or, more generally, a public body. Moreover, we cannot discern from the face of the statute whether the legislature considered school districts [211]*211and public officials to be “other” entities. To the contrary, the scope of the phrase “or other entity” is patently ambiguous.
The term “entity,” as defined in a dictionary, means anything “that has objective or physical reality and distinctness of being and character.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 758 (unabridged 1976). That definition is so broad that firms, partnerships, persons, corporations and associations fall within it. Logically, had the legislature intended the term “entity” to have such a broad meaning, it would not have included those specific types of entities within the definition of “employer.” Consequently, it must have intended the term “entity” to have a narrower scope.5
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[208]*208WARREN, J.
Plaintiff appeals a judgment dismissing his claim for misapplication of public funds under ORS 294.100(2) for failure to allege facts sufficient to constitute a claim for relief. ORCP 21A(8). We affirm.
Plaintiff alleges that he is a property owner and registered voter in McMinnville School District No. 40 (District), has children in a school administered by District and pays taxes for support of District’s schools. Defendants are public officials who are members of the District School Board (Board). District’s school teachers are represented by the Mid-Valley Bargaining Council (MVBC). In February, 1990, MVBC called a strike by District’s teachers. During the strike, District hired teachers to substitute for the striking teachers. The amended complaint also alleges, in part:
“7. Defendants proceeded to knowingly employ and to pay from public tax funds the salaries and expenses of numerous persons who were professional strikebreakers and illegal employees under ORS 662.205 to 662.225. Defendants knowing [sic] and intentionally paid several thousand dollars of public tax money to these employees for their salaries and expenses during the MVBC strike.
“8. Defendants’ purpose in hiring or offering to hire and in paying these funds to the illegal employees was to assist the District in its effort to defeat the MVBC strike through the employment of professional strikebreakers, all in violation of ORS 662.205 to 662.225. Oregon law forbids the hiring of such employees and does not authorize the payment by defendants from public tax funds of the salaries and expenses of such employees.
“9. By knowingly and intentionally paying thousands of dollars of public tax money to these employees, whose hiring was forbidden by law, and whose payment for services is not authorized by law, defendants have misapplied substantial amounts of public tax money, for which defendants are liable under ORS 294.100.”
A motion under ORCP 21A(8) admits the well-pleaded allegations of fact in the complaint. We determine only whether those facts are sufficient to state a claim. Keltner v. Washington County, 310 Or 499, 502, 800 P2d 752 (1990). Our inquiry is whether plaintiffs allegations state a claim under ORS 294.100, which provides, in part:
[209]*209“(1) It is unlawful for any public official to expend any money in excess of the amounts, or for any other or different purpose than provided by law.
“(2) Any public official who expends any public money in excess of the amounts, or for any other or different purpose or purposes than authorized by law, shall be civilly liable for the return of the money by suit of the district attorney of the district where the offense is committed, or at the suit of any taxpayer of such district.”
Plaintiff argues that, although District has the general statutory authority to hire teachers and “transact all business,” ORS 342.505 and ORS 332.072,1 it did not have authority to hire professional strikebreakers2 as substitute teachers because of ORS 662.215.3 Therefore, the payment for services of professional strikebreakers was an expenditure [210]*210of public money for a “different purpose than authorized by law” and is actionable under ORS 294.100(2).
Under ORS 662.215, employers are prohibited from knowingly employing a professional strikebreaker to replace an employee involved in a strike. Defendants contend that that statute is inapplicable, because public bodies and public officials are not “employers” as defined in ORS 662.205(2).4 If defendants are correct, they did not violate ORS 662.215 as alleged by plaintiff, even if they did hire professional strikebreakers.
Our role in construing a statute is to discern the intent of the legislature, ORS 174.020, beginning with the words of the statute. ORS 174.010; Whipple v. Howser, 291 Or 475, 479, 632 P2d 782 (1981). However, when those words do not provide sufficient insight into the legislature’s intent, they are ambiguous, and we must look beyond those words to divine that intent. Mattiza v. Foster, 311 Or 1, 4, 803 P2d 723 (1991). No matter how broad the apparent meaning of a statute may be, if we cannot tell whether the legislature intended a statute to apply in a particular context, we must resort to extrinsic aids to construction.
ORS 662.205(2) provides:
“ ‘Employer’ means any person, partnership, firm, corporation, association or other entity, or any agent thereof, that employs an individual to perform services for a wage or salary.”
That statute does not unambiguously include school districts and public officials within the definition of “employer.” A school district is not a person, firm, partnership, association or corporation. It is a school district or, more generally, a public body. Moreover, we cannot discern from the face of the statute whether the legislature considered school districts [211]*211and public officials to be “other” entities. To the contrary, the scope of the phrase “or other entity” is patently ambiguous.
The term “entity,” as defined in a dictionary, means anything “that has objective or physical reality and distinctness of being and character.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 758 (unabridged 1976). That definition is so broad that firms, partnerships, persons, corporations and associations fall within it. Logically, had the legislature intended the term “entity” to have such a broad meaning, it would not have included those specific types of entities within the definition of “employer.” Consequently, it must have intended the term “entity” to have a narrower scope.5
Because we cannot tell from the words of the statute whether the legislature sought to include school districts and public officials within the definition of “employer” contained in ORS 662.205(2), we must resort to extrinsic aids to construction, beginning with the legislative history. That history shows that the legislature was alerted to potential problems of including school districts within the definition of “employer” for purposes of ORS 662.215. On April 2, 1975, the Oregon School Boards Association (OSBA) presented to the Senate Labor Committee a proposed amendment to what would become ORS 662.205 et seq. Minutes, Senate Labor Committee, April 2,1975, p 2. The bill included the definition of “employer” as it is now defined. The amendment would have exempted school districts and employees of school districts from the bill. In its prepared testimony, OSBA said, in part:
“Under the provisions of this proposed legislation, any certificated individual who acts as a substitute or offers services as a substitute for local school districts, in the case of a strike or lockout on two or more occasions within a five-year period would be defined as ‘professional strikebreaker’ under this law. This seems an unreasonable, additional constraint on the options open to a local school district in deciding whether or not it is in the public interest to attempt continuation of the educational program in the local district in the face of a work stoppage.” Exhibit B, Senate Labor Committee, April 2, 1975.
[212]*212Two witnesses representing the Substitute Teachers Association of Oregon also testified and requested that substitute teachers be specifically excluded from the bill, because they were concerned that they could be classified as professional strikebreakers, which would restrict their ability to be employed. Minutes, Senate Labor Committee, March 12, 1975, p 9; Tape Recording, Senate Labor Committee, March 12,1975, Tape 7, Side I, at 133-377; Exhibit J, Senate Labor Committee, March 12, 1975. The effect of the proposed bill on substitute téachers was discussed on at least two other occasions.6 Minutes, Senate Labor Committee, May 28, 1975, p 2; Tape Recording, Senate Labor Committee, May 28, 1975, Tape 13, Side 2, at 195-397; Tape Recording, Senate Labor Committee, May 16, 1975, Tape 13, Side! at 271-371. Despite the testimony on the proposed amendment, the legislature took no action to adopt it.
The legislative history is susceptible to two plausible interpretations. The failure of the legislature to adopt the proposed amendment could mean that it intended to include school districts within the prohibition of ORS 662.215. On the other hand, the legislature’s inaction could mean that it [213]*213thought that the definition of employer in ORS 662.205(2) did not require further expression in order to exclude school districts.
When legislative history is not dispositive on the intended meaning of a statute, we study “the language used, the statutory objective and any other evidence of the intended meaning.” Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v. Short, 102 Or App 495, 499, 795 P2d 118 (1990). We also resort to rules of statutory construction, one of which is ejusdem generis.
“[W]here general words follow the enumeration of specific classes of things, the general words are to be construed as restricted to things of the same type as those specifically enumerated.” Skinner v. Keeley, 47 Or App 751, 757, 615 P2d 382 (1980).
In ORS 662.205(2), the general words “or other entity” follow the enumeration of the specific classes of persons, partnerships, firms, corporations and associations, which share the common characteristic of being private entities. Accordingly, following the rule, construction of the term “or other entity” should be restricted to other entities with that characteristic. That would exclude public entities from the definition of “employer” contained in ORS 662.205(2).
Two other factors militate against imputing to the legislature an intent to subject public employers to the restrictions of ORS 662.215. When the legislature has intended to include public bodies within the definition of “employer,” it has expressly provided for that. See, e.g., ORS 652.310(1); ORS 652.750; ORS 653.010(4); ORS 653.280(2)(a); ORS 653.295(6)(b); ORS 653.300; ORS 654.005(13); ORS 659.010(6). Moreover, the legislature has enacted a comprehensive set of laws governing the rights and responsibilities of public employers in connection with collective bargaining and strikes, but did not declare hiring strikebreakers to be an unfair labor practice. See ORS 243.650 to ORS 243.782. We will not impute to the legislature an intent to regulate a specific aspect of the labor relations of public employers when it has already demonstrated an ability to make clear decisions in that arena and when to do so would require us to ignore a basic rule of statutory construction. Accordingly, we hold that school districts are not included within the definition of employer under ORS 662.205(2).
[214]*214Because school districts are not employers, the directors did not violate ORS 662.215. Because plaintiffs complaint is based on a violation of that statute, it fails to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim.7
Affirmed.