December 16, 1993
Dr. Howell W. Todd
Executive Director
South Dakota Board of Regents
207 East Capitol Avenue
Pierre, SD 57501-3159
OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 93-11
Application of residency requirements to student regents
Dear Dr. Todd:
You have requested an official opinion from this Office regarding the following factual situation:
FACTS:
SDCL 13-49-2 provides, in material part, that no two regents who are regular members may reside in the same county and that a regent's residence is determined by where the regent is registered to vote. The application of this section to student regents is of concern because it is common to find that students whose involvement in the affairs of the university qualifies them for the post of student regent also are involved in the political life of the communities where universities are located. Such individuals often register to vote in the community in which their university is located.
Based on the foregoing facts, you have asked the following question:
QUESTION:
Are student regents subject to the residency requirements set forth in SDCL 13-49-2?
IN RE QUESTION:
Two statutes bear directly on the issue you raise:
SDCL 13-49-2 provides:
The regents who are regular members shall be persons of probity and wisdom and selected from among the best known citizens, residents of different portions of the state, no two of whom may be residents in the same county and not more than six shall be members of the same political party. One regent shall be the student regent as provided in <185> 13-49-6.1. A regent's residence is determined by where the regent is registered to vote.
SDCL 13-49-6.1 states:
The Governor shall appoint a student regent, by and with the consent of the senate, who shall participate in all board meetings open and closed and be compensated in the same manner as board members. The student regent shall be a student of one of the public postsecondary educational institutions under the control of the board. The student regent shall be appointed for a term of two years which term shall expire on the first day of July of every even-numbered year, unless removed under the provisions of <185> 3-17-1 or if such student does not remain enrolled in a postsecondary institution controlled by the board. The student regent shall be a formal member of the board and shall vote.
Several rules of statutory construction are of use here. Code provisions are to be liberally construed with a view to effect their objectives and to promote justice. SDCL 2-14-2. They are to be construed according to their manifest intent as gathered from the statute as a whole, together with other enactments relating to the same subject. Simpson v. Tobin, 367 N.W.2d 757, 763 (S.D. 1985). In construing statutes together, it is presumed that the Legislature did not intend an absurd or unreasonable result. Appeal of AT&T Information Systems, 405 N.W.2d 24, 27-28 (S.D. 1987). Statutes should be given a sensible, practical and workable construction. Valandra v. Dept. of Commerce & Reg., 425 N.W.2d 400, 402 (S.D. 1988). Where conflicting statutes appear, both should be given a reasonable construction in order, if possible, to construe them together to make them harmonious and workable. Meyerink v. Northwestern Public Service Co., 391 N.W.2d 180, 184 (S.D. 1986). Terms of a statute on a particular subject will prevail over general terms of another statute. Id.
Obviously, SDCL 13-49-2 outlines general qualifications for those regents who are "regular" regents. The statute further mandates that one regent must be the student regent provided for under SDCL 13-49-6.1, but does not state whether such individual would be subject to the requirements otherwise set out in the provision. On the other hand, SDCL 13-49-6.1 does state specific qualifications for the student regent. That statute also dictates that this special regent nonetheless is a formal regent with voting rights. Clearly, SDCL <185><185> 13-49-2 and 13-49-6.1 must be construed together and, as noted above, in the event of conflict between the general qualifications set out in SDCL 13-49-2 and the particular qualifications for the student regent outlined in SDCL 13-49-6.1, the provisions of SDCL 13-49-6.1 are deemed to control. Consequently, a reading of all relevant law indicates that the student regent is a special regent with distinct qualifications.
I further note that the qualifications stated in SDCL 13-49-6.1 limit and displace one of the qualifications established under SDCL 13-49-2 in that they define a separate class of persons eligible for the office. SDCL 13-49-6.1 requires that student regents be drawn from a different group of citizens from that stated in SDCL 13-49-2; that specified group under SDCL 13-49-6.1 is the class of students enrolled in regental institutions of higher education. Again, the student regent is separate and distinct.
SDCL 13-49-6.1 thus appears to state all necessary qualifications for the office of student regent. Hence, the legislative decision not to there reiterate the residency requirement provides evidence that the Legislature does not intend this requirement to govern eligibility for the office. Aman v. Edmunds Central School District No. 22-5, 494 N.W.2d 198, 200 (S.D. 1992).
It also appears undebatable that the statutory enrollment requirement exists to assure that the perspectives of persons enrolled in the institutions will be included in the regents' deliberations. Because voting residence is immaterial to membership in the class of students, the residency requirement should not be interpreted to interfere with the enrollment requirement. Again, the statute in question--SDCL 13-49-6.1-- should be read as operating independently of the residency requirement set out in the general statute, SDCL 13-49-2. Meyerink, 391 N.W.2d at 184.
The answer to your question is "no," the student regent is not subject to the residency requirement set forth in SDCL 13-49-2.
MWB:JFS:do