Herrick District Library v. Library of Michigan
293 Mich. App. 571
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Goldstone v Bloomfield Twp Pub Library held nonresidents are not constitutionally entitled to subsidized library access by the taxpayer-funded library.
- DOE HAL/Michigan Library of Michigan promulgated State Aid Rules (3(d) and 31(l)(b)) to require equal services to all individuals in a library's service area to obtain state funds.
- Herrick District Library challenged the State Aid Rules as exceeding authority and violating the Michigan Constitution and Goldstone.
- State Aid Act provides one explicit eligibility criterion (personnel certification); it contains no express or implied mandate granting rulemaking authority to add eligibility requirements.
- The trial court held DOE lacked authority; the Supreme Court agrees, finding the DOE’s rules incompatible with local-control constitutional provisions and Goldstone.
- Constitutional history demonstrates local control allows different privileges for residents vs nonresidents; Goldstone endorses local autonomy over library services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the State Aid Rules have express or implied rulemaking authority? | Herrick argues the State Aid Act does not grant express or implied rulemaking power. | Library of Michigan/DOE contend implied rulemaking authority exists to ensure proper administration. | No express or implied rulemaking authority. |
| Do the State Aid Rules conflict with constitutional intent regarding local library control? | Herrick asserts Goldstone forbids compelled nonresident equalization; rules violate art 8, §9 and constitutional history. | DOE argues implied power to equalize services furthers state interests and administration of aid. | Yes, conflict with constitutional intent; rules rejected. |
| Is implied rulemaking authority permissible under Michigan law in this context? | Ranke limits implied authority to what is necessary to exercise expressly granted powers; no such necessity here. | Defendants rely on dicta in Coffman, Ghidotti, Clonlara to support implied authority. | Implied authority not available; not necessary to the due and efficient exercise of powers. |
| Does Goldstone govern the outcome of whether libraries must provide identical services to residents and nonresidents for state funding? | Goldstone endorses local control and nonuniform services; no requirement to grant identical services to nonresidents. | Goldstone is cited to justify state-wide equalization by law or regulation. | Goldstone supports local control; rules violative of Constitution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldstone v Bloomfield Twp Pub Library, 479 Mich 554; 737 NW2d 476 (2007) (local library control; nonresident equal access rejected)
- Ranke v Corp & Securities Comm, 317 Mich 304; 26 NW2d 898 (1947) (implied rulemaking only to the extent necessary to exercise express powers)
- Coffman v State Bd of Examiners in Optometry, 331 Mich 582; 50 NW2d 322 (1951) (implied rulemaking discussed but not dispositive)
- Ghidotti v Barber, 459 Mich 189; 586 NW2d 883 (1998) (implied rulemaking discussed; dicta)
- Clonlara, Inc v State Bd of Ed, 442 Mich 230; 501 NW2d 88 (1993) (compliance procedures; implied authority discussed as dicta)