Could a governor-appointed trustee sign one group health-insurance contract for all Washington state agencies?

Plain-English summary

The Washington Attorney General concluded in 1963 that a trustee designated by the governor could not enter a single group hospitalization or medical-aid insurance contract on behalf of all state employees and their dependents under chapter 75, Laws of 1963. The statute granted the contracting authority to each state department, division, or separate agency acting through its principal supervising official or governing body.

The AG read that authority as requiring judgment and discretion. Because a public officer charged by statute with exercising discretion could not redelegate it, the responsible official or governing body of each agency had to exercise the contracting power. The opinion addressed who could contract, not the merits of any particular benefit plan.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1963. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a governor-appointed trustee contract for all agencies?
A: The AG said no under the 1963 law it examined.

Q: Who held the group-plan contracting authority?
A: Each department, division, or separate agency through its principal supervising official or governing body.

Q: Why could that authority not be handed to a trustee?
A: The AG treated the statutory power as discretionary and applied the rule against redelegating an officer’s assigned discretion.

Background and statutory framework

Chapter 75, Laws of 1963, authorized public agencies to provide group hospitalization and medical aid through qualifying insurance carriers or health care contractors when funds were available. The AG focused on its “acting through” language and cited decisions on nondelegation of public-officer discretion.

Citations and references

The opinion discusses chapter 75, Laws of 1963, and State ex rel. West v. City of Seattle.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/offices-and-officers-state-agencies-supervising-official-or-governing-body-authority

Original opinion text

Attorney General John J. O'Connell

OFFICES AND OFFICERS ‑- STATE ‑- AGENCIES ‑- SUPERVISING OFFICIAL OR GOVERNING BODY ‑- AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE GROUP DISABILITY INSURANCE CONTRACTS FOR EMPLOYEES ‑- NONDELEGABLE.

Under chapter 75, Laws of 1963, the authority granted to the supervising official or governing body of any department, division or separate agency of state government to provide for hospitalization and medical aid for their employees and dependents through contracts with insurance carriers or health care contractors may not be delegated to the trustee appointed by the governor.

May 21, 1963

Honorable P. V. Robe
Director, Department of Personnel
General Administration Building
Olympia, Washington

Cite as: AGO 63-64 No. 24

Dear Sir:

You have requested the opinion of this office on a question which we paraphrase as follows:

Would it be legal under chapter 75, Laws of 1963, for a trustee designated by the governor to enter into a contract or contracts of group disability insurance on behalf of all state employees and their dependents?

We answer your question in the negative.

ANALYSIS

Chapter 75, Laws of 1963,1/ provides as follows:

"Any department, division, or separate agency of the state government, and any county, municipality or other political subdivision of the stateacting through its principal supervising official or governing body may, whenever funds shall be available for that purpose, provide for all or a part of hospitalization and medical [[Orig. Op. Page 2]] aid for its employees and their dependents through contracts with regularly constituted insurance carriers or with health care service contractors as defined in chapter 48.44 RCW, for group hospitalization and medical aid policies or plans: PROVIDED, That the contributions of any department, division or separate agency of the state government and school districts shall be limited to not to exceed fifty percent of any premium therefor, or five dollars per month per employee covered, whichever is less except that such limitation shall not apply to employees employed under chapter 47.64 RCW.

"The cost of any such group policy or plan to any such public agency or body shall be deemed additional compensation to the employees covered thereby for services rendered, and any officer authorized to disburse such funds may pay in whole or in part to any such insurance carrier or health care service contractor the amount of the premiums due pursuant to any such contract." (Emphasis supplied.)

This statute, as applicable to state employees, authorizes anydepartment, division orseparate agency of state government acting through itsprincipal official or governing body to provide for hospitalization and medical aid for its employees and their dependents through contracts with insurance carriers or health care contractors.

It is fundamental that when a statute requires a public officer to exercise his discretion, such public officer cannot redelegate his authority. Harning v. City of Duluth, 224 Minn. 299, 28 N.W. (2d) 659 (1947); State ex rel. West v. City of Seattle, 161 Wash. Dec. 656 (1963) [[61 Wn.2d 658]].2/ In our opinion the above quoted statute requires the exercise of judgment and discretion.

[[Orig. Op. Page 3]]

Accordingly, it is our opinion that this authority and its attendant responsibility cannot be redelegated to a trustee designated by the governor, but must be exercised by the principal official or governing body of the several departments, divisions or separate agencies of state government.

We trust the foregoing will be of assistance to you.

Very truly yours,

JOHN J. O'CONNELL
Attorney General

BASIL L. BADLEY
Assistant Attorney General

R. TED BOTTIGER
Assistant Attorney General

*** FOOTNOTES ***

1/This act becomes effective June 13, 1963.

2/In State ex rel. West v. City of Seattle,supra, our supreme court considered the question of whether an appointing authority who had the responsibility under the Seattle city charter to discharge employees could delegate that responsibility to a subordinate employee. The court held that he could not delegate such responsibility nor could he by later ratification or acquiescence make the discharge his own. See, also,State ex rel. West v. Seattle, 50 Wn. (2d) 94, 309 P. (2d) 751 (1957).