{
  "id": 8547100,
  "name": "In the Matter of: THE APPEAL OF NORTH CAROLINA SAVINGS AND LOAN LEAGUE and BURKE COUNTY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION from Judgment of CREDIT UNION COMMISSION in Contested Case Relating to Bylaws of STATE EMPLOYEES' CREDIT UNION and NORTH CAROLINA BANKERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner v. NORTH CAROLINA CREDIT UNION COMMISSION and ROY D. HIGH, ADMINISTRATOR OF CREDIT UNION, Respondents",
  "name_abbreviation": "North Carolina Bankers Ass'n v. North Carolina Credit Union Commission",
  "decision_date": "1980-02-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7910SC515",
  "first_page": "19",
  "last_page": "24",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "45 N.C. App. 19"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 565,
    "char_count": 12347,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.811,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3181068408277913e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7896130237708839
    },
    "sha256": "9ddf0d6a123a2cd8bf7b863b73dc788d2b7d8451770d057af0f583d4f0ebeb5f",
    "simhash": "1:d3e91fa74ea476f1",
    "word_count": 1931
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:38.339487+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Martin (Robert M.) and WELLS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "In the Matter of: THE APPEAL OF NORTH CAROLINA SAVINGS AND LOAN LEAGUE and BURKE COUNTY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION from Judgment of CREDIT UNION COMMISSION in Contested Case Relating to Bylaws of STATE EMPLOYEES\u2019 CREDIT UNION and NORTH CAROLINA BANKERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner v. NORTH CAROLINA CREDIT UNION COMMISSION and ROY D. HIGH, ADMINISTRATOR OF CREDIT UNION, Respondents"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nWith respect to the review in Superior Court of a final agency decision, the Administrative Procedure Act provides:\nThe court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the agency findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:\n(1) In violation of constitutional provisions; or\n(2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or\n(3) Made upon unlawful procedure; or\n(4) Affected by other error of law; or\n(5) Unsupported by substantial evidence admissible under G.S. 150A-29(a) or G.S. 150A-30 in view of the entire record as submitted; or\n(6) Arbitrary or capricious.\nIf the court reverses or modifies the decision of the agency, the judge shall set out in writing, which writing shall become a part of the record, the reasons for such reversal or modification.\nG.S. \u00a7 150A-51.\nIn reversing the decision of the Credit Union Commission, Judge Braswell included among his reasons the following:\n17. There is no common bond justified in the Judgment. The purported common bond in this bylaw is in violation of G.S. \u00a7 54-101.26 [sic]. The action of the Commission in the approval of the bylaw in the absence of common bond amounts to and is an unlawful discrimination against each of the petitioners in violation of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 19 and Article V, Section 2 of the North Carolina Constitution.\n18. Therefore, the Judgment of August 10, 1978 of the Credit Union Commission of the State of North Carolina is reversed because it is in violation of Constitutional law. It is in excess of statutory authority. It is unsupported by the findings of fact in the Judgment from which the appeal is taken. The bylaws\u2019 purported inclusion of new members by amendment to the bylaw was arbitrary.\nFor purposes of this appeal, we interpret the foregoing to constitute the single conclusion on Judge Braswell\u2019s part that no common bond existed between the members of the State Employees\u2019 Credit Union as it was composed prior to the amendment and the proposed additional members subsequent thereto. Thus, our inquiry, as all the parties agree, is simply whether the membership of the State Employees\u2019 Credit Union as enlarged by the amendment meets the \u201ccommon bond\u201d requirement of G.S. \u00a7 54-109.26 (1979 Cum. Supp.), which provides:\n\u201cMembership\u201d defined. \u2014 (a.) The membership of a credit union shall be limited to and consist of the subscribers to the articles of incorporation and such other persons within the common bond set forth in the bylaws as have been duly admitted members, have paid any required entrance fee or membership fee, or both, have subscribed for one or more shares, and have paid the initial installment thereon, and have complied with such other requirements as the articles of incorporation or bylaws specify.\n(b) Credit union membership may include groups having a common bond of similar occupation, association or interest, or groups who reside within an identifiable neighborhood, community, or rural district, or employees of a common employer, and members of the immediate family of such persons.\n[Our emphasis.] If the requirement is met, the bylaw as amended is not repulsive on constitutional grounds.\nA straightforward reading of the statute evinces a clear legislative intent to invest the credit union incorporators with the prerogative to establish and describe the \u201ccommon bond\u201d of its members within the bounds of the three permissible groups described in subsection (b). That is, the \u201ccommon bond\u201d contemplated by subsection (a) will exist if the group to be included in the field of membership is united by (1) \u201csimilar occupation, association or interest\u201d; or by (2) residence in \u201can identifiable neighborhood, community, or rural district\u201d; or by (3) employment by a common employer. The resolution of the issue in the present case boils down, we think, to a determination whether public employees, regardless which unit of government \u2014 state, county, or local\u2014 employs them, nevertheless share a \u201ccommon bond\u201d of \u201csimilar occupation, association or interest.\u201d We think they do.\nIn our opinion public employees are united by the common bond of similar occupation for the simple reason that they are all employed in the service of the community, whether that community be narrowly defined as is the case with local public employees, or broadly delineated as in the case of State public employees. They all occupy positions in public service. Moreover, such employees are all paid from public funds generated by taxing the citizenry. They serve the public; the public pays their salaries. These two characteristics are common to the membership as envisaged by the amendment to the bylaw in question here. We hold that these factors in particular provide sufficient similarity of occupation, despite the individual place and position of the employee, to meet the \u201ccommon bond\u201d requirement of G.S. \u00a7 54-109.26.\nPetitioners would have us narrowly construe \u201csimilar occupation\u201d so that only individuals who perform almost identical jobs could qualify for membership in the same credit union. They support their construction of the statutory language with observations such as, \u201c[A] liquor clerk employed by an ABC board in Avery County has nothing in common with a Greek professor employed by a State-supported university in New Hanover County.\u201d The fallacy of petitioners\u2019 approach to defining \u201csimilar occupation\u201d by reference to job description becomes obvious when we examine the composition of the Credit Union prior to the amendment. If petitioners\u2019 logic were to prevail, the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, a State government employee, would have nothing in common with an orderly at Dorothea Dix Hospital, also a State government employee. Yet, by virtue of their occupational status as State government employees, both have been eligible for membership in the State Employees\u2019 Credit Union since its creation. On the other hand, a State highway patrolman would have more in common, as far as employment description, with a county sheriff than he would have with a Greek professor at a State-supported university. But, as petitioners see it, the State patrolman and the county sheriff are not eligible for membership in the same credit union. When viewed in this light, petitioners\u2019 position regarding the meaning of \u201csimilar occupation\u201d defeats their purported purpose to prove that local and county governmental employees enjoy no \u201ccommon bond\u201d of similar occupation with State government employees.\nWe think that these illustrations, however, reinforce our interpretation of \u201csimilar occupation\u201d and serve to further clarify what factors are significant in determining whether certain employees share a similar occupation to the extent that a common bond is established among them.\nWe agree that that part of the amendment which stipulates that only those employees \u201ccovered under a retirement system administered by the State of North Carolina\u201d will be eligible for Credit Union membership does not provide the requisite common bond within the meaning of the statute. We believe this provision was intended to, and does, limit the membership since there will be local government employees who do not belong to such a system.\nFor the reasons stated, the judgment of the Superior Court is reversed. The proceeding is remanded to that court for the entry of an Order affirming the decision of the Commission.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges Martin (Robert M.) and WELLS concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jordan, Morris & Hoke, by John R. Jordan, Jr., Robert R. Price and Henry W. Jones, Jr., and Alfred P. Carlton, Jr., for the petitioner appellee North Carolina Bankers' Association, Inc.",
      "Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, by L. P. McLendon, Jr. and Edward C. Winslow III, for the petitioner ap-pellees North Carolina Savings and Loan League and Burke County Savings and Loan Association.",
      "Byrd, Byrd, Ervin & Blanton, by John W. Ervin, Jr., for the petitioner appellee Burke County Savings and Loan Association.",
      "Bailey, Dixon, Wooten, McDonald & Fountain, by J. Ruffin Bailey and Gary S. Parsons, for the respondent appellant State Employees\u2019 Credit Union.",
      "Thomas L. Barringer for the respondent appellant North Carolina Credit Union Commission and Roy D. High, Administrator of Credit Unions.",
      "C. Ronald Aycock for the respondent appellant North Carolina Association of County Commissioners.",
      "Ernest Ball for the respondent appellant North Carolina League of Municipalities."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In the Matter of: THE APPEAL OF NORTH CAROLINA SAVINGS AND LOAN LEAGUE and BURKE COUNTY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION from Judgment of CREDIT UNION COMMISSION in Contested Case Relating to Bylaws of STATE EMPLOYEES\u2019 CREDIT UNION and NORTH CAROLINA BANKERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner v. NORTH CAROLINA CREDIT UNION COMMISSION and ROY D. HIGH, ADMINISTRATOR OF CREDIT UNION, Respondents\nNo. 7910SC515\n(Filed 5 February 1980)\nBanks and Banking \u00a7 1\u2014 public employees \u2014 common bond of similar occupation \u2014 State Employees\u2019 Credit Union \u2014 inclusion of local government employees\nAll public employees, whether employed by a state, county or local governmental unit, share a \u201ccommon bond of similar occupation\u201d within the meaning of G.S. 54-109.26 since they all serve the public and are all paid from public funds generated by taxing the citizenry. Therefore, the N. C. Credit Union Commission properly approved an amendment to the bylaws of the State Employees\u2019 Credit Union permitting an expansion of the field of membership to include certain county and municipal employees.\nAppeal by respondents from Braswell, Judge. Judgment entered 10 January 1979 in Superior Court, WAKE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals on 10 January 1980.\nThis case arises from a decision of the North Carolina Credit Union Commission on 10 August 1978 whereby it approved an amendment to the bylaws of the State Employees\u2019 Credit Union allowing an expansion of the field of membership to include additional municipal and county employees. The bylaw as amended provides as follows:\nThe field of membership shall extend to those having the following common bond: employees of governmental units in North Carolina whose employees are covered under a retirement system administered by the State of North Carolina; Federal employees working in conjunction with these governmental units; employees of agencies or departments whose employees are subject to the State Personnel Act; employees of associations formed for the benefit of the above persons; unremarried spouses of persons who died while in the field of membership; persons retired from any of the above as pensioners and/or annuitants; members of their immediate families and organizations of such persons ....\nExcluded from eligibility for membership are government employees who \u201ccurrently have a credit union chartered by North Carolina or the Federal Government and who are included in that field of membership . . . The effect of the amendment is to include in the field of membership, along with State government employees previously eligible, those local government employees who participate in retirement systems administered by the State, and those federal employees working in conjunction with them. The Commission approved the amendment following hearings conducted pursuant to a request by the North Carolina Bankers\u2019 Association which was joined by the North Carolina Savings and Loan League and the Burke County Savings and Loan Association. Intervening in support of the amendment were the State Employees\u2019 Credit Union, the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, and the North Carolina League of Municipalities.\nFrom the decision of the Commission, the Bankers\u2019 Association, Savings and Loan League, and Savings and Loan Association [hereinafter petitioners], pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 150A-43, filed petitions for review in superior court and argued that the additional membership contemplated by the amendment enjoyed no \u201ccommon bond\u201d with State employees as required by G.S. \u00a7 54-109.26. Judge Braswell agreed with petitioners and, from his judgment of 10 January 1979 reversing the decision of the Commission, respondents appealed.\nJordan, Morris & Hoke, by John R. Jordan, Jr., Robert R. Price and Henry W. Jones, Jr., and Alfred P. Carlton, Jr., for the petitioner appellee North Carolina Bankers' Association, Inc.\nBrooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, by L. P. McLendon, Jr. and Edward C. Winslow III, for the petitioner ap-pellees North Carolina Savings and Loan League and Burke County Savings and Loan Association.\nByrd, Byrd, Ervin & Blanton, by John W. Ervin, Jr., for the petitioner appellee Burke County Savings and Loan Association.\nBailey, Dixon, Wooten, McDonald & Fountain, by J. Ruffin Bailey and Gary S. Parsons, for the respondent appellant State Employees\u2019 Credit Union.\nThomas L. Barringer for the respondent appellant North Carolina Credit Union Commission and Roy D. High, Administrator of Credit Unions.\nC. Ronald Aycock for the respondent appellant North Carolina Association of County Commissioners.\nErnest Ball for the respondent appellant North Carolina League of Municipalities."
  },
  "file_name": "0019-01",
  "first_page_order": 47,
  "last_page_order": 52
}