[ Previous Page] [ Home Page ]
The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL Opinion No. 6544 October 27, 1988 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Const 1963, art 5, Sec. 19--veto of appropriations of line items of amount to be fixed prior to time of payment GOVERNOR: Veto of appropriations of line items of amount to be fixed prior to time of payment The veto by the Governor of Secs. 210 and 211 of 1988 Enrolled HB 5451, which appropriate distinct items of money in amounts to be computed in accordance with law at a time prior to the required date of payment of the appropriations, is valid as authorized by Const 1963, art 5, Sec. 19. Honorable Harry Gast State Senator The Capitol Lansing, Michigan 48913 You have requested my opinion as to whether the Governor may, pursuant to Const 1963, art 5, Sec. 19, veto two specific provisions of an appropriations bill. The specific sections of the appropriations bill passed by the Legislature referenced in your opinion request, Secs. 210 and 211 of 1988 Enrolled HB 5451, provide: "Sec. 210. In addition to any pay-in to the countercyclical economic and budget stabilization fund required pursuant to section 352 of Act No. 431 of the Public Acts of 1984, as amended, being section 18.1352 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, there is an additional appropriation from the general fund to the countercyclical economic and budget stabilization fund for fiscal year 1988-89 only. The amount of this additional appropriation shall be equal to the entire fiscal year 1987-88 general fund year-end balance as reported by the department of management and budget in its preliminary bookclosing report required pursuant to section 493 of Act No. 431 of the Public Acts of 1984, being section 18.1493 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. This transfer shall be made on February 1, 1989. "Sec. 211. In addition to any other pay-ins required to the countercyclical economic budget stabilization fund there shall be an additional appropriation from the general fund to the countercyclical economic and budget stabilization fund for fiscal year 1988-89 only. The amount of this additional appropriation shall be equal to the projected fiscal year 1988-89 general fund year-end balance as estimated by the department of management and budget. The transfer from the general fund to the countercyclical economic and budget stabilization fund shall occur on September 30, 1989. The department of management and budget shall use the estimate of the fiscal year 1988-89 general fund year end balance as contained in the monthly financial report required pursuant to section 386 of Act No. 431 of the Public Acts of 1984, being section 18.1386 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. The purpose of this additional transfer shall be to provide sufficient funds to finance a disaster relief program for the state's agricultural community and to finance additional tax relief, as enacted by the legislature." (Emphasis added.) 1988 Enrolled HB 5451 became 1988 PA 305. Const 1963, art 5, Sec. 19, provides: "The governor may disapprove any distinct item or items appropriating moneys in any appropriation bill. The part or parts approved shall become law, and the item or items disapproved shall be void unless re-passed according to the method prescribed for the passage of other bills over the executive veto." The history of this constitutional provision was examined in OAG, 1985-1986, No 6399, p 402 (November 13, 1986). The appropriate inquiry is whether the Governor vetoed a specific "item or items" containing appropriations of money. In this regard, OAG, 1985-1986, No 6399, supra, p 409, stated: "An item in an appropriations bill contains the subject and the amount of an appropriation. Commonwealth v Barnett, 199 PA 161, 173-174; 48 A 976, 978 (1901). The appropriations bill may contain one or more items. Fulmore v Lane, 104 Tex 499, 507; 140 SW 405, 409 (1911). The line item may be a single line or contained in a numbered paragraph of an appropriations bill. Board of Education of Oakland Schools v Superintendent of Public Instruction, 392 Mich 613, 620-621; 221 NW2d 345, 349 (1974); letter opinion to Senator Harold Hungerford, dated October 3, 1969; letter opinion to Senator James J. Gray, dated December 7, 1971. The item must set apart a specific portion of money. Board of County Road Commissioners v Board of State Canvassers, 50 Mich App 89, 95; 213 NW2d 298, 300 (1973), aff'd, 391 Mich 666; 218 NW2d 144 (1974)." While Secs. 210 and 211 of 1988 Enrolled HB 5451 do not specify the exact amount of the appropriation therein, they do, nonetheless, set apart a specific portion of money to be ascertained on a date prior to payment as provided by law. In Black v Oklahoma Funding Bond Comm, 193 Okla 1; 140 P2d 740 (1943), the Supreme Court of Oklahoma considered whether the appropriation of the entire surplus in a fund when ascertained was defective for failure to specify the sum appropriated and held: "As to the suggestion that the act does not distinctly specify the sums appropriated, we observe that the act devotes the entire surplus, whatever it may be when capable of ascertainment, to the purposes therein specified.... In this act the Legislature created a special fund of this surplus which was capable of specific ascertainment by ordinary bookkeeping methods and calculations at a time previous to the time when the law should be first administered." 140 P2d at 745. Cox v Bates, 237 SC 198; 116 SE2d 828 (1960), underscores the conclusion that a specific item of appropriation need not be definite in amount at the time of the enactment of the appropriations bill. There, the Supreme Court of South Carolina held: "Complaint is made that the appropriation of the surplus to the counties is in indefinite amount. But it is as definite as it could have been made when the law was enacted. It is of all of the surplus, if any, when ascertained, after the setting aside of the fixed reserve fund. Simple arithmetic makes it definite and certain." 116 SE2d at 837. The Director of the Department of Management and Budget is required by MCL 18.1493; MSA 3.516(493), to submit to the Legislature a preliminary, unaudited statement as to the general fund within 120 days after the close of a fiscal year. Thus, the surplus contained in the general fund at the close of fiscal year 1987-1988 will be arithmetically determined by February 1, 1989 when the payment is required to be made to the countercyclical economic and budget stabilization fund under Sec. 210 of 1988 Enrolled HB 5451. MCL 18.1386; MSA 3.516(386), requires the State Budget Director to prepare monthly reports within 20 days after the end of each month projecting the ending state balance for the fiscal year in progress. The monthly financial report due by September 20, 1989 will contain a statement of the estimated ending general fund balance for the 1988-1989 fiscal year. It is this estimated sum which is ordered by the Legislature to be paid into the countercyclical economic and budget stabilization fund as required by Sec. 211 of 1988 Enrolled HB 5451. From a fair reading of Secs. 210 and 211, the intent of the Legislature is manifest that the sum to be computed by the Director of the Department of Management and Budget in accordance with MCL 18.1493; MSA 3.516(493), as specified in Sec. 210, and the sum to be computed by the Director of the Budget in accordance with MCL 18.1386; MSA 3.516(386), as specified by Sec. 211, are appropriated as distinct line items subject to the veto authority conferred upon the Governor by Const 1963, art 5, Sec. 19. It is my opinion, therefore, that the veto by the Governor of Secs. 210 and 211 of 1988 Enrolled HB 5451, which appropriate distinct items of money in amounts to be computed in accordance with law at a time prior to the required date of payment of the appropriations, is valid as authorized by Const 1963, art 5, Sec. 19. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General
[ Previous Page] [ Home Page ]