[ 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. 5669 March 17, 1980 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24 STATE TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL COMMISSION: Control of budget, procurement, and related management functions DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET: Exercise of powers of budget, procurement, and related management functions of State Toxic Substance Control Commission 1978 PA 116, Sec. 3(1), which authorizes the Director of the Department of Management and Budget to perform the budget, procurement and related management functions of the State Toxic Substance Control Commission, violates Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24 since it is a separate object not expressed in the title of 1978 PA 116. Honorable John C. Hertel State Senator The Capitol Lansing, Michigan You have requested my opinion on the following question: Does 1978 PA 116, Sec. 3(1), which confers power upon the Director of the Department of Management and Budget to perform budget, procurement and related management functions of the State Toxic Substance Control Commission, violate Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24? 1978 PA 116, Sec. 3(1); MCLA 286.183(1); MSA 14.529(103) provides: 'The state toxic substance control commission is created as an autonomous entity in the department of management and budget. The commission shall exercise its powers, duties, and functions independently of the director of the department of management and budget except that budget, procurement, and related management functions of the commission shall be performed by the director of the department of management and budget.' [Emphasis supplied] Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24, states in part: 'No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title . . .' The title of 1978 PA 116, supra, declares its expressed purpose as: 'AN ACT to create a state toxic substance control commission and to prescribe its powers and duties; to require the reporting of certain abnormalities in human or animal health; to create a toxic substance emergency fund; to prescribe certain powers of the governor; and to prescribe penalties. OAG, 1979-1980, No 5485, p ___(April 26, 1979), addressed Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24, supra, and stated in relevant part: 'The test for determining whether a statutory provision violates the comparable, constitutional article under Const 1908, art 5, Sec. 21, was discussed in Vernor v Secretary of State, 179 Mich 157, 160; 146 NW 338 (1914) as follows: "What is the constitutional test? We think it is that a title must embrace the object of the act, and the body of the act must not be inconsistent with the title. The pertinent questions should be: Does the title of the act fairly indicate the purpose of the legislation? Is the title a fair index of the act? Does the title of the act fairly inform the legislators and the public of its purposes, as a whole?' 'Further, in Continental Motors Corp v Township of Muskegon, 376 Mich 170, 179; 135 NW2d 908 (1965), the Supreme Court stated: ". . . It is sufficient to say only that the title of a legislative act must give notice to legislators and others interested of the object of the law thereby assuring them that only matters germane to the object expressed in the title will be enacted into law.' (Emphasis added) 'and in Advisory Opinion re Constitutionality of 1972 PA 294, 389 Mich 441, 465; 208 NW 469 (1973): "An act may include all matters germane to its object. It may include all those provisions which directly relate to, carry out and implement the principle object . . .. [T]he purpose of this constitutional limitation is to insure that both the legislators and the public have proper notice of legislative content and to prevent deceit and subterfuge.' (Emphasis added)' The primary object and purpose of 1978 PA 116, supra, is the creation of an independent toxic substance control commission with wide-ranging capabilities to deal effectively with toxic substances. One commentary on the toxic substance control commission has stated that the commission's significance is the result of: '. . . [I]ts generic approach to the [toxic substances] problem by establishing a new independent decision-making body, structuring its discretion, giving it coordinating and oversight functions, and granting it substantial regulatory authority under certain conditions.' (1) Nothing in the title of 1978 PA 116, supra, suggests that any of the functions of the independent toxic substance control commission created by the act are to be performed by the director of the department of management and budget. Indeed, 1978 PA 116, Sec. 3(1), supra, provides in pertinent part '[t]he commission shall exercise its powers, duties and functions independently of the director of the department of management and budget. . . .' [Emphasis supplied] Therefore, I am constrained to conclude that the language in 1978 PA 116, Sec. 3(1), supra, which provides 'except that budget, procurement, and related management functions of the commission shall be performed by the director of the department of management and budget.' violates Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24, supra, since it has a separate object not expressed in the title of the act. The legislative history of 1978 PA 116, supra, which was introduced as SB 63, 1 Senate Journal, 1977, p 94 supports this conclusion. As introduced, the title of SB 63 read: 'A bill to create a state toxic substance control commission and to prescribe its powers and duties; to require the reporting of certain abnormalities in human or animal health; and to prescribe penalties.' Section 2(1) of SB 63, as introduced, provided: 'The state toxic substance control commission is created as an autonomous entity in the department of public health. The commission shall exercise its powers, duties, and functions independently of the director of public health, except that budget, procurement, and related management functions of the commission shall be performed with the assistance of the director of public health.' [Emphasis supplied.] Thereafter, a substitute for SB 63 was reported by the Committee on Agriculture and Consumer Affairs with recommendation that it pass, 1 Senate Journal, 1977, p 389, the title reading: 'A bill to create a state toxic substance control commission and to prescribe its powers and duties; to require the reporting of certain abnormalities in human or animal health; to create a toxic substance emergency fund; to prescribe certain powers of the governor; and to prescribe penalties.' [Added language underscored.] Section 2(1) of substitute SB 63 provided: 'The state toxic substance control commission is created as an autonomous entity in the department of management and budget. The commission shall exercise its powers, duties, and functions independently of the director of management and budget except that budget, procurement, and related management functions of the commission shall be performed with the assistance of the director of management and budget.' [Amendatory language underscored.] The Senate passed substitute SB 63, with its title and section 2(1) reading as set forth above, on May 4, 1977. 1 Senate Journal, 1977, p 640. It is noteworthy that section 2(1), supra, provided budget, procurement and related management functions of the commission shall be performed with the assistance of the director of management and budget. On February 27, 1978, the House Committee on Conservation, Government and Recreation reported a substitute for SB 63 with a recommendation that it be adopted and the bill pass. 26 House Journal, 1978, p 609. The title of the house substitute for SB 63 was identical to substitute SB 63 passed by the Senate. However, section 3(1) of the house substitute provided: 'The state toxic substance control commission is created as an autonomous entity in the department of management and budget. The commission shall exercise its powers, duties, and functions independently of the director of the department of management and budget except that budget, procurement, and related management functions of the commission shall be performed [with the assistance of] by the director of the department of management and budget.' [Bracketed language deleted; underscored language added.] Section 3(1) of the house substitute for SB 63 greatly expanded the powers of the director of the department of management and budget with respect to the commission, without concomitant amendment of the title to so indicate. The House passed its substitute for SB 63, on March 22, 1978. 40 House Journal, 1978, p 1001. On April 5, 1978, the Senate concurred in the House substitute for SB 63; the substitute passed, 42 Senate Journal, 1978, p 700, and was signed by the Governor on April 18, 1978, as 1978 PA 116, supra. Accordingly, the provision of 1978 PA 116, Sec. 3(1), supra, in question, being repugnant to Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24, supra, is unconstitutional. Although the portion of 1978 PA 116, Sec. 3(1), supra, above set forth is unconstitutional, the remaining provisions of the act are complete, independent and capable of being executed as intended by the legislature, and therefore remain constitutional and effective. People v McMurchy, 249 Mich 147; 228 NW 723 (1930); OAG, No 5485, supra; OAG, 1965-1966, No 4575, p 389 (December 23, 1966). Thus, the defective portion of section 3(1) may be severed from 1978 PA 116, supra, without invalidating the entire act. It is, therefore, my opinion that the portion of 1978 PA 116, Sec. 3(1), supra, conferring authority upon the director of the department of management and budget to control the budget, procurement and related management functions of the State Toxic Control Commission is unconstitutional. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General (1)
[ Previous Page] [ Home Page ]