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. 6796 May 10, 1994 APPROPRIATIONS: Amendment of a general appropriation bill which has been enacted into law prior to legislative action on other general appropriation bills CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Amendment of a general appropriation bill which has been enacted into law prior to legislative action on other general appropriation bills The enactment of an amendment, for an item included in the budget, to section 20(20) of the State School Aid Act of 1979, as proposed in SB 887 (S-6), prior to legislative action on the other general appropriation bills for the 1994-1995 fiscal year, is not prohibited by Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 31. Honorable Paul Hillegonds State Representative The Capitol Lansing, MI You have asked whether the enactment of an amendment to section 20(20) of the State School Aid Act of 1979 proposed in SB 887 (S-6), prior to legislative action on the other general appropriation bills for the 1994-1995 fiscal year, is prohibited by Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 31. (1) Const1963, art 4, Sec. 31 provides, in pertinent part, that: The general appropriation bills for the succeeding fiscal period covering items set forth in the budget shall be passed or rejected in either house of the legislature before that house passes any appropriation bill for items not in the budget except bills supplementing appropriations for the current fiscal year's operation. At this time, the Legislature has passed and the Governor has signed 1993 PA 336, which is the general appropriation bill for state school aid for the 1994-1995 fiscal year and which amends the State School Aid Act of 1979, 1979 PA 94, MCL 388.1601 et seq; MSA 15.1919(901) et seq. Senate Bill 887 would further amend the State School Aid Act of 1979, as amended by 1993 PA 336. Neither house of the Legislature has yet passed or rejected all of the other general appropriation bills for the 1994-1995 fiscal year. We must first consider what is prohibited by Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 31. Research has not disclosed any decisions of Michigan's appellate courts dealing with this question. Resort may be had to the constitutional debates to shed light on the meaning of a particular provision of the Michigan Constitution. Burdick v Secretary of State, 373 Mich 578, 584; 130 NW2d 380 (1964). Article 4, Sec. 31, was originally paragraph b of Committee Proposal 46. The other three paragraphs of Committee Proposal 46, a, c and d, respectively, became Const1963, art 5, Secs. 18, 19 and 20. Delegate Martin, the chairman of the committee on the executive branch, explained the purpose of the proposal as follows: The purpose and intent of this proposal are to establish a constitutional executive budget process for the orderly management of the state's fiscal affairs ... The 4 sections here proposed are deemed by this committee to embody minimum and basic essentials of an executive budget. 1 Official Record, Constitutional Convention of 1961, p 1635. Under this proposal, the Governor is required to submit a budget and the general appropriation bills and revenue bills necessary to implement the budget (art 5, Sec. 18). The Legislature acts on the general appropriation bills (art 4, Sec. 31). The Governor signs or vetoes or item vetoes these appropriation bills (art 5, Sec. 19) and thereafter, if necessary, reduces expenditures to match revenues (art 5, Sec. 20). Delegate Martin explained the specific purpose of Committee Proposal 46b to be: [T]o focus legislative attention on the general appropriation bill or bills to the exclusion of any other appropriation bills, except those supplementing appropriations for the current year's operation. 1 Official Record, Constitutional Convention of 1961, p 1636. During debate, Delegate Martin further explained: The fundamental purpose of this section is to get the attention of the legislature to the main business of appropriations, that is, the general appropriation bills before it acts on so called special bills for this, that, or the other thing, which are thrown in by individual legislators and which do not come from a consideration of the total needs of the state government and the total revenue. Id, p 1653. The opponents of Committee Proposal 46b did not question its purpose, only its wisdom. The committee minority report stated: Traditionally, the legislature appropriates the remaining salary of a deceased legislator to the widow, but this would be impossible until all general appropriation bills had been acted upon under this proposal. It is difficult to understand what is accomplished by delaying appropriation bills such as the one described above, until general appropriation bills are enacted into law. Id, p 1637. Under art 4, Sec. 31, each house of the Legislature must first act on the general appropriation bills before passing any appropriation bill for the ensuing fiscal period for items not in the budget. OAG 1963-1964, No 4292, p 318, 324 (March 16, 1964), explained this requirement as follows: This does not mean that the legislature is required to pass or reject the general appropriation bills in the precise form in which they were submitted to each house of the legislature, it being my opinion that either house of the legislature is at liberty to amend the governor's general appropriation bills on general orders. OAG, 1963-1964, No 4352, p 441, 443 (July 27, 1964), considered a situation in which the Legislature passed two appropriation bills creating additional circuit judgeships. The bills were not general appropriation bills and were passed before action was completed on all of the general appropriation bills. The budget had an item for salary and expenses of circuit judges, which did not include any provision for an increase in the number of judges. The Legislature passed a separate general appropriation bill, which included an item for salary and expenses of circuit judges. Citing the above-quoted language from OAG, 1963-1964, No 4292, supra, this opinion concluded that passage of these two bills was not prohibited by art 4, Sec. 31, because they pertained to salary and expenses of circuit judges, which was an item in the budget. In the situation posed in your request, SB 887 would amend a general appropriation act. The specific proposed amendment to section 20(20) of the State School Aid Act of 1979 would affect the computation of the foundation allowance. The foundation allowance was an item in the budget (Executive Budget Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, pp 12 and 58 (2)) and in the general appropriation act for the 1994-1995 fiscal year (1993 PA 336). Thus, assuming arguendo that the proposed amendment to section 20(20) supplements the prior appropriation, because it pertains to an item in the budget its enactment is not prohibited by art 4, Sec. 31. There is simply no requirement in Const1963, art 4, Sec. 31, that all of the general appropriation bills for the succeeding fiscal period must be acted upon before any of them may be amended with regard to items that were in the budget. It is my opinion, therefore, that the enactment of an amendment, for an item included in the budget, to section 20(20) of the State School Aid Act of 1979, as proposed in SB 887 (S-6), prior to legislative action on the other general appropriation bills for the 1994-1995 fiscal year, is not prohibited by Const1963, art 4, Sec. 31. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General (1 Under the analysis employed in this opinion, whether the amendment of section 20(20) of the State School Aid Act of 1979 proposed in SB 887 (S-6) constitutes a supplemental appropriation for the 1994-1995 fiscal year is irrelevant) (2 The foundation allowance is referred to in the Executive Budget as the Children's Educational Guarantee)