In re the Oklahoma Development Finance Authority for Approval of Oklahoma State System of Higher Education Master Real Property Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds, 2013 OK 74

The Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction to review protests challenging the Master Lease Program and related bonds under 70 O.S. Supp.2011 § 14.1 and 20 O.S. Supp.2011 § 8206.6-8206.6b.
The Master Lease Program finances lease-purchase projects for the Oklahoma State System of Higher Education, with bonds sought by the Oklahoma Development Finance Authority to fund the projects, including a Medical Examiner's Building on a college campus.
Protestants argued constitutional and separation-of-powers concerns, focusing on the funding mechanism for the Medical Examiner's Building and related projects.
This Court relies on precedent that bonds payable by the Regents are not debts of the State; the Legislature cannot force appropriation of funds to repay such bonds.
There are revolving funds (e.g., the Chief Medical Examiner Revolving Fund) and similar funds for colleges that can be used to pay building rents under the Master Lease Program.
The statutory framework requires the Legislature to approve bond issuances via a defined review process (e.g., 45-day window for legislative disapproval); silence after 45 days constitutes approval.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the bonds payable by the Regents debts of the State?	Protestants argue bonds threaten state budgetary control and borrowing limitations.	Regents' bonds are not state debts; Legislature cannot direct expenditure of funds to repay them.	Not debts of the State; approved under Regents' control.
Does Master Lease funding violate separation of powers or logrolling rules?	Legislature improperly funds via leases, risking separation-of-powers violations and logrolling.	Legislature authorized and oversees the program; no separation-of-powers violation.	No separation-of-powers violation; logrolling cured by single-subject legislation.
Was the original enactment of the Master Lease Authority unconstitutional due to multiple subjects?	Original act contained more than one subject (logrolling).	SB 1858 cured logrolling by amending to single subject; constitutionally valid.	Cured; constitutionally valid.
Does the statutory approval mechanism (COB/Legislature) satisfy bond authorization requirements?	Questions remain about whether specific projects were properly approved.	Statutory framework provides explicit approval pathways and oversight by COB/Legislature; approvals proper.	Bonds properly authorized and approved under the statute.

In the Matter of the Application of the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority, 2005 OK 90 (2005) (bonds payable by Regents are not state debts; Legislature cannot compel specific expenditures)
Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Okla. v. Childers, 170 P.2d 1018 (1946) (Regents control disbursements; bonds do not abridge balanced budget provisions)
Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Okla. v. Baker, 638 P.2d 464 (1981) (funding and borrowing authority of Regents; limitations on appropriation)
State ex rel. Kerr v. Grand River Dam Auth., 154 P.2d 946 (1945) (ancillary authority for self-liquidating-like structures and public financing)
In re Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 161 P.2d 447 (1945) (special nature of Regents' bonds; not subject to typical state debt constraints)
Wells v. Childers, 165 P.2d 371 (1945) (distinguishable facts on constitutional appropriation limits)