House Speaker v. State Administrative Board

Speaker State Administrative BOARD SPEAKER v STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HOUSE (Calendar 8). Argued Decided No. No. 92072. October Docket January 1993. Dodak, Representatives Lewis N. Chair- of the House of Appropriations J. Jaco- Committee Dominic man of the House Miller, betti, Minority Arthur and Vice- Senate Leader Appropriations Committee David S. Chairman of the Senate Holmes, Jr., brought of the individual members an action as against Ingham the State Circuit Court others, Board, Engler, M. and Governor John authority challenging 3 of Admin- board’s under the State appropriated from one to funds istrative Board act transfer government program within a state to another injunction sought prohibiting implementation permanent that the board has transfers and a declaration contested independent authority appropriated make transfers of no court, Brown, J., any department. L. funds Thomas defendants, finding granted summary disposition Appeals, plaintiffs standing to sue. The Court of lacked JJ., granted P.J., immediate Hood, Reilly, and Sullivan ruling enjoined on the the transfers before consideration emergency applica- The defendants filed an merits the case. seeking appeal Supreme In lieu of tion leave to in the Court. leave, Ap- granting Supreme Court ordered the Court Thereafter, peals expedite in an of the case. its consideration curiam, opinion per Appeals the Court of found intradepartmental plaintiffs standing transfer had and that the statutory authority question relied was invalid because the repealed by subsequent upon by the board had been impliedlyi 140914). (Docket legislative appeal. No. The defendants acts joined opinion Levin, Griffin, In an Justice Justices Supreme Brickley, Riley, Court held: Appropriations of the House Committee Chairman right specific statutory deprived of a Dominic J. Jacobetti legislative process, participate to confer in the sufficient References 2d, Jur Funds 5.§ Am Public Moneys. ALR See the Index under Public 441 Mich 547 standing. The State Administrative Board’s repealed by implication. was not plaintiff’s Standing requires that a sub- a demonstration detrimentally in a manner interest will be affected stantial citizenry large. member of the House at As a different from Committee, plaintiff Appropriations Jacobetti has been denied legislative statutory right participate specific in the standing. standing process, claim of sufficient to confer The hand, Holmes, plaintiff he was on the other is deficient because opportunity vote on the transfer at issue. not denied an vote, Thus, suing to maintain the effectiveness of his he is not political of a battle he lost. but to reverse outcome repeal legislation may inferred where it is clear 2. A be subsequent legislative prior with a act or a act conflicts clearly subsequent Legislature is intended to where a act of the occupy prior enactment. Neither the entire field covered legislative history 3 and 6 of the State Administrative of §§ Management Budget nor the enactment of the and Board act power permit general of 3 Act an inference that the transfer § repealed by implication. Nor do 3 of the State Adminis- § was Management Budget trative Board act and 393 of the and Act § grants power budget to the direc- conflict. Section transfer tor, grants power while transfer administrative § duties; budget separate director and the board have board. The decision-making procedures operates and each utilizes different accountability. under different levels of Management suggests Nothing Budget in and Act an 3. intent to the board’s to transfer funds within a eliminate repeal light department. Clearly, 3. In did § statute, of the review of the it is doubtful at the least that the repeal language of 3 an accident. failure to the transfer was § unambiguous language disregard the of 3 on the basis To now § impliedly repealed extraordinary that it has been would be an step only legislative intent to be taken when the is clear. case, this it is not. part part. in Affirmed in and reversed Cavanagh joined by Mallett, Justice Chief Justice and concurring part dissenting part, Boyle, in and in Justice Representative agreed only Jacobetti had stand- Dominic action, ing 3 of to maintain the but stated that because § implicitly repealed by State Administrative Board act was Act, Budget passage Management and 393 of the § Management Budget and Act is the exclusive means to effect department. of funds within a Act, Management Budget adopted PA State Administrative budget regulation and the over the exclusive control to assert legislative history and the appropriations. The construction, statutory principles process, Legisla- conclusion that when mandate the sense common Board repealed Administrative expressly of the State §6 ture Therefore, act, repeal 393 of the it also intended provides means of the exclusive Act department. transferring funds within (1991) part 260; App affirmed 475 NW2d part. reversed Intradepartmental — — Board Administrative State of Funds. Transfer authority to transfer Board has the The State program within a to another appropriated from one funds Admin- government 3 of the State under § of state 3.263). (1921 17.3; MSA PA MCL Board act istrative Attorney Kelley, General, L. Frank Thomas J. Casey, General, Leíñer and A. Michael Solicitor Attorneys General, and Leíñer, Assistant I. Susan Mary plaintiffs. Kay Co-Counsel, Scullion, Attorney Kelley, L. General, Thomas Frank J. Casey, Anne De- General, and Deborah Solicitor Attorneys Nelson, Assistant and Thomas C. vine General, for the defendants.

Amici Curiae: Hodges O’Hare, Helveston, & Waldman,

Sachs, (by Mark Sachs and Barnes, Brewer), Theodore P.C. Appropri- Members of for Democratic Rep- Michigan House of Committees ations resentatives and Senate. (by Millender, Goodman, Eden, Bedrosian Goodman) Legal of Services

William H. Michigan (by F. Gillett and Robert Southeastern League Gray) Voters of of Women for the Steve Michigan Lawyers Association, Michigan, Trial Michigan League Services, Human Women 547 441 550 Opinion of the Court Michigan, Lawyers Sandra Association Grimm. challenge by presents a case J. This Griffin, Legislature to the au- of the State

four members thority under Administrative Board the State appro- amended,1 2, to transfer PA as § 3 of 1921 program priated to another funds from one finding government. After of state standing bring plaintiffs legislator have that the Appeals action, ruled the Court of this intradepartmental question invalid transfer in was statutory authority ground relied on the repealed by impliedly upon by the board had been agree subsequent legislative that at acts. While we disagree standing, plaintiffs has we least one of Administrative Board’s that authority the State implication. repealed by i efficiency promote 1921, in an effort to government, created the state Currently, Administrative Board.2 the board composed Four are elected: the of six officials.3 Attorney Governor, Governor, the Lieutenant Secretary General, The other and the of State.4 Superintendent two, of Public Instruction appointed.5 Treasurer, are the State act defines the The State Administrative Board 1 17.3; MCL MSA 3.263. 2, act, seq.; PA MCL 17.1 et Administrative Board seq. The State MSA 3.261 et 3.516(145). 18.1145; MCL 1963, 5, 21. Const art Superintendent Instruc Under Const art Public 1963, appointed by Education. Under Const is the State Board of tion art 3.83, 5, 12.9; appointed Treasurer 3 and MCL MSA § Governor. State Administrative Court powers Section of the board. and duties "general supervisory- upon the board confers act control of all and activities the functions over departments the state.” Ini- ... administrative granted specifically tially, control the board § 6 accounting. system In connection of state over the performance duties, its the board with appropriated authority funds to transfer exercised through departments. 1931, between within and Legislature imposed act, the of the an amendment authority. upon This the board’s limits transferring legislation precluded the board from departments; however, the amenda- funds between tory language specifically § 3 and 6

added to both authority to transfer reserved to the board particular appropriation for the funds "within the Subsequently, department.”6 the board’s control accounting system of state was with- over the delegated officials.7How- to other state drawn ever, supervisory over state de- role board’s partments continues. attempt by an the board

This lawsuit arose from May funds certain transfers of effect pursuant authority departments set attempt efforts to deal §in 3. This followed forth year ways projected 1990-91 with fiscal in other the state on million that confronted deficit of $536 Engler January 1991, took 1, when Governor office. acting example, January 16, 1991, under on

For 5, § 20 and 391 of Const art Act,8 Governor approval by and House the Senate submitted pro- comprehensive Appropriations Committees a expenditures posal have reduced state that would 6 1931 PA 6.

7 1939 PA 31. 1984 PA MCL 18.1101 et seq.; 3.516(101) et seq. 552 547 op the Court approved by proposal was This million.9 $257 rejected by however, it committee; was the Senate committee. the House sup February 1991,

Shortly 22, thereafter, on Legis passed by plemental the bill significant signed by with the Governor lature was reduction of vetoes, in a resulted which line-item appropriations.10 purpose general million $23.9 However, negotiations despite executive between legislative leaders, crisis the and officials persisted grew in the absence serious more agreement comprehensive the two between 11 branches. prob- phase the to deal with one In an effort Budget in Feb- lem, Director Patricia Woodworth requests ruary to the Senate March sent three seeking Appropriations Committees,12 House and approval intradepartmental of funds transfers for 393(2) the with in accordance May 1991, House When, Act. Appropriations no action on had taken Committee special Engler requests, called Governor meeting Board for Administrative of the State Acting May § 3, the then 9, under board providing adopted for the trans- resolutions eleven including departments, funds within various fer of issue, which would still at resolution the one Department of Natu- $190,000 Public ments, Departments deficit for FY 1990-91 had recommended Resources. Executive Order By The Health, the time including February PA 1 of Corrections a transfer Social appropriated supplemental this suit was filed requests proposed 1991-5. Services, Departments of funds within grown and Mental and State Police. $664 on transfers of funds Corrections, May million. Health; funds Department the March Mental various within the of Natural projected Health, request depart Opinion op the Court Michigan ral Resources from the "Clean Fund” to management certain land and water accounts.13 day, plaintiffs next this action. commenced plaintiff time, At Lewis Dodak was the Representatives, plaintiff Speaker of the House of was the Chair of the Dominic J. Jacobetti Appropriations House plaintiff Committee, Arthur Miller Minority Senate, Leader of David Holmes, Jr., was the Vice-Chair of the Senate S. Appropriations against Committee. Their suit board, Governor, and several other executive officials had not been authorized either branch plaintiffs brought House; their action as individual Legislature. of the members complaint, plaintiffs In their amended maintain authority § the transfer set forth in 3 had expressly impliedly repealed by and been subse- quent they enactments, § 3 un- and claim that plaintiffs perma- relief, As seek a constitutional.14 nent contested transfers stating injunction prohibiting implementation declaratory judgment

and a independent that the has no author- board appropriated ity to make transfers of funds within any department. complaint parties filed,

After the was sub- disposition. summary mitted cross-motions Granting for May 23, 1991, defendants’ motion on plaintiffs standing circuit court found that lacked statutory sue, and that their and constitutional claims were without merit._ 13Shortly began, after this lawsuit the Governor and leaders of the result, budget agreement. reached a As a the State Administrative Board rescinded ten of the eleven resolutions that had 9, adopted purposes May appeal, only 1991. For of this one transferring resolution remains extant —the resolution funds Department within the of Natural Resources. delegation legislative Plaintiffs contend that 3 is an unlawful of 1963, 3, authority to the executive branch in violation of Const art 2§ 4, 1, Further, they art 31. contend that transfers exceed §§ authority expenditures of the Governor to reduce state under art Const Mich op Court plaintiffs appealed day, in the the of

On same stay Appeals motions and filed Court Granting immediate consideration. for immediate enjoined transfers; consideration, the Court Appeals however, ruled on the Court of before emergency case, an defendants filed merits seeking appeal application Court. this leave granting leave, ordered the Court In lieu of we expedite Appeals to its of the case. consideration Appeals Thereafter, plaintiffs decided that the Court of standing statutory have upon by im- the board had relied been repealed.15 App pliedly 260, 264-265; 475 (1991). ap- granted We then leave NW2d (1992). peal, 439

ii reviewing Appeals decision Before Court repealed, impliedly § 3 we first consider standing plaintiffs lack defendants’ contention that legal bring Standing used is a term this action. party’s in the of a interest to denote the existence litigation that will ensure sincere outcome party vigorous advocacy. However, evidence that a engage vigorous advocacy, itself, in full and will standing. Standing re- is insufficient to establish plaintiff’s quires a that sub- demonstration detrimentally be in a interest will affected stantial citizenry large. at Alex- manner different from the App Shores, 287; 307 v ander Norton (1981). 476 NW2d standing plaintiffs

Here, claim on the basis of legislators. they complaint, as In their their status allege re- that the transfer actions the board legislators their as and nulli- duced effectiveness 15 Appeals plaintiffs’ The Court did not reach constitutional argue plaintiffs brief those in this Court. Nor did the or claims claims. 555 v State Administrative Opinion of the Court of their Plaintiffs claim that fled the effect votes. authority of the board’s actions interfered with the plaintiffs Jacobetti and Holmes as members of the Appropriations Senate Committees to House and approve disapprove intradepartmental transfers addition, In under 393 of the act. actions diminished the contended board’s plaintiffs who, Dodak and Miller effectiveness of leaders, appoint party posi- members of their respective appropriations tions on the commit- Finally, plaintiffs allege tees.16 the board’s actions eliminated the need for the Governor to power, thereby taking exercise his line-item veto away opportunity plaintiffs participate in vote override such a veto. standing circumstances,

Under limited legislators challenge allegedly unlawful execu recognized tive actions has been in the federal e.g., See, Miller, 433; courts. Coleman v 307 US (1939); Samp Kennedy 972; S Ct 83 L Ed 1385 v (1974); App son, 192; 167 US DC F2d (CA 1984). Luis, However, Dennis F2d 628 standing, legislator to establish must overcome a heavy burden. Courts are reluctant to hear dis putes may separation interfere with the powers government. between the branches of Carter, 997; 533; Goldwater v US 100 S Ct (1979), explained 62 L Ed 2d 428 the such cases: Justice Powell judiciary basis for noninvolvement and the Con- Differences between the President gress commonplace system. are under our The should, do, differences and almost turn invariably political legal on rather than considerations. affecting Judicial Branch should not decide issues the allocation of between President 1.104, 7; Rule Senate 1.105. See House Rules 441 Mich Opinion of the Court reach a con- Congress political until branches Otherwise, we would encour- impasse. stitutional of individual Members age groups small or even judicial resolution of issues before Congress to seek opportunity has the political process the normal resolve the conflict. imprudent agree. and violative It would be

We powers separation to confer of of of standing doctrine legislator simply failing upon in the a plaintiffs political process. reasons, who these For gener- legislators more than "a must assert sue being grievance not that the law is alized Thornburgh, v 865 F2d . . . Chiles followed 1989). (CA they Instead, must estab- deprived "personal they a have of lish that been legally cognizable peculiar to [them].” interest supra, Dennis, F2d plaintiffs they case, that have

In maintain this support argument, their met burden. this group they rely There, v Miller. a on Coleman challenged legislators Kansas tie-breaking governor to cast vote lieutenant adopting proposed a amend- favor of a resolution The Court found ment the federal constitution. standing bring legislators had action: plain, have a

We think these senators adequate maintaining direct and interest They up . . . have effectiveness of their votes. set right privilege under the Con- claimed stitution of the United States to have their votes given and the state court has denied that effect right Kennedy also privilege. US 438. See [307 (no supra, App more Sampson, 167 US DC legislator interest could be asserted essential vote).] than of his to vindicate the effectiveness Speaker v State op the Court respond plaintiffs Defendants have dem- injury onstrated direct as a result of defen- They argue dants’ conduct. in that cases which specifically actions of the executive branch have legislative process interfered the with are distin- guishable from those in which executive actions challenged simply improper are as an execution of example, Thornburgh, supra, the law. For in a alleging senator sued that a federal detention being facility illegally. Finding run standing, senator lacked the court concluded that Congressman only standing alleges "a has if he congressional diminution influence which complete vote, to a amounts nullification of his legislative process.” no with recourse 865 F2d 1207. support, rely

For additional defendants on Mich- igan authority, Wayne Comm, Killeen v Co Rd (1984), App 178, 189; NW2d wherein Appeals gov- the Court of concluded that various standing plain- ernment officials lacked to sue. The group tiff in Killeen included members Wayne County Commissioners, Board of two mem- Wayne County Commission, bers of the Charter They standing and a state senator. claimed challenge agreement the lawfulness of an between county the board of road and a commissioners newly organization ground formed labor on the agreement respective legis- that the nullified their powers. disagreed: respec- lative The Court "[T]he tive votes of Senator Hertel and charter commis- counted, sioners Ward and Barnes have been legislative work-product junc- enacted; their at this special their ture interest as lawmakers has App reason, ceased.” 137 Mich 189. For this Mich Court standing they have did not concluded that Court sue.17 us, contend that defendants the case before rely legislative plaintiffs had work on which Legislature passed completed. Man- been point, agement separate At Act. this whether board exists statutory matter of is a funds within a disagrees with If the construction. § 3, it under can of transfer claim board’s work disagreement by political resolution repealing expressly § 3. plaintiffs argue

Recognizing limitation, this generalized than a assertion their that is more claim failing Instead, the law. board is follow plaintiffs that, contend and Holmes Jacobetti legislative commit- members of tees, in connection with supervisory responsibility specific they have intradepartmental transfers. 3.516(391X3). 18.1391(3); failing By to MCL follow transfer procedures Manage- in the set forth plaintiffs Act, claim that ment and right ap- to them "their lawful board has denied prove question.”18 disapprove in the transfers rely American Federation of Gov- Plaintiffs on 17 Represen in House In his v United States of concurrence Moore (1984), tatives, 115; Judge App 733 946 Scalia 236 US DC F2d There, legislators presented view. he concluded that did a similar alleged improper standing to sue on the of enforcement have of a basis particular statute: separation understanding proper of of the doctrine of [A] legislative powers suggests personal of that desires authority to their are not within the executive officers exercise provisions protected by the "zone interests” Constitu- of conferring authority. Only the of the exercise of

tion particular laws such interests be individuals who would aided depriva- harmed its unlawful have been —and zone, authority was within that since the conferred tion —come governed. governors of for the benefit not but of [236 App 129. US DC Citation omitted.] complaint, 29. First amended ¶ Speaker v State Opinion op the Court Pierce, ernment Employees v App 61; US DC (1982). Pierce, F2d 303 In Representative Sabo sued in his capacity legislator and as a member of the House Appropriations Committee. He challenged a reduction in force that was to be implemented by the Secretary Housing Development. Urban The court determined Sabo did not standing because, have legislator as a in that capacity, grievance his general was a one about the proper execution of a law "which lacks claim of standing.” Id. specificity support-a However, at 63. the court did find that Sabo had standing as a member of the appropriations com- mittee: case, present Appropriation gave Act Congressman right, Sabo the as a member of the Appropriations Committee, proval participate ap in any reorganization of hud conducted

before January Secretary’s actions injured statutory right by depriving him specific him of that participate legislative process. [Id.][19] Although this Court is not bound to follow fed- eral cases regarding standing,20 agree we Pierce support lends at least the standing claim plaintiff Jacobetti as a member of the 19Similarly, City Wayne Comm’r, Romulus Treasurer v Co Drain 728; (1982), standing NW2d we considered the township treasurers, city acting capacities, in their official challenge Wayne County the actions of the Drain Commissioner. Although "extraordinary we determined that under circumstances” plaintiffs may standing, capacities have we held that in their official standing the treasurers did not have to sue because there was no statutory authority that allowed the treasurers to review the actions of the drain commissioner. 413 Mich 742. 20One standing analy notable distinction between federal and state advisory 1963, sis is the opinions. of this Court to issue Const 3, constitution, art may 8. Under Article III of the federal federal courts opinions only issue controversy. where there is an actual case or Jose, 1, 8-9; See 849; Pennell v San 485 US 108 S Ct 99 L 1 Ed 2d (1988). Mich 547 560 441 of Court Pierce, Appropriations inAs Committee.21 House plaintiff specific denied a statu- has been Jacobetti standing. tory right If, for to confer sufficient considering purposes claim, we this assume arguendo § 3 repealed,22 impliedly then intra-

Board act only by departmental made could be transfers with in accordance state director Budget Management That act confers Act. the upon plaintiff approve right Jacobetti disapprove these circum- transfers. Under such recognized, actions, if would stances, the board’s specific deprive plaintiff "of that statu- Jacobetti process.” legislative tory right participate in the Pierce at 63. standing plain- hand, claim of the other

On though he also is an tiff is deficient even Holmes committee member. contrast plaintiff plaintiff Jacobetti, did have Holmes being opportunity to vote on transfer pursuant disputed noted, in this As earlier case. Budget Act, State proposed a transfer of funds Director Woodworth Department on of Natural Resources within the 27, 1991. transfer involved the same March That at issue in this case. as the transfer dnr accounts approved Appropriations Committee The Senate Consequently, Holmes, un- Senator the transfer.23 upon previously Michigan have federal courts relied Killeen, supra; standing deciding questions. Bever See License when Hall, 324-325; Inc, 319, App age 266 NW2d v Ass’n Behnan Whitehall, App 273; (1978); 22 Mich Lake v 808 NW2d 473 NW2d 271 White Ass’n Comm’r, 467, 471; (1970); Fieger App Ins (1988). standing, determining plaintiff’s pleaded purposes all 22 For Seldin, allegations accepted 422 US to be as true. Warth v are (1975). 501; 2197; L 95 S 45 Ed 2d 343 Ct $200,000 approved, would have taken from As separate Michigan to two land Clean Fund and transferred management water accounts. Speaker Opinion op the Court Representative suing Jacobetti, like is not to main- tain the effectiveness his vote under the Man- agement suing Act; rather, he political reverse the outcome of a battle that he lost. addition, we find no basis for the contention

that board’s actions have interfered with the appointment authority of House Dodak or Minority Likewise, Senate Leader Miller. arewe persuaded plaintiffs’ argument actions have board’s affected the Governor’s line- item veto or the members the reasons, to override such a veto.24For these plaintiff only Jacobetti,

we conclude that capacity in his as an individual member of the Appropriations House Committee has demon- personal injury strated a sufficient to confer stand- ing to sue.25

Having determined that at least one of the plaintiffs standing, ques- turn has we next to the tion whether 3 of the State Administrative Board 5, Const art 19.§ argue alternatively Defendants that if this Court concludes sue, plaintiffs standing to the Court have still should not hear the equitable case on the basis of the federal doctrine of discretion. The explained Riegle this was the court in basis of doctrine v Federal Committee, Open App 292; Market 211 US DC 656 F2d 873 (1981): congressional plaintiff Where a could obtain substantial relief enactment, legislators through repeal,

from his fellow statute, equitable amendment of a discretion this court should exercise its legislator’s to dismiss the action. separation powers are conscious of the concerns that have We However, as defendants conceded in their brief in the been raised. Appeals, important question an of continu- Court of this case involves Further, ing public interest that should be resolved this Court. it is private plaintiff plaintiff unlikely could assert the claims that Thus, now makes. we decline in this case to invoke Jacobetti federal doctrine of intimating possible equitable its discretion without applicability in a future case. 441 Opinion of the Court repealed by impliedly subse- amended, act, Legislature. quent acts

hi throughout this state Courts within country that a statute to conclude are reluctant implication. repealed by Mich- Numerous has been igan emphasized have decisions always against the intention presumption is "[t]he used, express terms are repeal where operative, must be in order to be implication, the necessary. not favored Repeals implication are by any other indulged in if there is not be and will reasonable repeal must intent construction. The a will not hold to clearly appear, and courts very ground to hold they find reasonable repeal if can v ex rel Owen contrary.” [Attorney General (1926) 619, 621; 207 NW 863 233 Mich Joyce, (citations Michigan omitted); Jackson v see also Comm, 352; 21 159 NW2d Corrections (1946); 521; 280 Michigan, 284 Mich Rathbun v (1938); Bay Associates by the NW 35 Old Orchard Co, 244; 454 Mich Mutual Ins v Hamilton (1990).] NW2d Michigan with decisions law in accords

The e.g., jurisdictions. See, v Morton in other courts 2474; 41 L Ed 535, 549; 94 Ct Mancari, 417 US S (1974); Devine, 1108, 1114 736 F2d Davis v 2d (CA 1984); 645; Co, 2d Pierce 99 Wash Paulson v (1983); Foley, 643; Vermont v Vt 664 P2d 1202 443 A2d 452 (1982). against implied presumption

The basis of explained repeals in his treatise Sutherland is statutory on construction: repeals is against implied presumption legislature upon the doctrine that

founded Opinion op the Court presumed body to envision the whole of the law Therefore, legislation. it when enacts new designate offending expressly drafters should repeal provisions than leave the to arise rather implication from the later enactment. There is assumption existing statutory and also the representative popular will. common law is presumption against This would reinforce the their alteration Singer, repeal. or Sutherland [1A (4th ed), 23.10, p Statutory Construction 346.] it, against occasionally Despite presumption been courts determine a statute has will implication. Old Orchard v Hamilton repealed by Ins, supra, 434 Mich 257. This Court has held that 1) be inferred in two instances: when repeal may subsequent legislative that a act conflicts is clear 2) act, subsequent when a act of prior with a occupy is intended clearly Washte- enactment. prior entire field covered Comm, naw Co Rd Comm’rs v Public Service (1957). 663, 680; 85 NW2d 134 In either claiming party situation the burden on the an one, a inten- implied repeal heavy is because the tion of the must be repeal to statute "clear.” Id. case,

In held in the Appeals this Court of impliedly repealed alternative had been § the 1976 6 of the State Ad- by amendments § act, in 1984 by ministrative Board or enactment and Act. We consider each of these conclusions in turn.

A im- argument To understand 3 was pliedly repealed by the amendments history concerning to recount some necessary the board’s transfer authority. Opinion of the Court in 1931 of the noted, amendment an

As earlier transfer act restricted Board specifically respects; authority however, it in other power to "inter-transfer to the board reserved particular appropriation for within funds language department.” this to achieve Similar Although purpose both §§ 3 6.26 was added Board act State Administrative sections language, each had a this transfer shared then upon purpose: the board § 3 conferred distinct supervisory grant general over "all ad- control departments, commissioners, boards, ministrative institu- state, of all state officers of authority granted to the board tions,” § 6 whereas accounting, services, architectural state oversee buildings. 1921 PA of state the construction by 31. That 1939 PA 1939, § 6 amended over the control removed the board’s amendment system stage accounting; however, at of state authority within a to transfer funds the board’s identical §in 6 and was remained language §in 3. transfer imposing Subsequently, an amendment upon § in 6 was the transfer restrictions by 1931 PA 6 reads: added The amendment power Provided, however, shall not have The said board any general appropriation fund at time or any to the transfer use the same for legislature: designated any purpose than that other further, shall not have That said board department, Provided commission, board, any state to allow funds, appropriated any therefor officer or institution whatever, except provided legislature, any source from the in the thirty- appropriation emergency nineteen hundred act of power to one; not have the board shall and said administrative board, commission, any department, officer state appropriated any the amount sum from institution except purpose, funds legislature to inter-transfer other board, department, particular appropriation for the commission, [Emphasis added.] officer or institution. v State Administrative Opinion op the Court by 1976 PA 6 then As amended enacted. pertinent part: in read (1) The state administrative board shall board, department, any state commis- transfer sion, any from the officer or institution sum legislature any appropriated amount for except purpose, to intertransfer funds within other appropriation particular department, for board, commission, officer, or institution. (2) par- appropriations any Intertransfers of for institution, department shall not be ticular or will increase or decrease an item of made which $30,000.00 appropriation by more than 3% greater, any whichever is and in no case shall item appropriation be increased or decreased more $50,000 . . . aggregate. than in the (3) par- appropriations Intertransfers in ticular or institution excess of the (2) may restrictions in subsection be made only approval by state administrative board after house and committees. senate Legislature passed Later, in when the Budget Act, § 6 the amended repealed expressly by § How- of that act. was ever, 18.1101 et § 3 was left untouched. See MCL seq., seq.; 17.3; MSA 3.516(101) et and MCL 3.263. Appeals Court of concluded that the restric- imposed

tions on the board’s transfer repugnant "clearly to the unrestricted were to intertransfer funds contained authorization App upon by 190 3 and relied defendants.” Consequently, "the 'inter- the Court held that language impliedly repealed by §in transfer’ 3 1976 PA Id. 120.” course, the 1976 amend- it is true that after

Of period board, § 6, least for a at ments time, possess unlimited to transfer did not 547 441 566 Opinion op the Court However, it not does departments. funds within in 3 was power general transfer § that the follow of amendment The 1976 implication. repealed by author- the board’s not eliminate 6 did § recognized rather, expressly legislation that ity; it with circumscribed authority, but the board’s its concerning exceptions certain restrictions in provided sure, the general To be exercise. 6, only in but restrictions by 3 then limited § was § in remained effect. as those restrictions long for as in 1984 removed were later those restrictions Once empowered was the board repeal § in set forth authority as the transfer exercise Court’s deci- this is reinforced analysis Our Holden, 289; 115 NW Dykstra in sion (1908). There, was insti- mandamus action 74 election primary a call for a compel tuted to PA in accordance with Rapids Grand in cities. elections controlling primary act general until Rapids to Grand applied act general The legisla- passed special the when and certain elections Kent exempted that tion re- However, was later that law counties.27 other whether was question presented and the pealed, general applicable. law repeal made the law had been general that It was asserted with the of its conflict to the extent repealed argu- Rejecting subsequent special legislation. subsequent Dykstra ment, Court said law: general partially repeal legislation did Rapids merely exempted city of Grand It law, general and when operation of said from the the local act was nothing repealed there law, general prevent application apply. did Mich 293.] [151 LA 471. v State Administrative Opinion op the Court Dykstra rule Court followed a fundamental " '[b]y repeal statutory construction exception, general creating the statute the act in force all the time then becomes which was ” according applicable cases, Id. to its terms.’ to all omitted.)28 (Citation Likewise, case, in this when repealed, in that section § 6 was restrictions longer the transfer no in force and were according applicable its terms. §in 3 became Finding implied repeal of 3 no § 6, to the issue we turn now amendments repealed impliedly by § the Man- whether 3 was Budget agement Act.

B Legislature’s inquiry course, Of our into begin passes it does not with intent when statute legislative reports analysis; rather, or committee " involving starting point every con in case '[t]he ” language Int’l itself.’ struction of a statute is Daniel, 439 US Brotherhood of Teamsters v (1979) (citation 558; 790; 99 S 58 L Ed 2d 808 Ct omitted). lawsuit, In this there is no claim that the language ambiguous. § transfer has in 3 is Unless repealed, gives clearly the board been department. to transfer funds within Appeals However, found conflict the Court of People Supreme in v Mitch As stated Court of California banc): (1946) (en ell, 678, 684; 166 P2d 10 Cal 2d " statutory against 'The rule the revival of a statute repeals,

repeal repealing and not to of a act relates to absolute is in the cases where a statute is left in force and all that done repeal except operation. way is to certain cases from its revived, need to be for it such cases the statute does not force, exception being away, and the taken remains statute applied without afterwards be exception ....”’ 441 op the Court Management and § 3 and 393 of between part: Act, reads which (1) appropriations transfers Administrative cost for current adjust within budget from the enacted amounts price variations federal items, between adjust by the state financing, may be made sources notify- after days than 30 budget director not less commit- appropriations and house ing the senate include transfers shall tees. adjustments have the implications or policy have reducing creating, expanding, or effect of transfers department. Those programs within that com- appropriations disapproved by either may be and, disapproved if days the 30 mittee within time, not be effective. shall (2) any de- appropriations within A transfer of price other than cost partment for reasons appropriations as enacted from those variances budget by the state shall not be made into law director committees. appropriations approved unless both ap- does not If director appropriations adopted by transfers both prove subsection, budget di- under this committees rector shall of his or her action within committees notify 18.1393; days. [MCL 3.516(393).] Manage- Finding with the § 3 "to inconsistent be Appeals Budget Act,” con- the Court of ment cluded that repeal Legislature to "the intended disagree. App 274. We [§ 3].” subject, the same statutes address When two harmoniously them to read courts must endeavor and give En- a reasonable effect. to both statutes Hwy dykiewicz 377, 385; Comm, 414 Mich v State (1982). explained in As this Court 324 NW2d 755 Rathbun: legislature legal presumption is that "The contradictory enact- keep really not intend to

did v State Administrative Court books, impor- to so in the statute effect ments tant repeal law without a measure as the interpretation an to do so. An expressing intention adopted should leading to such a result not be Mich 544. Citation it is inevitable.” unless [284 omitted.] agree

Although to § 3 and 393 do relate we that subject de- of funds within a the same partment —transfers Appeals disagree with the Court of —we in "inevita- two sections are conclusion ble” conflict. granted authority

First, §in 393 is the transfer authority budget director while granted the administrative board. §in 3 is budget not have director and the board do budget duty primary direc- duties: the same comprehensive "plan prepare a execu- tor is tive state budget manage, execute, and control is into law.”29In state which enacted contrast, exercises the State Administrative Board general supervisory over the various de- control partments. Legislature It is reasonable conclude sepa- of these

determined either might need to transfer funds within a rate entities perform separate duties. order to its Indeed, with such conclusion consistent approach by the the State taken when already was created. As Administrative Board noted, responsibilities: initially had dual the board general supervisory over all it exercised control (§ 3), sys- departments and it controlled the state 6). (§ accounting section, of state each tem powers, Legislature re- consistent with these authority to the board the to transfer funds served departments. control Even after the board’s accounting away 1939, the taken over state intradepartmental to order board’s MCL 18.1341; 3.516(341). 441 Mich 547 570 Opinion of the Court appears It maintained.30 transfers was authority Legislature transfer considered departments necessarily correla- funds supervising function of those tive to the board’s Legisla- appears departments. Likewise, it that the power necessarily transfer of ture considered such administering the state’s correlative to the task budget. looking relationship again

Second, to the be- budget only § 3, § 393 and do the direc- tween they duties, uti- tor have different board decision-making procedures they lize different operate accountability different levels of under budget appointed by director is the electorate. plea- at the the Governor and serves Governor’s granted authority sure.31The director has been significant approval only effect transfers with the Legislature. By contrast, committees of the most of the administrative are members board elected statewide elections. The board can au- only majority if thorize transfers of the board (§ agrees. As we read the two transfer 393 sections 3), apparent it is has greater granted authority entity to one transfer that must deliberate and reach a consensus before acting directly and whose members are more ac- hand, countable the electorate. On the other authority much restricted has been 4896, Attorney As the noted in General No. before authority 1976 amendments of 6 the board’s unrestricted to transfer departments funds within well established: apparent reading It is from the of the three sections involved 3, 6, Act, Department and 9 of the of Administration

[§§ (Ex Sess) PA the State Administrative Board has 51] expressed to intertransfer without the limitations 1975-1976, 4439], Section 4896, Enrolled House Bill No [of [OAG pp (September 1975).] 3.516(321). 18.1321; MCL Opinion of the Court directly granted director, who is not to the Nothing such an the electorate. in accountable arrangement is unreasonable. powers

Third, the transfer of to the extent that budget overlap, the the Legislature and the director board pre- place put in a mechanism has authority. conflicting transfer exercises of vent may with veto board action The Governor disagrees. Moreover, the director he which pleasure the at of the Governor. Given serves Governor’s supervisory both means of role over effecting transfers, it to conclude reasonable conflicting authorized transfers will not be that the executive branch. a construction of

Plaintiffs dismiss such illogical. They that, over assert statute years Legislature several times to has acted power, particularly in 1976 curtail board’s authority. it restricted the board’s transfer when In light history, plaintiffs claim that this Legislature surely could have intended to re- passed it when store the persuaded by board’s Act. are not We argument. may It this be true Legislature 1976 the convinced that in transfer was authority was too broad. the board Legisla- However, we refuse assume 1976, in when enacted restric- ture’s motivation authority, on mirrored its tions motivation repealed when it restrictions. Whatever those goals may been of the have subsequent Legislature, composed certainly officials, had a different elected could have goal. different important, above,

More as noted when faced subject, two statutes that bear on same with logical most con- task is not to discern the our statute, but to "labor the more recent struction 441 Mich Opinion op the Court possi- permit enactments if the survival of both supra, Devine, 736 F2d We will Davis v ble.” subsequent repeal of a statute not infer the except in- acts are "so when the two enactment compatible Rey- cannot stand.” In re

that both Estate, 360; 264 NW nolds (1936). approach with that taken

Our is consistent Supreme Court in Tennessee the United States Authority Valley Hill, 2279; 153; 437 US 98 S Ct (1978). L The Court there considered 57 Ed 2d Endangered Spe- portion a certain whether impliedly repealed by cies Act was made by Congress of a dam in the for construction Valley. Endangered Species Tennessee When the being passed, already the dam built. Act was spent project. million had been on the Over $50 passage Endangered Species Act, of con- After the appropriations continued, as to struction as well though construction, fund the the dam violated the even construction of Endangered Species Act. implied repeal the Court held that there was no applicable of despite seemingly act, section of the the Congress appropriating inconsistent act of funds for the dam’s construction: agree Appeals

We with the Court of that in our system sepa- constitutional ration of the commitment to the powers pre- too fundamental for us to empt congressional decreeing action judicially public what accords with "common sense and the weal.” Our Constitution vests such responsibilities political in the branches. US [437 195.] consequence Likewise, in this case it is of no dealing that the two sections with the transfer of may long some, funds seem redundant to as they are not in irreconcilable conflict. The statutes reasonably they can be read so that are not. State Administrative v op the Court the their claim that basis for an alternative As Budget repealed Management im- § 3 Act and argued plaintiffs plication, Man- have that the also Budget agement a com- Act enacted as "was and prehensive relating the laws and consolidation of revision regulat- accounting, budgeting, and the

to They appropriations.” ing the contend that of completely subject § 3 of was addressed matter Management Budget Act, it is and that repeal appropriate § 3. The a therefore infer Legis- agreed. Appeals that "the It found Court Budget Management and Act lature intended budget process, occupy whole field of provide particular § 393 to intended transferring exclusive means App department.” within disagree. Nothing Again, in the text of we Budget suggests Management Act to eliminate administra- intended funds board’s tive suggests department. fact, the text act opposite. legislature expressly states When which repeal, provisions in a statute intends several the stronger presumption is even it does repeal provisions See, intend to remain. supra, e.g., Comm’rs, Rd Washtenaw Co supra, Devine, 681; 1112; Davis v 736 F2d Paulson supra Co, 650-651; at v Pierce United States App Hansen, 22, 27; 772 249 US DC F2d (1985). §In 591 of Legislature expressly in- states it

Act the what Legislature repeal. section, In that tends to par- thirty-six public different acts that are lists repealed Management tially wholly and Budget 6 of Act. Section the State Administrative provisions among the that are Board act is listed repealed; § not. 3 is 441 Mich 547 Opinion op the Court ignored Management so, § 3 in the

Even is Budget suggesting Legisla- Instead, and Act. content, § and ture’s awareness of its existence specifically is § referred to in 145 that act.32 Management Budget Act, it As we read the and Legislature repeal § 6, is clear that chose to repeal Legisla- and it chose not to 3. When the performs legislative surgery” ture such "deliberate repeal by statute,33 on a decline to we find implication. As we said Washtenaw Co Rd " supra, Comm’rs, 681: 'The rule of implied repeal inapplicable clearly is also where revising statute declares what effect it is in- upon tended to have the former law ....’” particularly inappropriate The rule is where the Legislature’s subject attention is as detailed as repealer shows, it inwas this case. As the section Legislature when the enacted the prior itAct reviewed a multitude of specified parts enactments which of those repealed. comprehen- enactments were sive Given this say review, doubtful, least, we find it could have accident or oversight repeal language failed to the transfer § 3 if that Indeed, what had intended to do. during argument, plaintiffs’ oral counsel conceded explanation Legislature’s that he had no for the repeal personal theory § 3; failure to his was that "just got by the section them.” language The transfer 3 has existed since 145(4) provides: Section The state administrative board created under Act 2 of No. 1921, being the Public Michigan Compiled Acts sections 17.1 to 17.3 of the Laws, organizational is transferred as an records, entity, together staff, property, with all of its funds, management budget]. to the [of Foley, supra, See Vermont v 140 Vt 648. v State J. Opinion Mallett, despite expressly repealed, It has never been legislation regular that attention and detailed formulating balancing of on task focused unambig- disregard budget. To now the state’s language that it on the basis that section uous of repealed impliedly would an "extra- be has been step.” ordinary Smith, Smith (1989) opinion (dissenting 641; 447 NW2d 715 J.). step only when is to be taken Such a Cavanagh, legislative case, this it is not. is clear. In intent

IV disagree foregoing reasons, we with For the plaintiffs § 3 the State Administra- claim repealed by implication. The act was tive Board part Appeals in is affirmed decision of Court part. in and reversed JJ., Riley,

Levin, Brickley, concurred with J. Griffin, dissenting part (concurring J. Mallett, holding majority’s part). with the We concur standing Representative only has Jacobetti respectfully dissent, how- We

maintain suit. majority’s 3 ever, conclusion with holding repealed. majority’s implicitly The Legislature’s intent as evidenced overlooks the continual diminution the state administra- powers since 1921. tive board’s

.1 Admin- § 3 of the State contend that Defendants 3.263, act, 17.3; MCL author- Board istrative appro- an funds within ized the board to transfer priation prior particular without provides: approval. legislative Section 441 Mich Mallett, J. The state administrative board shall exercise general supervisory control over functions and departments, activities of all administrative boards, state, commissioners and officers of the Provided, however, of all state institutions: any said appropriation shall not have board general to the fund at time or any purpose use the same for other than that designated legislature: further, by the Provided power That said board shall not have any institution to to allow board, commission, department, state officer or funds, any appropriated by not therefor whatever, legislature, the any except from source provided in emergency appropriation the act [1931]; . . . of not and said administrative board shall any depart- have the to transfer to state ment, board, commission, any officer or institution appropriated legisla- sum from the amount ture for by the any purpose, except other to inter-transfer appropriation funds within the particular for the board, commission, department, officer or institu- [Emphasis tion. added.] argue implicitly Plaintiffs the section was repealed depart- and that fund transfers within a exclusively governed by Management ment are and seq.; Act, MCL 18.1101 et 3.516(101) seq. point, particular, et Plaintiffs to provides: §§ 391 and 393. Section 391 (1) appears governor, When to the upon based written the by governor information received from budget director department and the of trea- sury, that actual period revenues for a fiscal will fall below the priations appro- revenue estimates on which period for that gov- were based . . . the ernor shall order the director to all appro- review priations made for the legislature, made except those legislative judicial branches of government or from funds constitutionally dedi- specific purposes. cated to (2) . governor . . The shall review recom- mendations of the prepare director and shall an order containing expenditures reductions State Administrative Mallett, J. for the fiscal actual revenues so that authorized period expenditures. equal be sufficient will .. . (3) days than after submission Not later committees, appropriations of each order major- by vote appropriation committee serving ap- shall its elected ity of members . . . prove disapprove or order. (4) disap- appropriation committee If either order, without force and proves effect. the order is [Emphasis added.] provides: Section 393 further (1) appropriations transfers for current cost adjust within budget enacted price from the variations items, adjust amounts between federal financing, made the state may sources of be days notify- less after not than director ing the senate house may disap- . . . Those transfers be committees. proved by appropriations committee either time, and, disapproved if within that days shall be effective. (2) appropriations A de- price than cost and partment for reasons other appropriations as enacted variances from those budget the by into law not be made state shall approved appropriations both by director unless committees. [Emphasis added.] Budget Act Management the Undoubtedly, to obtain the consent required the director Commit- Appropriations of the House and Senate appro- transfer of funds within the tees to effect a Meanwhile, particular department. for a priation act apparently Board the funds the to transfer similarly permitted board commit- consent the without however, ma- Legislature when tees. Act, Budget terially Management revised 6 the State Administra- repealed it specifically § 441 547 578 Mich Opinion Mallett, J. § 3.1 MCL act, failed to address

tive Board but 3.516(591). question then is 18.1591; MSA § in 3 of the "intertransfer funds” clause whether Board act survived the the State Administrative express repeal §of 6 and the enactment of other transferring intradepartmen- procedures for funds tally. provided argue simply § an

Defendants transferring funds and that alternate means nothing as the sole indicates that was intended procedure. Simply they stated, §§ 3 and assert that separate 6 are two and alternative means for the Conversely, plaintiffs intratransfer tend that since curtailed the board’s of funds. con- Legislature steadily 1931, the has authority effect the intra- only Therefore, of funds. reasonable transfer conclusion is that Management amendment implicitly repealed Act the funds under the State Administrative Board act. to effect the intratransfer of board’s unpersua- arguments We find the defendants’ Although repeals by implication sive. are dis- inquiry favored, the determinative whether Legislature subsequently intended a enacted stat- repeal ute to an earlier one. Old Orchard Bay Co, Mutual Associates v Hamilton Ins (1990). 244, 257; find that NW2d We § intended 393 of the Budget Act to furnish the sole method of transfer- ring department. funds within a This conclusion is mandated the inconsistent natures of 393 and § 3 and the continual diminution of the board’s power ingly, effect the intratransfer of funds. Accord- Legislature implic- hold

we would itly repealed the intratransfer of 3._ 6(5), 3.265(5), 17.6(5); granted Section MCL which board accounting” system "control over the of state was amended three 31; 120; times to 3. 1939 PA 1976 PA 1984 PA without reference See 431, 591. Administrative J. Mallett, Telephone Michigan Co, 374

In Detroit v Bell (1965), 543, 558; 132 NW2d 660 we addressed relating interpretation the same of statutes to subject. those which relate pari

Statutes in materia are of person thing, or or same class same pur- things, or have a common persons or pose. It is the rule that which partic- of a in construction statute, interpretation provi- ular or in the its sions, subject, the same or relating all statutes having general read purpose, same should be it, constituting one together in law, with as connection times, con- although enacted at different taining no reference one to the other. statutory

Furthermore, rules direct construction express repeal, the two statutes that absent an conformity. in must be read pari materia are to be construed "Statutes fa- together, repeals by implication are not regard upon will statutes vored. The courts all general part of subject-matter system, as one same supple- as and later statutes should be construed mentary complementary preceding to those them.” pari object "The of the rule in materia legislature into carry purpose effect subject.”

found harmonious statutes on General, 232- [Wayne v Auditor Co (1930). 233; 229 NW Citations omitted.] act, the State Board Section claim on the board defendants conferred which general funds, to effect the intratransfer of consistently § 393 of the Man- cannot be read with agement Budget Act. It is difficult to conceive did not intend confer that power on the to effect the intratransfer funds 441 by Opinion Mallett, J. approval, subject legislative budget and director, simultaneously grant to the the same legislative oversight. limitation or board without legislation. patchwork This The more than is adopted by statutory construction, this rules of applicable statutes be Court, mandate together. However, result to do so would read Leg- by interpretation clearly not intended an implicitly to hold that 3 was islature.2 Failure repealed the executive branch to would allow intradepartment transfers. a forum for choose option certainly intended That Legislature therefore, A § 3 must fail. con- and holding trary allow the administrative would board to circumvent approval. requirement prior legislative

Act’s argues majority sections, §§ 3 the two § 3 are not in inevitable conflict because grants authority to the administrative transfer grants board, § 393 similar to the whereas reasoning budget does not follow director. This one realizes that the Governor controls both when The State Administrative Board is com- bodies. governor, posed Governor, secre- of the lieutenant attorney general, tary state, treasurer, state superintendent public MCL instruction. 3.516(145)(4). 18.1145(4); MSA of the board’s None individually members is authorized to They only empowered to vote on fund funds. are proposals transfer ever, as members of the board. How- through appointment otherwise, the Gov- (the at three ernor controls least members Gover- governor, himself, nor the lieutenant and the state treasurer) of the six-member board. As a result of control, the board cannot transfer funds with- this requisite consent; the are out the Governor’s votes indirectly directly. cannot do what one cannot do One State Administrative Opinion Mallett, J. "ap- lacking. Likewise, director [Gjovernor” pointed pleasure "serve[s] at the [Gjovernor.” 18.1321; MCL 3.516(321). questioned Thus, whether it is to be employ frus- § 3 unless he was would Governor trated Appropriations by rejection House or Senate from the Therefore, under

Committee Legislature determined "that the not follow it does that either might separate need to entities of these in order to funds within transfer perform majority separate duties,” con- as the its p Ante, cludes. Legislature majority that the also maintains conflicting prevent

provided exer- to a mechanism may authority Governor "[t]he cises of transfer — disagrees.” he action with which veto board argument p the assumes that Ante, 571. This decision-making independent will exercise board suggested by authority the Governor. absent skeptical board, the about whether must be One unequivocal support Governor, of the the without would vote to the board lacks a above, funds. As discussed

majority the Gover- to override requisite conflict, result, necessitat- nor. As a ing may veto, never occur. the Governor’s

Additionally, Man- enacted the agement comprehensive Act stat- and relating to in to consolidate the laws ute order accounting, regulating ap- budgeting, and the expressed propriations. title of This intent is the act: An act prescribe powers to and duties of budget; management to define functions of director and its its entities; revise, organizational codify, ... con- to solidate, duties, powers, classify, and add to the budgeting, accounting, and

and laws relative to provide regulating appropriations; to for the 441 Opinion Mallett, J. provi- constitutional of certain implementation accounts; appro- make sions; to create funds certain penalties; to rescind prescribe priations; orders; prescribe penal- reorganization executive parts of acts. ties; repeal acts and and to certain adopted assert exclusive Thus, PA 431 regulation and the control over appropriations. Legis- Where an enactment of the act indicates in the title lature intends ing the laws relat- to "revise and consolidate” expression subject, particular indi- this to a in that act entire control an intent to include cates subject The act is deemed to be matter. over complete Attorney ex rel itself. General 170, 173-174; 58 Parsell, 100 Mich NW Fuller v (1894). Lafayette this Court stated As Storage Comm, Utilities & Co v Public Transfer (1939): 488, 492-493; 283 NW 659 subject of covers the whole When a new statute offenses, one, prescribes different adds an old law, in the old penalties for those enumerated implication repealed by because former statute the together. And provisions of both cannot stand subject subsequent revising statute whole evidently intended as a matter of former ones and substitute words well the it, though express it contains no effect, principles of law as to that must on good operate repeal as in reason and sense former. omitted.] [Citation Legislature intended that the Man- Because the agement regarding occupy Act the entire field budget appropriations, 3 was

the repealed. implicitly

ii examination of Michi- After a close historical State Administrative Opinion Mallett, J. specifically gan’s budget process, the and more process, reject appropriation the defendant’s we argument § 3 of the State independent today source act stands as an Board authority to effect the administrative board intradepartmental of funds. Since the develop Michigan an efficient 1921, has labored to maintaining budget process, the while and flexible constitutionally Legislature’s control mandated attempt appropriations. to realize this In an over Legislature objective, Admin- created the State efficiency promote "to istrative Board government 1921 PA Section of the state.” granted "intervene in the board broad touching and activities matter such functions department]” "by resolution or [of a state ... order, [to] advise or direct the function other to the manner activity which performed . . . .” Section 6 shall be system granted the board "control over handling accounting such and the manner state work.”3 Legislature the board’s curtailed enacting

powers by added the 1931 PA which argue language that defendants authorized May 9, 1991. After actions on board’s controverted general super- granted an initial clause board visory and activities in control over all functions institutions, and state all administrative entities provided that the board_ argues majority either that "such a conclusion [that may need to transfer funds in order to director or the board approach perform with the taken its is consistent duties] Ante, Board created.” when the State Administrative may p in 1921 when the adminis- 569. While this have been the case created, seventy years argument fails almost trative board was progressive Legislature’s continual and As is evident from the later. diminution of power, Board is an the State Administrative board’s management. government obsolete form 547 441 Opinion Mallett, J. any state to power to transfer have the shall not department, commission, or institu- board, officer appropriated from the amount any sum tion the except to purpose, any other legislature for appropriation funds within inter-transfer the cer commission, board, offi- department, particular 17.3; 6, 3; MCL PA or institution. [1931 3.263.] language

Substantially § 6 added to was identical significantly limited This section of the act.4 power appropriation of the the time at board’s Depression, branch the executive when Great transferring expeditiously in or- funds faced with Regard- manage financial crises. the state’s der empowered Legislature the board less, department, only thus funds transfer appropriations. strengthening its control over Legislature further 1941, the 1933 and Between appropriation in the role the board’s abbreviated process. budget power from 1933, it returned In budget director. to the board the administrative amending formally § 6 of 187. Without 1933 PA original act, Administrative Board State authority to limited the board’s amendment building purposes. PA funds for powers re- Moreover, § 11 conferred new § 9. concerning sponsibilities the division on the board appropriations on the basis into allotments governmen- requirements periodic of the various through required done units, this be but tal the Finally, § continued director. strictly require used for funds be that all purposes acts. in the enumerated changing § 6, amended power appropri- that of the board’s focus to its also oblit- The amendment transfer funds. ate and hyphen in in 3 is "inter-transfer” difference is The sole 6. omitted in § Mallett, J. system erated the board’s accounting.5 over the of state Additionally, 31, § 1939 PA in 1948 Legislature adopted Department the the of Admin- Sess) (Ex (codified Act, istration PA 51 at seq.; seq. MCL 18.1 et repeal 3.516[1] MSA et until its 1984), significantly in which limited the budget process. empow- board’s role in the The act (later Department ered the named Budget of Administration re- Department the of 127) powers many in 1973 PA with assigned and duties Board in 1921. For the State Administrative

example, reassigned the act budget board’s transfer division of department: the new [A]uthority to transfer appropri- funds within an particular board, department,

ation for a commis- sion, office or hereby institution is transferred to budget depart- and vested ment: reported division of the Provided, all That such transfers shall be approved to and first by state admin- Sess) (Ex 51, istrative board. [1948 § 9.] PA began employing Thus, professionals 1948, after as the state budget accounting matters, advising ap- the board’s role was reduced to proving Department of Administration’s ac- longer possessed independent tions. The board no departments. to transfer funds within The 1963 Constitution further delineated the Legislature’s respective and the executive’s roles budget appropriation process. in the For ex- ample, required 5, § art the Governor budget pro- specifying submit to the posed expenditures and estimated revenue of the along general appropriation state with bills em- 31, “Nothing 1939 PA 6 stated: in this act shall be § construed to give system the state administrative board control of over state accounting handling work, and the manner of such which shall be the general.” function of the of the auditor 441 by Mallett, J. 5, 20 proposed expenditures. Article bodying Governor, with the required that additionally Appropriations and Senate of House approval Committees, authorized expenditures reduce fall short when actual revenues appropriations provisions expressly These revenues. estimated ap- Legislature’s control over established comment process. As the convention propriation stated, the intention was to art "remove[ ] legisla- question constitutionality as to the over fiscal of the state.” general policy tive control fur- in the process The board’s role proscribed 1976 PA ther reduced which in- "which will intratransfers item appropriation an crease decrease $50,000.00 aggregate.” . more in the . . than 3.265(2). 17.6(2); 3 permitted Section MCL $50,000 over after only transfers appropriation Appropriations and Senate approval by House 3.265(3). 17.6(3); MSA The 1976 MCL Committees. edict of changes effectuated Constitution’s 0the the state’s fiscal legislative policy.6 control over analyses departments confirms that 1976 PA The bill several as, be, perceived general to in fact was 120 was intended and funds, authority to effect the intratransfer of limitation board’s Legislature’s dominance in the area. For and as a reassertion of the example, Budget Department Management made and 1200, following regarding ultimately observations SB which became PA 120: depart- seriously ability bill would affect the of State [T]he (statewide elected

ments and the State Administrative Board officers) respond budgetary problems. to initially language of which was The this bill is similar appropriation into 1975-76 bills written however, Legislature. language, It ... from the earlier differs it more in the intertransfer of in that appropriation restrictive limitation of of Budget [Department Management and items. 16, 1200, Analysis Budget Bill dated December 1975.] Department of The Labor made similar comments: Mallett, J. Legis The final and definitive illustration of the lature’s continual restriction of the board’s passage came in 1984 with the Management of 1984 PA Budget seq.; Act, and MCL 18.1101 et 3.516(101) seq. Appeals MSA et As the Court of Budget Management stated, the and Act "substan tially budgeting process and rewrote recodified the App Among in this legislation state.” Management consolidated in the Budget PA Act was 1921 the State Administra only tive Board act. The 1984 act consisted remaining §§ 1, 2, five sections incorporated after and 3 were Management

into the new 3.516(145)(4), 18.1145(4); Act, MCL specifically repealed, §§ 6 and 9 were MCL 3.516(591). 393(2) 18.1591; MSA Section of the new provided: appropriations act any "A transfer of for reasons other than cost and price appropriations variances from those as en acted into law shall not be made the state approved by appropria director unless both amendment, § tions committees.” In the 1976 severely powers. limited the board’s intratransfer repealed expressly Therefore, § 6 when Budget Act, creation of the Legislature again severely limited, once if not entirely abolished, the board’s to effect purpose Legislature of this bill is to enable the to control except

all transfers between line-item for lon- gevity, insurance and retirement accounts. appears provide The intent of the bill with greater appropriations. control over the utilization of law, requests If this bill is enacted into all transfer would approved by Legislature have to be the which could take anywhere [Department from four weeks to five months. of 1200, 19, Analysis Emphasis Labor of SB dated December added.] by Opinion Mallett, J. legislative con- intratransfer of funds without the sent.7 thorough of the historical

After a examination process, struggle appropriation it is evi- over the Legislature 1984 did not intend that the in dent intradepart- power grant the over board unbridled adopt It the defen- ment transfers. is ludicrous Legislature its abandoned view that dant’s progressive appropria- of diminution the board’s power. Legislature fact, the two tion goals ing] strengthening] articulated (1) changes: "improv- adopting in the 1984 oversight appropriations

legislative of accounting by state’s passage [Requiring timely . . of transfers . timely provide supplemental for in order to more (2) "[streamlining year-end reporting,” and fiscal appropriations process.” Fiscal the Agency Explanation May House (H-2),

Sheet, HB 5179 illogical history, 31, it is 1984. Given this repealing § 6 of State Admin- conclude that istrative Board act 1984,

in in- 3.265(1), along 17.6(1); originally in with MCL MSA enacted 17.3; 3.263, general grant essentially reiterates the MCL MSA appropriation board "to intertransfer funds commission, board, particular department, or officer institu for tion.” It is 6 was to further delineate and evident intended § 3, power briefly and to the "intertransfer” referred to in § describe place authority. on In various amend additional restrictions before 6 was modified to add strict limitations on ments through provided, powers. As board’s intertransfer amended part, particular depart- appropriations any Intertransfers of for ment or institution shall be made which will increase appropriation by more than decrease an item $30,000.00 3% greater, no case item whichever is and in shall appropriation than of $50,000.00 he increased or decreased more 17.6(2); aggregate. 3.265(2).] MSA [MCL 3.265(3) 17.6(3); provided further that "[i]ntertransfers MCL any particular appropriations department or institution in excess (2) only may in subsection he made of the restrictions after (Emphasis [board] approval by house and committees.” senate added.) J. Opinion by Mallett, expand tended to the board’s to effect the Accordingly, intratransfer of funds. we conclude Management Budget § Act of the and intradepartmental the sole avenue transfer of funds. Representative

We would hold that Dominic Jacobetti, as a Democratic member and Chairman Appropriations Committee, of the House had a dispute sufficiently substantial interest in this standing. legislative Furthermore, establish process, history appropriation principles statutory construction, com- mon sense mandate the conclusion that when the Legislature expressly repealed § 6, also intended repeal Therefore, 393 of the operated Act as the exclusive means to depart- effect the intratransfer funds within ment.

Thus, we would affirm the decision of the Court Appeals. C.J., Boyle, J., Cavanagh, concurred with J. Mallett,

Case Details

Case Name: House Speaker v. State Administrative Board

Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court

Date Published: Jan 15, 1993

Citation: 495 N.W.2d 539

Docket Number: 92072, (Calendar No. 8)

Court Abbreviation: Mich.