In Re the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority

2003 OK 59 Application

In the Matter of the IMPROVE-

OKLAHOMA CAPITOL Approval

MENT AUTHORITY Capitol Improve- Million Oklahoma

$155 Authority Facilities Revenue

ment Million,

Bonds, and $20 2002C Series 2002D(Taxable). Series 97,936.

No.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

June

Rehearing Sept. Denied Edmondson, Attorney

W.A. Drew General Oklahoma, Lynn Rogers, C. for the State Bush, General, Gary Attorney M. Assistant Price, OK, Douglas F. City, Oklahoma Stillwater, OK, applicant. James, OK, Stroud, for protestant

Richard Cassidy, John Jr. Fent, se, Jerry pro R.

Protestant Okla- City, homa OK. Kessler, se, pro Nor-

Protestant Edwin man, OK.

BOUDREAU, Justice.

¶ By O.S.Supp.1999, amendment to 73 301,1 regular 47th session of the second Oklahoma in 2000 authorized Authority Capitol Improvement (OCIA) proposed to issue the State Facilities Bonds, 2002C, in Series an amount Revenue million, 2002D and Series exceed $155 (Taxable), in an amount not exceed $20 proposed million bonds million. The $175 million constitute the second half of $325 301(C) for the bonds authorized funding projects author- “providing A”. ized in subsection Okla.Sess.Laws, 376, § ch. 1H Const., quirement million bonds allocated art. proposed $175 301(A)(16). by § twenty-seven appropriation requirements in art. proceeding original OCIA initiated this nor the requirement in seeking approval proposed bonds.2 16. OCIA contended that des- twenty-seven ignating agencies par- state ¶2 individuals, protestants Three John ticipate in the program bond and the dollar (Fent), Cassidy, (Cassidy), R. Jerry Jr. Fent agency amount for each “for the of (Kessler), objected and Edwin Kessler to the ‘capital projects important which are to the proposal. challenged bond Protestants both ” of furtherance state functions’ the statute statute, § authorizing the and the bond- passes self-liqui- constitutional muster for a process on approval several constitu- dating revenue bond authorization statute. grounds. tional ¶ Upon considering 3 the and other briefs Proposed II. The the Protests Bonds filings by hearing parties argu- oral banc, deciding ment en we that the conclude ¶ Cassidy chаllenged 6 the constitutionality controversy is whether the au- issue 2000 § amendments 301. He con- thorizing purpose-of-bor- statute satisfies the statutory provisions, tended that the allocat- Const., rowing requirement in Okla. art. ing agen- the borrowed funds to various state § 16.3 that We find amended cies, including million to $51 specify purposes does not which expended Central Services as direct- twenty-seven agencies use the Governor, specifying ed without proceeds. that bond We determine 301 purpose, delegation legislative result in a satisfy the purpose-of-borrowing fails re- power which offends state constitutional Const., 10, § quirement in art. Okla. 16. We separation powers doctrine also vio- proposed proper- hold bonds are not appropriations borrowing provi- lates the O.S.2001, ly in 73 authorized Const., in Okla. sions art. art. 10, § and art. Application Approval I. OCIA’s Proposed

of the Bonds response Cassidy, 7 In OCIA contend- authorizing requires ed that the statute ¶4 approval application its proceeds capital pro- the bond be used for bonds, proposed OCIA asserted there is no jects specified agencies and confers proposal valid distinction between this bond agencies choosing discretion various proposal previously approved and the bond capital projects. argued OCIA that the this Court in Fent v. Oklahoma Legislature sufficiently general set out stan- Improvement Authority, 1999 OK policies dards and for the use of the bond Fent, approved P.2d 200. In we the first half guide carry- O.S.Supp.1998, of the bonds authorized in 73 ing delegated power, citing out Okla. 301, $162,700,000 proposal, against bond Cоnst., Bailey art. v. State Board attack that the bonds would create a debt Affairs, Public Okla. requiring approval pursuant voter to Okla. 495, 153 P.2d 235. Const., 10, § art. 25.4 Anticipating protests application, Cassidy to its and Fent filed documents argued proposed showing Keating OCIA that the bonds do not and mem- Governor separation powers Legislature agreed violate either the re- bers bond O.S.2001, Fent, that, proceeding proposed 2. This authorized in 4.OCIA asserted as in § 160. they self-liquidating; bonds will not be state; by the backed full faith and credit of the 10, § 3. Article Oklahoma Constitution they legal obligation beyond will create a provides: money by authorizing "All laws the State, appropriation; they appro- create current county, and on behalf of the priation-risk obligations are not moral which State, political other subdivision shall legally except leg- each enforceable extent money for which the is to be actually appropriates their islature funds for re- used, and the so borrowed be used tirement. purpose." for no other Addition- House General the State Oklahoma. as follows: proceeds will allocated spend Attorney mil- ex Bond ally, how to General is $55 will decide members officio Oklahoma, members proceeds, bond Senate lion of the Commissioner million of the spend how to $55 will decide Const., tentatively will the Governor decide proceeds, bond However, be- proposed approved the bonds. pro- million of the bond spend $51 how to protestants the constitution- attack cause possi- some 520 documents listed ceeds. The validity authorizing al of the statute issuancе Cassidy proceeds. projects for the bond ble bonds, proposed this Court directed not an official agreement is asserted that this Attorney Enforcer General as Chief Law satisfy pur- act legislative and does legal position with whether his indicate requirement Okla. pose-of-borrowing re- issues is respect to the constitutional 10, separation of Const., nor the art. 16 by the Assistant in the briefs filed flected nondelegation.5 powers doctrine of for Attorney attorney as of record General ¶ the existence acknowledged 9 also OCIA the OCIA.7 prepared individual more lists of one or ¶ Attorney posi- 11 The General took the range uses legislative directing members authorizing proceeds by agen- tion that the statute is various of the bond for purchasing equipment rural is presumed cies from constitutional but constitutional Capitol completing the dome. firefighters pronouncement v. this Court’s in Fent under position the these “wish OCIA took Authority, Improvement Capitol any not a official action lists” are result 64, 200, approved “which 984 binding the and are not on Legislature 73, under 301 of Title bonds issued Section will, explained that it agencies. OCIA part funding unspeci- provided which for of the Office of Attor- with the assistance $45,000,000 designating for projects fied General, ney ultimately expendi- oversee higher edu- ‘Capitol at institutions proceeds to assure that each ture of the bond part cation which are of the Oklahoma State ” public purpose fulfills a lawful project System Higher Education.’ un- the unconstitutional or does not involve Attorney Cassidy replied Gen- any 1112 proceeds local gift lawful or loаn lump that a sum private entity. position contending eral’s money to allocation of borrowed the Okla- Attorney III. The State Regents Higher Education homa State General’s Position sufficiently speci- capital improvements ¶ re- purpose borrowing. He OCIA, entity,6 fies repre- a state 10 13-A, Const., 3,§ which Attorney to Okla. art. proceeding by ferred sented in separation powers challenges. doctrine as violative of raised numerous other 5.Protestants 4) 1) Cassidy's challenge holding prohibition; to the Fent’s These include: and the dual office Legislators agreement challenge obligation, arguing between the the Gov- bond to the grounds, general appro- on various other constitutional ernor including payment of future the bonds from Const., 14, Const., Okla. art. which re- 10, §§ priations art. violates quires and collected for and, that taxes shall levied 25; 5) objection proposed Kessler's prohibits public purposes, which art. Const., 10, § bonds under the Okla. art. the benefit of the use of the credit of state for requires proposal specify the that the which bond cities, art. which individuals repay to be tax to it and work funded requires every levying a measure tax must approved it be the electorate. tax; 2) Cassidy's specify purpose chal- asserting lenge bond-approval process, O.S.2001, §§ el created 6. The OCIA is approved only dollar that OCIA the five million seq. project and that bond issue for the Dome Legislative Oversight Bond Commission O.S.2001, § v. 7. 12 1652 and Ethics Commission approval OCIA seek coerced Cullison, 1069, 1074 OK 850 P.2d $155,000,000 projects that bond issue for "520 (When the courts are to declare statute asked County, City, to be or Non were сonstructed unconstitutional, Attorney land"; General 3) Corporation challenge to Profit Fent’s served and is entitled State of Oklahoma shall be bond-approval pro- constitutionality the cess, appear behalf of the Chief Law Enforcer on attacking Legislative Oversight as Bond Governor.). Legislature Oversight and the and the Council of Bond Commission

H3 requires appropriate specify the real money Regents in form in that it failed power to the Board of consolidated to reveal the constructed, particular plant partially reference to a institution would be without with fed- grant money.8 Quinn Regents recently, Board of to allocate eral requires More v. Tulsa, City each appropriated funds to institution. 777 P.2d 1331, 1336,reiterated the Borin rule that art. Purpose-of-Borrowing IV. 10, § prevents municipality using Requirement Const., in Okla. project1 bond that is substan 10, § art. tially planned project. different from the Constitution, The Oklahoma City 17 Protest Reid Borin requires “purpose” Erick utilized the word in its money for which to be borrowed ordinary meaning thing as “the to be accom authorizing in a used statute also, Barnes, plished.” See Barnes v. money. prohibits It also the use of borrow ¶34, 5, (defining “pur pur- so borrowed for other “the pose” thing accomplished”). to be pose. This interpretation “purpose” as used 10, § 16 firmly art. is consistent with the ¶ 14 purpose-of- This constitutional presumption established that words in the borrowing requirement is a limitation on the employed constitution have nat been their Reid, 711, Legislature. 1932 Protest OK of ordinary meaning by ural and the framers ¶ 7, 3, 995, Okla. Its 160 997-98. people adopted and the who it. M. Thomas objective requirе legislative is to bodies to LL.D., Cooley, A Treatise on the Constitu purpose reveal the true for which the bor Limitations, 1, (8th ed.1927). p. tional vol. money City be rowed is to used. Borin v. of ¶ Erick, 519, 190 Okla. ¶ 18 analogy While the between the P.2d 770. legislative authority sovereign state ¶ Application pur- of the constitutional legislative authority and the its municipali of pose-of-borrowing requirement to a state usefulness,9 underly ties is limited its the impression. is a matter of first How- statute ing goal art. of 16 is the same state ever, this Court has applica- considered the borrowing municipal require our elect —to municipal tion 16 to proposed of art. to specify purpose ed officials the for borrow municipal proceeds. bonds and uses of bond ing Accordingly, provisions money. of the have, part, strictly Const., Our most decisions the 10, § require that the applied the purpose-of-borrow- constitutional statutory provisions authorizing the borrow ing pro- requirement to limit the use of the ing ‍​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‍money, of the amendments to ceeds. specify object thing the to legislative must money, accomplished the with borrowed ¶ Reid, supra., 16 In Protest we conclud- i.e., legislative purpose the for the require- purpose-of-borrowing ed that money. only ment limits not the immediate use of borrowed, money any but also limits subse- V. 2000 amendments to quent proceeds use from the sale of O.S.Supp.1999, § 301 purchased property money by with borrowed Similarly, City Cassidy argues municipality. Borin v. 301 does Erick, supra., proposed purposes we mu- invalidated reveal which bor bonds, nicipal finding money may expended contrary the ordinance did rowed Nesbitt, City municipality things Sallisaw v. A сan do which those 954, approved proposed bonds expressly where are authorized the state constitution authorizing municipal challenged was hand, ordinance sovereign’s other statutes. On the bond failure legislative power inherent is without restriction supplemented grant would be with federal mon except expressly provided those limitations ey supplemental opinion petition and in the Childers, v. Graham constitution. rehearing, distinguished City Borin Erick 11, 114 Okla. 241 P. facts, 4,¶ on the at 956-57. obligations herein”. How- On authorized requirement. purpose-of-borrowing ever, projects not follow. hand, legisla- listing does argues that the other OCIA identify or otherwise does not subsection borrowing authorized

tive project” to be fund- single “capital describe agencies. listed capital projects § 301 is Rather, money. it sets ed with the borrowed us examine arguments require 20 The amounts of the bor- listing forth a provisions of the 2000 amend- pertinent twenty-seven money and identifies rowed summary, provi- these ments to 301.10 agencies to which the various amounts sions: not, however, does be allocated. It 1) authorized amount increase any description whatsoever of provide bonds; million million $320 $325 twenty- projects accomplished to be 2) half proceeds of the second allocate mon- agencies seven state borrowed twenty-seven million bonds the $325 pur- ey. does not reveal This subsection direct Governor to object borrowing. pose or the approximately determine one- the use (L) §of 301 identi- 23 While subsection proceeds; third of the bond of services where the fies twelve areas some 3) “to lеgislative appropri- intent declare use the borrowed would effectuate pro- agencies administering the ate to the govern- performance of essential state rental jects monies make sufficient functions, any de- is silent as mental retiring payments “capital project” might scription year ending obligations” for the fiscal money. The be funded with the borrowed thereafter; and, June areas, listing of twelve service without 4) that the use of legislative findings make more, simply does disclose by municipalities and coun- proceeds bond money. accomplished the borrowed be with govern- state ties will effectuate essential ¶ (M) § 301 vests the Subsection relating functions to services of mental agencies authority with as identified state bridges, protection, fire roads and historic necessary fully to fund be facilities, preservation, air recreational obligations proceeds for from the which the housing elderly, care transportation, Al- by this section are available. authorized juvenile agricul- delinquency prevention, 301(M) though does not describe other- care, tourism, ture, horticulture, health identify single project Legis- that the wise a public safety. development, economic funded, argues lature intended to be OCIA controversy to Central sufficiently purpose- with the complies it statute, sought is to be resolved whether the of-borrowing requirement. points out OCIA sufficiently specifies 301(M) requires proceeds the bond to proposed which the bonds capital projects of the various be used Upon to consideration be used. careful agencies and cоnfers discretion in the to of the text the 2000 amendments project. agencies capital to While select 301,11 not. we conclude does undoubtedly may delegate to ¶22 (A)(16) implementing a de- agencies the task of 301 states Subsection conditions,12 policy following projects to clared under certain capital “The be funded tionality legislation. If is sus- set out the statute 10. The text of the 2000 amendments is in opinion. appendix meaning objec- in ceptible full to a to that will remove interpretation validity, its must be tions to validity statute is drawn 11. When the Inc., Ass'n, adopted. Way v. Lake Grand subject question, approaches into the court ¶ greatest with presumed caution. The is carefully require- to have observed the 12. Concerning the constitutional doctrine of non- enacting ments the statute. constitution in Party delegation, Oklahoma v. Es Democratic indulge evety presumption We in favor of the 271, 277, tep, P.2d foot 1982 OK validity presumption statute and valid- "(w)hen legislature explained note ity is overcome where a constitutional viola- parameters policy and then dele of its Any validity sets tion is doubt to the of a clear. as implementing gates agency to the task of statute will be resolved in favor of the constitu- some delegate purpose- limited power meaning is cussed the of such terms as “capital 10, § in of-borrowing provision expenditure” “capital outlay” equat- delegation argument in OCIA’s reveals itself “capital ed them to improvement” City projects to specific accomplished that the Springs Department Sand v. Public Wel money yet with the borrowed have not been farе, determined. ¶ 27 Employees The Public case addressed “capital project” 25 The term as of Human Services’ authori- sufficiently descriptive used in not a is ty privatize one of its institutions designation things accomplished mentally retarded Springs and the Sand case money satisfy with pur the borrowed department’s addressed that authority to pose-of-borrowing requirement juvenile construct an institution for delin- Const., art.10, provides § 16. Oklahoma law quents. Neither case made attempt no definition of the term. “capital” The word define the “capital project.” By term way of has meanings different when used differ dicta, obiter the Sand Springs case did ent adjec connections.13 When used equate “capital expenditure” “capital sense, “capital” tive in financial means hav outlay,” but equate did not either term with ing do with wealth or financial resources “capital improvement.” dissent, in its assets, general including investment give strained effort to meaning to the term surplus.14 Imputing an unrestricted financial “capital project,” overlooks the fact that none “capital” sense the word as used terms referred to either case is used expend could the borrowed the 2000 any “project” amendments 301.15 purchasing from the supplies of dispensable constructing building. Relying heavily Edwards Childers, 102 Okla. P. ¶ Realizing “capital pro- the term complains the dissent also that our read ject” imprecise in meaning, its the dissent ing of the purpose-of-borrowing requirement looks other Oklahoma law to define the overly restrictive pur and differs from the dissent, citing term. The Oklahoma Public pose requirement legislative appropria

Employees Depart Association v. Oklahoma disagree. Services, tions. We Edwards concerned ment Central 55 application Const., 5, 55, § the of Okla. art. argues “capital project” building requires appropriation means the or which an to “capi construction a “distinct ly improvement” specify tal because this Court the sum appropriated dis- and the O.S.2001, also, policy safeguards, § under articulated there Committee. See 41.9 re- quiring agencies identify no of the to violation doctrine.” those items that are "capital purposes” keeping with for in the “defi- capital promulgated projects nition of the Capital, p. 13. 12A CJ.S. the On other Capital Long-Range Planning Commission” hand, "project” the word when used in reference requests "capital appropriations” to malte for for public government generally to or works a has "capital projects” that have to been submitted recognized meaning planned undertaking aof or Long-Range Capital Planning Commission. definitely proposal. formulated 73 C.J.S. Pro- However, provide do those statutes a certain ject, p. 149. meaning "capital pro- or definition to the term. jects” Long-Range but leave the definition to the Capital p. 14. 12A CJ.S. see also 68 O.S. Planning Capital Commission. That Commission 2001, § 1203. "capital "capital defined has items” and facili- "capital projects.” but it not defined ties” has urges "capital 15. The dissent also that we link Code, Oklahoma Administrative In 428:10-1-3. project” "capital expenditure” with as term Program Budgeting the Oklahoma Performance public public is used in the The finance statutes. Act, O.S.2001, Accountability §§ 45.1 et "capital do terms as finance statutes utilize seq, Legislature "capital improve- defined expenditure,” project,” "capital outlay,” "capital any building menfi'to mean or infrastructure facilities,"and "capital "capital improvement.” state, 1) 2) project that will be owned built See, Act, Capital Improvement State 62 O.S. appropriations direct or state-issued bond seq. creating $25,000 §§ Long-Range 3) 4) 900 et proceeds, cost at least have a O.S.2001, Planning Capital years, Commission and 73 of at five but does not life least refer Capital "capital recreating Facility improvements.” the State Needs to borrowing improve- “to construct object Ed- thorized applied”.16 it is to be to which upon property facilities under ments and unmistakably Legisla- that the teaches zvards Department of the of Corrections control “descriptive designation” provide a must ture probation and for use as a district satisfy suitable in appropriated sum order for each Heretofore, Legislature parole office”.19 opinion today requires no art. 55. Our agency just simply never identified has it Legislature when authorizes more of the moneys appropriated or borrowed receive money re- borrowing of than Edwards descriptive designation of providing a without Legislature appropri- it quires when of the project to be funded. Edwards, Here, money.17 as ates provide descriptions of the must Legislature correctly urges that 30 The dissent projects for the borrowed funds which provision must be the-purpose-of-borrowing expended. be provis with other constitutional harmonized consistently pro- Legislature Legislature has power ions.20 in descriptive designations of issuance of state bonds is vided authorize the borrowing subject previous enact- our state funded to other restrictions be deed ments, recognizing In thereby purpose-of- the constitutional to the constitution. addition also purposes requirement, constitution requirement contracted on expended.18 requires will that no debts shall be which borrowed be instance, to a vote recently an- the state unless submitted For behalf dollars, Childers, supra., $265 without a vote of ad- more than million Edwards v. court In creating special people, codified in Title whether statutes fund dressed borrowings Treasury, Highway purposes gen- Con- State the State described the in the erect, Fund, dedicating operate Maintenance eral terms such "to and main- struction and gasoline building buildings tax revenues to the Fund consti- excise or for the use of tain resolving appropriation. Safety, is- Department place tute a valid sue, Public upon Edwards had decide whether statute at be the state-owned land erection to "distinctly specified” appropriated and the sum 36th Avenue in Northeast Street Eastern object required be Laws, which was to used as the by City” ch. in 1965 Okla. Sess. Oklahoma 528, 5, § O.S.2001, 153-A; plan, "to ac- erect, operate quire land for and and maintain every object appropria- or As buildings following agen- tion, general object for the use of the Edwards said that Laws, 330, § ch. expended desig- cies” Sess. moneys be which must 168; erect, O.S.2001, acquire and to earmarking "to statute considered in nated. The buildings operate building provided were and maintаin Edwards sys- expended primary use of the of Human Services on the construction of a highways repair operation facility ... rehabilitation tem of maintenance Laws, Okmulgee County” highways. ch. Edwards determined that in 1985 Okla. Sess. and, O.S.2001, 168.2; descriptive designation object "for the funding, which the funds could be used satisfied the of a construction maintenance 5, Edwards, § purpose requirement building by art. buildings in 55. the Board of or for use atp. 228 P. 476. of Science and Trustees of the Oklahoma School Laws, 270, in Okla. ch. Mathematics” 1991 Sess. position takes that we are dissent the O.S.2001, 17. 37, § § 73 168.4. Other such statutes costs, by requiring detailed statements of item authorizing borrowing money of the that contain item, project. simply of That is each incorrect. descriptions purpose language the of in similar Const., 10, § not to We do read Okla. art. 16 16, Laws, 277, § 1994 Okla. Sess. ch. include: provide require to a the detailed O.S.2001, Laws, 177; § ch. 1996 Okla. Sess. 73 every minute cost in order to satis- itemization of 1, 168.5; 294, O.S.2001, § § 1997 Okla. Sess. 73 fy purpose-of-borrowing requirement. the Arti- Laws, 329, 7, O.S.2001, 168.6; § § 1999 ch. 73 10, does, however, require § more than cle 16 O.S.2001, Laws, 277, 1,§ ch. 73 Okla. Sess. agency spend to the name of a state authorized 16, 168.7; Laws, 136, § § 2000 Okla. Sess. ch. Edwards, money. As in intended use the the O.S.2001, § 184. 73 must be described. Laws, 102, 1, 73 O.S. 19. 2001 Okla. Sess. ch. § In its enactments before the 2000 amend- 18. 2001, § 185. 301, descrip- Legislature provided §to the ments designations, general in than min- tive rather in detail, provisions Generally, con- constitutional purposes ute the to which borrowed of 20. Piper, a whole. Cowart v. expended. strued as consistent would be In some sixteen 66, 4, 315, authorizing borrowing a 317. of total of 1983 measures

H7 Const., 10, 10, § 25.21 §§16 of Okla. art. to harmonize of people. and 25 art. then 10, § requires art. 25 also the purpose-оf-borrowing language Like art. in 16 object accomplished require just that work or to be must identity more than of distinctly specified. by agency indebtedness be money.24 receive the borrowed has 31 This Court determined that Allocation VI. of Bond Proceeds 10, § requirement art. 25 of antecedent Higher Education apply election does not where the bond or obligation similar not constitute a debt does recognize, Cassidy 33 We point payable out of or of.the state state funds out, ed that appropriations the institu self-liquidating project.22 such property, as a in System High tions the Oklahoma State of specific projects by be Because funded er Education must be in made consolidated yet have proposed bonds .not been deter- form without particular reference to in date,23 will mined and be decided at a future stitution to by be allocated the Oklahoma reading a of impossible from 301 Regents Higher Education accord proposed determine whether the bonds ing needs and functions of each institu question self-liquidating will fund Const., 13-A, § tion. Okla. art. 3.25Even if a requiring people. vote pro the allocation of some million bond $30 10, requirement If the election art. ceeds Regents Oklahoma State 301(A)(16)(m) any meaning, speci- to have purpose-in-bor then the satisfies the ficity requirement rowing requirement that in light section demands of 13-A Article constitution, descriptive designation project of can allocation specified authorizing be in the law. If we are be saved. Const., 10, provides place art. that no Okla. The Oklahoma Constitution does not by expenditure public absolutely be debts shall hereafter contracted of State, Legislature. citizenry of debt be behalf unless such shall Oklahoma The Oklahoma object, legislative right- power authorized law some work or to be reserved itself over all distinctly specified provides subjects §§ therein and further ful in art. 2. The obvious goal purpose-of-borrowing requirement law have re- no effect unless it general majority protect citizenry ceives a vote at election. '16 is to the Oklahoma Legislature's from abuse of the state's credit consequent oppression and the of burdensome approved provide Court has This bonds speci- taxation. Oklahoma must general acquisition funds—absent election—for i.e., fy purpose borrowing, describe self-liquidating Ap projects. or construction of project object designated accomplished plication Regents University Board money, with the borrowed otherwise exercise Oklahoma, 1945 OK Okla. citizenry legisla- the Oklahoma of its reserved Application Regents Board power tive is stifled. Agricultural Colleges, Mechanical Okla. P.2d 883 language Application in art. (bonds dormitory repaid to be from rents and authorizing borrowing money that “laws and, students); paid by Application fees Okla ... shall for which the mon- Turnpike Authority, homa ey require general tois be used” so as to (bonds repaid 221 P.2d 795 description our is consistent with users). paid highway tolls fees This kind application purpose requirements similar obligation create does not a debt because the placed upon raising, spending repaid solely generated bonds are from revenue Childers, See, public money. Edwards v. su- project from the itself. pra., applying purpose requirement Olda. Const., "appropriation § art. that an law 55 agency distinctly 23. dissent envisions each appropriated ... shall the sum expend will how object applied” decide to its allocation of bor- the which it to is to money, except City the will City rowed Governor make the Oklahoma v. Oklahoma Tax Commis- sion, pur- applying $51 decision for the million allocated to the 789 P.2d 1287 § pose requirement of Central Services. The Bond Ad- in art. 19 that an "act visor, however, levying specify distinctly pur- us that his office and ... the advised the tax Attorney pose office will General make the for which said tax is levied”. Both dissent decisions. and the Bond Advis- appro- agree projects provision yet to have refers to seem not 25. This constitutional determined, although legislature, priations been not clear who it does not address money. ultimately would those make decisions. the allocation of borrowed

118 Legislature did not ex VII. Conclusion 34 severability pressly provide for purpose-of-borrowing require- V36 The § In the to 301.26 absence 2000 amendments Constitution, in the art. ment Oklahoma clause, portion offending severability of a authorizing § requires that statute 16 may from the non- of a be severed statute descrip- borrowing money include a must 1) portion, appears if it offending designation to be accom- tive have enacted statute would money. plished with We de- the borrowed 2) offending portion and the non- without § 301 termine the 2000 amendments to capable standing portion is offending borrowing of without authorize the Depart Oklahoma Application alone. specifying which the bond purposes ¶74, 27, 64 Transportation, 2002 OK ment used. conclude that We 553. § satisfy not amendments 301 do purpose-of-borrowing requirement of Okla. aside, Regents The Oklahoma State Const., art. 16.27 hold that We today determines that the 2000 our decision not authorized proposed properly bonds are satisfy do the con- not amendments O.S.2001, § 301. borrowing requirements for stitutional respect twenty-six of identified twen- OF APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL severing the ty-seven agencies. After EXCEED MILLION $155 NOT TO twenty-six the identified allocations IMPROVE- OKLAHOMA CAPITOL agencies, only saving that twenty-seven state MENT FACILI- AUTHORITY STATE Regents, enough not State the Oklahoma BONDS, REVENUE TIES SERIES carry legis- out remains in the statute MILLION, 2002C AND $20 SERIES way, intent. another lative Stated (TAXABLE) DENIED. 2002D portion amend- unconstitutional HODGES, LAVENDER, WATT, C.J., and significant portion 301 are such ments to HARGRAVE, KAUGER, and impossible give as make it whole WINCHESTER, JJ., concur. legislative authorization for the effect to the by saving the allocation ALA, J., concurs result and OP V.C. Regents. Accordingly, separately. writes proceeds to of bond the Okla- allocation (m) Regents subparagraph SUMMERS, J., homa State dissents and writes 301(A)(16). §in separately. stand alone cannot O.S.2001, Laws, ch.376, Because we that 73 consists of two determine Sess. satisfy purpose-of-borrowing sections, does O.S.Supp.1999, amends Const., requirement we do in Okla. September provides an effective date of challenges address the other constitutional protestants. asserted

APPENDIX O.S.2001, 301, O.S.Supp.2000, provides codified at 73 now part: Capitol Improvement Authority A. The acquire is to authorized real thereon, property, together buildings improvements personal located property, and to construct improvements to property рrovide and other real and funding to for repairs, improvements to real personal property refurbishments and following capital projects and funding and for following in the amounts: following capital obligations 16. The projects be funded authorized herein expended by following amounts to be allocated and following entities and in the 1: amounts: 2,990,000.00 a. the Oklahoma Commission Aeronautics $ Agriculture Department 5,044,194.00 the State the b. $ Investigation 300,000.00 c. Oklahoma State Bureau $ Capitol Complex 5,470,101.00 the Oklahoma and d. Centennial Commission $ $ Department 975,000.00 Services e. Central Department 1,250,000,00 f. the Oklahoma the Oklahoma of Commerce $ $ g. h. Conservation Commission 100,000.00 Department 260,101.00 the Oklahoma of Corrections $ $ Department 700,000.00 i. the State the of Education j. 250,000.00 Authority Oklahoma Educational Television $ . $ Authority k. the Grand River Dam 220,000.00 Department 735,000.00 l. the State the Oklahoma Health $ Regents Higher m. 30,617,909.00 Education $ Society 10,456,303.00 n. the Oklahoma Historical the $ Representatives 46,434.00 o. Oklahoma House of $ $ Department p. of Human Services 2,010,101.00 McCarty q. Developmental 485,101.00 J.D. for Children with Center $ Disabilities 1,227,601.00 r. Office Juvenile Affairs $ Department 2,075,000.00 the Oklahoma s. Mental Health and Substance $ Abuse Services Department Military 5,700,101.00 t. the Oklahoma $ Department ‍​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‍Safety 1,194,000.00 u. of Public $ Department 10,565,005.00 the Oklahoma of Tourism and Recreation $ Department Transportation 5,241,412.00 the Oklahoma w. $ Department 1,450,000.00 x. the Oklahoma of Veterans Affairs $ y. Department Technology 13,845,303.00 the Oklahoma of Career and Edu- $ cation ' 1,850,000.00 z.the Oklahoma Water Resources Board $ 608,000.00 Department aa. the Oklahoma of Wildlife Conservation Department 51,833,333.00 bb. Services Central $ $ 157,499,999.00 GRAND TOTAL subparagraph paragraph spent capital allocated bb of this shall be functions, projects important which are furtherance of state as directed Governor. For the paying acquisition C. the costs for and real construction of the property ments, improvements personal making property repairs, refurbish- improvements personal real property, providing funding section, authorized in A of this subsection and for the authorized in section, D Authority hereby subsection of this authorized borrow monies on leasing personal credit income and revenues to be derived from of such real and, property revenues, improvements anticipation of such collection income and obligations negotiable issue a total not to exceed Hundred amount Three ($325,000,000.00) Twenty-five Million Dollars in one or whether issued more series. expend of Central Services authorized and directed funds from the Improvement Revolving required Fund in payments amounts sufficient make during subsequent pursuant obligations year ending the fiscal June 1999. For years, it is appropriate fiscal the intent of the to the indicated state payments purposes retiring obligations sufficient monies to make rental pursuant Provided, Authority to this obligations created section. not issue funding in purpose providing projects of for authorized pursuant this section to January year prior section to 2001. For fiscal A of this paragraph 16 subsection 2002, thereafter, appropriate to to it is the intent of the ending June payments administering to make rental projects sufficient monies obligations pursuant created this section. retiring section, provisions provisions of this they are not in conflict with Insofar as J. apply this to this section. seq. 151 et title shall Section K of Section 85.4 of provisions paragraph 3 of subsection K. To extent provisions be applicable, would be Statutes otherwise Title 74 use, through proceeds acquired, ownership or for from to assets inapplicable A by paragraph 16 of of this section. obligations authorized subsection government properly are Legislature finds that several functions state L. The delivery political of state services use of subdivisions. order performed through the governmental and in of state delivery of essential state services furtherance facilitate construction, may be acquisition improvement of assets which located by the or functions municipality may or which be corporate limits of a of the State of Oklahoma within the subject jurisdiction a of board of unincorporated areas of located commissioners, important govern- an of state county but which nonetheless serve function ment, proceeds from finds that the the issuance the State of Oklahoma use performance govern- this obligations pursuant to section effectuates essential functions, including, but not limited to: mental services; protection 1. Fire Roads, highways partially completely either within or within bridges located 2. state; corporate municipality unincorporated limits of a or area preservation; Historic 3. facilities; 4. Recreational infrastructure; transportation Air 5. elderly; care housing Facilities facilities; prevention delinquency and treatment 7. Juvenile facilities; event Agricultural and horticultural facilities, including, primary purpose limited facilities Health but not care illness; prevention or of communicable diseases or which the treatment tourism; 10. Promotion of selection; development and business site 11. Promotion of economic safety. 12. Public every M.Notwithstanding any contrary, law to provision other each and commission, board, entity government or as identified agency, department other of state authority A or acquire 16 of of this section shall have the paragraph subsection intangible, may personal, tangible required real or property, transfer such whether acquire improve from fully fund the assets which the by this section available. obligations authorized V.C.J., ALA, concurring appears rather to draw from the OP result. stream but (or uncertainty legislative appropria- risk ¶ Although today’s I persuaded am tion). borrow The State pronouncement represents correct resolu- people. Art. controversy, tion I cannot without a vote her of an issue this give bonded my unqualified assent. The Attaching Okl. Const. the loan today approved is taint- indebtedness obligation” “moral will not erase the label pervasive clearly ed incurable reality placing the State the status of a facially qualify flaw. It cannot as a self- receiving It act of bor- borrower. liquidating loan transaction. Aside from its assent which rowed sans voters’ descriptive designation, the obli- deficient prohibition that offends the Constitution’s gation’s is not shown to repayment source controversy. lies at the base of project-generаted come revenue

121 fully pro- 558, joining 2 the court’s P.2d 570. The words of provisions those Without nouncement, solely today’s given I in re- plain, ordinary concur are their natural and State, sought 76, meaning. to be A.E. approve bonds v. 1987 OK 743 fusal 1041, explanation my analyses full P.2d issued. For a 1046. This ap- sensus literalis Capitol Imp. Application proach meaning see of a particular word is 759, Auth., 25, (Opala, 958 P.2d 779 1998 OK followed unless the context furnishes some J., control, dissenting). ground qualify, enlarge Hunt, meaning. Ogden State ex rel. v. 1955

SUMMERS, Dissenting. J. 125, OK The context of § language require does not the bond The Court concludes technical meaning phrase “laws ... § satisfy 16 of issue does not Article specify purpose shall for which the mon- “pur- Oklahoma Constitution because ey is to be ordinary meaning used....” The pose” funds forth with is set of these be applied. should words specificity. respectfully I from that dissent The Oklahoma con- conclusion. Constitution ¶ 4 Section 55 of Article 5 states as follows: provisions require tains a law to two § 55. Appropriations Necessity and — specify purpose public money for which requisites (borrowed spent: Const. Art 10 money No paid shall ever be out funds). funds), (appropriated Art. 5 55 and State, treasury funds, any of this nor of its arriving meaning at for the former the any nor manage- funds under its precedent to use our on Court declines ment, except in pursuance appropria- of an latter. The result is that one standard will by law, tion unless payments nor such apply borrowing authorizing to laws made within years two and one-half after money appropriated and a different one to act, passage appropriation of such Furthеr, I funds. submit that the standard every making appropria- law a new today used the Court for Art. 10 16 is tion, continuing or reviving appropri- overly reject Finally, restrictive. I would ation, distinctly specify shall ap- sum approve legal challenges other object propriated it is which bonds. applied, to be and it shall not be sufficient for such law to refer to other law to fix Purpose I. The the Bonds such sum. ¶ 2 16 of Section Article 10 states as fol- added). (Emphasis lows: Borrowing money Specification “object” for ap- The term which are funds — purpose propriated by “purpose” law is also the stat- —Use money appropriation ed for which the authorizing All laws State, expended. to be money by Sibel v. State Bd. behalf of the coun- Affairs, ty, political Public 1952 OK or other subdivision of the Auditor, Clift, State, quoting, Meyer, State which 201, 123 used, P. 1043. This defini money money is to be so of “pur tion is consistent with the definition pur- for no other borrowed shall used Oversight pose. pose” the Oklahoma Bond “ ‘Purpose’ Reform Act: issuer’s means the provides spec- Section 16 that “laws ... shall principal use of the derived intended ify which the is to be from the issuance bonds or other obli used....” 695.3(6). gations.” 62 O.S.2001 ¶3 Provisions the Oklahoma Constitu- conformity “object” requirement appropri- tion interpreted with their 5 The ordinary significance English “pur- lan- in the ations Art. 5 is similar to the guage. requirement In re Initiative No. funds- in pose” Petition borrowed Childers, Question No. 927 Art. 10 16.1 In Edwards v. using "object" defining the same standard for serves an important Judicially "purpose” first Art. 5 7 As to the element mentioned P. we looked at Edwards, via lump appropriation, appropri- sum this Court is aware approved fund, special a of a ating specific creation or amount of high- building new for Highway Commission constructing specific highway a road or for of ways and maintenance repair and the See, e.g., Application possible. sometimes is P. already at highways constructed. Id. Authority, Turnpike 1966 OK Oklahoma of capital Although specific projects were bonds). (turnpike But the said that not listed we Legisla- was whether the issue Edwards act, appropriated of and the terms problem capital approach ture of could pur- special for expended to be a directed highways of state as improvements manner, pose express in an amounts to and Legislature trying to system a instead cre- of the entire fund so appropriation of individual determine the exact location ated, accruing the amount and where system. roads for The Court needed being of capable into fund is paid said (1) ap- specific amount concluded ascertained, sufficiently defi- definitely it is (2) legislative purpose creat- propriated, a of comply provi- and certain to with nite (capital ing repairing highways projects), 5, § article the Constitu- sions of (3) setting forth the nature of statutes tion. entity’s together worked the state duties Capi- lawmakers can in the set of sit No object appropriation suffi- define the intelligently specify for tol of the state and To satisfy cient to Art. 5 hold other- moneys year a or two in advance be unnecessarily Legisla- hinder wise would in the different items of cost expended ability problems and fund ture’s address projects or or various road business system-wide a a basis that occur within just that detailed work shall be done. how agency’s sphere responsi- particular state object moneys for these are to general bility. designated is expended be the statutes “the ¶ consideration as construction under states, Clearly, opinion as the Court’s system highways” and primary a “the money object purpose for one or borrowed high- and maintenance of state repairing may expended upon a one. different intelligently ways.” No law could and suc- indicates, But, opinion as the Court’s cessfully make detailed classifications specific the Constitution re- issue how very further distinctions extensive stating the quires to be when objects specified of these subdivision object public borrowing. or “object” may be satis- statute. term ¶ lump-sum states The Court designation without a descriptive fied agencies designated specific amounts possible complete description of its various “capital projects” does not 228 P. at 476. subdivisions. Id. expenditure purpose of the sufficient to satis- conclusion Edwards was based 6 Our fy Art. 16. The has discussed the Court (1) construction, upon concepts: That three meaning “capital expendi- phrases such as maintenance, high- repair system of a equated “capital outlay”, ture” and them being ways incapable of was itemized constructing building act of (2) per funding project, exact amounts That capital improvement. Public Em capital projects would have a some Dept. ployees Association v. Oklahoma (such appropriation than source other as Services, (3) Central OK Commission, bonds); Thаt 1072, 1083, explaining, City Springs Sand State, con- officials of the had its discretion Welfare, v. involving Public by other enactments trolled Id. P. at 608 P.2d 1139. duties of the Commission. when, Childers, public example, project (recognizing policy capital 228 P. sepa- appropriations highways from both and a funded both construction include issue, rate each are thus able to consti- bond appropriated and funds from other language stating tutionally use the sources, same bonds). including See, object purpose. e.g., Edwards v. same indicates, from the in the opinion these bond issue case As the Court’s before us are assigned particular air, capital projects pulled mere from of numbers but recently agencies. explained have Legislature’s We reflect judgment considered authori- public possess officers upon particularized capital based needs of law, ty granted by authority and that as is involved. provided in the manner must exercised 13 The stated 301 is consis- Employees law. Oklahoma Public Associa tent with approved how the has Services, Dept. tion Oklahoma Central past bond issues of the Oklahoma Capitol ¶ 27, at 55 P.3d at 1084. State Improvement Authority. Authority The was limited, agencies public and their officers are instrumentality created 1959 as “an law, upon they spend matter of what as given authority State” and for the “con- springs public funds. This limit from several struction, operation equipping, and mainte- sources, is the nature of and one of these ” building nance of buildings.... or authority agency vested in the or officer do 152(a). § buildings O.S.1961 These were ing spending. identified as those “for the use of state 301(16)(p) provides § example, Fоr agencies departments”, federal and and/or $2,010,101.00 Department of Human for the with Authority selecting place Employees In Oklahoma Public Services. Capitol Improvement erection within the at Association the Court examined some 153(a). Zoning § District. 73 O.S.1961 The length authority the contractual of the De- Authority could ten million issue dollars in ¶¶ 22- partment of Human Id. at Services. bonds for the construction of the buildings.73 39, 55 P.3d at Section 301 au- 1081-1088. 153(b). § Authority O.S.1961 The had other thorizes the issuance of bonds but does not powers relating erecting and maintain- authority expand upon agencies, of state ing buildings. these 73 O.S.1961 161. DHS, such as that receive the funds.2 In words, capital projects by other funded ¶ 14 gave statutorily The 1959 Act stated capital expendi- the bond issue must fund space office providing to state statutory that are within the tures and con- agencies. However, 151. O.S.1961 authority particular agency. stitutional Authority possessed the discretion to deter- expenditures 12 Linking capital specif- buildings mine the number of and their size. 153,161. agencies §§ ic state consistent Authority pos- is also with the 73 O.S.1961 The discretion, Program jointly Budgeting “Oklahoma Performance sessed the with the State Affairs, Accountability Act.” 62 O.S.2001 45.1 Board of Public determine those seq. requires agency agencies et This Act a state state would which use the new strategic plan operations” buildings. “make a for its 73 O.S.1961 In other words, summary capital includes: “A dollar addition to the amount of the bonds, improvement agency specified only needs of the which were the Act that the build- provided Long-Range Capital ings (capital improvements) by Plan- must be used ning required by they Commission state or agencies, as Sеction 901 federal and that Improvement of Title 62 of the built within Oklahoma Statutes.” 62 45.3(A) (B)(7).3 Zoning O.S.2001 & The amounts District. The Act did not how subsequently Section 301 certain does define state functions. context of a herein in the different 301(L). particular agency challenge. 73 O.S.2001 A state constitutional by possesses authority created law vested in improvements Capital agency by Employees defined 62 O.S. law. Public 45.3(F): Services, Dept, Association v. Oklahoma Central supra. activity legislatively An defined as a section, "capital improvement” "F. In this not, itself, give any "state function" does any building project means or infrastructure particular entity authority perform state will be owned the state and built with direct activity. specific agency must be appropriations or state- authority specific vested with the tion, for the func- paid issued bonds from revenue sources other or implied, express general Twenty- either in order for that than a cost of at revenue at least ($25,000.00) particular agency perform Id. function. five Thousand Dollars and has a (5) years.” The definition of a function” is addressed useful life of at "state least five Building Bonds ... which ... Commission buildings, [the] many or what kind incur indebtedness to the extent buildings. use the agencies would Thirty-five Five Hun- sum of Million given a Authority was In 1971 the ($35,500,000.00) Thousand Dollars dred erect, operate, equip, authorization general principal, constructing buildings for use of state maintain improve- buildings capital and other new any place at or loca- federal and/or ments, remodeling, equipping, and for 73 O.S. within of Oklahoma. tion the State repairing any and all ex- modernizing and 153(a). also at has isting buildings capital improvements, Authority an authori- given times various of the Okla- at the constituent institutions buildings for and maintain zation to construct System Higher homa Education 1971 the agencies. example, For specific ($5,000,- provided that Five Million Dollars erect, operate, Authority was authorized 000.00) shall be to construct thereof used buildings maintain equip hospital for mental- a school Safety Northeast Street 36th Public ly Okla- retarded children Northeastern Authority City. The has also Id. Oklahoma ” .... homa capital ex- given authorization for been an 62 O.S.1961 57.32. buildings. than For exam- penditures other “It that: ple, 1997 the added System entity, Higher A of Edu- state pro- of purpose also be the this act shall cation, provided with thir- approximately was expanded highway in- improved and vide oth- ty buildings million dollars for “new and health, safety, and wel- frastructure for the capital equipping, improvements, er and for traveling public in this state and fare of the remodeling, modernizing repairing any and development of for the continued economic buildings capital im- existing and all O.S.Supp.1997 § this state.” 73 provements, at institu- constituent ” sum, purposes .... In statement tions ¶ Capitol history legislative 16 The of entity not tell what individual did Authority pur- a Improvement thus shows funded, projects much mon- would be how It was and has pose in its function. created ey spent capital be on the would individual main- erecting, operating, for been used entity In projects state chose build. State, i.e., for taining, projects certain fashion, today’s similar 301 identifies the projects public purpose. that fulfill a capital entity going state amount today con- legislation the Court The before entity, particular not specify state but does purpose. tinues that projects that statute. ¶ purpose 17 The of 301 is similar stated sum, § purpose 301 states that its expressed legislatively purposes capital projects particular to fund is state involving issues other Authorities. The bond Past bond is- today specified entities amounts. dollar specifies Act before the Court funding capital have a sues stated of “capital projects” specific amounts particular state entities. Those agencies. If other are exam- statutes 301,4 agencies possess authority specificity more than ined some have same, granted statute constitution. some have the and some have both. them example, “purposes” I must therefore conclude that Article 10 For section Act Building part Bonds states that: 16 has been satisfied. higher degree Capitol example specificity Authority. Improvement 4. An a ment Au- erect, thority form of a issue is in 70 O.S.2001 possesses general bond found a authorization to requires § 23-109. the Oklahoma That statute equip, operate, buildings for the maintain (OETA) Authority pro- Educational Television agen- fulfilling capital of state needs "by of revenue vide resolution” issuance 153), (73 cies and the OETA also O.S.2001 pay projects, for its "but bonds to project the costs each plan, possesses general authorization to con- separate covered resolution struct, repair, operate maintain and educational separate Id. bond issue issues.” fulfilling capital television facilities for needs authority The substance of the of the OETAto (70 23-101). OETA O.S.2001 Improve- Capitol issue the bonds is similar Dept. Transp. Oklаhoma Approval Arguments II. Other Not to Exceed Million $100 challenged vio- 19 Section 301 is also Dept. Transp. Anticipation Grant powers principle. lating separation oí Notes, 74, ¶ 21, Series (1) Legislators Respondents allege also that:' sitting Oversight Legislative on the Bond ¶21 holding violate the dual-office Commission issue then becomes whether the (2) principle; Legislative Oversight Bond bond proceed although issue the acts (3) unconstitutional; Leg- Legislative Oversight Commission Bond Commission Oversight Bond were islative Commission exercis- unconstitutional. The Attorney Gener- (4) improper delegation power; says yes, al may, es an because the bond issue approval proceeding involving Leg- was bond also submitted to Council of Bond Oversight Oversight. Bond Commission is un- In response, constitutionality islative (5) constitutional; Legislative Oversight the acts the Council of Bond is chal- void;' Oversight lenged. In reply, Bond Commission Improvement (6) ruling Authority argues Court’s these bonds even if the Council of unconstitutional, retrospectively. Oversight must effective Bond Capi- Improvement Authority tol may proceed with recently said that ap- We have “the issuing the bonds. [Legislative proval the LBOC Bond Oversight note-approval in the Commission] The Council Bond Oversight was process, usurpation by constitutes created to act fulfill the duties of the powers Legislative Oversight the executive Bond Commission in and the branch violates Oklahoma’s constitution- event the was latter determined to unc separation powers provision.” al of In re onstitutional.5 re Dept. In Oklahoma of appointed by 5. 62 O.S.2001 695.11A: bers shall be the Governor with the advice and the of Senate and one cоnsent mem- Oversight Council of Bond of ac- —Validation ber shall be the of State Director Finance. Three obligations and tions Members—Quorum—Vot- — quo- members of the shall Council constitute a ing Vacancy — rum. The vote of affirmative three members Legis- In the A. event either the Executive or present voting necessary any and be shall Oversight lative Bond Commission is found un- by Appointed action taken the Council. mem- final, unappealed by a order constitutional of (2) years may bers shall serve a of two term and competent jurisdiction, powers, of all court of the by appointing be removed for the cause authori- responsibilities of the duties Commissions ty. may appointed Members for additional upon devolve shall the Council of Bond Over- terms. actions, previous sight, joint or individual vacancy C. Council A on the shall be filled in approvals disapprovals of the Executive and original appointment, a like manner as the but Legislative Oversight Bond Commissions are only of the term. The Council remainder confirmed, ratified, hereby validated and deemed may shall elect one members chairman and of its the the incontestable. event Executive or the necessary. elect such other officers as it deems Legislative Oversight Bond Commission or the vacancy membership No in the of the Council Oversight of Bond is Council found unconstitu- impair right shall of the the Council to exercise final, by unappealed tional order of a of court rights all the and duties of Council. competent jurisdiction, such determination shall powers, responsibilities D. actions, If duties nullify joint approvals or individual not upon of the Commissiоns devolve the Council disapprovals Legislative of the Executive and section, pursuant person serving to this Oversight Bond Commissions the Council of of Oklahoma State Bond Advisor on the date obligations Oversight entered Bond into continue devolution shall to serve in that by Development Authority Finance Oklahoma position appoints until the Governor a new Okla- pursuant provisions Develop- Oklahoma of the homa State a list Authority Bond Advisor from of candi- Finance and the ment Act Credit En- provided by appointee dates and said approval by Council hancement Reserve Fund Act with Thereafter, by the Oversight has been confirmed Senate. the Bond or the Council Commissions vacancy, Oversight obligations ‍​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‍and in the here- case Oklahoma State of Bond and such confirmed, ratified, appointed, subject by Bond Advisor shall be to the validated deemed in- Senate, by advice and contestable. consent of the Gover- (5) provided by The Council of five nor from a list of candidates B. shall consist non- legislative ap- Council and a term of office cotermi- members. One member shall be shall serve by appointing pointed sentatives, Speaker Repre- of the House of nous with that of the Governor. The may appointed by Oklahoma State Advisor be removed one member shall Bond cause, Senate, by public hearing. Tempore after a Pro two mem- the Council for President ¶24 approximately Section 301 allocates Transp. Approval Not to Exceed $100 Department Transp. fifty-two million dollars Dept. Grant Million capital projects. Central Peti- Notes, Services Anticiрation Series challenge tioners this allocation because the P.3d 553-554. Therein this Department of Central discretion Ser- opinion expressed Court no on whether capital depen- make is projects vices to Oversight make-up of Bond of the Council upon approval dent of the Governor. constitutional diffi might present the same possess The Governor does not unfettered relating separation powers as did culties upon discretion to decide what the Oversight Commission. Legislative Bond to a the funds. The are allocated However, Id. at n. 64 P.3d at we did specific agency with its duties estab- Legislative Bond that unlike the Over note by law. The must work lished Governor Commission, sight the Council of Bond Over capital expenses within the framework of majority sight up legisla made capital scope within of the De- tors, by appointed nor the members could partment’s example, For one duties. Tempore Pro either President Department duties of the is: Speaker Rep House of Senate or B. The of Central Services effectively approval. block bond resentatives construction, charge have re- Id. maintenance, insurance, pair, opera- ¶23 owned, used, Constitutionality buildings of the Council of tion of all or occu- by Oversight challenged upon pied including or on behalf of the state Bond based buildings owned the Oklahoma appointees two fact that Council are Authority Improvement where such ser- appointed power the Governor. vices are out contract with the carried appointment is not exclusive function of feasible, Authority. Whеnever the De- executive, judicial legislative depart- partment of Central Services utilize Edmondson, Keating ments. Depart- the Construction Division ¶ 16, 889. We also said ment Corrections the construction appointment powers the Governor’s do not repair buildings Department and of for the any power arise from inherent vested in the of Corrections. I challenging office. Id. note that those also Department The C. Director of the of legislative appointments point do not to authority shall Central Services have to any clause” “appointments of our State Con- all purchase perform material all other and See, Seymour e.g., stitution. v. Elections construction, necessary in duties re- Commission, 78, 255 Conn. 762 Enforcement pair, and buildings maintenance of all un- 880, (2000), denied, 895 cert. A.2d 533 U.S. control, management der its shall make 951, 2594, (2001), 121 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d necessary by all contracts or on behalf of by (appointments legisla to state commission any buildings the state or rooms rented prin did not state constitutional ture violate use for the of the state or ciple powers separation of of because the thereof, charge and have of officers shall appointments not contain an constitution did arrangement space and allotment Constitution, similar clause to U.S. among buildings such the different state II, 2, cl. the exercise of the officers. power by the legislature significantly did not (C). 63(B) & O.S.2001 interfere with the essential functions branch).6 challenge The Allocating portion executive to the a large of the bond funds by appointments actually responsible to the Council members of to agency constructing, repairing, maintaining is without merit. explained by emphasis 6. The Court has that the law.” Governor's commissioned Art. 6 appointment power of limited language was when This was from added. taken similar Keating Oklahoma Constitution was v. created. provision in R.L. the Constitution of Missouri. Edmondson, 2001 OK n. 37 P.3d Williams, The Constitution Oklahoma and En- "The Constitution states that: Gover- The Act, (2d ed.1941). abling § 13 Art. 6 all nor shall commission officers not otherwise by buildings, including pos- 65. The those owned also Improvement Authority appears to power Authority sesses the vest Executive officials, spending Governor, with the be consistent those listed in See, capital projects. funds on the bond Article 6 of Oklahoma Constitution. Cross, e.g., v. Norris 105 P. ¶25 If, argued, I previously as have (a writ mandamus will issue lump-sum may constitu- specific amount Secretary compel performance of State to agency tionally particular allocated to a Thus, mandatory statutory with a duty). capital projects, construction of then Authority by Executive exercised De- challenge: issue is involved in this one partment of Central Services as it relates Legislature may place the De- Whether statutorily Governor defined partment of the ad- Central Services under Legislature. control of ministrative the Governor many examples There of the Gov- making capital expenditures. statutory powers.9 type ernor’s One relevant ¶26 Department of Central Services controversy Legisla- to this occurs when the part Department. the Executive par- ture authority creates executive § 61.2.7 appoints O.S.2001 The Governor ticular Department, official the Executive Depаrtment. Director of the 74 O.S.2001 authority makes exercise of that 61.1. The Director of the under the direction the Governor. For Services, part of the Executive Central example, performs designat- Department, those duties Director of State Finance have pre- ed in the Oklahoma Constitution “or power, duty and it shall under be his law.” Art. 6 scribed Okla. Const. (1) direction Governor: ¶ Many powers executive Gover- prepare budget document assist legislative enact- nor find their source drafting legislation to make it effec- example, For has the ments. the Governor (2) tive, surveys make field studies power certain officials. O.S. remove governmental agencies, looking toward § 2.8 Power exercised thereunder (3) economy greater efficiency, statutorily granted spring does to control expenditures, make allotments powers. constitutional Wentz the Governor’s (4) appropriation to authorize transfers of Thomas, (Gover- (5) by law, study accounting authorized statutory executive power nor’s remove a reports and other rendered the Central officer did arise from the.State Constitu- (6) Division, Accounting Reporting tion, statutory was not include but and did agreements into United enter commissioners). highway the removal Secretary of the Treasury States ¶28 explained implementing This Court has the the Man- purpose of Cash (Public power Improvement Legislature agement has the to define the exec- Act of 1990 (7) 101-453), powers of stat- and aid utive those executive officials Law the Governor Thomas, utorily management in state created. Wentz the economical power 7. 74 O.S.2001 61.2: Governоr shall have the to remove The him, appointed by officers in case of incom- hereby is created De- There in the Executive office; petency, neglect duty, malfeasance in or Services, partment, Department un- of Central may provided fill the same cases and then administrative Director der the control of the vacancy. Services. "Board of Central Whenever the terms Affairs”, Affairs”, "State Board of Public type statutory power 9.An of Executive additional "Board” when used in reference the Board of Legislature Gov- occurs when authorizes the Affairs”, ap- duty or "Office delegate statutory Public Affairs of Public ernor to Governor's pear they Oklahoma Statutes shall mean Department. another official the Executive See, (Governor, Department of e.g., Central Services. Whenever as ad- 2 O.S.2001 16-37 appears "Director of Public Affairs” Forest term ministrator South Central Interstate authority Compact, the Oklahoma Statutes it shall mean Director "shall have Fire Protection delegate powers of Central Services. exercise of the and duties Forestry, Forestry, the Director Division of Agriculture”). § 2: 8. 74 O.S.2001 State Board government, of Oklahoma finds In addition to his other duties State affairs. shall, re- use of upon Finance of State Director pursuant obligations and with members issuance of quest, advise consult legislative performance committees of es- section effectuates functions, expenditures governmental income in- concerning sential state agencies. cluding, not to: state but limited added). services; 41.4, protection 1. Fire (emphasis 62 O.S.2001 Roads, bridges highways 2. located authority by the Director of exercised The partially completely within or within either by that created Finance is similar to corporate municipality limits of a or statutory Executive The exercise of 301. state; unincorporated area by Authority possessed statutory is limited Central Services preservation; Historic Authority granted to the Gover- Executive facilities; 4. Recreational is nor. The Governor aware of State’s infrastructure; transportation 5. Air part Capital As capital needs. of the State housing Facilities for care of Planning Improvement Act: “The Governor elderly; state prepare at the same time as the delinquency prevention 7. Juvenile prepared, capital bud- budget document facilities; treatment get. capital budget prepared The shall be Agricultural event fa- and horticultural by the or Governor- and submitted Governor cilities; procedures elect accordance preparing budget document.” facilities, including, 9. Health care but 901(D)(3). Including the Gover- O.S.2001 primary pur- limited to not facilities Department’s part nor as exercise preven- pose of which is the treatment or authority not does violate the Oklahoma Con- illness; tion of communicable diseases or stitution. tourism;, 10. Promotion of challenge next is that the Okla- 30 The development 11. Promotion of economic Improvement Authority Capital homa selection; site and business power municipalities to authorize without safety. 12. Public spend generated by the counties to funds 301(L). 73 O.S.2001 offending allegedly por- sale of bonds. any specific language This does authorize tion states: any municipality to go amount of funds or L. The finds several county. provisions authorizing of 301 government properly functions of state specific identify specific state entities through delivery performed of state projects. capital to receive those funds for of political services use subdivisions. delivery may pledge facilitate of essen- order to 31 The State lend its corporation. services in furtherance of to a municipal credit

tial 15(A);10 governmental functions the con- Art. 10 Const. Reherman v. struction, Bd., acquisition improvement of Oklahoma Water Resources which within the assets be located 1302 The state re- corporate municipality ceiving may limits of a of the the funds not violate Article 10 Constitution, 15, may provision § or be locat- a our State Oklahoma which grant unincorporated upon legislative authority. of the state and a mere ed areas subject jurisdiction a upon to the of a board of 15 is limitation Section substantive commissioners, county Legislature’s By that I power. which nonethe- mean but important Legislature stating an function of state an Act of the a less serve State, part: 10. Okla. Const. Art. 10 the State become 15 states sion nor shall in, section, by Except provided owner or stockholder nor make donation by A. as this stock, tax, otherwise, pledged, given, gift, subscription by credit of the State shall not be or or individual, corporation, association, company, any company, corporation. loaned to or association, municipality, political subdivi- or or of both local is a state function charaсteristics con- expenditure particular (and cern. municipal purpose) is not not for a thus of whether 15 is of the issue determinative ¶ proceeding 33 The attack this is based unique It by the enactment.

violated upon allegation that some officials judiciary preserve our consti- duty eventually purely use the bond and, legislative enactment con- when a tution Deciding municipal expenditures. whether the stat- provisions, to declare flicts its by particular expenditure a 15 is violated v. State ex rel. York ute unconstitutional. requires particular an examination of 767; 26, 763, 681 P.2d State Turpen, 1984 OK See, e.g., University transaction. Petition of Commissioners ex rel. Tharel v. Board 162, 21, Hospitals Authority, 1997 OK 542, 468, County, 107 P.2d Creek 321, 314, where we cited Children’s 547, v. Election 550. See also Reed Childers, v. Home & Association Welfare 158, Bd., 37, 156, (syllabus 1962 OK 369 P.2d 613, explained 171 P.2d OK court). by the that a contract between the state and a chil- orphaned care of chil- dren’s home upon whether the inquiry 32 Our is based pay- dren did not violate and that the face, upon its challenges attack the statute appropriated ment of funds return particular official. Paul applied as a St. prohibited these services was not a transfer Co., Getty v. & Marine Ins. Co. Oil Fire public private organization. to a 915, 917, (discussing at 782 P.2d OK particular The transactions applied); Tulsa upon a statute as tacks agencies spending the funds at some future County Deputy Fraternal Order of Sheriff's date are not before the Court.11 Police, v. Board Lodge Number 188 Coun 301(L) language defines cer- County, Tulsa ty Commissioners of lan- governmental tain state functions. This ¶¶ 9-10, J., (Opala, 995 P.2d require particular a state guage does not (discussion ap facial “as dissenting), proceeds in violation of agency to use bond statute). upon attacks plied” constitutional purely municipal functions. In de- 15 for controversy is not framed as a present statutes, ciding constitutionality leg- example, For upon facial attack the statute. presumed islative act is to be constitutional argument is no there clearly, palpa- upheld and will be unless building of all impermissibly has defined bly plainly inconsistent with the Consti- municipali in a geographically roads located v. Re- tution. Reherman Oklahoma Water hag ty This stated as a state function. Court Bd., sources 679 P.2d at 1300. Whenever opinion that: “We are that the sections so as possible, statutes should be construed authority by plaintiffs confer on referred constitutionality. Id. There uphold their Highway ex the State Commission make public to assume that a official is no reason city improve penditures to streets within view, opposed unconstitutional will take an Sys they part Highway are a where view, to a constitutional of 301.12 tem, participate with cities in the and also challenged as vio- Ambrister v. 301 is also improvement of such streets.” 35 Section Norman, prohib- §10 20.13 This section City lating 344 P.2d Article OK taxes for imposing Underlying approach is the con its the county, city, or other purpose of a town cept particular capital project that a had officials, contrary Proposed expenditures by is shown. individual unless some reason not, ap- Haning Department may, may ultimately v. Public Wel which receive State ex rel. (court governing proval fare, state board or commis- mandamus). present hypothеtical controversies. This sion rule in the context of stated provide advisory opinions Court does not Benson, questions. hypothetical Dank v. Const. Art. 10 20: 13.Okla. 1088, 1091; OK 5 P.3d Ethics Commission impose Legislature taxes for the shall not 1250, The Keating, 1998 OK n. 958 P.2d town, purpose any county, city, or other mu- laws, may, by general nicipal corporation, but public when a official 12. This Court assumes that thereof, respec- proper on the authorities duties then the official will act confer knows his or her tively, power taxes. ‍​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‍performance to assess and collect such good faith in the of those duties. fairly challenge This also contents when the title otherwise municipal corporation. pay- retirement general purpose the “debt of the stat- assumes indicates omitted.) (Citations §in will specified as be derived ments” ute. imposed by Legislature. from “taxes” Mistletoe, 674 P.2d at 6. argument

Assuming No. 973 does have a title. See 37 S.B. correct, response to this this is the same (West) Laws, 2000 Okla. Sess. Ch. 376 & as that to the claim that claim could be made Laws, Extraordinary 1st Okla. Sess. 301 does 301 violates Art. 10 15: Section (West). Session, ger- The titles are Ch. require state officials to use bond funds The provisions mane to the of the statute. municipal purpose. for a specific challenge to the Act’s title is not challenged with the 36 Section 301 is perceived and not be ad- to the flaw need clearly argument that 973 does not ex- “SB further. dressed subjects press in its title the of the Act.” Article 5 57 of the Oklahoma Constitu- Finally, major argument in this Owens, tion14 Deere Plow Co. v. and John petitioners’ argument litigation is the 284, 147 1943 OK P.2d authorities opin- should reverse itself on two Court Express cited. In Mistletoe Service v. Unit Capitol Application ions: Im Oklahoma Service, Inc., 27, 674 P.2d ed Parcel 1983 OK provement Authority, 1998 OK 958 P.2d State, quoted from v. the Court Jones Capitol Improve Fent Oklahoma and said the OK CR P.2d Authority, ment 984 P.2d 200. following: just argument than these This is broader two In numerous cases the courts of this opinions. This is so because the heart of have of this held petitioners’ argument the reason addresses prevent provision constitutional is to ing Application of the Court Oklahoma objects blending repugnant in one act Improvement Authority, Capitol provisions and the inclusion not indicat- 207, 355 P.2d 1028. by the title in order that those interest- ed Application 39 In Oklahoma may ed not be misled or misinformed as to Improvement Authority, 1960 OK (Citations the contents of the statute. this Court examined whether the omitted.) Additionally, it has been re- bonds were a state debt. The bond funds peatedly held that this section is not to be buildings, and the were used to build office hamper construed in such a manner as to “solely repay came bonds unreasonably restrict the Ap buildings.” the revenues from the office (Citations duty. performance of its plication Capitol Improvement omitted.) repeatedly It has been held that Authority, Authority, at general comprehensive this section is Affairs, agen require with Public could body act nature and where buildings. cies to use and lease the office germane, cognate relative the title same statutes that the debt creat stated act, is sufficient to meet ed was not that of the The Court did State. (Cita- requirements of the constitution. revenue not examine the nature source omitted.) Also, if tions the clauses of the making agencies the stаte would use cognate to the statute are referable payments. today, petition title, lease our case subject expressed in the the title must if ers assert that the Court determine need not set out each clause of the act. (Citations omitted.) indebted Neither will retire the need the title general appropria of a statute embrace an abstract of its ness via funds from future revived, amended, Art. 5 57: Okla. Const. but so much thereof as extended, or conferred shall be re-enacted and Every act of the shall embrace but Provided, any subject subject, clearly expressed published length: one which shall be at That if title, bills, except general appropriation gener- contrary provi- its act embraced in bills, code, adopting digest, section, al revenue and bills act void sions of this shall be statutes; or revision of and no law shall be as to so much of the laws as not be ex- revived, amended, provisions or the thereof ex- pressed in the title thereof. conferred, by only; tended or reference to its title already attempt in existence.15 whether state officials will a state fund to read tions or forty years ago, greater authority they pos- to do this into than We declined years Authority intervening imposed by when the sess because of the limits buildings §§ used to construct other Const. Art. 10 15 and 20. was We are asked agencies. approve funding capital state of a class of ex- penditures in specific amounts for state enti- Application 40 In Oklahoma present ties-that which is on the face of Authority, 1960 OK Improvement potential and not unauthorized trans- payments mаde the state municipalities. fers to State officials could to retire the debt. To- agencies were used anything approval not read into our other day payments made under sum, actually than what is I before us. debt. agencies are used to retire the bonds, approve would again and once Legislature and this Court has followed this petitioners’ decline the invitation to revisit analysis forty years, type for more than Application Capitol Improve- Oklahoma upon in- and the has relied this Authority, ment 1960 OK 355 P.2d 1028. creating terpretation financing government. needs not, rule, inquire This Court does provi-

into the construction of constitutional constitutionality of a

sion or the statute when previous question

this was ruled on deci- resort, by a

sions court of last unless such erroneous, previous manifestly decisions are 2003 OK 85 cogent overruling are reasons for and there them; especially and this is true where such In the Matter APPLICATION OF long decisions have been relied on as authori- the OKLAHOMA CAPITOL IMPROVE- Property Integris tative. In re Real Real- Approval MENT AUTHORITY for ¶85, 12, ty Corp., 2002 OK 58 P.3d 204- Capitol Improve- $5.5 Million Oklahoma Queen quoting, County v. Authority ment State Facilities Revenue 197, I.O.O.F., City Lodge No. Bonds, Series 2002B. Thus, deny peti- 156 P.2d 340. I would 97,935. request for this Court to overrule its No. tioners’ opinions ‍​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‍subject. on this Supreme Court of Oklahoma. III. Conclusion Oct.

¶ 42 The Court should use definition “purpose” in Art. 10 16 for satisfy requirement

would also appropriations. Capital

in Art. 5 55 for

projects may appropriated utilize both mon-

eys bond-funding, require- and the same separate funding

ment for the sources should similarly. history

be construed of fund-

ing for bonds this State shows bonds approved lump-sum when amounts are

provided particular entity capi- to a expenditures.

tal may approve 43 The Court of the bonds proceeding hypothesizing without generated facility Application built 15. See Oklahoma Ed. Television from revenue funds], against Authority, using bond and a debt (court existing permanent its fu- between a fund of the state and discussed distinction self- revenues). liquidating paid debt therein as a debt ture [defined

Case Details

Case Name: In Re the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: Jun 3, 2003

Citation: 80 P.3d 109

Docket Number: 97,936

Court Abbreviation: Okla.