2 4 [9 1 O p
. A tt ’y
BU DGET ARY AD M I NI S TR AT I ON
T RA NSFE R OF M ONEYS B E T WEE N T WO S PECI AL F U N DS A D M I N I STE RED BY THE M A R Y L A N D E N E RGY A DMI NI ST RA T I ON

J anuary25, 2006

M r. Fre d e ric k

G . D a v is D i r ect or Mar yl and E ner

gy Adm i nis t r at i on

A tt he s ugges t i on of t he L egi s l at i ve A udi t or , y ourpr edec es s or req u ested o u r op inio n c o n ce rnin g the p rop ri etyo f c ertain trans fe rs of fu n d s bet w een s peci al funds admi ni s t er ed byt he M ar y l and E n e rg yA d m in istra tio n (“ M E A ” ). S p e c if ica lly , h e a sk e d w h e th e r it w as per m i s s i bl e fort he D i r ect orof M E A t o t r ans fer funds fr om t he C o m m u n ityE n e rg yL o a n P ro g ra m (“ C E L P ” ) F u n d to th e S tate A gencyL oan Pr ogr am (“ SA L P”) acc ountof t he E ner gyO ver char ge R est it u ti on Fund ( “R es t i t ut i on Fund”)

. T he C E L P Fund w as o rig in a llyc a p italiz e d w ith m o n e y s f ro m th e R e stitu tio n F u n d . B o th t h e CE L P F u n d a n d Re s t i t u t i o n F u n d a r e a d mi n i s t e r e d b yM E A.
I n ouropi ni on, m oney s i n t he C E L P Fund m ay o n lybe s pent i n acc or dance w i t hi n t he s t at ut e cr eat i ng t hatfund; a t r ans ferof funds t o t he SA L P accounti s not cur r ent l y aut hor i zed byt hats t atut e. E xces s or unes t i m at ed re cei pt s i n t he C E L P Fund m ay be t r ans ferr ed t o anot her f

u n d byan appr oved budgetamendm ent

. T hus , funds m a yb e tra n sf

e rre d f ro m th e C E L P F u n d to th e S A L P a c c o u n t o n ly i f t he G ener al A s s embl y pas s es a l aw aut hor i zi ng s uch a tr ans feror e x p a n d in g th e p u rp o se s o f th e C E L P F u n d o r if

a n a p p ro p ria te b u d g e t a m e n d m e n t is a p p ro v e d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith S ta te la w
.

I Backg r ound
A. Ener

gy O v e r c har

ge Res ti t uti on Fund
T he Ener gy O ver char ge R es t i t ut i on Fund ( “R es t i t ut i on Fund”) is a sp ec ial fu n d cre ated in 1 9 8 9 p ri m aril y to h o ld the S tat e’s sh areG en. 24] 25

T h e R es t i tut i o n Fun d i s th e su cc es s o r of th e En er g y O v e rc h ar ge 1 Re sti tut ion

Tr us t F un d, wh ic h wa s orig inally c re ate d in

19 84 fo r t

hesame p urp o s e s
. C h ap t er

7 5 9 , L aw s o f M aryl an d

1 9 8 4

. T h e h i s t o ry

o f e n er gy overc harg e litigation and the cr eation of a s p ec ial fund to hold the proce eds of the restitution orders ar e re counted in 71 Opinions of the Attor ne yGe ne ra l 226 (1986). Annotated Code of

Mary land, Article41, §6-401 et seq. 2 of r es t i t ut i on pai d byvar i ous compani es i n s et t l ement s of ac t i ons br oughtby the fede r al D epar t m entof Ener gyforvi ol at i ons of fede r al oi l pr i ce c ont r ol s dur i ng t he p eri od bet w een J anuary1975 a n d t h e e n d o f

t h o s e c o n t r o l s i n J a n u a r y1 9 8 1

. Ch a p t e r5 2 6 , L a ws o f M ary land 1 9 8 9 , codi f i ed i n A n n o tate d C o d e o f M a ry lan d , S tate Fi nance & Pr ocur ement A r t i cl e (“ SFP ”) , §7- 315. T he R es t i t ut i on 1 Fund i s al s o t o r ece i ve anygi ft s expr es s l y g iven to t he St at e for ener gyas s i s t ance orw eather i zat i on fori ndi vi dual s
. SFP §7- 3 1 5 (b)(2 )(i i)

. T he s t at u te s p eci fi cal l yaut hor i zes t he us e of moneyi n t he R es t i t ut i on Fund for var i ous ener gyas s i s t ance , cons er vat i on, and w eather i zat i on pr ogr ams. SFP §7- 315( f) ( 2)

. T heyi ncl ude:

! as s i s t ance t o hous ehol ds undert he St at e Ener gy A s s i s t ance and I nfor m at i on A ct

. SFP §7- 315( f) ( 2) ( i )- 2 (i i)

.
! ener gy as s i s t ance and w eather i zat i on pr ogr ams pr ovi ded t hr ough t he M E A and t he C om m uni t yD evel opm ent A dm i ni s t r at i on of t h e D epar t m entof H ous i ng and C o m m u n ityD ev elop m en t. S F P § 7 -31 5 (f)(2)(ii i)

.
! ener gyext ens i on s er vi ce a nd l ow i n come hom e ene r gy pr og r ams under42 U

. S. C

. §§7001 et s eq. , 8621 et

s eq
. S F P § 7 -31 5 (f)(2)(iv).

! o t h e r e n e r g y a s s i s t a n c e o r we a t h e r i z a t i o n p r o g r a ms s at i s fy i ng fede r al gui deli n es fort he us e of ove r char ge resti tuti o n fu n d s. S F P § 7 -31 5 (f)(2)(v ).2 6 [9 1 O p
. A tt ’y

Those laws inc lude Pub.L . 97-377, 96 Stat. 1830, §155 (1982), a nd 3 the State Energy

Programs Improvements Ac t o f 1990, Pub.L . 101-440, 104 Stat. 1006 (1990). Annotated Code of

Mary land, State Gover

nment Article, §9- 20A- 4 01 et seq. Although the statute requir es that any budg et amendme nt be 5 su bmi tte d to and

a pp ro ve d b y

theL e gislativ e Pol ic y

Committe e prior

to the expenditure or oblig ation of funds, this Offic e has previously advised that the re quirement of leg islative “approval” of an administrative budg et amendment c ould be held to be an unconstitutional leg islative veto. See Le tt e r o f Att o r n e y G e n e r a l J

. J o s e p h C ur

r an , J r
. t o G o v e r

n o r R o b e rtL. Ehrlich, Jr. concer

ning H ouse B ill 147 (May 19, 2005) at pp. 6-7. ! “ene r gy cons er vat i on pr ogr a ms ” e n c o mpa s s e d by sp ec ifi ed fe d era l l aw s. S F P § 7 -31 5 (f)(2)(v i)

. 3

! t he St at e E ner gy E ffi ci ency and Econom i c D evel opm ent L o an P rog ram
. S F P § 7 -31 5 (f)(2)(v ii ). 4

! t he C om m uni t y E ner gy L o an Pr ogr am. SFP §7- 3 1 5 (f )( 2 )( v iii)

.
! “ a n y o th e r p u rp o s e re q u ir e d a s a c o n d itio n o f

... ac ce p tanc e [ o f th e f

u n d s]. ” S F P § 7 -31 5 (f)(2)(ix).
T he Legi s l atur e h as ch arged t he D i r ect orof M E A w i t h t he t as k of as s es s i ng needs and maki ng r ecomm endat i ons t o the G o ver norfor th e u s e o f

th e R e s titu tio n F u n d . S F P § 7 -3 1 5 (e ).
E x p e n d itu re s a re to b e m a d e f ro m th e R e stitu tio n F u n d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e S tate b u d g e t o r a n a p p ro v e d b u d g e ta m e n d m e n t. S F P § 7 -3 1 5 (d ). D isb u rse m e n ts f ro m th e R e stitu tio n F u n d a re to 5 su p p lem e n t ra th e r th a n su p p lan t f u n d s th a t ar e o th e rw ise a v a ilab le forener gyas s i s t ance pr ogr ams underSt at e orfede r al l aw
. SFP §7- 3 1 5 (f )( 4 ).
I n connec t i on w i t h t he R es t i t ut i on Fund, t he Tre as ur er m ai nt ai ns s even r evenue acc ount s cor r es pondi ng t o s et t l ement s of s even c as es pr ovi di ng forr es t i t ut i on t o cons um er s t hr ough t heG en. 24] 27

The c ases a

re g enerally

ref erred to by

the followingnames: Exx on, 6 N at i o n a l H e l i um , D i am o n d S h amr o c k , Kan s a s S tri p p e r W e l l , Am o c o II, Amoco B elridg e, and Cities Service

. The fe deral Depa

rtment of Energy approve d the us e of restitution 7 proce eds for

CELP in a letter date d June 18, 1989.
CELP was orig inally

cre at ed i n 1989 as a program of the 8 Depa rtment of Housingand Community Deve lopment. Chapter 421, L aws of Ma

ryland 1989, c od

ifi e d a t Article 83B , §4-901 et seq. It was rec odified and tra

nsfer red to MEA in 1991

. Chapter 468, L aws of Maryland 1991. s t at es
. E ach s et t l ement cont ai ns s om ew hatdi ffe r entr es t r i ct i ons on

6 t he use of funds

. A n ei ght h acc ount i s dedi cat ed t o t he S A L P. Y our pr edec es s oradvi s ed t hat , w hi l e t hes e account s have notbeen codi fi ed as s peci al funds bys t atut e, t he Tre as ur erhas t r eat ed t he a c c o u n ts a s th o u g h th e yw e re se p a ra te f u n d s, a s o p p o se d to a sin g le R es t i t ut i on Fund w i t h s epar at e s ub- acc ou nt s
. T he Legi s l atur e has al s o cr eat ed a s econd s peci al fund form oney s appr opr i at ed fr om t he R es t i t ut i o n F u n d forone of i t s purpos es – i

. e. , the C o m m u n ity E n erg yL o an P rog ram F u n d (“C E L P F u n d ”).
T he St at e’ s annual budgetbi l l t ypi cal l ym akes appr opr i at i ons f o r bo t h C E L P and S A L P un der t he M E A po rt i on of the bu dg et; eac h i s d e s i g n a t e d a s a “ c a p i t a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n - s p e c i a l fund appr op ri ati on. ” See, e. g. , C hapt er443, L aw s of M ar y l and 2005 at pp. 2096- 97. T hos e appr opr i at i ons ar e m ade, r es pect i vel y , fr om t he C E L P F u n d a n d th e S A L P a c c o u n t o f th e R e s titu tio n F u n d

. B
. C om m uni t

y E ner gy Loan P r ogr am A s i ndi cat ed above , C E L P i s s peci fi cal l yi dent i fi ed i n t he s t atut e g o ver ni ng t he R es t i t ut i on Fund as a perm i s s i bl e us e of mon e y s i n t h e Re s t i t u t i o n Fu n d

. SF P § 7

- 3 1 5 ( f ) ( 2) ( vi i i )

. CELP 7 itse lf is c u rre n tlyc o d if

ied a t A n n o tate d C o d e o f M a ry lan d , S tate G over nm entA r t icl e ( “SG ”) , §9- 2101 et s eq. ; see al

so CO M AR 8 1 4 .2 6 .0 1 . U n d e r C E L P , M E A m a k e s lo w -in ter e st lo a n s a v a ilab le to pr om ot e ene r gyeff

i ci ency and conse r vat i on i n bui l di ngs ow ned by lo c a l g o v e rn m e n ts o r n o n p ro f it o rg a n iza tio n s, in c lu d in g h o sp itals and s chool s
. SG § 9 -21 0 3

. M E A i ndi cat es t hatC E L P funds a p p ro x im a te ly $ 1 .5 m illi o n in n e w p roje c ts e a c h f is c a l yea r. See < w w w .en e rg y .sta te.m d .u s/p ro g ra m s/g o v e rn m e n t/co m m u n ity e n e r g y l o a n
. h t m>.2 8 [9 1 O p
. A tt ’y

T h e S t at e r ec ei v edap p ro v al fr o mth e f ed er al Department of En er gy 9 to use funds from the Stripper Well settlement for SALP. Depar tment of Energy responseto State’s Eighth Proposal for Useof Stripper Well Funds (April 12, 1990). A s a re p o sitoryfo r fu n d s d ev o ted to C E L P , the L eg isl ature cr eat ed t he C E L P Fund; i tcons i s t s of m oney s appr opr i at ed fr om t he R e stitu tio n F u n d , m o n e ys r e c e iv e d f ro m o th e r p u b lic o r p riv a te s our ces fo r C E L P, i nt er es ton t he C E L P Fund’s earni ngs , and r e p a y me n t s o f

l o a n s
. SG § 9

- 2 1 0 7 ( a )

. Th e M EA i s t o u s e t h e CELP F u n d to m ak e loan s an d p ay the e x p en ses o f C E L P

. S G § 9 -21 0 7 (c). M E A i s t o r es er ve a por t i on of t he C E L P Fund spec i fi cal l yforl oans t o s chool s and hos pi t al s
. SG §9- 2107( b) ; C O M A R 14. 26. 01. 08. T he s t atut e does notaut hor i ze the expe ndi t u re o f m oney s fr om t he C E L P Fund for the SA L P or anyof t he ot herpurpos es of t he R es t i t ut i on Fund.
C
. State A gency Loan P r ogr am S A L P w a s cr e a ted in 1 9 9 1 a s a re v o lv in g lo a n a c c o u n t w ith in th e R e stitu tio n F u n d to m a k e lo a n s to S tate a g e n c ies f o r c o ste f f e c t i v e e n e r g ye f

f i c i e n c yi mpr o v e me n t s i n St a t e f a c i l i t i e s
. SALP w as devel oped byM E A , t hen know n as t he M ar y l and Ener gyO ffi ce a n d p artof the D epart m ent of H ou si ng and C om m un ity D evel opm ent , t o enhance e ner gys avi ngs i n St at e age nci es
. T he SA L P accountw as capi t al i zed w i t h funds fr om one of the r es t i t ut i on acc ount s w i t hi n t he R es t i t ut i on Fund. A ccor ding to M E A , l oans 9 fro m the R esti tuti o n F u n d totalin g ap p rox im ately$ 1 m il li o n are app ropri at ed each y ear for S A L P

. W hil e an ag ency pay s no int eres t on a l oan, i tdoes paya 1% admi ni s t r at i ve fe e t o t he R es t i t ut i on F u n d . A s n o ted a b o v e , u n lik e C E L P , S A L P is n o t c o d if ied in sta tu te and does nothave i t s ow n s peci al fund cr eat ed bys t atut e. D
. L e g isla tive A u dit
D ur i ng a r ece ntaudi tof M E A , t he Leg isl at i ve A udi t or q u e s t i o n e d t wo t r a n s f

e r s o f mon e yf r o m t h e CELP F u n d t o t h e SALP acc ount

. I n D ece m ber2001 t he M E A t r ans ferr ed $500, 000 fr om t he C E L P F u n d t o t he SA L P account

. A s i m i l art r ans ferof $400, 000 w as eff ect ed i n N ovember 2004. T he t r ans fer s w er e appa r ent l ydone t o fund addi t i onal l oans t o St at e age n cies t hr ough SA L P. Y our p red ec esso r i n d icated that the p u rpo se o f the tr an sfe rs w as to en su re t h a tt h e SALP a c c o u n twou l d r e ma i n s o l v e n twhi l e a wai t i ng re p a y m e n t o f

lo a n s
.G en. 24] 29

Appropriations to fund some of the State’s capital projects appe ar 10 in the annual ope ratingbudg et. M E A m anage m entbel i eved th at th e D i r ect orof M E A had aut hor i t yt o m ake the t r ans fer s i n connec t i on w i t h t he annual budget p roc ess. W e u n d erstan d that b o th tr an sfe rs w ere inclu d ed in M E A ’s s u b m i s s i ons t o t he D epar t m entof B udgetand M anage m ent ( “D B M ”) as par t of D B M ’ s coor di nat i on of t he St at e’ s capi t al pr oj ectpr ogr am under SFP §3- 601 et s eq. A p p are n tl y , the tran sfe rs w er e i n clud ed i n m at er i al s s ubm i t t ed t o D B M i n r evenue s pr eads heet s forC E LP and SA L P t hatdet ai l ed t he pr oj ect ed r evenue for b o t h p r o g r a ms , b u twer e n o ti d e n t i f i e d a s b u d g e ta me n dm ent r eques t s
. A s w e under s t and i t , t he t r ans fer s w er e not r efl ect ed i n any app ropri at i on i n the ope rat i ng bu dg et or capi t al bu dg et bil l s. 10
T h e A u di t orques t i oned t he l egal i t yof t he t r ans fer s and r e c o mme n d e d t h a tM EA ob t a i n a n o p i n i o n f r o m t h e At t o r ney G e n e ra l o n th e is s u e
.

II
A n a ly sis
T he i s s ue r ai s ed byt he A udi t orconcer ns t he t r ans ferof m o n e y s f ro m o n e sp e c ial f

u n d – th e C E L P F u n d – to a n a c c o u n t in a n o th e r s p e c ia l f

u n d – th e S A L P a c c o u n t in th e R e s titu tio n F u n d

. M oney s appr opr i at ed t o a spec i al fund m ay onl ybe expe nded in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e la w g o v e rn in g th a t f u n d

. See 89 O

pi ni ons of th e A tto rn e

y G e n e ra l 1 7 2 , 1 7 7 -7 8 (2 0 0 4 ). U n s p e n t m o n e ys ap p rop ri ated to a s p ec ial fu n d rem ain i n that fu n d an d d o n o t r ev ert to th e g e n e ra l f

u n d

. S F P § 7 -3 0 4

. T h u s, th e m o n e y s a p p ro p ria ted to t he C E L P F u nd i n t he var i ous budget s s i nce the i ncept i on of t hat fund ar e t o be expende d fort he purpos es s etfor t h i n t he l aw cr eat i ng the C E L P F u n d

. U n less the L eg isl ature en ac ts a l aw th a t tr an sfe rs t hos e funds t o anot herfund oraut hori ze s thei rus e forot her purpos es , t he M E A has no aut hor i t y t o devot e t hem t o an y ot her purpos e – e .g
. , t ransfert hem t o the S A L P a c c o un tor ot herw i se r etur n t hem t o t he R es t i t ut i on Fund.3 0 [9 1 O p
. A tt ’y

When the Gene ral Asse mbly establishes a spe cial fund de dicated 11 to spe cific purposes, the annual budg et bill may only appropriate money from that fund f

or the statutorily-identified pur poses. See89 Opinions of theAttor ne yGe ne ra l 172, 177-78 (2004) ; 71 Opinions o f the Attorney Ge ne ra l 3, 4 n.2 (1986); 20 Op ini on s o f theAttor

ne yGe ne ra l 201, 203-4 (1935). This is based on the principle that the L eg islature ordina rily may not “leg islate in the budg et.” 89 Op ini on s o f th eAttor

ne yGe ne ra l at 177- 78. “A budg et bill is nota mea ns by which the Ge neral A s s embl y may enlarg e the scope of a st atute.” 81 Op ini on s of t heAttor ne yGe ne ra l 269, 275 (1996). The phra se “c apital budge t bill” is normally used to ref

er to a 12 supplementary

appropriation bill that contains va rious appropriations for va ri ou s c a pit a l proje c ts. It is e na

bli ngle g isl atio n f

or thec re atio n o f S tate debt t hrou gh th e iss ua

nc e of State of Ma

ry land g e ne ral ob lig atio n b on ds , theproc e e ds of

wh ic h a reus e d to fu

nd va ri ou s c a pita l proje c ts. As a supplementary

appropriation bill, i t must be limit ed to “some sing le work, ob je c t or purp os e .”Ar

ticle I I I , § 52 (8 ). Th e Cou rt of Ap pe a ls h a s h e ld that e ve n th ou gh a

c a pit a l bu dg e t bi ll m ay

e mbra c e a va

ri e ty of proje c ts, its single wor

k or objec t is the “obtention of funds for State purposes from lender s” – i.e. , the cr eation of a State debt. See City

of B altim orev . S

tate , 28 1 M d. 21 7, 22 7, 37 8 A .2 d 1 32 6 ( 19 77 ); Panitz v. Comptroller , 247 Md. 501, 513-14, 232 A.2d 891 (1967) . This Officehas ca utioned ag ainst the inclusion o f p r o v is io n s in th e c a p it a l b u d g e t b il l th at ar e n o t it e ms of a pp ro priatio n o r re late d to thea dmi nis tr atio n o f t heStatedebt p ro gra

m. SeeBill Review L etter conce rningHouse B ill 340 - Capital Budg et (May 19 , 2 0 0 5 )

. T hu s , i t i s d o u b t f u l wh e th e r th e c a

p i t a l b u d g e t b i l l c ou ld lawfully include a transf

er o f funds be tween theCELP Fund and the Re sti tut ion

F un d, a s th e y

do no t r e lateto S tatedebt. Y ourpr edec es s ori ndi cat ed t hati nfor m at i on conce r ni ng t he 2001 and 2004 t r ans fer s w as pr ovi ded t o D B M as par t of t he “c api t al budgetproces s
. ” H ow ever , w e under s t and t hatt r ans fer s w er e not par tof an yappr opr i at i on i n ei t hert he oper at i ng budgetorcapi t al b u d g e t b ill . E v e n if th e y h a d b e e n , n e ith e r th e o p e ra tin g b u d g e t b ill 11
n o r ca p it al bu d g e t b il l co u ld o rdin aril yau tho ri ze su ch a tran sfe r. 12 U nl es s t he t r ans fer s w er e autho ri ze d i n l aw s pas s ed byt he L egi s l atur e ori n an appr oved budgetamendm ent , t he t r ansfe rs w oul d notbe val i d. I n anyevent , i tappea r s t hatnei t hert he annua l b u d g et bill s n o r t h e c ap it al bu d g et bill s fo r t h e p erti n en t fi sca l y ea rs p u rp o rt to a u th o riz e su c h tra n sf e rs. M o re o v e r, w e a r e u n a b le to lo c a te a n yp ro v isio n sp e c if ica lly a u th o riz in g th e tra n sf e rs in a n yb ill s enac t ed byt he Legi s l atur e dur i ng t he r el evantt i m e per i od.G en. 24] 31
I n s um , M E A l acke d l egal aut hor i t y t o t r ans ferfunds fr om t he C E L P F u n d t o t he SA L P account

. H ow ever , i ti s per haps not s urpr i s i ng t hatt her e mi ghtbe s om e conf us i on on t he M E A ’s aut hor i t yt o t r ans ferfunds fr om t he C E L P Fund t o ot heraut hor i zed purpos es of t he R es t i t ut i on Fund. O ur ans w er t o y ourques t i on r e s u l t s f r o m t h e f

a c tt h at t h e Le g i s l a t u r e h a s e s t a b l i s h e d t h e CELP F u n d a s a sp e c ial f

u n d b ysta tu te a n d n o t ju st a s a n a c c o u n t w ith in th e R e stitu tio n F u n d

. H a d th e m o n e y s d e sig n a ted f o r C E L P sim p ly been pa r tof an a ccountw i t hi n t he R es t i t ut i on Fund, t heycoul d have been tr ans ferr ed t o anyof t he ot heracc oun ts w it hi n t hatFund w i t houts peci al act i on byt he Legi s l atur e. A ppr opr i at i on of t he funds t o t hatpurpos e as par tof t he budgetpr oces s o r in an author i zed b u d g e t a m e n d m e n t w o u ld h a v e b e e n s u f f ic ie n t. Fi n a l l y , we d i s c u s s t h e e x t e n tt o whi ch m on e y s i n t h e CELP Fund m i ghtbe t r ans ferr ed t o t he SA L P accounti n t he R es t i t ut i on Fund bym eans of a budgetamendm ent

. I n 71 O pi ni ons of

t he A tto rn e y G e n e ra l 3, A t t or ney G ener al Sachs concl uded t hat unes t i m at ed and e xces s r ece i pt s coul d be t r ans ferr ed fr om one s peci al fund t o anot her s peci al fund under t he l aw s gover ni ng budget amendm ent s i f t he l aw gover ni ng s peci al fund t hatw as t he s our ce of th e tr a n s f

e r d id n o t p ro h ib it th e tr a n s f e r. See a l

so 89 O pi ni ons of

t he A tto rn e y G e n e ra l 172, 181 ( 2004) ( t r ans fer b y b udgetamendm ent not p erm i t t ed w hen s t atut e governi ng t he s peci al fund pr ohi bi t ed tra n sf e r). T h e sta tu te g o v e rn in g th e C E L P F u n d d o e s n o t p ro h ib it a tr a n s f e r o f e x c e s s o r u n e s tim a te d re c e ip ts to th e R e s titu tio n F u n d

. T hus , i n ourvi ew , funds coul d be t r ans ferr ed fr om t he C E L P Fund b a c k to th e R e stitu tio n F u n d b y a n a p p ro v e d b u d g e t a m e n d m e n t. H ow ever , as w e under s t and i t , t he t r ans fe rs in ques t i on w er e not e f f e c ted b yb u d g e t am e n d m e n t.

III
C oncl usi on In o u r opi ni on, m oney s i n t he C E L P Fund m ayonl ybe s pent i n acc or dance w i t hi n t he s t atut e cr eat i ng t hatfund; expendi t ur e for purpos es of t he SA L P i s notcur r ent l yaut hor i zed byt hats t atut e. E xces s orunes t i m at ed r ece i pt s i n t he C E L P Fund m ay be t r ans ferr ed t o anot her fu n d b yan appr oved budgetamendm ent

. T hus , funds m a yb e tra n sf

e rre d f ro m th e C E L P F u n d to th e S A L P a c c o u n t o n ly i f t he G ener al A s s embl y pas s es a l aw aut hor i zi ng s uch a tr ans feror3 2 [9 1 O p
. A tt ’y expandi ng t he purpos es of t he C E L P Fund ori f a budge tamendm ent is a p p ro v e d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith S ta te la w
.

J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al

R o b e rt N . M c D o n a ld C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons and A dvi ce