-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

ROBERT AGUIRRE, LAURIN THOMAS, JOHN SULLIVAN, JAMES ATTERBERRY SR., TED HAMMON, and ARTINA HARDMAN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, FOR PUBLICATION June 14, 2016 9:10 a.m.

v No. 327022 Court of Claims STATE OF MICHIGAN and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LC No. 11-000129-MK

Defendants-Appellees.

Before: S AWYER , P.J., and H OEKSTRA and W ILDER , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Following a remand from this Court, plaintiffs, Robert Aguirre , Laurin Thomas, John Sullivan, James Atterberry, Sr., Ted Hammon, and Artina Hardman (collectively, “the members”), appeal as of right the trial court’s order denying t heir motion for summary disposition, denying their motion to amend their complaint, and granting summary disposition in favor of defendants, the Department of Corrections (the Departm ent) and the state of Michigan (collectively, “the State”). Because the members have failed t o state a viable claim of a constitutional Contract Clause vi olation and an amendment to ad d such a claim would be futile, we affirm.

I. FACTS

The basic facts giving rise to this dispute were succinctly se t forth in this Court’s previous opinion as follows:

In 1992, the Michigan Legislature established “a parole board consisting of 10 members” within the Department. In 2009, Governor Jennifer Granholm reorganized the Department, abolished the parole board, and cre ated the 15– member Parole and Commutation Board.

The members were members of the Parole and Commutation Board. The members each received a letter of appointment from the Governor 's office. Hardman's term was from April 19, 2009, to November 20, 2012, S ullivan, Aguirre, and Hammon's terms were from December 1, 2009, to Nove mber 30,-2- 2013, and Thomas and Atterberry's terms were from December 1, 2 010, to November 30, 2014.

***

In 2011, by ERO 2011–3, Governor Rick Snyder abolished the Par ole and Commutation Board and created anew Parole Board. ERO 2011–3 p rovided in § III(A) that the new Parole Board “shall consist of 10 members a ppointed by the Director of the Department of Corrections.” Section II(A) of ER O 2011–3 transferred to the new Parole Board

[a]ll of the authority, powers, duties, functions, responsibili ties, records, personnel, property, and unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, or other funds of the Michigan Par ole and Commutation Board[.]

Section V(B) provided that

[a]ll rules, orders, contracts, and agreements relating to the transfers under this Order law fully adopted prior to the effect ive date of this Order shall continue to be effective until revised

, amended, repealed, or rescinded.

ERO 2011–3 granted the director of the Department of Correction s the power to appoint Parole Board members. T he director did not appoint any of the members to serve as members on the new Parole Board. [ Aguirre v Dep’t of Corrections

, 307 Mich App 315, 317-318; 859 NW2d 267 (2014) (footnotes omitt ed).]

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 5, 2012, the members f iled suit against the State, alleging a breach of contract and a claim of promissory estoppel. Both parties moved for sum mary disposition. The trial court granted the members’ motion for summary disposition and d enied the State’s motion for summary disposition. As summarize d in this Court’s previous op inion:

The trial court concluded that t he members' letters of appointm ent continued to be effective after ERO 2011–3. The tr ial court also concluded that ERO 2011–3 transferred the members' contracts from the Parole and Commutat ion Board to the Parole Board. The trial court ag reed that the Governor had auth ority to eliminate the members' positions, but concluded that their contracts rema ined valid and the termination breached their contracts. [ Aguirre , 307 Mich App at 319.]

The State appealed, and this Court reversed and remanded for f urther proceedings. In doing so, this Court made two main holdings relevant to the dis pute now before us. First, assuming for the sake of argument that the members had a contra ct with the State, this Court-3- determined that ERO 2011-3 abolished the members’ positions, an d that this abolishment did not constitute a breach of contract. 1 Aguirre , 307 Mich App at 323-325, 327. Second, this Court considered the members’ constitutional challenges and determine d that the abolishment of the members’ positions was “permissible.” Id. at 322. Specifically, we rejected claims that eliminating positions violated the good-cause termination provi sions found in Const 1963, art 5, § 10, and instead characterized Governor Snyder’s actions as th e reorganization of an executive department and the elimination of positions under the governor’ s plenary control over the organization of the executive branch under Const 1963, art 5 § 2. See Aguirre , 307 Mich App at 317, 321, 325-326.

While largely resolving the par ties’ dispute, this Court noted that the members had asserted, as an alternative gr ound for affirmance, that the reo rganization of the parole board violated the Contracts Clause of the Michigan Constitution, Con st 1963, art 1 § 10. However, we declined to address this issue on appeal because it had not been decided by the trial court and we reasoned that “[o]ur analysis of this issue would benefit fr om a decision of the trial court and full argument.” Aguirre , 307 Mich App at 326. Consequently, while reversing the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to the members and its denial of s ummary disposition to the State, we left open the question of wh ether ERO 2011-3 violated the Co ntracts Clause of the Michigan Constitution and we remanded for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.

On remand, the trial court gr anted summary disposition to the State “as to all issues in the Complaint except that preserved [in] the Court of Appeals on th e issue of Unconstitutional Impairment of Contract .” 2 The parties then filed cross motions for summary disposition in

1 On appeal, the members assert that this Court’s previous opini on did not resolve all their arguments pertaining to their breach of contract claim. In par ticular, the members maintain that this Court addressed the breach claim in terms of the members’ argument that their contracts transferred to the new parole bo ard and that those transferred contracts were then breached by their subsequent termination. The members argue that we did no t decide whether the reorganization was itself a breach of contract. We do not read our previous decision so narrowly. We plainly rejected their breach of contract claim, Aguirre , 307 Mich App at 323-325, 327, and the law of the case forecloses f urther consideration of this qu estion. See Duncan v Michigan

, 300 Mich App 176, 188; 832 NW2d 761 (2013). In any event, as d iscussed infra in the context of the members’ Contract Clause argument, the members do not ha ve a contract right to hold their positions for the appointed term in contravention of the governor’s constitutional reorganization authority. Applying the same reasoning, the gov ernor’s reorganization of the Department could not have resulted in a breach of contract if t he alleged contractual right to hold the positions did not exist in the first place. See AFT Mich v Michigan , 497 Mich 197, 210 n 2; 866 NW2d 782 (2015).

2 On appeal, the members note that, when granting summary dispos ition, the trial court did not expressly address their promissory estoppel claim, and they mai ntain that the grant of summary disposition as to this claim should be reversed. This argument is without merit. Given this Court’s previous decision, the only question open on remand was the Contract Clause issue and thus, consistent with this Court’ s directives, the trial court properly granted summary disposition-4- relation to the Contracts Clause issue, and the members filed amotion to amend their complaint to add a claim that ERO 2011-3 violated the Contracts Clause of the Michigan Constitution and the United States Constitution, US Const, Art I, § 10. Because this count was not contained in the members’ original complaint, the trial court concluded that the State was entitled to summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8). However, the court also con sidered whether the members should be allowed to amend their complaint under MCR 2.116(I)(5 ), and the court determined that such amendment would be futile. The court offered several reasons for this conclusion, most notably explaining that th e governor’s constitutional powe r to recognize the executive branch in the future was an implicit term of any contract that the members might have with the State. Reasoning that the membe rs must have contracted “with r eference to thi s fundamental law,” the court conc luded that, under Harsha v Detroit , 261 Mich 586, 595; 246 NW 849 (1933), their contract could not have been impaired by Governor Snyder’ s exercise of his constitutional authority and thus the members’ Contract Clause argument was wi thout merit. Consequently, the trial court denied the membe rs’ motion to amend their compl aint, denied the members’ motion for summary disposition, a nd granted the State’s motion for summary disposition. The members now appeal to this Court as of right.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo a trial court’s grant or denial of summary di sposition. Detroit Edison Co v Stenman , 311 Mich App 367, 377; 875 NW2d 767 (2015). Constitutional q uestions are reviewed de novo. Studier v Mich Pub Sch Employees' Ret Bd , 472 Mich 642, 649; 698 NW2d 350 (2005). Likewise, whether a contract exists is a question of law to be reviewed de novo. Kloian v Domino's Pizza LLC , 273 Mich App 449, 452; 733 NW2d 766 (2006). When a contract is found to exist, “questions invol ving the proper interpretati on of a contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause are also reviewed de novo.” Rory v Continental Ins Co , 473 Mich 457, 464; 703 NW2d 23 (2005). Finally, a trial court’s decision on a mot ion to amend a complaint is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Diem v Sallie Mae Home Loans, Inc , 307 Mich App 204, 216; 859 NW2d 238 (2014).

IV. ANALYSIS

On appeal, the members begin their argument with the assertion that they have fully enforceable contractual rights in their Parole and Commutation Board offices for the term of

“as to all issues in the Complaint” except the Contract Clause issue. See K & K Const, Inc v Dep’t of Environmental Quality , 267 Mich App 523, 544; 705 NW2d 365 (2005) (“[W]hen an appellate court gives clear ins tructions in its remand order, i t is improper for a lower court to exceed the scope of the order.”). In any event, it is clear th at the members’ promissory estoppel claim is without merit. Among other elements, promissory estop pel requires a promise that produced reliance, and “the relia nce on it must be reasonable.” Zaremba Equip, Inc v Harco Nat'l Ins Co , 280 Mich App 16, 41; 761 NW2d 151 (2008). In light of the go vernor’s known plenary authority to reorganize th e Department as discussed in more detail infra , any reliance on assurances of continued employ ment could not be considered reas onable.-5- years set forth in their letters of appointment. 3 Given these purported contractual rights, the members contend that Governor Snyder’s elimination of their pos itions under ERO 2011-3 constituted an unconstitutional impairment of the members’ cont racts in violation of the Michigan and the United States Constitutions. Notably, in maki ng these arguments, the members in no way dispute the legality of ERO 2011-3 insofar as it represented an exercise of the governor’s plenary authority to reorganize the executive br anch under Const 1963, art 5, § 2. Instead, the members characterize the issue as whether the Stat e is liable for monetary damages when the governor exercises this constitutional authority to el iminate executive positions, thereby purportedly impairing th e members’ contractual right to their positions—and their related employment benefits—for the time period defined in thei r letters of appointment. For the reasons stated below, we find thi s argument to be without merit

.

A. THE CONTRACT CLAUSE

“Both the Michigan and United States Constitutions prohibit la ws that impair obligations under contracts.” 4 AFT Mich , 497 Mich at 232-233. “These clauses provide that vested right s acquired under a contract may not be destroyed by subsequent st ate legislation.” 5 Seitz v Probate Judges Ret Sys , 189 Mich App 445, 455; 474 NW2d 125 (1991). “However, the Co ntract Clause prohibition on state laws impairing the obligations of contractis not absolute.” Health Care Ass'n Workers Comp Fund v Dir of the Bureau of Worker's Comp, Dep’t of Consumer & Indus Services , 265 Mich App 236, 240; 694 NW2d 761 (2005) “Rather, the prohi bition must be

3 The members suggest that the State has conclusively conceded t hat the members have enforceable contracts and that the trial court’s finding, durin g a 2013 hearing, that the members had contracts is somehow “binding.” The members are mistaken. The existence of a contract is a question of law which we review de novo, Kloian , 273 Mich App at 452, and the parties’ agreements as to the law are not binding on this Court, People v Metamora Water Serv, Inc , 276 Mich App 376, 385; 741 NW2d 61 ( 2007). This Court did not deci de this question during the previous appeal and instead rem anded for “full argument” on the Contract Clause issue. We note also that the State has denied t he existence of a contract and briefed the matter, on remand and on appeal, in relation to the mem bers’ Contract Clause claim. In short, there has been no binding determination of this issue, and w e consider it properly before us at this time.

4 U.S. Const, art I, § 10 states, in part, “No State shall . . . pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or gra nt any Title of Nobility.” Similarly, Const 1963, art 1, § 10 states: “No bill of attainde r, ex post facto law or law impairing the obligation of contract shall be enacted.” These provisions have typically been interpreted to provide coextensive protections a gainst the impairment of a con tractual relationship. AFT Mich

, 497 Mich at 233.

5 Although the present case involves an executive order, we note that an executive order under Const 1963, art 5, § 2 “has the sta tus of enacted legislation,” Health Care Ass'n Workers Comp Fund v Dir of the Bureau of Worker's Comp, Dep’t of Consumer & Indus Servs , 265 Mich App 236, 250; 694 NW2d 761 (2005), and we will treat it as such for purposes of analyzing the members’ Contract Clause claims.-6- accommodated to the inherent police power of the State to safeg uard the vital interests of its people.” Id. at 240-241 (citation and quotation marks omitted).

Consequently, when examining whether a state law substantially impairs an existing contract, courts apply a three pronged balancing test, “with th e first prong being a determination whether the state law has, in fact, operated as a substantial i mpairment of a contractual relationship.” In re Certified Question , 447 Mich 765, 777; 527 NW2d 468 (1994) (citation omitted). See also Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich v Milliken , 422 Mich 1, 21; 367 NW2d 1 (1985). Under this first prong of the analysis, “[w]hether a c hange in state law has resulted in ‘a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship’ itself re quires consideration of three factors: [1] whether there is a contract ual relationship, [2] whether a change in law impairs that contractual relationship, and [3] whether the impairment is sub stantial.” Gillette Commercial Operations N Am & Subsidiaries v Dep't of Treasury , 312 Mich App 394, 408; __ NW2d __ (2015). For purposes of this analysis, “an impairment takes onconstitutional dimensions only when it interferes with reasonabl y expected contractual benefit s.” Id. , quoting Borman, LLC v 18718 Borman, LLC , 777 F3d 816, 826 (CA 6 2015). If it is determined that the s tate law resulted in a substantial impairment of a contractual relations hip, courts must then examine the second and third prongs, as follows: whether “the legislative disruption of contract expectancies be necessary to the public good” and whether “the means chosen by the Legislature to address the public need are reasonable.” In re Certified Question , 447 Mich at 777 (citations omitted).

The protection offered by the Contract Clause can be applied t o prevent the impairment of the state’s own contractual obligations. See US Trust Co of New York v New Jersey , 431 US 1, 23; 97 S Ct 1505; 52 L Ed 2d 92 (1977). That is, by contrac t, the Legislature may contractually bind successive L egislatures to agreements. Studier v Mich Pub Sch Employees' Ret Bd , 472 Mich 642, 661; 698 NW2d 350 (2005). However, “such surre nders of legislative power are subject to strict limita tions that have developed in order to protect the sovereign prerogatives of state governments.” Id. Among these protections of sovereignty is the “‘reserved power’ doctrine, which held that certain substantive powers of sovereignty could not be contracted away.” United States v Winstar Corp , 518 US 839, 874; 116 S Ct 2432; 135 L Ed 2d 964 (1996). In other words, when analyzing a Contract Claus e claim in the context of a contract with the state, there must be “a determination of the State's power to create irrevocable contract rights in the first place.” US Trust Co of New York , 431 US at 23. Additionally, the distinct “unmistakability doctrine” provides that, when governm ental powers may be contracted away, such surrender will not be p resumed or inferred, but must be “expressed in terms too plain to be mistaken.” Windstar Corp , 518 US at 875.

B. CONTRACT RIGHTS TO PUBLIC OFFICE

In Michigan, appointment to public office does not create a co ntractual right to hold that office, any holder of public office necessarily accepts the pos ition with the knowledge that he or she may be removed as provided by law, and an express contract interfering with the power to-7- abolish an office in the manner provided by law would be void a s against public policy. 6 In particular, well over 100 years ago, our Supreme Court acknowle dged that “[n]othing seems better settled than that an appoi ntment or election to a public office does not establish contract relations between the person appoi nted or elected and the publi c.” Attorney Gen v Jochim , 99 Mich 358, 368; 58 NW 611 (1894). See also Molinaro v Driver , 364 Mich 341, 350; 111 NW2d 50 (1961); Robbins v Wayne Co Bd of Auditors , 357 Mich 663, 667; 99 NW2d 591 (1959). “A public office cannot be called ‘property,’” and it does not pro vide the officer with a vested right to hold his or her office until the expiration of the term. Attorney Gen , 99 Mich at 367. Rather, “[a]n office is a special trust or charge created by competent authority.” Solomon v Civil Serv Comm, City of Highland Park , 64 Mich App 433, 438; 236 NW2d 94 (1975) (citation omitted).

Public officers are created for the purposes of government. Th ey are delegations of portions of the sovereign power for the welfare of the publi c. They are not the subjects of contract, but they are agencies for the state, revo cable at pleasure by the authority creating them, unless such authority be limited b y the power which conferred it. [ Attorney Gen , 99 Mich at 367.]

Thus, “except as it may be restrained by the constitution, the legislature has the same inherent authority to modify or abolish that it has to create; and it wi ll exercise it with the like considerations in view.” Id. at 368. Indeed, absent a constitutional prohibition, an offi ce may be lawfully abolished “within the terms for which the incumbent s were elected or appointed.” MacDonald v De Waele , 263 Mich 233, 235; 248 NW 605 (1933).

6 At the outset we note that, in our judgment, the members’ posi tions on the Parole and Commutation Board were of such importance, dignity and independ ence as to be properly characterized as public offices rather than mere employment. S ee People v Coutu , 459 Mich 348, 354; 589 NW2d 458 (1999) (enumerating the distinguishing f eatures of a “public office”); Council of Organizations & Others for Ed About Parochiaid, Inc v Governor , 455 Mich 557, 585 n 22; 566 NW2d 208 (1997) (same). First, the positions wer e created incident to the governor’s authority under Const 1963, Art 5, § 2, which, in th e absence of legislative veto, has the same status as enacted legislation. Straus v Governor , 459 Mich 526, 534; 592 NW2d 53 (1999). See also MCL 16.134; MCL 791.304. Second, as members of the Parole and Commutation Board, the members exercised sovereign power while engaged in the discretionary discharge of their duties. See generally Jones v Dep’t of Corrections , 468 Mich 646, 652; 664 NW2d 717 (2003). Third, the powers and duties exercised by the members are set forth by statute as conferred by executive order. See MCL 791.304; ERO 2009-3. Fourth, while the Parole and Commutation Board is an entity within the Department , ERO 2009-3, In re Parole of Bivings , 242 Mich App 363, 372; 619 NW2d 163 (2000), these offices wer e created and placed within the Department as provided by law. Cf. Coutu , 459 Mich at 355. Fifth, the positions were not created as temporary positions. Finally, the members were required to take an oath of office. See id. at 356. In short, the members held public offices and “are su bject to all applicable law pertaining to public officials.” Council of Organizations & Others for Ed About Parochiaid, Inc , 455 Mich at 585 & n 22.-8- Because an officer has no vested property right to the office, the constitutional protections of the Contract Clause do not apply and, when an of fice is abolished or an officer lawfully removed, he or she is not entitled to payment for futu re services which would have been rendered but for the elimination of the office. See Butler v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania , 51 US 402, 416-417; 13 L Ed 472 (1850).

The selection of officers, who are nothing more than agents for the effectuating of such public purposes, is [a] matter of public convenience or ne cessity, and so too are the periods for the appointme nt of such agents; but neither the one nor the other of these arrangements can constitute any obligation to co ntinue such agents, or to re-appoint them, after t he measures which brought them in to being shall have been found useless, shall have been fulfilled, or shall ha ve been abrogated as even detrimental to the well-being of the public. The promised compensation for services actually performed and accepted, during the continuanc e of the particular agency, may undoubtedly be claimed, both upon principles of com pact and of equity; but to insist beyond this on the pe rpetuation of a public policy either useless or detrimental, and upon a reward for acts neither di sired nor performed, would appear to be reconcilable with neither common justice nor common sense

. The establishment of such a principle would arrest necessarily every thing like progress or improvement in government; or if changes should be ventured upon, the government would have to become one great pension establish ment on which to quarter a host of sinecures. [ Id. (emphasis added).]

Given the reality that public offices may be abolished as prov ided by law, an individual who accepts a public office, takes that position “subject to th e contingency that it may be abolished lawfully.” Sprister v City of Sturgis , 242 Mich 68, 72; 218 NW 96 (1928). See also Attorney Gen , 99 Mich at 368, 370 (“One of the constitutional conditions up on which the respondent took his office was that he would be subject to remo val by the Governor . . . .”). Moreover, when the power of appoi ntment or removal is provided for by law, the future exercise of this governmental power of appointment or removal typically cannot be bargained away by contract. See, e.g., City of Hazel Park v Potter , 169 Mich App 714, 720; 426 NW2d 789 (1988). 7 A contract to limit a future governing body’s lawful power of removal or appointment of a public officer is considered void as a matter of public po licy. See, e.g., id. (holding written employment contract with a city manager was void where it depri ved incoming city counsel of power to select and appoint a city manager as provided in the c ity charter). And, a party

7 See also US Trust Co of New York , 431 US at 22 (“One whose rights, such as they are, are subject to state restriction, cannot remove them from the power of the State by making a contract about them.”); Detroit v Div 26 of Amalgamated Ass'n of St, Elec Ry & Motor Coach Employees of Am , 332 Mich 237, 252; 51 NW2d 228 (1952) (“To the extent that te rms and conditions of public employment are governed by statute or charter, they are not subject to modification by contract . . . .”); Thorin v Bloomfield Hills Bd of Ed , 203 Mich App 692, 702; 513 NW2d 230 (1994) (finding that a public emp loyee could not have entered i nto a contract for longer period of employment than that perm issible by statute).-9- conducting business with the state is charged with understandin g the extent of any limitations on the appointing official’s authority to bind the state. See Roxborough v Mich Unemployment Comp Comm , 309 Mich 505, 511; 15 NW2d 724 (1944).

C. GOVERNOR’S POWER TO REORG ANIZE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

As we discussed in our previous opinion in this case, under Co nst 1963, Art 5, § 2, “the governor may make changes in the organization of the executive branch or in the assignment of functions among its units which he considers necessary for effi cient administration.” The governor's power under Const 1963, art 5, § 2, “is nearly plena ry” and “is limited only by constitutional provisions that w ould inhibit the Legislature it self.” Straus , 459 Mich at 534. “The Framers of the Michigan Constitution desired to give the G overnor real control over the executive branch,” including the power to appoint officials, Mich Farm Bureau v Dep't of Environmental Quality , 292 Mich App 106, 144; 807 NW2d 866 (2011), and to abolish positions, Aguirre , 307 Mich App at 326-327; Morris v Governor , 214 Mich App 604, 609; 543 NW2d 363 (1995). “The constitution, then, specifically recogni zes that, where the Governor feels compelled to make certain changes within the executive br anch, he has authority, through the executive order procedure, i n effect, to enact laws to carr y out those changes.” House Speaker v Governor , 443 Mich 560, 579; 506 NW2d 190 (1993).

D. APPLICATION

In view of the foregoing, in this case, the members’ Contract Clause claim is without merit because they do not have, and cannot have, a contract tha t entitles them to serve a set term of years on the Parole and Commutation Board in contravention o f the governor’s plenary authority to abolish offices within the executive branch. 8 That is, when the members accepted their appointments to the Parole and Commutation Board, they ne cessarily did so subject to the contingency that their positions could be lawfully abolished in the future, even during the term of their appointments. MacDonald , 263 Mich at 235; Sprister , 242 Mich at 72; Attorney Gen , 99 Mich at 368, 370. The governor has nearly plenary authority un der Const 1963, Art 5, § 2 with regard to the reorganization of the executive branch, and Gover nor Granholm was without authority to contractually surrender or impede a future governo r’s constitutional authority to

8 On appeal, the members cite Bracco v Mich Technological Univ , 231 Mich App 578, 588; 588 NW2d 467 (1998), for the proposition that public employees may form contractual employment relationships with public employers. We do not hold otherwise, and we do not suggest that the members were not contractually entitled to compensation and ben efits relating to the time that they held their positions. See Butler , 51 US at 416-417; Fisk v Police Jury of Jefferson , 116 US 131, 134; 6 S Ct 329, 330; 29 L Ed 587 (1885). Instead, applyi ng long-established caselaw, we hold only that a public officer may not form a contract to hold an office for a set term of appointment when the term of appo intment would interfere with the exercise of the governor’s plenary reorganizational authority over the executive branch un der Const 1963, Art 5, § 2. See Butler , 51 US at 416-417; MacDonald , 263 Mich at 235; Sprister , 242 Mich at 72; Attorney Gen
, 99 Mich at 368, 370. See also City of Hazel Park , 169 Mich App at 720.-10- reorganize the Department by guaranteeing the members a set ter m of appointment in contravention of a future govern or’s reorganization power. Cf. City of Hazel Park , 169 Mich App at 720. See also Mich Farm Bureau , 292 Mich App at 144 (“For our constitutional framework to operate as it was intended, each newly elected gov ernor must possess the power and ability to manage the bureaucracy, to supervise the adminis trative agencies, and to influence those agencies' rulemaking decisions through his or her appoint ments and directives.”). When conducting business with the state, the members were charged wi th knowledge of such limitations on the Governor Granholm’s authority. See Roxborough , 309 Mich at 511. In other words, as the trial court aptly recognized, the members dealing with the State must have contracted “with reference” to the governor’s fundamental power of reorganization. Cf. Harsha

, 261 Mich at 595.

It follows that the members do not have vested rights to hold their positions on the Parole and Commutation Board for their full term of appointment in con travention of the governor’s plenary authority to ab olish the positions as provided by law. See Butler , 51 US at 416-417; Attorney Gen , 99 Mich at 367. There being no vested contractual right to t he continued existence of the Parole and Co mmutation Board or to hold a posi tion on the board for a set period of time in contravention of the governor’s reorganizatio n power, there can be no impairment of a contract by ERO 2011-3. See Butler , 51 US at 416-417; Harsha , 261 Mich at 595; Gillette , 312 Mich App at 408, 414. Consequently, the trial court prop erly granted the State’s motion for summary disposition, denied the members’ mot ion for summary disposition, and denied the members’ motion to amend their complaint as any amendment would be futile.

Affirmed.

/s/ David H. Sawyer /s/ Joel P. Hoekstra /s/ Kurtis T. Wilder