Source: https://www.azag.gov/opinions/i07-003-r07-002
Timestamp: 2020-05-30 16:19:25
Document Index: 584004408

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7', 'art 2', '§ 17', '§ 15', '§ 27', '§ 15', 'art 3', '§ 27']

Interpretation of HB 2874: Salary and Benefit Increases for School District and Charter School Nonadministrative Personnel | Arizona Attorney General
Interpretation of HB 2874: Salary and Benefit Increases for School District and Charter School Nonadministrative Personnel
I07-003 (R07-002)
I07-003.pdf26.33 KB
May school districts and charter schools use the funds appropriated in the Legislation to pay for any increase in salaries and benefits for nonadministrative personnel in fiscal year 2006-2007 over fiscal year 2005-2006 levels, or may they use funds appropriated in the Legislation only to pay for increases of salary and benefits levels in contracts for fiscal year 2006-2007 executed after the Legislation was enacted?
If school districts and charter schools did not execute contracts for fiscal year 2006-2007 before the Legislation was enacted, how should they determine the base salary and benefit levels from which to calculate the increase that may be paid from the appropriation?
School districts and charter schools may use the funds appropriated in the Legislation for any increases in salaries and benefits for nonadministrative personnel in fiscal year 2006-2007 over fiscal year 2005-2006, including increases that were negotiated before the Legislation was enacted.
School districts and charter schools should use fiscal year 2005-2006 salary and benefit levels to determine increases resulting from the Legislation’s appropriation.
This Office previously issued an Opinion regarding the Legislation that addressed whether school districts and charter schools could amend contracts with nonadministrative personnel to increase the employees’ salary and benefits without violating Article IX, § 7 (the “Gift Clause”) or Article IV, part 2, § 17 (the “Extra Compensation Clause”) of the Arizona Constitution. Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. I06-003. This Office concluded that previously executed employment contracts for fiscal year 2006-2007 could be amended to add current fiscal year salary and benefit increases as a result of HB 2874 without violating the Gift Clause or the Extra Compensation Clause. Id. at 9-10. This Office also concluded that the Legislation expressly required districts to use the monies received for funding salary and benefit increases for nonadministrative personnel and no other purpose. Id. at 7. However, the specific questions raised here were not addressed.
The primary rule of statutory construction is to find and give effect to the Legislature’s intent. See Mail Boxes, Etc., U.S.A. v. Indus. Comm’n, 181 Ariz. 119, 121, 888 P.2d 777, 779 (1995). The best and most reliable indicator of that intent is the statute’s own words. See Zamora v. Reinstein, 185 Ariz. 272, 275, 915 P.2d 1227, 1230 (1996). “When the statute’s language is not clear, we determine legislative intent by reading the statute as a whole, giving meaningful operation to all of its provisions, and by considering factors such as the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose.” Id. A statute’s individual provisions must be considered in the context of the statute as a whole to achieve a consistent interpretation. See State v. Gaynor-Fonte, 211 Ariz. 516, 518, 123 P.3d 1153, 1155 (App. 2005).
The term “increases,” therefore, must be considered in the context of the Legislation. See Gaynor-Fonte, 211 Ariz. at 518, 123 P.3d at 1155. Section 27(A) of the Legislation appropriated $100 million from the state general fund in fiscal year 2006-2007 to fund the increase in the base level authorized in A.R.S. § 15-901(B)(2) as amended by HB 2874. Section 27(B) of the Legislation requires the appropriation in subsection A to be used to provide salary and benefit increases for school district and charter school nonadministrative personnel. 2006 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 353, § 27. Reading these two subsections together indicates that the Legislation funded an increase in 2006-2007 salaries and benefits over 2005-2006 salaries and benefits. Based on this interpretation, if nonadministrative personnel contracts negotiated for fiscal year 2006-2007 contain salary and benefit increases over fiscal year 2005-2006 levels, then the school districts and charter schools may use the appropriated funds for these increases, regardless of when the contract was negotiated.
The Legislation clearly requires that school districts and charter schools use these monies only for salary and benefit increases for nonadministrative personnel. Nothing in the Legislation, however, prohibits school districts and charter schools from using the appropriated monies for salary and benefit increases in 2006-2007 nonadministrative personnel contracts executed before the Legislation’s enactment. State law requires school districts to issue contracts to continuing certificated teachers for the following school year between March 15 and May 15. See Ariz. Att'y Gen. Op. I06-003 at 2-3 (citing A.R.S. §§ 15-536 and 15-538.01). Therefore, it is likely that school districts and charter schools executed contracts with nonadministrative, non-certificated personnel and continuing charter school teachers before the Legislature enacted HB 2874 on June 20. Id. The Legislature could have required that school districts and charter schools use the monies appropriated in the Legislation only for increases over and above those provided for in contracts previously negotiated for fiscal year 2006-2007, but it did not do so. When construing a statute, one presumes that “what the legislature means, it will say.” Padilla v. Indus. Comm’n, 113 Ariz. 104, 106, 546 P.2d 1135, 1137 (1976).
On June 1, 2006, during HB 2874’s progress through the Legislature, a legislator did express for the record his intent to prevent funds appropriated under the bill from supplanting existing budgeted funds. Compact Disc Recording (Part 3) of the Senate Third Reading of HB 2874, 47th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. at 28:17-31:10 (June 1, 2006). This legislator, in addition to two others, also expressed the intent that the appropriated funds were to be used for teacher salary increases and increases in retirement contribution costs. Id. The Conference Committee promulgated an amendment to HB 2874 on June 16, 2007, that added Section 27 to the bill. Free Conference Committee Amendments to HB 2874 (Reference to House Engrossed Bill),47th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess., § 27 (June 16, 2007). The amendment limited the use of the appropriated funds to salary and benefit increases, but applied the increases to benefits generally—not just to retirement contributions. It also applied the increases to all nonadministrative personnel—not just teachers. Id. The Legislature enacted the bill as amended on June 20, 2006. The Conference Committee amendment did not contain language prohibiting supplantation of funds appropriated under Section 27 of the Legislation. Id. Given the fact that language reflecting the statement concerning supplantation was not included in the Conference Committee amendment, it is apparent that the Legislature did not intend to prohibit supplantation of the funds appropriated by Section 27 of the Legislation. See Hernandez-Gomez v. Leonardo, 185 Ariz. 509, 513, 917 P.2d 238, 243 (1996) (“We are mindful of the fact that the expressed intent of several congressmen is not necessarily determinative, and that these ‘unenacted approvals, beliefs, and desires are not laws.’”)(quoting Puerto Rico Dept. of Consumer Affairs v. Isla Petroleum Corp., 485 U.S. 495, 501, 108 S. Ct. 1350, 1354 (1988)).