Opinion ID: 1349849
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Executive Order Reductions

Text: Defendants argue that state payments required by art. 9, § 29 are subject to reduction under art. 5, § 20, which provides: [29] No appropriation shall be a mandate to spend. The governor, with the approval of the appropriating committees of the house and senate, shall reduce expenditures authorized by appropriations whenever it appears that actual revenues for a fiscal period will fall below the revenue estimates on which appropriations for that period were based. Reductions in expenditures shall be made in accordance with procedures prescribed by law. The governor may not reduce expenditures of the legislative and judicial branches or from funds constitutionally dedicated for specific purposes. [Emphasis supplied.] Plaintiffs argue that art. 9, § 29 moneys are funds constitutionally dedicated for specific purposes within the meaning of the language emphasized above. Defendants argue that the passage refers to funds specially earmarked by the constitution, such as the one percent of the payroll of the classified service that art. 11, § 5 requires be appropriated for use by the Civil Service Commission and the fuel taxes that art. 9, § 9 requires be used for various transportation purposes. We agree with plaintiffs. Art. 5, § 20 does not use funds in a technical sense. The two constitutional provisions cited by defendants as creating protected funds do not use the word fund. Art. 9, § 9 refers to certain tax revenues; art. 11, § 5 requires appropriation of a sum. All that is required by art. 5, § 20 is that the funds be constitutionally dedicated for specific purposes. The funding required by art. 9, § 29 is dedicated for the purpose of fulfilling the state's obligation to support state-mandated activities and services. [30] Defendants imply that the state's ability to deal with impending deficits will be impeded by this aspect of today's decision and that it will force the state to impose educational cuts most heavily on the districts that are least able to afford it, because those are the districts who receive unrestricted aid not protected by art. 9, § 29. The latter portion of this is outdated in light of the substantial reform in school financing made by adoption of Proposal A at the general election on March 15, 1994, amending art. 9, §§ 3, 5, 8, and 11. The rest of the argument is answered by the fact that the state would be free to reduce or eliminate state mandates and, thus, reduce its obligations under art. 9, § 29.