Opinion ID: 1789031
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The General Statute v. The Appropriation Set-Aside

Text: Special education services for handicapped preschool children were mandated by the General Assembly in 1990 by amending section 162.700.1 to read, in pertinent part, as follows: 1. The board of education of each school district in this state, except school districts which are part of a special school district, and the board of education of each special school district shall provide special educational services for handicapped children three years of age or more residing in the district as required by P.L. 99-457, as codified and as may be amended.... This subsection shall apply to each full school year beginning on or after July 1, 1991. § 162.700.1, RSMo Supp.1990. At the same time, the legislature made two statutory changes regarding funding for the mandated program. It amended section 162.975.2 to read as follows: 2. For approved classes of handicapped and severely handicapped children under five years of age, but not under the age of three, state aid shall not exceed sixty-seven percent of approved cost of the program as specified in the project application. Funds shall be appropriated annually for such program from general revenue funds and shall be separate from the funds apportioned for the school foundation program. § 162.975.2, RSMo Supp.1990 (emphasis added). It also enacted section 162.700.5, which provides: 5. Any and all state costs required to fund special education services for three- and four-year-old children pursuant to this section shall be provided for by a specific, separate appropriation and shall not be funded by a reallocation of money appropriated for the public school foundation program. § 162.700.5, RSMo Supp.1990 (emphasis added). Although the mandated program was adopted in 1990, it was not scheduled to begin until July 1, 1991. Therefore, the first appropriation relating to it was a year later in the spring of 1991. The appropriation, which totaled $8,033,400.00, was contained in two sections of the appropriation bill: Section 2.010. To the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education For the purpose of funding distributions to the free public schools under the School Foundation Program as provided in Chapter 163 RSMo, provided that Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) shall be used to continue support for existing programs for handicapped three and four year olds From State School Moneys Fund (0 F.T.E.) ............. $1,140,560,000 1991 Mo.Laws 9 (emphasis added). Section 2.220. To the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education For the purpose of funding Special Education Programs for Handicapped Pre-School Children From General Revenue Fund (0 F.T.E.).............. $5,033,400 1991 Mo.Laws 20. Prior to the 1991-92 school year, section 162.700.3 allowed school districts the option of participating in a voluntary program providing special education programs to handicapped children ages three and four. During the 1990-91 school year, the school districts that participated in the optional program received $1,988,105.00 from the School Foundation Program for special education teachers and teachers' aids for three- and four-year-old students. The School Foundation Program also paid for occupational therapy, physical therapy, speech therapy, diagnostic services and transportation at an estimated cost of $1.1 million for the three- and four-year-old students participating in the optional program. Thus, in 1990-91, the year immediately preceding the effective date of the mandatory program, the 131 school districts participating in the optional special education program received approximately $3 million in categorical aid to that program from the School Foundation Program. The state argues, rather halfheartedly, that under the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers contained in Article II, Section 1 of the Missouri Constitution, the legislature is entitled to supremacy in the matter of appropriations and, therefore, the courts cannot and should not intrude into this area. The state suggests that the trial court may have granted the school districts' Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts I and II on this basis. We do not believe the trial court based its decision on such a conclusion; we believe the trial court was responding to the school districts' request for an order requiring the legislature to fund the childhood special education program by a separate appropriation. The trial court was simply pointing out that, while it can and did declare the method of funding used by the legislature to be invalid, it does not have authority to direct the legislature to fund the program in any certain manner. In any event, we reject the contention that courts do not have jurisdiction to decide constitutional issues in areas in which the legislature is entitled to supremacy by reason of the separation of powers doctrine under Article II, Section 1, of the Missouri Constitution. In State ex rel. Cason v. Bond, 495 S.W.2d 385, 389 (Mo. banc 1973), this Court said, Courts regularly pass upon the constitutionality of acts enacted by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor. This is a proper function of the judicial branch of government and does not violate the separation of powers provision in the Constitution. See also Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). Determining the constitutionality of such a statute is not only the prerogative, but the duty, of this Court. The school districts rely on three Missouri cases, the bedrock of which is State ex rel. Davis v. Smith, 335 Mo. 1069, 75 S.W.2d 828 (banc 1934), for the proposition that an appropriation that contravenes general statutory law is unenforceable [3] . Davis, a member of the Board of Barber Examiners, sought a writ of mandamus to require the state auditor to pay Davis $125 compensation for attending board meetings. An appropriation had transferred $3,000 from the general revenue funds to the Board of Barber Examiners' Fund to pay the Board's compensation. The Davis court construed the general statute to prohibit the payment of salaries to members of the Board from the General Fund; the statute limited the payment of salaries to the amount of revenue received by the Board during the year. Davis claimed that the appropriation statute specifically amended the general statute and, thus, payment was proper. The Davis court rejected this argument, holding that the act appropriating $3,000 from the general revenue fund to the Board of Barber Examiners Fund could not amend the general statute because a statute that makes an appropriation and also amends a general statute would contain more than one subject and, therefore, would violate Article IV, Section 28 of the Missouri Constitution (1875) (now in Article III, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution (1945)). This constitutional limitation, which provides that no bill shall contain more than one subject and limits appropriation bills to appropriations only, is still good law. It is noteworthy that in Davis, Judge Leedy, a long-revered member of this Court, dissented on the grounds that the general statute did not actually prohibit payment of the Board members' salaries from the General Fund, it merely preferred that such payment be made from the Board's income if both sources were available. Judge Leedy relied, in part, upon the legislature's appropriation as evidence that the apparent inconsistency between the general statute and the appropriation arose out of an ambiguity in the general statute, which could be resolved without a statutory amendment. Judge Leedy's dissent states: [T]here is a presumption that a new law relating to a given subject was enacted with reference to the former law, so that we are aided, although not controlled, by a legislative construction of the general act in harmony with its action in making the appropriation in question. Davis, 75 S.W.2d at 832. However, we do not believe Davis applies to the general statute and appropriation in the present case. The holding in Davis only applies to resolve a conflict between the general statute and an appropriation when it attempts to amend the general legislation. If the conflict between two statutes is less than direct, e.g., an ambiguity in the general statute, then such a conflict may be resolved by relying upon the appropriation as strong evidence of the legislature's intention in adopting the general statute. Therefore, the appropriation need not be viewed as an amendment of the general statute and the constitutional provision limiting the subject of an appropriation bill does not apply. We conclude that the appropriation allocating the $3 million set-aside from the School Foundation Program does not directly amend the general statute adopted in the prior year. While we have rejected the state's argument that the separation of powers doctrine prohibits this Court from reviewing the constitutionality of general statutes, we, nevertheless, acknowledge the desirability and wisdom of considering the legislature's language in the appropriation when determining its intended meaning for the general statute. We believe there is an inherent ambiguity in section 162.700.5 when it purports to prohibit funding the preschool special education program by a  reallocation of money appropriated for the public school foundation program, because monies from the School Foundation Program had been used to fund a similar voluntary program in prior years. We must also consider whether the $3 million set-aside meets the requirement of sections 162.975.2 and 162.700.5 that the appropriation be separate from the funds apportioned for the School Foundation Program. The legislature was faced with three choices when it considered the appropriation of the School Foundation Program funds, knowing that $3 million from the School Foundation Program had been used for a similar voluntary program in prior years. First, the legislature could have appropriated $1,140,560,000 for the School Foundation Program and remained silent concerning the $3 million set-aside. Such silence would, in fact, have been misleading to the taxpayers and the public because the $3 million that was previously designated for the voluntary preschool handicapped program would have been released for discretionary spending without the apparent showing of such an increase. Second, the legislature could have appropriated $1,137,560,000 for the School Foundation Program and, likewise, remained silent about the $3 million set-aside while specifically appropriating $8,033,400 instead of $5,033,400 for the mandatory preschool program. This approach would also have been misleading because it would have increased a line item by $3 million allocated for a new program that in the prior year was part of the School Foundation Fund. The school districts argue that the legislature should have been required to disclose a $3 million reduction in the School Foundation Fund in this instance. In fact, this disclosure would be misleading because the $3 million used for the voluntary program in the prior year was not available for unrestricted use. Thus, there really was no reduction in unrestricted funds. The legislature's third choice was to do what it didmake a complete disclosure of the status of the $3 million, which was not actually reallocated from other programs but was transferred from the similar voluntary program of the prior year to the mandated program of the current year. We would commend, rather than condemn, the legislature for its complete disclosure of this source of funding. Because the $3 million set-aside is not a reallocation from other uses of School Foundation Program monies, we believe that the appropriation is consistent with the previously enacted general statutes (sections 162.975.2 and 162.700.5). We affirm the trial court in its granting of summary judgment dismissing Count III of the school districts' petition.