Opinion ID: 2390138
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Executive Branch's Response to the Act

Text: The Governor sought advice from the Attorney General concerning the constitutionality of the Appropriations Act and the Appropriations Amendments. The Attorney General in a letter opinion dated July 2, 1992, advised the Governor that the personnel reduction language in the Appropriations Act as drafted was permissive and hence did not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine. As the Attorney General read the Appropriations Act, the legislative directive does not differ significantly from existing Department of Personnel practices (as embodied in statutes and regulations) governing reductions in force. (citations omitted). He therefore concluded: We reasonably may read the conditional budgetary language as referring to and being consonant with existing statutory and administrative practice. In this way, the conditional language does not interfere with the substantial degree of discretion agencies have to marshal the resources appropriated to carry out the many statutory duties. However, the Attorney General then wrote that if the personnel reduction language were read as dictating particular staffing decisions for each agency, it would be unconstitutional. He also concluded that the exemption of certain classes of employees from layoff violated the separation of powers because those categorical exemptions could severely hamper the Governor's discretion as to how to administer the government efficiently with fewer employees. Based on the Attorney General's opinion, on July 2, 1992, the Governor's Chief Counsel issued a directive to all members of the Governor's cabinet instructing them not to follow the language provisions which [the Attorney General] has identified as unconstitutional. In response to the Appropriations Act, the State departments prepared layoff plans, which they submitted to the Commissioner of the Department of Personnel, Anthony Cimino, for his review. On or about July 10, 1992, the Commissioner wrote to several department heads, informing them that their layoff plans were unacceptable because, among other reasons, the management reductions that are made disproportionately impact employees in lower salaried ranges represented by bargaining units. On August 5, 1992, the Commissioner approved all department layoff plans and so notified each department head. Based on the various plans, the State was to lay off 1,459 employees on October 2, 1992. According to plaintiff Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (the CWA), the union represents approximately 900 of the employees that were slated for layoff. Only 450 employees of the 1,459 were from the unclassified or managerial ranks. In its amended notice of appeal, CWA asserts that the vast majority of employees who have been targeted for layoff on or about October 2, 1992 receive annual salaries of less than $50,000. Hundreds of targeted employees, performing vital clerical and other functions, earn less than $20,000 per year. CWA further asserts that [a]lthough there are approximately 6,000 unclassified employees in State government, of the 1,500 employees targeted for layoff, fewer than one-third are in the unclassified service. The vast majority of employees to be laid off are not managerial or exempt personnel   .