Opinion ID: 1312478
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The term appropriation includes the setting aside of property other than money

Text: The community college initiative designates the use of state real and personal property, but does not explicitly refer to state money. The pertinent sentences of the proposed bill state: The University of Alaska shall transfer to the Community College System of Alaska such real and personal property as is necessary to the independent operation and maintenance of the Community College System. The amount of property transferred shall be commensurate with that occupied and operated by the Community Colleges on November 1, 1986. We address whether a law that designates the use of state property other than money can be an appropriation. [9] In Thomas v. Bailey, 595 P.2d 1, 7-9 (Alaska 1979) and then in Alaska Conservative Political Action Comm. v. Municipality of Anchorage, 745 P.2d 936, 938 (Alaska 1987) ( ACPAC ), we held that laws requiring the conveyance of state assets to people or entities outside the control of the state government (give-away programs) are appropriations and cannot be enacted by initiative, regardless of whether the assets are money or other property. [10] However, the term appropriation encompasses more than just give-away programs. A typical appropriation involves setting aside funds for a particular purpose  for example, to pay for construction of a public building  rather than giving away funds. In neither ACPAC nor Bailey did we conclude that the term appropriation includes the setting aside of property (other than money) outside the context of give-away programs. However, we now extend the holdings of ACPAC and Bailey. In Bailey, we determined that the delegates to Alaska's constitutional convention wanted to prohibit the initiative process from being used to enact give-away programs, which have an inherent popular appeal, that would endanger the state treasury. Bailey, 595 P.2d at 7. Seeing no reason to prohibit the giving away of cash but to allow the giving away of land, we concluded that the constitutional prohibition must apply to give-away programs involving land as well as cash. Id. at 8-9. Parallel reasoning applies in the present case. Outside the context of give-away programs, the more typical appropriation involves committing certain public assets to a particular purpose. The reason for prohibiting appropriations by initiative is to ensure that the legislature, and only the legislature, retains control over the allocation of state assets among competing needs. [11] This rationale applies as much or nearly as much to allocations of physical property as to allocations of money. To whatever extent it is desirable for the legislature to have sole responsibility for allocating the use of state money, it is also desirable for the legislature to have the same responsibility for allocating property other than money. Otherwise, the prohibition against appropriations by initiative could be circumvented by initiatives changing the function of assets the State already owns. We conclude that the constitutional prohibition against appropriations by initiative applies to appropriations of state assets, regardless of whether the initiative would enact a give-away program or simply designate the use of the assets.