Opinion ID: 2461858
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: state officers' salaries

Text: HB 474, the budget document, in Part VII thereof provides in essence that if the financial condition of the state deteriorates certain salary increases of specific state officers were to be reduced. [8] The bill then provided for annual increases which are less than are provided for in the particular cited statutes. Such reduction is temporary only, expiring at the end of the biennium. The trial court upheld this action saying that the General Assembly . . . has the authority to suspend previously authorized salaries in a budget bill, a subject clearly germane to appropriations. We agree. In Mattingly, we upheld a budget appropriation that repealed prior statutory authorization for the Athletic Board of Control. See also, State ex rel. McLeod v. Mills, 256 S.C. 21, 180 S.E.2d 638 (1971). As we view this statute, the General Assembly has  as a premise for its action  cited the shaky financial condition of the Commonwealth. It has exercised its discretion  nay, it has performed its constitutional obligation  that of operating the Commonwealth within a balanced budget, by reducing expenditures in areas which it felt were proper. It has exercised proper legislative discretion and judgment. It has not repealed or amended the existing salary statutes, it has simply temporarily suspended them, as it clearly has the power to do. LRC v. Brown, supra. SB 294(2).