Court Opinion

ID: 9523692
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:45:54.543506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:07:21.147499
License: Public Domain

Griffin, J.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the city council may only accept or reject recommendations submitted by the mayor for dealing with an impending deficit in the general budget. I would hold that the council has the authority and responsibility to amend such recommendations as it deems necessary, subject to the authority of the mayor to veto any such amendment.
*91Section 17 of the Uniform Budgeting and Accounting Act (ubaa) specifically places an affirmative duty upon the city council as the legislative body to correct impending deficit situations:
The legislative body of the local unit shall amend the general appropriations act as soon as it becomes apparent that a deviation from the original general appropriations act is necessary and the amount of the deviation can be determined. [MCL 141.437; MSA 5.3228(37). Emphasis supplied.]
I agree with the majority that the specificity in § 17 of the ubaa concerning the responsibilities of the mayor "militates toward the conclusion that the mayor’s recommendations are to generate the subsequent budget amendment resolution.” Ante, p 88. However, I do not read that section as limiting the council to a mere yea or nay vote on the mayor’s recommendations. If the council’s role were so constrained, the Legislature would not have placed the final responsibility upon the council to "amend the general appropriations act” when deviation from the adopted budget becomes necessary to avoid a deficit. Otherwise, if the council found the mayor’s proposals inadequate, it would be prevented from fulfilling responsibilities placed upon it by the ubaa. Here, the mayor’s recommendations did inform and generate amendments by the council.
I am not persuaded by the majority’s arguments concerning harmonization of the ubaa with the Detroit City Charter. I do not find that either § 17 of the ubaa or any provision of the city charter directly addresses the question whether the council can make unilateral amendments. Also, contrary to the majority’s characterization, the Court of Appeals did not actually find that the provisions of § 8-211 of the charter were in conflict with those *92of the ubaa. See 153 Mich App 601, 604; 396 NW2d 444 (1986). Rather, that Court held that the charter would be void to the extent it imposed a greater burden on the council than that required by statute. This holding is supported by the home rule cities act, MCL 117.36; MSA 5.2116, and a decision of this Court, Marks v Battle Creek, 358 Mich 114, 117; 99 NW2d 587 (1959).
Although the mayor did make his proposals to transfer appropriations pursuant to § 8-211 of the charter, the council’s resolution included a plan to decrease appropriations for the City Personnel Department and Law Department. These changes constituted different action than the "transfer [of] all or part of any unencumbered appropriation]” envisioned by §8-211. Also, §8-210, which describes procedures for amendments after the adoption of the budget in two types of instances, does not state that its provisions are exclusive.
In the deficit situation faced by the council, it is clear that the council did not completely reopen the budgetary process, but rather allowed the mayor to fulfill his obligations under the ubaa by submitting recommendations to prevent expenditures from exceeding revenues. The council then conducted open meetings, reviewed documentation, and questioned department heads before passing its resolution by a unanimous vote. These actions were all consistent with the normal budgetary processes outlined in §8-205. The city council, as the city’s legislative body, had "the powers and duties provided by law . . . .” Detroit Charter, § 4-101. The charter also provides that the council "shall determine its own rules and order of business ....”§ 4-105.
The council in this case acted properly to fulfill its duties under the ubaa and did not violate any provision of the city charter. I would affirm the Court of Appeals decision.