Court Opinion

ID: 9854740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:13:04.945888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:19.341961
License: Public Domain

McALLISTER, C. J.,
dissenting in part.
I dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which holds that an individual member of the legislature may be reimbursed for expenses not incurred in the performance of a duty imposed on the member by the legislature, but incurred voluntarily at the will of the member even though incurred by him because of his service in the legislature.
In my opinion expenses incurred by a member of the legislature which may be classed as legislative expenses and for which he may be reimbursed include only expenses incurred 'by him in the performance of duties imposed on him by the legislative assembly.
The constitution classifies as a personal expense the expense incurred by a member in traveling to the state capitol to attend the legislative session and in returning to his home. In my opinion, the description of this travel expense, without which the legislature could not convene, as a personal expense makes imperative the conclusion that the expenses usually and ordinarily incurred by a legislator in performing his normal duties are the expenses referred to in the constitutional phrase “no other personal expenses.”
The foregoing is the construction placed on the phrase “no other personal expenses” by the legislative committee appointed pursuant to house joint resolution No. 5 of the 45th legislative assembly to *600prepare an argument in support of said resolution, the adoption of which amended section 29 to its present form. The argument published in the official Voters’ Pamphlet for the regular general election held on November 7, 1950, included the following statements:
# # * *
“The Constitution of Oregon has justly reserved unto the people the right to set the compensation of the members of the legislative assembly.
“The present rate of compensation is limited to $400.00 per session. Members of the last session received approximately $3.60 per day—after taxes. There is no additional allowance for actual expenses other than a small allowance for travel pay to and from Salem once each season.
CC# * # * #
“Therefore this amendment is submitted to you, the people of Oregon.
“This amendment provides the modest pay of $600.00 per year!
“NO EXPENSE ACCOUNT
“It does not provide any additional sum for expenses. * * *”
This court has frequently resorted to arguments in the official Voters’ Pamphlet as an aid to construction of measures submitted to the voters. See State ex rel Chapman v. Appling, 220 Or 41, 68, 348 P2d 759, and oases therein cited. Although I agree that the use of such material should be discriminating and cautious, I think the legislative committee construed the amendment in the only manner possible without distortion of the plain meaning of the language used.
It is significant that for nearly a century prior *601to the amendment of Section 29 in 1950 the expenses which senate joint resolution No. 1 now classifies as legislative expenses were considered as personal expenses of the members incident to their legislative service, and were paid by the individual legislators. The existence of this ancient and universally recognized distinction between legislative and personal expenses was understood and accepted both by the legislature which submitted the constitutional amendment and by the voters who adopted it. Senate joint resolution No. 1 by its language also recognizes that since the adoption of our constitution the expenses which are now classed as legislative have been considered the personal expenses of the members.
By the great weight of authority legislative acts or resolutions which have authorized the payment of an allowance to a member of the legislature to be used by such legislator at will have been held unconstitutional even though in such cases the allowance was for the payment of expenses of the kind described in senate joint resolution No. 1 as legislative expenses. State ex rel v. Turner, 117 Kan 755, 233 P 510; Ashton v. Ferguson, 164 Ark 254, 261 SW 624; Peay v. Nolan, 157 Tenn 222, 7 SW 2d 814, 60 ALR 408; Peay v. Graham, 162 Tenn 153, 35 SW2d 568; Scroggie v. Bates et al, 213 SC 141, 48 SE2d 634; and Hall v. Blann, 227 Ala 64, 148 S 601.
The cases cited above which have considered the distinction between legislative and personal expenses have not questioned the right of the legislature to pay expenses clearly legislative. They have been concerned rather with acts providing for the payment of an allowance for expenses declared to be legislative which a member could incur or not at his option.
*602In State ex rel v. Turner, supra, the Kansas court was dealing with an act of the legislature which provided that each member of the legislature should receive $5 per day “expense money” for each day of any regular or special session of the legislature. The resolution did not indicate whether the expense money was for legislative or personal expenses. The court apparently assumed that to some extent at least, the allowance would reimburse the members for expenses incidental to their duties. The court, after pointing out that the constitution fixes the compensation of members of the legislature, said:
“The constitution fixes the compensation of members of the legislature at $3 per day and provides that such compensation shall not be more than $150 each for each regular session, nor more than $90 each for each special session. This compensation, fixed by the constitution, cannot be increased. Any law which in any way, either directly or indirectly, increases the compensation of any member of the legislature must be held invalid.
“Few, if any, of the members of the legislature will use as much as five dollars a day as expenses incidental to the performance of their duties. What will be done with the remainder of the five dollars a day after each member pays all expenses incident to his duties? If he keeps the money—and it is presumed that he will—it adds to his compensation; it cannot do otherwise. The constitution said $150 and no more; one dollar more violates the constitution.”
The court held the Kansas act invalid because it increased the compensation of the legislators in violation of the constitution.
In Ashton v. Ferguson, supra, the court considered the validity of a resolution authorizing the *603payment to each representative of $100 “with which to pay expenses of stamps, telephone, telegraph and other necessary expenses.” (164 Ark at 257). The constitution, after fixing the per diem and mileage of the legislators, provided that “they shall receive no compensation, perquisite or allowance whatever, except as herein provided.” (164 Ark at 258). It was contended that the resolution was “merely a provision by each of the houses of the General Assembly for the payment of the expenses of conducting the session.” (164 Ark at 258). In disposing of this contention, the court said:
“* * * The provision for the payment of one hundred dollars to each member is nothing more nor less than an allowance. It is an allowance for the use of each member for the purposes mentioned, but it is to be used at the will of the members to whom it is paid, and is, after all, a mere allowance, and not the payment of expenses incurred by the house itself.
“Each house may provide conveniences, such as stationery, pencils, ink, telephone and telegraph and other things for the use of the members, and pay for the same out of contingent expenses, hut it is quite another thing to attempt to make an allowance of funds to a member to be used at will. One is the payment of a legitimate expense, and the other is an allowance placed at the disposal of the members to he used at his own discretion and will. One is a payment of necessary expenses of the house itself, and the other is an allowance to the member in spite of the provision of the Constitution to the contrary.” (164 Ark at 259)
In Hall v. Blann, supra, the Supreme Court of Alabama declared unconstitutional an act purporting to give each member of the legislature an allowance not exceeding $4 per day for “reasonable expenses incurred by him because of and while in attendance *604upon the sessions of the Legislature.” The court treated the allowance as intended to cover personal expenses incurred in the performance of legislative duties among which expenses the court enumerated “stenographic work, telephone and telegraph service, clerk hire, stamps, and like expenses.” It will be noted that the Alabama act authorized the payment within a maximum limit of $4 per day of expenses of the same class enumerated in senate joint resolution No. 1. In holding the act unconstitutional the court said “There is a distinction, under our Constitution, between expenses of the Legislature, controled by the legislative body, and expenses incurred by the member on his own account and at his discretion within a maximum limit.”
In Peay v. Nolan, supra, and in Peay v. Graham, supra, the Supreme Court of Tennessee held unconstitutional legislative acts which authorized the payment to each member of a fixed allowance for postage, stenographic hire and other necessary expenses, on the ground that such allowances in gross were a forbidden increase in compensation.
It is obvious from the authorities cited that if the effect of a legislative act or resolution authorizing the payment of expenses is to increase the compensation of the members such act or resolution would be unconstitutional.
The authorities differ as to the right of a legislator to reimbursement for expenses incurred in serving on a legislative interim committee after the assembly has adjourned sine die. Some courts have held that a member cannot be reimbursed for such expenses. See Fergus v. Russell, 27 Ill 204, 344, 111 NE 130, and Dickinson, State Auditor v. Johnson, 117 Ark 582, 592, 176 SW 116. Other courts have *605held that the expenses of legislators incurred in serving after adjournment on a duly constituted interim committee may be paid. See State ex rel Jones v. Atterbury, 300 SW2d 806 (Mo 1957); State v. Aronson, 132 Mont 120, 314 P2d 849,858. However, no authority has been cited for the position taken by the majority that an individual legislator upon whom no duty has been imposed by the assembly may be reimbursed for expenses incurred after adjournment upon his own volition and at his own discretion. I have discovered no authority even suggesting that such expenses could be classed as legislative expenses.
Although this court has stated in State ex rel Stadter v. Patterson, 197 Or 1, 251 P2d 123, that “the legal existence of the legislative assembly of Oregon continues after the adjournment,” it is obvious that such an existence is merely inchoate. Certainly the legislative assembly is totally impotent to perform any act or to exercise any power after sine die adjournment. Although the members continue to be senators and representatives until the expiration of their terms, they also are devoid of power to perform any legislative duties except such as they may have been duly authorized to perform by the legislature through the passage of an act or the adoption of a joint resolution.
For the reasons stated, it is my conclusion that the only expenses for which a member of the legislature may be reimbursed lawfully under Article IV, section 29, of the constitution, are those expenses incurred in the performance of duties imposed on him by act or resolution duly adopted by the legislature.
Mr. Justice Eossman eonsurs in this opinion.