Court Opinion

ID: 9617983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:04:53.953847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:21.615862
License: Public Domain

*468BROTHERTON, Justice,
concurring:
While I agree with the majority's opinion, I wish to add the following comments:
The Boone County Circuit Court certified to this Court a second question: “2. Whether the Governor had the authority under the West Virginia Constitution and law to line item veto the equity funds mandated by West Virginia Code, § 18a-4-5c?” The Circuit Court answered this question in the negative.1 I disagree with the lower court, the answer to Certified Question No. 2 should be: Yes, the Governor did have the authority under the West Virginia Constitution to line item veto the W.Va. Code § 18A-4-5c (1985) equity funds appropriated in the FY 1985-86 budget.
Article VI, Section 51B of the West Virginia Constitution mandates that within ten days after the convening of a regular session of the legislature the Governor shall submit to the legislature a budget2 for the next fiscal year (which begins on the 1st day of July), and the budget bill shall contain a complete plan of the proposed expenditures and estimated revenues for the fiscal year including the estimated surplus or deficit at the end of the fiscal year.3
The Governor, pursuant to the Constitution, submitted to the legislature a statement containing an estimate of the general revenues4 (identified as general revenue fund) the payment of revenue submitted on the first day of the 1985 legislative session, and the total estimated receipts and balances available for appropriation for FY 1985-86 of $1,557,919,000.00. The budget bill submitted at the same time contained *469recommended appropriations for FY 1985-86 of $1,557,438,000.00, including an estimated surplus on June 30, 1986, of $481,-000.00. The budget bill (the appropriations part of the budget) was introduced in both houses of the legislature and given a number. In the 1985 legislative session the budget bill which was finally enacted into law was committee substitute Senate Bill 200.
In order to provide for equal educational opportunities for students of this State in all fifty-five counties, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County in a 244 page Opinion, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order entered May 11, 1982, pursuant to the directions of this Court in Pauley v. Kelly, 162 W.Va. 672, 255 S.E.2d 859 (1979), required that the pay of the teachers be equalized and thereby upgraded. Pursuant to that decision, the budget bill included an item designated Item 33, State Department of Education — State Aid to Schools (W.Va.Code Ch. 18, 18A) Acc’t. No. 2940 Salary Equalization — Total $5,600,-000.00.5
The legislature, however, decided to address this problem differently, and in the 1985 session, passed House Bill 2089, which included what would become W.Va.Code § 18A-4-5c (1985)6, dealing with equity appropriation from surplus revenue.7 The statute provided that the first $10,000,-000.00 of surplus funds from the State general revenue fund that has accrued as of the 30th day of June, 1985, shall be appropriated and expended for fiscal year 1985-86 in accordance with W.Va.Code 18A-4-5. The statute further provided that if $10,000,000.00 in surplus was not available, then the appropriation should be reduced accordingly to the amount that was available as of that date.
After passing House Bill 2089 the legislature then passed committee substitute for Senate Bill 200, the budget bill, on the 16th day of April, 1985, to take effect from passage.8 In the substitute, the legislature reduced the Governor’s appropriation for teacher equity (Account 2940) from $5,600,-000.00 to $0.00. After reducing Account 2940 to $0.00, the legislature inserted a “Section 6” into the budget bill, appropriating the surplus revenue.9 This was an appropriation out of surplus monies that *470might be available after June 30, 1986, of $7,000,000.00 in Account 2950 for salary equalization, which is similar to Account 2940, which had been reduced to $0.00.10 Account 2950 had never been a part of Senate Bill 200 presented to the legislature at the beginning of the session.
The Governor then vetoed Section 6 (Account 2950) pursuant to his authority for a line item veto.11 The Governor’s veto was to an item not contained in budget bill when he presented it to the legislature and was, therefore, a veto to an unconstitutional appropriation.
This question was addressed previously by this Court in State ex rel. Brotherton v. Blankenship, 158 W.Va. 390, 214 S.E.2d 467 (1975). In that case, the Governor, in his budget bill presented to the legislature, provided in the various accounts certain line item sums of money for personal services. The legislature amended the bill, expanding the Governor’s budget by specifying positions under the item Other Personal Services, and designating salaries for each position, and the Governor vetoed those line items relating to specific positions and salaries under the line item lump sum appropriation for personal services and returned the amount of money for the personal services to a total sum. Justice Haden, writing for the Court, noted that the Modern Budget Amendment provides for an Executive Budget and not a Legislative Budget and the legislature must first enact the executive budget before it could originate an appropriation measure creating an item or part of an item.12 The legislature, therefore, is limited to increasing or decreasing the monetary amounts originally submitted by the Governor in his budget. The legislature in the Budget Bill for PY 1985-86 exercised this prerogative as to Account 2940 when they reduced the Governor’s budget request of $5,600,000.00 to $0.00. By the constitutional limitation for an executive budget that is the limit of their power to amend the budget bill as submitted. The legislature is not prohibited from originating an appropriation measure creating an item or part of an item, but only after it has enacted the budget bill. See W.Va. Const., Art. VI, Section 51 *471C(7). Nevertheless, the legislature, in adding a totally new appropriation measure (Section 6) to the budget bill, went beyond its constitutional authority.
The action of the legislature in inserting Section 6 in the budget was unconstitutional and, therefore, the veto by the Governor of Section 6 was proper.

. The trial court below found that the Governor’s veto was illegal because it negated W.Va. Code § 18A-4-5c (1985). Unfortunately, none of the parties below informed the trial court that Code 18A-4-5c (1985) (House Bill 2089) had not become effective, and had not even been presented to the Governor, when he vetoed the surplus appropriation. Thus, the plaintiffs reliance on this bill as "substantive law,” which bound the Governor to approve the budget bill's appropriation of surplus, is factually unfounded.

. For purposes of identification, the budget subject of this action is referred to as FY 1985-86, meaning the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1985, and ending June 30, 1986.

. Article VI, Section 51(B) provides, in part: Accompanying each budget shall be a statement showing: (a) An estimate of the revenues and expenditures for the current fiscal year, including the actual revenues and actual expenditures to the extent available, and the revenues and expenditures for the next preceding fiscal year; (b) the current assets, liabilities, reserves and surplus or deficit of the State; (c) the debts and funds of the State; (d) an estimate of the State's financial condition as of the beginning and end of the fiscal year covered by the budget; (e) any explanation the Governor may desire to make as to the important features of the budget and suggestions as to methods for reduction or increase of the State's revenue.

 GENERAL REVENUE FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
..... (In Thousands)
Cash.Balance -July .1, -.1984,
.$ 142,170.
Less: 92-Day Disbursements (July 1 rihrou^h September 30, * 16,853
‘Amounts Reapproprlaled to 'FY 1984-85" 7 - . 40,414
.$( 57,267)
Accumulated Gross Surplus at - • * ■ the Close of FY 1983-84- $ 84,903
Plus: Revised Revenue Estimate FY 1984-85 5 1,477,000
Total Estimated Receipts and Balance 5 1.561,903
Less: Appropriations — FY 1984-85 Recommend Supplemental Appropriations FY 1984-85 ! Recommended Claims 51,505,930 5 11.883 $_171 } 1,517,984
Estimated Balance Available June 30, 1985 43,919
Plus: Estimated Revenue FY 1985-86
3 1,514,000
Total Estimated Receipts and Balanoe 5 1,557.919
Less: Recommended Appropriation FY 1985-86 31,557,438
3(1.557,438)
Estimated Balance— June 30, 1986 5 481

. Chapters 18 and 18A of the Code of the State of West Virginia deal with education and more particularly with formulas and methods for the payment of salaries for school personnel, both teachers and service, other than higher education.

. West Virginia Code § 18A-4-5c (1985) states:
The first ten million dollars of surplus funds from the state fund, general revenue, that have accrued as of the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred eighty-five, shall be appropriated and shall be expended during fiscal year one thousand nine hundred eighty-five — eighty-six, in accordance with section five [§ 18A-4-5] of this article, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this section and in said section five.
In the event that the surplus revenues as of the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred eighty-five, are not sufficient to meet all of the appropriation mandated by this section, then the appropriation shall be available only to the extent of the total actual surplus accrued as of said date.

. House Bill 2089, 1985 W.Va. Acts c. 57, passed April 13, 1985, to take effect July 1, 1985, contained the language relating to equity pay for teachers which became W.Va. Code § 18A-4-5c (1985).

. In this opinion I do not undertake to pass upon the question of whether House Bill 2089 was or was not a valid appropriation bill and if so whether under the Constitution it could be passed prior to passage of the budget bill. See generally W.Va. Const., Art. VI, § 51 C(7).

. Senate Bill 200, Section 6, states as follows:
Sec. 6. Appropriation from surplus revenue. — The following item is hereby appropriated from the state fund, general revenue, and is to be available for expenditure during the fiscal year 1985-86 out of surplus funds only, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this section.
It is the intent and mandate of this legislature that the following appropriation made by this section shall be payable only from the surplus accrued as of June 30, 1985.
In the event that the surplus revenues as of June 30, 1985, are not sufficient to meet all of the appropriation made by this section, then the appropriation shall be available only to the extent of the total actual surplus accrued as of June 30, 1985.
122 — State Department of Education — State Aid to Schools Account 2950
Salary Equalization — Total—7,000,000.00.

. The difference in the accounts is that Account 2940 was an appropriation outside the school aid formula as to the distribution of the equalization money, and Account 2950 put the $7,000,000.00 surplus, if available, in the state aid formula for distribution.

. W.Va. Const., Art. VI, § 51-D-(11)

. "As respects the Budget Bill, Subsection B(5) of the Amendment permits the Legislature to amend the Bill as prepared and introduced by the Governor. But, that authority is restricted: ‘The Legislature shall not amend the budget bill so as to create a deficit but may amend the bill by increasing or decreasing any item therein: _’ W.Va. Const, art. VI, § 51, B(5). In the first Brotherton case, Justice Caplan, speaking for a majority of the Court, construed this provision thusly:
‘Article 6, Section 51(5) of our Constitution permits the Legislature to “amend the bill by increasing or decreasing any item therein”, so if it had increased or decreased the amount of an item such as "Other Personal Services” its action would be in line with that allowed. However, when the Legislature undertook to expand on the Governor’s budget by specifying positions under the item "Other Personal Services” and designated salaries therefor, it began to usurp the executive power reserved. by the Constitution for that branch of government. The Constitution clearly contemplates an executive budget....’
'... [T]he Legislature can then exercise its judgment as to whether the executive figures should be increased, decreased or approved as submitted. Thus the Legislature is afforded the prerogative contemplated by the Constitution.’ (Emphasis supplied), [State ex rel. Brotherton v. Blankenship, 157 W.Va. 100, 122-23, 207 S.E.2d 421, 434-35 (1973) ].
In our view, this court, in order to preserve for the executive department its authority to prepare and submit a budget and thereby insure initial consideration of its fiscal proposals and priorities, relatively intact or without substantial modification by the Legislature, thereby clearly held that the Legislature’s authority to increase or decrease items was limited to increase or decrease of the monetary amounts originally submitted by the Governor.” State ex rel. Brotherton v. Blankenship, 158 W.Va. 390, 405, 214 S.E.2d 467, 478 (1975).