Court Opinion

ID: 9629529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:44:09.215649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:20.353613
License: Public Domain

SHEA, Justice,
dissenting.
I am of the opinion that the Governor has the authority, under the plain language of G.L.1956 (1984 Reenactment) § 35-3-16, to withhold from distribution the funds in question appropriated by the General Assembly. That language states that the Governor “shall have the power to reduce or suspend appropriations for any or all departments or subdivisions thereof.” The funds in question were appropriated to the Department of Administration and to a subdivision of that department, the Office of Municipal Affairs. Nothing in the statute limits this authority to withhold or to suspend appropriated funds to “routine in-tragovernmental appropriations for day to day operations,” as suggested in the Honorable Speaker’s amicus brief.
I agree that “when the language of a statute is unambiguous and expresses a clear and sensible meaning, no room for statutory construction or extension exists and we are required to give the words of the statute their plain and obvious meaning.” O’Neil v.Code Commission for Occupational Safety and Health, 534 A.2d 606, 608 (R.I.1987). The members of the majority are of the opinion that the phrase “all departments or subdivisions thereof” is ambiguous. I do not agree. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.