This case presents a challenge by four members of the State Legislature to the authority of the State Administrative Board under § 3 of 1921 PA 2, as amended,
In 1921, in an effort to promote the efficiency of state government, the Legislature created the State Administrative Board.
The State Administrative Board act defines the
This lawsuit arose from an attempt by the board in May 1991 to effect certain transfers of funds within departments pursuant to the authority set forth in § 3. This attempt followed efforts to deal in other ways with a projected fiscal year 1990-91 deficit of $536 million that confronted the state on January 1, 1991, when Governor Engler took office.
For example, on January 16, 1991, acting under the authority of Const 1963, art 5, § 20 and § 391 of the Management and Budget Act,
Shortly thereafter, on February 22, 1991, a supplemental appropriations bill passed by the Legislature was signed by the Governor with significant line-item vetoes, which resulted in a reduction of $23.9 million in general purpose appropriations.
In an effort to deal with one phase of the problem, Budget Director Patricia Woodworth in February and March sent three requests to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees,
The next day, plaintiffs commenced this action. At the time, plaintiff Lewis Dodak was the Speaker of the House of Representatives, plaintiff Dominic J. Jacobetti was the Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, plaintiff Arthur Miller was the Minority Leader of the Senate, and David S. Holmes, Jr., was the Vice-Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Their suit against the board, the Governor, and several other executive branch officials had not been authorized by either House; plaintiffs brought their action as individual members of the Legislature.
In their amended complaint, plaintiffs maintain that the transfer authority set forth in § 3 had been expressly and impliedly repealed by subsequent enactments, and they claim that § 3 is unconstitutional.
After the complaint was filed, the parties submitted cross-motions for summary disposition. Granting defendants' motion on May 23, 1991, the circuit court found that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, and that their statutory and constitutional claims were without merit.
Before reviewing the Court of Appeals decision that § 3 was impliedly repealed, we first consider defendants' contention that plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action. Standing is a legal term used to denote the existence of a party's interest in the outcome of litigation that will ensure sincere and vigorous advocacy. However, evidence that a party will engage in full and vigorous advocacy, by itself, is insufficient to establish standing. Standing requires a demonstration that the plaintiff's substantial interest will be detrimentally affected in a manner different from the citizenry at large. Alexander v Norton Shores, 106 Mich.App. 287; 307 N.W.2d 476 (1981).
Here, plaintiffs claim standing on the basis of their status as legislators. In their complaint, they allege that the transfer actions of the board reduced their effectiveness as legislators and nullified
Under limited circumstances, the standing of legislators to challenge allegedly unlawful executive actions has been recognized in the federal courts. See, e.g., Coleman v Miller, 307 U.S. 433; 59 S.Ct. 972; 83 L Ed 1385 (1939); Kennedy v Sampson, 167 US App DC 192; 511 F.2d 430 (1974); Dennis v Luis, 741 F.2d 628 (CA 3, 1984). However, to establish standing, a legislator must overcome a heavy burden. Courts are reluctant to hear disputes that may interfere with the separation of powers between the branches of government. In Goldwater v Carter, 444 U.S. 996, 997; 100 S.Ct. 533; 62 L Ed 2d 428 (1979), Justice Powell explained the basis for noninvolvement by the judiciary in such cases:
We agree. It would be imprudent and violative of the doctrine of separation of powers to confer standing upon a legislator simply for failing in the political process. For these reasons, plaintiffs who sue as legislators must assert more than "a generalized grievance that the law is not being followed...." Chiles v Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197, 1208 (CA 11, 1989). Instead, they must establish that they have been deprived of a "personal and legally cognizable interest peculiar to [them]." Dennis, supra, 741 F.2d 631.
In this case, plaintiffs maintain that they have met this burden. In support of their argument, they rely on Coleman v Miller. There, a group of Kansas legislators challenged the power of the lieutenant governor to cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of a resolution adopting a proposed amendment of the federal constitution. The Court found that the legislators had standing to bring the action:
For additional support, defendants rely on Michigan authority, Killeen v Wayne Co Rd Comm, 137 Mich.App. 178, 189; 357 N.W.2d 851 (1984), wherein the Court of Appeals concluded that various government officials lacked standing to sue. The plaintiff group in Killeen included members of the Wayne County Board of Commissioners, two members of the Wayne County Charter Commission, and a state senator. They claimed standing to challenge the lawfulness of an agreement between the board of county road commissioners and a newly formed labor organization on the ground that the agreement nullified their respective legislative powers. The Court disagreed: "[T]he respective votes of Senator Hertel and charter commissioners Ward and Barnes have been counted, and their legislative work-product enacted; at this juncture their special interest as lawmakers has ceased." 137 Mich.App. 189. For this reason, the
In the case before us, defendants contend that the legislative work on which plaintiffs rely had been completed. The Legislature passed the Management and Budget Act. At this point, whether separate authority exists in the board to transfer funds within a department is a matter of statutory construction. If the Legislature disagrees with the board's claim of transfer power under § 3, it can work a political resolution of the disagreement by expressly repealing § 3.
Recognizing this limitation, plaintiffs argue that their claim is more than a generalized assertion that the board is failing to follow the law. Instead, plaintiffs Jacobetti and Holmes contend that, as members of the legislative appropriations committees, they have a specific supervisory responsibility in connection with intradepartmental transfers. MCL 18.1391(3); MSA 3.516(391)(3). By failing to follow transfer procedures set forth in the Management and Budget Act, plaintiffs claim that the board has denied them "their lawful right to approve or disapprove the transfers in question."
Plaintiffs rely on American Federation of Government
Although this Court is not bound to follow federal cases regarding standing,
On the other hand, the standing claim of plaintiff Holmes is deficient even though he also is an appropriations committee member. In contrast to plaintiff Jacobetti, plaintiff Holmes did have the opportunity to vote on the transfer that is being disputed in this case. As earlier noted, pursuant to the Management and Budget Act, State Budget Director Woodworth proposed a transfer of funds within the Department of Natural Resources on March 27, 1991. That transfer involved the same DNR accounts as the transfer at issue in this case. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the transfer.
In addition, we find no basis for the contention that the board's actions have interfered with the appointment authority of House Speaker Dodak or Senate Minority Leader Miller. Likewise, we are not persuaded by plaintiffs' argument that the board's actions have affected the Governor's line-item veto authority or the power of members of the Legislature to override such a veto.
Having determined that at least one of the plaintiffs has standing, we turn next to the question whether § 3 of the State Administrative Board
Courts within this state and throughout the country are reluctant to conclude that a statute has been repealed by implication. Numerous Michigan decisions have emphasized that
The law in Michigan accords with decisions of courts in other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Morton v Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 549; 94 S.Ct. 2474; 41 L Ed 2d 290 (1974); Davis v Devine, 736 F.2d 1108, 1114 (CA 6, 1984); Paulson v Pierce Co, 99 Wn.2d 645; 664 P.2d 1202 (1983); Vermont v Foley, 140 Vt. 643; 443 A.2d 452 (1982).
The basis of the presumption against implied repeals is explained by Sutherland in his treatise on statutory construction:
Despite the presumption against it, occasionally courts will determine that a statute has been repealed by implication. Old Orchard v Hamilton Ins, supra, 434 Mich. 257. This Court has held that a repeal may be inferred in two instances: 1) when it is clear that a subsequent legislative act conflicts with a prior act, or 2) when a subsequent act of the Legislature clearly is intended to occupy the entire field covered by a prior enactment. Washtenaw Co Rd Comm'rs v Public Service Comm, 349 Mich. 663, 680; 85 N.W.2d 134 (1957). In either situation the burden on the party claiming an implied repeal is a heavy one, because the intention of the Legislature to repeal a statute must be "clear." Id.
In this case, the Court of Appeals held in the alternative that § 3 had been impliedly repealed by the 1976 amendments of § 6 of the State Administrative Board act, or by enactment in 1984 of the Management and Budget Act. We consider each of these conclusions in turn.
To understand the argument that § 3 was impliedly repealed by the 1976 amendments of § 6, it is necessary to recount some history concerning the board's transfer authority.
In 1939, § 6 was amended by 1939 PA 31. That amendment removed the board's control over the system of state accounting; however, at that stage the board's authority to transfer funds within a department remained in § 6 and was identical to the transfer language in § 3.
Subsequently, in 1976, an amendment imposing restrictions upon the transfer authority in § 6 was
Later, in 1984, when the Legislature passed the Management and Budget Act, the amended § 6 was expressly repealed by § 591 of that act. However, § 3 was left untouched. See MCL 18.1101 et seq.; MSA 3.516(101) et seq., and MCL 17.3; MSA 3.263.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the restrictions imposed on the board's transfer authority in 1976 were "clearly repugnant to the unrestricted authorization to intertransfer funds contained in § 3 and relied upon by defendants." 190 Mich.App. 276. Consequently, the Court held that "the `intertransfer' language in § 3 was impliedly repealed by 1976 PA 120." Id.
Of course, it is true that after the 1976 amendments of § 6, the board, at least for a period of time, did not possess unlimited power to transfer
Our analysis is reinforced by this Court's decision in Dykstra v Holden, 151 Mich. 289; 115 NW 74 (1908). There, a mandamus action was instituted to compel a call for a primary election in Grand Rapids in accordance with 1895 PA 135, a general act controlling primary elections in cities. The general act applied to Grand Rapids until 1901 when the Legislature passed special legislation that exempted elections in Kent and certain other counties.
It was asserted that the general law had been repealed to the extent of its conflict with the subsequent special legislation. Rejecting that argument, the Dykstra Court said that the subsequent legislation did not partially repeal the general law:
Finding no implied repeal of § 3 by the 1976 amendments of § 6, we turn now to the issue whether § 3 was impliedly repealed by the Management and Budget Act.
Of course, our inquiry into the Legislature's intent when it passes a statute does not begin with committee reports or legislative analysis; rather, "`[t]he starting point in every case involving construction of a statute is the language itself.'" Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters v Daniel, 439 U.S. 551, 558; 99 S.Ct. 790; 58 L Ed 2d 808 (1979) (citation omitted). In this lawsuit, there is no claim that the transfer language in § 3 is ambiguous. Unless it has been repealed, § 3 clearly gives the board authority to transfer funds within a department.
However, the Court of Appeals found conflict
Finding § 3 "to be inconsistent with the Management and Budget Act," the Court of Appeals concluded that "the Legislature intended to repeal [§ 3]." 190 Mich.App. 274. We disagree.
When two statutes address the same subject, courts must endeavor to read them harmoniously and to give both statutes a reasonable effect. Endykiewicz v State Hwy Comm, 414 Mich. 377, 385; 324 N.W.2d 755 (1982). As this Court explained in Rathbun:
Although we agree that § 3 and § 393 do relate to the same subject — transfers of funds within a department — we disagree with the Court of Appeals conclusion that the two sections are in "inevitable" conflict.
First, the transfer authority in § 393 is granted to the budget director while the transfer authority in § 3 is granted to the administrative board. The budget director and the board do not have the same duties: the primary duty of the budget director is to "plan and prepare a comprehensive executive state budget and execute, manage, and control the state budget which is enacted into law."
Indeed, such a conclusion is consistent with the approach taken by the Legislature when the State Administrative Board was created. As already noted, initially the board had dual responsibilities: it exercised general supervisory control over all state departments (§ 3), and it controlled the system of state accounting (§ 6). In each section, consistent with these powers, the Legislature reserved to the board the authority to transfer funds within departments. Even after the board's control over state accounting was taken away in 1939, the board's authority to order intradepartmental
Second, looking again to the relationship between § 393 and § 3, not only do the budget director and the board have different duties, they utilize different decision-making procedures and they operate under different levels of accountability to the electorate. The budget director is appointed by the Governor and serves at the Governor's pleasure.
Third, to the extent that the transfer powers of the board and the budget director overlap, the Legislature has put in place a mechanism to prevent conflicting exercises of transfer authority. The Governor may veto any board action with which he disagrees. Moreover, the budget director serves at the pleasure of the Governor. Given the Governor's supervisory role over both means of effecting transfers, it is reasonable to conclude that conflicting transfers will not be authorized by the executive branch.
Plaintiffs dismiss such a construction of the statute as illogical. They assert that, over the years the Legislature has acted several times to curtail the board's power, particularly in 1976 when it restricted the board's transfer authority. In light of this history, plaintiffs claim that the Legislature surely could not have intended to restore the board's transfer authority when it passed the Management and Budget Act. We are not persuaded by this argument. It may be true that in 1976 the Legislature was convinced that the transfer authority of the board was too broad. However, we refuse to assume that the Legislature's motivation in 1976, when it enacted restrictions on that authority, mirrored its motivation in 1984 when it repealed those restrictions. Whatever the goals of the Legislature may have been in 1976, certainly a subsequent Legislature, composed of different elected officials, could have had a different goal.
More important, as noted above, when faced with two statutes that bear on the same subject, our task is not to discern the most logical construction of the more recent statute, but to "labor
Our approach is consistent with that taken by the United States Supreme Court in Tennessee Valley Authority v Hill, 437 U.S. 153; 98 S.Ct. 2279; 57 L Ed 2d 117 (1978). The Court there considered whether a certain portion of the Endangered Species Act was impliedly repealed by appropriations made by Congress for construction of a dam in the Tennessee Valley. When the Endangered Species Act was passed, the dam already was being built. Over $50 million had been spent on the project. After passage of the Endangered Species Act, construction continued, as well as appropriations to fund the construction, even though construction of the dam violated the Endangered Species Act. The Court held that there was no implied repeal of the applicable section of the act, despite the seemingly inconsistent act of Congress appropriating funds for the dam's construction:
Likewise, in this case it is of no consequence that the two sections dealing with the transfer of funds may seem redundant to some, as long as they are not in irreconcilable conflict. The statutes can reasonably be read so that they are not.
When a legislature expressly states which of several provisions in a statute it intends to repeal, the presumption is even stronger that it does not intend to repeal the provisions that remain. See, e.g., Washtenaw Co Rd Comm'rs, supra, 349 Mich. 681; Davis v Devine, supra, 736 F.2d 1112; Paulson v Pierce Co, supra at 650-651; United States v Hansen, 249 US App DC 22, 27; 772 F.2d 940 (1985). In § 591 of the Management and Budget Act the Legislature expressly states what it intends to repeal. In that section, the Legislature lists thirty-six different public acts that are partially or wholly repealed by the Management and Budget Act. Section 6 of the State Administrative Board act is listed among the provisions that are repealed; § 3 is not.
As we read the Management and Budget Act, it is clear that the Legislature chose to repeal § 6, and it chose not to repeal § 3. When the Legislature performs such "deliberate legislative surgery" on a statute,
The rule is particularly inappropriate where the Legislature's attention to a subject is as detailed as it was in this case. As the repealer section shows, when the Legislature enacted the Management and Budget Act it reviewed a multitude of prior enactments and specified which parts of those enactments were repealed. Given this comprehensive review, we find it doubtful, to say the least, that the Legislature could have by accident or oversight failed to repeal the transfer language of § 3 if that is what it had intended to do. Indeed, during oral argument, plaintiffs' counsel conceded that he had no explanation for the Legislature's failure to repeal § 3; his personal theory was that the section "just got by them."
The transfer language in § 3 has existed since
For the foregoing reasons, we disagree with plaintiffs claim that § 3 of the State Administrative Board act was repealed by implication. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
LEVIN, BRICKLEY, and RILEY, JJ., concurred with GRIFFIN, J.
MALLETT, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
We concur with the majority's holding that only Representative Jacobetti has standing to maintain the suit. We respectfully dissent, however, with the majority's conclusion that § 3 was not implicitly repealed. The majority's holding overlooks the Legislature's intent as evidenced by the continual diminution of the state administrative board's powers since 1921.
Defendants contend that § 3 of the State Administrative Board act, MCL 17.3; MSA 3.263, authorized the board to transfer funds within an appropriation for a particular department without prior legislative approval. Section 3 provides:
Plaintiffs argue that the section was implicitly repealed and that fund transfers within a department are exclusively governed by the Management and Budget Act, MCL 18.1101 et seq.; MSA 3.516(101) et seq. Plaintiffs point, in particular, to §§ 391 and 393. Section 391 provides:
Section 393 further provides:
Undoubtedly, the Management and Budget Act required the budget director to obtain the consent of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to effect a transfer of funds within the appropriation for a particular department. Meanwhile, the State Administrative Board act apparently similarly permitted the board to transfer funds without the consent of the appropriations committees. In 1984, however, when the Legislature materially revised the Management and Budget Act, it specifically repealed § 6 of the State Administrative
Defendants argue that § 393 simply provided an alternate means for transferring funds and that nothing indicates that it was intended as the sole procedure. Simply stated, they assert that §§ 3 and 6 are two separate and alternative means for the intratransfer of funds. Conversely, plaintiffs contend that since 1931, the Legislature has steadily curtailed the board's authority to effect the intratransfer of funds. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that the 1984 amendment of the Management and Budget Act implicitly repealed the board's authority to effect the intratransfer of funds under the State Administrative Board act.
We find the defendants' arguments unpersuasive. Although repeals by implication are disfavored, the determinative inquiry is whether the Legislature intended a subsequently enacted statute to repeal an earlier one. Old Orchard by the Bay Associates v Hamilton Mutual Ins Co, 434 Mich. 244, 257; 454 N.W.2d 73 (1990). We find that the Legislature intended § 393 of the Management and Budget Act to furnish the sole method of transferring funds within a department. This conclusion is mandated by the inconsistent natures of § 393 and § 3 and the continual diminution of the board's power to effect the intratransfer of funds. Accordingly, we would hold that the Legislature implicitly repealed the intratransfer power of § 3.
Furthermore, statutory construction rules direct that absent an express repeal, the two statutes must be read in conformity.
Section 3 of the State Administrative Board act, which defendants claim conferred on the board general power to effect the intratransfer of funds, cannot be read consistently with § 393 of the Management and Budget Act. It is difficult to conceive that the Legislature did not intend to confer the power to effect the intratransfer of funds on the
This is more than patchwork legislation. The rules of statutory construction, as adopted by this Court, mandate that the applicable statutes be read together. However, to do so would result in an interpretation clearly not intended by the Legislature.
The majority argues that the two sections, §§ 3 and 393, are not in inevitable conflict because § 3 grants transfer authority to the administrative board, whereas § 393 grants similar power to the budget director. This reasoning does not follow when one realizes that the Governor controls both bodies. The State Administrative Board is composed of the Governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, attorney general, and superintendent of public instruction. MCL 18.1145(4); MSA 3.516(145)(4). None of the board's members is authorized to individually transfer funds. They are only empowered to vote on fund transfer proposals as members of the board. However, through appointment or otherwise, the Governor controls at least three members (the Governor himself, the lieutenant governor, and the state treasurer) of the six-member board. As a result of this control, the board cannot transfer funds without the Governor's consent; the requisite votes are
The majority also maintains that the Legislature provided a mechanism to prevent conflicting exercises of transfer authority — "[t]he Governor may veto any board action with which he disagrees." Ante, p 571. This argument assumes that the board will exercise independent decision-making authority absent that suggested by the Governor. One must be skeptical about whether the board, without the unequivocal support of the Governor, would vote to transfer funds. As discussed above, the board lacks a majority to override the Governor. As a result, the requisite conflict, necessitating the Governor's veto, may never occur.
Additionally, the Legislature enacted the Management and Budget Act as a comprehensive statute in order to consolidate the laws relating to budgeting, accounting, and the regulating of appropriations. This intent is expressed in the title of the act:
Thus, 1984 PA 431 was adopted to assert exclusive control over the budget and the regulation of appropriations. Where an enactment of the Legislature indicates in the title of the act that it intends to "revise and consolidate" the laws relating to a particular subject, this expression indicates an intent to include in that act entire control over the subject matter. The act is deemed to be complete within itself. Attorney General ex rel Fuller v Parsell, 100 Mich. 170, 173-174; 58 NW 839 (1894). As this Court stated in Lafayette Transfer & Storage Co v Public Utilities Comm, 287 Mich. 488, 492-493; 283 NW 659 (1939):
Because the Legislature intended that the Management and Budget Act occupy the entire field regarding the budget and appropriations, § 3 was implicitly repealed.
After a close historical examination of Michigan's
In 1931, the Legislature curtailed the board's powers by enacting 1931 PA 6, which added the language that defendants argue authorized the board's controverted actions on May 9, 1991. After an initial clause granted the board general supervisory control over all functions and activities in all administrative entities and state institutions, § 3 provided that the board
Substantially identical language was added to § 6 of the act.
Between 1933 and 1941, the Legislature further abbreviated the board's role in the appropriation process. In 1933, it returned budget power from the administrative board to the budget director. 1933 PA 187. Without formally amending § 6 of the original State Administrative Board act, the 1933 amendment limited the board's authority to transfer funds for building purposes. 1933 PA 187, § 9. Moreover, § 11 conferred new powers and responsibilities on the board concerning the division of the appropriations into allotments on the basis of periodic requirements of the various governmental units, but required that this be done through the budget director. Finally, § 10 continued to require that all funds be strictly used for the purposes enumerated in the appropriations acts.
In 1939, the Legislature amended § 6, changing its focus to that of the board's power to appropriate and transfer funds. The amendment also obliterated
Thus, after 1948, as the state began employing professionals in budget and accounting matters, the board's role was reduced to advising and approving the Department of Administration's actions. The board no longer possessed independent authority to transfer funds within departments.
The 1963 Constitution further delineated the Legislature's and the executive's respective roles in the budget and appropriation process. For example, art 5, § 18 required that the Governor submit to the Legislature a budget specifying proposed expenditures and estimated revenue of the state along with general appropriation bills embodying
The board's role in the budget process was further reduced by 1976 PA 120, which proscribed intratransfers of appropriations "which will increase or decrease an item of appropriation ... by more than $50,000.00 in the aggregate." MCL 17.6(2); MSA 3.265(2). Section 3 permitted appropriation transfers over $50,000 only after approval by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. MCL 17.6(3); MSA 3.265(3). The 1976 changes effectuated the 1963 Constitution's edict of legislative control over the state's fiscal policy.
After a thorough examination of the historical struggle over the appropriation process, it is evident that the Legislature in 1984 did not intend to grant the board unbridled power over intradepartment transfers. It is ludicrous to adopt the defendant's view that the Legislature abandoned its progressive diminution of the board's appropriation power. In fact, the Legislature articulated two goals in adopting the 1984 changes: (1) "improv[ing] legislative oversight of appropriations and strengthen[ing] the state's accounting by ... [r]equiring timely passage of transfers and supplementals in order to provide for more timely fiscal year-end reporting," and (2) "[s]treamlining the appropriations transfer process." House Fiscal Agency Explanation Sheet, HB 5179 (H-2), May 31, 1984. Given this history, it is illogical to conclude that by repealing § 6 of the State Administrative Board act in 1984, the Legislature intended
We would hold that Representative Dominic Jacobetti, as a Democratic member and Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, had a sufficiently substantial interest in this dispute to establish standing. Furthermore, the legislative history of the budget and appropriation process, the principles of statutory construction, and common sense mandate the conclusion that when the Legislature expressly repealed § 6, it also intended to repeal § 3. Therefore, § 393 of the Management and Budget Act operated as the exclusive means to effect the intratransfer of funds within a department.
Thus, we would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
CAVANAGH, C.J., and BOYLE, J., concurred with MALLETT, J.
We are conscious of the separation of powers concerns that have been raised. However, as defendants conceded in their brief in the Court of Appeals, this case involves an important question of continuing public interest that should be resolved by this Court. Further, it is unlikely that a private plaintiff could assert the claims that plaintiff Jacobetti now makes. Thus, we decline in this case to invoke the federal doctrine of equitable discretion without intimating its possible applicability in a future case.
The Department of Labor made similar comments:
MCL 17.6(3); MSA 3.265(3) further provided that "[i]ntertransfers of appropriations for any particular department or institution in excess of the restrictions in subsection (2) may be made by the [board] only after approval by the house and senate appropriations committees." (Emphasis added.)