Number 8. September 23, 1968

Number 8. September 23, 1968 MR. SAMUEL M. FLAKSMAN Executive Secretary Council Chamber Stale House Boston, Massachusetts 021 33 Dear Mr. Elaksman: Acting on behalf of the Executive Council, you have requested my opinion as P.D. 12 43 to the legality of authorizing payments upon a certain warrant now pending before the Council for approval. The payments in question are for services rendered by two individuals as executive director and consultant, respectively, of a special commission created by Res. 1965, c. 80. According to your letter, the commission filed its final report on June 15, 1967, and went out of existence on that date. The invoices appended to your letter indicate that the services for which payment is sought were for the most part rendered thereafter. It is my understanding that at some time prior to July 19 of this year, the same invoices were submitted but payment was never made, presumably because substantially all the services were rendered after June 15, 1967. A new warrant has since been prepared and was submitted to the Council on July 31 Between the initial submission and resubmission of this matter to the Council, the General Court enacted Res. 1968, c. 126, approved by the Governor on July 19, which provides: "RESOLVED, That the special commission, established by chapter eighty of the acts of nineteen hundred and sixty-five, and most recently revived and continued by chapter one hundred and twelve of the resolves of nineteen hundred and sixty-six, is hereby revived for the sole purpose of paying certain bills contracted by it for services and supplies, notwithstanding the fact that said commission had filed its final report. Said commission may expend for such purposes from the balance available in item 0267-07 of section two of chapter one hundred and thirty-two of the acts of nineteen hundred and sixty-eight." (Emphasis supplied.) In my opinion the payments in question are authorized by the foregoing Resolve. By its very terms, the Resolve appears to be directed specifically at the problem of paying bills incurred after the commission has filed its final report. Moreover, we have been advised by the Comptroller's Division that, to the best of its knowledge, these are the only unpaid bills to which the Resolve could possibly refer. Thus, if it did not authorize this payment, the Resolve would be a nullity. Indeed, all the circumstances tend to indicate that it was these particular unpaid bills that occasioned enactment of Res. 126. Very truly yours, ELLIOT L. RICHARDSON Attorney General