Montana Attorney General Opinion 17-183

Opinion No. 183. Appropriations-Expenditures in Ex- cess of Amount Appropriated Each Year. HELD: Chapter 40, Laws of 1937, prohibits the expenditure by any state officer, department, board, commission or bureau, in anyone year in excess of the income appropriated for such year. October 20, 1937. Mr. W. L. Fitzsimmons Clerk State Board of Examiners Ex-officio Consolidated Boards The Capitol Dear Mr. Fitzsimmons: You have submitted the folIowing: "At the request of the Board of Examiners I am writing for an opin- io~ with reference to the appropri- atIons made for the State Normal College at Dillon under the provisions of House BilI No. 168, Twenty-fifth Legislative Session Laws. "Under the date of April 15, 1937, the Board of Examiners approved a contract for electric installation at the Normal College after the State Board of Education had approved the general plan at a meeting February 20, 1937. This contract was entered into with the National Electric Sup- ply Company of Butte to make cer- tain alterations and installations at a cost of $3,221.00. Under the terms of the contract no payments were to be made until after July 1, 1937, then any unpaid portion sixty days after July 1st was to bear interest at the rate of six per cent per annum. "In addition to the above contract, there was found after the contract was let that it would be necessary to install new transformers at the in- stitution and these were instalIed by the Union Electric Company at a cost of $1,010.85. These transformers were installed with the understanding that the full installation' price could be paid or a monthly rental charge would be rnade of $21.370 per month, provided that if the entire installation was paid for within a year all rentals would be deducted from the purchase price. "The question now presented to the Board of Examiners by President Davis of the Normal College is whether both of these contracts might be paid in full which would amount to $4,231.85. In view of the fact that it is possible such payment might cause the J nstitution to exceed its first year's appropriation and thereby violate the provisions of Chapter 40, Session Laws of 1937, particularly Section 1 and bring the authorities of the institution within the penalties provided in Section 4. "Our question is whether, with the information set forth above, it would be possible to use the first year's appropriation to pay the above men- tioned claims by the Board of Ex- aminers declaring an emergency to exist as provided in Section 2, Chap- ter 40, and if this should cause a deficiency in the first year. or in the first and second year combined, if it could be considered a violation of the general provisions of Chapter 40." Section 1, Chapter 40, Laws of 1937, provides: "It shall be unlawful for the board of trustees, executive board, mana- gerial staff, president, deans and faculty, or any other authority of any state institution maintained in whole or in part by the state. or for any officer, department, hoard. cornmission or bureau, having charge of the disbursement or expenditure of the income provided by legislative appropriation. or otherwise. to ex- pend, contract for the expenditure, or to incur or permit the incurring of any obligation whatsoever. in any one year, in excess of the income provided for such year, or in excess of such income as decreased by the state board of examiners, under and in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of this act. for such vear, or for the state board of examiners. 222 OPI:\ ICXS OF THE .-\ TTORXEY GENER.-\L or any supervisory board or authority either directly or indirectly to author- ize, direct or order any such institu- tion, officer, department, board, com- mission or bureau to increase any expenditures, except as hereinafter provided, and it shall be and is here- by made the duty of any and all of such institutions, officers, depart- ments, boards, commissions and bu- reaus to keep such expenditures, obligations and liabilities within the amount of such income." Except in cases of emergency, as provided in Section 2 of said Chapter 40, no expenditures may be made in one year in excess of the income pr,o- vided for such year. The statute is specific and Section 2 provides the only exception. In my opinion, if the pay- ment of the above mentioned contracts in full would cause the expenditure during the current fiscal year of more than the appropriation for such year, as provided by House Bill 168, Laws of 1937, such excess expenditure would be in violation of said Section 1, Chap- ter 40, unless the excess could be authorized under Section 2 of said chapter. It is immaterial that a saving of. interest could be effected as that in itself would not justify the expendi- ture contrary to the specific prohibition made by the legislature in the absence of legislative sanction. The fact that House Bill 168 was passed subsequent to Chapter 40, does not render Chapter 40 ineffective because the two acts are not necessarily inconsistent or repug- nant to each other. House Bill 168 fixes the appropriation for each year and this is consistent with the limita- tion of expenditure each year, as de- clared in Chapter 40.