OFFICIAL OPINION No. 12

OFFICIAL OPINION No. 12 Act No. 95-A, 1957 Session-General Appropriation Act-Appropriation to De- partment of Public Instruction for vocational education program. 74 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Appropriation provision includes authorization for purchase of equipment for the state staff in carrying out the functions under the vocational education program. Appropriation provision includes authorization for payments to county boards of school directors to operate and purchase instructional. equipment for area technical schools and to operate vocational education classes for unemployed persons despite failure of provision to enumerate these purposes specifically. Act No. 95-A, 1957 Session-General Appropriation Act-Appropriation to De- partment of Public Instruction for extension education program-Pennsylvania Constitution, Article Ill, §§ 6 and 15-Act of July 13, 1957, P. L. 864. Appropriation provision limiting reimbursement to school districts for extension education does not violate either § 6 or § 15 of Article III of the Pennsylvania Constitution even though the Public School Code of 1949 provides for more complete reimbursement. Harrisburg, Pa., September 20, 1957. Honorable Charles H. Boehm, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Sir: You have requested our advice concerning several provisions of House Bill No. 1700, Printer's No. 1002, of the 1957 Session of the General Assembly. This bill was signed by the Governor on July 19, 1957, and became Act No. 95-A of that Session. I On pages 56 and 57 of the above printer's no. the following ap- propriation is made: "Administration of the vocational education program and payment of State and Federal subsidies to school districts and county boards of school directors for approved vocational courses traveling expenses extension classes and equipment in area technical schools as provided in sections 1802, 1804, 2504, 2506, 2507 and 2508 of the Public School Code of 1949 and the acts of July 11 1917 (P. L. 757) and May 11, 1949 (P. L. 1202) ................................. $2,744,786" You inquire, first, whether this provision includes authorization for the purchase of equipment for the State staff in carrying out its func- tions under this program and, second, whether the authorization to make expenditures under § 2508 of the Public School Code of 1949 includes similar authorization under §§ 2508.1, 2508.2 and 2508.3 of the Code. It should be noted that extensive supervision over the vocational education program is vested in the Superintendent of Public Instruction and in the State Board for Vocational Educationl. 'See Act of March 10, 1949, P. L. 30, "Public School Code of 1949," Article XVIII, 24 P. S. §§ 18-1801 to 18-1847 and § 25-2508. OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 75 The quoted appropriation provision is subject to the clause found at the beginning of the appropriations to the Department of Public Instruction. This clause is on page 45 of the above printer's no. and reads as follows: "For the salaries, wages and all other expenses necessary for the proper conduct of the following purposes and activi- ties." The specific appropriation here in question is then read as if it im- mediately followed this clause, and the question becomes simply whether the purchase of equipment for the State staff is an expense necessary for the proper administration of the vocational education program. The term "expenses" is defined in section 6 of House Bill 1700 (page 96 of the above printer's no.). The definition is extremely broad and includes ". . . the purchase of replacement or additional equip- ment and machinery other than passenger motor vehicles ... " Thus, it seems quite clear that such equipment (other than motor vehicles which are purchased by the Department of Property and Supplies) for the State staff as is necessary for the proper administration of the vocational education program is authorized to be purchased by the provision under consideration. II Your second question is whether authorization is given under the above provision to make expenditures under §§ 2508.1 2508.2 and 2508.3 of the "Public School Code of 1949." The specific statutory sections enumerated in the provision include authorizations for ad- ministration of the vocational education program2, for payment to the various school districts and county boards of school directors on ac- count of vocational curriculum3, approved travel4 and approved vo- cational extension classes5 and for allocation of unencumbered state and federal vocational education funds6. The additional statutory sections not specifically mentioned and about which you inquire are for payments to county boards of school directors for instructional equipment in area technical schools7 and for the operation of such 2 §§ 1802 and 1804 of the Public School Code of 1949, Act of March 10, 1949, P. L. 30, 24 P. S. §i§ 18-1802 and 18-1804. • § 2504, Public School Code of 1949, 24 P. S. § 25-2504. • § 2506, Public School Code of 1949, 24 P. S. § 25-2506. • § 2507, Public School Code of 1949, 24 P. S. § 25-2507. 0 § 2508, Public School Code of 1949, 24 P. S. § 25-2508. • § 2508.1, Public School Code of 1949, 24 P. S. § 25-2508.1. 76 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL schools generally8 and for payment of the cost of operating vocational education classes for unemployed persons9 _ These last three activities are conducted with both state and federal funds, the latter being re- ceived pursuant to federal vocational education laws10_ Without the enumeration of specific sections in the appropriating clause no problem would be present, for clearly the authority to pay "state and federal subsidies to school districts and county boards of school directors for approved vocational courses traveling expenses extension classes and equipment in area technical schools . . ." in- cludes every phase of the vocational education program. In fact, the payment for "equipment in area technical schools" appears to be a direct reference to the payment mandated by § 2508.1. Considering the interrelationship between these various sections and the great breadth of the appropriating clause, it seems that the authorization to make payments from the amount appropriated extends to every aspect of the vocational education program, including the payments man- dated by §§ 2508.1, 2508.2 and 2508.3. We conclude, therefore, that authorization to make expenditures under §§ 2508.1, 2508.2 and 2508.3 is included in the clause under consideration though not as a result of the authorization under § 2508. III On Page 54 of House Bill No. 1700, Printer's No. 1002 (Act No. 95-A, Session of 1957), lines 15 to 19, appears the following appro- priating clause: "Payments to school districts on account of extension edu- cation including recreation as provided in section 2510 of the Public School Code of 1949. No part of this appropriation shall be used to reimburse school districts for adult education or adult recreation except for the blind ........... 2,100,000" You raise three questions concerning this appropriation: (1) The above prohibiting provision, being in seeming conflict with § 2510 of the Public School Code of 194911, as amended by the Act of July 13, 1957, P. L. 864, which of these provisions of law is to govern the Department of Public Instruction in administering the reimbursement to school districts for extension education; (2) what effect does the prohibiting sentence have on state reimbursement for extension edu- • § 2508.2, Public School Code of 1949, 24 P. S. § 25-2508.2. • § 2508.3, Public School Code of 1949, Act No. 398, 1957 Session of the General Assembly, approved July 13, 1957. 10 39 Stat. 929 (1917), 60 Stat. 775 (1946), 70 stat. 925 (1956), 20 U.S.C. §§ 11to28 (1952). 11 Act of March 10, 1949, P. L. 30 § 2510, 24 P. S. § 25-2510. OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 77 cation generally; (3) since payments to school districts for extension education programs are made in the biennium succeeding the one in which the programs were conducted, does the above provision in any way affect the payment of commitments to school districts for the years 1955-1956 and 1956-1957. Section 7 of the Act of July 13, 1957, supra, amended § 2510 of the Code in pertinent part as follows: "Section 2510. Payments on Account of Extension Classes and Instruction of Home Bound Children. Every school dis- trict regardless of classification shall be paid by the Common- wealth for every school term of school years prior to the school year 1957-1958 on account of approved extension classes ... and for the school year 1957-1958 and for each school year thereafter on account of approved extension classes except adult extension recreation classes . .. " It thus seems that a conflict exists between this provision of the Public School Code and the provision of Act No. 95-A. The former provides for reimbursement by the Commonwealth to school districts for every school term of school years prior to the school year 1957- 1958 on account of all approved extension classes. This obviously would include all adult extension classes, recreational or otherwise. The provision existed prior to the amendments of 195712 ; that is, re- imbursement for extension education formed part of the Public School Code as passed originally in 1949. The 1957 amendments cut off this all-inclusive reimbursement as of the conclusion of the 1956-1957 school year and eliminated future reimbursement on account of "adult extension recreation classes." Act No. 95-A, on the other hand, makes no use of these somewhat precise terms. Instead of referring to "adult extension classes" or "adult extension recreation classes," the act prohibits use of the ap- propriated funds to reimburse school districts for both "adult edu- cation" and "adult recreation" (except for the blind). Two questions immediately present themselves. The first is whether this prohibiting clause is an unconstitutional rider or an unconstitutional attempt to amend the "Public School Code of 1949." The second, assuming the constitutionality of the clause, concerns the proper construction of the words used. If the terms in Act No. 95-A are considered syn- onymous with those in § 2510, then use ·Of the appropriated funds for any adult extension education classes, including recreational classes, is clearly prohibited. The adult extension education program, while 12 Act of July 13, 1957, P. L. 864, § 7, 24 P . S. § 25-2510. 78 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL remaining in full effect, simply would be unable to rely on state funds for financial support. Article III, § 6 of the Pennsylvania Constitution forbids the amend- ment of a law by reference to its title only. This has been held to forbid so-called "blind amendments"-those placed before the legis- lature in a form which does not make the proposed change understand- able without reference to a prior act13_ The distinction between such an amendment and a valid restriction on the use of funds contained in an appropriation act is difficult to draw. It is our opinion, however, that where the attempted limitation on the use of funds does not alter the substantive features of the other act, it is not in violation of the restriction of Article III, § 6. In the present case the extension education program itself is not modified, expanded or eliminated. The provisions of Article XIX of the "Public School Code of 1949" relating to extension education14 remain intact, and school districts are authorized to conduct the ex- tension education program in the future as they have in the past. The difference is that reimbursement cannot be made from the funds ap- propriated in Act No. 95-A for those aspects of the extension education program embracing adult education and adult recreation education15 _ The school districts will have to finance them without state aid. This restriction on the use of appropriated funds is within the legis- lative power. "The control of the state's finances is entirely in the legislature, subject only to these constitutional limitations; and, ex- cept as thus restricted, is absolute16. " If the General Assembly chooses in the general appropriation act to forbid the use of funds for a particular program and in no way alters the features of the program itself, it may do so, however inconsistent its action may be with the obvious intent of the program act. Here, the "Public School Code of 1949" expressly contemplates reimbursement for extension education17 ; while Act No. 95-A would forbid it from the funds therein appropriated except for instructional and recreational service for out- of-school youth. Unquestionably, the legislature could have failed to 13 Wilkes-Barre et al. v. Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission, 164 Pa. Super. 210, 63A. 2d 452 (1949). 14 Act of March 10, 1949, P . L. 30, §§ 1901 to 1906, 24 P . S. §§ 19-1901 to 19-1906. 15 Section 1901 of the "Public School Code of 1949" defines "extension education." The term includes three programs: (1) instructional service for out-of-school youth, (2) instructional service for adults and (3) recreational service. The first of these programs is entitled to receive funds from the appropriation in Act No. 95-A; the second and third are not. 1° Commonwealth ex rel. Schnader v. Liveright, 308 Pa. 35, 67, 161 At!. 697 (1932). 17 Except for adult recreation extension classes for 1957-1958 and thereafter. OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 79 appropriate any funds at all; it is no less able to designate which programs shall not receive funds and, by implication, which shall. The General Assembly has done just that in the present situation; and since it has not changed the substantive features of the extension education program, it has not acted in violation of Article III, § 6. Article III, § 15 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania states as follows: "The general appropriation bill shall embrace nothing but appropriations for the ordinary expenses of the executive, legislative and judicial departments of the Commonwealth, interest on the public debt and for public schools; all other appropriations shall be made by separate bills, each embracing but one subject." This section is directed against the inclusion of so-called "riders" in a general appropriation bill 18. The legislature is forbidden to insert into the general appropriation bill anything other than appropriations for the ordinary expenses of the state government, for interest on the public debt and for public schools. Our discussion above concerning Article III, § 6, indicates that the legislature has not stepped beyond the area of appropriations; and, accordingly, we cannot consider the present provision in any sense a "rider" or otherwise in violation of Article III, § 15. In view of these considerations it is our opinion that the General Assembly acted within its constitutional powers in prohibiting use of the appropriated funds to reimburse school districts for "adult edu- cation" or "adult recreation." We also conclude that the terms used are unambiguous and are synonymous with those used in § 2510 of the "Public School Code of 1949." The General Assembly's intent is clearly expressed, and we are not free to disregard this explicit language19 Accordingly, you are advised (1) while § 2510 of the "Public School Code of 1949" authorizes payment to school districts by the Commonwealth for certain extension education classes, no appropriation has been made by the General As- sembly to provide for such reimbursement in so far as any in- structional service through adult extension classes and any adult recreational service through extension classes are concerned, and the Department of Public Instruction may not use the appropriated funds to reimburse school districts for such classes (except for the blind) ; 18 See Greene v. Gregg et al., 161 Pa. 582, 29 At!. 297 (1894). 19 "Statutory Construction Act," Act of May 28, 1937, P. L. 1019, § 51, 46 P. S. § 551. 80 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (2) while § 2510 of the "Public School Code of 1949" remains in full force and effect, the General Assembly through the prohibiting sentence in Act No. 95-A has failed to appropriate funds to reimburse school districts for adult extension classes and adult recreation ex- tension classes, thus limiting use of the appropriated funds to re- imbursement on account of instructional and recreational service for out-of-school youth and extension classes generally for the blind20; (3) the prohibiting provision in Act No. 95-A prevents the payment of commitments to school districts for the years 1955-1956 and 1956- 1957 on account of adult extension classes and adult recreation ex- tension classes (except for the blind) in so far as said commitments are payable from the funds appropriated by the clause under dis- cussion21. To ~um up the conclusions reached in this opinion you are advised: 1. The appropriation for the administration of the vocational edu- cation program includes authorization for the purchase of equipment for the State staff in carrying out its functions under this program; 2. The appropriation for the administration of the vocational edu- cation program includes authorization for expenditures under Sections 2508.1, 2508.2 and 2508.3 of the "Public School Code of 1949;" and 3. The appropriation to the Department of Public Instruction for payments to school districts on account of the extension education program has been limited by the General Assembly and, thus, cannot be used to reimburse the school districts on account of adult extension classes and adult recreation extension classes (except for the blind). Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HARRY J. RUBIN, Deputy Attorney General. THOMAS D. McBRIDE, Attorney General. 20 It should be noted that school districts are still allowed and required to conduct extension education classes as provided in Article XIX of the "Public School Code of 1949." The General Assembly has only restricted the use of state funds for reimbursement purposes. 21 We know of no other appropriated funds available to pay such commitments authorized by the 1957 session of the Gener~! Assembly. We do not pass upon the power of the General Assembly to provide the necessary funds at its 1959 session. OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 81