<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.6212" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>July 14, 2012</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>This Michigan Attorney General opinion and cases
are binding. This is very important to note that a Commission such as the
Commission for the Blind enacted<BR>under PA 260 can only be abolished with a
Type III Transfer. Yet in Executive Order 2012-10 the Governor abolishes the
Commission and the Act with a Type<BR>III Transfer. That is beyond the statutory
authority of The Executive Organization Act itself which gives all Michigan
Governors rather broad authorities,<BR>but not this broad!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Joe Harcz</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Opinion #6675</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The following opinion is presented on-line for
informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of
Attorney General Web Site</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>- <A
href="http://www.ag.state.mi.us">www.ag.state.mi.us</A>)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>STATE OF MICHIGAN</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Opinion No. 6675</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>February 19, 1991</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>GOVERNOR:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Authority to abolish boards and commissions under
Const 1963, art 5, Sec. 2</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Authority of Governor to abolish boards and
commissions under Const 1963, art 5, Sec. 2</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The people have in Const 1963, art 5, Sec. 2, given
the Governor the authority to abolish boards and commissions subject to
legislative disapproval.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Honorable John Engler</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Governor of Michigan</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The Capitol</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Lansing, Michigan</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>You have sought my opinion regarding your authority
as Governor to make changes both in the organization of the executive branch and
in the assignment of</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>functions within executive branch departments and
agencies. Specifically, you have asked whether the people have in Const 1963,
art 5, Sec. 2, given the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Governor the authority to abolish boards and
commissions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Const 1963, art 5, Sec. 2, provides in its second
paragraph:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Subsequent to the initial allocation, the governor
may make changes in the organization of the executive branch or in the
assignment of functions among</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>its units which he considers necessary for
efficient administration. Where these changes require the force of law, they
shall be set forth in executive</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>orders and submitted to the legislature. Thereafter
the legislature shall have 60 calendar days of a regular session, or a full
regular session if of shorter</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>duration, to disapprove each executive order.
Unless disapproved in both houses by a resolution concurred in by a majority of
the members elected to and</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>serving in each house, each order shall become
effective at a date thereafter to be designated by the governor.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In the Address to the People, the Constitutional
Convention commented regarding this provision as follows:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The section ... would retain in the hands of the
legislature and the governor considerable discretion as to internal organization
within principal departments.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The initial allocation of departments (see Schedule
and Temporary Provisions) is left to the legislature.... Subsequently, the
governor may make changes</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>in the organization of the executive branch or in
the assignment of functions among its units which he considers necessary for
efficient administration.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>These changes become effective unless they are
disapproved within 60 days by a majority of the members in both houses of the
legislature.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2 Official Record, Constitutional Convention 1961,
pp 3378-3379.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In Soap & Detergent Association v Natural
Resources Commission, 415 Mich 728, 330 NW2d 346 (1982), the Michigan Supreme
Court considered at length the Governor's</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>authority to transfer powers between executive
agencies. At issue was the Governor's authority to transfer the rulemaking power
to further restrict the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>nutrient content of cleaning agents from the Water
Resources Commission, where it had been placed by the Legislature, to the
Natural Resources Commission.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The Court stated:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The constitutional provision of art 5, Sec. 2, was
given effect in 1965 when the Legislature enacted the Executive Organization
Act, MCL 16.101 et seq;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>MSA 3.29(1) et seq. The act established 19
principal departments and made the initial allocation of functions among the d
partments.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[O]n various occasions, the Governor has utilized
his power to issue executive reorganization orders. [ Id., pp
742-743.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The record of the constitutional convention
indicates that the convention's purpose in including art 5, Sec. 2, was to
facilitate economy and efficiency</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>in the executive agencies. 2 Official Record,
Constitutional Convention 1961, p 1847 (comments of Mr. Pollock); p 1836
(comments of Mr. Martin); p 1837</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>(Comments of Mr. Bentley). The convention felt that
the Legislature previously had failed to effectuate a reorganization itself, and
that the Governor</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>was in the best position to accomplish the desired
ends, having intimate knowledge of the problems. 2 Official Record,
Constitutional Convention 1961,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>p 1846 (comment of Mr. Pollock). The convention
recognized that the reorganization power granted the Governor in p 2 of art 5,
Sec. 2, was clearly legislative.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2 Official Record, Constitutional Convention 1961,
p 1846 (comments of Mr. Heideman and Mr. Hutchinson). [ footnote omitted]
Nonetheless, the delegates</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>chose to include this delegation to the Governor in
the constitution, subject to vigorously debated checks deemed necessary to
restrain the broad grant</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>of power. 2 Official Record, Constitutional
Convention 1961, pp 1843-1854.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[T]he convention's purpose ... was to grant the
Governor full legislative power to promote the most efficient possible executive
department. [ Id., pp 745-747.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Further support for the logic of this
interpretation of the constitution is found in the Executive Organization Act.
In McDonald v Schnipke, 380 Mich 14,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>26; 155 NW2d 169 (1968), this Court held that art
5, Sec. 2, of the constitution was not self-executing, but that the Executive
Organization Act served</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>as the enabling act of that provision. [ footnote
omitted]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The Executive Organization Act establishes 19
principal departments. The act also provides a general mechanism for placing
existing agencies into the framework</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>of the 19 principal departments. Three types of
transfers could be effectuated. [ Id., p 748.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Under a Type III transfer, the agency is abolished.
MCL 16.103(c); MSA 3.29(3)(c). [ Id., p 749.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>No specific considerations are provided in the
Executive Organization Act for the art 5, Sec. 2, activities--the subsequent
reallocations by the Governor.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Yet in McDonald this Court held that the act was
the implementing legislation for the constitutional section. The fair
implication of this interpretation</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>is that the Governor, in exercising his powers,
should use the transfer mechanism established in the Executive Organization Act,
i.e., the provisions regarding</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Type I through Type III transfers and the
relationship between the departments and the transferred agencies. [ Id., p
750.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The Court then considered the argument that if the
Governor has the power to reorganize the executive branch such power would
violate the doctrine of separation</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>of powers by commingling executive and legislative
functions within the executive branch.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The Court held:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[W]hile art 3, Sec. 2, of the constitution provides
for strict separation of power, [footnote omitted] this has not been interpreted
to mean that the branches</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>must be kept wholly separate. [ citations omitted]
Additionally, where, as in art 5, Sec. 2, the constitution explicitly grants
powers of one branch to</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>another, there can be no separation of powers
problem. [ citation omitted]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Article 5, Sec. 2, does not by any means vest
"all"' or any considerable legislative power in the executive. While it is true
that broad legislative power</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>has been delegated to the Governor to effectuate
executive reorganization, this power is clearly limited. Three limitations must
be emphasized. First,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>the area of executive exercise of legislative power
is very limited and specific. Second, the executive branch is not the sole
possessor of this power;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>the Legislature has concurrent power to transfer
functions and powers of the executive agencies. Third, the Legislature is
specifically granted the power</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>to veto executive reorganization orders before they
become law.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Therefore, the specific intent of the
constitutional convention in fashioning art 5, Sec. 2, having been to delegate a
very limited and specific legislative</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>power to the executive, and this provision having
been adopted into the constitution with sufficient checks to restrain an
improper exercise of this power,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>we find no constitutional infirmity negating the
Governor's ability to transfer rulemaking authority from one agency to that
agency's department head.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[ Id., pp 752-753.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>As the Supreme Court opinion, in n 10, p 746,
states:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The nature and extent of the power granted to the
Governor in art 5, Sec. 2, was most thoroughly discussed by the convention in
the context of what restraints</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>should be placed upon the Governor's exercise of
the power.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In fact, there was an effort made to reduce the
Governor's reorganization authority by giving both the House and the Senate the
individual power to veto</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>an executive order issued pursuant to art 5, Sec.
2.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Delegate Hutchinson spoke to the "tremendous
political power"' the Governor would possess under art 5, Sec. 2:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Whoever has the power by an executive order to
organize and to rearrange the departments of his government to suit his will has
a tremendous political power,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>because if, for instance, a particular function is
being carried on in one department in a way which doesn't suit the governor and
still he doesn't think</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>it politically wise, you know, to remove the head
of the department or anything, he can, by a reorganization plan, simply take
that function which is being</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>performed in a manner not suitable to him out of
that department and place it someplace else. That is a tremendous political
power.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2 Official Record, Constitutional Convention 1961,
p 1844.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Delegate Pollock, speaking on this same issue,
said:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[T]he governor is in a much better position to know
what is needed within his own administrative structure than anybody else. I
think certainly the legislature</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>should have the power to veto any proposal that is
not in the public interest, but I do not think that this should be made easy,
and I think it is not</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>too difficult by requiring a majority of both
houses.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2 Official Record, Constitutional Convention 1961,
p 1846.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Delegate Binkowski followed, saying:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>However, I think basically the reason for having
this form is to place the responsibility with the executive, who should know all
about these administrative</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>agencies, and to allow him to initiate the
programs, and therefore present them to the legislature. I think the reason for
executive reorganization is</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>simply economy and efficiency in
government.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If you are going to go ahead, as we have done, and
give the executive the responsibility of lowering appropriations, then I think
you have to give him the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>responsibility in this area of his executive
departments, so that he can eliminate or consolidate in the best interests of
the state.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[T]he legislature does appropriate funds, so that
if they are unhappy with any extension of power, so called power by the
governor, if the governor should</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>create a new agency which they are dissatisfied
with, they can effectively reduce the effectiveness of that organization. [
Emphasis added.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2 Official Record, Constitutional Convention 1961,
p 1848.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>As the Supreme Court pointed out in Soap &
Detergent Association, supra, it held in McDonald, supra, that the Executive
Organization Act, supra, is the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>enabling act of art 5, Sec. 2. In the Executive
Organization Act the Legislature has provided that:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[A] type III transfer means the abolishing of an
existing department, board, commission or agency.... [Emphasis
added.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>MCL 16.103(c); MSA 3.29(3)(c).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It is my opinion, therefore, that the people have
in Const 1963, art 5, Sec. 2, given the Governor the authority to abolish or
eliminate boards and commissions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Further, the Legislature has provided in the
Executive Organization Act the procedure to be followed in doing so. Such action
is, of course, subject to</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>the Legislature's right to disapprove an executive
order doing so.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Frank J. Kelley</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Attorney General</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://opinion/datafiles/1990s/op06675.htm">http://opinion/datafiles/1990s/op06675.htm</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>State of Michigan, Department of Attorney
General</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Last Updated 11/10/2008 16:49:34</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>_______________________________________________<BR>Blind-Democracy
mailing list<BR><A
href="mailto:Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org">Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org</A><BR><A
href="http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy">http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy</A></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>