You can
search the entire site.
or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices.
Alaska Legislative Council v. Knowles (01/09/2004) sp-5768
Alaska Legislative Council v. Knowles (01/09/2004) sp-5768
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before
publication in the Pacific Reporter. Readers are
requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk
of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage,
Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878,
e-mail corrections@appellate.courts.state.ak.us.
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
THE ALASKA LEGISLATIVE ) Supreme Court No. S-
10344
COUNCIL, on behalf of the Alaska )
State Legislature, ) Superior
Court No.
) 1JU-00-1237 CI
Appellant, )
) O P I N I O N
v. )
) [No. 5768 - January 9, 2004]
HONORABLE TONY KNOWLES, )
in his official capacity as Governor )
of the State of Alaska, )
)
Appellee. )
________________________________)
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State
of Alaska, First Judicial District, Juneau,
Patricia A. Collins, Judge.
Appearances: James P. Crawford, Division of
Legal and Research Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, Juneau, for Appellant.
Joanne M. Grace, Assistant Attorney General,
Anchorage, and Bruce M. Botelho, Attorney
General, Juneau, for Appellee. Thomas S.
Waldo, Earthjustice, Juneau, for Amici Curiae
Alaska Center for the Environment, Northern
Alaska Environmental Center, and Southeast
Alaska Conservation Council.
Before: Fabe, Chief Justice, Matthews,
Eastaugh, Bryner, and Carpeneti, Justices.
CARPENETI, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
The Alaska Legislative Council appeals the superior
courts denial of its challenge to former Governor Tony Knowless
veto of, and refusal to implement, Senate Bill 7, which transfers
land and the income derived from that land to the University of
Alaska. The legislative council argues that the superior court
erred in holding that S.B. 7 constitutes an appropriation subject
to the governors enhanced veto power requiring a three-fourths
vote by the legislature in order to override the veto under
article II, section 16 of the Alaska Constitution. Because the
superior court erred in concluding that S.B. 7 is an
appropriation to the University of Alaska, we reverse the
superior courts grant of summary judgment to the governor.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Facts
The Alaska Legislature passed S.B. 7 on March 30, 2000.
Senate Bill 7 enacted AS 14.40.365, which entitles the University
of Alaska to select between 250,000 and 260,000 acres of state
lands.1 The bill provides that selected land would then be
conveyed to and managed by the university under amendments to AS
14.40.170(a)2 and AS 14.40.291.3 Senate Bill 7 also provides
that the income from the transferred land will be held in
perpetual trust for the benefit of the university.4
Governor Knowles vetoed the bill on April 17, 2000,
stating that earmarking state lands for dedicated projects will
complicate state land management, contribute to significant land
use conflicts, and likely lead to years of litigation. On April
21, 2000 the legislature voted to override the veto by a margin
of forty-one to nineteen, a margin representing more than two-
thirds but less than three-fourths of the legislature voting to
override the veto. Governor Knowles rejected the override vote,
asserting that the legislature did not reach the three-fourths
override vote required to override a veto of an appropriations
bill.
B. Proceedings
A. The legislative council brought suit to force Governor
Knowles to implement S.B. 7, asserting that it is not an
appropriations bill subject to the governors enhanced
appropriations veto. The conservation amici5 attempted to
intervene in that action in order to challenge the
constitutionality of S.B. 7, but the superior court denied their
motion to intervene because that court decided only the question
whether S.B. 7 was an appropriations bill subject to the
governors enhanced veto. The superior court held that S.B. 7 was
an appropriations bill, thereby upholding the governors veto of
S.B. 7. The legislative council appeals.6
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review constitutional issues de novo, as they
present questions of law.7 In reviewing such questions we adopt
the rule of law that is most persuasive in light of precedent,
reason, and policy.8
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Non-Monetary Asset Transfers Are Not Appropriations Subject
to the Governors Enhanced Veto Under Article II of the Alaska
Constitution.
A. This appeal requires us to decide whether S.B. 7 constitutes
an appropriation under article II, section 16 of the Alaska
Constitution. Under article II, section 15, the governor is
empowered to veto bills passed by the legislature and may, by
veto, strike or reduce items in appropriation bills.9 The
legislatures power to override the Governors veto depends on the
type of bill that has been vetoed. Under article II, section 16,
[b]ills to raise revenue and appropriation bills or items,
although vetoed, become law by affirmative vote of three-fourths
of the membership of the legislature. Other vetoed bills become
law by affirmative vote of two-thirds of the membership of the
legislature.10 Accordingly, if S.B. 7 was an appropriation bill,
the legislature failed to override the governors veto; if it was
not an appropriation bill, the affirmative vote of forty-one
members of the legislature was sufficient to enact it into law.
For the reasons that follow, we hold that S.B. 7 was not an
appropriation and that the legislature therefore successfully
overrode the governors veto.
The governor argues that our previous decisions
allowing non-monetary asset transfers to be classified as
appropriations under article XI, section 7 of the Alaska
Constitution should be extended to govern the scope of an
appropriations veto under article II. But these decisions arose
in the context of article XI of the Alaska Constitution, which
grants Alaskas citizens the right to propose and enact laws by
the initiative, and approve or reject acts of the legislature by
the referendum.11 This right is limited, and initiatives and
referenda cannot be used to make or repeal appropriations.12 We
previously held that by the term appropriations, article XI,
section 7 prohibits an initiative whose primary object is to
require the outflow of state assets in the form of land as well
as money.13 More recently, we expanded the non-monetary
definition of appropriations under article XI to include
initiatives prioritizing the right to harvest salmon14 and
designating University of Alaska land for use by the Community
College System of Alaska.15 These decisions struck down non-
monetary asset transfers as unconstitutional appropriations under
article XI, section 7 of the Alaska Constitution.
In the present case, the superior court held that
article II, section 16 of the Alaska Constitution shares article
XI, section 7s broad definition of an appropriation, and that a
bill [that] results in removing or dedicating assets from the
treasury that would otherwise be available to fund state
government is therefore an appropriations bill.16 While it is
appealing to interpret the Alaska Constitution to have a
consistent definition of appropriations throughout the document,
articles II and XI require different interpretations of
appropriations because they serve vastly different purposes.17
Article XI provides citizens with a limited power to enact laws.
The limitations concerning appropriations have two parallel
purposes preventing the dissipation of state resources by
popular vote and vindicating legislative control over the
allocation of state assets. As we stated in City of Fairbanks v.
Fairbanks Convention and Visitors Bureau:
Our prior cases defining appropriation
in the context of article XI, section 7 have
concentrated on the two parallel purposes for
preventing the making of appropriations
through the initiative process. First,
initiatives should not be used to enact give-
away programs, which have an inherent popular
appeal, that would endanger the state
treasury. Thomas v. Bailey, 595 P.2d 1, 7
(Alaska 1979). This is because [i]nitiatives
for the purpose of requiring appropriations
were thought to pose a special danger of
rash, discriminatory, and irresponsible
acts. Id. (quoting V. Fischer, Alaskas
Constitutional Convention 80-81 (1975)). The
second reason for prohibiting appropriations
by initiative is to ensure that the
legislature, and only the legislature,
retains control over the allocation of state
assets among competing needs. McAlpine v.
Univ. of Alaska, 762 P.2d 81, 88 (Alaska
1988).[18]
Accordingly, in cases involving making appropriations by
initiative, we have carried out the framers design to prevent
popular give-away programs and maintain legislative control over
the allocation of state assets by broadly interpreting the scope
of appropriations under article XI of the Alaska Constitution.
In contrast, article IIs definition is not governed by
the overriding goal of preventing initiatives from wasting public
assets or encroaching on protected legislative powers. Instead,
article II, sections 15 and 16 of the Alaska Constitution govern
the balance of power between the legislative and executive
branches of Alaskas government. Because articles II and XI serve
different purposes, we reject the governors argument that the
expansive scope given appropriations in article XI as to the
making of appropriations should be extended to article II. We
determine the scope of appropriations as used in article II by
examining the minutes of the Constitutional Convention and the
Alaska Constitution itself.
We have previously treated article II appropriations
as being limited to monetary appropriations. In Alaska
Legislative Council v. Knowles,19 (Knowles II) we determined the
scope of the governors power to veto individual items in an
appropriations bill under article II, section 15 of the Alaska
Constitution.20 We assumed that items in appropriations bills,
and therefore bills composed of individual items, can only
appropriate monetary assets:
Reducing an item lessens its amount; striking
it lessens its amount to nothing. This
implies that an item must include a sum of
money. Likewise, a passage that does not
include a sum of money dedicated to a
particular purpose is not an item which the
governor can strike or reduce. Therefore, a
veto that does not delete or reduce the
amount of money appropriated is not a valid
exercise of the power article II, section 15
grants.21
Though Knowles II involved the governors veto of language
restricting a monetary appropriation under the item veto power,22
rather than the veto of a non-monetary appropriation under the
general power to veto an entire bill as presented by this case,
its understanding of article II appropriations is instructive.
We now explicitly adopt Knowles IIs exclusively monetary
characterization of article II appropriations items and hold that
the governors appropriations veto applies only to monetary
appropriations.23
This conclusion finds ample support in the minutes of
the Alaska Constitutional Convention, which demonstrate that the
framers of the Alaska Constitution intended the governors
appropriations veto under article II, sections 15 and 16 to apply
only to monetary appropriations. The framers repeatedly referred
to appropriations in monetary terms during the debates over
article II, section 15. Delegate Sundborg understood that the
enhanced, three-fourths veto override requirement would apply to
any bill dealing with taxation or any bill affecting payments of
money under existing statutes or an item or items in the general
appropriations bill.24 Delegate McCutcheon, a member of the
committee that drafted that section, understood the section to
provide that a greater number [of votes were] required to
override the veto on money matters.25 Delegate V. Rivers stated
that this section was a provision in regard to the appropriation
and spending of money which would allow somewhat more power to
lie in the strong executive.26 If the delegates had intended the
governors appropriation veto to encompass non-monetary asset
transfers, we would expect to see in the minutes and the section
proposals some indication of that intention. Instead the minutes
indicate that the delegates never intended the governors article
II appropriations veto power to apply to anything other than
monetary appropriations.
The framers intention to limit the scope of article II
appropriations to money bills is made clear by the entire
constitutional framework, as extending the scope of article II
appropriations to encompass non-monetary asset transfers would
create a host of problems in interpreting other articles of the
Alaska Constitution. For example, if non-monetary asset
transfers were deemed appropriations, application of article II,
section 13 confining bills for appropriations only to
appropriations27 would become problematic. Knowles II adopted a
five-part test for determining whether a bill satisfies that
sections clause confining appropriations bills only to
appropriations, stating that
to satisfy the confinement clause, the
qualifying language must be the minimum
necessary to explain the Legislatures intent
regarding how the money appropriated is to be
spent. It must not administer the program of
expenditures. It must not enact law or amend
existing law. It must not extend beyond the
life of the appropriation. Finally the
language must be germane, that is
appropriate, to an appropriations bill.28
As evidenced by S.B. 7, which governs both the transfer of land
to the university and the management of that land by the
university, the separation of bills concerning appropriations and
substantive law mandated by article II, section 13 of the Alaska
Constitutions confinement clause would be virtually impossible to
maintain if non-monetary asset transfers were considered
appropriations under article II.29 As difficult as it is for the
legislature to maintain the line between making monetary
appropriations and creating substantive law, it would be far more
difficult for the legislature to make non-monetary asset
transfers without straying into substantive law. Adopting an
exclusively monetary concept of appropriations under article II
of the Alaska Constitution comports with the overall
constitutional intent to avoid such confusion.
Article IX of the Alaska Constitution, which governs
finance and taxation, also supports limiting the scope of the
governors article II, section 15 appropriations veto power to
monetary bills. Article IX requires the governor to submit a
budget to the legislature at a fixed time each year; the budget
must set[] forth all proposed expenditures and anticipated
income.30 At the same time, the governor must submit a general
appropriation bill to authorize the proposed expenditures.31 This
strictly monetary concept of appropriations suggested by article
IX, section 12 of the Alaska Constitution is instructive in this
case. If non-monetary asset transfers were deemed to be
appropriations, article IX, section 12 would presumably require
such asset transfers to be included in the several appropriation
bills submitted by the governor.
Additionally, viewing non-monetary land transfers as
appropriations would not comport with article IX, section 16 of
the Alaska Constitution,32 which establishes a $2.5 billion limit
on annual legislative appropriations (adjusted for inflation).
Treating non-monetary asset transfers as appropriations is not
only inconsistent with the language of article IX, section 16,
but it poses the further problem of how to calculate the value of
such asset transfers to ensure that they fall within the
appropriations limits imposed by the Alaska Constitution. In
expressing the limit in dollars, article IX, section 16 reflects
a constitutional structure that treats appropriations as dealing
exclusively with money transfers. Because article IX does not
include non-monetary asset transfers within the scope of
appropriations, it provides further proof that non-monetary asset
transfers are not subject to the governors appropriations veto
under article II of the Alaska Constitution.
That the governors appropriations veto under article II
is limited to money bills is also suggested by article VIII,
which grants broad powers over land to the legislature. A number
of sections of article VIII grant the legislature a land-disposal
power that is not consistent with the enhanced appropriations
veto power claimed by the governor. Article VIII, section 2
establishes the legislatures general power to manage and control
Alaskas land, stating that [t]he legislature shall provide for
the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural
resources belonging to the State, including land and waters, for
the maximum benefit of its people.33 Section 9 establishes the
legislatures power to provide for the sale or grant of state
lands, or interests therein, and establish sales procedures.34
Section 12 provides that the legislature can transfer non-
monetary state assets by law through the creation of mineral
leases and permits.35 These sections of article VIII establish
the legislatures power to dispose of and manage state land and
the minerals contained within that land. The existence of this
power is inconsistent with the governors argument that the
disposal of state lands is subject to the enhanced veto reserved
for appropriations. Article VIII in its entirety suggests that
the framers intended to provide the legislature with control over
state lands subject only to the governors less restrictive, non-
appropriations veto.
Because the minutes of the Constitutional Convention
and articles VIII and IX of the Alaska Constitution mandate an
exclusively monetary concept of appropriations, we hold that
only monetary asset transfers constitute appropriations under
article II of the Alaska Constitution. Therefore, S.B. 7s
transfer of land to the university is not subject to the
governors enhanced appropriations veto.
B. Senate Bill 7s Provisions Concerning the Income from
Transferred Land Do Not Provide the University with a
Sufficiently Definite Sum of Money To Constitute an
Appropriation.
The legislative council argues that the superior court
erred in holding that the portions of S.B. 7 governing income
produced by the transferred lands make S.B. 7 an appropriations
bill. It contends that S.B. 7 does not contain any of the
elements necessary to qualify as an appropriation under articles
II and IX of the Alaska Constitution. The legislative council
proposes that an appropriation is defined by three essential
elements and argues that S.B. 7 meets none of them: It does not
authorize a government expenditure, it does not sufficiently
state a purpose for the alleged expenditure, and it does not set
aside a certain sum of money. The governor responds that S.B. 7
must be considered an appropriation because it restricts the
income derived from the transferred land to the university.36
Because we agree with the legislative council that appropriations
must set aside a certain sum of money and that S.B. 7 does not
specifically appropriate a certain sum of money to the
university, we do not consider the other two prongs of this
proposed test.
We have previously defined an appropriation as the
setting aside from the public revenue of a certain sum of money
for a specified object, in such manner that the executive
officers of the government are authorized to use that money, and
no more, for that object, and no other. 37 Subsequently, in
Knowles II we defined an item in an appropriations bill as a sum
of money dedicated to a particular purpose. 38 While neither of
the above cases specifically dealt with the sum certain
requirement, they both recognized that an act must authorize the
expenditure of an ascertainable sum of money in order to qualify
as an appropriation. The governors item and general
appropriation vetoes apply to items and bills that provide state
officials with enough of a description to ascertain the transfer
of a specific amount of money at a specific point in time.39 In
this case, the income that S.B. 7 seeks to provide for the
university is so uncertain, due to its dependance on the
universitys selection and management of the land, that it may
never materialize or it may take many years to do so. Because
the provisions of S.B. 7 concerning income derived from
transferred lands are so indefinite, we hold that those portions
of S.B. 7 are not appropriations subject to the governors
enhanced appropriations veto.
C. We Decline To Address Whether S.B. 7 Is an Unconstitutional
Dedication Under Article IX, Section 7 of the Alaska
Constitution.
A. The legislative council argues that the superior court
determined that S.B. 7 was an unconstitutional dedication under
article IX, section 7 of the Alaska Constitution.40 While there
is language in the superior courts decision that might be
interpreted to address S.B. 7s constitutionality,41 the superior
court explicitly declined to address whether S.B. 7 was an
unconstitutional dedication because the parties only contested
whether S.B. 7 was an appropriation subject to the governors
enhanced veto. The conservation amici now argue that we should
bear in mind the Dedicated Funds Clause and the important
policies underlying it. They also claim that they should be
allowed to renew their motion to intervene upon remand to
represent the position that S.B. 7 is an unconstitutional
dedication. We agree.
We decline to address the question of whether S.B. 7
violates the constitutional prohibition on dedications because
the matter was not fully litigated below. The superior court
correctly declined to decide the dedication issue because the
only question before the court was whether S.B. 7 is an
appropriations bill. Because that is the only question presented
by this appeal, we decline to address the dedication issue.42
V. CONCLUSION
Because we hold that S.B. 7 was not an appropriation,
we REVERSE the superior courts decision holding that the
governors enhanced appropriations veto applies to S.B. 7. We
REMAND for consideration of the issue whether S.B. 7 is an
unconstitutional dedication.43
_______________________________
1 Under Committee Substitute for Senate Bill (C.S.S.B.)
7, 21st Leg. 2nd Sess. (2000), AS 14.40 is amended by adding AS
14.40.365, which reads in relevant part:
University land from Statehood Act land
selection conveyances.
(a) The University of Alaska may select and
is entitled to receive the conveyance of not
less than 250,000 and not more than 260,000
acres of land conveyed to the state under
Sec. 6(b) of the Alaska Statehood Act (P.L.
85-508, 72 Stat. 339). The Board of Regents
of the University of Alaska shall
periodically submit a list of selections to
the commissioner of natural resources and, if
the list of selections contains land within
the boundaries of a municipality, the Board
of Regents of the University of Alaska shall
submit the list to the municipality. The
Board of Regents and the commissioner of
natural resources shall periodically and
jointly submit to the legislature, within 30
days of the beginning of a regular
legislative session, a list of the selections
of land proposed to be conveyed by the state
to the University of Alaska under this
section. If the list submitted to the
legislature contains land within the
boundaries of a municipality, the Board of
Regents and the commissioner of natural
resources shall provide a copy of the list to
the municipality. Each list must contain not
more than 25 percent of the total acres of
land to which the university is entitled
after subtracting previous conveyances under
this section, but not less than 25,000 acres
or the remaining entitlement under the
section, whichever is less. A list of
selections submitted shall be considered
approved for conveyance to the University of
Alaska unless the legislature acts to
disapprove the list during the legislative
session during which the list was submitted.
If the amount of land to be conveyed exceeds
the balance due the university under this
section, the university shall set out the
land to be conveyed in priority order.
2 C.S.S.B. 7 amends AS 14.40.170(a) to read in relevant
part (underlined text is new):
(a) The Board of Regents shall
. . .
(4) have the care, control, and
management of
(A) all the real and personal
property of the university; and
(B) land
(i) conveyed to the Board of
Regents by the commissioner of natural
resources in the settlement of the claim of
the University of Alaska to land granted to
the state in accordance with the Act of March
4, 1915 (38 Stat. 1214), as amended, and in
accordance with the Act of January 21, 1929
(45 Stat. 1091), as amended; and
(ii) selected by the
University of Alaska and
conveyed to it by the
commissioner of natural
resources under AS
14.40.365;
3 C.S.S.B. 7 amends AS 14.40.291 to read (underlined text
is new; bracketed text is deleted):
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, university-grant land, state
replacement land that becomes university-
grant land on conveyance to the university,
land selected by and conveyed to the
University of Alaska under AS 14.40.365, and
any other land owned by the University of
Alaska is not and may not be treated as state
public domain land. Land conveyed to the
University of Alaska under AS 14.40.365 shall
be managed under AS 14.40.365 - 14.40.368 and
policies of the Board of Regents of the
University of Alaska.
(b) Title to or interest in [TO] land
described in (a) of this section may not be
acquired by adverse possession, prescription,
or in any other manner except by conveyance
from the university. (c) The land
described in (a) of this section is subject
to condemnation for public purpose in
accordance with law.
4 C.S.S.B. 7 amends AS 14.40.400(a) to read (underlined
text is new; bracketed text is deleted):
(a) The Board of Regents shall establish
a separate endowment trust fund in which
shall be held in trust in perpetuity all
(1) [ALL] net income derived from
the sale or lease of the land granted under
the Act of Congress approved January 21,
1929, as amended; [AND]
(2) net income derived from the
sale, lease, or management of the land
selected by and conveyed to the University of
Alaska under AS 14.40.365; and
(3) [All] monetary gifts, bequests,
or endowments made to the University of
Alaska for the purpose of the fund.
5 The Alaska Center for the Environment, the Northern
Alaska Environmental Center, and the Southeast Alaska
Conservation Council are collectively referred to as the
conservation amici.
6 Conservation amici seek to intervene if we decide this
case on the basis of the constitutional prohibition against
dedicated funds. If we decline to reach that issue but determine
that S.B. 7 is not an appropriations bill, the conservation amici
ask that the case be remanded so that they may renew their motion
to intervene.
7 State v. Malloy, 46 P.3d 949, 951 (Alaska 2002).
8 Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281, 1284 n.6 (Alaska 1979).
9 Alaska Const. art. II, 15.
10 Alaska Const. art. II, 16.
11 Alaska Const. art. XI, 1.
12 Alaska Const. art. XI, 7.
13 Thomas v. Bailey, 595 P.2d 1, 7 (Alaska 1979) (ballot
initiative granting state land to certain Alaska residents was an
unconstitutional appropriation by initiative).
14 Pullen v. Ulmer, 923 P.2d 54, 59 (Alaska 1996).
15 McAlpine v. University of Alaska, 762 P.2d 81, 87-89
(Alaska 1988).
16 Legislative Council v. Knowles, No. 1JU-00-1237 CI
(Alaska Super., August 17, 2001).
17 We have held that even within the context of article
XI, section 7, the word appropriations may have different
meanings depending on whether the challenged initiative seeks to
make an appropriation or repeal one. City of Fairbanks v.
Fairbanks Convention and Visitors Bureau, 818 P.2d 1153, 1156-57
(Alaska 1991). A broad construction is used to prevent the
enactment by initiative of state asset give-away programs. Id.
at 1156. But as this reason does not apply when an initiative
merely seeks to repeal an appropriation, a narrow construction is
used in repeal cases. In repeal cases the term appropriations is
construed to refer only to annual spending decisions. Id. at
1157.
18 818 P.2d 1153, 1156 (Alaska 1991).
19 21 P.3d 367 (Alaska 2001).
20 In addition to providing the governor with the power to
veto entire bills, the issue presented by this case, Alaska
Constitution article II, 15 also grants the governor the power
to veto, strike, or reduce items in appropriations bills.
21 Knowles II, 21 P.3d at 373.
22 Id. at 370-71.
23 We gave a similarly narrow construction to the use of
the term appropriations in article XI, section 7 with respect to
the prohibition on repealing appropriations by initiative in City
of Fairbanks v. Fairbanks Convention and Visitors Bureau, 818
P.2d 1153, 1157 (Alaska 1991).
24 3 Proceedings of the Alaska Constitutional Convention
(PACC) 1739 (January 11, 1956).
25 Id. at 1740.
26 Id. at 1741.
27 Alaska Const. art. II, 13 provides in relevant part
that [e]very bill shall be confined to one subject unless it is
an appropriation bill or one codifying, revising, or rearranging
existing laws. Bills for appropriations shall be confined to
appropriations.
28 Knowles II, 21 P.3d at 377 (quoting No. 1JU-80-1163 CI
(Alaska Super., May 25, 1983)).
29 C.S.S.B. 7.
30 Alaska Const. art IX, 12.
31 Alaska Const. art. IX, 12 provides:
The governor shall submit to the legislature,
at a time fixed by law, a budget for the next
fiscal year setting forth all proposed
expenditures and anticipated income of all
departments, offices, and agencies of the
State. The governor, at the same time, shall
submit a general appropriation bill to
authorize the proposed expenditures, and a
bill or bills covering recommendations in the
budget for new or additional revenues.
32 Alaska Const. art. IX, 16 provides in relevant part
that:
Except for appropriations for Alaska
permanent fund dividends, appropriations of
revenue bond proceeds, appropriations
required to pay the principal and interest on
general obligation bonds, and appropriations
of money received from a non-State source in
trust for a specific purpose, including
revenues of a public enterprise or public
corporation of the State that issues revenue
bonds, appropriations from the treasury made
for a fiscal year shall not exceed
$2,500,000,000 by more than the cumulative
change, derived from federal indices as
prescribed by law, in population and
inflation since July 1, 1981.
33 Alaska Const. art. VIII, 2.
34 Alaska Const. art. VIII, 9.
35 Alaska Const. art. VIII, 12 provides, in relevant part:
Leases and permits giving the exclusive
right of exploration for these minerals for
specific periods and areas . . . may be
authorized by law.
36 C.S.S.B. 7 amends AS 14.40.400(a) to read (underlined
text is new):
The Board of Regents shall establish a
separate endowment trust fund in which shall
be held in trust in perpetuity all
. . . .
(2) net income derived from the sale,
lease, or management of the land selected by
and conveyed to the University of Alaska
under AS 14.40.365[.] . . .
37 Thomas v. Rosen, 569 P.2d 793, 796 (Alaska 1977)
(quoting State ex rel. Finnegan v. Dammann, 264 N.W. 622, 624
(Wis. 1936)).
38 21 P.3d at 373.
39 The requirement that the legislature sufficiently
describe monetary asset transfers exists so that the legislature
cannot purposefully fail to include a sum certain in order to
avoid the governors appropriations veto. But the degree of
specificity required is only that necessary to allow
identification of the monies involved. For example, we have
previously treated as an appropriation a bill containing language
stating that an amount equal to the unexpended and unobligated
balance on June 30, 1997, of the fiscal year 1997 general fund
receipts from the salmon marketing tax (AS 43.76.110), from the
seafood marketing assessment (AS 16.51.120), and from the fishery
resource landing tax (AS 43.77.011) is appropriated from the
general fund to the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute. Id. at
386, app. A.
40 Alaska Const. art. IX, 7 states: The proceeds of any
state tax or license shall not be dedicated to any special
purpose, except as provided in section 15 of this article or when
required by the federal government for state participation in
federal programs. This provision shall not prohibit the
continuance of any dedication for special purposes existing upon
the date of ratification of this section by the people of Alaska.
41 The superior court stated that S.B. 7 is not . . . a
simple land transfer bill. Rather, the bill explicitly removes
land from the public domain and dedicates income from that land
exclusively to the University in perpetuity. It further stated
that Senate Bill 7 results in a sum of money, income from the
land grant, being dedicated to a particular purpose, funding for
the University[.] Legislative Council v. Knowles, No. 1JU-00-
1237 CI (Alaska Super., August 17, 2001).
42 Earth Movers of Fairbanks, Inc. v. State, Dept of
Transp. and Pub. Facilities, 824 P.2d 715, 718 (Alaska 1992).
43 On remand, the superior court should first rule on the
motion of the conservation amici to intervene.
