COM 0945.000 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Richard D. wurdsman, Esq. David B. Arakawa, 8aq. J. P. Schmidt, Esq. August 4, 1998 page 9 The salaries for employees in the various bargaining units were appropriated for two years during the 1997 legislative session. This biennium budget remains in affect throu the current fiscal year. Additional funding for the negot ated pay increases was sought through various communications from the Governor to the Legislature. Since the Legislature failed to act on these requested increases, it is clear that the Legislature did not appropriate funds for these cost items. To argue otherwise disregards S 89-10(b), IRS, whichapecifically requires legislative action to fund cost items. As to any jurisdiction being free to commence paying their employees the salary increases, this would violate both the express language of 4 89-10(b), HRS, and the spirit of Chapter 76, HRS. In the informal Attorney General opinion dated April 12, 1979, the Attorney General determined that when Section e9- 10(b), HRS, is read together with section 89-19(c), HRa, the Legislative intent is clear that the State Legislature and the county legislative bodies are required to 'act in concert", meaning some common plan. The common plan is that all Legislative bodies should act in common on cost items at the time they act on the operating budgets of the employees. Each legislative body may apppprove or re Oct the cost items submitted to it and if a legislative body reacts a cost item, all coat items are returned to the parties for further bargaining. As we noted in the legislative history, the purpose of Statewide negotiations was to allow the legislative bodies to make their appropriations in context. Senate Stad. Comm. Rep. 745-70 states% Each legislative body, who has a responsibility to properly allocate public funds entrusted to it, may approve or reject the cost items submitted to it. Here, again, the importance of having atatewid* negotiating enables the respective legislative bodies to appropriate funds in the proper perspective with other competing demands. It is difficult to imagine how a legislative body could properly allocate funds when there are numerous requests, each requiring separate consideration, for appropriations to implement collective bargaining agreements. Even with. negotiations on a statewide level, it is difficult to allocate funds properly when requests for appropriations are submitted at varying intervals throughout the year; thus, public employers and 08/04/98 17:23 TX/RX N0.8856 P.010