Brown v. Chiang
| Decision Date | 30 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. C061648.,C061648. |
| Citation | 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13388,11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11307,191 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3137,198 Cal.App.4th 1203,132 Cal.Rptr.3d 48 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., as Governor, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,v.John CHIANG, as State Controller, etc., Defendant and Appellant;Debra Bowen, as Secretary of State, etc., et al. Interveners and Appellants. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Kamala D. Harris, Attorneys General, James M. Humes, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Douglas J. Woods, Zackery P. Morazzini, Mark R. Beckington, Jonathan K. Renner, Stephen P. Acquisto, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant, Appellants and Interveners.K. William Curtis, Warren C. Stracener, Linda A. Mayhew, Will M. Yamada, Sacramento; Kronink, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard, David W. Tyra, Kristianne T. Seargeant and Meredith H. Packer, Sacramento, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.ROBIE, J.
Prompted by California's unprecedented budget deficit, on December 19, 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued an executive order directing the Department of Personnel Administration (department) to implement a mandatory two-day-a-month unpaid furlough of most workers employed in the executive branch (furlough order). Our Supreme Court recently held this order was valid because it was ratified by the Legislature. ( Professional Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger (2010) 50 Cal.4th 989, 116 Cal.Rptr.3d 480, 239 P.3d 1186 ( Professional Engineers ).) However the court left open the question of whether the decision extended to employees of elected constitutional officers. ( Id. at pp. 1005, 1034, fn. 28, 116 Cal.Rptr.3d 480, 239 P.3d 1186.) We conclude it does.
State Controller John Chiang, as well as the Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Attorney General, Superintendent of Public Instruction, and members of the State Board of Equalization (hereafter collectively the officers 1), appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting the Governor's petition for writ of mandate compelling the Controller to exercise his ministerial duty to comply with the furlough order. In a related case brought by several employee organizations, the trial court ruled the Governor had the authority to furlough represented state employees pursuant to Government Code 2 sections 19849 and 19851 and the terms of the employees' memoranda of understanding. Arguing the Governor's furlough order did not apply to the Controller's employees, the Controller refused to implement the order as to those employees. The trial court disagreed and issued the requested writ of mandate directing compliance with the order.
On appeal, the Controller contends the trial court erred in granting the petition for writ of mandate. The Controller asserts he does not have a ministerial duty to implement the furlough order because: (1) it does not apply to the officers' employees; (2) subsequent budget legislation rendered the order moot; and (3) the Governor is estopped from enforcing the order. The Controller further asserts that applying the furlough order to the officers' employees would: (1) violate the state Constitution's system of divided executive authority; (2) usurp the power of the Legislature; and (3) infringe upon the officers' right to control the staffing and management of their respective offices.
In Professional Engineers, the California Supreme Court held the Governor “possessed authority to institute a mandatory furlough of represented state employees, reducing the earnings of such employees, only if specifically granted such unilateral authority in an applicable memorandum of understanding [MOU] entered into between the state and the employee organization representing the affected employees,” but “even if the Governor lacked authority to institute the challenged furlough plan unilaterally,” the Legislature subsequently “validated the Governor's furlough program” by revising the Budget Act of 2008 to “reduc[e] the appropriations for employee compensation contained in the original 2008 Budget Act by an amount that reflected the savings the Governor sought to obtain through the two-day-a-month furlough program.” ( Professional Engineers, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 1000, 116 Cal.Rptr.3d 480, 239 P.3d 1186.) The court noted the present appeal, but did not address whether the Governor possesses the power to furlough the officers' employees, either unilaterally or with the Legislature's consent. ( Id. at pp. 1005, 1034, fn. 28, 1047, 116 Cal.Rptr.3d 480, 239 P.3d 1186.)
For reasons we shall explain, we conclude the Governor's furlough order, which was subsequently approved by the Legislature, applied to the officers' employees, such that the Controller had a ministerial duty to implement the mandatory furlough plan as to these employees. This duty did not cease when the Governor subsequently used the line-item veto to cut the officers' respective budgets because the officers refused to implement the furloughs. Nor do principles of equitable estoppel operate to prevent the Governor from enforcing the furlough order against the officers. Finally, applying the furlough order to the officers does not violate the California Constitution's system of divided executive authority or impermissibly interfere with their statutory right to control the staffing and management of their respective offices. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment issuing a writ of mandate compelling the Controller to comply with the furlough order as to the officers' employees.
BACKGROUND
On November 6, 2008, the Governor issued a proclamation convening the Legislature in a special session to address California's fiscal crisis and unprecedented state budget deficit. The Legislature failed to reach a resolution.
On December 1, 2008, the Governor issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency. Article IV of the California Constitution provides the Governor may declare a fiscal emergency when “the Governor determines that, for that fiscal year, General Fund revenues will decline substantially below the estimate of General Fund revenues upon which the budget bill for that fiscal year, as enacted, was based, or General Fund expenditures will increase substantially above that estimate of General Fund revenues, or both, ...” (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 10(f).) 3 When this occurs, the Governor may call the Legislature into a special session; submit proposed legislation directly to the Legislature; and if the Legislature fails to pass and send bills to the Governor addressing the crisis, it may not act on any other bill nor adjourn for a joint recess until that bill or bills have been passed and sent to the Governor. ( Ibid.)
On December 19, 2008, the Governor issued Executive Order S–16–08 (the furlough order) outlining the worsening fiscal crisis and explaining that: (1) there was an approximately $15 billion General Fund deficit for the 2008–2009 fiscal year, which without effective action was forecast to grow to a $42 billion General Fund budget shortfall over 18 months; (2) on November 6, 2008, the Governor issued a special session proclamation and convened the Legislature to meet in extraordinary session to address the fiscal crisis, but the Legislature failed to enact any bills to address the state's significant economic problems; (3) on December 1, 2008, the Governor declared a fiscal emergency and convened the Legislature to address the crisis; (4) on December 17, 2008, the California Pooled Money Investment Board took unprecedented action to halt lending money for an estimated 2,000 infrastructure projects as a result of the cash crisis, including the substantial risk that California would have insufficient cash to meet its obligations as of February 2009; and (5) the Legislature had failed thus far to effectively address the unprecedented statewide fiscal crisis.
Based on the foregoing, the Governor declared that: (1) immediate and comprehensive action was necessary to prevent the state from missing payroll and other essential services payments; (2) current spending must be reduced to ensure the essential services of the state are not jeopardized and the public health and safety is preserved; and (3) a furlough of state employees will reduce current spending and immediately improve the state's ability to meets its obligations to pay for essential services so as not to jeopardize its residents' health and safety. Accordingly, the Governor, “by virtue of the power and authority vested in [him] by the Constitution and statutes of the State of California, ... determine[d] that an emergency pursuant to Government Code section 3516.5 exists” and issued an order that “the Department of Personnel Administration ... shall adopt a plan to implement a furlough of represented state employees and supervisors for two days per month, regardless of funding source.” The Governor directed a similar furlough for all state managers and exempt employees. He also ordered the department to “work with all State agencies and departments to initiate layoffs and other position reduction and efficiency measures to achieve a reduction in General Fund Payroll of up to ten percent.”
The Legislature remained in session until it passed a budget, which was approved by the Governor. The budget provides in pertinent part: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial