WORKING PAPERS

In legislative limbo -- 
Significance of 'working papers' still murky 

The governor believed he had the authority to veto them. Many
legislators say they're merely intended to provide insight and
detail to their spending decisions. Some legislative staff say
their importance is overemphasized, and others aren't really sure
what they are or even where they're kept.

"They" are legislative working papers. In the broadest sense,
they are exactly what their name implies: documents used during
committee meetings and conference negotiations to assist
lawmakers in fashioning spending bills. They usually resemble
accounting ledgers or computer spreadsheets, and detail where
appropriated money is supposed to go. 

The increased use of working papers has led to verbal sparring
over their significance. This week, Rep. Ron Abrams
(IR-Minnetonka) argued that working documents from each of the
five appropriations divisions should be included as part of the
omnibus appropriations package before the House.

Given the sheer size of the 1992 spending bill (well over 300
pages), Abrams said adding the working papers would not make the
bill more unwieldy. Abrams hinted that by keeping the working
papers separate from the bill, DFLers in control of the House
were trying to protect favored programs from possible line-item
vetoes by Gov. Arne Carlson, an Independent-Republican.

In recent years, spending bills have become more explicit in how
funding is allocated to -- and within -- various state programs.
But even the most detailed bill likely will not include
instructions on how much a particular state agency should spend
on paper clips, nor at what level the state should help
underwrite the cost of hosting a Superbowl, for example.

"In using them, we're spelling out exactly what the committee
intends," said Vic Thorstenson, an administrative aide for the
House Appropriations Committee's Health and Human Services
Division. "The spreadsheets provide more clarity."

For example, the 1991 transportation and semi-states spending
bill listed only the total appropriation that was allocated to
Minnesota Technology Inc. (formerly the Greater Minnesota
Corporation). But it also included instructions that Minnesota
Technology Inc. spend its funding "in accordance with the working
papers of the appropriate Senate and House of Representatives
standing committees, a true copy of which is on file with the
Secretary of State."

Not all appropriations bills, however, contain a "working papers"
clause. Lawmakers never have adopted any uniform guidelines for
their spending bills; how the legislation is developed and the
language they use is largely left to the discretion of its
authors.

Other funding divisions, such as the higher education panels in
the Senate and House, instead choose to list the component
allocations for a particular agency or program, which in turn,
are totaled to determine the overall appropriation.

Internal rules for both the House and Senate do not set a minimum
level of detail necessary to be included in appropriations bills.
Nor do the rules even specify a centralized place to keep working
papers.

Some are on file in the Secretary of State's Office, but usually
only in those cases where the law specifically states that they
be kept there. In many cases, the papers remain with the
administrator of the appropriations division that crafted the
bill. 

The ambiguity in using legislative working papers as a tool in
the state funding process has led to some recent legal challenges
in Minnesota, as well as in other states.

Gov. Arne Carlson last June tried to strike about $30.5 million
in funding for the state university, community college, and
technical college systems from the higher education omnibus bill.
The allocations he tried to line-item veto, however, were not
specifically spelled out in the bill. Instead, they were listed
in the "working papers."

Carlson accused lawmakers of "hiding" the appropriations in the
working papers in order to escape his line-item veto. The vetoes
were challenged by faculty and students in the three systems, and
eventually overturned.

The court ruled, in part, that because the state Constitution
limits the governor's veto authority to spending items
specifically listed in a bill, he didn't have the authority to
veto provisions that could only be found in the working papers.

". . . These documents [working papers] have not been enacted
into law or incorporated by reference into the bill itself and we
decline to study them or attach any more significance to them
 . . .," stated the Minnesota Supreme Court in Inter Faculty
Organization v. Carlson. "In our view, while the specific sums
may well be ascertainable by reference to unrecorded documents,
they are not identifiable from examination of the bill itself."

Rep. Wayne Simoneau (DFL-Fridley), chair of the House
Appropriations Committee, admits spending bills last year were
structured "to make it as difficult as possible" for Carlson to
veto, but said no deception was used by sneaking controversial
spending items into the working papers. 

The Minnesota case, in some respects, mirrors a 1989 Florida
decision which overturned the governor's attempt to cross out a
number of appropriations included in the Legislature's "intent
documents." 

In that case, the Florida Supreme Court nixed the vetoes, but
also held that since "those documents have not been entered into
law . . . [they] cannot have the force of law. . . . Although
persuasive, the statement of intent and working papers are
directory, not mandatory."

Although the Minnesota Supreme Court hinted that working papers
have little significance, it did not rule specifically on their
legal status, said Joel Michael, coordinator of legal services
for the House. The court, he said, limited itself to the spending
contained in that bill and did not make a broader statement on
the validity of all working papers.

"There's still not a lot of case law on this," Michael said,
noting it could be a subject the courts revisit in the future. 

--Dave Price



Originally printed in 1993 in Session Weekly, a weekly
newsmagazine published by the Minnesota House Public Information
Office.

***Last Update 8/5/94 (jtt) Last Review 8/5/94 (jtt) ***