Michigan House Bill HB4877

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/28/23
• Refer: 6/28/23

Caption

Appropriations: grants and transfers; state administrative board limitations; modify. Amends sec. 3 of 1921 PA 2 (MCL 17.3).

Impact

If enacted, the bill would notably restrict the ability of the state administrative board to transfer funds to the general fund or to utilize allocations for purposes not designated by the legislature. Furthermore, any inter-transfer of funds for a particular department must adhere to specific requirements that include approvals from appropriations committees and strictly defined limits on budget renegotiations. By enforcing these stipulations, the bill aims at reducing misuse of appropriated funds and safeguarding legislative intent, which could help foster greater accountability and transparency in state finances.

Summary

House Bill 4877 proposes amendments to the 1921 Public Act 2, which focuses on enhancing the efficiency of state government operations by delineating the powers of the state administrative board. The bill aims to modify specific sections that govern how the state administrative board manages appropriations and funds across different state departments and institutions. The significance of this bill lies in its attempts to empower the board with a more structured framework for fund allocation and transfer, while simultaneously imposing limitations on its authority regarding the use of funds appropriated by the legislature. This balance seeks to enhance overall government efficiency while retaining legislative oversight over monetary appropriations.

Contention

Discussions surrounding HB 4877 highlight concerns regarding the balance of power between the legislative and administrative branches of state government. Proponents argue that the bill will streamline processes and enhance the efficiency of state fund management, thereby serving as a necessary update to outdated statutes. Critics may raise issues about potential overreach of the state administrative board, fearing that increasing its supervisory control could undermine checks and balances intended by the legislative framework. These debates illustrate the complexities and tensions inherent in state governance, especially concerning budgetary control and administrative autonomy.