When a Maine Governor curtails spending mid-year, does the Legislature have to mirror the cuts by reducing appropriations in a supplemental budget?

Plain-English summary

Senator Jill Goldthwait and Representative Randall Berry asked the AG whether spending reductions ordered by the Governor through allotment curtailments must be reflected in the supplemental budget bill by corresponding cuts to appropriations.

The AG's bottom line: not legally required, but doing so brings several benefits.

The mechanism the question targets is 5 M.R.S.A. § 1668. That statute gives the Governor what the AG called "quasi-legislative" authority to "temporarily curtail allotments" of state agencies in order to bring overall spending in line with available revenues. The constitutional driver is the requirement that Maine's budget be balanced. Allotments are the quarterly spending authorizations the Governor approves for each agency program; cutting them caps agency spending without changing the underlying appropriations.

This creates a structural tension. The appropriations the Legislature passed remain on the books at the original levels. The Governor's curtailment cuts the actual spending below those levels. In that sense, the spending cuts achieved by curtailment "do not become permanent without legislative action because the legislative authorization of the original spending levels remains in place."

By deappropriating the curtailed amounts in a supplemental budget, the Legislature would (1) make the cuts permanent, (2) bring the budget itself into balance, (3) strengthen the state's hand in defending the curtailments against legal challenges and potentially reduce defense costs, and (4) avoid casting doubt on remaining curtailments if any restored programs are added back to the budget without addressing the rest.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: What is an "allotment" in Maine state budgeting?
A: An allotment is the amount each agency expects to spend for each program in each quarter of the fiscal year. The Governor approves allotments, and that approval authorizes the release of funds from the State Treasury. Allotments sit inside the structure of appropriations: the Legislature appropriates a total, and the Governor allots quarterly portions of it.

Q: What does it mean for the Governor to "curtail" allotments?
A: Under 5 M.R.S.A. § 1668, the Governor can temporarily reduce agency program allotments by executive order to bring overall spending closer to available revenues. The reduction caps what an agency can legally spend on a specified program in that fiscal period.

Q: Can the Governor use curtailment to move money from one program to another?
A: No. The curtailment power can only reduce spending within programs. It cannot increase spending anywhere or shift money between programs. Those moves require legislative action.

Q: Why is curtailment "temporary" if it cuts real spending?
A: Because the underlying appropriations remain intact. The Governor cannot permanently lower the appropriated amount; only the Legislature can. So if the Legislature does nothing, the appropriation stays on the books at the original level, and the next budget cycle starts from there.

Q: Why would the Legislature want to deappropriate the curtailed funds even if it doesn't have to?
A: The AG identified four reasons. (1) It makes the cuts permanent. (2) It brings the actual budget into balance, matching legal spending authority to projected spending. (3) It strengthens the legal defense of the curtailments if challenged. (4) If the Legislature restores funds to some curtailed programs in the supplemental budget, leaving other curtailments unaddressed could "cast doubt on the status of the remaining curtailments."

Q: What is the constitutional requirement for a balanced budget?
A: The AG described the spending reductions as "necessitated by the overriding constitutional requirement that the budget be balanced." The curtailment statute exists to give the executive a mid-year tool to satisfy that requirement when revenues fall short of original projections.

Q: Does the Legislature have power to override or modify the curtailments?
A: Yes. The opinion's footnote noted: "the Legislature has the power to take action on the curtailments, such as restoring funds to particular programs, should it choose to do so." The Legislature has the last word on spending levels; the Governor's curtailment is a mid-stream adjustment.

Background and statutory framework

5 M.R.S.A. § 1668 is the heart of Maine's mid-year budget-balancing mechanism. The statute authorizes the Governor to "temporarily curtail allotments" of state agencies when projected revenues will not cover originally authorized spending. The Governor's authority is limited in three important ways: it can only reduce spending, it cannot shift funds between programs, and it operates inside the existing structure of legislative appropriations.

Maine, like most states, runs a two-layer budget process. The Legislature appropriates (sets the maximum that can be spent). The executive allots (releases quarterly portions of the appropriation to agencies). Without an allotment, an agency cannot draw funds even though the appropriation exists. This two-layer structure gives the Governor real cash-flow control even though the Legislature controls the totals.

Curtailment operates on the allotment layer to make spending adjustments without changing appropriations. The Governor issues an executive order reducing the quarterly allotment, and agencies cannot lawfully spend above the curtailed amount. But because the appropriation remains at the original level, the AG explained that the cuts "do not become permanent without legislative action because the legislative authorization of the original spending levels remains in place."

The AG identified the benefits of deappropriating the curtailed funds in a supplemental budget. First, it makes the cuts permanent and brings the budget itself into balance. Second, it improves the state's ability to defend any further legal challenges to the curtailments, and potentially reduces defense costs. Third, the AG noted that if the Legislature restores funding to some curtailed programs, "doubt could be cast on the status of the remaining curtailments if they are not included in the budget." A footnote added that the Legislature has the power to take action on the curtailments, such as restoring funds to particular programs, should it choose to do so.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.maine.gov/legis/lawlib/lldl/agops/agops.htm
• Original PDF: https://lldc.mainelegislature.org/Open/AG/Opinions/2002/ag_20021016.pdf

Original opinion text

STATE OF MAINE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
6 STATE HOUSE STATION
AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0006

October 16, 2002

Senator Jill M. Goldthwait
Maine State Senate
3 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0003

Representative Randall Berry
Maine House of Representatives
2 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0002

Dear Senator Goldthwait and Representative Berry:

This is in response to your request for a letter reflecting the substance of the advice provided by our Office to your committee this morning. The question raised was whether the spending reductions achieved by the allotment curtailments ordered by the Governor must be reflected in the supplemental budget bill by corresponding reductions to appropriations. While not legally required, there are a number of benefits that can be achieved by doing so.

The process of curtailing allotments set out in 5 M.R.S.A. § 1668 gives quasi-legislative authority to the Governor to reduce expenditures by state agencies in order to bring the State's overall spending into closer balance with available revenues. These spending reductions, necessitated by the overriding constitutional requirement that the budget be balanced, are accomplished by an executive order reducing an agency's program allotments. Established within the structure of the appropriations in the state budget, allotments represent the amounts each agency expects to spend for each program in each quarter of the fiscal year, and their approval by the governor serves as authorization for the release of those funds from the State Treasury and hence a limitation on agency spending.

By acting to curtail allotments, the Governor is reducing the amounts agencies can lawfully spend on specified programs. In short, an agency requires both legislative authorization (appropriation) and executive authorization (approved allotments) in order to spend money. The curtailment process cannot be used to increase spending or move money from one program to another. However, spending can be reduced within programs by executive order alone when the terms of the curtailment statute are satisfied without legislation changing the budget. While the curtailment statute provides that "the Governor may temporarily curtail allotments," § 1668 does not require legislative action on the curtailments. Yet in a very real sense, spending cuts achieved by curtailment do not become permanent without legislative action because the legislative authorization of the original spending levels remains in place.

By deappropriating the funds already cut by the Governor's executive order, the Legislature would be making those cuts permanent and at the same time bringing the budget itself into balance. Taking this step would also improve the State's ability to effectively defend any further legal challenges to spending cuts attributable to curtailments, and potentially reduce the costs attributable to defense. Finally, to the extent that the Legislature acts to restore funding to any curtailed programs, doubt could be cast on the status of the remaining curtailments if they are not included in the budget.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Please let me know if we can provide any further assistance.

G. STEVEN ROWE
Attorney General

Footnote: Of course the Legislature has the power to take action on the curtailments, such as restoring funds to particular programs, should it choose to do so.