Tirapelle

In this appeal we consider the authority of the State Controller (Controller) to refuse to implement salary reductions established in 1991 by the Department of Personnel Administration for certain employees of the state who are not entitled to engage in collective bargaining under the Ralph C. Dills Act. (Gov. Code, § 3512 et seq., especially § 3524 [unless otherwise specified further section references are to the Government Code].) We hold that the Controller may not refuse to implement the salary reductions in dispute.

I

At the outset of the 1991-1992 fiscal year, the State of California faced what has been called an unprecedented budgetary crisis. The crisis was precipitated by a significant projected revenue to expenditure shortfall. (See Department of Personnel Administration v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 155, 163 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 714 ].) Except in certain narrowly defined circumstances, our state Constitution forbids the state from engaging in deficit spending. (Cal. Const., art. XVI, § l; see § 13337.5.)

In the Budget Act of 1991, the Legislature and the Governor attempted to deal with the shortfall in a number of ways. One of those ways is found in…