Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2008 | 2 a.m.
Audio Clip
- Sen. Bob Coffin on his letter to Sen. Townsend
-
Audio Clip
- Sen. Bob Coffin on his frustration
-
Sun Archive
- Snip, snip and still short (12-08-07)
Steamed at Gov. Jim Gibbons for slicing $283.6 million from the state budget without consulting them, ranking Democrats in the Legislature intend to do something about it -- now and in 2009.
Sen. Bob Coffin of Las Vegas, the Senate’s senior Democrat, is pushing for the Legislature to sue to overturn the Republican governor’s decision and force a special legislative session.
Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, complained that lawmakers and the public had “virtually no opportunity” to voice their opinions about the reductions. “Significant cuts should include the Legislature. That’s our duty,” she said.
Democrats lament that the Legislature, through the years, has yielded its power to the executive branch. And now lawmakers want to take it back, arguing they are more accessible to the public than the governor is.
“What has happened is the Legislature has given away its authority ... what little bit it has,” said Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas.
“It’s a mistake we made over the years. Anybody can call me up, but they can’t get hold of the governor.”
Similarly, Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, said the Legislature “needs to have more input.”
“We’re the people’s representatives,” she said.
In a letter to the Legislative Commission, which tends to the business of the Legislature between sessions, Coffin asked the panel to file suit to void Gibbons’ cuts and force a special session of the Legislature.
Under state law, only the governor can call a special session. With Gibbons unlikely to do so, legislators’ only option is to legally force the governor’s hand.
“I want it to exert its rights or it’s nothing but a debating society,” Coffin said, referring to the Legislative Commission.
Sen. Randolph Townsend, R-Reno, the chairman of the commission, said he will distribute the letter to its members at their Jan. 30 meeting. But he added: “I don’t like going around suing people.”
The issues raised by the legislators, Townsend said, should be dealt with in the 2009 Legislature. “The process should be taken at the legislative level, not in the courts,” he said.
Townsend said a 1993 law governing wholesale cuts in government “is working the way we set it up.” But he said the commission would listen to Coffin before deciding what to do.
After Gov. Bob Miller cut budgets without consulting lawmakers, the 1993 Legislature adopted the measure, which specified that if the state’s reserve fund fell below $35 million, the governor would be required to gain approval for budget cuts from the Legislative Interim Finance Committee, which handles monetary matters between sessions of the Legislature.
The $35 million level has been increased over the years and now stands at $80 million.
In making a 4.5 percent budget cut, Gibbons said that even after that reduction -- achieved by trimming individual agencies’ budgets and drawing $200 million out of the state’s $276 million “rainy day fund” -- $130 million will remain in Nevada’s reserve fund, well above the level at which legislative approval is necessary. As a result, Finance Committee members will be briefed Jan. 24 but won’t have approval authority.
Leslie, though, believes the Legislature should have a voice in the decision.
“There’s a present loophole that allows the executive to manipulate the reserves,” she said. “We need to stop the game playing.”
The governor and the budget director, Leslie said, can direct agencies to limit spending before budget cuts so the cash reserve is artificially high, sidestepping the Legislature’s authority.
She plans to suggest to the 2009 session that the Legislative Interim Finance Committee determine the amount of the reserve. Another alternative would be to put the Finance Committee in charge of budget cuts.
Buckley said the Legislature could come up with a model for dealing with declining tax revenues. “There could be a quick hearing and a quick review” to avoid gridlock, she said.
If emergency action were required, the law could give the governor the power to respond quickly, she said.
Coffin said the current law determining when the Legislature is brought into the budget picture “is poorly drafted and you could drive a truck through it.”
“It’s been a shock to see how we ceded so much control to the executive,” said Coffin, who was elected in 1982. “This is an attempt to bring us back in the game.”
Sen. Coffin's letter to Sen. Gibbons
Senator Bob Coffin
1139 5th Place
Las Vegas, Nevada 89104
January 21, 2008
Senator Randolph Townsend, Chairman, Legislative Commission Nevada Legislature Carson City, Nevada 89701
Dear Senator Townsend:
The Legislative Commission is empowered to act on behalf of the Legislature during the periods when the Legislature is not in session. I am writing to alert you that the powers of the Legislature are being threatened by Governor Gibbons' actions to change the budget as passed by the 2007 Legislature and signed by the Governor.
The Governor has selectively told state agencies to not hire people to fill legislatively authorized positions, and, in the media over the last three months, he has talked of plans to reduce spending in anticipation of reduced revenues. On Friday, January 11, he finally released, only to the media, more specific details of his intended budget changes.
He has done this without official notice to the Legislature despite statutory requirements to keep the Legislature informed and involved. He has not sent even a courtesy copy of his intentions to the Fiscal staff of our body and they have had to rely on the public media for that.
The 2007 Legislature passed Assembly Bill 628, the Appropriation Act. In that bill was Section 67, a provision which allows the Governor, on behalf of the State Board of Examiners, to submit budget reduction proposals to the Interim Finance Committee for approval if the ending fund balance is to drop below eighty million dollars. We have not received any information from the State Treasurer or the State Controller that the ending fund balance is now at or about to be below eighty million dollars and yet the Governor persists in making public announcements about his intention to stop spending appropriated dollars.
Here is the section from that bill:
Sec. 67. 1. If projections of the ending balance of the State General Fund fall below the amount estimated by the 2007 Legislature for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 or 2008-2009, the Director of the Department of Administration shall report this information to the State Board of Examiners. 2. If the State Board of Examiners determines that the ending balance of the State General Fund is projected to be less than $80,000,000 for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 or 2008-2009, the Governor, pursuant to NRS 353.225, may direct the Director of the Department of Administration to require the State Controller or the head of each department, institution or agency to set aside a reserve of not more than 15 percent of the total amount of operating expenses or other appropriations and money otherwise available to the department, institution or agency. 3. A reserve must not be set aside pursuant to this section unless: (a) The Governor, on behalf of the State Board of Examiners, submits a report to the Legislature or, if the Legislature is not in session, to the Interim Finance Committee, stating the reasons why a reserve is needed and indicating each department, institution or agency that will be required to set aside a reserve; and (b) The Legislature or Interim Finance Committee approves the setting aside of the reserve.
Mr. Chairman, I am not a lawyer but I can read English as well as any other person. The Law says what it says.
The eighty million dollar balance is an important number because it is considered to be the safety margin for our state to maintain its liquidity much as an individual needs to maintain a certain minimum balance in his checking account.
There are other press accounts which are as disturbing as the Governor's delay in releasing specific budget reduction figures to the Legislature. A rumor persists that the Governor feels that he will never need to bring his proposals to the Legislature because he will order the budget cuts in such a fashion that the savings will always keep the ending funding balance above eighty million dollars to avoid triggering Section 67.
Certainly, if the economic downturn continues much longer that time will come, but, delay by the Governor in bringing his plans to the Board of Examiners and the Interim Finance Committee have already exacerbated problems caused by hasty and ill-thought-out reduction measures.
In his recent release of plans to reduce the budget spending the Governor plans to close the state prison at Jean when we are experiencing a strong increase in crime in Clark County. Burglars broke three windows at my residence last week in a failed attempt to enter and I am just one of hundreds of citizens who are feeling the crime wave reported in the media.
I believe that the Legislative Commission needs to serve notice on the Governor that it will seek appropriate legal remedies if the Governor follows through with his announced determination to unilaterally reduce state budgets in violation of Nevada Law. If our legal counsel feels that it is overburdened with its regular work load the Commission should engage outside counsel to represent the interests of the Legislature.
What are the consequences if we do not stand up to the challenge of the Governor? What if we just let this slide and "let the Governor take all the heat?" as I have been told by one colleague.
Well, I think that if we do not speak out and stop this we may unintentionally ratify what amounts to an unconstitutional line item veto of our budget by the Governor. The Nevada Constitution does not give the Governor that authority, and we cannot allow him to claim that authority by legislative enactment. So, if the Legislature fails to stand up for the Constitution we will have failed in the oath that all sixty-three of us take to defend it.
Secondly, we will have told the public that we, like the Governor, ignore the plain fact that we have saved up three hundred million dollars for this occasion and we are going to let the mentally ill of all ages, senior citizens, and all of our school children suffer the consequence of our indifference. Yes, that is the amount of money in the Rainy Day Fund which we have set aside from the taxes collected and not spent for this purpose and which the Governor has said he will not use because he will not call us into special session this year to authorize its use. Well, he said he would do it in the second month of 2009, too late to help the people who have been hurt.
Why is this last point relevant? Because the Governor knows that if the Legislature does not unite and stand up for its own place in the Constitution then he will see no reason to call us into session to do something he does not want to do.
On Thursday the Interim Finance Committee meets in Carson City. On that agenda, purely as an informational item, is this very issue of the budget reductions. It is not the first time we have paid a courtesy to the Governor for time to reveal his ideas and he has, once again, not gone to the Board of Examiners or officially given us the important data we need to evaluate his proposals.
I am quite sure that he will ignore you and I again, Senator, and put his reductions into place when we leave town. And with that goes the Legislature's last chance to act, unless the Commission decides otherwise and stands up to his challenge.
Respectfully, your colleague,
Senator Bob Coffin
cc--LCB Director Lorne Malkiewich
LCB Legal Counsel Brenda Erdoes
Join the Discussion:
Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.
Full comments policy