« Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides one Indiana case today | Main | Ind. Decisions - "Social Networking Information Is Discoverable" »

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Ind. Gov't. - "Speaker regrets giving governor budget powers " ILB is confused

Dan Carden reports today in the NWI Times that House Speaker Pat Bauer is having regrets:

Call it a case of buyer's regret.

Nearly one year after giving Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels the authority to manage Indiana's spending while the General Assembly is not in session, House Speaker Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, said Tuesday he now wishes the legislature was in charge of deciding what to cut.

"We have given him that authority, and we should take some of it away, only because I think the legislature will have things more open to the public with hearings and questions," Bauer said.

Bauer and state Rep. William Crawford, D-Indianapolis, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, have both called on Daniels to do a better job explaining what he has cut from the state budget.

Daniels has ordered more than $600 million in budget cuts to schools and state agencies due to lower than expected state tax revenue. The 2009-11 state budget gives the governor the authority to unilaterally make cuts to keep the state budget balanced if revenue lags.

"Right now we're just trying to encourage them to respect the equalness of our branch," Bauer said. "The executive branch is not the dictator of the state."

If the legislature was in charge of administering the budget there would be testimony and debates in the House and Senate before any potential cuts, and it would be a more open process, Bauer said.

I'm puzzled. I've looked at the 2009 budget bill, along with its predecessors. I don't see any new powers granted to the governor.

Right after the 2009 special session I posted this entry, headed "What's in the Senate budget?" I pointed to this longstanding authorization granted the governor to elect to not allocate appropriations:

SECTION 30. [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2009] Subject to SECTION 25 of this act as it relates to the budget committee, the budget agency with the approval of the governor may withhold allotments of any or all appropriations contained in this act for the 2009-2011 biennium, if it is considered necessary to do so in order to prevent a deficit financial situation.
I noted that:
Nothing is written in stone -- an appropriation may be augmented, or the allotment of an appropriation may be withheld, at the determination of "the Governor and the Budget Agency," sometimes with the "advisory recommendation" of the state budget committee.
What does SECTION 25 say?
When budget agency approval or review is required under this act, the budget agency
may refer to the budget committee any budgetary or fiscal matter for an advisory
recommendation. The budget committee may hold hearings and take any actions authorized
by IC 4-12-1-11, and may make an advisory recommendation to the budget agency.
Here is the thing. I've looked back at the language of biennial budgets for the last 10 years. They all contain the exact-same boilerplate language on withholding allotment of appropriations, including the reference that the budget agency (which is responsible to the governor) may refer matters to the budget committee (which is made up of legislators) to hold hearings and make advisory recommendations.

So I am confused about what has changed this year, if it is not the law? Was there some unwritten agreement that the governor/budget agency would no longer involve the legislative budget committee in the decisionmaking?

The answer. Here is the answer I've gotten after asking around.

Before when cuts were made, they seemed to be one of two kinds: (1) unilateral cuts/rescissions of X% ordered by a governor that were effectively transparent, because all agencies would simply be cut; or (2) cuts made on a case-by-case basis in concjunction with the budget committee, i.e, with legislative participation or acquiescence.

What appears different here is that the legislative leaders considered reopening the budget during the past (2010 non-budget) session to make the cuts, but deferred to the Governor instead. According to what we are hearing now, they did so (or at least Demo leaders did so) believing that they would be "consulted" about, or at least informed as to where the specific cuts would be. But, as today's story indicates, that has not been the case.

So, if all this is right, "giving the governor the authority" was an oral agreement, not a law change. And whether the authorization was oral or part of the budget bill, the issues presented somewhat parallel those in the Minnesota case discussed in this May 16, 2010 ILB entry.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 26, 2010 01:50 PM
Posted to Indiana Government