Malloy’s Extraordinary Executive Authority: 5% to 10% to $700 Million with no Limit by Account

Aug 15

jonpeltoDemocratic Legislators, Malloy, State Budget Democratic Legislature, Malloy, State Budget 22 Comments

When it comes to the power of government, this may be the single most important story since Governor Malloy became Connecticut’s Governor.

During the General Assembly’s Regular Session the Malloy Administration proposed increasing the amount a governor can cut without legislative approval from 5% to 10%.

The Legislature said NO.

During the General Assembly’s June Special the Malloy Administration proposed increasing the amount a governor can cut without legislative approval from 5% to 10%.

The Legislature said NO.

In the end, on July 1, 2011 the Legislature adopted a bill and gave Governor Malloy TEMPORARY authority to cut up to 10% (but excluded municipal aid from that cut).

House Bill 6701, Section 6 provided that from July 1, 2011 until September 30, 2011 the Governor’s emergency authority to cut the budget was increased. The language read “No Modification of an allotment requisition or an allotment in force made by the Governor pursuant to this section shall result in a reduction of more than ten per cent of the total appropriation from any fund or more than ten per cent of any specific appropriation.”

These are extraordinary times and Governor Malloy was given extraordinary authority to cut the budget up to 10% of any given line item.

But late last week we learned that Governor Malloy had targeted the “good government agencies” for 15 percent cuts and when asked by a reporter how they had the legal standing to make such a cut, the Malloy Administration pointed to Section 8 of House Bill 6701.

Section 8 reads “The Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management shall recommend to the Governor reductions in expenditures for the executive branch for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2012, and June 30, 2013, and shall, upon approval of the Governor, reduce such expenditures by the amount of the executive branch budget savings and employee reduction…” [The $700 million in concessions for this year and the $900 for next year].

The Malloy Administration claims that this section gives the Governor the authority to cut up to $700 million – WITH NO LIMIT BY ACCOUNT.

Putting aside why Governor Malloy would target the state’s ethics program, the state’s Freedom of Information program and the clean campaign program for disproportionate cuts is a separate and serious question.

But how did the Governor get such extraordinary authority when the entire debate revolved around whether he should be given TEMPORARY authority to cut up to 10 percent of an individual program?

The transcript from the House and Senate debate makes it clear that state legislators were told they were voting on a bill that gave the Governor temporary authority to cut 10 percent. There is no mention of that the bill might be giving the Governor the power to make unlimited cuts to agencies.

So when and how did Connecticut get to a place where a sitting governor has the power to make cuts that no governor in history has ever had or ever asked for?

It would appear that the Chairs of the Appropriations Committee – the legislators who explained the bill on the floor of the Senate and House were not aware that this provision would be used in this way.

So, were legislators mislead before the vote and if so, by whom?

Did Speaker of the House Chris Donovan know about this unprecedented power grab before the vote?

Did President Pro-Tempore Don Williams know about the unprecedented power grab before the vote?

If legislators were completely mislead – it is inconceivable that the Malloy Administration did not tell key legislators after the vote that there were going to use this statute to violate the intent and spirit of the law.

So,

Did Governor Malloy tell Speaker Donovan that he was going to use this statute to grab this power?

Did Governor Malloy tell President Williams that we was going to use this statute to grab this power?

And knowing that rank and file legislators believed they voted for one thing and got something else why didn’t leadership tell the legislators what was going down?

This isn’t just some interesting academic exercise.

I am absolutely sure that if a Republican governor tried to grab power in this way, the Democratic Legislature would be moving to repeal the section or sue the Governor from implementing this cuts.

Agree or disagree with the need for cuts, this move is the single most extraordinary maneuver or gimmick that any governor has used and it is vital that Connecticut’s legislators and media determine who know what, when…

For the original article about this issue see: http://ctmirror.org/story/13559/larger-dispute-looms-over-concession-vote

Be Sociable, Share!

Richard

Where’s the outcry from the legislature Jon?

What is your proposal? A F/T legislature to debate every line item? That agency heads be subject to the legislature?

What I found interesting last year was Richard Roy’s look into DEP internal on the permitting issue and Mike Lawlor’s look into the DOC internal this year. I think there are some very creative ways the inefficient and ‘should be criminal’ bureacratic abuses inside some of the agencies can be contained. I’m convinced it doesn’t get done by the current legislative process. Using internal State Audotors and State LEAN program experts is another SEBAC friendly compromise.
- jonpelto
  
  I don’t disagree about the failure of the bureacratic system or the short comings of the legislative process.
  
  But Richard, I believe that a Constitutional form of government and guaranteed balance of power and system of checks and balances is the only protection against tyranny and that there is nothing more dangerous than unchecked executive power.
  
  This isn’t about 5% or 10% rescission authority or even a governor having the power to cut$700 million from the budget.
  
  This is about how it is possible that the Legislative Branch of Government gave its mandated responsibility away…
  
  Like an Anglophile always believes the world revolves around Great Britain, I believe the Legislative Branch of Government is the core of our democracy.
  
  Are there situations in which power needs to be delegated to the Executive…Of course, but it should be done after careful consider and limited in scope whenever possible.
  Here we appear to have an example of the opposite.
  
  I am quite sure that legislators had no idea what they were doing. A sad, terrible and shocking testament to legislator’s failure to understand what they were voting on. But even worse appears to be that there was a concerted effort to keep legislators in the dark and that is unforgiveable.
  
  That does not exempt them from their failure – but some group of people – potentially including the Governor himself conspired to shift fundamental legislative duties to the executive branch of government.
  
  True it is only $700 million…
  
  But that isn’t the point.
  - Down by the river
    
    Jon reminds me of the joke about economists: they look at the real world and ask if it can happen in theory.
    
    The problem with this, like so many other of your other complaints, is that what taxpayers, voters, and leaders in both the municipal and the private sector want from state government is action. These arguments for process for the sake of process are perfect examples of why so many people are easily persuaded that “government is the problem”. The only people who have any patience for these mandarin pronouncements are those who are, were, or aspire to what is derisively termed “the governing class”.
    
    That you find yourself in seeming agreement with the likes of Sen. Markley is telling. You think you are on the side of the angels, Jon, but you are the unwitting clown-prince of a “fifth column” for the retrograde right whose vanguard in Connecticut Mr. Markley represents.
    
    Should the Governor be granted unlimited power for an indefinite period of time? Of course not. But there is a reason, Jon, that the design of our tripartite government includes an Executive – note that it is not called Chief Bureaucrat – to which the Legislature may delegate such powers as only an Executive may effectively utilize.
    
    What really matters, Jon, is that the financial ship of state be righted as quickly as possible. With that done the potential for real progress in Connecticut is possible.
    
    You may not agree with each and every decision made, but we elect a Governor to govern. Second guessing everything – and that is all you are really doing here – advances no progressive agenda and does nothing positive for the process.
  - jonpelto
    
    Well Down by the River… I’ve been called a lot of things over the years but I don’t recall being called a “joke” before.
    
    As far as I’m concerned working to ensure honesty is part of the “progressive agenda”
    
    Also while I appreciate you taking the time to call me names and belittle my point of view I’m intrigued by why you post under an assumed name.
    
    If you are part of a progressive organization I’d be happy to debate these issues with you before that group.
    
    And if you are on the Governor’s staff or a legislator perhaps we could find a group to debate in front of.
    
    And finally let me add that I remain sure that if a Republican governor was saying or doing many of these things Democrats would be up in arms.
    
    You clearly know who I am and aware of the fact that I’ve been outspoken when I found fault with governors o’neill, weicker, rowland and rell.
  - Richard
    
    This is an age old battle isn? Strong mayor or weak mayor? The line item veto? I’m in favor of the 10% for any Governor (in a 4-year term) and freedom to consolidate agencies and reprioritize agency objectives and org charts.
    
    You know the story of the Mlitons in the basement. Too close to retirement yet ‘defunded’ and no place to go or they are funded to complie reports that no one is their right mind would ever read or believe has any value but they are program funded by either the state of the feds and are legacy jobs.
    
    Having seen both systems (strong or weak executuve) I do like giving the executive some discretionary power — probably more than.you do..
  - Down by the river
    
    Jon -
    
    For a flame-thrower like you, you prove remarkably thin skinned. So let me begin by disabusing you of your perceived wounds:
    - I didn’t say you are a joke. I said you remind me of an old joke about what economists _do_. That is not saying economists are a joke. The analogy is to your screeds. Not you personally. Kind of interesting how you took that, though.
    - As to your claim of “working to ensure honesty”, well, that is what I’m pointing out to you about your writing: it pretends to be about one thing, but it is in fact quite something else. Read critically, your criticisms of the Administration are almost personal, and unremittingly so. That too, now that I focus on it, is kind of interesting.
    - As to the actual substance of honesty (by which let us agree we mean accountability), there are two perquisites for that: transparency of the government and an engaged public. An active and professional media is absolutely necessary to this, and you clearly aspire to that. So, mustn’t you accept the attendant criticism of your writing? That said, what you publish is primarily opinion, not reportage, I trust you agree.
    - I am a private citizen, not working for some organization or pursuing some hidden agenda. I publish under a screen name because, while I respect those who comment disclosing their identity, I prefer not to. Having said that, I’ll note (without belaboring the point) that you are not consistent in calling out every individual posting under a screen name.
    
    Now to your argument that you have been critical of other Governors.
    
    So, what?
    
    I’ve responded – after reading and considering your writing over an extended period – to what you write on this subject, on the merits (or lack thereof). Let me reiterate, I am taking issue with your entire criticism of this Governor and Administration: that he is not behaving as a Democrat properly would, and that what he is doing is tantamount to the actions of Rell and Rowland, but perhaps worse for the betrayal.
    
    Your argument, Jon, doesn’t meet the test of good governance as most people understand it. Yours is a “mandarin” view, and therefore not “progressive” in the important sense, but rather “conservative”, in that you are fundamentally arguing for the status quo.
    
    In doing so, you are playing into the hands of the retrograde right.
    
    If your feelings are still hurt, that is your own doing.
  - jonpelto
    
    Flame thrower?
    Arguing for the status quo?
    A “mandarin” point of view?
    
    Please – now you are insulting.
    
    But I recognize your sentence structure. You’ve written to me before. In fact we’ve even worked on the same side from time to time.
    
    But you are certainly welcome to your point of view although I remain quite sure that if a Republican governor was doing these very things you’d be vocal in your opposition.
    ‘
  - Down by the river
    
    There you go again. “If a Republican Governor were doing these very things…”
    
    No – on the merits – these things are utterly reasonable. In fact, according to observers from outside the state – like labor people in the trenches of WI – it is the _best_ deal for labor anywhere in the country. And this in a state with the worst fiscal situation per capita, about the worst net job creation, and a lot of other disadvantages, in the US. Point to the state in the current cycle where a Governor had the stones to substantially raise taxes as well as cut spending? Where aid to municipalities was preserved? Where social programs were preserved? Where – in return for changes that leave pay and benefits still enviable relative to the private sector and other public systems, up to and including those enjoyed by Federal employees – State employees received guaranteed job security for four years? There is no such place, Jon!
    
    And if we had Governor Foley we’d be looking at privatization, program cuts, and layoffs as Plan A. Corrections workers would be choosing between some corporate jailer-for-hire, and unemployment. That divestiture would massively, shall we say, “simplify” negotiations of all the other contracts coming up next couple of years, and goodbye structural deficit! Governor Foley would be a hero to his moneyed constituency, headed for the GOP Presidential short list, along with Christie and company. Public employees, the needy, and municipalities would be carrying the whole load, Jon – with wider layoffs of even more public employees at the municipal level, and drastically higher property taxes in the suburbs with massive crises visited upon our urban areas (where there is no money to be gotten via property taxes). You think the Legislature would win that fight? If they did that you’d be looking at outcomes as unlikely as, say, a Republican State Senator from Meriden. Don’t believe for a second that can’t happen.
    
    And, recall that Markley stated to TV news reporters that he didn’t believe that Governor Malloy would follow through on issuing pink slips if the labor agreement failed. Not surprisingly, no word of acknowledgement from the good Senator when those pink slips were forthcoming. Hate to presume to know a man’s motives, but I suspect they are less than a pure commitment to good government.
    
    So, I respectfully suggest that you be much more concerned with the merits of my critique, and the fact that people like Sen. Markley are finding common cause with you, than with divining my identity.
  - jonpelto
    
    Right…. thank goodness we have a Governor who has the stones to save Connecticut.
- sharewhut
  
  The legislature was so pleased to have a same party governor who they wouldn’t have to constantly fight with to defend party’s honor that they’re seemingly willing to abdicate their own powers to present a vision of solidarity. Any of this presented by Jodi or Foley would have been dismissed out of hand instead of accepted by acclaimation.
Leah

Won’t someone please put this rabid animal down?
- DrHunterSThompson
  
  Good point, Jon.
  
  But I can tell you from a few years of personal experience – FOI, et al are way over staffed.
  - jonpelto
    
    HST – yeah, maybe you are right….
    
    Course they ruled in my favor on a huge case against uconn that will eventually make it to the state supreme court so I’m biased. Lol
Greg

Wow. I really wonder why are “legislatures” want their job if they are not doing it. They seem to have no fire in their belly for running the state government, only silly rope political games.

If this keeps up his (Malloy the ******) power will be almost unprecedented in this state, I do think early colonial governors had the same level of power. Come to think of it we blew out the candles and threw them out. Does anyone know where the state constitution is, we need to hide it quick in a tree or something?
- jonpelto
  
  A tree! that is a great idea… headed out now to look for one.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001027655434 Luther Weeks

What is a line item and what is not?

How about the ferries. Now eliminated but, if the 10% were enforceable and enforced would they collectively or each only be subject to a 10% cut?

Could the suing towns add that as another argument to their case?
- jonpelto
  
  I’ll look that up. That is a very good question….
CT libertarian

The most telling sentence is this one: “The transcript from the House and Senate debate makes it clear that state legislators were told they were voting on a bill that gave the Governor temporary authority to cut 10 percent.”

They were told?! Didn’t they READ the bill?
- jonpelto
  
  Right…. you know, maybe we deserve what we get….
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1195448155 Joe Markley

Jonathan Pelto is an honest liberal and absolutely right about this. Republicans challenged this transfer of authority on the floor and were blandly assured there was nothing to worry about, and that it was simpler to let the governor handle the budget. It would be even simpler to have a king, but we chose democracy and its attendant complications, and I’d prefer we stick to it.
- jonpelto
  
  And you Joe Markley are an honest conservative. I’m convinced if we governed based on the truth rather than rhetoric and lies and half-truths we could then have an honest philosophical discussion about the best direction forward and find reasonable common ground.
  
  I’d rather sit down with an honest conservative because I know we may differ on many things but we share a common respect for many of the issues that really matter – like the one outlined in the blog.
  
  This is certainly not the first time you and I agree on things. For example we both know and said the Legislature’s budget vote – was – in the first place – illegal because it violated our balanced budget statute.
Curt Rayvis

I will call my state rep and senator and ask them to explain their position and understanding, and what they plan to do about this. They are both Repub’s, and should be only too eager to make an issue here! Thanks for the heads-up.
Curt

Wait, What?