Governor’s veto action ‘is being nitpicky’

The House leadership says it was disappointed that acting Gov. Timothy P. Villagomez vetoed a bill that would have allowed the government to prevent layoffs.

“We have less than half of the fiscal year left. Adhering to the restrictions and guidelines that various legislators inserted in the bill would not have been an onerous burden on the administration. It is clear that the administration wants to operate without any restriction,” Speaker Arnold I. Palacios said yesterday.

“But in a constitutional system of checks and balances, the House leadership will not give the governor a virtual blank check to do as he pleases with public funds. It would be reckless and a disservice to the people of the Commonwealth,” he added.

Palacios said the acting governor’s veto message was “nitpicky.”

He cited several examples where Villagomez questioned measures that had been the practice since the early part of the Fitial administration.

Villagomez took issue, for instance, with a section of the reprogramming language that was taken nearly verbatim from Public Law 15-71, which he himself signed on June 26, 2006. He also questioned the section on lowering the retirement employer contribution rate which is consistent with P.L. 15-126 that Gov. Benigno R. Fitial signed earlier this year.

Palacios predicted that the governor would resort to impounding funds, a power given him under the Planning and Budgeting Act when a budget shortfall is likely to occur. The speaker cautioned the governor to strictly adhere to procedures contained in the statute.

“The House leadership will closely monitor the administration’s actions and expenditures,” he said.

House Bill 16-83 would have permitted the governor more flexible authority to transfer lapsed funding to cover anticipated budget shortfalls and to tap into earmarked funds that are collected separately from the government’s general fund.

The bill would have also reinstated the austerity holiday program and authorized non-paid holidays remaining in the fiscal year. The employer contribution rate for the government pension program’s defined benefit plan also would have reduced from 18 percent to 11 percent of the payroll.

“It is more than about saving the 400 excepted service jobs. It is about making sure that entire divisions, and even departments, are not shutdown because the government has run out of funding to keep them open,” Palacios said.

The bill would have imposed a hiring freeze to fill job vacancies with a narrow exception for critical positions. “The hiring freeze was included to reinforce the House leadership’s position that the administration cannot hire new employees by using any potential savings realized from the reprogramming and shortened working hours,” the speaker said.

He added that the House is ready to tackle the budget for fiscal year 2009. The members will review not only the expenditure plan but also the projected revenues, he said.

“Cutting back on the working hours and salaries of government employees generated the most discussion and was in fact the most difficult decision. The House leadership intends to pursue other options so that we do not have to make the same decision in 2009. We want government employees to be paid for an 80-hour work period. We are looking forward to addressing that concern in next year’s budget,” he said.