Reyes perplexed with veto

The Senate has echoed the lower chamber’s disappointment with the governor’s veto of a bill that would have allowed the government to deal with declining revenues and pending layoffs.

Senate President Pete P. Reyes on Wednesday listed the merits of the bill and challenged the administration’s reasons for disapproving it.

“Your veto of [House Bill] 16-83, HD5 was a disappointment to the Senate, as what could have been held up to the people of the Commonwealth as an example of cooperation and a substantive step toward prudent fiscal reform has been rebuffed,” said Reyes, who abstained when the Senate was voting on the bill.

Reyes noted that the Legislature did not remove any relief measures found in the original draft of the bill, as submitted by the administration. He added that the Legislature even improved the bill by adding provisions to bring accountability to their implementation.

“While the Senate agrees on the importance of efforts by your administration to prevent the loss of jobs to some government employees, the paramount concern of the Senate with respect to the intent and enactment of H.B. 16-83, HD5, is to avoid any tragic disruption in the delivery of essential public services, while striving to provide for better accountability and greater transparency in the management of the Commonwealth’s fiscal affairs,” he said.

The Senate president questioned the administration’s objection to the provision of the bill that grants additional reprogramming power to the governor. He said the provision was almost verbatim to a prior law which had taken effect, and later expired, with the administration voicing no confusion about its terminology or application.

Reyes disagreed with the administration’s concerns about the provision exempting federally funded employees from the 72-hour pay period, if the work-hour reduction is “substantially likely to result in a loss of federal funding.” He said the main intent is to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of federal grants and to preserve federal funding.

On the suspension of holiday pay, Reyes said it was not necessary to insert a provision suspending double pay for those required to work on holidays. He said an employee who is required to work on an official holiday and is on a 72-hour schedule per pay period would receive only regular pay, but not holiday pay.

As for the hiring freeze purportedly being too restrictive, Reyes said: “It is contradictory, self-defeating, and unfair to hire new employees when all others must work at reduced hours and pay. This is especially true if the government fills a new position or hires a replacement to fill an existing position at a higher salary than was last paid for that position.”

He added that the requirement of joint legislative approve may seem intrusive on hiring by other branches of government. But that has been the practice lately, and hiring authorities have complied with it.

Further, Reyes slammed the administration concern about the 11 percent employer contribution rate for the pension program’s defined benefit plan. Twice the Governor’s Office has proposed this rate, first in the fiscal year 2008 budget, then in the governor’s version of the bill as given to the House for consideration.

The House has made similar comments about the unexpected veto of House Bill 16-83. The House and the Senate rushed the bill to passage at the urging of the administration.