No column Sunday
Other duties called today.
Other duties called today.
House Speaker Jody Richards issued this response Thursday to Majority Whip Rob Wilkey's e-mail criticizing Democratic leadership and announcing his departure from the House:
"Rep. Rob Wilkey told me Monday about his decision to leave the legislature and informed me that he would issue a press release next week announcing his retirement. We had a pleasant conversation, therefore I was surprised and disappointed by the tone and content of the email he sent to another legislator later that same day.
"I can only assume that this email was written out of frustration and in haste without appropriate attention to accuracy or consideration of the facts. But since his email is now public record, I must respond on behalf of Leadership to some inaccuracies in his statements.
"I want to make clear that I and the rest of House Leadership worked closely with Governor Beshear on all aspects of his legislative agenda. On the pension issue, for example, we loaned the Governor our actuary and spent hundreds of hours helping him fashion an excellent proposal which passed the House 95-0. We also made the Governor’s ethics package a top priority, and it passed the House 94-0. Along with the budget, the Governor’s priorities were our priorities through the waning hours of the Legislative Session. In addition, the House sustained all 11 vetoes issued by Governor Beshear despite the Senate’s desire to override some of them. I am proud of the way our Leadership worked with Governor Beshear.
"Rep. Wilkey’s perception that he was somehow excluded from Leadership decisions is also inaccurate. But it was apparent during the session that Rep. Wilkey had personal pressures and professional obligations which sometimes interfered with his ability to be a fully engaged member of Leadership. I believe his decision to retire, which was apparently made before this session even began, may have played a role in that.
"Due to the budgetary situation and a number of other factors, this session was tough for everyone. I trust that Rep. Wilkey’s email merely reflects his frustration with the session, rather than lasting ill-will toward the rest of the members of House Leadership. I will use this opportunity to continue to build a cohesive House Leadership team . . . one that will effectively serve our members and work with the Governor and the Senate to move our beloved Commonwealth forward."
House Minority Floor Leader Jeff Hoover had this to say about Majority Whip Rob Wilkey's decision to leave the General Assembly after this term:
"Rob Wilkey is one of the best friends I have ever had in my life, and not just in the legislature since we began serving together in 1997. He is a true gentleman, very smart, hardworking and was an outstanding legislator. I am going to miss his personal friendship and counsel, but the people of Kentucky and the Kentucky General Assembly is losing one of its best…bar none."
Following is the full text of House Majority Whip Rob Wilkey's Tuesday e-mail to a colleague, with copies going to the other members of Democratic leadership:
I apologize for the long delay in responding to your letter, but quite frankly had no real good explanation. I was as embarrassed as you and the other members as to how this Session ended - and indeed for most of it. There was a complete lack of communication during the Session with the members. No excuse. Part of the problem at the end was that the Senate delayed action on the big ticket items, including retirement, until the last possible moment. This is just a negotiating tactic they have employed over several years in an effort to force us to take action on a bill without the benefit of being able to clearly understand everything they have stuck in it. The result has been that we have not passed a lot of bills. This Session was worse than usual in that regard. I did think we had an agreement on the Retirement bill, but others were afraid there were things in the Senate committee substitute that may be harmful to state employees.
I agree that we deserve the leadership we elect. I thought the 2007 Session and Special Sessions were a template for how we should operate. The Leadership worked together well as a team, consulted with each other about important decisions, and then informed the members. Something went wrong as we approached this Session. I was not consulted as a member of Leadership with many decisions, or was outvoted. I believe there were conferences among some members of Leadership about important decisions, to which I was not privy. I dont think I was the only one excluded from these deliberations. The whole Session became some kind of effort to assure re-election by members of Leadership, instead of assuring re-election of our members - and, more importantly, what would be best for our state. I made an effort to continue to do my job as Whip, and carry out the decisions of the Leadership team, even though I didnt always agree. I have tried to be a team player, in spite of the fact that it became clear we were no longer operating as a team. I asked the members, and the members of Leadership at the start of the Session to not allow Leadership election considerations to become an obstacle to our ability to work together. My request was ignored. I was criticized for decisions I had no control over. That comes with the territory. I kept thinking that somehow we could come together and work more effectively for our members. It just didnt happen. I thought we didnt serve anyone very well in this regard. I also thought there was a conscious effort to embarrass this Governor during the Session. It worked. He could have done a better job of building a relationship with the House, but I also feel he was mislead into believing that we would work with him. We didnt. I hope we will the next time.
I hope our members think long and hard about re-electing some members of this leadership group. I will not be running. My decision not to seek re-election has been made for some time, although I havent announced it. In fact, it was pretty much made before we started. I will not be back in Frankfort at all next year.
Leadership should be about selfless service to the members and our state. It is about building consensus, and working to develop policies and strategies that take into consideration the needs and opinions of the most members of our Caucus. It should not be about re-election to Leadership. I have always believed if I do a good job and serve the members well, they will re-elect me. If not, they will elect someone else. It should not be about perpetuating my position, or stroking my ego.
You may feel I let you down this Session, and perhaps I did. I am sorry. I dont feel the members or the state were well served by what just happened. I hope you and the other members of our Caucus will insist on better in the future. As you can see, no member of my staff had anything to do with this. I also believe they exist to serve you, not me. I wish you well in your bid for re-election. I will try and help whenever I can.
Kindest personal regards, Rob
UPDATED WITH STATEMENT FROM GOV. BESHEAR AT END:
FRANKFORT — At least one position in House Democratic leadership will be open next year.
In a Tuesday e-mail copied to other members of leadership, Majority Whip Rob Wilkey rather scathingly criticized the way the chamber's Democratic leaders handled this year's General Assembly session, accused them of failing to support Gov. Steve Beshear and announced his intention to leave the legislature at the end of the year.
Referring to the obvious rift in House leadership that proved problematic during this year's General Assembly session, Wilkey wrote, "I thought we didn't serve anyone very well ... I also thought there was a conscious effort to embarrass this governor during this session. It worked. He could have done a better job of building a relationship with the House, but I also feel he was misled into believing that we would work with him. We didn't."
In a Wednesday interview, Wilkey said his decision to leave the House was made easier by this year's leadership conflicts but was not caused by them. He said his decision was based on the "continuing challenges" of trying to balance his legislative duties with the needs of his family (particularly "my daughter and son who need me") and his regular job.
His employer, Commonwealth Brands Inc., a subsidiary of Imperial Tobacco Limited, did not ask him to quit the House, Wilkey said. But he added that his position as a company officer and senior legal council required a lot of his attention.
Wilkey plans to complete his term, and said he will not resign his position in leadership before the end of his term.
Considering some of the things he said in his e-mail, that could produce some tense leadership meetings in coming months. But that would be nothing new, since Wilkey and Speaker Pro Tem Larry Clark often seemed openly at odds with the other three Democratic leaders during this year’s session.
In the e-mail, Wilkey expressed his hope that House Democrats “think long and hard about re-electing some members of this leadership group.”
And he also gave some insight into what many observers described as the “dysfunctional” nature of this year’s session. After noting that the Democratic leadership worked well as a team in 2007, Wilkey described a very divisive situation in 2008.
“Something went wrong as we approached this session,” he wrote. “I was not consulted as a member of leadership with many decisions, or was outvoted. I believe there were conferences among some members of leadership about important decisions to which I was not privy. I don’t think I was the only one excluded from these deliberations.
“This whole session became some kind of effort to assure re-election by members of leadership, instead of assuring re-election of our members – and, more importantly, what would be best for the state.”
Later in the e-mail, Wilkey wrote, “Leadership should be about selfless service to the members and our state. ... It should not be about re-election to leadership. ... It should not be about perpetuating my position, or stroking my ego.”
Wilkey plans to ask Secretary of State Trey Grayson to remove his name from the November ballot. Since he was unopposed for re-election, the two parties’ leaders in his district will have an opportunity to select candidates for the seat in the same manner they do for special elections.
Despite the lack of teamwork this year, Wilkey’s departure will be a loss for House Democrats, including the leaders who differed with him. He brought smarts, quick wits, toughness and integrity to those perpetual confrontations with Senate Republicans.
Since Rep. Greg Stumbo returned to the House in January, there has been much speculation that the former attorney general and former House majority floor leader would find a way to return to a leadership position.
Wilkey’s departure opens at least one path for Stumbo to do so, although I would expect him to have his eyes on something higher than majority whip. And the dissatisfaction over this year’s dysfunctional session could lead to other shakeups in Houses Democratic leadership.
In a prepared statement, Gov. Beshear said:
"I am saddened to hear of Rep. Wilkey’s decision to leave the General Assembly. He has been a dedicated public servant who has devoted a great deal of his personal and professional time to the people in his district and to the people of Kentucky.
"His work as part of the House leadership proved most helpful to my administration during the recent session of the General Assembly. I wish Rob well and I want to thank him for working with me in our attempts to move Kentucky forward."
The thing about taking time off from one's opinionated old so-and-so/columnist/blogger duties is you can't catch up on everything that went down while you were gone in one Sunday column. And if there are a couple of stray thoughts still hanging around from the days before you went on vacation, there's even more catching up to do. So, we're off, starting with an observation that has been percolating in my mind for several weeks:
1. Back in the day, strong governors ruled in Frankfort. They handpicked legislative leaders. From their first-floor Capitol office, they sent daily notes to the third-floor legislative chambers telling lawmakers how to vote on given bills. And those votes were rewarded with items in budgets prepared by the governors and delivered to the General Assembly so late in the session lawmakers had little or no opportunity to change the spending plans.
That all changed when former Gov. John Y. Brown Jr. took office and showed no interest in following the benevolent dictator style of his predecessors. With Brown taking a hands-off approach, leading lawmakers who had longed for the General Assembly to become a more independent branch of government - led by the late House Speaker Bill Kenton - seized the opportunity to make their dream a reality.
But true legislative independence was short-lived, and is no more than a myth today. Once freed from the rule of strong governors, legislative leaders began learning how to turn themselves into their own brand of benevolent dictators. These days, they rule over their respective chambers by controlling committee assignments, doling out money from caucus campaign committees and, perhaps most important, the allocation of taxpayer-funded "projects" to members' districts.
This year's session offered some perfect examples of how these dictators work. Early on in the session, Senate Republican leaders added two more R's to the Education Committee to assure that a favored bill got to the floor after absence of Democratic members left the committee without a quorum.
Later, Democratic House Speaker Jody Richards had Rep. Dottie Sims, D-Horse Cave, yanked from the Elections, Constitutional Amendments and Intergovernmental Affairs Committee after she voted the wrong way on the casino gambling issue. Sims was replaced by two other Democrats whose views on the subject was more to Richards' liking.
And the budget sent back to the House by the Senate was headed for apparent defeat until leaders put together a package of projects that bought a sufficient number of votes to pass the budget.
So, even though the idea of governors acting as benevolent dictators has vanished from the Frankfort scene, it's been replaced by an oligarchic dictatorship of the few.
2. Although these legislative dictators did not put a casino gambling amendment on the ballot for the November election, this issue will not go away until voters have their say. And as long as that issue is unresolved, there will be no serious discussion of Kentucky's long-term revenue needs because a decision up or down on the issue determines how much more money the state needs from other sources.
3. Gov. Steve Beshear has been a puzzlement on many levels, mainly because he and the old hands around him have the kind of experience that should have helped them avoid some of the mistakes they've made. But perhaps the most puzzling thing yet from this crowd was the decision (by whomever) that made Beshear the first sitting Democratic governor to skip the annual East Kentucky Leadership Conference, held recently in Morehead.
Sure, Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo and Chief of Staff Jim Cauley, both natives of the area, were there. And Mongiardo filled in as the featured speaker at the Thursday night dinner (a spot that the people who put the conference on had hoped would be filled by Beshear).
But to some political leaders in the region, the East Kentucky Leadership Conference is viewed as something of a command performance for sitting governors, particularly Democratic ones since the region is partial to that political party. And a governor who has seen his polls plummet as far and as fast as Beshear has can't afford to be missing command performances in friendly territory.
4. After Beshear vetoed the legislature's two-year road plan, Republican Senate President David Williams mentioned the possibility of a constitutional challenge of the veto based on its timing. Williams claimed the governor was one day late in issuing the veto. But the risk in challenging the veto on this basis is that the courts may decide the road plan itself, along with everything else that was enrolled (signed by chairs of the respective houses) after midnight April 16, violates the constitutional provision that says the General Assembly has to adjourn no later than April 15.
Sunday's column:
FRANKFORT — This and that as we continue searching for the winning ticket we’re fairly sure we bought between the fourth and fifth (or was it the sixth and seventh) glass we hoisted in honor of Saturday’s blowout at Churchill Downs:
Welcome to the day after, when some among us awaken to those hungover feelings described so wonderfully by Kris Kristofferson in Sunday Morning Coming Down.
You could say this is Kentucky’s annual Sunday morning coming down, our descent from the high we experience each year as the Kentucky Derby showcases the state’s signature Thoroughbred industry.
Lately, though, the coming down seems to bottom out a little lower every year because the face we show the world on Derby Day increasingly misrepresents the reality of racing in this state.
Sure, we’ll always be able to deliver glitz and glitter on the first Saturday in May because the Kentucky Derby is the greatest two minutes in sports, a race that annually draws up to 20 contenders and provides the best damn display of equine and human heart, strength, traffic skills and riding ability you’ll find in any race anywhere.
But the rest of the year can be a struggle for Kentucky tracks trying to remain competitive with their counterparts in the growing number of states where purses are supplemented by casino and racino gambling.
All of that was supposed to change with the landslide election of Gov. Steve Beshear, who made expanded gambling that would boost the state’s revenue and benefit Kentucky’s racing industry a focal point of his campaign.
But Beshear fumbled away his political capital and momentum early on. House Democratic leaders did their party’s governor no favors with their clumsy handling of the issue. And the Thoroughbred industry, as usual, didn’t seem to get its own act completely together.
And here Kentucky sits on its annual Sunday morning coming down, with no casino gambling amendment on the November ballot, with unmet revenue needs forcing painful cuts in education and human services, and with its racing industry stuck at a competitive disadvantage.
* * *
It’s impossible to overstate how badly the Beshear administration flopped during the first General Assembly session of his term.
In addition to casino gambling, he suffered losses on ethics reform and pension reform. And his late-session proposal for a 70-cent increase in the tax on a pack of cigarettes was simply ignored.
Several factors contributed to these failures, but Beshear’s own mistakes assured that most of the blame would fall on him. Small wonder then that his approval rating in the SurveyUSA poll plunged from 62 percent in early January to 38 percent in mid-April.
But once lawmakers left town at the end of the session, Beshear showed he knows a thing or two about exercising gubernatorial power.
He vetoed a highway projects bill, thus giving his administration more say in what roads get built over the next two years.
And the implied threat that he might disband the Council on Postsecondary Education by executive order helped him win a stare-down with that panel over the process for selecting a new CPE president.
Although there were critics in both instances (and the timing of the veto may lead to a court challenge), the two assertions of power proved Beshear is not as weak as he appeared to be during the session.
Indeed, I suspect there came a point during those three-plus months when Beshear and his aides just wanted the session to be over so he could start flexing his gubernatorial muscles in just this fashion.
True, these are small steps back for a governor who has fallen very far very fast. But small though they are, they at least suggest it would be a mistake to think of him as a pushover.
I'm taking some vacation, sandwiched around attending the East Kentucky Leadership Conference April 24-25. I may post some from the conference. But I won't be back in the office until April 30. See you then.
Sunday's column:
FRANKFORT — With March Madness still semi-fresh in the memory, think of the 2008 General Assembly from a basketball perspective.
This session should have played out as a two-on-one break, with a Democratic governor and a Democratic House majority taking the offense to the Republican-controlled Senate.
Of course, teamwork remains a foreign concept for many Democrats, and particularly so for the Kentucky variety. As Gov. Steve Beshear – quoting the late Will Rogers – noted in a mid-session interview with the Herald-Leader, “I’m not a member of any organized political party; I’m a Democrat.”
Never have the homespun humorist’s words been put to more appropriate use than in Beshear’s reference to the Democratic disarray during this session.
As a result of that disarray, what should have been a two-on-one break became something a one-on-one-on-one-on-one game, with Beshear and a split House Democratic leadership doing the individual freelance thing not only against Senate Republicans but against each other as well.
The lack of teamwork by D’s made it easy for Senate President David Williams and his fellow Republicans to play effective defense against the Democrats’ agenda and even take the offensive on such issues as the budget.
So, where did it all go wrong for Democrats? How did a D governor coming off a landslide defeat of an R incumbent fail so miserably in his first legislative session?
Beshear himself must accept a big share of the blame. His ill-considered decision to take an active role in a no-win special election to fill Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo’s former Senate seat wound up stripping him of all the political capital he accumulated with his own election victory. The loss he suffered in the 30th District was a body blow that weakened him so badly he never recovered.
But that was hardly Beshear’s only mistake. For instance, he mishandled the whole casino gambling issue from the get-go.
As a gubernatorial candidate who made casino gambling the centerpiece of his platform, Beshear should have had a proposed constitutional amendment – preferably stating the issue as simply as possible – ready to introduce as House Bill 1 on the first day of the session.
Instead, he dilly-dallied for weeks before introducing an overly detailed amendment that immediately became the subject of derision.
Meanwhile, a special subcommittee created by House Speaker Jody Richards was draining any momentum from casino gambling by talking it to death in ways that confused the issue and took the focus away from a key arguments on its behalf: keeping Kentucky’s thoroughbred racing industry competitive.
Beshear made another mistake by proposing enabling legislation at the same time he proposed his amendment. Because that legislation included fairly specific locations for the proposed casinos, it generated opposition both from communities designated to get casinos and from communities that were left out of the picture.
While Beshear’s mishandling of the gambling issue was the most prominent example of his own contribution to his rocky relationship with the legislature, it wasn’t the only one. There were other instances, such as catching House Democratic leaders by surprise with a mid-session proposal for a 70-cent increase in the cigarette tax, when he hurt his own cause.
Still, not all of the blame goes to Beshear. The five members of House Democratic leaders deserve their share as well. On gambling in particular, they did few favors for their party’s governor. Their differences on the subject broke along lines reflecting a much deeper rift that had nothing to do with casino gambling. In that sense, casino gambling may have been a victim of their infighting over other issues.
More important, fallout from their feuding permeated the session, making it even less likely that a mistake-prone governor could be successful.
Each year, I collect particularly pithy quotes from the General Assembly session. These are some of the remarks that grabbed my attention this year. Read more voices from the General Assembly in this Sunday's Opinion/Ideas section of the Herald-Leader.
“There are no good choices. There are bad choices, and there are worse choices.”
– Gov. Steve Beshear, discussing the state's financial condition.
“Frankly, the state of this commonwealth is not acceptable.”
– Beshear, in his State of the Commonwealth Address.
“The status quo is not an option, and it is not one my administration will tolerate.”
– Beshear, in his State of the Commonwealth Address.
“If you’ve got somebody who loves to roll the bones, that’s as addictive as alcoholism.”
– Larry Forgy, testifying against expanded gambling.
“This is the mother of all transparency bills. It’s the mother of all accountability bills.”
– Senate President David Williams, R-Burkesville, speaking about House Bill 3, which would move the filing deadline from late January to late April, after the General Assembly sessions are over. Legislators now avoid any controversial issues until after the filing deadline passes.
“We want to cooperate with the governor. And the governor ran on a pledge of no taxes, and he hasn’t proposed any new taxes. We’re with the governor.”
– Williams, responding to questions about a possible cigarette tax increase.
“The 2020 (higher education) goals have just become 2028 goals.”
– Michael McCall, president of the Kentucky Community and Technical College System, talking about education funding in testimony to a legislative committee.
“I dislike knee-jerk reactions, including from me.”
– Rep. Kathy Stein, D-Lexington, responding to Senate passage of an anti-abortion bill.
“In some ways, he’s like Rip Van Winkle. He’s been gone 20 years.”
– Rep. Jim Wayne, D-Louisville, referring to Gov. Steve Beshear.
“We don’t have the rabbit yet. Why go on with the process of making the stew until we get the rabbit?”
– Rep. Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, arguing that lawmakers should wait until voters approve casino gambling before passing enabling legislation.
“If you don’t vote the way they want you to vote, they push you out. There’s a lot of division in here. The leadership is in disarray. They are split.”
– Rep. Dottie Sims, D-Horse Cave, after she got booted from a committee for failing to vote the way House Speaker Jody Richards wanter her to vote on expanded gambling.
“I wouldn’t engage in useless activities.”
– House Appropriations and Revenue Chairman Harry Moberly, D-Richmond, responding to questions about whether he had discussed a “stream saver” bill on mountaintop removal mining with Natural Resources and Environmental Committee Chairman Jim Gooch. Moberly attached the “stream saver” bill, which has died in Gooch’s committee annually for years, to another piece of legislation that was before the A & R Committee.
“We need some support from our own representatives in Eastern Kentucky that we’re not getting. Our heroes are Central Kentucky guys, and that’s sad.”
– Ricky Handshoe, of Floyd County, discussing mountaintop removal mining.
“We cannot win a pissing contest with (Senate President) David Williams on that.”
– Rep. Stein, speaking about different versions of child booster seat legislation.
“I think it’s a stupid bill, and you can quote me. With this one, the Senate can say it passed a booster seat bill without actually doing anything. This bill basically says, ‘Oh. please, please, please put your child in a booster seat.’”
– Rep. Tom Burch, D-Louisville, on the Senate version of the booster seat bill.
“Your attitude is not helpful to the process.”
– Rep. Moberly, to Senate President Williams in a budget conference committee meeting.
“Mr. Speaker, we haven’t made any personal statements against any of your members, and I wish that you could get your chairman under control and talk to him and have him take a couple of deep breaths.”
– Williams, to House Speaker Jody Richards, D-Bowling Green, immediately after Moberly’s remark.
“I don’t appreciate that, that I need to take a deep breath. You need to take it just as much as I do.”
– Moberly, responding to Williams.
“I haven’t made any personal comments about you.”
– Williams, to Moberly.
“That’s not true. You’ve made several smart(slight pause)-aleck comments.”
– Moberly, to Williams.
“That’s what this is all about, selling out education and human services for water and sewer projects. And when you vote for this budget tonight ... that’s what your doing. You’re selling out the children of this state and the teachers of this state for water and sewer projects.”
– Moberly, during floor debate on the budget, which he voted against for the first time in his career.
“I’m voting no against this budget for the state employees. I’m voting no against this budget for the teachers. But more importantly, Mr. Speaker, I’m voting no against this budget because it hurts the children of the commonwealth and it hurts the economic well-being of the people of this commonwealth.”
– Rep. Derrick Graham, D-Frankfort, during floor debate on the budget.
“It was a big spread, lots of food. Oh yeah, there was free liquor. ... I don’t think it was a cash bar.”
– Sen. Tom Buford, R-Nicholasville, recalling a gala party prominent lobbyists threw for members of the Senate at Thunder Over Louisville just a few days before lawmakers returned to Frankfort for the veto days of the 2007 General Assembly. The event was repeated this year.
“After about 15 minutes, I didn’t see the entertainment value.”
– Buford, explaining why he woudn’t attend the event this year, adding that “about this time of year, I’ve seen enough lobbyists for a while.”
Today's column:
FRANKFORT — What a fitting end to the 2008 General Assembly.
Total chaos. Utter confusion. An indifference toward legal niceties that led to a resurrection of the good old days of stopped clocks and floor sessions that ran beyond the constitutional midnight witching hour into the wee hours of the morning. (Darn those computerized time stamps.)
And most fitting for this session, the really good stuff was left twisting in the wind — a wind generated by excessive amounts of hot air — when the gavels finally fell.
Shoot, when sine die was uttered, even the roads portion of the projects package that was put together to buy House votes for an ugly budget was left hanging with the really good stuff.
If there is a telling vignette about the anarchy and disarray that marked this session’s final hours, it is the fact that lawmakers left projects on the table when they went home. The last time that happened, hell froze over, pigs flew, the sun came up in the west and earthlings carved up the moon for a feast of green cheese.
Of course, the blame game started immediately. Senate President David Williams said the House needs some backbone, apparently a reference to that chamber’s reluctance, in the face of intense lobbying by labor groups, to pass a compromise pension-reform bill that actually gave the House much of what it wanted.
House Speaker Jody Richards accused Senate Republicans of orchestrating a “contrived, calculated move” to delay key decisions until the session’s closing hours, in an attempt to force the House into agreeing with Senate proposals if it wanted to get anything done.
Gov. Steve Beshear, as he has often done in the past, talked about a “dysfunctional” legislative process in which “partisanship trumps good government.”
Amen to each assessment.
Dysfunctional is an apt description for this General Assembly session, but its dysfunction exceeded that of other recent sessions only by a matter of degree. And there is more than enough blame to go around.
Williams is right about the lack of backbone among the Democrats who control the House. They often are so afraid of their own shadows they can’t even decide which vehicle should lead off a one-car funeral procession.
Richards is right about Senate Republicans’ fascination with (addiction to?) playing brinkmanship games in hopes House Democrats’ timidity will cause them to buy into the belief that bad bills are better than no bills at all.
But the Senate couldn’t play those games without the complicity of the House. Decisions on key pieces of legislation get pushed back to the final hours because both sides engage in delaying tactics that waste the limited number of days in a session.
And let’s not ignore Beshear’s contribution to the debacle.
As governor, he has a bully pulpit that enables him to go over the heads of lawmakers and appeal directly to voters. It can be particularly useful when a governor confronts legislative reluctance to buy into such ideas as pension reform, ethics reform, casino gambling or cigarette-tax hikes.
Much has been made of the fact that Beshear squandered his political capital and his post-election momentum with a foolish foray into the special election for the Senate’s 30th District seat. And such analysis is dead on.
But there is another fact that must be considered: Having squandered his momentum in the 30th District, Beshear did little to regain momentum by asserting himself as governor, by using his bully pulpit to take his message directly to the people and put pressure on lawmakers to deal with important issues rather than play games with them.
Beshear might not have been able to save this session by making more use of his pulpit, but he at least would have looked more gubernatorial as his agenda went down in flames around him.
When politicians seek to embellish their legacies by leaving personal monuments that serve as a continuing reminder that they once passed through and had some impact on the local, state or national political scene, taxpayers sometimes find themselves transformed into the Energizer Bunny in the sense that they keep paying and paying and paying for what can only be described as political ego trips. Consider a couple of expenditures authorized by House Bill 410, the initial package of projects that bought enough House votes to assure passage of a god-awful biennial budget.
In Floyd County, a total of $600,000 ($200,000 for the current budget year and $200,000 each for the next two years) was approved for "Mountain Top Recreational - Repair - Upkeep - Maintenance." The money will cover a variety of costs at the Stone Crest Golf Course and its surrounding residential community, a strip-mine reclamation project that will always be linked to the political legacy of Rep. (and former House Majority Floor Leader) Greg Stumbo, who championed its development and who owns a home there.
Over in Pike County, the East Kentucky Exposition Center, a legacy of former Gov. Paul Patton that he helped reach fruition by directing some contingency fund money its way after his career-ending scandal, will receive a total of $275,000 over the next two years to help cover operations and maintenance costs.
Yes, the personal monument legacies have a way of not paying for themselves after they're built. But that's OK, because politicians can always find a way to make those Energizer Bunny taxpayers keep paying and paying and paying.
Due to the General Assembly stretching its work into the wee hours of Wednesday morning, my mid-week column - normally published on Wednesdays - will be pushed back to Thursday this week.
Saturday was too dreary and cool for comfort on the golf course. So, I wandered into downtown Frankfort to see what kind of response Democratic senatorial candidate Bruce Lunsford got at a meet-and-greet scheduled to coincide with the Franklin County Democrats' county convention. The turnout was decent, but the more interesting thing to me was a new spin the Lunsford camp was putting on his endorsement of Republican Ernie Fletcher in his 2003 gubernatorial against Democrat Ben Chandler.
This spin holds that the endorsement can be a positive force for Lunsford in the U.S. Senate race by virtue of appealing to Republicans who hold a grudge against incumbent Minority Floor Leader Mitch McConnell for his abandonment of Fletcher during the BlackBerry Jam hiring scandal that resulted in Fletcher's indictment. This spin goes on to hold that Lunsford's ability to exploit R disenchantment with McConnell will be particularly important in Western Kentucky, where the Lunsford folks expect the race to be decided.
Hello! Let me count the ways this spin fails the reason test, starting with the fact that Lunsford still has to win the Democratic primary before he can exploit any issue against McConnell. Sure, he's the prohibitive primary favorite. But there is much to be said about not tempting karma by counting the eggs before the chicks emerge.
But assuming Lunsford does meet McConnell in the fall, there is still a couple of problems with this positive spin on the Fletcher endorsement. First, the R's remain in the minority in Kentucky. So, exploiting the antipathy a minority of R's feel toward McConnell probably won't offset the antipathy a minority (or even a majority) of D's remain pissed at Lunsford for dissing his party's candidate in 2003.
Second, appealing to disenchanted R's isn't going to win Western Kentucky, where all R's (disenchanted or otherwise) are outnumbered by about a 2-1 margin by D's. And conservative Western Kentucky D's, who will determine the outcome of the Senate race in that region, aren't likely to be Fletcher fanatics who will take their wrath out on McConnell. On the contrary, their reason for crossing party lines to vote R has far more to do with the policy positions they share with McConnell than with any allegiance to Ernie Fletcher.
If Gov. Steve Beshear ever hopes to shed the wimp image that has plagued his administration since his disastrous attempt to influence the outcome of the special election in the Senate's 30th District, he cannot stand idly by after the Council on Postsecondary Education flipped him the bird in response to his request that the panel follow statutory requirements in picking a new CPE president. In selecting interim President Brad Cowgill for the permanent job, council members ignored at least the intent of the law that requires a national search and a president who is a professional educator with a national reputation in postsecondary education.
Since the council seems to have little regard for abiding by these statutory requirements, Beshear's course of action seems clear. He should request the immediate resignation of all members of the council, and he should fully explore any and all legal options he has for undoing their decision so a new president can be chose in accordance with the law.
Even if some members of the council refuse to honor his request by resigning, they will have been put on public notice that their performance of their duties has not been acceptable. More important for Beshear, a request for the resignation of all council members sends a signal that his patience has limits and that he is not averse to using a little gubernatorial muscle when it's appropriate.
Sunday's column:
FRANKFORT — Two days to go, two days for state lawmakers to try to redeem themselves for blowing nearly $60,000 a day on a legislative session in which their main accomplishment has been a regressive budget that mistreats education, human services and other crucial programs such as legal aid so badly it ought to be indicted for assault in the first degree.
Full redemption is impossible for lawmakers. Two days gives them too little time to undo all the harm they have done or to resurrect all the good stuff they’ve ignored in the first 58 working days of the 2008 session. But token redemption can be obtained if a handful of worthy measures that have reached the final stages of the legislative process win approval before the session adjourns Tuesday night.
Chief among these are House Bill 250, which would strengthen executive branch ethics rules, and House Bill 600, a proposed comprehensive reform of the state’s public pension plans. Both now are stalled in free conference committees.
One of the bigger issues in regard to the ethics bill is a provision added by the Senate that would bar candidates for statewide office from soliciting or accepting campaign contributions from lobbyists and people seeking or holding state contracts or grants.
Gov. Steve Beshear has said he’s fine with such restrictions, as long as lawmakers apply the same rules to legislative candidates. Sounds reasonable. What’s good for the executive branch ought to be good for the legislative branch as well.
Sure, lawmakers can argue that the executive branch awards most state contracts. But who really believes a state legislator, particularly a powerful one, can’t exert some influence in the contracting process?
Two issues dominate the standoff over pensions. Well, make that three issues, the most important of which is the value of Senate President David Williams’ word.
After the Senate approved a revised version of HB 600 in mid-March, Williams told the Herald-Leader that “we will pass the House version” if the House cannot accept the changes made by the Senate.
At the time, Williams did not hedge his statement with ifs, ands, buts, maybes or other qualifiers. The hedging came later, after the House agreed to several improvements the Senate made to the bill but balked at two key provisions.
One involves classified school employees, who now fall under the County Employees Retirement System. The Senate wants to create a new retirement system that separates county and city workers from the classifieds. The House wants to study the classifieds issue (which was not addressed in detail by the blue ribbon panel that looked at pension plans in general last year) before deciding where they belong.
Initially, the Senate proposed to split up CERS on July 1. Subsequently, the Senate offered to make the effective date July 1, 2010, which ostensibly would allow time to revisit the matter if a study finds problems with the Senate solution.
Only a sucker would accept this compromise because it is no compromise at all. Once the Senate gets the CERS split in the statute books, even with a delayed effective date, Williams’ retreat from his pledge to “pass the House version” suggests the Senate would never agree to revisit the issue.
The other hang-up is the Senate’s insistence on a “hybrid” plan that combines defined benefits with defined contributions. It’s a much more reasonable hybrid than the Draconian one the Senate offered last year, but it’s still a hybrid.
And employee groups, which feel a certain obligation to protect the interests of the future hires who would be affected by the new rules in this bill, feel they have sacrificed enough in the name of bringing financial stability to systems plagued by huge unfunded liabilities.
Under the provisions of HB 600, future hires will work longer, retire later, use a lower “multiplier” to figure their benefits, contribute more of their salaries for health care costs and have their retirement cost-of-living allowance capped at 1 percent, barring an act of the legislature to increase it for any given year.
Under the circumstances, employee groups are loathe to give up any part of the existing defined benefits plan for a hybrid. They have agreed to reduced benefits for future hires. Their supporters in the House have compromised by accepting certain provisions of the Senate version. But the Senate has refused to budge on major points of contention.
That’s why the fate of pension reform hinges on the value of Williams’ word. “(W)e will pass the House version,” he said in mid-March. Over the next two days, Kentuckians will learn whether he will honor his word or renege on it.
1. After losing to challenger Brandon Smith in the 2000 84th District House race, former Rep. Scott Alexander tried three times to get back to the General Assembly. On the third try, he succeeded (if only temporarily), winning back his old House seat in a March 18 special election to fill the vacancy created by Smith’s election to the Senate’s 30th District seat in an earlier special election. But a couple of days after being sworn in, Alexander took off on a trip to Costa Rica, acting as a chaperone for his daughter’s (and Smith’s son’s) high school Spanish, which caused him to miss most of this session’s closing days and crucial votes on such issues as the budget. This is the guy Gov. Steve Beshear chose to back in a losing cause in that 30th District Senate race. Geez, talk about throwing away all your momentum and political capital for nothing. (By the way, since both chambers of the General Assembly routinely excuse absent members, Alexander was drawing his normal legislative pay every day he was on the trip, including weekends. He was also receiving his normal expenses for legislative sessions.)
2. During this session, Senate Republicans proposed that the Kentucky Lottery Corp. return more of its profits to the General Fund and that the prison population be reduced by putting some non-violent in rehabilitation programs or on house arrest. That led some wags to opine that the Senate R’s wanted to balance the budget by relying on expanded gambling and putting convicts back on the street. The joke is a gross oversimplification, but there is a certain irony to this year’s proposals by a party that has long been tough on crime and opposed to expanded gambling.
3. We all know who’s behind the FBI investigation into Transportation Cabinet activities during former Gov. Ernie Fletcher’s administration. It has to be that partisan rogue Attorney General Greg Stumbo conducting another political witch hunt. But wait, Stumbo is back in his old House seat. And even if he were still AG, the FBI answers to the Justice Department, now run by appointees of a Republican president. So if this investigation turns up evidence of misdeeds, how are the Fletcher apologists going to explain it away?
Grover Norquist, the neo-cons’ anti-tax idol, is famous (or infamous, depending on your leanings) for saying, “My goal is to cut government in half in 25 years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” I hate to be the one to break the news to Norquist, but he’s a little soft on government compared to the Kentucky General Assembly.
According to figures the state Personnel Cabinet provided to The Courier-Journal’s Tom Loftus for an April 6 story, there were 39,297 state workers on June 30, 2000. Thursday, The State Journal reported Thursday that the state payroll totaled 33,673 as of March 14. I suspect years of revenue shortfalls, aided by a General Assembly that would rather cut off its collective arm than raise taxes, had something to do with the shrinkage.
Now, facing another shortfall, the General Assembly has passed a budget that dictates a reduction in the state work force of about 3,400 jobs (supposedly through the attrition of a mass retirement exodus). Since I doubt that the number of state workers has increased dramatically since June 30, 2007, my calculations tell me this reduction in force will leave the state with about 30,000 employees, or about 22 percent less than on June 30, 2000.
If the General Assembly continues this trend, the number of state workers would be cut in half in less than 20 year period, more than five years faster than Norquist's timetable for the federal government.
Someone needs to turn on the taps in Kentucky’s bathtub.
Heading into its final two days, the days supposedly reserved for overriding any gubernatorial vetoes, the 2008 General Assembly is at risk of going home without producing any memorable legislation, other that a real stinker of a budget.
Of the less than 150 pieces of legislation that has passed both chambers, the close things to what one could remotely consider as landmark legislation is House Bill 552, which is the state’s response to the crisis in sub-prime mortgages, and Senate Bill 120, a somewhat weakened version of the booster seat legislation that languished in the legislature for several years before passage this year.
A couple of other notable measures that would reform the state’s pension plans and executive branch ethics, are in free conference committees. But it’s no sure thing that a deal can be reached on either one.
The priority measures of Senate Republicans and House Democrats seem to be going nowhere. But that’s OK. The priority bills of the two chambers’ majority parties have less to do with passage than with rallying each party’s base to fill the respective caucus campaign committee coffers.
Sure, a few other bills will win final passage during the veto days. It is ever thus. But the chances that they will be any more noteworthy than most of the legislation that has already been approved are not great. The chances are better that this will be remembered as perhaps the most dysfunction, least productive session in memory.
Mark Hebert of WHAS11-TV reported recently that Chief Justice Joseph Lambert is expected to recommend an increase in filing fees of $50 for circuit court civil cases, $25 for district court civil cases and $26 for wage garnishment filings. The reason? To offset budget cuts imposed on the judicial branch by the General Assembly.
Deborah Yetter of The Courier-Journal recently reported that some of the 35 boards and commissions regulating various professions in this state may be forced to raise licensing fees for members of those professions. The reason? Lawmakers raided these agency’s restricted funds to help balance the current budget as well as the spending plan for the next two years. The total haul from the raid was more than $11 million.
University of Kentucky President Lee T. Todd Jr., announced Tuesday that he will propose tuition increases for the 2008-2009 academic year of 9 percent for in-state undergraduates and 6.6 percent for out-of-state undergraduates. (Expect the state’s other public universities and colleges to follow suit.) At least part of the reason was the 3 percent cut the new General Fund budget would impose on state universities, which comes on top of the 3 percent cut ordered by Gov. Steve Beshear to make up a projected revenue shortfall in the current fiscal year.
To refer to these as fee increases and tuition increases is an exercise in semantics. Realistically, they are tax increases imposed on litigants, licensed professionals and students and their families. And the blame for these tax increases rests not with the courts, the regulatory boards and commissions or the institutions of higher learning.
Kentucky’s lawmakers bear the sole responsibility for these tax increases, particularly those lawmakers who lacked the guts to support proposals to generate state revenue either through an increase in the cigarette tax or by approval of casino gambling.
When they go before their constituents to brag about not raising taxes, they will be lying through their teeth. They raised these particular taxes by virtue of their inaction on other revenue proposals. But this way, these spineless wonders forced others to do their dirty work for them.
Today's column:
FRANKFORT — Critics of the projects package that purchased a sufficient number of votes to win House passage of an ugly budget last week might be tempted to bring the P-word into play, as in that staple of American politics known as pork. They should resist this temptation, at least in regard to the projects we’ve seen so far.
True, several of the single-county coal severance projects authorized by House Bill 410, the part of the package that has already won legislative approval, bear the distinctive flavor of the other white meat. But for the most part, they fall short of a hearty helping of pork.
They’re more like bacon bits, some so tiny you might marvel at how cheaply legislative votes can be bought until you start adding up the collective totals for individual counties.
Viewed in that fashion, the pork taste gets stronger. But viewed as individual projects, they’re still bacon bits: $1,475 here, $1,577 there, $1,679 over yonder. Lots of appropriations for $2,000, $2,500, $3,000.
I didn’t do an exact count, so I stand to be corrected by anyone who wants to spend time doing one. But my perusal of HB 410 left me thinking the number of projects costing $10,000 or less was at least equal to the number costing $100,000 or more, with the bulk of the expenditures falling between the two amounts.
During the House floor debate over the budget, Appropriations Committee chairman Harry Moberly, who voted against the two-year spending plan, told his colleagues that they were “selling out the children of this state and the teachers of this state for water and sewer projects.”
Would that it were so. Water and sewer projects can be justified as improving the quality of life for Kentuckians in previously unserved areas of the state. And by the time the rest of the projects package, including the multicounty coal severance projects, is approved next week, Moberly’s comment may be closer to the truth.
For now, though, we have only HB 410, which contains a few water and sewer projects, some other infrastructure and construction projects and a bunch of stuff for which the word project is something of a misnomer — if you think of a project as something that creates a new tangible asset or renovates an existing tangible asset.
Time after time in HB 410, you come across terms such as “Supplies and/or Operations” or “Equipment-Operations” used to describe appropriations to various local government offices and services, from fire departments and sheriffs’ departments to parks and school systems to county clerks and property valuation administrators to senior citizens centers and Meals on Wheels.
You also see a good number of appropriations going to sports programs ranging from golf course operations to equipment and operating expenses for various athletic teams from Little League on up to the high school level.
Obviously, coal counties deserve a return on the mining of their precious but finite natural resources. A good case can be made that they have a valid claim on a bigger share of coal severance taxes than they get now.
But one fundamental rationale for returning severance tax money to the coal fields, whether for single-county or multicounty projects, was to help these regions develop infrastructure that can help them transition to alternative economies once the coal is gone. HB 410’s bacon bits that are earmarked for continuing government operations, sports teams and the like do little to help that transition.
By the way, one of the earmarks that did involve construction obviously intended to include design work and schematics in the project’s description. However, in the rush to get this part of the projects package approved last week, schematics became "scamatics" in the printed version of HB 410.
A Freudian slip, perhaps?
Sunday's column:
FRANKFORT — Former Gov. Ernie Fletcher’s little buddy, the Efficiency Fairy, didn’t vacate the state Capitol when his master did. He hung around and found new friends on both sides of the aisle in the General Assembly.
Wednesday night, the little fellow’s legislative buds assigned him quite a task when they approved a budget that assumes tens of millions of dollars in annual savings from unspecified efficiencies that Gov. Steve Beshear’s administration must implement over the next two years.
To “balance” this budget, lawmakers relied on other shaky assumptions as well, such as the estimated $85 million in annual savings from not filling 3,400 vacancies created by eligible state workers making a mass exodus before the “high-three window” of enhanced retirement benefits closes Jan. 1.
This assumption ignores the possibility that a slew of these expected retirees look at the prospect of $4-a-gallon gas and a tanked economy that offers minimal opportunities for a second career and say to themselves, “You know, job security is a good thing.”
And if 3,400 retirement vacancies don’t materialize, well, the Efficiency Fairy may have to resort to layoffs and/or the suspension of certain amenities provided by the state in non-critical areas such as parks.
Assumptions of savings from efficiencies and retirement are just part of the problem with this budget. It also relies on restructuring debt that generates $50 million in the short term but increases the debt and extends payments on it in the long term. The title of The Moody Blues’ classic album To Our Children’s Children’s Children comes to mind in regard to this shifting of the debt burden.
Even with all the assumed savings and the cash withdrawal charged to the state’s credit card, this is such a nasty, pain-inflicting spending plan that it might have been voted down in the House had it not been for a separate package of projects cobbled together with a big assist from Senate President David Williams, who knows how to exploit the projects addiction that is as strong as a crack habit for many House members.
But the emergence of a projects package in a year when an austere budget stomps all over education and human services with old-fashioned metal golf spikes led to a weird, even bizarre, set of circumstances on the House floor.
Rep. Harry Moberly, the Richmond Democrat who chairs the Appropriations and Revenue Committee, voted against a budget for the first time in his 28-year career. He called the projects package “a diabolical deal with the devil” and said those who voted for the budget were “selling out the children of this state and the teachers of this state for water and sewer projects.”
The job of making a positive case for the budget, normally handled by Moberly, fell to Rep. Robin Webb, D-Grayson, the first vice chair of A&R.
To put it politely, Webb’s defense of the budget often lacked enthusiasm. It seemed a struggle for her to find good things to say about it. And at times, she didn’t even try. “This is a hard vote for me,” she told her colleagues
Although Moberly’s speech got the most coverage, as it should because of his position, Rep. Derrick Graham, D-Frankfort, gave one of the more impassioned speeches.
“My state employees and my teachers are getting shafted,” he said. “But I’m standing up today because I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired (of) the way this budgetary process is taking place. It’s dysfunctional, it’s undemocratic and it’s dishonest.”
But it sure keeps the Efficiency Fairy busy.
I apologize for the delay in posting today's column. Blame it on an end-of-session brain lock, which is appropriate because the column contains a mathematical error that I'll also blame on an end-of-session brain lock that led me to mix apples and oranges. Obviously, 36 hours from 7 a.m. Tuesday doesn't take you to to 1 a.m. Thursday. It takes you to 7 p.m. Wednesday.
I confused the 36 hours normally cited for printing the budget with a charted time line put out by the Legislative Research Commission early in the week that outlined the 42 hours it would take to complete the whole process (including the printing) of getting a budget enacted. The last time line on that chart said a budget agreement reached at midnight Monday would mean the process could be completed at 6 p.m. Wednesday. When negotiations continued to 7 a.m. Tuesday, I added seven hours to the 6 p.m. time and arrived at the possibility that completion of the process could be pushed to 1 a.m. Thursday. It was the right time based on the full 42-hour process, but not on a 36-hour one.
My bad. But it will all be moot in a few hours anyway. They'll either make the midnight deadline or they won't.
FRANKFORT — When House and Senate leaders announced that budget conference committee meetings would be open to the public, no one really believed the down-and-dirty part of the negotiations would take place in front of the TV cameras and the outsiders granted access to the meetings. It never happens that way.
Even when the charade of an open conference committee plays out to the end of the process in the first-floor meeting rooms of the Capitol Annex, the real head-banging and arm-wrestling takes place upstairs in legislative leaders’ offices, either in private meetings or via phone conversations.
Open conference meetings are for pontificating and posturing. The pontificating can consume considerable time, and the posturing often leads to frayed tempers. Both serve as impediments to timely agreements.
So, it came as no surprise when House and Senate leaders, facing a fast-approaching deadline for producing a veto-proof budget, decided to take their talks behind closed doors Sunday in an attempt to speed the process along.
Even then, they didn’t reach agreement in time to avoid putting themselves at risk of missing the witching hour for being able to override any potential line-item vetoes by Gov. Steve Beshear.
To be veto-proof, the budget must be in Beshear’s hands by midnight Wednesday. That would mean his 10-day veto period (not counting Sundays) would expire at the end of the day April 14. Lawmakers could then override any vetoes on April 15, the last day the constitution allows them to be in session.
But getting a budget ready for lawmakers to vote on generally takes about 36 hours from the time budget conferees make their final decision. If it takes that long this year, the earliest it could be voted on is about 1 a.m. Thursday.
That would push the 10th day of Beshear’s veto period back to April 15, and conceivably allow him to veto some line items so late in the day lawmakers would not be able to override them.
No doubt, the process can be speeded up to get the budget ready for a vote in time to beat the midnight deadline, assuming there are no glitches.
But if there are glitches and the deadline is missed, well, members of the conference committee have only themselves to blame for leaving no room for error.
* * *
Pacing the Capitol Annex halls or sitting around in nearby rooms waiting for conferees to emerge only to say little or nothing of consequence about where negotiations stand can be just as boring as watching the posturing and pontificating in open meetings.
But you at least can work the daily crossword puzzle, chat up your fellow pacers and keep current on your e-mail without fear of missing a dueling egos moment.
* * *
Some folks have speculated that Beshear might veto the legislative budget because lawmakers generously enhanced funding for their own operations and staffing while cutting funding and forcing the elimination of jobs in other areas of state government.
While vetoing a legislative budget that is the epitome of hypocrisy and self-indulgence might be a principled stand that makes a strong statement, it would be a futile gesture since both houses would overwhelmingly override the veto. And it would be politically stupid in the extreme.
Beshear had minimal, if any, success dealing with the legislature this year. Vetoing the legislative budget would guarantee that he would be totally irrelevant to the legislative process throughout the rest of his term.
That being said, there is no reason he can’t signal his displeasure at the largess the General Assembly bestowed upon itself by letting the legislative budget take effect without the benefit of his signature.
Since legislative leaders have now taken their budget discussions behind closed doors, I guess they wanted to save us from any more of the boredom I mentioned in Sunday's column (below).
FRANKFORT — This and That, The Rest in Peace Casino Gambling Edition:
Journalists have to ask the question. It comes with their whole First Amendment, freedom-of-information, open-records, open-meetings, public’s-right-toknow, let the sun shine on government at work territory.
So, as a 60-day budgetary session of the General Assembly nears an end, the question is always asked: Will meetings of the inevitable budget conference committee that works out differences between the House and Senate spending plans be conducted in the open?
Some years, the answer is yes, as it was this year. Some years, it is no, as it was in 2006. A flip to yes or a flop to no basically depends on which answer best serves the political agenda of legislative leaders.
This year’s openness largely arises out of Senate President David Williams’ recent assertions that House Appropriations and Revenue Committee Chairman Harry Moberly pushes the ethics envelope by promoting the agenda of his employer, Eastern Kentucky University, during budget conferences — an assertion Moberly denies.
Senate R’s and House D’s want to prove the other side wrong in full view of witnesses, including journalists, who asked the question not so much because they expected (or even wanted) an affirmative answer but because they felt a responsibility to do so, considering the turf they occupy.
But watching the first few days of the conference committee’s work — which may or may not have produced an agreement by the time you read this — I was reminded why I did not throw a tantrum over the public’s right to know when legislative leaders closed the doors to outsiders during the 2006 conference meetings and why I probably won’t throw a tantrum if they revert to their secretive ways in 2010. Watching these conferees do their work in the open can be boring — excruciatingly so.
Sure, there are flashes of must-see viewing, particularly when Moberly and Williams start snapping at each other. And the policy issues that are being discussed are important.
But watching the conferees review and rereview the minutiae contained in more than 150 pages of documents outlining the differences in the two chambers’ spending plans is mind-numbing.
Speaking of those exchanges between Moberly and Williams, the first one came Wednesday evening, oddly enough just after I had jotted in my notebook as I watched the session on TV that the talks were genial and good-natured early on, with no flare-ups between the two.
Then, Williams said, “You were looking at me,”
Moberly responded, “I wasn’t looking at you, and I wouldn’t choose to do so if I didn’t have to.”
It went downhill from there. Later Wednesday evening, Moberly, speaking generally about the differences between the House and Senate, said, “We want to do these good things, but we don’t want to pay for them. One of us is being irresponsible.”
Williams immediately chimed in with, “We’re praying for you so that you won’t continue to be irresponsible.”
“Thank you, Mr. President,” Moberly responded. “I appreciate that. I appreciate your smart-ass remarks.”
Thursday, the verbal sparring continued.
“Your attitude is not helpful to the process,” Moberly told Williams.
Williams responded by addressing House Speaker Jody Richards: “Mr. Speaker, we haven’t made any personal statements against any of your members, and I wish that you could get your chairman under control and talk to him and have him take a couple of deep breaths.”
“I don’t appreciate that, that I need to take a deep breath,” Moberly replied. “You need to take it as much as I do.”
Such exchanges are far from boring. They’re also far from inspirational.
I'm honored. Enough said.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/03/new_and_improved_best_of_the_s.html#more
1. Saw this quote from Senate President David Williams in a story by Gregory A. Hall of The Courier-Journal did on the fees and assessments paid by racetracks: "We understand that the smaller tracks, from conversations we've had from numerous people ... are having problems right now and that they should have some relief. And so what this does is give them some relief in the assessment." If Williams really wants to provide relief for the racetracks, both big and small, he should drop his opposition to letting Kentucky's tracks have the casinos they need to remain competitive with other states' "racinos."
2. House Democrats and Senate Republicans continue wrangling over the differences in regard to the executive branch budget. They even have a few differences in regard to spending by the judicial branch of state government. But they join arms and sing Kumbaya about the legislative budget, which passed the Senate 37-0 Monday. Of course, there is god reason for the D's and R's to have a love fest in regard to this two-year spending plan. Unlike the cuts education, social services and a variety of other state programs will suffer under whatever budget emerges from the ongoing conference committee, the legislative budget fully funds General Assembly operations and throws in an extra $10 million for lawmakers to play with. Shameless!
3. Less than four months into his term, Gov. Steve Beshear's SurveyUSA approval rating has dropped to 46 percent, a couple of points below his 48 percent disapproval rating. That can happen when a governor bungles his legislative Plan A as badly as Beshear has bungled the casino gambling issue.
When the House budget arrived in the Senate, it contained a few assumptions that were somewhat questionable - enough so that Gov. Steve Beshear accused the House of balancing its budget with "funny money." The main example Beshear cited was the $85 million in annual savings the House spending plan expected to reap from not filling most of the jobs vacated by a mass exodus of state workers who are expected to retire before the "high-three window" of enhanced retirement benefits closes Jan. 1, 2009. Beshear said the savings from closing the retirement window already had been factored into his budget proposal, so the extra $85 million in the House plan doesn't exist.
Well, the Senate went along with the House on the $85 million annual retirement savings. It also added $55 million a year in extra cash that is based on another questionable assumption. The Senate plan would require the Kentucky Lottery Corp. to meet the statutory goal of turning over 35 percent of its gross revenues to the General Fund. According to the Senate budget, this would produce an extra $54.6 million in fiscal year 2009 and $55.6 million in FY 2010. However, lottery officials say turning over 35 percent of gross profits will force it to reduce the amount paid out to players in prizes, which in turn would reduce the level of play and ultimately reduce rather than increase the amount of revenue the state gets.
This debate - 35 percent vs. more money - has been around since the inception of the lottery two decades ago. And the fact that lawmakers have never enforced the 35 percent goal during that period suggests that lottery officials have been persuasive in arguing that the state gets more revenue when its share of the gross revenues is somewhere near the current 27 percent.
If Beshear and the lottery officials are correct, the two-year spending now under consideration in a conference committee is balanced with at least $280 million ($140 million annually) of "funny money." And that's really not very funny.
Today's column:
FRANKFORT — On the 52nd day of a 60-day General Assembly session, Gov. Steve Beshear presided over a modest Capitol Rotunda pep rally.
Fittingly enough, coming the day after Easter, it was a rally aimed at resurrecting his casino gambling initiative, if not from its grave, at least from its death bed.
Supporters came out in moderate numbers — from the Kentucky Education Association, the Jefferson County Teachers Association, the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce and, of course, the thoroughbred racing industry.
All five members of House Democratic leadership stood with the governor, as did several other legislators.
A couple of messages served as common threads linking the day’s speeches.
First, the austere budget the Senate was approving that same day and the setbacks it would deal to Kentucky’s progress demonstrated the short-term need for additional state revenue.
Second, no rational discussion of long-term revenue policy can be conducted until the 900-pound gorilla in our midst — casino gambling — has its day on the ballot.
Both are valid messages. The latter in particular cannot be repeated often enough. Until we decide to either feed or euthanize this gorilla, lawmakers will always use his lurking presence as an excuse to avoid facing up to the state’s fiscal reality.
Feeding the gorilla won’t solve the state’s revenue problems. But it would answer the question of how much revenue he can generate. That revenue, in turn, would serve as a temporary stopgap that gives lawmakers time to figure out what other steps they need to take to give Kentucky a stable, sustainable revenue base.
Euthanizing the gorilla makes the path to a stable, sustainable revenue base considerably longer. But it, at least, removes one of the major distractions that has kept the state from starting that journey.
At Monday’s pep rally, however, neither of these messages was delivered forcefully enough, with the kind of fire and passion that can move people and swing enough votes to get an amendment out of the House.
This was a pep rally without a lot of pep. It had about it an air of hopelessness, of futility, of last-gasp effort being expended on behalf of an issue that already had run out of gasps for this session. In other words: It was too little, way too late.
Six or eight weeks ago, when casino gambling still appeared to have legs, a Rotunda rally would have drawn a bigger, more enthusiastic crowd that still believed.
Six or eight weeks ago, if you followed up that Rotunda rally with a two- or three-day tour of the state, holding similar rallies in cities from Ashland to Paducah, a little thing called momentum might have taken hold.
Gubernatorial appearances, even gubernatorial appearances at rallies, are routine in Frankfort. During legislative sessions, they also must compete with other major news. As noted, Monday’s rally came on the day the Senate passed the budget, which was the bigger story this late in the session with gambling’s prospects waning.
But barring some breaking local story of magnitude, gubernatorial appearances at enthusiastic rallies can dominate the day’s news in cities where governors aren’t often seen. That’s reason enough for a governor to take his message directly to the people when lawmakers seem reluctant to listen.
It is impossible to say whether employing such a strategy earlier in the session would have allowed Beshear to get an amendment out of the Democratic-controlled House, much less past the opposition of Senate Republicans.
But since the strategy he did employ led to Monday’s apparent exercise in futility, it certainly couldn’t have hurt to take his show on the road six or eight weeks ago.
Sunday's column:
FRANKFORT — This and that as the 2008 General Assembly session staggers toward a conclusion or a collapse in the gutter (I’m not sure which):
Interesting Good Friday, what with Senate President David Williams and House Appropriations and Revenue Committee Chairman Harry Moberly verbally crucifying each other.
Williams claims that it’s unethical for Moberly, or any other legislator, to help develop or vote for legislation that names his employer — an interpretation of the rules that pretty much would bar Moberly, the House’s budget expert, from having anything to do with the budget since he is employed by Eastern Kentucky University and the budget always includes appropriations for EKU. Williams first made the claims on Thursday and expanded on them Friday.
Moberly responded on Friday that Williams was simply trying one of his biennial stunts aimed at disrupting the budget negotiations that leaders of both houses conduct in a closed conference committee. Those talks are scheduled to begin this week.
In the process of responding to Williams’ accusations, Moberly referred to the Senate president as “the great disrupter,” an “egomaniacal dictator” who “will brook no dissent,” and a “little petulant kid.”
Williams and Moberly have a history. Two years ago, one of their more graphic verbal exchanges jokingly became known as “Hallway Sex." Now that they’re at it again, an easily embarrassed fly on the wall in next week’s budget talks might want to wear earplugs.
So, who’s right? Both, to a degree.
Moberly does have a bit of a conflict in regard to EKU, particularly given the power he wields in budget decisions. But his conflict is no more than marginally greater than that of many other lawmakers (including lawyers such as Williams) who draft and vote on legislation that affects their professions.
You get those kinds of conflicts when you have “citizen legislators” as opposed to full-time ones. And the general rule of thumb is that such conflicts are tolerable as long as lawmakers don’t use their positions to benefit themselves personally to the exclusion of others in their same professions.
And yes, Williams does make a habit of using a particular issue to create conflict in the budget negotiations. It appears this year’s issue is Harry Moberly.
* * *
Some time ago, I started kicking around substitute lyrics for a verse of that great Simon and Garfunkel classic Mrs. Robinson, lyrics that began with: “Where have you gone, Dan Mongiardo?”
My intent was to come up with a lighthearted way of noting that the lieutenant governor hasn’t been highly visible lately. Problem was I hadn’t quite settled on what would replace “nation” in the original line: “A nation turns its lonely eyes to you (woo woo woo).”
“A party” would work. So, would “Our racing,” considering the administraton’s ongoing struggle on the casino gambling issue.
Anyway, the full verse had not come together in my head when the whole concept fell apart last week as Mongiardo’s office announced a couple of speaking engagements for the lieutenant governor.
Guess I’ll have to be faster in coming up with these spoofs in the future.
* * *
Every year, the usual suspects make the usual observation: “This is the strangest/weirdest/screwiest/goofiest/looniest/least productive/most leaderless/ most out of control/ worst train wreck (choose one or more) session in memory.”
Of course, the usual suspects all come back the following year and repeat themselves, because each new General Assembly session seems to outdo the last in justifying all of those superlative negatives.
For now, though, I have my doubts that next year can top this one.
* * *
Even with the revenue from new taxes, debt restructuring and the real or “funny money” savings from a mass exodus of state workers taking advantage of the soon to be closed “high-three window” of enhanced retirement benefits, the House budget did not restore all of the cuts to the executive and judicial budgets originally proposed by Gov. Steve Beshear. However, the House did restore all of the cuts Beshear proposed for the legislative budget and added in a little extra.
It’s nice to see the House has the state’s priorities in order.
Thursday is the 50th day of a 60-day General Assembly session, and just four pieces of rather unremarkable legislation have been signed into law by Gov. Steve Beshear.
One bill extends the time members of the military who are returning from overseas have for renewing their driver's licenses. Another exempts veterans with 100 percent service-related disabilities from some tax paperwork. A third deals with self-contained storage units. And the fourth is a joint resolution recognizing Feb. 12, 2008 as the official commencement of the the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial.
Less than 20 other pieces of legislation, also rather unremarkable, have made it through both houses and are on the way to the governor's desk.
With so little accomplished so far, the last 10 days of this session are going to be pure hell as lawmakers try justify the cost (at about $55,000 a day) of sending them to Frankfort for the last three and one-half months.
Today's column:
FRANKFORT — Gov. Steve Beshear says the House balanced its budget with “funny money,” in part because it projects $85 million in annual savings from closing what folks in state government refer to as the “high-three window” that enhances retirement benefits. The governor says that savings was already accounted for in his budget proposal.
One of Beshear’s fellow Democrats, House Appropriations and Revenue Committee Chairman Harry Moberly, says the governor is wrong and is whining because the austere House budget will force him to make some tough decisions and act like, well, a governor.
Budgetary issues can be so complex that this math-challenged old fogy may have particular difficulty identifying the smoke, the mirrors and the reality. But if you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose sides in this particular part of the Democrats’ family feud, my inclination would be to go with Beshear, simply because I would be shocked if an apolitical pro such as Budget Director Mary Lassiter failed to take every possible factor into consideration in crafting Beshear’s spending plan. And that includes allowing for any savings from closing the high-three window.
But even if she didn’t, the projected $85 million savings strikes me as suspect because it is based on an illogical assumption.
The House budget bases the $85 million figure on the assumption that allowing the high-three window to close on Jan. 1, 2009, will prompt every last one of the 5,463 state workers eligible for a “27 and out” retirement this year to actually retire. The budget mandates that 3,418 of the positions vacated by this mass exodus will not be refilled.
In good economic times, most of the workers might leap at a chance to leave before the window closes (although I doubt all of them would). After all, why not get out when your pension can be based on the average of your highest three salary years (rather than the highest five after the window closes) and your years of service are multiplied by a factor of 2.2 (rather than about 2 after the window closes)?
But these are not good economic times. These are times when the experts are using phrases such as “not since the Great Depression.”
And because of the “27 and out” rule, many of the potential retirees will be about 50 years old, a time of life when their children may still be in high school or in college.
So, it’s unrealistic to expect most of these folks to simply retire and live on a pension equal to 60 to 65 percent of their current salaries. They will need jobs. And right now, jobs are almost as hard to find as hen’s teeth.
In the past, a lot of these workers might have gone ahead and retired, even in bad economic ti