Your 2006 General Assembly Adjourned “Sine Die” on Saturday—Technically Yes BUT the Legislators Return to Richmond on March 27 for “Special Session # 1 of 2006.”

 

DATE:            Monday, March 20, 2006

 

THE BATTLE OVER WHO SHALL CONTROL?

A “Special Session” …not an extension or a recess!

Saturday the 11^th of February, the last scheduled meeting day of your 2006 General Assembly, your elected state legislators spent most of the afternoon jockeying to see who was going to control the next step in Virginia’s budget and transportation drama.  The decision to complete the work on all of the other legislation by adjourning “sine die” had been determined by the GOP Leadership on Friday afternoon. 

The stated reason for this decision was, “…to make certain(that) legislation passed during the “regular” session could go to the Governor for his consideration in a timely fashion.”  Thus the Governor could act on the multitude of bills sent to him within the last week and have them returned to the Assembly in time for their consideration at the scheduled “reconvened session” (usually referred to as the “veto session”) set for April 19.  Now the fact that the Constitution calls for “…the concurrence of two-thirds of the members elected to each house…” to extend a session of the General Assembly had nothing to do with this decision—or did it? 

Since the leadership had taken this position, the battle on Saturday boiled down to who was going to control the process and get the credit for calling a special session to consider the deadlock over the budget and the transportation crisis.  After all, since last November the media and the members had pronounced “transportation” to be the defining issue of this 2006 session of the General Assembly.  Thus, this decision was important to the participants.  Despite this declaration and the studies done during 2005 and the emphasis  given the issue in the campaigns, 59 days of the session had passed and a possible compromised solution seemed as distant as it did when the Assembly convened on January 11.  Yet the posturing for who was going to get credit prevailed.

 

A reasonable compromise?!

To resolve this dilemma, two identical joint resolutions (HJR 555 and SJR 306) were drawn as the legislative vehicle to have a special session.  The Republican-drafted resolution stated that the General Assembly, “…does hereby apply to the Governor that…(the section of the Constitution is noted)…he shall convene the General Assembly in a special session immediately upon adjournment sine die of the 2006 Regular Session for the purpose of considering Budget Bills and revenue bills…”  The resolution then spelled out the limitation of what could be considered in the special session.

Can you imagine when HJR 555 was presented to the House the Democrat minority argued that it was a political ploy?  Strangely, they insisted that it was designed so the GOP majority could take credit for the special session rather than having the Democrat Governor make the decision.  If the resolution had been adopted, then the legislature could have controlled and set the date for the Assembly to return to Richmond.  The rumor was, had the majority gotten the two-thirds vote needed to pass the resolution, the House Republicans would have sought to have the special session to address the budget and the transportation issue  on April 19 right after the “veto session”.

But, alas, after about 20 minutes of posturing with political speeches by the Democrat floor leaders and “let’s be loyal to the legislative branch” speeches by the Republican spokespersons, the measure was defeated on a 58-41 party line vote (the independents split--two voted for the resolution and one voted against it). Remember it needed 67 votes to pass. 

Now came the intrigue, behind the scene meetings and the negotiating with the “third floor.”  (Yes, the Governor’s office in the Patrick Henry Building is on the third floor just like in the Capitol.)  After an extended time in which leaders from both houses and from both parties could be seen taking elevators to the third floor and rushing between the two chambers, there were recesses of both houses and caucuses of both parties.

The Senate took up the companion resolution (SJR 306), and with very little fanfare, accepted the amendments offered by Senator Dick Saslaw, the Senate Minority Leader.  These amendments struck the language about requiring the Governor to convene the special session “immediately upon adjournment …” and inserted “at 12:00 noon on Monday, March 27, 2006…”  Don’t you agree this was a reasonable compromise? 

Obviously, the parties had agreed on this date specific for the special session.  This date comes very close to being what the Governor had suggested, “…a very brief period for the legislators to go home and listen to the voters and then come back and finish their work.”  With the earlier wording in the resolution, the General Assembly still directed the Governor to convene the Special Session rather than giving him a choice. Then, of course, Governor Kaine’s proclamation summoned the members of the Senate and the House of Delegate…to meet in special session.  Some of the newer members of the House didn’t like the fact he “summoned” them back for the special session.  They must be unaware that proclamations by the Governor for special sessions of the General Assembly have “summoned” the legislators back to the Capitol for several centuries.

The other interesting part to all of this negotiating, for a “former ole legislator,” was the way the resolution was worded to keep the present conferees working on a compromise considering the present state of both of the budgets (one from the House and one from the Senate).  Technically, when the Assembly adjourns “sine die” any bills not acted upon are dead.  The resolution, therefore, defines the conferees as those appointed to confer on HB 29 and HB 30, but defines the “budget bill” as “the appropriation bill introduced in each house that authorizes the biennial expenditure of public revenues for the period from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2006, or July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2008.”  Now aren’t these legislators creative?  Do you think maybe it’s those in Legislative Services who know these subtle, creative techniques?

The conferees were back in town on Wednesday to continue their negotiations on the “budget bills.”  Of course, both of the bills contain the transportation plans as specified by each house.  The resolution directing the Governor to call a special session doesn’t mention the transportation issue specific, but the wording of the resolution does imply it will be addressed.  The Governor’s proclamation made certain there was no doubt about it.  He specifically states the special session is called for, “…the purpose of considering legislation to appropriate the public revenue for the 2004-2006 biennium, to appropriate the public revenue for the 2006-2008 biennium, and to address the transportation needs of the Commonwealth.”

Since at this writing there is no legislation before the General Assembly, the Governor will have to send down another Appropriations Act or the Chairmen of the two committees will introduce separate Appropriations Acts identical to the ones their respective committees adopted and reported on February 19^th. You do understand that every time this type of impasse happens, your General Assembly is plowing new ground.  At this occasion (unlike 2004) there is a different Governor from the one who “submitted the introduced budget” to which all of the amendments from the members of the two houses were offered.  My bet is the legislature will keep control and new cover sheets will be printed, new numbers assigned to the bills as passed and the conferees will take up where they left off.      We shall see.

SPECIAL NOTE:  Just before releasing this Giesen Perspective, HB 5001 (or the old HB 29, amended) and HB 5002 (the old HB 30, amended) were filed by the patron, Del. Callahan.

 

CONFERENCE COMMITTEES ON TOP OF CONFERENCE COMMITTEES

 

The last few days of every General Assembly are consumed with conference committees working on legislation passed by both houses but in different forms.  Starting on Friday there were some 78 bills “in conference.”  Normally each house appoints three people to negotiate with three from the other body.  (The exceptions to this are the budget bills.  This year there are six delegates conferring with five senators.)  Often the differences are minor and the conferees on a particular bill can finish their “conferring” rather quickly. These “conferences” frequently consist of the patron of the bill (the lead conferee from the house of origin) and the lead conferee from the other house (occasionally the member who amended the bill or objected to it most strongly) meeting and deciding how to “resolve the differing positions” on the legislation.  The other conferees, trusting their colleague, then sign the conference report. Getting the reports in the proper legal posture falls to the staff of the Department of Legislative Services and does take time. 

Members have to be very vigilant when conference reports are placed on their desks.  Major bills can get modified significantly by conferees.  Occasionally, a member may have been opposed to a piece of legislation and the conferees “fix it.” The reverse can also happen.  A satisfactory law may become different and objectionable to a particular legislator.  This is the real “be very careful how you vote” time of the session.  A misstep here can reappear come the next election cycle—so the conscientious legislators pay attention and vote on conference reports on the basis of what they think is in the best interest of the citizens of the Commonwealth (At least we all hope this is the case!).

The range of bills which went to conference this session was impressive.

·        Several of the measures which addressed the issues of sexual predators were in the forefront of last day actions.  Agreements were reached on all of the bills, toughening laws dealing with sexual predators.

·        Two bills of particular interest were the Virginia School for the Deaf and Blind at Staunton and the Virginia School for the Deaf, Blind, and Multi-Disabled at Hampton, which provide for the consolidation of the schools in Staunton and the use of the Hampton school by a regional educational program, were passed.  These had come out of the 26^th (some say the 29^th) study of these schools in the last thirty plus years!

·        A bill to establish the Virginia-North Carolina Toll Road Interstate Transportation Compact passed, as did a joint resolution to have administrative officials consult with Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina about establishing an interstate compact for the construction and operation of a controlled access highway between Dover, DE and Charleston, SC.

·        Bills impacting local governments also went to conference.  One allowing localities to enact ordinances dealing with Transferable Development Rights was adopted easily. Another, mandating ordinances dealing with the clustering of single-family dwellings under certain circumstances, took more “negotiating” and was the last conference report agreed to by both houses.

·        Another issue, which had been on the front burner since last fall, was how Virginia localities could handle eminent domain.  The Virginia Housing Commission, chaired by Delegate Terri Suit, had studied this issue since a court decision (Kelo vs New London, Connecticut) indicated localities could use their eminent domain powers to take privately owned land for use by another private entity for economic development purposes.   The Housing Commission bill was introduced in both houses.  It seems like about a dozen other eminent domain bills were also introduced, with other solutions to the “problem.”  By the end of the Session only the 2 Housing Commission bills were left but because of amendments to amendments a scorecard was required to determine what policy changed in either bill.  Despite efforts by Delegate Suit to get her colleagues to accept a compromise bill, her two house conferees objected and the Senate wouldn’t retreat from its position. Both bills died in conference.

 

BUDGET COMPARISONS

 

As I belatedly complete this Giesen Perspective, the budget conferees are meeting to attempt to come to a compromise on an Appropriations Act for 2006-2008.  The “caboose bill” for the remainder of this year is also under consideration but is of lesser concern than the full biennial budget.  Unlike Congress, our legislature has never had to deal with “interim appropriations” to keep the government running.  Hopefully this will not be the year that happens.  But, as noted, the two sides are far apart on the transportation funding which impacts on the rest of the budgeted items. 

Let’s take a quick look at some of the other differences.  Starting with the Governor’s introduced budget here’s how the two versions line up (all dollar figures are in millions):

·        in direct aid to public education, the House deducted $16.6 and the Senate added $52.2;

·        for higher education, the House deducted $32.7 and the Senate added $22.5;

·        in the area of Health and Human Resources both sides took advantage of some Federal adjustments in Medicare Part D and reduced the expenditures for this program by $32.2, and each garnered some other savings in this area, primarily from the Mental Health initiatives put into the budget by Governor Warner.  These savings net a House reduction of $32.6 and a Senate reduction of $27.6;

·        and then there are the transportation sections of the budgets—both the Senate and the House shifted the $624.5 (remember all of these figures are in millions) of new general fund money added for transportation purposes by Governor Warner.  The House put these funds along with $405.8 more into its transportation plan for a total general fund spending plan over the biennium of $1,030.3.  This contrasts with the Senate actions of dedicating only $369.6 in general funds to specific transportation projects, shifting $254.9 to other uses and funding the balance of their transportation package with “…dedicated, sustainable tax and fee increases.” (More comments on these competing plans are given below.);

·        in the public safety sector, the Senate increased spending a modest $6.7 and the House reduced it $2.0.  Governor Warner’s introduced budget had increased GF spending in this area $238.7.  This included $98.0 of new money for the sexually violent predator initiatives.  Both legislative bodies tweaked this a little bit.  The House reduced it by $5.0 while the Senate took $6.0 for other public safety priorities. The sexually violent predator issue was the “hot” public safety issue for all concerned parties this session.  Thus it received the largest share of the new money in all three versions of the budget;

·        support for constitutional officers was included in the Governor’s budget and was maintained in the reported Senate budget.  The House eliminated all of the new positions and reduced the GF spending by $6.8.;

·        both legislative budgets added money for the court system, the House by $9.1 and the Senate by $13.7, over and above the $37.8 which the Governor had in his introduced document;

·        for Land Conservation and Water Quality, another priority for this General Assembly, the House left only $1 of the Governor’s $35.9 additions to this sector of the budget (that’s a reduction of $34.9 for all those readers who don’t like figures and hate math), while the Senate maintained the Governor’s position and added $4.8 for wastewater treatment in Southwest Virginia.;

·        in the economic development area, the Governor had put $47.8 new GF dollars into his budget, the Senate added another $2.4 and the House took out $13.5;

·        both houses raised the $166.5 of funding the Governor recommended for salary increases for classified state and state-supported local employees.  The House put $77.8 new dollars in its budget proposals while the Senate sweetened the pot by $145.4.;

·        for capital outlay and deferred maintenance the House reduced the GF expenditures recommended by the Governor by $323.2 and the Senate by $54.3.  However, the House took $1.0 from the $150.9 in the introduced budget for maintenance reserve and deferred maintenance and the Senate added $34.7 while reducing other capital outlay by $89.0; and finally,

·        debt authorization separates the two sides both in philosophy and in actual expenditures.  The Governor authorized $290.5 in debt financing primarily for his extensive initiative of rebuilding our Mental Health and Mental Retardation facilities around the state.  The House reduced this debt financing for MH from being financed by straight General Funds to GF-backed debt.  On the other side of the legislature, the Senate took all $290.5 of the Governor’s debt authorization and either eliminated the project for this biennium or financed it with general funds.

 From this “quick look” (OK, I do get verbose sometimes in my brief explanations.), you can see that even after the conferees compromise on how to finance their transportation plans they have some tough negotiating on other sectors of the budget.  Of course, once the big issue is out of the way, and the decision is made as to how much revenue will be available, it will be easier for them to come to agreements on these budget items.  This ability, of course, may depend if they really decide they should work together to develop an appropriations plan for the Commonwealth’s citizens for the next two years rather than taking political pot shots at each other.  Knowing all of the individuals involved, I know they can come to a final agreement, and they will.  The public will demand it!

 

A PERSONAL OBSERVATION (or is it a concern?) ABOUT THE MEDIA’S REPORTING.

 

Reporting on the budget matters of this state is a tricky matter.  As you can see from above the appropriations process and the dollars involved have become very complicated.  When I first came to observe the General Assembly a half century ago, the total budget of the Commonwealth was less than a billion dollars a year.  The reporting of this size budget was much easier than it is now.

For instance, if the present conferees develop a budget somewhere between the two proposed plans it will be about $73 billion total funds for the biennium or $36.5 billion a year.  There are many more items to try to comprehend than there were four and a half decades ago.  It is difficult to explain these current, extensive expenditures in a few short written paragraphs or a two-minute radio or TV report.  I certainly understand this. 

Despite this understanding on my part, I still get upset with the media when they talk about the budget, make a mistake and then continue to make the same mistake throughout their reporting of the General Assembly session.  Initially the reports were that the Governor proposed a “…$74 billion biennial budget.”

As I have explained in other Giesen Perspectives, the actual total expenditures in Warner’s introduced budget were just slightly over $72 billion.  Even in the Senate’s version of the Appropriations Act the expenditure side of the budget only reaches a little over $73 billion.  Yet every article I read refers to the state’s proposed $74 billion budget.

Now comes the media’s explanation of the House’s Transportation Plan.  If you take their reporting at face value, you would believe the House will put $500 million a year of new money into our transportation system.  Obviously you would draw the conclusion this would continue in years to come.  The House budget documents and the statements the Republican leadership made in announcing their plan clearly state the plan produces $900.1 million in FY07 and only $360.9 million in FY08.  In the out years, this plan will put a little over $400 million on new financing into transportation.  Oh well, the difference between $500 million and $400 is only 25%. Yes this is true but when I was in school (two generations ago) a 75% grade was just barely passing.  Times have changed, of course. Maybe it’s politically correct for an industry to get the facts right only 75% of the time OR should the media only get a D for this reporting?

 

Links to Previous Giesen Perspectives:

March 6, 2006 Feb. 27, 2006 Feb. 17 and 19 2006 Feb. 10, 2006 Feb. 3, 2006 Jan. 27, 2006 Jan. 23, 2006 Jan. 16, 2006 Dec. 21, 2005 Nov. 9, 2005 Oct. 21, 2005 Sept. 16, 2005 Aug. 26, 2005 Aug. 19, 2005 July 7, 2005 June 8, 2005 May 27, 2005 April 7, 2005 March 10, 2005 February 21, 2005 February 14, 2005 February 8, 2005 January 31, 2005 January 15, 2005 December 23, 2004 November 19, 2004

 

 

© 2007 Eldon James & Associates, Inc.