Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterMEMO FROM CARSON CITY:
Governor, Democrats on brink of showdown over stimulus funds
Sunday, Aug. 16, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Gov. Jim Gibbons
Sun Archives
- Gibbons skirts legislators in action to oversee stimulus (8-14-2009)
- Governor balks at shift of stimulus authority (8-12-2009)
- Gibbons ready to tear at legislative patch (8-9-2009)
- Legislature reins in Gibbons; Democrats cite incompetence (8-5-2009)
- Committee vote delays $10M in stimulus money (8-3-2009)
- Democrats reject Gibbons' 'stimulus czar' proposal (8-3-2009)
- State board OKs $509,000 request for stimulus ‘czar’ staff (7-28-2009)
Sun Coverage
CARSON CITY — Nevada is approaching a constitutional crisis, and it doesn’t look like anyone’s willing to walk away.
The tinderbox is a system set up 40 years ago to make changes in the Legislature-approved budget when lawmakers aren’t in session. The Interim Finance Committee, which is made up of a portion of state Senate and Assembly, has been an efficient mechanism, making special sessions unnecessary for decades. But given that it is made up only of some legislators, it has raised questions about whether it is constitutional.
Now comes the spark that could set off the process of answering those questions. Gov. Jim Gibbons and the Legislature are battling over control of $2.2 billion in federal stimulus money, with accusations from both sides that each branch is treading into the other’s territory.
On Friday, Gibbons defied the Interim Finance Committee’s rejection of his plan to hire a stimulus coordinator and administrative assistant. He issued an executive order creating the jobs, something members of both parties said he can do. But he also said he would pay for the positions with federal stimulus money, without approval of the Interim Finance Committee.
“If they want to challenge this, they want to go to court, they want to waste taxpayer money and time challenging this, so be it,” he said. “Let them sue me. This is the way the state of Nevada is going to move forward.”
He left it unsaid that his office would countersue. But his talking points, handed out to the media, contained this: “If the Legislature decides to use taxpayers dollars to sue me, they will have to prove the constitutionality of the IFC. I don’t think it can be done.”
This is uncharted territory, reflecting the worst relationship between the governor and Legislature observers can remember.
“I’m not aware of a governor exercising an executive order in this manner, using an executive order to trump a legislative directive,” said Guy Rocha, former state archivist and longtime Carson City observer. “The question about whether the IFC is constitutional has been percolating for years.”
How worried are state leaders about how far this situation will go?
Senate Minority Leader Bill Raggio, a wise eminence in the Republican Party, said Democrats on the committee should back down. (Republicans voted against moving the position from the governor’s office to the controller’s office.)
Raggio wouldn’t address Gibbons’ contention that he didn’t need the committee’s approval to fund the position.
“If the IFC puts the position back under the governor’s office, the question is moot,” Raggio said. “If we get into litigation, and it’s challenged whether the Legislature has this authority, it opens up a can of worms. It’s ill advised.”
Democrats, though, stood by their decision to put the position under the state controller. Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, D-Sparks, said Controller Kim Wallin had been working for months with the governor’s former staff on stimulus reporting requirements. Wallin is a statewide constitutional officer, accountable to the public.
Smith said the decision to move the position to Wallin’s office was “well contemplated, well constructed.”
Smith said Gibbons had the authority to create the position. But she questioned whether the way he plans to fund it is legal.
Gibbons’ budget office said it will forward the budget change — called a work program — to the controller’s office, which oversees state spending.
“If he is intending to stop taking any work programs to the IFC, that’s clearly a violation of the statute,” Smith said.
Still, she said, “We don’t want to end up in court over this.”
We’ll see.
Wallin still has a legal opinion from 18 months ago, when Gibbons (as other governors before him had done) sought to cut budgets without legislative approval. Despite resistance from other Democrats, who didn’t want to get involved with budget cuts, Wallin insisted that the Interim Finance Committee had to vote on the cuts. Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, also a Democrat, agreed.
Robin Reedy, Gibbons’ chief of staff, said the executive order can replace the authority of a vote of the committee.
“All expenditures will be documented and follow the plans submitted by the departments to the federal government,” she said.
Still, some see this fighting between branches, and the possible collapse of the system used for the past 40 years to keep the state functioning, as a good thing for Nevada in the long run.
Rocha said the state’s system of a part-time legislature meeting every other year is antiquated.
“In reality, we need annual sessions,” he said. “If Nevada is going to be dynamic in the 21st century, be competitive in the national and world economy, we cannot run with a system set up in 1864. It doesn’t work.”
Discussion: 12 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- CityCenter unveils Crystals high-end retail district
- Sarah Palin wasn’t a disaster, but Obama is
- Freeze warning issued for LV
- Fontainebleau lenders sue construction companies over liens
- Limo drivers’ suit over wages gets class action status
- CityCenter’s Mandarin Oriental makes Vegas debut
- Kruger may soon seek more disciplined shot selection
- AG says any Station Casinos trustee must be licensed by regulators
- Kimbo Slice not enjoying cutting weight for first time
- As national jobless rate improves, LV sees signs of trouble
Blogs
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Superintendents want state to immediately seek Race to Top funds
Top Chef: Las Vegas
The great Jennifer debate (1 Comment)
The Kats Report
From Eva Longoria Parker to a cluster of execs, crowd takes a shine to Crystals (2 Comments)
Elsewhere
Harry Reid's recipe for getting health-care deal done (8 Comments)
UNLV in at No. 11 in SI's college hoops power rankings (3 Comments)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
Top Chef Episode 13: A few good chefs
Gray Matter
Fight weekend in Las Vegas and Thanksgiving (3 Comments)
Calendar »
- 5 Sat
- 6 Sun
- 7 Mon
- 8 Tue
- 9 Wed
-
The Ultimate Fighter 10 Finale at the Pearl
The Pearl at the Palms | 4 p.m. to 10 p.m.
-
Willie Nelson at Planet Hollywood Theatre for the Performing Arts
Planet Hollywood Resort and Casino | 9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Cash'd Out at Aliante Station
Aliante Station Casino and Hotel | 9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Brooks & Dunn at the Hilton
Las Vegas Hilton
-
Ron White performs at the Mirage
Terry Fator Theatre
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
gibbons probably wants some cushy jobs for his girlfriends.
This power play would not be an issue if we had a competent governor.
Nevada is in an economic tumble. We have an incompetent, dangerous governor at the helm with no common sense, let alone political and economic intelligence.
Just outwaiting him doesn't seem to help the state of Nevada.
His power play has nothing to do with what is best for Nevada.
This move highlights the power he maintains as governor and the continued damage he can do if allowed to continue governing the state.
What is the job description of the legislature? hmmm
Annual session will not do the trick either.
There is always going to be times when they are not in session.
The executive branch is where everyday operational decisions need to be made and where ad-hoc urgent matters need to dealt with.
This is how the Federal government works and most other states and this is the most efficient way to handle these situations.
The legislative branch can pass guidelines and break points where the legislative branch can be called into sessions if the new revenue (like grants) or budget cuts raise to a certain level. Those special sessions only deal with those matters. They can used the Internet, video conferencing, telephone and other means to support this short special only one topic sessions so that they do not have to go to Carson City (IFC works like that).
Having an ogliarchy of a small subset of legislative members to pass budgets and laws is not in the Nevada Constitution.
That obliarchy would be undemocratic.
It would be unequal representation.
60 days every year, instead of 120 days every 2 years makes sense. Less time for lobbyist to sway politicians.
Can we trade in Gibbons as a "clunker?"
The scary thing is this man could win re-election - he still retains popularity in the northern regions of the state. Those people vote en masse (90% voter turnouts) whilst we in the south remain complacent and self-centered.
Democrats showing their arrogance again. Each has a job to do and each job has boundries. The Democrats causing this disturbance need to learn their boundaries. This will not be forgotten!
Republicans fail again.
Republicans are bad with money
SgtRock,
Deciding how to spend taxpayer money is, in most democratic regimes, a legislative job. Having *one* man decide where to spend taxpayer money is, using your logic, even less democratic than having a cadre of elected representatives do the same.
I do agree that the legislative and funding system is broken and needs to be completely reworked. We should give thanks to Gibbons ineffectualness and misanthropy for showing all Nevadans exactly how it is broken and how it most likely needs to be fixed.
"Deciding how to spend taxpayer money is, in most democratic regimes, a legislative job. "
I agree with that. The IFC is not the legislature.
The legislature is the whole body and not a selective few.
Also there is not one one legislative body in the USA that is in session 365 days a year. Most states and the Federal government enpower the executive branch to execute the daily functions of the government including have powers to deal with grant or new revenue money and to make minor modifications in budgets.
I already give my two cents on what they can to do when they need to approve of major modifications in the budget or major new revenue intake.
They would need to make admenments to the Constitution to implement my suggestions or other suggestions. They need the approval of the people to do that and it takes years to modify the Constitution.
Until then, they should defer these decisions to the governor until they are back in regular sessions. The IFC can share with the governor their suggestions. He should most of the time listen and adhere to their suggestions unless they make dumb suggestions like this one.
Wow...intelligent discussion. That you very much Sgt., I find this level of discussion refreshing on this site.
I for one, would love to see this come to a head just to force some resolution. As you point out, what is happening now with the IFC is not likely to pass constitutional muster. On the flip side, I would also agree putting it all in the governor's office's hands isn't exactly the best idea either. But when the current structure has a legislative body that meets so infrequently (and with such a small body, too) that it's unresponsive (or too slow to respond) to the state's needs.
A basic model of the legislative branch setting the plan (or budget, in this case), and the executive branch executing against that plan, is how government in this state (and country) is supposed to work. But over the years, the legislative branch has overstretched their reach under the guise of "oversight", and the executive branch has allowed it under the guise of "collaboration" and "deal-making". I, for one, admire the governor for digging in and doing the job I interpret him as having!
The legislature is full of crap. Time to flush the toilet.