MEMO FROM CARSON CITY:

Governor not budging in bitter feud over stimulus

Gibbons insists he can solely control $2.2 billion, blames delays on Dems

By David McGrath Schwartz (contact)

Sunday, Aug. 23, 2009 | 2 a.m.

Gov. Jim Gibbons

Gibbons bypasses lawmakers, names stimulus director (8-18-2009)
Governor, Democrats on brink of showdown over stimulus funds (8-16-2009)
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)

More stories about politics

CARSON CITY — Democratic lawmakers are waving the white flag, but the governor keeps firing.

To try to avoid a looming constitutional crisis over control of Nevada’s share of federal stimulus money, Democrats say that they are prepared to approve on Monday budget requests from the governor’s office that are almost identical to requests they rejected earlier this month.

Democrats, who control the Interim Finance Committee, which is considering the requests, expected their acquiescence to placate Gov. Jim Gibbons. But they have since discovered a newly aggressive and engaged administration with no apparent interest in ending the fight.

Gibbons’ office is continuing to press its case that it has complete control of the $2.2 billion the state will receive from the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Even though Gibbons has said he will bypass the Legislature only on the stimulus money, if he prevails it could lead to the governor wielding nearly unchecked power over the budget when the Legislature isn’t in session — in other words, most of the time.

Politically, this battle has proved to be a winner for Gibbons. He has been able to blame Democrats for delaying some stimulus spending — saying they did it as payback for their union supporters — and to exceed low expectations by appointing a well-regarded candidate as his stimulus coordinator.

Democrats, meanwhile, have learned the unhappy result of breaking a cardinal rule of politics: Don’t fight with a politician whose approval rating is in the teens and who has little to lose and everything to gain.

The Legislature tried to wrest control of the stimulus from Gibbons this month, rejecting a cabinet-level stimulus coordinator position the governor requested and nixing a housing division plan to spend $10.5 million weatherizing homes.

The Interim Finance Committee has, for 40 years, served when the Legislature is not in session to approve budget changes and accept grant money. But never in recent memory has there been such a strained relationship between the executive and legislative branches.

Democratic legislators said they didn’t trust Gibbons to appoint a qualified candidate to the stimulus coordinator position and wanted a change in the weatherization plan so union-trained workers could get the jobs.

Gibbons pushed back, threatening to challenge the constitutionality of the Interim Finance Committee, and alleging it violated the Open Meetings Law and overstepped its legislative role.

Gibbons issued an executive order, creating the stimulus coordinator position, and asserted that, under state law, he could bypass the Interim Finance Committee in determining how the stimulus is spent.

On the immediate issues, Democrats appear ready to cave. Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford praised Gibbons’ choice for stimulus coordinator, Charles Harvey, an assistant director in the Clark County recorder’s office.

Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford

Horsford also said last week that he would now approve the weatherization plan. He said this was never about a political fight.

“This wasn’t about partisanship or politics,” he said. “This is about spending this money the best way possible.”

He insists the full $2.2 billion will still need to go through the Interim Finance Committee.

Controller Kim Wallin, whose job is to process budget changes, agreed with Horsford. She has refused to process the budget changes without approval from the legislative committee and asked Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto for clarification on state law. (Both Wallin and Cortez Masto are Democrats.)

All that means Wallin and Horsford remain at loggerheads with Gibbons’ office.

Stacy Woodbury, Gibbons’ chief of staff, said the governor has the authority to approve the spending.

She pointed to state law that says the governor can make a budget change “for the protection of life or property.” The stimulus’ tight time lines and strict reporting requirements, she said, could cost Nevada money if there are delays in stimulus reporting or spending.

“We’re not of a mind to play around with this any more,” Woodbury said. “If Kim Wallin thinks she’s doing the citizens of Nevada a favor with these needless delays, I don’t think citizens will agree with that.”

The governor’s office submitted another eight budget changes to the controller Friday.

Wallin said she will follow guidance from the attorney general. But without a requirement of IFC approval, “Any time the governor wants to go and change a budget, he can do it on his own. He can declare an emergency and say we might lose property. Where are the checks and balances there? We have three branches of government.”

It might take the third branch of government — the judicial — to settle this fight.

“If we have to take her to court and sue her to do her job, we’ll do that,” Woodbury said.

Discussion: 13 comments so far…

By theone1

8/23/09 at 5:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

The Gov really have the Legislature over the barrel. I'm sure they didn't anticipate this response. You have a Governor with nothing to lose, and he will do anything to make himself relevant and newsworthy.
By SgtRock

8/23/09 at 5:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Let's go to court and put an end to this unconstitutional IFC.

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that enpowers the IFC. The words IFC does not exist in the Constitution. The concept of empower oligarchy of a subset of the legislative members does not exist.

It also violates the concept of equal representation (my representatives do not have a vote in the IFC).

The IFC violates explicit constitutional statements like:

Article 4 Section 1: " Legislative power vested in senate and assembly. The Legislative authority of this State shall be vested in a Senate and Assembly which shall be designated "The Legislature of the State of Nevada" and the sessions of such Legislature shall be held at the seat of government of the State."

Article 4 Section 2: "The sessions of the Legislature shall be biennial..... unless the legislative action is conducted during a special session convened by the Governor."

Article 4 Section 13: "A majority of all the members elected to each House shall constitute a quorum to transact business..."

Article 4 Section 18: "Every bill, except a bill placed on a consent calendar adopted as provided in subsection 4, must be read by sections on three several days, in each House, unless in case of emergency, two thirds of the House where such bill is pending shall deem it expedient to dispense with this rule. ...."

Article 4 Section 23: "....and no law shall be enacted except by bill."
By billsail

8/23/09 at 8:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sgt. Rock speaks the truth. Let's take it to court! As this smack-down unfolds it will be interesting to see who the liberal union lackies favor, the people they represent or the unions who give the liberals the payoffs.. very sad.
By Nevada_Scandalmonger

8/23/09 at 8:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Hey, I can't find any mention of automobiles or airplanes in the Nevada Constitution, either. Does that mean the DMV is unconstitutional?

And maybe we should all read the relevant rules over in at NRS.353.220 which require Wallin (and the Guv) to go through the IFC:

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRs/NRS-353.h...
By Birdiedreamin

8/23/09 at 8:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

let's impeach that little gibbons monkey...
a total and complete loser...
considering what we already know...
don't you think he has some skeletons in his closet...
i'll tell you one thing...
it has got to suck to be a republican...
look at this roster of losers...
jimmie monkey boy gibbons...
johnnie boy i slept with my best friend/senior staffer's wife, then fired both of them, then ran to mommy and daddy for help ensign...
w the scum bag liar loser clown...
cheney the evil doer...
karl wholely and completely void of scruples rove...
sarah dumb as a bag of rocks palin...
like i said...
it has got to suck to be a republican!!!
By SgtRock

8/23/09 at 8:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

"Hey, I can't find any mention of automobiles or airplanes in the Nevada Constitution, either. Does that mean the DMV is unconstitutional?"

NRS does not trump Nevada Constitution.

The Constitution empowers the legislature to pass laws and the executive branch to execute those laws.

The Constitution does not empower the legislature to pass a law that enpowers or delegate its law making powers to another body.

If you are correct then why are your Democratic pals running scare of going to court?
By neiman1

8/23/09 at 9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

The Governor is correct in exercising his constitutional duties. The legislature pushed too far and now finds the accommodation of the IFC will just be done away with.

This is vital as revenues continue to decline and the budget grows more out of balance each day. The Governor will have to make mid term cuts in all areas as the Obama economy continues to sputter.
By Teaser

8/23/09 at 10:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Hoorah! With the governor having total control of the money, now northern Nevada can have most of it! We all win!!
By lvmachead

8/23/09 at 1:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

All this points out is that the Nevada Constitution needs to be revised and amended. We need a legislature to meet more to meet the needs of a modern state. the constitution was written to reflect the needs of a small rural state in the 1860s not the needs of a state operating in the 21st century. If government is to be responsive to the needs of the people it needs to meet unfettered by the whims of the governor.
By VegasSmitty

8/23/09 at 1:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Whoever gets control of the money doesn't matter. The people won't see but a very small percentage of it, the rest will be pocketed by politicians and there cronies, Dems and Reps, there all liars and crooks.
By worstnightmere

8/23/09 at 3:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

The way "sgtrock" is talking he must be from Mars, he certainly is not a true Nevadan. Go back under your rock Sgtrock,..... You know nothing about Nevada Laws, or Politics...
By pilauguy

8/23/09 at 7:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

...Back to the beginning: What was LuvGuv thinking when he threatened to refuse the stimulus money that he now wants total administrative control of?... He's got that lean and hungry look; such men are dangerous...
By gtnla

8/24/09 at 1:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Our elected officals are suspose to be representing us. All I see is party bikering. Come next election, those who can not play well together and do the job we elected them to do will not receive my vote. So, do the job we elected you to do and learn to work together to meet our needs.

« Previous Ten Next Ten »

Live chat: Tuesday, noon PST; Chat with Krista Creelman; Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question