THE GAZETTE
March 25, 2008 - 8:00PMDENVER - After almost 30 minutes of discussion Tuesday, the House Appropriations Committee passed the proposed $17.6 billion state budget for 2008-09.
Put differently, the members "considered" roughly $10 million every second that they met.
There will be far more discussion today when the fiscal plan for the year beginning July 1 reaches the full House. But the drive-by budgeting that the 13-person committee undertook exemplifies an increasingly common beef among legislators: the lack of time they have to consider what annually could be considered the most important bill they will pass.
House members received the 616-page budget proposal at 8 a.m. Monday, debated it Monday and Tuesday in party caucuses and will be expected to begin casting votes on it this morning. After final tallies Thursday or Friday, the document will move to the Senate, which will repeat the process next week.
"It's hard to know about everything that goes on in the budget. The (Joint) Budget Committee takes months and months to get it together, and the Legislature has to act on it in a few days," said Senate Minority Leader Andy McElhany, a Colorado Springs Republican in his 14th year at the state Capital.
Most of McElhany's 14 years were spent in the majority, and I don't remember him complaining about the process when the Republicans controlled it. And I can't remember seeing him at a JBC hearing in my 6 years in the legislature.
"Those of us who have been around here long enough are cynical enough to believe that's by design, that the budget committee doesn't want their product to be tinkered with."
The General Assembly established the six-member JBC in 1959 to deal exclusively with the budget, and the three senators and three House members typically begin meeting in October - several months before the legislative session starts. Then it tells the rest of the legislators to approve it within two weeks.
Tuesday, committee Vice Chairman Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, spent almost as much time trying to hurry the meeting along as he did discussing the bill.
The Appropriations Committee hearing on the Long Bill is a formality. We have to hold it -- a committee meeting is required -- then get on to the real work of briefing the caucuses, collecting amendments from legislators and debating those amendments along with the bill itself on 2nd reading. In fact, we scheduled it for 8:30, meaning we had to hear the bill, wrap up the hearing and get over to the Capitol for roll-call by 9:00.
Unfortunately, one Republican members decided to make the Approps meeting into a soapbox for rehearsing his Dick Wadhams-written speeches about the budget.
Nobody cared. The press doesn't come to the Approps Long Bill hearing (Ed must have listened to in over the Internet) and even lobbyists tend to skip it.
It unfair to silence a legislator who wants to speak during a hearing, but even the other Republicans were getting fed up with one guy's endless ranting. In fact, it was a Republican who eventually cut him off by making the motion to send the bill to the floor.
Sen. John Morse, a Colorado Springs Democrat serving his first year on the JBC, said the speed is necessary to ensure that the Legislature has time to consider reversing any line item vetoes that Gov. Bill Ritter makes. Because of all the prep work the JBC must do and because of the 120-day limit on the session, the timing is locked in, he said.
McElhany and Rep. Paul Weissmann, a Louisville Democrat who is considered one of the Legislature's procedural experts, think that the budget should be parsed out and sent to each of the Legislature's committees so that members could examine their area of specialty. Then the transportation committee could give a closer look to the transportation budget or the education committee could ask more pointed questions about school-related funding.
"There's got to be a better way to broaden this out beyond 6 percent of the legislators controlling the game," Weissmann argued.
Every legislator is welcome to come to any JBC briefing or hearing. I did it regularly during my first four years in the House when I wasn't on the JBC. When I missed a meeting I'd pick up the briefing document, read it and ask JBC analysts if I had questions. They were eager to help. It's not the same as being on the committee, but it's great preparation for debating the budget when it comes to the floor.
Other legislators do the same thing.
Colorado Springs GOP Rep. Douglas Bruce, who calculated the $10 million per minute figure, said representatives and senators should get more time to study the budget outside committees or caucuses.
I don't remember Bruce showing up at a single JBC meeting. One day he wandered over after we were finished for the day, asked a bunch of questions about how to get information, rejected every answer as unworkable and left in a huff.
One questions was "How can I get a briefing booklet from a previous hearing?
We told him they're on-line. He said he doesn't like reading on a computer. We suggested he print it out and he said he didn't want to do that. We told him the staff would be glad to print out a copy for him. That's when he stomped off. Strange guy.
We told him Morse contended, however, that the system by which one committee hears the needs of every department and then prioritizes them is better than letting legislators who sympathize with road or agricultural interests try to prop up their favorite departments. He and others predicted that despite rising complaints, little will be done to change the process.
When people try to change the budget and can't, it's not usually because the JBC blocks it. It's usually because they have to get the money for what they want by taking it from something else and other legislators defend the something else. The same thing we deal with in coming up with a budget recommendation.
"I don't see the benefit of that," Morse said. "The state of Colorado has had a lot of fiscal discipline and control (because of the JBC)."
CONTACT THE WRITER: (303) 837-0613 or ed.sealover@gazette.com
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment