| As Governor M. Jodi Rell continues to run state
government by executive order, it might help to keep
things in perspective by remembering that this is not
the first time in recent history that Connecticut has
been without a budget.
Undoubtedly, many people remember the summer of 1991
– the year of the income tax – when Connecticut
went without a state budget for more than fifty days
as the General Assembly tried to pass a tax and spend
plan that then Governor Lowell Weicker would sign into
law. Then, as now, the Democrats controlled the majority
in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
That year, the General Assembly passed several temporary
appropriations measures to pay the bills for the first
weeks of the new fiscal year. Also, Governor Weicker
issued several executive orders to, first, allow state
government to keep running while minimizing discretionary
spending and, secondly, to authorize funding in cases
where there was a gap between the expiration of one
continuing spending resolution and the beginning of
the next.
Connecticut was again without a state budget in 2003.
That year, then Governor John Rowland vetoed the General
Assembly’s continuing spending resolution and
issued his own series of executive orders. At the time,
Governor Rowland claimed that the General Assembly did
not have the authority to pass its two-week resolution,
which it did on June 30th, the day before the start
of the new fiscal year. The Attorney General disagreed
– but, while the Legislature had the authority
to pass continuing resolutions, the Governor also had
the authority to veto them and to issue his own executive
orders. Again, the Democrats controlled the majority
in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
According to an interesting report recently issued
by the General Assembly’s nonpartisan Office of
Legislative Research, there is nothing in either state
law or the state constitution spelling out what to do
to pay the bills and keep government running in the
absence of a budget. When we found ourselves in this
situation back in 1991, the state Attorney General based
his opinion on how to proceed, in part, on an 1892 Connecticut
Supreme Court decision. Not surprisingly, the bottom
line is that the state has an obligation to pay necessary
expenses – with or without a state budget.
Based on the opinion issued by the state Attorney
General in 1991, the two legal ways to run government
in the absence of a state budget is to for the legislature
to pass continuing spending resolutions and, or, for
the Governor to issue executive orders. As recent history
has taught us, the Governor has the authority to veto
a continuing resolution passed by the General Assembly.
As with all gubernatorial vetoes, it would take a two-thirds
vote of the General Assembly to reinstate a continuing
spending resolution struck down by the Governor.
This year, Governor Rell has issued two executive
orders to keep the state running while she and legislative
leaders continue to meet behind closed doors to negotiate
a budget agreement. It is my hope that such an agreement
is reached soon, and that I have the opportunity to
join my colleagues in the General Assembly in voting
for a responsible state budget that Connecticut can
afford.
As always, I welcome hearing from you. I can be reached
at my legislative office in Hartford at 1-800-842-1421,
or via e-mail to Rob.Kane@cga.ct.gov.
|
