'Oversight' contributed to Vt. layoffs
Toolbox
By Peter Hirschfeld Vermont Press Bureau - Published: June 10, 2009
MONTPELIER – Some are calling it "the great typo of 2009."
Lawmakers admitted Tuesday that a legislative "oversight" may have harmed state workers' attempts to halt mass layoffs in Vermont government.
The Vermont State Employees Association last week asked a Superior Court judge in Chittenden County to stop the Douglas administration from eliminating about 80 state government jobs. The 8,000-member union said a law, passed by the Vermont Legislature in early June, required the administration to seek legislative approval before moving ahead with the layoff plan. The pink slips scheduled to take effect last week, the union argued, violated the new legislation.
But the judge noted that the no-layoff provision, contained in the Legislature's fiscal year 2010 budget bill, doesn't take effect until July 1. That effective date figured chiefly in his decision to deny the union's request; lawmakers and budget drafters said that, in hindsight, they should have made sure the measure took effect on passage.
"There's no question we should have included that language," Senate President Peter Shumlin said. "We just didn't think the governor would go to these lengths to avoid legislative intent."
Jes Kraus, head of the VSEA, called the oversight "extremely disappointing."
"It was extremely disappointing to learn that language that would have made effective immediately the portion of the budget requiring the Douglas administration to bring a plan to the Joint Fiscal Committee before it can lay off hundreds of employees was omitted from the final version of the budget," Kraus wrote in an e-mail Tuesday.
Rep. David Zuckerman, a Burlington Progressive, said the omission reflected an "unfortunate lack of attention to detail" on the part of the Legislature. Had the House and Senate been more committed to avoiding state layoffs, Zuckerman said, the oversight likely would have been avoided.
"Had this been a bigger priority for the whole session, then I don't think these kinds of mistakes would have happened," Zuckerman said. "All session long, it certainly appeared as though leadership in the House and maybe Senate was not really standing up for our state workforce and the services they provide."
Even if the law had taken effect on passage, as legislators say they intended, it might not have been sufficient to block last week's layoffs. The administration maintains that separation of powers guaranteed in the Vermont Constitution prevents the legislative branch from interfering in executive business.
Still, Kraus said the fate of the workers fired last week may have been impacted by the oversight.
He said the union hopes that new language, passed into law Tuesday, will prevent the administration from moving ahead with its plan to lay off hundreds more workers.
"As it stands now, after July 1, Gov. Douglas will have to present a plan for future layoffs to the Legislature's Joint Fiscal Committee," Kraus said. "Unfortunately, at least 78 state employees have now been added to Vermont's unemployment rolls, and will soon become new consumers of Vermont state services, which puts an even greater strain on our state finances."
The issues of constitutionality will likely be decided in coming weeks and months as the administration seeks to move ahead with layoffs, despite legislative attempts to exert some control over the process.
Attorney General William Sorrel advised the Legislature that the anti-layoff measure in the budget bill likely did violate the Vermont Constitution. The House and Senate have replaced that language with a new provision in the so-called "companion" bill. Douglas signed that bill into law Tuesday but maintains he still does not have to seek legislative approval for layoffs he says are necessary to balance the state budget.
Sen. Tim Ashe, a Democrat/Progressive from Chittenden County, said the Legislature clearly should have made sure the layoff-related language in the budget bill took effect on passage.
"Some people are calling it the great typo of 2009," Ashe said.
But regardless of when the law took effect, Ashe said, Douglas was well aware of legislative intent.
"If the governor wants to move forward with laying off a slew of workers based on that oversight, that's on his conscience," Ashe said. "At the end of day it's still a choice, and if the governor wants to move forward using a very legalistic interpretation, that's still a significant choice on his head."
6