Governor action looms over spending debates

AUGUSTA – Lawmakers debating how to trim state spending this week have been motivated in part by the looming threat of unilateral action by the governor.

The chief executive’s authority to slow the rate of expenditures was spelled out more than five years ago in a written opinion from Attorney General Steven Rowe to the chairmen of the Legislature’s Appropriations Committee.

A process known as curtailing allotments, Rowe wrote on Oct. 16, 2002, “gives quasi-legislative authority to the governor to reduce expenditures by state agencies in order to bring the state’s overall spending into closer balance with available revenues.

“These spending reductions, necessitated by the overriding constitutional requirement that the budget be balanced, are accomplished by an executive order reducing an agency’s program allotments.

“Established within the structure of the appropriations in the state budget, allotments represent the amounts each agency expects to spend for each program in each quarter of the fiscal year, and their approval by the governor serves as authorization for the release of those funds from the state treasury and hence a limitation on agency spending,” Rowe wrote.

Earlier this month, Gov. John Baldacci had his budget team undertake a procedural step that would prepare the way for the imposition of a second gubernatorial curtailment order in three months.

Following guidelines outlined in state law, Commissioner Rebecca Wyke of the Department of Administrative and Financial Services formally wrote to the governor that “anticipated income and other available funds of the state will not be sufficient to meet expenditures authorized by the Legislature” for fiscal 2008.

Officials noted that a curtailment order would be a temporary way to reduce the rate of state spending until a supplemental budget is passed.

Baldacci issued a $38 million curtailment order on Dec. 18, 2007. The amount of the new curtailment, effective April 1 in advance of the June 30 end of fiscal 2008, would be $27 million.

Rowe’s 2002 opinion noted limits on unilateral gubernatorial authority.

“By acting to curtail allotments,” the attorney general wrote, “the governor is reducing the amounts agencies can lawfully spend on specified programs. In short, an agency requires both legislative authorization [appropriation] and executive authorization [approved allotments] in order to spend money.

“The curtailment process cannot be used to increase spending or move money from one program to another. However, spending can be reduced within programs by executive order alone when the terms of the curtailment statute are satisfied without legislation changing the budget,” Rowe wrote.

Wyke said Friday lawmakers would be understandably reluctant to see executive branch curtailments take effect instead of more tailored changes put into law through a budget-balancing bill.

“A curtailment is a very blunt tool,” Wyke said.