Panel gets say on cuts

CARSON CITY -- Lawmakers will get to exercise their authority as the first branch of government on Friday, weighing in on the controversial budget cuts announced by Gov. Jim Gibbons in January.

But the meeting might have more symbolic than practical meaning. A legislative panel composed of the members of the Senate Finance and Assembly Ways and Means committees even could vote to reject the cuts.

If the mostly across-the-board 4.5 percent cuts for some reason are not approved by lawmakers, and the various department and agency directors and division chiefs are saving the money anyway, the savings will revert to the state general fund at the end of the fiscal year on June 30 no matter what.

The cuts were sent by Gibbons for lawmaker approval on May 9 after a state attorney general's opinion said the law required such action. Lawmakers could have allowed the cuts to take effect without action after 15 days, but a decision to schedule a special meeting was made instead.

Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, said the meeting is important "to re-establish the precedent that the governor must consult with the Legislature before implementing significant cuts in the budget."

"While the January cuts have already been implemented, and the second round of cuts was done in consultation with leadership, it's essential to re-establish the balance of power in our state," she said.

"Many legislators on IFC (the Legislature's Interim Finance Committee) have decades of budget experience and know certain areas of the budget as well as their own checkbook; we should be consulted, and according to state law, we must be included."

The decision to get lawmaker approval of the cuts should end an impasse with state Controller Kim Wallin, who has not yet started the spending reductions in her office because of the need for legislative approval.

But if agencies started the cuts as directed by Gibbons in a plan to balance the two-year state budget, the unspent money will flow back to state coffers anyway.

The only difference will be that the reductions will be noted formally by Wallin in the agency budgets.

The cuts ordered by Gibbons were controversial because public education was included. Several lawmakers criticized the plan because of the programs that were targeted and because the decision was made without significant legislative involvement.

A second round of cuts announced later was the result of talks between the executive and legislative branches.