Attorneys for Schweitzer and the legislative branch offered competing opinions about the legality of what Republicans were doing by turning the traditional one state spending bill into six. Schweitzer’s attorney raised constitutional questions, while the Legislature’s chief lawyer disagreed.
Finally, with palpable tension and hostility in the air, members of the House Appropriations Committee talked about boogeymen and histrionics in another contentious day spent hashing over the latest version of the state budget.
Under questioning by Rep. Tim Callahan, D-Great Falls, House Appropriations Chairman John Sinrud, R-Bozeman, admitted he was the one who reduced the size of the proposed budget increases in HB2 when HB804-809 were rolled out last month. Sinrud insisted there would be no more cuts to these budgets.
“We went - er, I went through - and reviewed what areas were increased dramatically,” Sinrud said.
Callahan charged, “The cuts were made behind closed doors by somebody, and it wasn’t us.”
He said Schweitzer’s budget “was kicked to the curb” because Republicans have their own budget agenda they are pushing and drafted it behind closed doors.
Sinrud asked Callahan if he was making some allegations against him, but the Democrat said no.
“Representative Callahan, I was responsible,” Sinrud said. “It was me. You can look at the boogeyman in the details. This is the process we’re going over. We can sit and complain about the process all we want. This is the committee that will make amendments and will start the process of changing the bill.”
Then Sinrud criticized Schweitzer’s budget director, David Ewer, for sending an e-mail to the governor’s Cabinet and staff on Friday, telling them to oppose the GOP bills and not to prepare any amendments to fix the six House budget bills.
Instead, the administration called on directors and staff to line up behind HB2.
“This is done in secret,” Sinrud said of the e-mail.
In response, Ewer told reporters his e-mail memo was “self-evident.”
“We support the governor’s budget,” Ewer said. “We also support the process of HB2 and the subcommittees.”
He said the administration opposes most of the content of HB804-809 and wants to see HB2 revived.
Ewer released a legal memorandum from Ann Brodsky, Schweitzer’s attorney, who raised legal concerns over the six Republican budget bills. Brodsky said the six bills are general appropriations bills, and all contain substantive law changes that are not appropriations “in contravention” of the Montana Constitution.
“The substantive law changes sought in (House Bills) 804 through 809 must be enacted through a ‘single subject’ bill, not a general appropriations bill,” Brodsky wrote.
However, the Legislature’s chief lawyer, Greg Petesch, disagreed when questioned by Sinrud.
“The statutory changes contained in these bills are designed to make the bills legal under the constitution,” Petesch said.
Asked if they violated a provision of the Montana Constitution, Petesch replied, “Not in my opinion.”
Sinrud asked Petesch if he determines whether there are constitutional problems while drafting bills.
“That is part of my function as a bill drafter,” he said.
Under questioning by Callahan, Petesch said, “I drafted these bills to address the legal issues I was aware of.”
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)