…you were so very wrong:
Burlington Free Press Headline:
State layoffs moving ahead: Union to seek court action.
The Herald’s:
State workers’ union to file restraining order to stop layoffs
UPDATE I got a tip via e-mail yesterday:
The Administration just hired Michael Marks, an expensive PRIVATE attorney to defend them in superior court tomorrow. When the State has so many of their own attorneys, why are they wasting taxpayer money and hiring outside counsel?
Anyone able to verify this? I figure if they hired this guy, he’ll be at the hearing this morning.
First from the Herald, as reported by Dan Barlow:
A provision in the 2010 budget that requires Douglas to seek approval from the Joint Fiscal Committee, an off-session legislative body that makes budget decisions, before making any further job cuts has set off a war or [sic] words between the executive and legislative branches.
…and…
The union representing thousands of state workers will file for a restraining order today to stop the state government from laying off about 120 state workers.
The Vermont State Employees Association officials said they will ask a Washington County Superior Court judge to issue an emergency order to stop Gov. James Douglas’ future layoff plans. Nearly 100 state employees are scheduled to work their last day Friday.
And from Hallenbeck, in the Free Press:
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Bartlett, D-Lamoille, said administration officials told her Tuesday that Douglas would take the Legislature to court over the new wording.
Lunderville said Wednesday, “We’re not going to sue the Legislature,” but he didn’t dismiss the idea of ignoring the directive if the administration deems it unconstitutional.
There also seems to be some question about the number of layoffs. The Free Press reports it as anywhere from 78-99, depending on whom you ask, and the Herald reports a range of 100-120. You’d think that would be something that would be easy enough to figure out, but clearly not.
That said, there is probably a serious constitutional question here, but Lunderville’s solution (“he didn’t dismiss the idea of ignoring the directive if the administration deems it unconstitutional”) is a good lesson. If you lose at the legislature, why risk a fair fight in the court system? Best to just ignore the whole thing.
I also want to be up front about something here: this is personal for me. I lost my own job a year or so ago because of budget cuts at the state level. I was a contractor, and I think contractors should be cut before state employees so I had no real argument with that decision.
But during the time I was working for the State of VT, I learned a lot about the inner workings of state government and I know other contractors who are still working with the state whom are an immense waste of money for us, but they’re going to cut state union workers instead of looking at contracted positions. People I know are likely to lose their job over this bugetary shell game.
So yes, it’s personal. That doesn’t make it less important and it doesn’t make it less disturbing.
If the administration wants to cut these positions, the law now dictates that they have to seek approval to do so. If they want to violate that law, they need to do it through the court system through appropriate venues, and not through the time-honored “lalalalalalalala I can’t HEAR you!” tradition.
If Lunderville, and more significantly his Boss, had any balls, they would follow their oath of office, which is to uphold the laws of the State of Vermont.
The point is not to sue the legislature. If the administration actually believed in good faith (Ha!) that the law was unconstitutional, they have a sworn obligation and duty to the people of the State of Vermont to whom they have taken an oath to sue the law.
One of the easiest approaches, for a Governor with balls and the courage of his convictions, is to go to Washington Co. Superior Court, AS REQUIRED, and seek a declaration (Declaratory Judgment Rule 57) that the law is unconstitutional. It is the Governor's burden, if he genuinely believes a Vermont law (which he is without exception bound to uphold) is unconstitutional to go to court and seek a court declaration, not sue the legislature as Lunderville disingenuously asserts.
It's easy for a sore loser and a coward, fearing his own convictions, to just throw aside the oath of office and break the law. Choosing to stand up in Court and assert to a judge (most likely one he appointed) that a law is unconstitutional and therefore, takes a bit more sac than we've seen from these snakes in the grass.
Lunderville's bogus argument about suing the legislature is a Straw Man and he knows it. Either the Governor goes to court and challenges the law BEFORE BREAKING IT, or he upholds the law just like swore to Vermonter that he would do. Those are the only choices.
This is not a political dispute. This is a rule of law and oath of office absolute.
well, rather, the headline this morning – was the topic of conversation among Burlington DPW workers this morning. Worried looks as we waited in line at the local Cumby’s.
Outside the world of Dick the X-VP, most public officials who violate the law are Fired…. In the case of the executive, that would take the form of the legislature removing him from office….
Sitting in the oval with Obama didn’t allow much reason to rub off on Jim, and Lunderville is still trying to make a “party (agenda)at all costs” name for himself outside the dome. This has always been about the reduction of the size of government no matter what the cost to citizens. Getting a whack at a few Union folks who are biting at your butt probably isn’t a bad thing either if you can manage it with a straight face…
It will be true drama to see if the house really has the balls to bring that type of action forward. I think the house leadership has had a lot of gamesmanship foisted upon them by Jim, and his ticket could really be punched if he chooses the wrong path.
The provision of the budget that would encourage retirements in the workforce to save money and avoid the need for layoffs was something Jim didnt really like.
Maybe late night Saturday could do a live ….oh nevermind
Quite likely the timing was also part of the Democratic Caucus’s budget veto override considerations. I have no knowledge of any agreement between VSEA and the Democrats, but it would make sense that the D’s would ask the VSEA to hold off filing until after the override vote.
NanuqFC
Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary. ~ Reinhold Niebuhr
State government has already been reduced by 400+ positions in the past two years and will be shrunk by an additional 300 positions with the passage of a retirement incentive program this year. That Douglas wants to lay off another 100+ working Vermonters in the coming weeks is pure ideology. This Administration has decimated state government in a time when people need public services more than ever.
Since these cuts have policy implications, the Legislature should absolutely have an opportunity to review them. Its the legislative branch’s responsibility to ensure programs are adequately staffed and funded – otherwise Douglas is just unilaterally making policy.
Hopefully the court will rule in VSEA’s favor and grant this retraining order. The judiciary has also been impacted by Douglas’ position cuts so I’d assume they’d have some sympathy!
This is a hidden but significant drain on the state budget.
Even as state employees are laid off, the contractors are hiring. For example, see http://jobview.monster.com/Get… – these are the folks that moved the
Douglas campaignVermont state web portal out of state.Contractors can be amazingly expensive. Often not the individual freelancers, but the “beltway bandit” outfits have truly jaw-dropping rates. And very little oversight to make sure the state is getting what it pays for.
Unfortunately, the legislature has at times been complicit in contracting-out.
Most litigators for the state actually fall within the purview of the AG’s Office. Given the nature of this dispute, it is not surprising that outside counsel has been retained (does anyone think AG Sorrell and his lieutenants would be truly zealous advocates for the Administration)? Michael Marks is a very capable — and fair — attorney. We could do much worse than have him representing the Administration in this dispute.
Confirmed that Marks is representing the Administration in Chittenden Superior Court this morning.