December 10, 2002

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUND REDUCTION OF $6,739,973 MILLION APPROVED BY THE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD
 

This morning the Budget and Control Board approved sequestering funds to make up a projected shortfall of $292.8 million in the state budget. In order to bring the budget back in balance, the Budget and Control Board approved an immediate across the board cut for state agencies of 4.5%, an additional sequestration of .5% of agencies budgets in case of additional revenue shortfalls, and reducing the Aid to Subdivisions (the Local Government Fund) by $6,739,973 million. This cut stands in contrast to the Governors proposed local government fund cut of $9.1 million and a $5.1 million sequestration.

The reduction in Aid to Subdivisions represents roughly a 3% cut. It is likely the Budget and Control Board would have reduced the Local Government Fund by a percentage equal to state agencies but for a provision in §6-27-20 championed by SCAC which prohibits reducing Aid to Subdivisions by less than was received in the preceding fiscal year.

The board voted 4-1 to implement the cuts, with the Governor registering a no vote. The General Assembly has five days in which they are in statewide session to amend or reject the Budget and Control Board’s action. Although the General Assembly is in special session, it is unlikely that they could act within five days to countermand the board’s decision.

The county portion of the local government fund was reduced by $5,612,915 as a result of the Budget and Control Board’s action. Attached you will find a copy of the projected loss of funding for each county. If you have any questions, please contact SCAC staff at 1-800-922-6081.

Click here to view the proposed distribution of cuts across counties.

November 26, 2002

Governor’s Proposed Cut in Local Government Fund

Please let your legislators know the devastating impact these cuts in the Local Government Fund would have on your county. The table below shows your county’s FY 2003 share with the proposed cut and what this loss would mean to your county if the Governor’s proposal is adopted by the General Assembly.

April 11, 2002

Elected Official Personnel  - H.4958

A House Judiciary subcommittee met this week and reported out H. 4958 with an amendment. The bill now states that all employees of an elected official are exempt from the county personnel policy. Each elected department head is then given the authority to set a personnel policy for the department. That amendment is attached. H. 4958 will be on the House Judiciary Committee agenda on Tuesday, April 16, 2002. Please contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee immediately to let them know the impact of this legislation on your county. Plan to attend the House Judiciary Committee at 2:30, Tuesday in Room 516 of the Blatt House Office Building.

This legislation does not simply codify the Eargle decision, it creates multiple personnel policies and systems and is an open invitation to litigation involving matters of employment law, including the Fair Labor Standards Act, Wage & Hour, ADA, and many others.

This creates a system with no accountability. The elected department head would have the ability to create his own personnel policy and no responsibility for any law suit costs or judgments resulting from personnel policies which violate an employee=s rights.

There is no equality of treatment among the employees from one office to another. This generates disputes among the employees of the various elected department heads. This also potentially creates the appearance of discrimination if not actual discrimination among the different groups of employees. There is no requirement for review of personnel decisions or an internal grievance process.

The elected department heads generally have no legal support services of their own to assist in the development and review of personnel policies necessary to avoid violations of federal employment law. This will result in either significantly higher legal bills for review and development of separate personnel policies or in litigation and judgment costs.

There will be no stability in the personnel policy in the elected department heads office from one election to another. Line employees will not know from one administration to the next, what their personnel policy will be.

There is no definition of what may or may not be included in an elected department head personnel policy. A policy could include the list of holidays, staffing levels, office hours, the use of comp time or overtime pay, differing fringe benefits, sick leave policy, pay scales, and employee classification. Many of these items have fiscal impacts and would be equivalent to the ability to set a budget.