California Controller to Pols: No Pay for You!

California Controller John Chiang has announced that legislators will not be getting paid under a recently approved ballot initiative that requires the legislature to meet its June 15 budget deadline. the Sac Bee's Kevin Yamamura reports: 

In doing so, the Democratic controller is exercising unprecedented authority Tuesday, establishing a new role for his office under Propositions 25 and 58 to determine whether a legislative budget is "balanced."

Chiang has determined that the majority-vote plan Democrats sent to Gov. Jerry Brown last week was not a "balanced" budget and therefore did not meet lawmakers' constitutional obligation for timely passage of a spending plan, sources said. Brown immediately vetoed the budget Thursday, less than 16 hours after passage, dubbing it "not a balanced solution" and noting that it relied on legally questionable solutions.

Brown's veto had no effect on legislative pay. But questions raised by Brown and Treasurer Bill Lockyer about the plan's viability appeared to force Chiang's hand, and the controller said he would review the proposal to determine whether it was balanced.

As reported here, here, here, and here, last week's eleventh-hour budget vote was immediately vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown, who denounced the Democrats-only budget as full of "smoke and mirrors." Under the California Balanced Budget Act, Chiang must determine whether revenues meet or exceed expenditures. A spokesman for Chiang's office tells me the plan voted on and vetoed last week was "miscalculated, miscounted or unfinished." 

As signs began to point toward a pay-stoppage yesterday, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg raised an objection on separation-of-powers grounds that to my eye seemed credible if not persuasive. Although it's true that Chiang is not part of the governor's team (he had a fairly contentious relationship with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger), he is part of the executive branch. Prop 25, which established the payroll penalty for an overdue budget, does not describe the process by which the budgetary work of the legislature gets reviewed, and it seems clear to me that if Jerry Brown had signed the budget last week the pay cut would not have happened. 

Chiang spokesman Garin Casaleggio says the controller's move is not unprecedented. "Expenditures have to be less than revenues," Casaleggio says. "The controller can only make the determination that revenues will exceed expenditures. That's a requirement in the state constitution. In this budget, revenues were less than the expenditures." 

To my objection that last year Schwarzenegger signed a gimmicky budget that had to be revisited subsequently as costs turned out to be higher and revenues lower, Casleggio replies: "Budgets can fall out of balance. But at the time it's passed it has to balanced." 

I can see that logic but am still a bit troubled by the idea of too much executive review of legislative process. But I'm not going to let that spoil the fun of seeing California's grotesque politicians go hungry. Casaleggio says his office is equipped to handle the pay stoppage, and will not have the payroll system issue that came up last year when Schwarzenegger sought across-the-board temporary reductions for state employee pay. "The checks get sent out on the 30th of the month," he says. "We are not going to cut the checks." 

Update: Chiang's statement on his decision. Also, a more thorough reading of the section of the state constitution amended by Prop 25 eases most of my separation-of-powers concerns above: 

Article 4, Section 12(g)…the Legislature may not send to the Governor for consideration, nor may the Governor sign into law, a budget bill that would appropriate from the General Fund, for that fiscal year, a total amount that, when combined with all appropriations from the General Fund for that fiscal year made as of the date of the budget bill's passage, and the amount of any General Fund moneys transferred to the Budget Stabilization Account for that fiscal year pursuant to Section 20 of Article XVI, exceeds General Fund revenues for that fiscal year estimated as of the date of the budget bill's passage. That estimate of General Fund revenues shall be set forth in the budget bill passed by the Legislature.

So there really isn't any constitutional ambiguity around having the controller's office make this determination. The legislature is not allowed under the constitution to pass an unbalanced budget. Prop 25, which I opposed and virtually all the Democrats supported, has now come around to bite the Democrats and amuse me.