County lawmakers react to Henry's budget veto

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Governor Brad Henry's veto of a $7 billion budget deal drew both praise and blame from members of Cleveland County's legislative delegation.

Earlier this week, Henry vetoed almost all of the state's 2008 budget, saying House Speaker Lance Cargill and Senate leaders Mike Morgan and Glen Coffee employed "a flawed, closed-door process" to craft a budget that "did not represent the best interests" of state taxpayers.

"I do not use my veto authority lightly," Henry said. "But given the flawed process and the flawed product it created, I had no other choice but to strike down the spending bill to protect taxpayers' best interests."

Henry's veto derailed about $6.8 billion in new spending for fiscal year 2008 and a $1 million supplemental appropriation for the Legislative Service Bureau. Henry did approve $92 million in supplemental funds for common education, prisons, career technology centers and the Oklahoma's Promise scholarship program.

"Schools, prisons and other critical need areas are getting the emergency funds they must have to operate," the governor said. "Unfortunately, this legislation does not provide adequate funding for corrections and public safety, so we will have to address their additional emergency needs very quickly."

Two area lawmakers -- both Democrats -- agreed with Henry's veto, while two Republican House members said they were "disappointed" by the action.

Rep. Wallace Collins, D-Norman, said he was proud of Henry's veto and "encouraged the governor to do so" in a letter he sent to Henry earlier this week. "While I originally voted for the bill, I thought there were many things left out," Collins said. "Not knowing the future, I voted 'yes' but I held my nose doing it."

Collins said the measure contained several problems, including a $5 million funding shortage for the Norman Veterans Center. "They have problems with water seepage, mold and outdated technology," he said. "And their pay rate is too low. They have a high turnover rate which prevents veterans from getting top quality care. These issues need to be addressed, and vetoing the bill would be the way to take care of them."

Collins said he was concerned the appropriations bill -- House Bill 1234 -- didn't include a provider fee increase for facilities that offer substance abuse treatment services.

"We were promised a three-year state provider rate increase for facilities who offer substance abuse treatment," he said. "This year providers were supposed to get $4.3 million in funding. Those funds were left out of the bill."

Moore Republican Paul Wesselhoft saw the veto differently.

"I think the governor's veto is unfortunate," Wesselhoft said Thursday afternoon. "It was a very good budget. It was bipartisan and it only grows state government by 3.4 percent."

Wesselhoft said his biggest fear was that lawmakers would create a budget "which might be in the neighborhood of last year's budget."

The 2007 budget, he believes, spent "way to much."

"If we get close to that type of increase again, then I'll vote 'no,'" Wesselhoft said. "Whoever authors it."

Yet while he scolded Henry for his veto, Wesselhoft did agree with the governor on one issue: House Democrats were left out of budget negotiations.

"I do think the House Democrats were left out," he said. "They were pretty much left in the shadows. That's why they are out for a pound of flesh."

For Rep. Bill Nations, D-Norman, the budget deal and its subsequent veto were a good example of the Legislature's cumbersome nature. "This is my ninth year here," Nations said. "And whether it's policy issues or budget issues, there's a process involved. It's often cumbersome; in fact, almost always. There are checks and balances."

Nations said the governor's veto was "the same type of thing" done by former governor Frank Keating.

"Keating did almost the exact same thing," he said. "This is an example of what goes around comes around."

Like Keating's, Henry's veto gives the minority caucus a stronger voice, Nations said. "This veto is an 'aha' moment for House Democrats who were in office when Keating was governor. Now we Democrats have the opportunity to strengthen our voice."

Still, Nations said the issue wasn't partisan, but instead, about who wrote the state's budget. "In this case it wasn't a partisan deal. It was just about who got to be among the handful of people who created the budget."

And while Nations said he didn't have any problem with "about 90 percent" of the appropriations bill, he confirmed he would vote to sustain the governor's veto.

"Oh absolutely. I voted against the Senate amendments which created the bulk of the bill and I voted against the bill, itself. I will support the governor's veto. There are things that can be improved. And if we get the shot, I think it will be a better product than it is now."

Nations said the bill needed to be changed because it contained "essentially no increase" for the state's higher education system and because there were no funds allocated for the struggling Teachers' Retirement System.

"That's an enormous one," he said. "They did nothing to address shoring up TRS which, everyone agrees, is in desperate need."

Like Wesselhoft, Norman's newest lawmaker, Republican Rep. Scott Martin, said he was "extremely disappointed" by Henry's veto.

"This general appropriations bill is very balanced," Martin said. "We've met some of the obligations we committed ourselves to in years past, and also, in a large part, funded those essential services."

Martin said he was "shocked" that Gov. Henry would say lawmakers were "not giving enough" to education.

"The governor knows that we understand how important that (education funding) is," he said. "I'm disappointed in the tone and rancor that he's presented."

But while Martin said he didn't understand why the bill was vetoed, he said lawmakers have the opportunity to create a good budget.

"It's very important that we do this the right way," he said. "I think the governor and the Legislature each have a vital role in this process. You can't pass a successful budget without all of the parties being there."