The Fine Print

The roots behind the Rick Scott-Adam Putnam showdown

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, especially those in "Scott world" that Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam came out so forcefully against Gov. Rick Scott's decision to back the expansion of Medicaid. Putnam called it "naive" and blasted the decision during a speech he gave in Tallahassee.

There are those who already jumping to the conclusion that Putnam is readying himself to a primary challenge against his fellow Republican.

That still appears to be unlikely.

But there has been a feud quietly building up in the last two years.

There are signs - and speculation among those close to Putnam - that he has been viewed as a possible threat ever since the two men came into office in early 2011.

Whatever the reason there is no question that Putnam and his staff have been put on the defensive in back-to-back legislative sessions because each year the governor's office has hinted at the possibility of a veto of Putnam's top legislative priority.

In the first year the Scott administration discussed internally whether to veto a bill that shifted control of the school lunch program away from the Department of Education and over to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

The main resistance to the legislation came from the State Board of Education (and which had been contemplating banning chocolate milk in schools), but Putnam was able to shepherd the measure through the Legislature and on to Scott's desk without much resistance. Putnam had managed to build up a coalition of support for the legislation and in the end Scott approved the bill.

But that wasn't the end of the tug-of-war between the Scott administration and Putnam's office.

The same year Putnam won control of the school lunch program the Legislature also gave Putnam a larger say over energy issues.

He followed it up in 2012 by pushing what he termed a modest energy bill that restored tax credits for renewable energy projects. That bill, however, ran into fervent opposition, especially from tea party groups and Americans for Prosperity-Florida, which contended the measure created winners and losers.

Scott let the bill become law - but without his signature.

In a letter announcing his decision Scott wrote that he let it become law out of "deference" to Putnam and the legislators pushing it. But he also questioned whether the bill would produce results. "Absent clear documentation that the proposed tax credits have produced a sufficient return or provided significant cost savings for the state's taxpayers, I will request their repeal," Scott wrote.

Putnam referenced the near veto recently - and explained it was why he decided to opt against recommending any major legislation this year.

"We found widespread support in the Legislature and we very nearly had it vetoed," Putnam told Bruce Ritchie of The Florida Current. "So moving forward, we think it's important there is a clear understanding what all of the interested parties' expectations are for future energy development in Florida."

Another warning shot from Scott to Putnam came right after the governor signed his first budget into law. In his veto message Scott openly questioned the "value" of two divisions under Putnam including the Division of Consumer Services. He wrote that Putnam's office had not done a good enough job to justify the money spent on the two divisions and suggested he might eliminate it in the future.

The tension between Scott and Putnam has also been on display during meetings between the governor and the Cabinet. If you watch closely there have been numerous times that Putnam has gingerly waded into some issue, only to cut himself off and not press the item any further. It almost seems as if he wants to say something, but then decides it's not worth the fight.

This coming week will mark the first time that Scott and the three members of the Cabinet - Putnam, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater - have met publicly since the Medicaid expansion debate began.

Bondi and Atwater have also criticized the decision by Scott to support Medicaid expansion.

Bondi and Scott have for the most part forged a close-working relationship prior to this moment so it's not clear whether this will prove detrimental. Atwater and Scott have had some mild disagreements - particularly in the arena of insurance regulation and Citizens Property Insurance - but the two did work together on pushing changes to the personal injury protection law (PIP).

The biggest question moving ahead is whether Putnam, Bondi or Atwater take time to keep up their opposition to Medicaid expansion and actively lobby against it in the Legislature.

All three members have side-stepped many controversial issues since coming into office in 2011 - refusing to take a stance on numerous items.

Case in point - Putnam was slow wading into the debate over Internet cafes even though the storefront operations have been able to expand by contending they fall under sweepstakes operations (which are regulated by Putnam's office.) It wasn't until after his first session as commissioner that Putnam suggested lawmakers needed to decide if Internet cafes were legal.

But with 2014 right around the corner it will be interesting to see whether or not Putnam - as well as Bondi and Atwater - decide to ratchet up their profiles and battles with the governor.

Backsliding after the Sansom scandal?

One of the things that did change in the wake of the arrest of former House Speaker Ray Sansom is that lawmakers changed the way they handled the state budget.

Sansom was charged with using his power as budget chairman to slip in $6 million for a project being sought by a developer and donor.

The charges against the Destin Republican were dropped mid-trial after State Attorney Willie Meggs said he could not proceed due to a bench ruling limiting testimony from a key witness. But that happened after top Republicans changed many ways they finalized the annual state budget.

Chief among some of these changes is that there had to be a public hearing on funding for construction projects if the projects had not been recommended by the boards that oversee public schools and the state university system.

But other substantive changes also included forcing the release of all budget proviso language and all conforming bill language before it shows up in the budget. The idea was to create more transparency.

Then Senate President Jeff Atwater at the time conceded the grand jury indictment of Sansom prompted lawmakers to change how they were doing things.

"I think their feedback was valuable to us to say, 'This is the people's budget, why shouldn't we go an extra mile to make sure they see it,'' Atwater said in January 2010.

Well, it's a year later and some of the changes in place last year have already begun to fade away.

Lawmakers did hold a so-called "PECO parade" - which is where officials were asked to explain funding requests for construction projects funded as part of the "public education capital outlay" list.

But there has been a lot less information when it comes to conforming bills and even proviso language that winds up in the final budget. Why is this important? Because the conforming bills and the budget itself can only be voted up or down and they cannot be amended.

Case in point: While budget negotiators mentioned briefly $400,000 for a study of the state court system earlier this week, they did not reveal the actual substance of the study until Tuesday night when the final budget was released.

There it was revealed that the state courts study would look at consider the civil and criminal justice workload of the state Supreme Court - as well as the threshold used for merit retention vote of judges. These were concepts that were discarded in the final court reform bill, but it seems by doing a study that the issue could be revived next year depending on what the study comes up with.

But beyond that there has been scant information about the dozens of conforming bills that accompany the budget. There is a meeting scheduled on Thursday at 11:30 a.m. to discuss them, but it's unclear just what will be discussed and how much information will be revealed.

Stay tuned.

UPDATE: During that meeting, House and Senate budget chiefs exchanged offers regarding several conforming bills that accompany the budget. And while nearly all the bills were in fact presented - there are two key bills where the concepts but not the actual language has not been reviewed in public. That's the final pension bill and the bill that creates a new economic development agency.

Whose budget pork is it anyway?

This got some quick attention earlier this week but it merits a bit of discussion.

Florida legislative leaders announced that for the third year in a row that they won't allow fellow legislators to put in community budget requests -- or the Tallahassee version of earmarks.

The rationale from House Speaker Dean Cannon and Senate President Mike Haridopolos was that the state's ongoing fiscal crisis means that allowing members to file in such requests would "create unrealistic funding expectations for the coming year."

There's no doubt that the coming year will be tough again. Lawmakers will head into the spring session with a projected budget shortfall that could range anywhere from $2.5 billion to as small as $828 million depending on what legislators decide to fund.A key factor is that chunks of the federal stimulus will drop out of the budget.

State law allows for community budget issue requests. This is a process where cities, counties as well as private and non-profit organizations can request funding for items like, oh, astroturf for a South Florida flag football league.

But local projects can still get funded without these community budget requests, even in tough budget years. There were several local projects that were placed in the state budget by powerful legislators during the 2010 session.

The only difference is that without the community budget requests it's much harder to figure out where they came from and who wanted them.

CBIR's as they are also known usually require a lawmaker to list the background of a project and even the names and phone numbers of those who are asking for the money. The item is also supposed to include whether it was requested by a state agency or has local matching money.

The one caveat, however, is that top leaders, including House speakers and Senate presidents rarely attach their name to CBIR's even though they wind up being instrumental in getting millions set aside to their own pet projects.

During the 2010 campaign season Democrat Loranne Ausley, a candidate for Chief Financial Officer, said that the Legislature should reinstate the system of requiring the community budget requests so that "politicians must own their pork spending." She ripped then Senate President Jeff Atwater for jettisoning community budget issue requests.

When asked about it this fall, Atwater was fairly dismissive of Ausley's ideas.

He noted that back in 2007 - the year that former Rep. Ray Sansom put in money for a $6 million hangar and the year that lawmakers put together a controversial bond deal for the First DCA Courthouse - that the Legislature did use the community budget requests but that things got in the budget anyway.

The hangar, of course, led eventually to Sansom's indictment while the courthouse continues to generate headlines.

Atwater contends the changes that lawmakers used during the last two sessions are superior. This included unveiling budget conforming bills in public meetings and forcing university officials to appear at a public hearing to make requests for construction dollars.

The question is whether or not Cannon or Haridopolos will retain these practices. The new Senate and House rules passed last week were silent on how lawmakers will handle the budget conferences during the 2011 session.

House and Senate staff have suggested that they will likely handle it as they did this past spring, but there's been no official word yet.

 

 

GOP legislator urged a "no vote" against Atwater but changed his mind

Rep. Charles Van Zant, who this week sent out an e-mail suggesting GOP candidate for governor Rick Scott would support a near ban on abortion, also told his supporters on Monday that he would not be backing Senate President Jeff Atwater for Chief Financial Officer.

The reason? He said that Atwater during the 2010 session scrapped a meeting with him when Van Zant wanted to talk about the Florida Right to Life Act, the bill that would ban abortion in all nearly all cases except if the mother's life was in danger. Van Zant said that initially Atwater agreed to meet with him but that it was cancelled after Atwater's staff were told it was about Van Zant's bill.

Brian Hughes, communications director for Atwater's campaign, said that "if staff treated Representative Van Zandt unprofessionally that was certainly not Jeff’s intent and it is regrettable. Jeff Atwater has a consistent, conservative record. Jeff has been endorsed by the Florida Chamber of Commerce, the NRA, and Florida Right to Life.  These endorsements all reflect support for his plan to cut government waste, give more accountability and transparency to Floridians, and champion the entrepreneurs who will grow the state's economy while creating jobs."

Hughes added that "Jeff apologized to Representative Van Zant for the confusion about the meeting, and the representative said he accepted."

Hughes then forwarded a e-mail that Van Zant put out this morning:

Dear friends,

Since my e-mail to you on Monday, I feel compelled to further comment on Jeff Atwater's race for Florida's Chief Financial Officer. 

Tuesday, Mr. Atwater telephoned me and we talked for about 45 minutes.  He apologized for the cancellation of our meeting regarding the Florida for Life Act and said he would never knowingly cancel a meeting on a pro-life issue.  I personally believe he is sincere and have accepted his apology and statement.  In addition, he has accepted full responsibility for what happened.

Jeff Atwater has a standing 10-year pro-life voting record.  His pro-life credentials have always been very clear.  He has also assured me that as a member of Florida's cabinet, his door will always be open to help legislators on pro-life issues. 

Here's what Van Zant said in the e-mail he sent out on Monday:

Chief Financial Officer: NO to Jeff Atwater. 

For the record, last year Jeff Atwater agreed to a legislative meeting with me in his office.  When the Florida for Life Act, that would ban abortion and protect the lives of unborn Floridians was given to his staff as the subject of the meeting, the meeting was abruptly cancelled and he refused to meet with me.  I will not vote for him.

Democrat and CFO candidate says it's time to stop trusting lobbyists

The Democrat running for chief financial officer says it is time for Florida lawmakers to stop trusting lobbyists.

Loranne Ausley is blasting the Florida Legislature -- as well as GOP opponent and Senate President Jeff Atwater -- for failing to follow a law that requires the state to verify how much lobbyists are getting paid to influence legislators, the governor and others in Tallahassee.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported last December that the Legislature was not following a 2005 law meant to give citizens a better idea of how much money was flowing into the Capitol. Lobbyists have been required for four years to file reports listing how much they get paid -- but the state has relied on an "honor system" regarding these reports, despite the fact that state law calls for random audits.

"I think it's outrageous the Legislature and Jeff Atwater have refused to follow the law," Ausley said. "We need to clean up the pay-to-play culture in Tallahassee. We need to hold lobbyists and politicians accountable."

Brian Hughes, a campaign spokesman for Atwater, said instead of constantly criticizing the Legislature, Ausley should tell voters what she plans to do if she is elected.

The audit requirement was included in the 2005 law that also banned gifts to lawmakers from lobbyists. The GOP-controlled Legislature, however, has disagreed on how to carry out the audit requirement and raised concerns about the cost. Plus, hardly any accounting firms have been willing to take on the audit work.

Former Senate President Tom Lee, who pushed for the law, says there's "bipartisan" blame to go around.

Read the entire Herald-Tribune article here.

 

Will Florida have a John Kerry moment on immigration?

Attorney General Bill McCollum and Rep. William Snyder are expected this morning to unveil proposed new legislation on immigration that is modeled after the controversial Arizona law that has drawn popular support but is opposed by the administration of President Barack Obama.

The key question for McCollum - who will be in Orlando to make the announcement - is just how close this new bill follows past immigration legislation that has gone nowhere in the Florida Legislature.

Snyder and other lawmakers have said there is a need to push immigration changes. McCollum, who has come under fire from GOP rival Rick Scott for changing his stance on the Arizona law, has also said something needs to be done.

But it's worth noting that back in 2008 - when Marco Rubio was House speaker and McCollum was already in office - that a major immigration bill sponsored by former Rep. Gayle Harrell never it made it beyond a committee workshop.

HB 821 specifically states that "if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a person arrested for a felony arrest is not legally present in the United States, the officer shall report that person to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of the United States Department of Homeland Security."

The bill goes even further and states that correctional officers and judges who deal with a person arrested and convicted of felony must report them to federal authorities if they suspect them of being an illegal alien. The measure also requires law-enforcement agencies to provide notices to officers that it is their duty to cooperate with federal officials regarding enforcement. And the bill also directs Florida's Attorney General to "vigorously pursue" all opportunities for federal funds to reimburse the state for enforcing federal immigration laws.

The legislation, which was called unnecessary at the time by some Hispanic Republicans in the Legislature, also required verification of national identity in order to qualify for certain public benefits. The measure also required that if someone were arrested for a DUI that a "reasonable effort" be made in order to find out their citizenship status.

So the question is whether Florida lawmakers will now push for a bill that two years ago wasn't considered worthy enough to even vote for the first time. It will revive questions about Rubio's stance on immigration and whether he has altered them in connection with his run for the U.S. Senate.

Plus, it is also worth remembering that the Legislature this past session wound up rejecting immigration bills. The House, for example, approved a measure by Rep. Sandy Adams, that required contractors who work for the state to verify the citizenship status of their employees. The measure died because it was never taken up by the Florida Senate which is led by Senate President Jeff Atwater, R-North Palm Beach and a candidate for chief financial officer.

(UPDATE - The bill that was unveiled is a bit different from the Harrell legislation although it does include similar language that was included in Adams' bill from this year. But the bill does mandate that law enforcement try to determine the immigration status of someone if they have "reasonable suspicion" that they are in this country illegally.

When asked why McCollum is unveiling the legislation now, a spokeswoman for McCollum said that he has been involved in immigration enforcement efforts during his time as Attorney General. Sandi Copes also defended the timing of presenting the bill now, saying the Arizona controversy has reinforced the public's desire to do something about immigration at this time.)

Crist admits veto process isn't "perfect" but insists he did not target legislators

Gov. Charlie Crist this week defended his decision to veto $371 million from the state's new budget and insisted that he did a "top line" review of budget projects.

“I don’t really pay attention to who the member is and gave specific instructions not to do that for me,’’ Crist told the Florida Tribune.

Crist made this statement even though his own budget staff drew up a 44-page document that listed individual projects in the state's $70 billion budget and which member was associated with it.

Crist also admitted that the budget process isn't "perfect" when being asked about why he vetoed nearly $10 million for Shands at the University of Florida.

Read more about it here.

So who had the best session? J.D.? Atwater? Cannon? Time to vote.

While the main political news is Gov. Charlie Crist's defection from the Republican Party of Florida, the 2010 session of the Florida Legislature is about to come staggering to a close.

Session during election years are usually free of any serious debates but this session was filled with a combination of complicated policy fights over issues like Medicaid and job protections for teachers. Yet lawmakers also spent time entrenched in divisive partisan battles over federal health care reform and whether Congress should be forced to balanced the federal budget.

So who was the most effective legislator this year?

Florida Tribune takes a closer look at a potential list and offers up 10 nominees. This list is by no means exhaustive. But readers can vote for one of the 10 nominees or they can put in another legislator that they believe is most deserving of the title.

Memo to state workers: This budget could be all about you

While there is lots of talk about changing Medicaid, there is a growing sense of inevitability of where state lawmakers will try to wring a large amount of savings when they craft the 2010-11 state budget. And that's from state workers.

Senate President Jeff Atwater in an interview last week couldn't have been more blunt. Layoffs of state workers he said is "unavoidable." And Atwater, R-North Palm Beach, made it clear that retooling health insurance benefits and even retirement accounts is also a distinct possibility.

Atwater said that he cannot justify protecting state employees while other businesses throughout the state are shedding workers and trimming costs.

 "They have changed their health plans for their fellow employees, they have had layoffs that tragically became necessary to keep the business afloat, they have furloughed employees, they have reduced wages, they have moved from the strip center back to their garage and the back bedroom to survive,'' he said. "If our orientation is that I should be preserving something here uniquely and differently than what my fellow Floridians have had to do to keep their own small business afloat, I have missed the correct orientation of my job.''

When Gov. Charlie Crist rolled out his budget proposal he made it clear that he did not think it was the "right time" to either cut state salaries or force state employees to pay more for their own health insurance, or even require the roughly 27,000 who pay no health insurance premiums to pay something.

That sentiment so far does not appear to be shared by the GOP-controlled Legislature. The political reality could be that it's easy to go after state employees because in the counties with the highest concentration of workers - except Miami-Dade - those areas lean heavily Democratic.

But it may have just as much to do with budget reality. Republicans have made it clear that they will not entertain tax increases during an election year. Federal stimulus money requirements mean that legislators can't slash expenses easily in places such as Medicaid or even school funding.

Last week the main Senate budget panel heard about how costs in the state health insurance plan are growing at 10 percent a year. That's significant since the state is expected to spend $1.8 billion on health insurance for state workers and university employees during the current budget year. Only an estimated $157 million of that will come from state worker premiums.

But it may not just be health insurance that legislators turn to. They may also force state workers to contribute to their retirement accounts.

Up until 1975 state employees did pay into the pension plan known as the Florida Retirement System. That year legislators opted against a pay raise - but wiped out the contribution requirement - a move that boosted the take home money in paychecks.

Forcing state workers to pay 1 percent of their salary toward their pension would generate an estimated $72 million a year.

Florida pays its employees on average less than employees in such states as Alabama, Louisiana, Kentucky and North Carolina, according to a presentation made earlier this month by the Department of Management Services to the Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee. But that same analysis showed that other states like Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana also require their workers to contribute anywhere from 1.25 percent to 7.5 percent to their retirement accounts. Tennessee does not charge employees, while Arkansas charges nothing for employees hired before 2005 but five percent for those hired after July 2005.

Legislator will try one more time to get lobbyists to tell the truth

Sen. Alex Villalobos has had a change of heart.

Just two weeks ago the Miami Republican said he was giving up and had no intention on filing his "Truth in Government" Act that would require those testifying before the Legislature to swear to tell the truth.

But he said he changed his mind after talking to Senate President Jeff Atwater, R-North Palm Beach. He said the Senate president supports having lawmakers push ahead with several bills that deal with ethics, including some of those being sponsored by Sen. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach. So Villalobos refiled his bill, which would make it a crime to lie to a legislative committee. It would not apply to legislators and children.

"I see an opportunity given the president's desire to move bills that address ethics and corruption,'' said Villalobos this week.

There has been a renewed interest regarding ethics in the wake of a long list of scandals in the last year - including the arrest of Scott Rothstein and Alan Mendelsohn. Atwater was among those who met with agents from the FBI last year to discuss issues surrounding Mendelsohn.

Gelber said he too has talked with Atwater and he feels confident that some of his bills have a shot of success. Gelber has filed no less than eight bills dealing with campaign contributions, ethics, and the legislative process. Just last week he filed a measure, SB 1554, that would make it crime for any public servant to fail to advertise a solicitation for procurement.

"My sense is that the Senate president recognizes the need to do something,'' said Gelber. "I'm hopeful that a great number of bills will get a hearing if not approved."