The Fine Print

An obscure budget panel may be on the verge of tremendous power

This week the 1st District Court of Appeal rendered a really, really important decision. And in some ways the practical effect of the ruling may be not be as important as the court's opinion on the scope and power of the Florida Legislature.

The court overturned a circuit court decision that blocked the privatization of prison health care services in three regions of the state.

If the decision stands it will allow the Department of Corrections to proceed with plans to go ahead with a roughly $230 million five-year contract that had been put on hold by the lawsuit filed by several groups including the union that represents state workers. This means that as many as 2,600 state workers will lose their jobs unless they win them back with the company that holds the contract.

Both the lower court decision and the district court decision turned on a lot of arcane matters. For example - does the law allow the department to contract with private vendors? Was the money that the department wanted to use in fact a "specific appropriation" as required?

Let's set aside that for right now.

The decision could have also long-standing ramifications going forward that impacts the power of the Florida Legislature - and those in leadership positions.

Why? Because the court opinion could open the door for the governor and top legislative leaders to make serious budget decisions without ever taking it to the vote of the full Legislature.

That's because one part of the lawsuit dealt directly with whether or not the Legislative Budget Commission had the power to approve the initial transfer of funds that allowed the department to begin the privatization effort. (Some of the history of the LBC _ which is a 14-member panel of lawmakers _ I delved into previously here.)

In short, the commission was created in order to make adjustments to the annual state budget when the Legislature is not in session. The commission can take up budget changes given to them by either the governor or the chief justice of the state Supreme Court.

The union attorneys contended the LBC _ which is authorized under the constitution but whose duties are spelled out in law _ was never supposed to be able to make major kind of decisions that should be left up to the entire 160 members of the Legislature. It's no secret prison privatization has sharply divided the Legislature, especially in the Florida Senate where some Republicans have broken ranks and joined with Democrats in opposition. 

Judge John Cooper last December sided with the union.

Cooper in his ruling stated that the budget panel action did not meet a requirement that its vote to approve the privatization effort was "consistent with legislative policy and intent." Cooper's logic turned on the fact that the 2012-13 state budget had a provision that authorized the privatization of health care services for one region of the state. He said that meant that the LBC couldn't on its own expand that privatization effort beyond to the rest of the state.

"Whether to privatize some or all of this state's prison operations is a significant policy decision," Cooper wrote last December. "Under existing law the Legislature weighs in on this policy decision through its appropriations power."

This week the three judges of the appeals court disagreed with Cooper.

And just as significantly, they created a precedent for how the LBC can proceed in the future.

The ruling written by Judge Stephanie Ray _ who was appointed by Gov. Rick Scott _ said that in fact the LBC has a great deal of latitude in what it can do.

"The LBC has expertise as an entity composed exclusively of legislators that is charged with the inherently legislative function of appropriations," Ray wrote. "Given the LBC's expertise and unique role within the Legislature, the LBC is entitled to deference in administering its budget adjustment authority."

Ray in her decision made some other significant points. First she stated that just because the Legislature had expressed its intent to privatize in just one region of the state did not mean that privatization couldn't be expanded beyond there. She rapped Cooper for using the concept of expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

She also stated that because the LBC and Gov. Scott had agreed on the budget amendment the "circuit court should have accorded deference to this judgment."

One lawyer who has dealt with the LBC has stated this kind of means that the LBC can decide what it can do, and what it can't do in the future.

It remains to be seen if the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees and its partners in this lawsuit decide to appeal this up to the full Supreme Court.

But it can be argued that if the decision remains then legislative leaders with the consent of the governor could make significant changes to the budget absent a vote by the full Legislature.

The state law that covers the budget commission states that the budget panel cannot eliminate an existing program or initiate and commence a "new program." But under Ray's ruling it would appear that the commission itself must should be given "deference" in deciding what means.

Scott's LG dilemma

The state of Florida has been without a lieutenant governor since mid-March.

Don't look for that to change anytime too soon.

And that plain fact raises interesting questions about the state constitution and Scott's re-election campaign.

As most people know Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll abruptly resigned in March after she was questioned by law-enforcement agents about the work she had done for Allied Veterans of the World. Carroll was questioned right before authorities arrested nearly 60 people for being part of an illegal gambling ring.

Carroll would later tell media outlets that she was forced to resign almost immediately after she was questioned even though she insists she has done nothing wrong. So far she has not been accused of any wrongdoing.

The decision to force Carroll out gave the Scott administration - and more importantly the Scott re-election campaign - an opportunity to do a bit of a reboot.

Carroll it could be argued had already become a bit of a liability due to a history of inopportune remarks (such as the lesbians don't look like me comment) - although there were those who also insisted she is very well-liked among the Republican conservative base.

Since then there has been a steady stream of speculation about who Scott would pick for LG ranging from state representatives such as Dana Young (plausible) and Anitere Flores (understandable but unlikely) to former U.S. Rep. Allen West (absolutely not).

Here's what it is clear: Scott, the former CEO used to running the show by himself, appears to be in no hurry.

First Scott said that he would wait until after session was over. He then shuttered the lieutenant governor's office and required the handful of employees in the office to find work elsewhere.

Now the governor is deciding what to veto from a proposed $74.5 million budget. He is also going on a trade mission next week to Chile.It is unlikely Scott will name a LG before he leaves the country - meaning that Attorney General Pam Bondi will become governor if something should happen to him.

And that's where the constitutional dilemma comes in.

The state constitution states that there "shall be a lieutenant governor."

It's a clause that has been in the state constitution since 1968. Between 1885 and that time the person next-in-line to become governor was the Senate President. 

Charley Johns, whose name became synonymous with the "Johns Committee" or the legislative panel that investigated communists and gays in the state university system, was Senate President at the time that Gov. Dan McCarty died in office in September 1953. Johns served as governor until Jan. 1955. He was thwarted in his bid to serve out the remainder of McCarty's term when LeRoy Collins defeated him in the 1954 Democratic primary.

The constitution, however, is silent on what happens if there is a vacancy in the office of lieutenant governor. That's left to state law. FS. 14.055 merely states that "upon vacancy the governor shall appoint a successor who shall serve for the remainder of the term..."

The last time a lieutenant governor stepped down it was Frank Brogan leaving shortly after he and Jeb Bush were re-elected in 2002. Brogan sought the presidency of Florida Atlantic University just days after the swearing-in. By the start of March Toni Jennings had been sworn in as a successor.

But because there's no exact time line it seems the governor will likely name a LG when the time is right and can help him as he moves toward re-election. (Just as an aside - those close to "Scott World" say they expect the governor to pick an LG who will be on the 2014 ballot with him. Scott could have, if he wanted, picked someone to serve as a caretaker for the next 18 months and then name someone new to run with him for a new term.)

That means that Scott - unless someone sues him and demands he pick a lieutenant governor sooner - can glide towards a pick sometime over the next few weeks or even months.

He's got a busy schedule for this month and June (including a trade mission trip to Paris for its airshow.) Scott in other words will sign bills, hold bill signing ceremonies, and then he can pick a LG to create some potential positive buzz.

He's got room to do it since still now there are no formidable Democratic opponents taking any of the limelight away from him.

A complicating factor, of course, with all of this is those most interested in winning the job of LG are not the kind of people who already have a large amount of attention themselves. Jennings was a great grab for Bush because she had served back-to-back terms as Senate president and was no longer in office. Jennings gave Bush a go-to person to help lobby the Legislature, but she was able to do the job without having to worry about campaigning and fund-raising. Bush wanted Jennings to run for governor, but she declined and left the door open for Charlie Crist to eventually win the job.

It makes sense to look at legislators since they know about campaigning, but for many of them becoming lieutenant governor would put them in a more prominent position.

But since Scott must pick someone who will help his campaign it makes sense to look at people outside the Tallahassee bubble as well.

Which is why it is also understandable why Scott doesn't plan to move too fast.

5 biggest questions of the 2013 session answered

So closing the loop from two months ago, here's the 5 biggest questions of the 2013 session answered (and with some thoughts about what happens next):

1. Will lawmakers agree to expand Medicaid? The answer wasn't just no. For the Florida House Republicans it was hell no (and even when the proposal moved beyond Medicaid to the idea of using federal aid to purchase private health insurance)

The decision to reject expansion probably doesn't hurt GOP lawmakers right now. (Of course that could change when all the ramifications of the rejection begin to hit home to businesses and individuals next year.)

But it could be seen as a defeat for Gov. Rick Scott in more ways that one.

He already got hammered by conservatives for his decision to go along with Medicaid expansion after being one of the most ardent opponents to "Obamacare." But with no resolution Scott continues to get hit from Democrats who say this just shows he has no leadership skills. They contend he failed to use his clout to get it passed.

The governor made sure to say that Medicaid expansion was not one of his top priorities, but in the end he remains the one who probably loses the most from both sides of the political spectrum. Not sure how this helps someone whose poll numbers remain below 50 percent.

Democrats have started going on about a special session, but so far Scott has been skeptical about such an approach. Last Friday he said that state lawmakers had made their decision and the "answer is no." Just not sure how that plays - with anyone regardless of their political persuasion.

2. Will Scott get his pay raise for teachers? Kind of.

Yes, lawmakers did put $480 million in the budget, but at first they said it couldn't take effect until June 2014 (or in other words after another session had passed.) Then top legislative leaders said that the June 2014 was Scott's idea (although an email exchange from one of Scott's top aides showed that wasn't the case.)

Lawmakers also tied the pay raise to performance standards instead of an across-the-board $2,500 pay raise. While school districts have the final say over the raise, it remains to be seen how it will be distributed.

Scott has already gone out this week on a five-stop "victory" tour to tout the pay raise.

It's worth remembering that when Scott first pushed the pay raise he wanted it with no strings attached as a reward to the good work that teachers have done so far. "We don't want a war on teachers, we want a war on failure," was the line that Scott gave at the onset of the session.

But Senate President Don Gaetz and Weatherford had their own ideas - and they kept bargaining over the fine print of how the raises would be handed out until the very end of session. They gave Scott enough for him to use for his re-election campaign, but they stopped short of giving the governor exactly what he asked for.

3.Is Jeb Bush still in charge? No. But that doesn't mean he still doesn't have influence. And it may have showed up in key places.

Let's not forget that a few weeks before session that Bush privately told House Republicans that they should reject Medicaid expansion. But Bush added an important element: Make sure to offer up an alternative deal instead of just saying no.

And while many complained that it didn't go far enough House Republicans did in fact unveil their own plan to use state dollars to provide health insurance to roughly 115,000 uninsured Floridians.

Toward the end of the session Weatherford channeled Bush when said: "In politics these days a lot of people say ‘No’ and walk away. We didn’t say no. We offered up an alternative.”

But in other places Bush's influence was not as significant. An example is the defeat again this year of the controversial "parent trigger" bill in the Florida Senate despite Bush's fervent support.

And it was Florida's other famous Republican _ U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio _ who also may have had just as much influence as his one-time mentor. The Tampa Bay Times/Miami Herald, for example, reported that Rubio played a role in the last-minute decision by legislators to push back the date of Florida's presidential primary. This was a big deal since it was Rubio who pushed for the change to begin with.

4. A kinder, less partisan Legislature? Nope.

There had been signs right before the start that the Legislature might chart a less confrontational path than in previous years. But the impasse over Medicaid expansion and disagreement over election law changes resulted in a whole lot of acrimony in the waning moments of the session.

Republicans complained that the opposition by Senate Democrats to the election bill (after it was first appeared to be a bipartisan effort) was all about politics.

House Democrats meanwhile used a procedural move to slow down the pace of the session in the final few days that left both sides fuming and scowling. And it turns out that one of the casualties may in fact be Scott's proposal to eliminate sales taxes for manufacturers who purchase the equipment. The tax cut was pushed through by Republicans who refused to answer questions or even debate the measure when it came on the evening of May 1. The result was a vote much closer than anticipated and one that turned to be under the two-thirds requirement for bills that affect local tax revenues.

Weatherford and House staff contend the tax cut bill is not in danger of falling due to a legal challenge. They offered several theories that hinge on your definition of words like "aggregate" and "insignificant."

Weatherford for his part questioned who want to sue over a tax cut. Fair enough. But it's worth wondering whether or not the vote would have been that close if House Republicans weren't scrambling to push through the tax cut bill. (The reason for the rush, of course, was that there were fears that Scott would veto bills being sought by Weatherford and Gaetz if he didn't get his tax cut proposal. Scott signed the bills within an hour of the House vote.)

5. Is this really the year for serious ethics reform? Actually, the answer to this is yes.

While the final ethics bill isn't as far-reaching as some have advocated this is a still an accomplishment given that grand juries and former governors have tried to get the Legislature to crack down on public officials in the last decade.

The final bill for the first time a mechanism that allows the Florida Commission on Ethics to initiate an investigation based upon a referral from the governor or law-enforcement agencies. (It also makes it harder for people to file complaints right before an election based on newspaper stories.)

It puts additional restrictions on lobbying and dual employment by legislators, requires posting of financial disclosure forms on the Internet, and allow the state to go after public officials who have refused to pay fines.

There are some question marks about a couple of the final provisions. But several advocacy groups have noted that the final bill is more than has been done in the area in quite some time.

Expenses already climbing in Scott re-election effort

A new installment of Inside the Tallahassee bubble news...

EXPENSES ALREADY CLIMBING IN SCOTT RE-ELECTION EFFORT

Here's an interesting couple of tidbits that jumped out in going through last week's campaign finance reports.

One could argue that the bid for Scott's re-election effort is already getting plenty expensive even though the Democratic field remains somewhat unsettled amid ongoing speculation about Charlie Crist and U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson.

Consider this:

The company run by Scott's main political consultant - Tony Fabrizio - has already been paid nearly $600,000 by the Republican Party of Florida since last August. This includes a $170,000 payment in December and another $277,000 payment in March for "polling" according to RPOF campaign finance reports filed with the state.

On top of that Scott's own electioneering communication organization _ Let's Get to Work _ also stroked a $32,150 check for Fabrizio's firm to pay for an "opinion survey."

Records also show that Let's Get to Work in just the last quarter paid Forward Strategies, the company run by well-known fundraiser Meredith O'Rourke, more than $110,000. O'Rourke of course was a prime fundraiser for Crist back when he was a Republican. She was pushed aside from her role as an RPOF fundraiser during the unpleasantness involving disgraced former chairman Jim Greer.

Of course one could argue that Scott is also piling up a large amount of cash in advance of what could be a bruising fight. It's just interesting to note the amount of money already going to the effort even before the Democrats have a nominee.

NON-EXISTENT PATRONIS-GAETZ FEUD?

Rep. Jimmy Patronis told his hometown newspaper late last week that as far as he knows there is no looming rivalry between himself and Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach over the state Senate seat now held by Senate President Don Gaetz. Patronis has already filed for the seat _ which comes open in 2016 _ while Matt Gaetz has filed for re-election next year.

"There’s nowhere I’ve seen it documented — both publicly or through social media — that would give me anything to believe that he is intending on running for his dad’s Senate seat,” he told the Panama City News Herald.

Patronis made this comment in the wake of a stream of comments from Gaetz on his Twitter feed where he has questioned Patronis' votes and stances on a line of issues.

But Patronis himself helped fuel the fire of this rivalry on the House floor.

During a debate on a Gaetz-sponsored bill repealing the state law that requires that gas contain ethanol Patronis got up to tout how he had pushed a bill the previous year that removed penalties for gas stations that ignore the mandate.

He said he would support the Gaetz bill but then added this dig: "I don't know if it really makes a difference."

Another key moment on Friday: Gaetz and Patronis were two of the four no votes on the House bill that would allow U.S. born children of illegal immigrants to receive in-state tuition rates at state colleges and universities. One of the other no votes _ Rep. Dennis Baxley _ wound up changing his no vote to a yes after the fact and said he misunderstood what the bill did.

The bill was a top priority for House Speaker Will Weatherford, who urged its passage at the start of the year.

A no vote coming from two Republicans representing roughly the same part of the Panhandle might cause some to wonder whether there was a fear that the vote could wind up on mailer. Or maybe that's reading too much into it.

CAN'T BUY ME LOVE:

The Florida chapter of one of the main union for state workers contributed more than $21,000 to legislative candidates before the start of this year's session. This included a maximum $500 donation to 17 Republicans in the House and Senate.

But all nine GOP House members who received a contribution from the Amercian Federation of State, Council and Municipal Employees Council 79 voted in favor of an amendment sponsored by Rep. Seth McKeel, R-Lakeland, that cut the amount of a proposed state worker pay raise from $1,400 to $1,000. The amendment was approved over the sharp objections of Democrats.

The lone no vote on the amendment was Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach.

Perhaps the most interesting vote in favor of the proposal came from Rep. Halsey Beshears, R-Monticello.

That's because Beshears ran a memorable campaign ad last fall entitled "Do What's Right" where Beshears said that as businessman he understood the value of treating employees right: "Here we rely on thousands of great men and women to contribute to our local economy. We need to grow it and make it stronger. That's why we need to be more supportive of our hard-working state employees."

 

 

 

Former top Scott aide pushes Thrasher for LG

Consider this part of a new ongoing series that I refer to as news from Inside the Tallahassee bubble. These will just be short interesting tidbits.

THRASHER FOR LG?

While there has been a fair amount of radio silence regarding a successor to Lieutenant Gov. Jennifer Carroll one former top aide to Gov. Rick Scott has someone he thinks deserves consideration.

Steve MacNamara, former chief of staff to Scott, in March sent an email to his former boss touting State Sen. John Thrasher, R-St. Augustine as a potential candidate.

In the email MacNamara says at the very least it could help generate some good will for Scott if Thrasher at least made the short list. MacNamara was chief of staff for Thrasher back when he was House speaker. He also jokes that he's not interested in the job.

From: Stephen MacNamara
Date: March 13, 2013, 10:30:48 AM EDT
To: Rick Scott
Subject: LG

Hope you pick Thrasher. Given all he has done, I hope you at least put
him on the short list, have Adam tell him he's not it so he can
gracefully withdraw saying he needs to keep his commitment to his
constituents and fill out his term. He understands you need to make
the right political choice with this appointment but it would buy you
tons of good will to include him in the list being considered. This is
a great opportunity to make a couple of key people feel important by
saying they are being contemplated as a replacement. As Rahm Emanuel
would say "Never let a good crisis go to waste". BTW...I'm not
interested but thanks!

The email from MacNamara came the same day that news about Carroll's departure became public.

It was sent to a personal email account maiintained by the governor. Scott forwarded the email on to his public email account that is maintained on a public website. (It is worth noting that one of the emails sent to his private account Scott did not forward to his public account until two months after it was sent.)

Since Carroll's resignation Scott has said little about the next LG even as speculation has come from all quarters about potential candidates. The governor has insisted that he won't even think about a LG until after the session is over.

ARDUIN IS BACK

Tweeted this last week but it's interesting that the Florida Senate in March hired Donna Arduin. Arduin is former budget director for former Gov. Jeb Bush as well as prime architect of Scott's 7-7-7 plan. (That was Scott's seven step plan to create nearly 700,000 jobs over a seven-year period.)

According to Senate documents Arduin will receive $10,000 for two months worth of work.

Arduin has been hired to provide consulting related to "economic planning for funds received by Florida" from either government or private sources in connection to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

 

 

5 biggest questions of the 2013 session

Florida's GOP-controlled Legislature kicks off its annual session on Tuesday amid the backdrop of Gov. Rick Scott's aggressive move to the center as he continues to battle stagnant poll numbers. Both House Speaker Will Weatherford and Senate President Don Gaetz have their own agendas but the big focus for the next 60 days is whether or not lawmakers will help the incumbent Republican governor or damage him further as he gets prepared for what could be a very tough re-election campaign.

Here then are the 5 biggest questions of the 2013 session:

1. Will lawmakers agree to expand Medicaid? This is a decision that could have repercussions for years to come.

Scott's decision to endorse the expansion of the safety-net health care insurance program for three years to take advantage of billions in federal aid was widely criticized by conservatives and even top fellow Republicans.

The governor has said this is not one of his top priorities, but his decision to endorse the expansion right before the session means that if the Medicaid expansion is rejected it will be seen as a loss for Scott.

The House has already come out forcefully against the expansion and Weatherford is expected during his opening day remarks to articulate the rationale behind that stance. The Senate has taken no official position yet although comments in recent weeks suggested that Senate Republicans have been contemplating expansion seriously.

There are some suggestions that the House may use Medicaid expansion as a bargaining chip for other issues which if true carries its own share of risks, including bringing down the wrath of conservatives and tea party groups on to House Republicans if they change their mind over the next nine weeks. But if the House and Senate goes different routes it sets the stage for an impasse over the entire budget...which means the session may not end on time.

What could emerge is a hybrid solution: Some limited expansion of Medicaid that comes without the full funding of the federal government, but offers an answer to critics who contend the state is turning its back on roughly 1 million uninsured residents. There is also a lot of interest in the deal offered to the state of Arkansas which has been allowed by the feds to purchase private health insurance for those below 133 percent of the federal poverty line instead of placing those people into Medicaid.

2. Will Scott get his pay raise for teachers? The debate over Medicaid expansion has overshadowed what could have been the biggest storyline of the session: Will Republican legislative leaders go along with Scott's budget proposals, including his pitch for a $2,500 across the board pay raise for teachers in the state.

Scott has made it clear that the teacher pay raise - and his push to eliminate sales taxes on equipment purchased for manufacturing - are his top two priorities this year.

In his State of the State speech Scott will tell lawmakers: "Some say they are afraid that giving raises to all teachers may mean that a teacher doing a bad job gets rewarded. But, thanks to our work, we are now in a better position than ever before to reward good teachers and move bad teachers out of the classroom....We don’t want a war on teachers; we want a war on failure"

But both Weatherford and Gaetz have so far given only lukewarm endorsements of the proposal. Instead the two legislative leaders have questioned if the raises would undermine the new merit pay system that is supposed to take effect next year.

Again, we have a potentially awkward situation where the Legislature has the power to either help Scott as he moves forward - or damage him.

3.Is Jeb Bush still in charge? Former Gov. Bush visited Tallahassee a few weeks ago and he met with legislative leaders as well as an enthusiastic group of House Republicans. At the tail end of a closed door session with the House members he was asked about the contentious Medicaid expansion issue. Bush told them that they should reject the expansion, but that they should offer up an alternative deal. So far the House has followed through on part one of that advice.

But that's far from where the Bush influence ends. Bush - who battled mightily against the state's teacher union while he pushed education changes  - refused during that brief stop to publicly take a position on Scott's pay raise proposal. No one should believe he doesn't have an opinion. Instead it should be viewed that Bush adheres to the protocol of avoiding any public policy disagreements with a sitting Republican governor.

There is also expected this year to be a repeat of last year's heavily-debated "parent trigger" bill. Bush steadfastly supports the legislation, which is expected to have a smoother trip this session. So if Medicaid expansion and teacher pay raises go down and parent trigger is passed then Bush will have a better session than the current occupant of the plaza offices in the Capitol.

4. A kinder, less partisan Legislature? In the run-up to the start of the session (and before Monday's Medicaid expansion stance that drew the wrath of Democrats), there had been signs that the Legislature may chart a less confrontational path than in previous years.

Case in point is the proposal to revamp the state's election system. It was the supercharged 2011 Legislature that passed the controversial election law that cut short early voting days. Republicans - who enjoyed a super-majority at the time - pushed the bill through despite strong warnings from Democrats it would backfire on them.

This year we have Republicans attempting so far to work with Democrats on rolling back some of the provisions of the 2011 law and making other changes in order to avoid a repeat of last fall's election where people wound up waiting hours in line in order to vote. Democrats are not in complete agreement, but this is still a marked change from just two years earlier.

It could be that the 2012 elections - where President Barack Obama won Florida a second time and Republicans lost seats in the Legislature - might have been a wake up call that the GOP needs to moderate its message and image.

So far we have not seen a wave of legislation that is intended to fire up the Republican base heading into 2014. The normal pattern is that the off-year session is the year that lawmakers are more likely to adopt controversial items. This could be the year that breaks that trend.

5. Is this really the year for serious ethics reform? Both Weatherford and Gaetz have vowed that this is the year that legislators will enact far-reaching changes to the state's ethics laws. The Florida Senate is expected to take up - and probably pass  - the ethics bill on the first day of session.

The reason this is a big deal is that grand juries and former governors have tried to get the Legislature to crack down on public officials in the last decade but those efforts went nowhere.

The Senate bill creates for the first time a mechanism that allows the Florida Commission on Ethics to initiate an investigation based upon a referral from the governor or law-enforcement agencies. (It also makes it harder for people to file complaints right before an election based on newspaper stories.)

Weatherford for his part supports ethics reform, but he also said time and time again that ethics reform can't be done without "campaign finance" reform. Translation: We take your bill if you take our bill.

It's likely that some kind of deal will get reached and legislation dealing with both will pass. But the key is what gets dumped, altered and changed by the time legislators reach the finishing line.

Will it be the far-reaching changes that legislative leaders have vowed? Or will it be incremental changes that maintain some of the current loopholes in the system?

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.

How can Rick Scott regain momentum in 2013?

Amid the last round of lackluster poll numbers for Gov. Rick Scott political consultant Tony Fabrizio in mid-December wrote a one-page memo where he argued that it was way too early for people to write off Scott's chances for a second term.

Fabrizio used an interesting analogy: If President Barack Obama could win Florida a second time so could Scott. Download 12-19-12 Memo on Q Poll

 "Anyone who dismisses Governor Scott and his chances does so at their own peril. Governor Scott has nearly a year longer to reverse negative numbers similar to what the President had, therefore it seems irresponsible and hasty to count the governor out from making an equal, if not stronger, turn around."

Democrats this past weekend loudly announced that Scott's defeat will be their primary focus in the next cycle. The challenge of the Democrats, however, will be the ability of the party to have the resources to compete with what could be a very expensive race. And make no mistake: There are some in "Scott world" who are not troubled by former Gov. Charlie Crist as the nominee. That's because this will allow the campaign team to draw a clear contrast, especially when it comes to comparing how the state's economy fared under Crist and how it has fared under Scott.

It could also be argued that some of Scott's recent policy initiatives on tuition, voting and now teacher pay raises are aimed squarely at muting Crist on those same issues. Crist for example in 2009 signed the bill that gave universities in Florida the ability to raise tuition up to 15 percent a year until Florida's tuition rates reach the national average. Contrast that to Scott's firm insistence that tuition be held flat.

But the central question remains: What can Scott do on his own to turn things around in the coming year and heading into 2014?

The plain fact is that governors - unlike the president - have a much more limited fashion in which to engage with the public and convince them they are doing a good job.

One way is completely out of Scott's control: Show leadership through a crisis such as a natural disaster. Part of the enduring legacy - for example - of former Gov. Jeb Bush is the way he dealt with the wave of hurricanes that hit the state.

The difficulty for Scott rebuilding his brand and image in the second half of his term is that in many ways he's already been like three different governors.

Thanks to three different chiefs of staff he has approached governing, his agenda and his interaction with the press in distinct ways.

The first phase of Scott's governorship - where he was surrounded by people who helped his campaign including defacto chief of staff Mary Anne Carter - the governor staked out positions that excited the base of GOP voters who propelled him in the Republican primary and helped him get a narrow win over Democrat Alex Sink. He unveiled a budget that cut funding for education, he rejected billions in federal aid for high speed rail, he clashed with the Florida Legislature and his staff had a bunker mentality with the press.

The second phase under Steve MacNamara included a decision to have Scott engage in a two-way strategy with the press: Open up more to the mainstream media while also appearing on conservative talk radio shows to keep the base engaged. Also put in place was a more calculated strategy of trying to work with the Legislature. Take on the winnable battles like auto insurance reforms, avoid direct engagement (like in casino gambling) on issues that have an uncertain chance of success. Scott jettisoned parts of his campaign agenda such as pushing tough new laws on immigration. He became more accommodating to legislative initiatives and even embraced some of them such as the creation of Florida Polytechnic University. And Scott tried to undo the damage caused in the first phase by pushing for a funding increase in education.

Now with current chief of staff Adam Hollingsworth we have the third phase. Yet another strategy with the press. There are attempts to appear less rigid and more open to dialogue with opponents (hence the "discussions" over Obamacare with Washington D.C. or the dinner with top officials with the Florida Education Association.) And there's even a full 180-turn on hot topics such as voting where Scott - who signed the law that cut early voting days and defended it court - is now advocating an expansion of early voting beyond what was previously in place.

Moving ahead then here's the avenues left for Scott to try to change his trajectory with voters (outside the hope that the economy will continue to grow and that Scott will get the credit.)

SCOTT'S LEGISLATIVE AGENDA: Like it or not Scott's third year in office will in many ways revolve around what he accomplishes this spring. He will be judged by how much of his agenda is accepted or rejected by the GOP-controlled Legislature. Scott this week will present a budget that in many ways will attempt to highlight his new priorities, such as a flat across the board pay raise for teachers, a freeze on university tuition hikes and a cut in sales taxes for the purchase of equipment used in manufacturing. (More on this later this week)

But it should not be assumed that top lawmakers will bend to Scott's wishes as evidenced by the initial lackluster enthusiasm given Scott's teacher pay raise proposal. And we still don't have a clear idea on what will happen to the implementation of Obamacare, especially on expansion of Medicaid that is now an optional part of the federal health care overhaul. If Scott rejects expansion - which appears likely given his recent statements - will lawmakers buck him and dare the governor to veto it?

Scott's trump card, of course, is that he has the ability to shoot down any legislative proposals that he dislikes and he can use that as leverage to get what he needs.

Given Scott's recent populist turn on voting and teacher pay raises it will be interesting to see if he uses the veto pen as a way to distinguish himself from the Legislature. For example what does the governor do if a bill raising insurance rates for the 1.3 million customers of Citizens Property Insurance were to cross his desk on the eve of this year's hurricane season?

KEEP UP OPPOSITION TO THE PRESIDENT: In some ways Scott was actually better served by having President Barack Obama getting re-elected than having Republican Mitt Romney win. The down side to Obama's re-election is that the president and his allies have the capacity to assist the campaign of someone like newly-minted Democrat Crist. But Obama in the White House gives Scott - and the Republicans in general - something to rail about heading into 2014. You can see the narrative: "I stood up to the president on government controlled health care, we improved the economy without his help, we will not go along with his agenda on guns." You get the picture. And if Obama's numbers go underwater again then Scott gets to link Crist to the president.

SCOTT'S MEDIA STRATEGY: Largely unnoticed by the general public Scott's media strategy has in fact been altered with the entrance of new communications director Melissa Sellers. That's not to say that everything has been smooth sailing (witness the brouhaha over the return of Scott's dog Reagan.) But the press office's new strategy does appear to be one of cooperation (when it benefits the Scott agenda) and less direct confrontation. This means giving some in the press access in the hopes it will create a story that bolsters the governor.

This doesn't mean, however, that the press office is passive. Far from it.

The governor's office appears to be engaged in trying to get Scott's message out (which is amplified by the Republican Party of Florida, whose media operation is lead by former communications director Brian Burgess). It is then left to some of the agencies to push back against stories that the Scott administration does not agree with. Several agencies, for example, in recent months have put out press releases sent to all media outlets that attempt to debunk stories and even editorials that have appeared. (The changes at the Department of Environmental Protection being a key example.)

Meanwhile, the governor's press office is tracking media coverage even more closer than ever before. Emails show that the governor's entire staff is now getting "news alerts" that include snippets of stories and even tweets by capitol press corps reporters just moments after they hit the web and Twitter.

So will it all add up?

It's hard to say.

Part of the difficulty for those working for Scott is some of the missteps in the first two years have been self-inflicted. Democrats may not like some of Scott's policy initiatives but some of them have polled well with the general public i.e. drug testing for welfare recipients.

Those who have dealings with Scott will tell you up front that he studies details and takes times to understand complex policy issues.

But in many ways he has had to "grow up" in public and has drawn attention in ways he probably didn't intend (such as the incident with the King of Spain). In other instances, his staff did not appear to anticipate the political fallout over a decision (i.e. the cutting of the education budget, the signing of the Cuba-crackdown bill.)

The balancing act in the months ahead is whether Scott can find success with the Legislature and the economy and finally reverse his flat-lining poll numbers. Because even during a campaign there's only so much love money can buy.

The governor, Obamacare and an arcane bureaucratic process most taxpayers have never heard about

Give Gov. Rick Scott credit for one thing.

He is helping bring attention to an arcane part of the state budgeting process that most people are probably unaware of.

Scott created a firestorm because he decided to stick with and publicize a forecast that contends that implementing "Obamacare" - which includes expanding the state Medicaid program - would cost state taxpayers nearly $26 billion. It was Scott's own health care agency that drew up these numbers back in December in anticipation of presenting the information to state economists.

But Scott's own budget office was quickly informed that the numbers by the Agency for Health Care Administration needed to be reworked to comply with the normal forecast process. For example: One big reason for the higher price-tag is that AHCA assumed that the federal government would change the law and cut back on money pledged to the states.

Yet despite that Scott used the figure of $26 billion when he met this week with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to talk about health care. Emails showing that Scott's office had been warned surfaced thanks to reporting by Health News Florida, sparking criticism, especially from Democrats who accused Scott of cooking the books in order to justify his continued opposition to the federal health care overhaul.

Then on Wednesday night AHCA released new numbers that showed that the forecast now ranged from as low as $3 billion to $9 billion if drawn up in accordance the normal fashion. The new estimates came out shortly after House budget chief Rep. Seth McKeel put out a statement that said it was important that the state follow its normal process "which requires estimates based on current law and practice. This is critical to the integrity of our budgeting process."

Now to be fair this isn't the first time that forecasts drawn up by state government have created a controversy.

Back in 2002 there was sharp criticism when economists said that the class size amendment pushed by then State Sen. Kendrick Meek would cost as much as $30 billion during the initial implementation phase. Then-Gov. Jeb Bush used this estimate to pound Bill McBride in their race for governor. McBride supported the amendment while Bush said it would lead to dramatic tax hikes. (The final tally between the 2003-04 fiscal year to the 2010-11 fiscal year was $18.7 billion and the cost is now up to $24.6 billion after a decade.)

It's also rather routine for state economists to question forecasts that come from state agencies including AHCA.

Here's how it works: Most of the attention that comes with the state budget occurs in the spring when the governor proposes a budget and then the Legislature uses that as a framework to build its own budget.

But by law the governor and the Legislature rely on a series of "estimating conferences" where professional staff from the House, Senate, governor's office and the Office of Economic and Demographic Research come together and go over data to reach estimates that are then used to build the budget. The idea is to reach a "consensus" that give an accurate picture of how much tax dollars will be collected, how many school children will show up each year and how much money will be needed to cover expenses in such programs as Medicaid, the safety net program for the poor. Any one of the "principals" involved can veto the estimate.

This practice started in 1970 with forecasts for general revenue (the tax dollars that make up the main funding source for state government.) The process was formalized in state law in 1985 and the number of estimating conferences has expanded since then. If you want more, here's a handy dandy explanation.

The important thing here is this: The Legislature is not bound to use these forecasts when it adopts a final budget. But it generally does. And more importantly state agencies - and the governor - are supposed to use them as well.

Last summer an estimating conference was held that put the cost of the state implementing optional and mandatory portions of "Obamacare" officially at $1.74 billion but with a "maximum exposure" of roughly $8 billion. This number was drawn up after reviewing AHCA numbers and massaging them. The higher figure assumed, for example, that the state would pay health care providers and doctors a higher reimbursement rate for the next 10 years even though current rules require the higher payment for just two years.

Then as the year went on the plan was to hold a new meeting to update the numbers in advance of Scott releasing his budget and the Legislature going into session.

AHCA in December came out with the new $26 billion figure, but that new estimate assumed that the federal government would reimburse the state for Medicaid expansion at the average rate it has been reimbursing the state for years. That led to the director of the House Health Care Appropriations subcommittee to request that AHCA redo the numbers because he pointed out the estimates relied on a reimbursement formula that was "contrary to federal law" and deviated from the normal practice.

Scott's new policy coordinator for health care asked that the new AHCA numbers be presented at the next estimating conference anyway as an alternative forecast (which is allowed under the process.)

Mike Anway wrote that "It is our responsibility as principles (sic) to take seriously the actions of this administration, and question if the state of Florida can rely upon the promises of an increased (federal reimbursement) for an expanded Medicaid program." Anway pointed out that the Obama administration had already proposed scaling back the reimbursement rate and that the federal government has a "$16 trillion national debt, must borrow 46 cents of every dollar it spends, and in 2011 had its credit rating downgraded."

It's important - again - to note that this $26 billion figure can't be adopted as an official estimate without unanimous consent from everyone participating in the conference.

That means - for now - Scott is bound to last August's estimate unless a new one is drawn up between now and when he unveils his budget. (Of course based on everything he has said it seems it would be unlikely that Scott would recommend expanding Medicaid as envisioned under "Obamacare." And he will likely use the higher number to justify his decision.)

But that doesn't mean that the Legislature - which is getting lobbied by hospitals to go along with the expansion - won't buck the governor on this.

What's also interesting is that state economists were supposed to hold the conference to draw up the new "Obamacare" numbers last month. That meeting, however, was postponed and still hasn't been rescheduled. That gave time for AHCA to draw up the revised numbers that it released late Wednesday.

So now we have all sorts of drama to spice up the mundane estimating conferences thanks to the governor. And it's just a guess but it's safe to assume that next one on the Affordable Care Act will probably draw a much larger crowd than normal.

 

 

 

 

The myths and mystery of Jeb Bush

The 2016 campaign for president appeared to begin in earnest in the wake of a recently New York Times article that suggested that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was already beginning to weigh financial and family considerations of a potential bid for president.

The timing of the article drew immediate attention from the national media and a steady stream of "will he run?" stories.

And Bush has remained in the news since then due to his national education summit held in Washington D.C. and his decision to take the post of chairman of the board of trustees of the National Constitution Center. There was even a recent piece in Time where he talked about education and joked that he has breaking out in a rash each time someone calls him a "centrist."

For those of us who follow Bush _ and keep in touch with people still in his orbit _ it is not a surprise that the presidential buzz is already starting since it appeared that the governor made a calculated decision early on in the 2012 cycle that this was not the time to run.

In other words, one could argue that Jeb instinctively knew that President Barack Obama would be very difficult to beat. And it probably would have been even more of an uphill battle for Bush. One Bush ally told me that heading into this year's presidential election the former governor himself was cognizant that there could still be "Bush fatigue" from his brother's stint as president.

But the mystery of will Jeb run in 2016 is likely to be less about his brother and more about what makes sense for him and his family.

The plain fact is that some in the national media would likely delve deeply into Bush's family life if he ran. This would like lead to the re-airing, re-reporting of troubles with his daughter Noelle Bush and even Columba Bush's run-in with U.S. customs agents. Yes, one could argue that the neither have any bearing on whether Bush is qualified for president. But it would be naive to think that stories like this would not be played back up on a national level should Bush mount a serious campaign.

That means that Jeb Bush has to make a calculated decision on whether the presidency is worth the avalanche of coverage that would come with a run for the White House. Bush, who does display flashes of anger from time to time, made it clear to the press corps in Tallahassee that questions about his family were out-of-bounds (although Bush himself did talk about his daughter on national television.) Bush's ability to exert any level of control on the national media, however, would be non-existent.

But as the national media begin to ponder a Bush run it's interesting to see the coverage that includes the following:

Bush is no longer really a conservative. Bush should step aside for fresh faces like U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio. Bush has been too deferential to President Obama and by extension the Democrats.

This is a fascinating narrative since it conflicts with the reality of his record.

To begin with - Bush's record as governor eclipses anything that Rubio has accomplished so far. Rubio's stint as House speaker left very much a mixed record. It's true he clashed with then-Gov. Charlie Crist on things such as expanded gambling, but Rubio also did things like endorse an expansion of state intervention into property insurance that was decried by conservatives. Rubio has maintained a fairly consistent voting record in the Senate in the last two years and inspired Republicans with his soaring rhetoric and his defense of American exceptionalism. But the plain fact is that Bush stands right now as one of the most substantial governors in the history of Florida in the last 50 years.

The success of his achievements can be questioned _ such as in a recent piece by Reuters _ but it's worth looking back at what happened during his eight years in office.

For those who may have forgotten, consider this a Bush primer:

1. During his two terms as governor, Bush pursued a series of education reform policies that were constantly criticized and villified by some of the mainstays of the Democratic Party. He pursued a school voucher program for students in chronically-failing schools that was eventually struck down by the state Supreme Court. The state's teacher union was so dramatically opposed to Bush that it spent money on independent television ads that helped propel little-known Tampa lawyer Bill McBride past former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno. One of the emerging narratives happening in Florida politics now is that current Gov. Rick Scott has slowly begun challenging the underpinnings of some of the reforms, such as high-stakes testing. While Scott remains a firm backer of vouchers, he advocated this week for requiring students who receive vouchers to take the same tests as public school students. This is a stark turn-around from the position that has been taken by Bush and his allies.

2. Bush was staunchly pro-life during his terms as governor and was at the heart of the Terri Schiavo controversy. Bush's role in trying to keep Schiavo alive could in fact harm him during a run for the presidency. Not only did he support the legislation that attempted to bypass court rulings dealing with Schiavo but there were stories at the time that Bush contemplated sending in law-enforcement to seize Ms. Schiavo. The governor's office officially denied the reports at the time, but it would very likely there would be a re-airing of the entire controversy.

3. Bush's fiscal bonafides. While he was governor, state spending continued to rise as the continued rise in the real estate market led to record heights in the amount of state taxes that were taken in. But Bush also pursued some of the largest tax cuts in the history of the state _ including pushing for $1 billion worth of tax cuts in his first year in office. His handling of state finances was rewarded with stellar triple AAA bond ratings.

4. Bush took on public sector employees and their unions. During his term in office, Bush tried to make major reforms in public employee pensions. He was unsuccessful in his bid to force all new state employees to choose a 401 (K) styled plan but he got it an optional version. Bush also successfully argued for _ and got approval from the Legislature _ to reclassify roughly 16,000 career service employees into positions where they no longer had the same job protections.

5. Bush took the charge in eliminating some of the affirmative action programs in place in the state. Bush signed an executive order that removed affirmative action policies in state purchasing and got the state panel that oversaw the state university system to revamp admission policies to remove race as factor for consideration. During his first run for office in 1994, Bush was asked by a woman what he would do for black people if he were elected. "Probably nothing,'' Bush said at the time. Bush's push against affirmative action sparked a backlash led by then State Sen. Kendrick Meek and resulted in one of the largest protests ever on the steps of the Capitol. Meek and others used their anger over Bush's actions to rally voters against Bush's brother in the 2000 presidential election (and we know how that turned out in Florida.)

And if that wasn't enough consider this: Bush overhauled the death penalty, pushed through a huge expansion in the use of economic incentives to try to jumpstart the biotech industry, rallied voters to repeal a high-speed rail mandate, went after trial lawyers by trying to limit medical malpractice lawsuits, tried to undo a constitutional amendment (pushed by his nemesis Kendrick Meek) that mandated smaller class sizes, strengthened the power of the governor over the judiciary, and responded forcefully and efficiently to eight hurricanes that hit the state in 2004 and 2005.

The one area where Bush has been at odds with his fellow conservatives is over the issue of immigration. While Rubio's position on immigration has evolved and shifted as his political career has advanced, the governor has taken some stances that could cost him votes. Bush has not only criticized the tone and rhetoric about the issue, but he himself has even taken stances that illegal immigrants should be given access to driver's licenses.

As the speculation about Bush's future continues to heat up, it will be interesting to see if there is a continued attempt to rebrand Bush into someone who doesn't resemble the man who led the Sunshine State for eight years.