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.

Budget battles 2013: A big behind-the-scenes tug of war

In their final public session together the two men (pictured left) leading the 2013 budget negotiations over education spending gave each other a hearty hug.

Rep. Erik Fresen, R-Miami, even boldly proclaimed that while some items remain outstanding in this year's budget that top Republicans had closed out "99 percent" of the line items before them. (That's Tallahassee-ese for reached agreement and therefore there's no need to talk about it again.)

But in actuality the House and Senate budget negotiators "bumped up" the entire main funding program for public schools also known the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP). (More Tallahassee-ese - this means they kicked up the final decision to the top budget chairs because they failed to reached a decision.

And one of the main sticking items that has snagged the budget negotiations has gotten very little public discourse in the meetings between Sen. Bill Galvano and Fresen.

It's called "compression."

So what is this?

In theory it's an attempt to compress the per-student funding ranges that exist from one district to another. It's an effort to recognize that property values (which drive property taxes) are not in the same in every county. So the state adds extra money to help smooth out the range.

The way it's handled can be a big, big deal, however.

And that's what's happening this year.

The Senate is insisting on pumping $30.5 million more into compression than the House.

And right now the House isn't budging on this. Said Fresen: "We believe that the FEFP works the way that it is."

Translation: The Senate way of using compression creates a geopolitical rift. That's because pouring extra money into compression in essence dramatically impacts some counties more than others.

Duval County, for example, got a $411 per-student increase in its funding under the initial Senate plan compared to $401 in the House plan. Miami-Dade got a nearly a $417 increase in per-student funding in the initial House budget compared to a $399 per-student jump in the Senate budget.

Miami-Dade schools superintendent Alberto Carvalho said Tuesday that the difference between the House and Senate approaches in compression amounted to a $4 million difference.

It's not entirely easy to do an in-depth county-by-county analysis of the impacts because the House budget also included a $10 million increase in what is known as "sparsity."

This is extra money that goes to smaller districts that is meant to help districts whose buying power is diminished because they can't buy things in bulk like the larger counties. But the bottom line is that the House budget helps out many rural districts. Calhoun County, for example, gets a $512 per-student increase in the House budget versus nearly $445 in the House budget.

One thing worth noting: The House budget increases funding to Pasco County, the home county to House Speaker Will Weatherford by nearly $403 per student, while the Senate plan bumps it up only by $390. The Senate plan increases funding to Okaloosa County - and home to Senate President Don Gaetz - by nearly $448 per student. The House budget would boost Okaloosa's per-student funding by $450.

and how about this twist? The Senate plan is more generous to the home county of House budget chairman Seth McKeel. Polk County would go up $380 per student in the Senate budget compared to $366 for the House budget. But the House budget brings up the per-student funding in Martin County by $450 compared to nearly $443 in the Senate budget put together by Sen. Joe Negron.

These differences aren't as dramatic as the tug-of-war in the last decade over district cost differential (a battle pitting urban South Florida districts versus the rest of the state) but it's clear that so far this skirmish has kept the House and Senate from reaching a resoluton on the education portion of the budget.

And while teacher pay raises and tuition hikes are important so is how much money each legislator brings back to their home county.

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 Constitution, an obscure legislative panel and millions of dollars in the balance

Twelve years ago Florida lawmakers created a unique new entity that was intended to deal with budget matters that could spring up during the 10 months in between the annual sessions.

It was called the Legislative Budget Commission and it is a joint panel of 14 House and Senate members.

One of its champions was veteran legislator Jim King.

King, a Jacksonville Republican and evental Senate President who died three years ago, said he wanted to create more openness about important budgetary decisions.

King said each year the Florida Legislature would approve budget items only to discover later that they were changed or ignored by budget amendments that were adopted once lawmakers had left town. Before the creation of the commission budget changes could be agreed to by concurrence of the governor and a handful of top legislative leaders.

The Senate placed the commission in a budget planning bill that was passed in 2000 and signed into law by then Gov. Jeb Bush.

It didn't take too long for the use of the commission to become a flash point. When King was president he found himself in a tug-of-war with the House over the proper role of the commission.

Back in 2003 then Rep. Bruce Kyle questioned whether or not the commission had the constitutional power to approve changes to the budget instead of forcing a vote by the entire Legislature. The argument - and similar to one that would also be at the heart of the bitter dispute over Terri Schiavo - was whether or not the Legislature could delegate some of its prime duties to others.

Kyle said at the time about a pending budget request that it was "best to let them wait for both chambers." Kyle added that it was not the job of the commission to "rubber stamp" spending requests from state agencies.

The Senate responded to the ongoing criticism by placing a constitutional amendment on the 2006 ballot that enshrined the commission in the constitution.

The measure, which included other issues including the creation of a yearly three-year fiscal outlook and a cap on the use of non-recurring funds in the budget, was sponsored by then-Sen. Jeff Atwater and was a top priority of then-Senate President Tom Lee.

Flash forward to Wednesday when the Legislative Budget Commission is scheduled to take up a controversial plan to privatize health care prison operations.

The union that represents state workers is already arguing that the LBC lacks the legal ability to approve such a change because it was not expressly approved by the entire Legislature. Tom Brooks, an attorney for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, told reporters this week that AFSCME is prepared to sue to stop the privatization plan that could affect nearly 3,000 employees.

The debate should be interesting because behind closed doors there are routinely debates about whether or not a budget amendment should be taken up and considered by the LBC.

For example, earlier this summer some Senate Republicans were quietly opposed to a plan to approve new funding to the county clerk of courts. Their argument? The Florida Legislature had approved a budget without the extra funding - and therefore the commission could not contravene that decision.

But thanks to a push by incoming House Speaker Will Weatherford the commission went ahead and approved the extra funding at its August meeting.

Many of the decisions by the commission are routine such as granting budget authority for agencies to spend newly-received federal grants or letting the Department of Transportation roll forward $1.6 billion worth of road-construction money from one fiscal year to the next.

There is sure to be some legal arguments that the commission has the ability to approve the privatization plan thanks to this law.

In the end, however, if AFSCME does take the privatization plan to court it could finally answer lingering questions about the legality of the budget commission and the limits on what types of budget decisions can be decided by 14 legislators or must be decided by the entire Legislature.

(UPDATE: The commission approved the privatization move as expected. And as expected the union went ahead and filed a lawsuit.)

Guess what part of the budget isn't getting cut under Gov. Rick Scott?

For the last seven years the Florida Department of Law Enforcement has compiled an annual report that measures how much money the state spends on protective services for the governor - as well as how much the state spent on security guarding other important visitors.

And it turns out that during the first full year where Rick Scott was governor the cost increased to nearly $2.5 million. That was an increase of nearly $264,000 from the previous fiscal year which covered six months when Charlie Crist was still governor.

It was also the highest total in the seven years FDLE has been keeping track of the expenses in this format.

Here's the AP story on the annual report which includes a statement from FDLE regarding the increased expenses under Scott.

Here's a copy of this year's annual FDLE report: Download Transportation and Protective Services Report 2011-2012 FINAL

One of the interesting highlights of the report is the transportation/expenditures costs for guarding Scott climbed nearly $100,000 from the previous year.

Scott, as you may recall, got rid of the state airplane and now uses his own private jet for many of his travels across the state.

A spokeswoman for FDLE pointed out that Scott does not charge the state when an agent accompanies him on the plane but did not provide details on why the transportation costs went up so much. It is also worth noting that during the 2011-12 fiscal year Scott did take three trips abroad to Brazil, Israel and Spain where he was accompanied by FDLE agents.

The report also shows that the overall cost for security increased this past year even though the cost of guarding governors and other visitors declined by $63,000.

Still the state spent nearly $295,000 providing security for 79 security details including ones for Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Nikki Haley, Gov. Jack Martell, First Lady Michelle Obama and Attorney General Pam Bondi.

That cost also includes more than $55,000 FDLE spent on costs associated with the Republican Governors Association conference held last winter in Orlando.

Bondi got a security detail when she attended the oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court back in March. The cost to Florida taxpayers was $15,539.

Florida taxpayers also spent nearly $18,000 for five visits by Jindal to Florida - and more than $2,200 for a visit by members of his family.

The cost for two visits by the First Lady were just under $1,000.

Visits by Markell and his family cost more than $5,800, while the expenses of providing security for three visits by Haley and her family cost $13,460.

The report does not provide a copious amount of details about the expenses - other than breaking them up into salary costs, transportation and expenses and listing the trip as either "official" or "personal."