January 28,1999
HOUSE EXECUTIVE MESSAGE NO. 1
The Honorable Raymond G. Sanchez and Members of the House of Representatives
Executive-Legislative Building
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503
To the Honorable Speaker and Members of the House:
I have SIGNED HOUSE BILL 1 as amended, with emergency clause, enacted by the Forty-Fourth Legislature, State of New Mexico, First Session, 1999, but have VETOED the following item or items, part or parts:
1. On page 6, line 20 after "balances;" I have vetoed the remainder of the line and have vetoed all of lines 21 through 24. On page 9, I have vetoed all of Section 14 which is comprised of lines 24 and 25 on page 9 and lines 1 and 2 on page 10.
The effect of these vetoes is to remove passages that grant the legislature liberal budget adjustment flexibility far exceeding the authority typically granted to other agencies.
This veto will enable the legislature to achieve the same benefits of budgetary discipline as are enjoyed in other branches of government. Should the effect of these vetoes be too constraining on legislative prerogatives, I will consider alternative budget adjustment language, if the legislature chooses to include it, in the General Appropriation Act of 1999 and apply such provisions equally to all agencies.
2. On page 7, I have vetoed lines 10, 11 and 20.
The effect of the veto is to delete the personal services and employee benefits appropriations to the Legislative Finance Committee.
It has been my opinion that legislative spending should be subject to the same limitations as are applied to other important functions of government such as education. The legislature has not shared my view and so each annual "Feed Bill" has authorized abundant spending which I have reluctantly approved.
However, in the present case of the Legislative Finance Committee, I have removed the personal services and employee benefits appropriations. I have done this in the expectation that these items will be re-enacted, with some restraint, in the General Appropriation Act of 1999. These particular appropriations have been targeted because they contain additional audit staff. The legislative audit program’s contributions to efficiency in government have been marginal at best. I would respectfully suggest that the expansion of this program is not a viable investment in accountability.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary E. Johnson
Governor