March 16, 1999

The Honorable Manny M. Aragon and

Members of the Senate

Executive-Legislative Building

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503

Honorable President and Members of the Senate:

I have this day VETOED and am returning SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL 2, 4, and 7 as amended, enacted by the Forty-Fourth Legislature, First Session, 1999.

This legislation provides operational funding for state government, higher education and public schools. A more acceptable outcome, for all concerned, would be achieved if we begin anew with another bill. There remains sufficient time in this regular session for an acceptable general appropriation act to be passed. It is my hope that a reasonable accommodation will be negotiated in the time remaining.

My purpose in this message is to generally describe my objections. However, representatives of my office and the Department of Finance and Administration are available at any time to work with legislative leaders in sufficient detail to assure that I am able to sign the next general appropriation act. In that regard, I respectfully suggest that House Bill 2, the general appropriation act developed by the House of Representatives or the Executive Budget, would be the most productive starting points for negotiations.

Public Education – The public school section of this legislation is discouragingly similar to Senate Bill 3 that was previously vetoed. The overall funding level is, in my opinion, somewhat more realistic, but real reform is lacking. The bill fails to effectively address important initiatives including vouchers or school-based budget reform. Broad initiatives to increase educational opportunity, improve academic performance, and promote greater accountability have apparently been vetoed by the legislature’s majority party. In my view, we desperately need to focus on our children’s educational needs rather than the desires of entrenched special interests.

Employee Compensation – The compensation appropriations for state employees contains a provision which apparently is an attempt to re-impose public employee collective bargaining through artful wording of the appropriation. My opposition to extending the collective bargaining statute beyond its legal expiration date has been clear and unambiguous. I urge the legislature not to endanger salary increases for deserving public employees in a futile attempt to appease their union bosses.

Higher Education – The appropriations for higher education in this legislation have been reduced in terms of the essential services being provided, however special interest appropriations have been increased beyond a prudent level. Secondly, the higher education appropriations do not provide for effectiveness measurement or productivity incentives. Unfortunately the higher education section is yet another example of special interest taking precedence over economy and accountability.

Budget Administration – I am mindful of the legislature’s prerogatives in making appropriations and in placing appropriate limitations on those appropriations. However, I cannot approve budget adjustment language that unfairly discriminates against the agencies for which I am directly responsible. Recipients of services provided by agencies in my administration are as deserving of the benefits of management flexibility as those served by the judicial and legislative branches as well as executive agencies that report to other elected officials. I will readily approve budget adjustment provisions that are consistent across agencies. It is my intention, at a minimum, to remove discriminatory budget adjustment language in future bills and, if necessary, address budget administration by alternative means such as periodic special legislative sessions called to consider enactment of budget adjustment legislation.

Appropriations -- This legislation establishes impractical expenditure limitations for critical programs. Appropriations for the Human Services, Corrections, Children, Youth and Families and Health departments appear to have been arbitrarily reduced to provide funding for various special interest appropriations which have undergone little, if any, serious examination. Appropriations to address imminent computer problems associated with the year 2000 have been addressed at a reduced level. Certain special and supplemental appropriations, the need for which is indisputable, have been similarly omitted.

It seems that the architects of this legislation intended critical programs to request supplemental appropriations next year, thereby setting an even higher spending level than the sum of the bill’s appropriations would indicate. I believe that realistic appropriations can be developed for executive agencies in a manner that would allow legislative initiatives to be accommodated judiciously. This course seems preferable to the alternative, albeit familiar, procedure whereby such items are completely removed by partial veto.

Finally, I urge the legislature and particularly its majority party leaders to make effective use of the few remaining days of this legislative session.

Sincerely,

Gary E. Johnson

Governor