Skip to content
March 11, 2010 / jimnv

Gibbons Vetos SB 3

Gibbons vetoed SB 3 as promised and included a veto statement which in part reads:

“For many reasons, including those mentioned in this letter, I am convinced that the action taken by the Legislature with Senate Bill 3 is not in the best interest of the State and its employees.For many reasons, including those mentioned in this letter, I am convinced that the action taken by the Legislature with Senate Bill 3 is not in the best interest of the State and its employees.

Although in theory certain aspects of Senate Bill 3 appear to be a good idea, in practice, Senate Bill 3 is unworkable and does not accomplish the flexibility that is needed with the least possible negative impact. Instead of creating flexibility for the State’s agencies to implement innovative work schedules that would save the State money, Senate Bill 3 will actually cost the State time, money and manpower to implement. Additionally, sections of Senate Bill 3 are redundant and unnecessary as current law already provides a solution. In sum, Senate Bill 3 creates confusion, uncertainty and inequity among employees.

Further, Senate Bill 3 dictates that any exemption from the mandatory furlough is ineffective unless approved by the Interim Finance Committee. Thus, the Legislative Branch is not only declaring what the law is but with this legislation gives itself authority to administer and execute the law in violation of the separation of powers provision in the Nevada Constitution (Article 3, Section 1).

Finally, Section 13.5 of the bill relates to subjects outside those designated in my proclamations for this special session. Section 9 of Article 5 of the Nevada Constitution gives me exclusive authority to set the agenda for a special session, and “the Legislature shall transact no legislative business; except that for which they were specifically convened, or such other legislative business as the Governor may call to the attention the Legislature.

Section 13.5 seeks to overturn a directive I recently issued. In order to reduce the State’s spending, I issued a directive last month to departments, agencies, boards and commissions to terminate certain permissive additional compensation and adjustments to the salaries of certain employees. Section 13.5 of Senate Bill 3 deliberately and blatantly contravenes my directive and states in relevant part:

Sec. 13.5 1. Notwithstanding any contrary order, directive, policy or request made by any other officer or agency of the Executive Department of the State Government, the Department of Personnel or other responsible officer or agency shall administer, carry out and make payments pursuant to NRS 209.183 and 281.121 and NAC 284.206, 284.208, 284.210, 284.214 and 284.218, as those provisions existed on February 23, 2010, to any employee as defined in this section… I called upon the Legislature to make fiscally responsible reductions to the State’s spending. Section 13.50) will not reduce the State’s spending. “

Point by point Gibbons’ rebuttal to lawmakers objections to his veto of SB 3.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: