Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Senate questions legality of governor’s unilateral restoration of 80-hour pay period; staff say extra pay may exceed FY2025 ceiling
Loading...
Summary
Senators pressed legal counsel and the senate fiscal analyst over the Nov. 3 restoration of a 10-hour increase (from 70 to 80 hours) for pay periods, asking whether the governor identified $200,000 or 3% in new revenues as required by law; the fiscal analyst gave cost estimates and members requested a written legal opinion and administration documentation before any retroactive budget amendment.
The Senate spent a large portion of its Dec. 18 session debating whether the governor’s Nov. 3 action to restore pay from 70 to 80 hours per pay period exceeded the FY2025 budget ceiling and complied with statutory notice rules.
Senators heard from Orsay Bermudez, legal counsel, and Mr. Dave de Maison, the Senate’s fiscal analyst, who presented legal and fiscal context for the restoration and highlighted potential procedural gaps. "In the case of $200,000 or 3% or more increase in revenues, the governor shall transmit within 15 days a special budget message to the legislature," said Orsay Bermudez, summarizing Title 1 §7604 and explaining when the 15‑day clock begins. Dave de Maison told members his review found the total funding need to restore 80 hours across programs could be about $14.8 million and that one illustrative approach produced a roughly $4.8 million figure for a specific set of assumptions.
Why it matters: senators said the analysis matters because the Planning and Budgeting Act and appropriations set an FY2025 ceiling. Counsel warned that spending in excess of appropriations could raise legal exposure, and at least one counsel response cited criminal penalties for willful overexpenditure under the statute the counsel referenced.
Key details and evidence: De Maison said the FY2025 approved ceiling is $158.6 million and that $14.8 million would equal roughly 9% of that ceiling—well above the 3% statutory threshold that triggers a mandatory special-budget message. De Maison also provided branch-level estimates, including roughly $11.1 million for the executive branch and about $211,182 for the legislative branch, and explained that not all employees are affected equally because some positions are federally matched.
Senators from across the floor said they support restoring pay where lawful but insisted the administration must produce the documentation showing identified revenue sources before the legislature can consider any retroactive amendment. Senator Karina Magofna stated the Senate had received no communication from the governor required under the statute and asked counsel to confirm whether the November implementation created a legal violation. Counsel said there may be an exception if the funds used were outside-source (for example, federal funds) but the underlying facts and fund classification must be established.
Next steps: members requested a written legal opinion from the Senate’s counsel, additional financial documentation from the Department of Finance or the administration identifying any newly available resources, and clearer breakdowns of which employees are affected. The Senate deferred further action pending those materials.
The committee discussion concluded without a formal vote on the restoration itself; the Senate returned to plenary and later adjourned.
