Government
Aug. 16, 2002
Budget Ultimatum Gets Review
SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether state government must severely restrict its spending when lawmakers fail to adopt a budget on time.
The justices voted unanimously to review a state appellate court ruling issued in May that would prohibit state workers from being paid more than minimum wage if the new fiscal year begins without a spending plan approved by the governor.
The 2nd District Court of Appeal ruling sent chills through the state's workforce because, more often than not, including this year, the July 1 constitutional budget deadline comes and goes with no agreement on a state budget.
Wednesday's one-sentence order from the Supreme Court said the court of appeal ruling will be stayed until White v. Davis, S108099, is resolved.
The case started four years ago, when the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, an advocacy group, sued the state controller during a budget impasse between Gov. Pete Wilson and the Legislature. The taxpayer group persuaded a trial judge to issue a preliminary injunction barring Controller Kathleen Connell from doling out funds with no budget in place.
In the summer of 1998, Connell was forced to seek emergency funding from lawmakers to maintain government spending without interruption.
The appellate court ruling concluded Connell has no authority to disburse funds without an approved budget but gave her permission to continue providing funds for federally mandated programs.
An attorney representing state union workers said he will argue to the Supreme Court that the trial court lacked procedural authority to issue the injunction because it improperly involved the judiciary in the politics of the budget process.
Dennis Moss, of Spiro, Moss, Barness, Harrison & Barge in Los Angeles, said he will contend the harm done by the injunction outweighs any harm that could come from allowing the controller to continue disbursing funds.
In other action at Wednesday's closed-door case conference, the justices:
• Voted 6-0 to deny a petition filed by a consumer group that accused the state Public Utilities Commission of illegally creating its own alternative reorganization plan in the Pacific Gas & Electric bankruptcy case. The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, led by activist Harvey Rosenfield, alleged the PUC acted secretly to develop a plan that would impose higher rates on consumers in violation of a 1996 deregulation law. Justice Ming W. Chin recused himself and did not participate in Wednesday's vote. Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights v. PUC, S105807.
• Voted unanimously to review a novel state appellate court ruling that held a homeowner liable for injuries suffered by a tree trimmer because the trimmer's boss did not have a valid contractor's license. In May, the 2nd District Court of Appeal reversed a trial judge who had dismissed the injured worker's $5 million lawsuit and said a jury should decide whether the contractor lied to the homeowner about having a valid license and workers compensation insurance. Fernandez v. Lawson, S107521.
Peter Blumberg
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com