Published: May 16, 2008 04:34 pm            

Williams sues Beshear over veto of road plan

At issue is when legislature adjourned

FRANKFORT, Ky. — State Senate President David Williams, R-Burkesville, acting in his official capacity, sued Gov. Steve Beshear Friday in Franklin Circuit Court, seeking to have Beshear’s veto of a road plan overturned and preventing the governor from implementing his own substitute plan without legislative approval.



The suit contends Beshear waited too long to veto the road plan. The state constitution says the governor has 10 days – excluding Sundays – from the time the legislature adjourns or from the time he receives the bill to veto it. Beshear vetoed the bill on Monday, April 28. At issue is when the legislature adjourned.



Lawmakers continued to meet past midnight on April 15, the final day allowed under the constitution, but they pulled the plug on the clocks in the chambers when they approached midnight. The legislative journal indicates action which occurred after that happened on April 15 and if the court sides with Williams on that question, then Beshear’s veto would have occurred on the 11th day. But Beshear contends he received the bill on April 16 which would make April 28th the 10th day.



As part of his veto message, Beshear directed his Secretary of Transportation Joe Prather to develop a new road plan. Williams’ suit asks Franklin Circuit Court to enjoin the cabinet and administration from spending money for projects which were not approved by lawmakers.



“The constitution gives the authority to appropriate money to the General Assembly,” Williams said. “The only authority the executive branch has is to spend money authorized by the legislature.”



Williams also said the budget passed by the legislature and signed into law by Beshear states that in the absence of a road plan the 2006-2008 road plan is to continue until unfinished projects are completed.



Beshear is vacationing this week, but his press office released a statement which said the administration has not had time to review Williams’ suit. But it quoted Beshear as saying, “I am confident in our legal position and that the veto of House Bill 79 is effective and in the best interest of the Commonwealth.”



Beshear contends the bill so restricted the administration’s flexibility to implement the road plan that if projects ran over cost it could not adjust and would rather have to suspend the project. He also complains previous road plans have not restricted previous governors in the same way.



Williams said all road plans have been legislatively approved and the governor has a $31 million contingency in each fiscal year of the new budget with which to address any cost over runs.



Beshear’s statement said, “It is telling that the legislature is not challenging my actions and that only Senator Williams feels compelled to do so.”



But Williams said he was acting in his official capacity as Senate President and Speaker of the House Jody Richards, D-Bowling Green, had made several “public pronouncements” in support of Beshear’s veto and implementation of his own road plan.



Williams said there was no reason to contact Richards to join the suit given those statements, but Paul E. Salamanca, a University of Kentucky Law Professor and General Counsel for Williams’ office, said Richards and the House are welcome to join the suit as plaintiffs.



The suit cites – and includes as an exhibit – an April 1980 Opinion of the Attorney General by then Attorney General Beshear in which Beshear acknowledges the legislature sometimes “stops the clock.”



Beshear’s statement Friday, however, says that ruling is not applicable “because the opinion addressed legislation enrolled while the General Assembly is in session.”



Williams and Salamanca were questioned repeatedly about whether the legislature was still in session this year on April 16. The constitution requires it adjourn no later than April 15. Williams said simply that the legislative record says the actions in question occurred on April 15.



On the night in question, both chambers stopped the clocks as time dwindled away and work remained. Reporters – and some lawmakers in the House – kept pointing to the clock after midnight passed and a few lawmakers called out that it was illegal to continue work.



Tabulations of roll call votes clearly indicate action after midnight – which would make the date April 16. But the legislative journal is dated April 15 for all those actions.



“The convention is that the legislative record is the record at the time, not a clock on the wall,” Salamanca said.



Ronnie Ellis writes for CNHI News Service and is based in Frankfort, Ky. He may be contacted by email at rellis@cnhi.com.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.