Week two of the 101st Legislative Session and the Joint Committee on Appropriations continues with budget hearings. We talked about the growing funding gap that persists in the Community Support Provider (CSP) world. The State has a constitutional obligation to care for those with intellectual and behavioral disabilities, and one way we do that best is through CSPs. They were funded at 100% methodology in 2023, but funding gaps have grown since. With no change from last year there will be a 9.3% delta, which comes to $21.9 million in unreimbursed services- roughly $10.8 million of that being state share.

Our workgroup met on Monday afternoon and organized several different paths to dig into to find efficiencies and possible reductions to the general fund. The biggest issue we find is that there has not been enough willpower at the legislative level to demand greater transparency when it comes to the budgeting process between the executive branch and the appropriations committee. There was a great opportunity missed with Project Bison coming online soon to drill deeper into the budgeting process.

Article III, Section 18 of the State Constitution provides that “no law shall be passed unless by the assent of a majority of all the members elected” to the Senate. Article II, section 5 also states the President of the Senate may vote when the “Senators be equally divided.” We must read these provisions together, harmoniously. Procedurally, there are many orders of business that the constitution does not require a majority of the members elect, but a majority of the members present. It is my interpretation that at that time it would it be applicable and constitutionally satisfactory for the President of the Senate, who is not an elected member of the Senate, to cast a tie breaking vote, but not in the instance of final passage of a bill. This played out on Friday after a tie vote was cast on Thursday where the President cast a favorable vote on a bill that received a 17-17 vote and then declared the bill passed. A point of order was called. The President of the Senate made his case why he is choosing to overrule the point of order. The President Pro Temp, who made the point of order, then appealed the ruling of the President. The chamber then voted on this procedural question- is it constitutionally satisfactory for the President to take the place of an absent, elected Senator on final disposition of a bill? In a 24-10 Vote the chamber concluded that the Pro Temp’s appeal be upheld, and the ruling of the President was overturned. This was a very important issue to address. If we do not send legislators to Pierre that are committed to constraining government to its respective duties, we will not see another 250 years of God given liberty in this great place we call home.

I pray the Lord would bless and keep each of you.