By Staff
The Star: Still alive in the Legislature is a bill Gov. Barbour backs that would temporarily remove Personnel Board protection from some state jobs to allow positions to be eliminated. Tell us your take on this.
Snowden: Gov. Barbour wants to "smartsize" state government, and has indicated that this may well entail reassigning and even laying off some state employees.
Mississippians should be thankful that we have a governor who is so firmly committed to restoring financial sanity to state government that he is willing to take the political heat that necessarily would arise from discharging any state workers.
In my view, this exhibits true political courage for which Gov. Barbour should be commended. I support giving him the flexibility he seeks. If the governor is successful in streamlining state government, he will deserve all of the credit because he surely will be roasted if he fails.
The Star: Another bill still alive would increase pay for most county employees. Some opponents call it an unfair mandate funded by local, not state, taxes.
Snowden: I support this measure, although it certainly is fair to characterize it as an "unfunded mandate."
County employees, such as court clerks, sheriffs, bailiffs, tax assessors and collectors, court reporters, medical examiners, supervisors, county prosecuting attorneys, and so on all of whom are included in this bill work for the county and are paid by the county.
However, by law the only way any of these positions may receive a raise is if the Legislature grants it. So, if these employees are ever to get any raise, the Legislature must mandate it and the counties must pay for it. That is the way the system works.
Eight years have passed since most of these positions have received any raises, and probably that much more time will elapse before raises are considered again.
The Legislature as a whole believes the time has come to give raises to these positions, and I agree with that. Eight years is long enough to wait for a raise.
The Star: Could you tell us your take on the fate of tort reform this year?
Snowden: The fate is as yet undecided.
In fact, the big votes (and perhaps some fireworks) are still to come. The Senate passed House Bill 1323 after inserting into that House banking bill a substantial tort reform package. Rep. Danny Guice, a Republican from the Gulf Coast who chairs the House Banking Committee, has promised to make a motion that the House concur in HB 1323, even though Speaker Billy McCoy, a Democrat from rural northeast Mississippi, has specifically asked Guice not to do that.
If the House were to concur, the bill would go straight to the governor with all of the tort reform provisions included.
There is much speculation that the speaker simply may not recognize Guice to make the motion to concur (though, as chairman, it normally is his prerogative), but that would be an unusual breach of protocol and perhaps would create a serious rift among the membership.
Also, the House Judiciary A Committee brought forward a rather weak version of a Senate tort reform bill, Senate Bill 2763, but if that bill reaches the House floor, it likely will be strengthened considerably through amendment.
The conventional wisdom is that a majority of the House supports additional tort reform and will pass it if given the opportunity. A showdown is brewing, and unless there is a compromise (still very possible), the next couple of weeks will be very contentious, and the leadership fabric of the House could be sorely tested.