Montana Main Street Blog

How the State Government Benefits from the Satterlee decision

State fiscal analysts and lawmakers have been waiting for the decision in Satterlee to come out because the state government's general fund would be on the hook for some of the tab. Since the decision would have required payouts to people covered under the Old Fund, the state would have had to pay up to $130 million to pay off the liability. That can erase a budget surplus in Montana pretty quick.

I bet most state lawmakers are happy they don't have to deal with that price tag. Small businesses are celebrating as well.

Governor Finally Sees Work Comp as an Issue

Last week, the Governor's office asked the Montana State Fund to show more information on why work comp rates have doubled since 2000. His tone in the article is rather harsh to the State Fund without looking at the real reasons of increasing costs, including his own opposition to good work comp reform bills and his office's silence on bills that would have raised costs.

In the 2009 Legislative Session, small businesses asked for clarity in the work comp laws regarding issues of course and scope. The bill, SB 371, would have dealt with an area of work comp that has allowed non-work related injuries into the system, thereby driving up costs for Montana businesses. The bill received big bi-partisan support from both houses, but the Governor vetoed the bill. I hope this new concern about work comp rates gets him to reconsider his position on course and scope for the next session. We'll definitely be bringing that one back.  

In other work comp areas, the Governor's office stood silent on legislation that would have raised the cost of work comp rates. The Governor's office is not one to shy away from lobbying on bills in committee, so the lack of any testimony from any executive departments on these bills was interesting. For example, SB 285 would have encouraged more attorney involvement in work comp cases by allowing attorney fee awards in cases where denial of benefits was perfectly reasonable. This would have certainly added cost to work comp costs, but no one from his office opposed the bill.

To be fair, the Governor did start a good council a few years ago to study the cost-drivers in work comp and to build consensus for good reforms. He should probably read some of their findings about medical costs, injury rates and return-to-work problems to find out more about why our rates are the 2nd highest in the country. But when good reforms come his way, he should also really jump on board. Glad to hear he is (hopefully) thinking about reversing his positions on some of these issues.

Property Tax Reappraisal Problems for Small Businesses

There is a lot of blame being shifted on the issue of property tax reappraisal figures that may cause many Montana small businesses to pay much more on their property tax bill.

Republican leaders called a press conference yesterday to point out this problem, and speculating that a special session may be needed to fix the problem. Many legislators are placing the blame on the Department of Revenue for getting the estimates to them very late and incorrectly. This has led to reappraisal figures that are higher than the Legislature intended.

The Governor placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of the legislature as a whole:

"People who have unfairly had their taxes raised, of course they can protest it. That will work for some. For others, they should look to find a legislature that is more competent than this last one, and they can fix it in the next legislative session."

Wow. Did he really say that?

Whoever is to blame, it appears the Governor and the Department of Revenue are not too anxious to do anything about it. Even in this bad economy, the Governor doesn't appear all too eager to help our the thousands of small businesses that could be hurt by this mistake. His statements go back and forth between saying "there isn't really a problem" to "if there is a problem, it wasn't my fault and I don't want to do anything about it."

We will continue to look at this situation and see whether it merits a call for a special session. Now is not the time to be over-collecting taxes from Montana's job creators.

2010 U.S. House Race in Montana a Snoozer

CQ Politics has released its list of the most competitive congressional races for the 2010 cycle. Montana is not one of them. The lone seat, held by five-term incumbent Denny Rebherg, is listed as "safe." It's a little more than a year before the election, and that can be a lifetime in politics. But something really bad would have to happen for Rehberg to make this race competitive. The only other statewide race next cycle is for a single Montana Supreme Court spot, currently held by Justice Leaphart. It is unknown whether he will run for reelection.

Looks like the real races will be in competitive seats for Montana's Legislature. It's also quite likely that we'll see some interesting ballot initiatives.

Montana State Government Revenues Down

As reported here in today's Helena IR, state government revenue collections aren't quite what the Legislature had hoped for back in April.

At this point, it's impossible to know exactly where the state is financially because the fiscal year just ended on June 30. There will be money that comes in that is 2009 money, not the current fiscal year of 2010. Still, there are signs that collections won't be as high as expected. We may be dipping into that $300 million budget ending-fund balance sooner than many thought.

The shortfall can be attributed to lower collections in personal income taxes, sin taxes, natural resource and oil taxes. Many of the graphs looked okay this time last year, but collections have been way down in the past six months. The state revenue analyst said this made him worry about fiscal year 2010 and 2011.

We can take comfort that Montana isn't seeing the budget woes of states like California. Generally, Montana lags behind the rest of the country when going into a recession and often lags coming out as well. Let's hope Montana leads the country out of this one.

Montana Chamber Releases 2009 Scorecard for Legislators and Governor

Today the Montana Chamber of Commerce released its 2009 Voting Review of the 61^st Legislative Session. The review is the most comprehensive look at the business and economic issues addressed during the 90-day session. Over 100 bills are included in the scorecard, which received national recognition for its scoring methodology after the 2007 session.

“The Montana Chamber Voter Review is a great resource for the businesses and voters in Montana,” said Montana Chamber President/CEO Webb Brown, “it gives the most accurate look at who is pro-business and who is not. We have pioneered a new way to look at legislative work, and many states are following suit.”

The Montana Chamber looked not just at floor votes, but also committee votes and bill sponsorship. This holistic approach has given the most comprehensive look at business issues ranging from work comp to health care to taxes. Legislators were notified of the Montana Chamber position before key votes. The Business Scores for legislators ranged all the way from 0% to 100%.

The Governor was judged on his signing or vetoing of bills, committee action, and bills that originated from his departments and agencies. The Governor’s Business Score was 31%.

“By considering factors beyond floor votes and bill signings, we have been able to more accurately score an individual lawmaker’s philosophy on business, government regulation, and job creation,” said Brown.

To view the Montana Chamber Voting Review, please click here.

What the Governor's Veto of SB 371 Means for Small Business

One thing is very clear after the Governor's veto of the common sense work comp reform contained in SB 371: that things are very unclear for small businesses when it comes to some important work comp issues.

SB 371 was one of the Chamber’s top priorities for the 61^stLegislative Session. It would have clarified the law for work comp injuries by stating the injuries which occur on breaks off the work site or at an employer-sponsored recreational activity are not work-related. Two Supreme Court cases served as the icing on the cake for many employers fed up with a work comp system that allowed so many non-work related injuries in.

Employers have a lot of questions. Should they bar employees from leavingthe work site during breaks to do non-work related activities (pick up a kid from school, grab some food, go to an appointment)? Should they stop paying for breaks? Should they stop sponsoring recreational activities and parties to help with employee relations? Opponents of SB 371 actually said "yes" during different parts of the debate. Since employers cannot control safety in most of these situations, it is very unsettling for them that they may be slapped with a work comp claim if an employee is injured doing something that doesn't have anything to do with work.

SB 371 would have cleared these things up for employers ANDemployees. Because of the Governor's veto, Montana small businesses are left having to wonder. For now, it's wise to err on the side of assuming there is coverage in all of these situations. Small businesses will have to decided if providing paid breaks off the work site and sponsorship of recreational activities are worth the risks. If your business decides to pull the plug on these benefits (and I already know some who have since the veto), tell unhappy employees to call the Governor's office. He will have another change to sign a similar bill in 2011.

Election 2010: Who Will Control the Montana Senate?

In the Montana state Senate there are 15 open Senate seats due to term limits, which is almost a full third of that body that is guaranteed not to be back in 2011. There could be more depending on people who decide not to run again or who are defeated for reelection in the primary or general election.

 

A staggering 10 Republicans senators are term-limited. All of those senators are in leaning to solid Republican seats. Five Democrats are term limited. Unlike last session where Democrats had to play defense, Republicans will have to work hard to maintain their majority in the state Senate.

 

The two biggest battlegrounds for the 2010 election will be in District 25 in Billings (Roy Brown) and District 39 (Terry Murphy). District 25 is a Democratic leaning area, so Brown will have to work hard for reelection. Representative Kendall Van Dyk is rumored to be mulling a potential challenge. District 39 is a toss-up seat with a history of supporting Republican candidates. It is unknown whether Murphy will run for reelection, but term-limited Representative Jill Cohenour is expected to run for that seat. Her husband ran against Murphy and lost in 2006.

 

Other possible battlegrounds may develop depending on what challengers come forward, what issues are hot next year, fundraising, and good old fashioned hard work. These seats include: District 17 – Seat of term-limited Senator Ken Hansen (D); District 29 – Seat of term-limited Senator Dan McGee (R); District 12 – Seat of Senator Mitch Tropila (D); and District 13 – Seat of term-limited Senator Joe Tropila.

 

So who will control the state Senate in 2011? Democrats have a decent shot at tying things up 25-25 if they take advantage of some of these opportunities. If not, Republicans can still look forward to having a very slim majority.

A Preview of the Chamber Legislative and Gubernatorial Scorecard

This post will not contain any actual scores for lawmakers, but it will show you how we are putting together our scorecard:

 

Following last session’s nationally-recognized Voting Review, we are again compiling the most comprehensive review the Montana Chamber has ever done. As always, we have selected a number of floor votes from each house (15 votes to be exact). For the first time ever, and for better accuracy, we have assigned different points for floor vote, since some bills are more important than others. On most of these key votes, legislators were notified in advance of the Chamber position.

 

We also looked at the votes of members who sat on important business-related committees, such as Business & Labor, Taxation, Natural Resources, Judiciary, and more. And finally, we added points for legislators who introduced pro-business bills and subtracted points for legislators who introduced anti-business bills.

Using all these factors allows the Montana Chamber to closely portray an individual lawmaker’s overall friendliness to business, economic development, and job creation. Here is how the Legislative Business Score was calculated:

FLOOR VOTES: On floor votes, legislators were given between 1 and 6 points for each bill when the legislator supported the Chamber position. If a bill is assigned a higher point value, it indicates the bill was more important. No points were awarded for votes against the Chamber position.

For bills that were debated on the House or Senate floor, this Review usually used third reading votes as taken from the House and Senate journals. The third reading vote is the last vote on each bill, and represents a legislator’s final decision on any matter before them. If a legislator was absent or excused for third reading, we went back and looked at how the legislator voted on second reading.

SPONSORSHIP POINTS: For bill sponsorship, 2 points were awarded to a legislator who sponsored a pro-business bill that was supported by Chamber. If a legislator sponsored an anti-business bill that was opposed by the Chamber, 2 points were subtracted. Although this may mathematically lead to some legislators having a score of more than 100% or less than 0%, all scores awarded fall within the range of 0% - 100%.

COMMITTEE VOTES: On committee votes, legislators were given 1 point for each bill when the legislator supported the Chamber position. No points were awarded for votes against the Chamber position. If a legislator did not sit on the evaluated committee, it did not affect the legislator’s score.

P-BASE DISTRICT SCORE: We also included the Power Base (P-base) number for each district to the left of the Business Score. The P-base number is an indication of each district’s support for business as measured by the 2008 scientific P-base poll of 800 Montana voters. A higher number reflects a more pro-business attitude among voters in the district. Those legislators who have scores in the same range as their district’s P-base score are most likely representing their district according to the views of their constituents.

BUSINESS SCORE: Every legislator has a different number of points possible depending on their committee assignments and their sponsorship of bills. A legislator’s individual points earned were divided by the total points possible for that particular legislator. This final number is the legislator’s Business Score. While this score does not encompass all votes on business issues, it is a very reliable indicator of what level of priority the lawmaker puts on business issues vs. other issues.

 

The Gubernatorial Voting Review is very similar. The Governor is scored on bills he signed or vetoed (12 to be exact). He is also scored on the bills that were sponsored or generated by the agencies and departments he oversees. An finally, he is also scored on the committee lobbying done by his departments and agencies.

 

The Montana Chamber Voting Review will be completed as soon as the votes on the veto override of SB 371 are all tallied. That vote will be assigned the most points out of all bills this session since the Montana Chamber made that a top priority. We suspect it should be ready for release by mid-June. Check back soon.

Veto Override Attempt for SB 371

I confirmed yesterday that there will be an automatic override attempt of the Governor's veto on SB 371. Between the two houses of the legislature, 101 legislators (just over 2/3) of both parties supported the bill, which requires the Secretart of State to send out veto override ballots. Those ballots will go out early next week, and legislators will have 30 days to send them back.

We hope those 101 legislators, who liked the bill in the first place, don't simply change their vote because of the Governor's veto. We shall see...