Face The State Staff Opinion
Despite substantial fiscal instability, the state hiring freeze quietly came to an end June 30. The moratorium on hiring, to which exemptions were liberally granted, will now be replaced by an even looser prior-approval process.
First, some history. Facing a worsening economy, Gov. Bill Ritter announced in September 2008 the state would freeze hiring effective October 1. But in January, The Denver Post reported Ritter’s office had “approved 326 new hires and promotions — out of 371 requests — that could cost the state more than $12 million.” This weekend, Post reporter Lynn Bartels dug into a recent state audit and found Ritter’s office didn’t always follow its own internal procedures regarding the hiring freeze.
Despite the exemptions, the state says the hiring freeze has saved approximately $3 million. According to Julie Postlethwait, public information officer for the Department of Personnel and Administration, the state workforce has been reduced by 560 employees since last September. “So we are making progress,” she wrote to Face The State via e-mail.
We applaud those salary savings, but they could and should have been much deeper if the freeze had been more strictly enforced. Any reductions in the state payroll are attributable only to holding open positions unfilled, plus natural attrition due to deaths, retirement, etc. Neither the General Assembly nor the Governor have yet mustered the political will to cut existing staff.
Based on legislative economists' most recent revenue projection, Colorado still faces $384 million shortfall through the 2010 fiscal year.
Ritter has asked his cabinet to provide him with plans to cut 10 percent of their department budgets by eliminating programs and services. Any real programmatic cutbacks would, we hope, include significant reductions in staffing. Reassigning staff to other areas serves only to shift the state's problems around the budget.
Notably absent from the Governor's plan, however, is a hiring freeze with real teeth.
Instead, Ritter has passed this hot potato to his Chief Operating Officer Don Elliman, who was hired to manage the state's stimulus money and not to manage the workforce. Despite Ritter's pledges for greater transparency in government, Face The State's inquiries regarding the new process were brushed off to spokesman Evan Dreyer, who has retrenched himself in a position of silence.
The state's fiscal crisis will be ameliorated by reining in spending, not growing revenues through gimmicks and tax hikes. Government's biggest expense is payroll, and we can only hope Elliman - unaccountable as he is - will effectively carry out his new responsibility in a way his boss could not.
Government hiring freeze
On July 21st, 2009 les says:
I am a state employee, but I support the hiring freeze and the reduction and/or elimination of programs funded by the state's general fund (tax dollars). I do not support increasing fees that are nothing but substitutes for taxes.
However, to say that no exemptions to the hiring freeze should have been made or should be granted is also bad public policy. As a state employee, I am well aware that many state jobs could be eliminated or remain unfilled without dramatically impacting the ability of the various state agencies to do their assigned responsibilities. However, certain jobs are important to the general abilities of agencies to meet their responsibilities. As the state began the current fiscal year already an admitted $384 million in the red, it will take more than unfilled positions and furlough days (estimated to save $2 million per day) to erase the red ink. Actual operating expenses and likely whole programs will need to be trimmed. Capital construction is already trimmed, but may require additional cutting. What should not take place is the reduction or elimination of programs that are necessary services and would cost immeasurable more to bring back on line, such as closing entire facilities - like prisons.
No, I do not work for the Department of Corrections.
Re: Exemptions
On July 21st, 2009 bradj says:
Les - thanks for your comment. To your point about exemptions: Every rule has its exceptions, and a 100% hiring freeze of course would be unworkable. Our point is that the sheer number of exceptions granted by Ritter indicates the freeze wasn't taken seriously from the outset. Hiring to fill a vacancy created through natural turnover is one thing; bringing on a new employee when cutting staff would better serve the budget is another.
State government has grown by leaps and bounds over the last decade, and making serious cuts to programs and staff is the quickest and most effective way to cut spending when revenues are coming in short.
Thanks again for reading FTS. Brad Jones, Managing Editor