SESSION OF 2004 Veto 2004-1 2047 - palrb.us

SESSIONOF 2004 Veto 2004-1 2047

Veto No. 2004-1

HB2007 May2l,2004

To theHonorable,the Houseof Representativesof the Commonwealthof Pennsylvania:

I am returningherewith,without my approval,HouseBill 2007,Printer’sNo.3559,entitled “An actamendingTitle 53 (Municipalities Generally)of thePennsylvaniaConsolidatedStatutes,providingfor dutiesof city controllersincities of thesecondclassandfor statementsof receiptsandexpenditures.”

HouseBill 2007 would requirethe Controllerof theCity of Pittsburghtoaudit theaccountsof anyauthoritieshavingboardmembersappointedby themayor, city council or anyother official of thecity. Theseauditswould besubmittedto the PittsburghCity Council and thePennsylvaniaDepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopment.

In addition, these authorities would be required to submit detailedstatementsof receiptsandexpenditureseachmonthto theCity Controller,CityCouncilandtheDepartmentof CommunityandEconomicDevelopment,whichshallmakethestatementsavailableto the public.

AlthoughHouseBill 2007wouldrequiretheseauditstobeperformedby theCity Controller, it would apply to severalpublic authoritiesthat are as muchcreaturesof AlleghenyCountyas of theCity of Pittsburgh.Forexample,boththe Allegheny County Sanitary Authority and the Sports and ExhibitionAuthority of PittsburghandAlleghenyCountyhaveBoardsof Directorswithequalnumbersof membersappointedby theAlleghenyCountyExecutiveandtheMayorof Pittsburgh.Althoughthedesirabilityof addedfiscaloversightofauthoritiesin the Pittsburghregion andaroundthe Commonwealthmay beargued,it is apparentthat theprovisionsof HouseBill 2007arenotproperlyformulatedin this regard and this alone would be reason enoughfor mydisapproval.

Evenmoreimportantly, however,I believeit is in thebest interestof allconcernedto refrain for the time being from enactinglaws that purport toaddressthefiscaldifficultiesfacingtheCity of Pittsburgh.In afewweeks’ time,theGeneralAssemblyandI will havethebenefitof detailedassessmentsof thePittsburghfiscalsituationandavailableremediesavailablefrom theCity itself,from the IntergovernmentalCooperationAuthority for Cities of the SecondClasscreatedby Act 11 of 2004,andfrom the controllersappointedpursuantto theMunicipalitiesFinancialRecoveryAct (Act47 of 1987).

It hasbeenandcontinuesto bemy hopethatwith theseanalysesin hand,acomprehensivelegislativepackagecanbe crafted that dealswith the City’sshort-term budget problems and strengthensits prospectsfor long-termcompetitiveness.It will bemyintentiontojoin with thelegislaturein reviewing

2048 Veto 2004-1 LAWS OFPENNSYLVANIA

all proposalsregardingCity financesaspartof this process.Forthe reasonsset forth above,I mustwithholdmy signaturefrom House

Bill 2007,Printer’sNo.3559.

EDWARD G. RENDELL


Veto No. 2004-2

HB2008 May2l,2004

To theHonorable,theHouseof Representativesof theCommonwealthof Pennsylvania:

I amreturningherewith,without my approval,HouseBill 2008,Printer’sNo.3546,entitled “An actamendingTitle 53 (MunicipalitiesGenerally)of thePennsylvaniaConsolidatedStatutes,furtherprovidingfor formandadoptionofbudgetin cities of thesecondclass.”

HouseBill 2008prohibitstheCityof Pittsburghandanyauthoritieshavingboardmembersappointedby electedCity officials from including projectedrevenuein theirbudgetswhich,in orderto becollected,requiresenactmentofnewtaxing powersby theGeneralAssembly.

As a practical matter, the changeproposedin HouseBill 2008 alreadyappliesto theCity of Pittsburghby virtueoflegislationenactedearlierthisyearcreatingtheIntergovernmentalCooperationAuthorityfor Citiesof the SecondClass(Act 11 of 2004).Act 11 statesin relevantpart: “The financialplanof anassistedcity shallnot includeprojectedrevenuethat in order to becollectedrequiresenactmentby the GeneralAssemblyof newtaxing powers.”Section209(c)(1)of Act 11 of 2004.BecauseHouseBill 2008 is duplicativeof thisprovisionof Act 11,1believeafinal decisionon whetherthisprohibitionshouldexistinperpetuitycanandshouldbedeferred.Sucha deferralis thebestcourseof actionin light of themultitudeof effortscurrently underwayto addresstheCity’s fiscalcrisis,thecritical stageof theseefforts, andthespeedwith whichthey arecomingto a head.

OnMay 15,2004,theCity releasedthefive-yearfinancialplanit isrequiredtoproduceby Act 11. Thisplanproposedsignificantcostcutting,butprojectedthatnewrevenuesourceswill beneededto achievefinancial stability.

In addition,in thenextfewweeksthecoordinatorsappointedtoreviewCityfinancesundertheMunicipalitiesFinancialRecoveryAct (Act47 of 1987)areexpectedto issueindependentrecommendationsregardingthese-samematters— wherecost cutting should occur, andhow best to addressany remainingshortfall. And by early June it is expected that the IntergovernmentalCooperationAuthority will reporton its views of thesesamequestions.

Once all of these analysesare in hand,the membersof the GeneralAssemblyand I will bein a positionto decideif additionallegislativeactionisrequired.Although I will withhold final judgmentuntil all threeanalysesareconsidered,I am stronglypredisposedto believethat new revenueswill berequired to close the City’s budget shortfall. Furthermore,the sourcesofadditionalrevenueavailablethroughlegislativeactionarepreferable-tothoseavailablewithoutlegislativeaction.As I havesaidmanytimes,!believethebestoutcomefor all concernedwould belegislativeapprovalof a consensusplanthat both resolves the City’s short-term crisis and assuresits long-termcompetitiveness.As weworktogetherto forgesuchaconsensus,I amconfident


thateveryoneconcernedcanworktowardsthesamefundamentalgoals:a Citygovernmentthathastheresourcesit needsbut spendsno morethanit must,anda City that is a greatplaceto live, workandvisit todayandin thefuture.

Forthereasonssetforth above,I mustwithholdmysignaturefrom HouseBill 2008,Printer’sNo.3546.

EDWARD G. RENDELL

SESSIONOF2004 Veto 2004-3 2051

Veto No. 2004-3

HB2128 July 1,2004


I amreturningherewith,withoutmy approval,HouseBill 2128,Printer’sNo.3290,entitled“An actamendingtheactof March10,1949(P.L.30,No.14),knownasthePublicSchoolCodeof 1949, furtherproviding for regulationofexpelledstudents;establishingtheEmergencyBasicEducationSubsidyFund;andprovidingfor basiceducationsubsidycontinuationfunding.”

The goalof shieldingschooldisthctsfromthe uncertaintyin their budgetprocessthatcouldbeassociatedwith latepassageof a Commonwealthgeneralappropriationsbill is an extremely laudableconcept. However, the legalrequirementsof thePennsylvaniaConstitutionprohibitme from approvingtheprovisionsof HouseBill 2128.In particular,HouseBill 2128interfereswithmyConstitutionalobligationto developabalancedbudgetandfinancialplan eachfiscal year. Further, the legislationabrogatesmy authority to evaluatetheprovisionsof thebudgetaspassedby theGeneralAssemblyand,if needbe,todisapproveor reducethe funding level of appropriationsas specified in theConstitution.

In recognizingtheimportanceof enactinga balancedbudget,theframersofthe Commonwealth’sConstitutioncreateda budgetaryprocessthat placespowers,obligations and restrictionson both the executiveand legislativebranches.The Constitutionhas tensectionsregulatingthe budgetaryprocess.Sevenof thesesectionsare found in Article III, Legislation. Severalof thesectionsin thisarticleplacerestrictionsonthemannerandcontentoflegislationthatdealswith appropriations.Includedin theserestrictions,insection]1,is arequirementthat the public school appropriationmustbe part of the yearlygeneralappropriationbill. In section24, theConstitutionprohibitspaymentofany money from the Treasurywithout the passageof an appropriation. Inaddition,Articles IV andVIII of theConstitutiondefinepowersanddutiesoftheGovernorwith respectto preparingthe budgetandcertifying revenues.Areadingof theseprovisionstogetherestablishesa definedbudgetaryprocesswhereineducationfundingisrequiredtobepartof thegeneraloperatingbudget;theGovernormustannuallysubmit the proposedexpendituresto the GeneralAssembly;andtheGeneralAssemblymustenactanappropriationtoenabletheexpenditureof the funds.The educationalfunding provisionsin section2 ofHouseBill 2128,Printer’sNumber3290,arecontraryto this processandthusareunconstitutional.

While Article III, section 14,of theConstitutionrequiresthat theGeneralAssemblyprovidefor themaintenanceandsupportof a thoroughandefficientsystemof public education,the Constitutionalmechanismfor the GeneralAssemblytodischargethisdutyis theenactmentof appropriationsfor’thepublii~schoolspursuantto themandatein Article III, section11. TheConstitutionalprovision requiring support of the public education schools does

2052 Veto 2004-3 LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA

not supercedeother Constitutionalprovisions defining the powers of theexecutiveandlegislativebrancheswith respectto thepassageandenactmentofthebudget.

In the upcoming fiscal year, basic educationfunding will accountforapproximately$9.3 billion of theGeneralFund. Thebasiceducationsubsidyalone will total $4.9 billion. In total, basiceducationfunding accountsforalmostone-third of our $22 billion in GeneralFund budgetand the basiceducationsubsidy accountsfor more than 20% of all General Fundexpenditures.To removethis portionof thebudgetfrom eitherthenegotiationprocessor theGovernor’spurviewis unconstitutional,unwisewith respecttofiscalmanagement,irresponsibleon our partandunfair to thetaxpayers.

It is ourjob asstewardsof thepublic fundsandholdersof thepublic trustto engageannuallyin seriousbudgetnegotiationsthatcommenceinearnestintime to passthe budget by our deadline.We must do so in service to thetaxpayers,parentsandschoolchildrenof our communitiesandin compliancewith theConstitutionof our Commonwealth.

Forthereasonssetforth above,I must withholdmy signaturefrom HouseBill 2128,Printer’sNo.3290.

EDWARD G. RENDELL


Veto No. 2004-4

HB 2758 July21, 2004


I amreturningherewith,withoutmy approval,HouseBill 2758,Printer’sNo.4224,entitled“An actamendingTitle 53 (MunicipalitiesGenerally)of thePennsylvaniaConsolidatedStatutes,providingfor fire companyreductionandclosureprovisionsfor cities of thefirst class.”

HouseBill 2758imposescertainrequirementsupontheCity ofPhiladelphiabeforetheCity canreduceor eliminateanyladderorenginefire company.Thebill requires that the City provide written notice to all firefighters andparamedicsassignedto the affected company and their respectivelabororganizationsaswell asall citizensservedby theaffectedcompany.Underthebill theCity would alsohaveto commissiona studyof the proposedreductionor elimination. Thestudywouldhaveto includeprojectedcostsavingsandananalysisof the impacton emergencyresponsetime, deliveryof servicesto thepublic,homeownerfire insurancepremiumcoverageimplicatinnsandthesafetyof firefighters,paramedicsandcitizens.The City is then requiredto hold apublic hearingon theresultsof thestudy.

Duringmy tenureasMayorofPhiladelphia,in 1992I reopenedfirehousesthat my predecessorhadorderedclosed. I did so becauseour cost benefitanalysisconductedin thecontextof theoverall City budgetestablishedthat atthat time the benefitsto public safetyoutweighedthe potentialcostsavings.Thoseare the typesof analysesanddecisionsthat theelectedofficials of theCity mustmakeas an essentialpart of their job. HouseBill 2758 usurpsthisvitally importantmanagementprerogativeof theelectedexecutiveandcouncilmembersof the largestcity in our Commonwealth.

Putsimply,HouseBill 2758impingesupontheCity’s ability to manageitsfiscal affairsandto governits budget.Therestrictionsin thisbill interferewiththe City’s fiscal managementwhendecidingthenecessarylevel of servicesofferedto thepublic in relation to theburdenthat suchserviceshaveon themunicipal tax base.The restrictionsmay also implicate labor managementissues.Moreover,therequirementsof HouseBill 2758 apply only to theCityof Philadelphia;the bill doesnot addressor constrainother municipalities’actionswith respectto fire protectionservices.Thereis simply no rationaldistinction for applying theserestrictionsto only one of our thousandsofmunicipalities. The Commonwealthshould not be involved in managingmunicipalfiscaldecisionsto this degree.

Whencontemplatingmy decisionas to HouseBill 2758, I receivedanunsolicitedletterfromFireCommissionerEd MannandPEMA DirectorDaveSanko.Theirlogic wasverypersuasiveandI amincorporatingthat letterin thismessage.


For thesereasons,I must withhold my signaturefrom HouseBill 2758,Printer’sNo.4224.

EDWARD G. RENDELL


VetoNo. 2004-5

HB 176 November30, 2004

To the Honorable,theHouseof Representativesof theCommonwealthof Pennsylvania:

I am returningherewith,without my approval,HouseBill 176, Printer’sNo.4784, entitled“An actamendingtheact of March4, 1971 (P.L.6, No.2),known as the Tax ReformCodeof 1971, furtherproviding, in salesandusetax, for alternateimposition and for credits; further providing, in personalincometax, for definitions;providing,in personalincometax, for operationalprovisionsrelatingto contributionsof refundsby checkoff; furtherproviding,in realty transfer tax, for determinationand review; providing, in realtytransfer tax, for sharing information; further providing, in local real estatetransfer tax, for imposition and for administration;providing, in local realestatetransfertax, for regulations,for documentarystamps, for collectionagents, for disbursements,for judicial sale proceeds, for stamps, fordeterminationand review, for liens, for refunds, for civil penalties, forviolations and for information; further providing, in research anddevelopmenttax credit, for definitions, for carryover,carryback,refund andassignmentof credit and for PennsylvaniaS corporationshareholderpass-through;furtherproviding, in film productiontaxcredit,for thedefinitionsof“film,” “Pennsylvaniaproduction expense” and “production expense”;providing, in film production tax credit, for the definition of “start date”;furtherproviding, in film productiontax credit, for credit for qualified filmproduction expenses;providing for film production tax credits; furtherproviding,in film productiontax credit, for carryoverand refund of credits,for limitations on credits; imposing penalties; providing for findings anddeclarations;andmakingrepeals.”

I amnot signingHouseBill 176 into law becausecertainprovisionsofthe legislation are ambiguousandthe legislation couldresult in substantialrevenueloss to the GeneralFund. In particular,while section 2 of the billmay have been intended to exempt only “nonqualifying” deferredcompensationplans from Statetaxation,the languageis sufficiently vaguetoallow the exemptionto apply to all deferredcompensationplans. Suchaninterpretationwould resultin the loss to the GeneralFundof approximately$220 million annually. Moreover, the bill can be interpretedas applyingretroactivelyto theoriginal enactmentof theTax Codeof 1971, increasingsignificantly theexposureof theGeneralFund.

HouseBill 176 could result in the loss to the General Fundof $220million, or more - andthe bill has notbeencoupledwith anyproposalsas tohow theCommonwealthwould compensatefor this lost revenue- no planstoincreaserevenuesandno specific,delineatedproposedspendingcuts.As aresult,I haveno choicebut to withhold my signaturefrom this bill. As longas I am Governor, I intend to enforcea “pay as you go” budgetprocess


for Pennsylvania.There will be no significant increasesin spending orreductionsin revenuewithout a specific plan to pay for them. Indeed,becauseof the fiscal impact,tax legislationis appropriatelydebatedduringtheoveralldiscussionsof theCommonwealthbudget.

Despitemy fundamentalproblemswith the significant fiscal impact ofthis legislation, I note that House Bill 176 does raise several potentialchangesthatare worthy of furtherconsiderationanddebate.Among thesearethefollowing:

• Addressingconsequenceof changesto thetax codein 1998 that usedsection 501 of the Internal RevenueCode as a way of definingcorporationsorganizedas not-for-profitsfor purposesof detenniningexclusionsfromPennsylvaniacorporatetaxes.

• Changingthe way our recentlyenactedfilm tax credit is calculatedanddistributedto ensurethat it hasthe maximumimpactin helping toattractfilm production to Pennsylvania.The tax credit for the filmindustryhasalreadyproducedtangibleresultsandthe newprocedures-set forth in HouseBill 176 would serveto makethe creditevenmoreattractiveto thefilm industry.

• Improving and strengtheningour recently expandedresearchanddevelopmenttax creditto ensurethat the programcontinuesto attractnewinvestmentin researchanddevelopmentin theCommonwealth.

I would supportall of theseproposedchangesif madein the appropriatecontext.In its currentform,however,I cannotsupportHouseBill 176.

Forthereasonsset forth above,I mustwithholdmy signaturefrom HouseBill 176, Printer’sNo.4784.

EDWARD G. RENDELL


Veto No. 2004-6

SB 304 November30,2004

To theHonorable,the Senateof the Commonwealthof Pennsylvania:

lamreturningherewith,withoutmyapproval,SenateBill 304,Printer’sNo.1983,entitled,“An actamendingTitle 20(Decedents,EstatesandFiduciaries)ofthePennsylvaniaConsolidatedStatutes,providingforpaymentstofamily andfuneral directors,for allowablefamily exemptionand for classificationandorderof paymentof claims againsttheestateof a decedent.”

SenateBill 304 would increase,from $3,500to $5,000,theamounta bankor similar financial institution may pay to a decedent’sestateprior to thepaymentoftaxesanddebtsfor funeralexpenses.Theamountof realor personalproperty that may be retainedby a spouseor other relativeprior to debtsortaxeswould alsobeincreasedby asimilaramount.In addition,personswouldno longerneedto residein the householdof the deceasedto receivethesemonies.

For decedentswho wererecipientsof Medical Assistance,thefacility inwhich thepatientwasa residentmaypayup to $5,000forburialexpensesfromthe patient’s care account.Presently that amount is cappedat $3,500. Inaddition,after burial expenses,the facility may pay up to $5,500,includingfuneral expenses,to thespouseorother relativeof thepatient.Thisamountispresentlycappedat$4,000.In bothinstances,theseamountsmaybepaidpriorto reimbursementsfor Medical Assistanceservicesandotherdebtsandtaxes.

SenateBill 304 also setsa priority to claims by theCommonwealthandpolitical subdivisionswhentheassetsof an estateare insufficientto pay alldebtsandtaxes.Currently,claimsby theCommonwealtharelastinpriority andare classifiedas “other.” This languagewill placethe Commonwealthandpolitical subdivisionsaheadof “other” claims.Thebill clarifies that MedicalAssistanceserviceswill continuetobegivenits enhancedpriority (third behindcostof estateadministrationandfamily exemption).

The original legislation provided only for the enhancedpriority ofCommonwealthandlocalgovernmentclaims.This languageisconsistentwiththe laws of otherstates,supportedby our local governmentassociationsandmayprovideadditionalrevenueto theCommonwealth,althoughit is difficultto predicthow regularor significanttheadditionalrevenuemaybe.

My oppositionto SenateBill 304, however,is with the languageaddedtothis bill, which providesincreasesin thefamily exemptionandexpansionofthecategoriesas to who is eligible to receivetheseexemptions,and the funeralexpenseprovisions.Theseprovisionsresultin significantrevenuelossesthatcouldexpandin the future.TheGeneralFundcannotabsorbthis magnitudeoflossin isolation— eitherotherrevenuesourcesor reductionsin servicemustbeidentifiedto offset theselosses.

Provisionsin SenateBill 304 to increasethe family exemptionfrom


$3,500to $5,000andpermitpersonsnotresidingin thedecedent’sresidencetoreceivemoniesis projectedto resultinadecreasein anticipatedInheritanceTaxrevenuesof$2.5million for theremainderoffiscalyear2004-05and$5 millionannuallythereafter.This is basedon thecurrentnumberof estatesclaiming thefamily exemption,9,000, increasingto 30,000 with the elimination of the“residing in the samehousehold”standard.In addition, therewill be somerevenuelossto theDepartmentof PublicWelfarein itsestaterecoveryprogram.Estimatesrangefrom$500,000to $5 million inanticipatedMedicalAssistanceservicesmoniesannuallythat will not berecoupedfrom the estateswith theenactmentof SenateBill 304.All told, thepotentialtotal impacttotheGeneralFundcouldbe alossof asmuch as$10 million annually. -

Thoughtheaim of this legislationis laudable,it hasnotbeencoupledwithanyproposalsas to how theCommonwealthwould compensateforasmuchas$10 million in lost revenue— no plansto increaseother revenuesand nospecific,delineatedproposedspendingcuts.As aresult,I haveno choicebut towithhold my signaturefrom this bill. As long as I amGovernor,I intend toenforcea “pay as you go” budgetprocessfor Pennsylvania.Therewill be nosignificantincreasesin spendingorreductionsin revenuewithoutaspecificplanto payfor them.

Forthereasonssetforth above,I mustwithholdmy signaturefrom SenateBill 304, Printer’sNo.1983.

EDWARD 0. RENDELL


Veto No. 2004-7


To theHonorable,theSenateof theCommonwealthof Pennsylvania:

I amreturrnngherewith,withoutmyapproval,SenateBill 356,Printer’sNo.1980, entitled “An act amendingTitle 18 (Crimes and Offenses)of thePennsylvaniaConsolidatedStatutes,further providing for criminal historyrecordinformation.”

SenateBill 356eliminates“dual dissemination”of criminalhistoryrecordsandexemptsa largenumberof personsfrompayingthefeeforcriminalhistoryrecordschecks.

Elimination of the “dual dissemination” provision would allow thePennsylvaniaStatePoliceto automatethecriminal historyrecor&checkprocessandwouldallow foron-lineprovisionof all backgroundchecks,asseveralotherstatesnow provide. Undercurrentlaw, criminal history recordinformationprovided to law enforcementagenciesis not the same as the informationprovided to individuals requesting information. By eliminating dualdissemination,the informationneednotbedifferent.

SenateBill 356alsoexemptsvolunteersservingwithoutcompensationwiththe following groupsfrom paying the recordscheckfee:an affiliate of BigBrothersof Americaor Big Sistersof America,Little LeagueBaseball,Inc.,arapecrisiscenterordomesticviolenceprogram,a volunteerfire department,avolunteerambulanceservice,Boy Scoutsof America,Girl Scoutsof theUnitedStatesof America,areligious-relatedgroupor organization,YMCA, YWCA,ablockparentprogramwhichincludestheMcGruffprogramoraiiy othergroupthatprimarily workswith children.Currently,volunteerswith Big BrothersofAmericaor Big Sistersof Americaor with a rapecrisis centeror domesticviolenceprogramreceivefreecriminal historyrecordschecks.

Thecostsassociatedwithprovidingfreecriminalhistorybackgroundchecksaresignificant.ThePennsylvaniaStatePolicecurrentlyreceiveapproximately1 million criminal history checkrequestsannuallyfrom non-criminaljusticeentities.With thebroadcategoriesofexemptpersonsin SenateBill 356,atleasthalfandpossiblysignificantlymoreofthoserequestingbackgroundchecksarenow estimatedto beeligible for thefreechecks.

Theestimatefor thenumberof volunteersfor Little LeagueBaseball,Inc.,in Pennsylvaniais70,000;volunteerfire departmentsarealsoestimatedto have70,000volunteers;the Boy ScoutsandGirl Scoutsvolunteerestimateis over60,000;theblockparentprogramsestimateis over32,000volunteers.Theverybroadheadingsof “areligiousgroupororganization”and“any othergroupthatprimarilyworkswithchildren” cancovera significantnumberofpeople;thesecategoriesalsopresentdifficult problemswith respectto verification.

Assumingthat 50% of currentrequestswill now qualify for freecriminalhistorybackgroundchecks,the resultingcostto thePennsylvaniaStatePolicecouldbe atleast$5 million peryearandverypossiblymore.


UnderSB 356, thereis flO limit placedon thenumberof freebackgroundchecks that maybe providedin a singleyear.The cost to theStatePolice ofproviding free backgroundcheckscould escalateif personswho are nowrequiredto obtaincriminal historychecksfor employmentdeterminethattheyare ableto obtaina freecheckundertheprovisionsof this bill.

TherearealsosignificantcoststhattheStatePolicewill berequiredto-bearunderSB356 associatedwith theautomationofthecriminal historybackgroundcheckprocessthat will be requiredin order to accommodatethe numberofrequeststhatwill bereceived.Thesecostsareestimatedat$4million to modifyPATCH, the StatePolice automatedcriminal recordssystem,andassociatedsystemsto enableall criminal history recordscheck requests/repliesto beaccomplishedvia the Internet. Currently only “no record” responsesareprovidedovertheInternet.

While severalof the provisionsof SB 356 areconstructiveanddesirable,Icannotsupportthesechangesin the contextof a bill that imposessuchlargeunfundedmandates,both one-timeandrecurring, on the State Police. Thelegislation has not been coupled with any proposals as to how theCommonwealthwould pay for theseexpandedrequirements— no plans toincreaseotherrevenuesandflO specific,delineatedproposedspendingcuts.Asa result,I haveno choicebut to withholdmy signaturefrom this bill. As longas I amGovernor,I intend to enforcea “pay as you go” budgetprocessforPennsylvania.Therewill beno significantincreasesin spendingor reductionsin revenuewithouta specificplanto payfor them.

The Administrationremainsreadyto work with theGeneralAssemblytodevelopstatutorylanguagethat achievesthe goal of expandedandlesscostlyaccessto criminal backgroundcheckinformationfor citizens,whileatthesametimeadvancingfiscal responsibilityandavoiding unfundedmandates.

Becauseof the one-timecost of the requiredbackgroundchecksystemschangesandtherecurringlost revenuedueto thebroadcategoriesexemptedfrom payingforbackgroundchecks,I mustwithholdmy signaturefrom SenateBill 356,Printer’sNo.1980.

EDWARD G. RENDELL


Veto No. 2004-8

SB 492 November30, 2004

To the Honorable,theSenateof theCommonwealthof Pennsylvania:

I am returningherewith,without my approval,SenateBill 492,Printer’sNo.1653,entitled“An actamendingTitles 18 (Crimes and Offenses)and20(Decedents,EstatesandFiduciaries)of thePennsylvaniaConsolidatedStatutes,providingfor theoffensesof neglectof care-dependentpersonandfor livingwills andhealthcarepowersof attorney;furtherprovidingfor implementationof out-of-hospitalnonresuscitation;andmakingconformingamendments.”

SenateBill 492 addressesthedifficult issueof end-of-lifecare.In makingthedecisionto veto thisbill, I carefullyconsideredthe lettersurginga vetoofthis bill sent to me by thePennsylvaniaMedical Society,the PennsylvaniaCollege of Internal Medicine, the Presidentof CompassionateChoice ofDelawareCounty,andnumerousmedicalprofessionalswhoarepartof hospitalethicscommitteesor providersof Palliative Care. Foryour information thelettersfrom the PennsylvaniaMedical SocietyandPennsylvaniaCollegeofInternalMedicineareattached.Weall know thatend-of-lifedecisionsarebestmadebeforetheonsetof a severeillnessor theoccurrenceof a severeinjury.Theseletterspointout, however,thatunfortunatelymostPennsylvaniansdonothaveliving wills and illnessor injury is often suddenandunexpected.Thisleavesincredibly difficult decisions to be made by a patient’s family inconsultationwith thepatient’s physicians.Although SenateBill 492 wouldallow greatercontrol for thosewith living wills or health-carepowersofattorney, it couldresult in doing a tremendousdisservice,andmay evenbeharmful, to theoverwhelmingmajority of Pennsylvanianswho do not haveformaladvancedirectives.

SenateBill 492 would mandatetheprovisionof “healthcarenecessarytopreservelife” for patientswith advancedchronicdiseasesthat areprngressiveandlife limiting. This categoryof illnessincludesthingssuchas Alzheimer’sdisease.SenateBill 492wouldrequirethata careprovideradministerall-healthcarenecessaryto preservelife unlessapatienthada formal advancedirectiveorhealthcarepowerof attorney.Forexample,underthis statutoryrequirement,a wife whosehusbandhadveryadvancedAlzheimer’sdiseasecouldnot electcomfortcarein lieu of puttingher spouseon a respiratoror forgoingCPRif itwereneeded.Anothersectionof SenateBill 492 would preventfamilies andspousesfromwithdrawingor withholdinglife supportfor family membersin anursinghomeunlessthatpersonhada formaladvancedirectiveor healtbcarepowerof attorney.

While I believethenitentof thislegislationis worthy,I would lookforwardto workingwith membersof the legislatureto craft a bill that is broadenoughto encompassthemanypainful andurgentrealitiesof thefamily members-whoare intimately involved with the end of care decisionsof their lovedones.


Forthereasonssetforth above,I mustwithholdmy signaturefromSenateBill 492, Printer’sNo.1653.

EDWARD G. RENDELL


Veto No. 2004-9


To the Honorable,theSenateof theCommonwealthof Pennsylvania:

I amreturningherewith,withoutmy approval,SenateBill 1209,Printer’sNo.1997,entitled“An actamendingTitles4 (Amusements)and 18(CrimesandOffenses)of the PennsylvaniaConsolidatedStatutes,further providing fordefinitions and for the PennsylvaniaGaming Control Board established;providingfor applicabilityof otherstatutesandfor reviewof deeds,leasesandcontracts;further providingfor generalandspecific powers,for temporaryregulations,for boardminutesandrecords,for slotmachinelicenseefinancialfitnessand for supplierand manufacturerlicensesapplication; providingformanufacturerlicenses;furtherprovidingfor occupationpermit application,forestablishmentof StateGamingFundandnetslotmachinerevenuedistribution,for transfers from State Gaming Fund, for multiple slot machinelicenseprohibition,for local landusepreemption,for public official financialinterest,for enforcement,for penalties,for backgroundchecks,for fingerprintsandforcorruptorganizations;andmakingrelatedrepeals.”

The PennsylvaniaRaceHorseDevelopmentandGamingAct containstheframeworkfor thecreationof a newlimited gamingindustryin Pennsylvaniathat will necessarilyrequirestrict scrutiny,workable yet tight regulationandstrongenforcementin orderto maintainthe integrityof that industry.While Ibelieve this frameworkis adequate,I supportthe original objectivesof thislegislationto clarify therole of law enforcementagenciesto safeguardtheintegrity of gaming activities in the Commonwealth;to guaranteepublicopennessof GamingBoarddeliberations;andto strengthenthepublic officialfinancial interestprohibitionsthat were intendedto ensurepublic confidenceandpreventimproperinfluence.SenateBill 1209hassignificantlystrayed-fr-omthesegoals. It hasbeeninconsistentlyamended,resulting in a final formthatunderminesthe ability of the newly establishedGaming Board to workeffectivelyto implementthe provisionsof Act 71 and it removesimportanteconomicbenefitsoriginally containedin the act.

While SenateBill 1209 strengthenstheprohibitionagainstpublicofficialsandmembersof the GamingBoardhaving ownershipinterestsin companiesregulatedby theactby includingsuppliersandmanufacturersin thebanandbyeliminating the1% ownershipthreshold,it actuallyweakenstheapplicationoftheprohibitionby narrowingthedefinitionof “immediatefamily” topermit theparentsand siblings of public officials, such as the Attorney Generalandlegislators,tohavea directandunlimitedfinancialinterestin regulatedgamingcompanies.In dramaticcontrast,thebill appliesa moreexpansivedefinitionof“immediatefamily” to GamingBoardmembersandits employees.Thepubliccorruption protectionsshould be uniform. SenateBill 1209 falls short ofachievingits goal of clarifying andstrengtheningthis provision.We cannotafford to let there be any confusion about our commitment to prevent


impropriety.A core objective of Act 71 was to provide employmentand business

opportunitiesthat would allow Pennsylvaniansto directly participatein thisnewly createdindustry. Onetangible examplewasthe GeneralAssembly’screationof a Pennsylvaniaslot machinesuppliersystemintendedto fosterthecreation of skilled jobs and provide substantialbusiness developmentopportunities.Unfortunately,SenateBill 1209 eliminates this provision —

ignoringthepositiveeconomicexperiencelocalslotmachinesuppliershaveliadin otherstates.Our stateshouldnotbe deprivedof this importantbenefit.

As you arewell aware,one of theprincipal reasonsfor my supportof theintroductionof limited gaming into the Commonwealthwasthe anticipatedrevenueit would generatefor propertyandwage tax relief. However,SenateBill 1209containsseveralprovisionsthatcoulddramaticallyslowthe~abilitytTftheGamingBoard to implementAct 71 andpotentiallyreducethe amountoffundsultimatelyavailablefor theseimportantinitiatives.Forexample,thisbillrequiresthatbeforeany money is usedfor propertyandwage tax relief, anyshortfall from thepreviousyearin theLottery Fundbe madeup with gamingrevenue,regardlessof thecauseoftherevenueshortfall.This isnotgoodpublicpolicy. Moreover,thebill changesthe timing of transfersof gamingrevenuesfromtheStateGamingFundto thePropertyTax ReliefFundfrom monthlytoyearly.Theseprovisionswill notonlyreducethefundsavailablebutalsoreducetheflexibility to timethereleaseof fundsto schooldistricts for propertyandwagetax relief.

Finally,SenateBill 1209threatenstheability oftheGamingBoardtotimelyplaceandregulateslotvenueswithoutinterferencefromconflictingiocalzoningandlanduseregulationsandpolicies.WhileI agreethatslot venuesshouldnotbelocatedina mannerinwhich theirpresencewould beincompatiblewith thelocal communityandlegitimateimpactconcernsshouldbeadequately-resolvedby theBoard,it is notappropriatefor localrulesandregulationsto beusedtounderminethe authorityof theBoard.I supportlegislationthatwould compeltheGaming Boardto considerthe concernsof local authoritiesby requiringpublic hearingsin any municipality in which a slot venueis proposed,andprovidebothnoticeandability to commenton any slot venueapplicationbyneighboringresidents,community groups and local governingauthorities.Amongother reasons,I do not supportSenateBill 1209 becauseit doesnotreachanequitablebalancebetweenthestronginterestoftheCommonwealthtoexclusivelyregulateandcontrolgamingoperationsandthe legitimateimpactconcernsof local communities.

I do believe,however,that certainlimited changeswould makeAct 71 abetterlaw.First,I would supportprecludingpublicofficials andtheirimmediatefamilies fromowninganyinterestin anyentity regulatedbyAct7LDnJuly 5,2004,thesamedayI signedAct 71 intolaw, I alsosignedanExecutiveOrderthatprohibitedanyexecutivebranchemployeefrom owning anyinterestin anentityregulatedby Act 71. Thisrestrictionshouldappropriatelybecodifiedinstatute.Second,I supportextendingtheprotectionsof thestateRICOstatutetoviolationsof Act 71.


Forthereasonssetforth above,I mustwithholdmy signaturefrom Senate

Bill 1209,Printer’sNo.1997.

EDWARD G. RENDELL


VetoNo. 2004-10

HB 2442 December1, 2004


I am returningherewith,withoutmy approval,HouseBill 2442,Printer’sNo.4806,entitled“An actamendingtheactofJune25, 1982(P.L.633,No.181),entitled,asreenacted,‘An actproviding for independentoversightandreviewof regulations,creating an IndependentRegulatory Review Commission,providingfor its powersanddutiesandmakingrepeals,’furtherprovidingfordefinitions, for compositionand for proposedregulationsandprocedureforreview.”

I take this action today becauseundercurrentlaw, the membersof theCommission elect the Chair of the Independent Regulatory ReviewCommission.I have receivedno evidencethat the Commission’selectionprocessfor Chairis flawed.As aresult,I amnotpreparedto signinto lawa billwith the languageincludedin section 2(g)(2) and (3) of HouseBill 2442mandatingthecreationof aVice Chairandfurthermandatingthat a vacancyintheoffice of theChairmustbefilled by theVice Chairfor theremainderof theChair’stermanduntil a successoris elected.

I amimpressedwith thehardworkof themembersof theCommissionandbelievetheir guidanceon the structureandoperationof the Commissioniswarrantedbeforeanylegislation.is passedaffectingthis structure.

Forthe reasonsetforth above,I mustwithhold my signaturefrom HouseBill 2442,Printer’sNo.4806.

EDWARD G. RENDELL


Veto No. 2004-11

HB 2664 December8, 2004

To the Honorable,theHouseof Representativesof theCommonwealthof Pennsylvania: -

I amreturningherewith,withoutmy approval,HouseBill 2664.The goal of thebill to providestop-gapfunding for theCommonwealth’s

smaller transit agenciesfor the remainderof the fiscal year is laudable.However, I do not feel I canresponsiblysignit into lawbecausethebill goesbeyondtheboundsof justprovidingfunding. In fact, asa resultof theseotherprovisions,it hasbecomeapparentthat manyof theagenciesthelegislationwasintendedto help opposeits enactment.A November30 letterto me from thePennsylvaniaPublicTransportationAssociationstatesin part:

“The PennsylvaniaPublicTransportationAssociation(PPTA)supportsthegrowthof publictransportationin theCommonwealthbutnotattheexpenseof thosesystemscurrently providingservicesto its residents.“HouseBill 2664,aspassedby theGeneralAssembly.. . will harmexistingsystems.Thebill callsfor thereallocationof existingresources.. . in orderto accommodatethe inclusionof new systems.Without a provision foradditionalfunding to accommodatenew systems,existingClass3 and4systemscurrentlyexperiencingorsoonto experienceoperatingdeficitswillfind worsenedfinancial crisesacceleratedby theredistributionof existingresources.

***

“In addition, thereare a numberof Class3 and4 systemsthat haveusedexistingresourcesfordebtfinancing.Anerosionof theseexistingresourcesmay causeloan defaultsif systemsreceiveless than thecurrentfundingformula allocations.

In conclusion,HB 2664 destabilizesthe financial condition of existingsystemsandfails to remedytheir currentfinancialcrises.AlthoughClasses3 and4 still haveanunfundedneedfor thecurrentfiscalyear,the long-termimplicationsof thisbill outweightheshort-termbenefits.Therefore,PPTAurgesyou to veto HB 2664.”

Basedon theseconcernsI do not believe I can responsiblysign thislegislationinto law.

However,sinceI receivedthis bill, my administrationhasbeenworking tofindanotherwayto keepall thestate’stransitproviders— boththesmallerClass3 and4 systemsandthelargersystemsservingPittsburghandPhiladelphia—

from beingforcedto adoptlayoffs, servicecuts andfare increasesto balancetheir budgets.

But stop-gapfunding,whether in the formof HouseBill 2664or some


other form, is not the proper solution to the problems facing theCommonwealth’stransitsystemsandthosewho dependuponthem.Theonlyway theseproblemswill be solvedfor the long-termis throughenactmentofnew, dependablefutiding streamsfor transit.

Forthereasonssetforth above,I mustwithholdmy signaturefrom HouseBill 2664.

EDWARD 0. RENDELL

SESSION OF 2004 Veto 2004-1 2047 - palrb.us

Documents

Transcript of SESSION OF 2004 Veto 2004-1 2047 - palrb.us