A bill that authorizes funds to pay a 2000 settlement against the Arizona Department of Corrections passed the House unanimously and was sent to the Senate, though not without drawing fire from the Democratic minority who claimed the appropriation was designed to divert money away from programs sought by the governor.

The bill originally sought to give Corrections an extra $7.8 million for overtime in the current fiscal year but was amended to also provide an additional $13.5 million to pay the department’s portion of a settlement to workers who were not paid for on-call duty.

“A vote for [this bill] should not have to be a vote against other programs,” Rep. Ben Miranda, D-16, said, “like education…or meaningful raises for state employees.”

Several Democrats spoke against the amendment during a Jan. 27 Committee of the Whole session, saying it was an attempt to skirt funding measures around the appropriations process.

“I hate to see us addressing the budget in ’06 in this piecemeal manner,” Minority Whip Pete Rios, D-23, said.

Pearce: Democrats ‘Whining’

Rep. Russell Pearce, R-18, the sponsor of H2387, said the attempt is not to avoid the traditional appropriations process, but to do what is right, something he is amazed Democrats opposed. He said he was upset at the “whining and moaning and groaning” and “cheap shots” the Democrats were taking regarding the bill.

“Shame on them – this is a straight up, honest approach to pay our debt, pay something we know we owe,” he said. “Nobody denies we owe the money, and this has been known for years. These people are retiring, some of them may have died since this money’s been owed to them. It’s just not right.”

The most upsetting thing, Mr. Pearce said, was that the Legislature was not even aware the Corrections Department’s had not paid its employees until constituents began calling their legislators. He said the settlement should have been paid by the agency several years ago by using money earmarked for vacant positions that had not been filled.

He called the department’s failure to pay “a shame and embarrassment” on the state.

“They agreed to pay for it and they’re just not getting the job done,” Mr. Pearce said.

Cam Hunter, a Department of Corrections spokeswoman, said the settlement is from a class action lawsuit filed in 1997 against the state for a failure to pay on-call employees adequately. Corrections was only one of several state agencies affected by the settlement, but was hardest hit because it employs nearly one-third of the state’s workforce.

She said DOC has already paid $10 million of the $23 million it was required to pay. Ms. Hunter said the next payment of $4 million will be made by October, with the balance being paid as funding becomes available.

Peace Officers Group Pleased

Joe Masella, president of the Arizona Correctional Peace Officers Association, said it is “ridiculous” that the Department of Corrections hasn’t yet paid the settlement, but was pleased that H2387 was moving through the process quickly.

“The whole practice of them not paying was a joke,” he said. “Anything to help our officers feed their families is a good thing.”

Democrats also questioned the timing of the bill.

“We’ve known about this problem for four or five years,” Rep. Tom Prezelski, D-29, said in the Jan. 25 Democratic caucus. “I’m wondering why it’s so urgent that we do it now.”

In the same caucus, Mr. Rios said the employees ought to receive what they were due, but said the bill was only being backed by Republicans in order to submarine Democrat-backed appropriations for things like full-day kindergarten, raises for state employees and child care.

“I believe that part of the [Republican] strategy is to try to piecemeal the ending balance of ’06 so other issues can’t be addressed,” he said.

Speaker Jim Weiers defended the bill in the Committee of the Whole, saying the state had both moral and fiscal obligations to make the payment. Interest charges, he said, accrued each day the payment is not made, which is why the appropriation was fast-tracked and not put through the normal appropriations process. The savings could open up other possibilities, he said.

“Maybe we’d have more money to do some of the things some of you would like,” Mr. Weiers said. “This is as straight forward, as common sense, as logical as you can get.”

“It appears the amendment has nothing to do with security – it has to do with politics,” Assistant Minority Leader Linda Lopez, D-16, said in COW. “Doing the right thing should not mean having to give up funding for other important things.” —