PAWLENTY v. HATCH

This is a great move by Governor Pawlenty.

##

Shutdown looms as Pawlenty lashes out at Hatch

With state budget talks at an impasse, Gov. Tim Pawlenty said Thursday that he is preparing to ask the courts what could be declared essential services if a partial government shutdown becomes reality July 1.

Long-simmering tensions between the Republican governor and DFL Attorney General Mike Hatch came to a head Thursday, with Pawlenty openly challenging Hatch's ability to represent the administration, saying that Hatch's possible gubernatorial candidacy may pose an insurmountable conflict of interest.

With all the challenges facing his administration, Pawlenty said, "if one issue is what the administration can and can't do, our attorney can't simultaneously be our political opponent."

Hatch later told reporters that "I am not representing him [Pawlenty]. We don't have a king. We represent state government." Hatch said it was his office's responsibility to petition the courts for a continuation of essential services and that he had asked the administration in late May to prepare a list of core functions.

Nuts and bolts

While several budget bills have passed, bills that authorize spending to support more than three-fourths of state government are pending, including those for K-12 schools, health and human services, state parks, the State Patrol and other services.

Unless lawmakers can reach agreement by June 30, much of the funding to those functions would stop unless they were declared to be essential services by the courts.

Hatch said his office petitioned the courts for continued funding of core services in 2001, when gridlock brought the state close to a shutdown that was avoided at the last minute.

"We've done this before," Hatch said of the filing process. "We'll do it again, and not with animosity. We will simply do our job and leave it at that."

Kicking up dust

Moments before, Pawlenty had a letter hand-delivered to Hatch in which he all but accused the attorney general of having a conflict of interest.

"It is my understanding you are actively exploring a bid for governor in 2006," Pawlenty wrote in the letter, "and that a great deal of the focus of your efforts has consisted of sharp criticism of my administration and me ...

"I question whether you ... can or should represent my administration with respect to the scope of executive powers and decision-making in the event of a government shutdown."

Hatch has not declared his candidacy, but he has sent out fundraising letters that indicate he is exploring the possibility.

In the letter, Pawlenty asked Hatch to respond by noon on June 7 about whether a conflict exists.

'Conflict ridiculous'

Hatch said he was "bemused" by the letter. "To say that I have a conflict is ridiculous," he said. The governor and the Legislature "should be working together and not look to the courts to do their work." A court petition for continued funding, he said, should come "only when the system breaks down."

Tom Mason, Pawlenty's senior adviser, said that the question of potential conflict was "a pretty significant one. The question deserves to be asked." And despite Hatch's contention that court action should come as a last resort, Mason said the administration would seek court action "sooner rather than later. We're facing contingency planning. A court ruling would be the framework."

Pawlenty's ace

And even if Hatch advises Pawlenty that he has no conflict, the issue may not end there. A state statute enacted in 2003 at Pawlenty's behest appears to give him some ability to appoint a substitute counsel "if, in the governor's opinion ... the attorney general is in any way interested adversely to the state."

Eric Lippman, acting general counsel for Pawlenty, said that could mean Pawlenty may be able to get an outside attorney to represent him in the petition, putting Hatch on the sidelines. "The governor's view would be yes, he gets to make his own assessment of whether there's a conflict and take action. That's how we read the statute."

Hatch said he was "very surprised" Pawlenty would even consider such an action and said Pawlenty could not do so without the okay of Supreme Court Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz. "And I can't believe the chief justice would agree to that," Hatch said.

Workers sidelined?

Cal Ludeman, commissioner of the state Department of Employee Relations, said letters to affected state employees must be sent out by June 9 to meet a 21-day notification requirement. Given the spending bills that already have been signed, Ludeman estimated that about 15,000 state employees might be affected by a possible shutdown.

Most likely, the average Minnesota resident would see the effect of a shutdown in closed state parks and halted road construction projects. It's likely that various licensing and inspection services also would be shut down, Ludeman said.

State agencies have been given a deadline of today to submit lists of employees they deem essential. Ludeman said considering homeland security is likely to be one of the biggest differences in defining essential employees between this year and 2001, the last time there was planning for a government shutdown.

The planning for the shutdown comes as contract talks continue between the state and its largest union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Elliott Seide, executive director of AFSCME Council 5, said further contract talks have been canceled until the special legislative session ends.

Contract talks

"At this point its all about the money issues, and they're the ones that will determine how much money there will be," he said.

While the union's contract expires July 1 and AFSCME has held a series of strike preparedness workshops, Seide and Ludeman said there was some hope of continuing the contract past expiration.

"Nobody wants our workers to become pawns between the governor and the Legislature," Seide said. Source: Star Tribune, June 2, 2005