There are currently approximately 645 federal program employees and over $3 million in salaries affected by the austerity measure.
The strongest statement from those interviewed was blunt, unafraid and angry.
“The governor is breaking the law, why is no one saying it out loud?” said one grant manager.
According to the signed budget bill of 2012, page 22, lines 14 through 19, “…any employee whose salary is paid in full by federal funds shall be exempt from any work hour reduction or reduction in salary.”
For FFEs the bill’s language was clear and concise but in their assessment, been completely ignored by Capital Hill.
Their hopes of a policy reversal now rest with Babauta to address the point directly with the governor and lt. governor.
Although the interviewed firmly believe the discussion begins and ends with the budget’s legal language, additional ethical concerns were aired to emphasize, “This is a mess the Interior department needs to clean up.”
Point 1: A Grant’s Purpose
Those consulted expressed disgust at the governor’s intentional disregard of the spirit – if not the legal stipulations – of federal grants.
One person simplified the central issue for those unfamiliar with the process.
“Why was the grant awarded – for what purpose?”
An example would be if boating safety grant money was used for a health program then the conditions of the grant have been violated.
Grant managers and assistant managers emphasized the point because most wrote their program’s grant applications and know first-hand the intention and rules of spending grant funds.
Point 2: Benefits
Those interviewed also expressed disbelief at the executive branch’s economic illogic of cutting FFEs salaries.
By law, FFEs cannot have their benefits reduced, so a reduction of salary to 75 percent also reduced the amount the grant covered for employee’s benefits.
“Cut salary by 25 percent and the government loses 25 percent of benefit money from the grant.”
Legally, the local government must pay this difference; however, those consulted scoffed at the suggestion.
“Anybody have a look at the books lately? They’ll claim they didn’t understand this point and shrug their shoulders should anyone ever actually do an audit,” commented one long-time grant program staffer.
The consulted claim the above concerns and legal issues were emphasized during “negotiations” with executive leaders over several months but in every instance received a dismissive remark or wave of the hand.
A typical circular conversation was recounted; “We’ll [government] use the austerity savings for some other thing,” to which the FFE responded, “What thing?”
The answers included vague responses such as “paying power bills.”
Repeatedly the affected reiterated that that type of reprogramming was not allowed under grant conditions.
That dialogue loop continued ad nauseum with no success.
“We’re speaking out the best way we can without jeopardizing the good work our grants support … Babauta is our last hope for Santa.”
Part II tomorrow will detail FFE numbers and affected grants.
