“No there there” in Andy Beshear’s complaint about the House budget

Discussing HB6 last week, the AP’s Bruce Schreiner reported that Gov. Andy Beshear saved some of his “harshest comments” for the potential impact of the House budget on the state workforce.

Beshear claimed the proposed spending plan “would dramatically reduce state personnel by eliminating funding for up to 95% of vacant positions.”

As is often the case, Beshear is searching for a talking point the public might buy even when the evidence won’t support it.

For years, executive branch budgets have included funding for vacant positions. The idea being to have those positions funded so agencies could fill positions throughout the year. However, there’s always been more positions funded than agencies could realistically fill.

For example, during the Bevin years, DCBS would have 100+ vacancies for social workers. The funded vacancies were rarely utilized because it’s hard to hire social workers. When people left a job at DCBS (as many did) those positions opened up to bring in new hires.

In the last decade, when the budget office needed to solve a budget shortfall, a large part of the problem was handled with “vacancy credits”. Here’s an example I wrote about during my time at the Bluegrass Institute:

The Department for Behavioral Health, Development and Intellectual Disabilities provides services for people affected by mental illness, intellectual and developmental disabilities and substance abuse. Due to non-competitive wages and tough work conditions, the Department struggles to hire enough personnel.

Behavioral Health’s plan to reach the 1% General Fund reduction included $450,000 in vacancy credits. But, here’s the thing. The Department wasn’t going to fill those jobs by the end of the fiscal year, so those dollars were going to lapse to the General Fund anyway. In this respect, vacancy credits aren’t really budget reductions at all.

That’s why so-called “drastic” cuts never lead to layoffs. And, why the actual services provided by those agencies were rarely, if ever, impacted.

I’ve long thought right-sizing personnel vacancies was a great opportunity to achieve efficiencies in government spending.

Agencies retaining 5% of their vacancies will provide plenty of capacity to hire for positions that are needed and people want to apply for.

This is smart budgeting. The House should be applauded for their decision.

- AM