Governor rejects criticism on pandemic spending

Lujan Grisham suggests lawmakers’ concerns stem from misreading of law

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham sent a strongly worded retort Tuesday to legislators who questioned the legality of her COVID-19 emergency spending, suggesting their concerns were trivial and unnecessary as the state grapples with a pandemic.

“I am puzzled by the Legislature’s interest in taking up a pedantic matter during the pendency of a once-in-alifetime health crisis, but I hope that we can now move forward to address the many pressing substantive issues facing our state,” the governor wrote in a letter to members of the Legislative Council — a key panel that includes top Democratic and Republican lawmakers.

Legislators had sent a letter to

Lujan Grisham last month asking her to explain the legality of her decision to unilaterally authorize COVID-19 emergency spending “in excess of the statutory limits.”

That missive came after the Legislative Council voted unanimously to examine the spending as some lawmakers argued she had overstepped her authority.

The letter, signed by House Speaker Brian Egolf and Senate President Pro Tem Mary Kay Papen, cited state law allowing appropriations of $750,000 “for each eligible and qualified applicant” when the governor declares an emergency. Yet it noted some of the governor’s orders called for higher amounts, such as one for $20 million and another for $10 million.

Legislators asked the governor to respond by Aug. 5 so they “may further analyze the separation of powers concerns that have been raised.”

The governor wrote Tuesday that she believed legislators were interpreting state law as allowing the executive branch to spend an unlimited amount of emergency funds so long as the money is provided in increments of $750,000 each.

Lujan Grisham then said it would create an “absurd requirement” to read state law in such a way that called for 27 executive orders for $750,000 each rather than one order for $20 million.

“A higher number of executive orders

does not increase the Legislature’s oversight or control of these funds, it does not change the purposes for which these funds can be used, and it does not meaningfully constrain the total amount of funds distributed or used for disaster relief or response by the agency,” the governor wrote in the letter obtained by The New Mexican.

Lujan Grisham argued her administration has exceeded the $750,000 threshold only when warranted, and that former Gov. Susana Martinez also had gone above that limit on multiple occasions to authorize flood relief.

Lujan Grisham said she was unable to find communications from legislators expressing concern over Martinez’s emergency spending.

She also cited a portion of state law that says the executive branch can order emergency spending of $750,000 or “an unspecified amount of unappropriated money from general fund reserves.”

Since the COVID-19 outbreak reached New Mexico in March, the state finance department has approved multiple emergency appropriations exceeding $750,000 in order to buy personal protective equipment and other coronavirus-related goods and services.

Lujan Grisham’s administration authorized $20 million for the state Department of Health for COVID-19 relief and response on March 27.

Republicans and fiscally conservative Democrats have been particularly vocal in criticizing the spending.

Sen. John Arthur Smith, outgoing chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said last month that lawmakers “have to draw a line in the sand if they’re going to protect their appropriation authority.”

Staff members at the Legislative Finance Committee and State Auditor Brian Colón also have expressed concern in recent weeks.

State officials have responded the emergency expenditures were necessary given the urgent nature of pandemic, and acting Finance and Administration Secretary Debbie Romero last month called them “justifiable emergencies.”

Romero said the state intends to pay back the amounts spent through the emergency orders with newly arrived federal aid.

Some top legislators, in turn, have made comments more in line with the administration’s argument.

Egolf, D-Santa Fe, said last month that the matter was “a conversation about a technicality,” a comment Lujan Grisham cited in her letter Tuesday.