State employees right to worry about Beshear 2.0

As a state employee, I've ridden out three gubernatorial transitions, and am getting ready for my fourth. None were what you would call friendly transfers of power.

My first one was from Democrat Brereton Jones to fellow Democrat Paul Patton in 1995. Even though Patton had served as lieutenant governor under Jones, back in the days when those two offices were elected separately, they weren't exactly buddies. While they didn't have the contentious relationship that Jones had experienced when he was Wallace Wilkinson's lieutenant governor, they had issues.

I was out of state government when Patton surrendered the governorship to Republican Ernie Fletcher, but was back in public service when Fletcher lost his re-election bid to Steve Beshear.

I was here when Beshear gave way to Republican Matt Bevin four years ago, and now here I am when Bevin will seemingly move aside for Democrat Andy Beshear.

Most state government merit employees don't see a tremendous change in their day-to-day duties when an administration turns over, but it's more uncomfortable for some than others. In my case, I report to a non-merit supervisor, so any gubernatorial change might mean a new boss for me. That's never a fun scenario, although all my bosses have been great to me over the years.

For whatever reason, the state government workforce has been a reliable constituency for Democrats. It's possibly because so many employees owe their jobs to the patronage system that the Democrats ran for years, yet have denied ever existed. They were convinced that the Fletcher administration was terrible for them and the Republicans who ran state government during that four-year term hated them. Many lies were told about Fletcher's treatment of merit system employees. No employees with status were fired; the only employee who was fired was on probation, and his management showed ample reasons for that decision.

In retrospect, the Fletcher administration was the last one that really showed that it valued the career employees who earn their living serving the state's taxpayers.

Certainly, the Steve Beshear years were awful. Employees dealt with no raises and then furloughs, which caused them to lose several days' pay each year. Even though minuscule raises were granted during Beshear's last two years in office, the reality is that any state employee who stayed in the same position during his eight years lost money out of their paychecks. Add to that his administration's inability to negotiate decent health insurance policies, and their embrace of Obamacare and the changes it required in the benefits offered to employees, and that resulted in an even greater monetary cost.

While it's true that the Bevin administration never granted across-the-board pay raises for all employees, there were a lot of adjustments made. Several job classifications were raised a grade -- for example, from Grade 13 to Grade 14 -- resulting in more pay. A number of other vital job classifications saw their salaries increased. A new midpoint schedule was implemented for purposes of recruiting new employees and retaining existing workers. New job classification series were established in some agencies to give employees a promotional path.

State law requires that employees receive a 5 percent pay raise each year (it's in KRS 18A.355) but increments of that level haven't been given since Patton's term. Raises under Fletcher's administration ranged in the 2-3 percent level, and Beshear never gave more than a 2 percent raise, but that didn't make up for the furloughs. And no across-the-board raises were given under Bevin. The budget authors always use the line, "notwithstanding the provisions of..." to get around the statutory language. There's a move afoot to repeal the 5 percent requirement and replace it with an annual cost-of-living raise, but that would still be subject to "notwithstanding" language when the state's budget is prepared.

The transition from Bevin back to another Beshear has many state employees, me included, worried. For the most part, public sector salaries are less than what folks in the private sector earn. The lack of raises has really hurt state workers, to the point that many leave for worse jobs that pay better. Snowplow drivers with their CDLs become over-the-road truckers to provide for their families. They're gone from home, but the money puts food on the table and the job provides insurance for the kids.

Memes have been floating around social media since Tuesday's election of a grinning Steve Beshear, sometimes with his wife in the photo, basically saying, "Look at those stupid people. We robbed their pensions blind, and they were dumb enough to elect my (our) son."

Steve and Andy Beshear may be father and son, but they're ideological twins. On issue after issue -- abortion, the Medicaid expansion that will end up busting the state budget, casino gambing, etc. -- there's not any difference in their views. So why should their attitudes toward public employees be any better?

Steve Beshear underfunded the pensions of public employees and teachers. Do those who voted for Andy, especially the teachers, really expect him to be any different? Why did they vote against someone who actually funded their pensions and tried to preserve them for the future, other than being upset about some blunt things he said?

Any state employee or teacher who voted for Andy Beshear is like a chicken voting for Harland Sanders, or a cow voting for Dave Thomas or Ronald McDonald.

Andy Beshear promised to give teachers a $2,000 raise, but where's that money going to come from? And what about state employees? Don't they deserve raises too?

Beshear 2.0 is setting up to be just like Beshear 1.0. The Fletcher administration left Steve Beshear a budget surplus, but Beshear immediately started poor-mouthing the financial situation upon taking office. He was never able to push casino gambling through as a new funding source, so he convinced legislative leaders they needed to furlough state employees to make up the shortfall. (Senate President David Williams later lamented supporting that move, saying it was one of the worst mistakes he ever made; the Democrats who led the House never echoed a similar sentiment.)

Last month, the Bevin administration announced a surplus in the state's General Fund. Andy Beshear has also campaigned on bringing casino gambling to Kentucky, but has been told by Senate leaders that the proposal will go nowhere. Will he start complaining about a tight budget when he takes office and balance it on the backs of the state workers like his daddy did?

I've already let my social circle know that I'm on the job market. If I can find something that pays better in my area, I'll have no choice but to jump at the offer. I'm giving serious thought to retiring six years shy of qualifying for full benefits and taking a private-sector job at a reduced salary if it means more take-home pay when my pension is added to my paycheck. The election of Andy Beshear makes that thought look even more appealing.

Beshear 2.0 worries me. If you're a public employee concerned about your salary or pension, you should be worried too. And if you voted for him under those circumstances, you'll have to suffer the consequences. Be careful of what you wish for sometimes. You just may get it.

The process must be respected in review of gubernatorial election

Constitutional attorney, author, and radio and television host Mark Levin has a name for Republicans who seem to flee at the first sign of controversy or dispute with liberals and Democrats. He calls them "French Republicans."

Others, including former Louisiana governor and presidential candidate Bobby Jindal, refer to them as the "Surrender Caucus."

Now, it seems that this bunch is setting up a presence in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. It's one reason that those of us who consider ourselves strong, principled conservatives get so frustrated with so many elected Republicans. They're too willing to concede or give in to the Democrats instead of standing strong.

With an extremely close contest between Gov. Matt Bevin and Andy Beshear, the governor is rightly looking into his options. First on the table is a recanvass, which he has requested, and which will occur next week. That's a simple process that takes place on a county-by-county basis. Vote totals are checked and the results are added again to ensure that no calculation mistakes were made. The margin of around 5,100 votes makes it unlikely that things will significantly change, but in an election where two votes per precinct made the difference, it's possible that a recording or mathematical error could alter the total. It's as possible that Beshear would pick up votes as it is Bevin would.

From there, it gets tricky. Kentucky law does not allow gubernatorial candidates to request a formal recount, as it does for local offices. A recount is a more involved process that includes examining voting machines to make sure they were working properly and recording votes as they were cast. The candidate who requests the recount is required to pay for it, and it involves a court process.

If Bevin thinks there is reason to move past a recanvass, he is required to contest the election with the General Assembly. This happened last year, when a legislative candidate lost by one vote and went through the procedure. The legislature forms a committee of randomly-selected members, eight from the House of Representatives and three from the Senate. The committee then hears testimony, reviews evidence, can order a formal recount, and makes a recommendation for the full legislature's decision.

Bevin has alluded to some improprieties in the election, but as of this writing, has offered no specifics. There's been anecdotal evidence, though, of problems. One precinct in Lexington didn't open until 6:30 a.m. because no one from the school system came to open the building. Some have reported that some paper ballot users were given ballots pre-marked for Beshear and other Democrats (one of the best arguments against using paper ballots that can be made). Others have mentioned other issues. It's been stated that in some Louisville precincts, neither Bevin nor Libertarian candidate John Hicks received a single vote; all of the ballots went to Beshear. And there's an infamous screenshot of a tweet, which is probably a fake based on the way the location is spelled "Louiville" instead of "Louisville," in which someone claims to have shredded a box of Bevin ballots.

That last is most likely a not-so-clever Photoshop job, but is there enough anecdotal evidence for Bevin to proceed with contesting the election? He said in his news conference that his team is in the process of gathering information and taking affidavits of those who have information about improprieties.

This is as it should be. There's a process in place, and we should all want fair and free elections where everyone's vote is recorded as cast and there is no fraud. But you wouldn't know it judging from the remarks of a number of Republicans, who seem willing to let a Democrat take office even if he earned that office improperly.

Even some legislators are saying that Bevin should give up the fight. Suppose he does, and then incontrovertible evidence of misdeeds comes to light after Beshear takes office and starts making changes? Would they be OK with that? When Senate President Robert Stivers pointed out how the process works, the national liberal media quickly started the "Republicans are going to steal the election" mantra.

Back in 1995, Paul Patton defeated Larry Forgy by a statewide margin of more than 21,000 votes. In that election, like this one just concluded, Jefferson County made the difference. Forgy alleged voter fraud, saying that the election was stolen from him in Louisville, and actually ended up with some indictments to prove his claims. Four people, including two high-level Patton aides, were charged. The indictments were later dismissed by a special judge, but reinstated by appellate courts. Patton ended up pardoning them, removing any possibility of determining for certain if he had won the election fairly, to quote then-Attorney General Ben Chandler. (There's a very interesting local angle to that story that might bear telling at some point in the future).

Bevin's margin of loss to Beshear is much less than Forgy's margin was against Patton. Although Forgy did not contest the election, the later criminal cases did call into question the election's integrity.

Does Bevin not deserve the right to know that he lost fairly and squarely? Does this state not deserve to know as well? Wouldn't Beshear want to know that his victory was genuine? Probably not, because his post-election comments were basically, "We won, you lost, it's over."

It's true that Bevin had a prickly relationship even with members of his own party in the General Assembly, but these people should be worried more about the integrity of the election than they are making peace and moving on. So many are worried about what a contested election will do to the state, and what might happen if the legislature ends up deciding that Bevin is the actual winner. They say that with GOP supermajorities in both houses, and Republicans in the major watchdog offices of attorney general and auditor, they can hold Beshear and his agenda in check. They should be more worried about the possibility of an improperly-elected governor running the state.

So, let the process move forward. It's there for a reason. Maybe things need to be changed to provide for a recount for gubernatorial races, like exists for local races. But the current setup is what they have to work with now. If Bevin is satisfied with the results after the recanvass, then fine. He's an honorable man. But if he finds something that convinces him that he needs to contest the election, then he has that right. It's our law. And members of both parties need to respect that. The "Surrender Caucus" needs to stand down, and the "French Republicans" need to go take a bath and put on some deodorant.