The Governance Responsibility to Protect a City’s Children

October 10, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we report on the physical and fiscal challenges of the Detroit Public Schools, before zooming south to assess whether the complex municipal financing in Puerto Rico’s recovery has perhaps exacerbated the U.S. territory’s debt challenges.

Protecting a City’s Children. A key challenge in Detroit’s plan of debt adjustment from the nation’s largest chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy was restoring trust in its public schools—a critical step if families with kids were going to move from the suburbs into the emptied city. That, of course, required making the schools not just trustworthy places for learning, but also safe—and not just safe from a gang perspective, but especially here from water contamination—Flint, not so far away, after all, is on many parents’ minds. Thus, the school district is developing plans to make drinking water safe inside its buildings, especially after a review of testing data shows one school had more than 54 times the allowable amount of lead under federal law, while another exceeded the regulated copper level by nearly 30 times. The Detroit News reviewed hundreds of pages of water reports for 57 buildings which tested for elevated levels of lead and/or copper in the water to provide a detailed look how excessive the metal levels were in the most elevated sources.

The News effort comes as Detroit Public School Superintendent Nikolai Vitti noted: “‎We discontinued the use of drinking water when concerns were identified without any legal requirement to do so, and hydration stations will ensure there is no lead or copper in all water consumed by students and staff, with the Superintendent yesterday reported the system expects to spend nearly $3.8 million enacting a long-term solution to widespread lead and copper contamination in students’ drinking water, with the cost including $741,939 to install 818 hydration stations and filters, $750,000 for water coolers until completed installation of the stations in the summer of 2019, $539,880 for environmental remediation costs, $1.2 million for maintenance services, and $282,000 for facilities maintenance—a tab unanimously approved yesterday by the Detroit Community Schools Board, with long-term plan to get drinking water flowing again inside the 106 Detroit schools after faucets were turned off ahead of the school year. The announcement followed Monday’s by Supt. Vitti, when he reported that he and the school board will reveal corporate funders for some $2 million in hydration stations he wants to install across the district.

The need, as the survey revealed, is urgent: among the elevated levels reported by the Detroit Public School District includes a kitchen faucet inside Mason Elementary-Middle School which had more than 54 times the amount of lead permitted the Safe Drinking Water Act; a drinking fountain inside Mark Twain School for Scholars was tested at more than 53 times the federal threshold; a drinking fountain on the first floor near the kitchen of Bethune Elementary-Middle School that had copper levels at nearly 30 times the permissible level—even as DPS officials still await the test results of 17 more buildings. Nevertheless, from the results so far, there is a failing grade: more than half of the 106 schools inside Michigan’s largest school district have contaminated water. Indeed, with EPA recommending lead limits of 15 micrograms per liter or 15 part per billion, water samples at Mason found extreme elevations of lead at Mason, Twain, Davis Aerospace Technical, and Bagley, and extreme levels of copper at Bethune Academy of the Americas elementary-middle school and Western International. Unsurprisingly, public health and water safety experts report that schools should use a tougher standard for lead levels, and nationally recognized Virginia Tech water expert Marc Edwards said: “Those are not good. There is no doubt there are worrisome lead levels: Whenever you take hundreds of thousands of samples in a school, you are going to get some results that are shockingly high.” At a Board of Education meeting last month, Superintendent Vitti said the most practical, long-term, and safest solution for water quality problems inside the schools would be to provide water hydration stations in every building—systems currently used in public school districts, including in Flint, Royal Oak, and Birmingham, as well as Baltimore: these stations, in addition to cooling water, more importantly remove copper, lead, and other contaminants.

Drinking water screening reports demonstrate that water was collected at some schools in April and others in August, with school district officials reporting sampling began in the district in the spring and continued through last August. In September, Superintendent Vitti said that DPS, through its environmental consulting firm, ATC Group, is following EPA protocol for collecting water samples, adding: “If testing occurred at a school after the regular school year, then it was done during summer school, where nearly 80 of our schools were offering classes,” adding that many of the schools with high levels had already identified for concern two years ago—and that those were the first group of schools to move to water coolers. Supt. Vitti initiated water testing of the 106 school buildings in May and August after initial tests results found that 16 schools showed high levels of copper and/or lead. Another eight tested for elevated levels in the spring after they were identified with concerns in 2016. Last month, the DPS District received more test results, which found an 33 additional schools with elevated contaminant levels, bringing the total number of schools with tainted water to 57 in a District already overwhelmed by some $500 million in building repair needs; moreover, the bad gnus could worsen: the total number of schools with high levels could increase as school officials await more test results on another 17 schools.

Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, noted for her expertise in Flint, who is a pediatrician and public health expert, concurred that Detroit’s policymakers need to set a much more aggressive limit on allowable amounts of lead in schools. In addition, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s school sampling guidance recommends that schools address fixtures which measure above 5 micrograms per liter, the same EPA standard as bottled water, according to Dr. Hanna-Attisha; the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends an action level of just 1 microgram per liter for drinking water in child care facilities and schools. Thus, as Dr. Hanna-Attisha warns: “This should be the District’s action level,” in a letter she co-authored with Elin Betanzo, founder of Safe Water Engineering, a consulting firm—a letter with which Superintendent Vitti said he agrees.

Dr. Hanna-Attisha, who witnessed lead levels in some Flint homes reach 22,000 micrograms per liter, said U.S. EPA school sampling guidance encourages schools to sample every drinking water tap a single time unless lead is detected at greater than 20 micrograms per liter, noting: “One low single tap sample is not sufficient to clear a tap as a potential source of lead, because lead release is sporadic.” Her words come with the benefit of her experience and practice as an associate Professor of Pediatrics at the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, as well as Director of the MSU-Hurley Children’s Hospital Pediatric Public Health Initiative. She adds: “It is not appropriate to use a single low sample that was taken as a follow-up to a high sample to conclude that a drinking tap is ‘safe to drink,’ although this is how many schools have interpreted sampling data.” Dr. Joneigh Khaldun, the Director and Health Officer for the Detroit Health Department, said she recommends parents of children 6 and younger be tested for blood lead levels, because of the Motor City’s history of elevated levels for children, which has been primarily due to lead paint in homes, adding that the elevated rates in the tests were concerning: “I think, broadly speaking, I support Dr. Vitti in testing every water source in every school…For any school that comes back with elevated lead levels, the actual reasons for that school is not clear. It can be the infrastructure or the drinking fountain. Providing bottled water and other sources is the right thing to do.”

According to Michigan health officials, children are at higher risk of harm from lead, because their developing brains and nervous systems are more sensitive. Lead can cause health problems for children, including learning problems, behavior problems including hyperactivity, a lower IQ, slowed growth and development and hearing and speech problems. That risk is not just physical, but also fiscal: A key part of Detroit’s chapter 9 plan of debt adjustment approved by the U.S. Judge Steven Rhodes was its focus on the importance of provisions to give incentives for families to move back to the Motor City‒a difficult parental choice in the wake of, four years ago, the Detroit News investigation which reported that nearly 500 Detroit children had died in homicides since 2000.

Notwithstanding the terrible health tragedy in Flint, Michigan has no rules mandating the state’s school districts to test for lead in their water supply, according to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. According to the GAO, at least eight states require schools to test for lead, and many others assist with voluntary testing. Dr. Khaldun said she supports creating a state law to mandate testing of water sources inside schools—a proposal which would entail substantial costs, creating the query: who will pay—and how?

According to Tiffany Brown, a spokesperson for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, the Department supports any schools which wish to test, and the Department can offer technical assistance and general information on sampling, result interpretation, and recommended remedial actions in the event of elevated lead and/or copper results, adding that there are fiscal resources “available through the Michigan Department of Education,” and that the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is providing information and guidance on best management practices for drinking water in schools to protect the health of students and staff.” In the meantime, the Detroit Public School District is spending $200,000 on bottled water and water coolers for the next several months, with the cost to have stations in every school, one for every 100 students, projected to be $2 million, with Dr. Vitti noting the goal is to deliver clean water, not replace the pipes, or as he put it: “We are not looking to replace the plumbing. The stations address the issue of older plumbing along with weekly flushing.”  

Unequal Treatment? The Financial Oversight and Management Board in Puerto Rico reports that over reliance on outside consultants with conflicts of interest and the failure to invest in a competent workforce have imposed huge costs on and severely weakened the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) and other Puerto Rico government agencies, with the report including an entire chapter just on interest rate swap agreements, a complicated and high risk investment which, it estimates, has cost Puerto Rican government entities nearly $1.1 billion when they repeatedly bet the wrong way on interest rate movements—meaning that, instead of these investments reducing Puerto Rico’s debt, government entities, including PREPA, had to take on more debt to pay for the losses. It appears that the swaps, a novel means of transactions to Puerto Rico’s Government Development Bank (GDB), where officials made these interest rate bets, or, as the report found, many of the GDB Board members who were required to approve the swap transactions, “were not familiar with the mechanics and risks associated with swaps. Many told us outright they could not describe how a swap worked. Instead, the GDB Board members told us they relied on the advice presented to them by the swap advisor.” That appears to denote that the GDB board members effectively ceded control over their investments in these very risky financial instruments to a third-party swap advisor—an advisor  that earned, and will garner fees for as long as the government of Puerto Rico continued to invest in the swaps, regardless of the outcome—an outcome in this case which entailed enormous losses. Moreover, the report demonstrated that, more generally, as the financial condition of Puerto Rico deteriorated, the deals became more complex and less transparent. An example of the utility PREPA’s overreliance on an outside restructuring advisor, AlixPartners, to lead PREPA’s debt restructuring negotiations with its municipal bondholders, as well as developing PREPA’s business plan and savings initiatives, revealed that PREPA paid Alix Partners $45 million in fees for a debt restructuring deal which was ultimately rejected by the PROMESA Oversight Board, which found the proposed financial agreement called for PREPA to pay more debt than the economy of Puerto Rico could support, and as the Puerto Rico Energy Commission found that the review lacked appropriate due diligence over the ongoing fees for legal counsel, financial advisors, and underwriters that would have accrued had the PREPA restructuring deal moved forward: the Commission specifically noted that the restructuring team charged with ensuring the reasonableness of advisor fees “includes the very advisors whose fees are in question…that is not the arm’s-length relationship necessary to protect consumers from excess fees.”

Investment in Good Governance. For elected state and local leaders, over reliance on consultants can go hand-in-hand with a failure to invest in the technical capacity and expertise of government staff. As noted by a Kobre & Kim report prepared on the evolving fiscal situation in Puerto Rico, PREPA has suffered over the years from a high degree of political interference, including the appointment of hundreds of political appointees to managerial and technical positions without regard for qualifications—appointments which appear to have not only cost considerably from a fiscal perspective, but also weakened the managerial competence of the agency. However, instead of recognizing this reality and implementing labor reforms designed to sharply curtail the influence of political appointees within the agency, the PROMESA Board has instead sought an across-the-board salary freeze and benefit cuts, even as the Board recognizes that PREPA has lost 30% of its workforce since 2012 and has severe shortages of skilled workers in key areas—and that it has developed no plan for workforce training and development, effectively seeming to force PREPA to continue to depend on consultants, rather than build its own expertise.

Not Florence Nightingale: The Governance Challenge of Life Threatening Storms

September 12, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, as Hurricane Florence bears down on the East Coast, the President, yesterday, patted himself on the back for what he deemed an “incredibly successful” job he had done in leading the federal government’s response to the human, fiscal, and physical devastation wrought by Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, boasting: “I think Puerto Rico was “an incredible, unsung success,” referring to the devastating hurricane which caused the death of nearly 3,000 Americans.

Hurricane Relief? President Trump patted himself on the back yesterday for an “incredibly successful” job done in Puerto Rico, where the President, in the wake of the storm, had travelled to Ponce and thrown paper towels, deeming federal response efforts as one of his administration’s “best jobs.” Asked what lessons his administration might have learned as it prepares for this week’s Hurricane Florence, headed towards the nation’s capital later this week, the President responded: “I think probably the hardest one we had by far was Puerto Rico, because of the island nature, and I actually think it was one of the best jobs that’s ever been done with respect to what this is all about…The job that FEMA, and law enforcement and everybody did working along with the governor in Puerto Rico, I think was tremendous: I think that Puerto Rico was an incredible, unsung success.” He added that his administration had received “A pluses” for its work in Texas and Florida following hurricanes last year. Yet, even as the official death toll in Puerto Rico has reached nearly 3,000—far in excess of FEMA’s original report of 64—and with electricity still not totally restored, San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz yesterday stated: “If he thinks the death of 3,000 people is a success, God help us all.”

Speaking at the White House yesterday, the President sought to assure the public that the FEMA was ready for Hurricane Florence, noting: “We are as ready as anybody has ever been,” as he boasted that the federal government had earned excellent grades for its disaster response in Texas and Florida, but he complained that the even better job done in Puerto Rico had been ignored, describing his administration’s “incredible, unsung success,” by noting the Pentagon had deployed a “tremendous military hospital in the form of a ship” to the island, omitting mention of his failure to suspend the Jones Act and that the ship to which he referred was largely underused: prepared to support 250 hospital beds, it admitted an average of only six patients per day, or 290 in total, over its 53-day deployment. Yet the President described the White House response effort as “one of the best jobs that’s ever been done with respect to what this is all about,” adding, falsely, that Puerto Rico’s electric grid and generating plant “was dead” before Hurricanes Irma and then Maria struck within weeks of one another—or, as the President asserted: “[W]hen the storm hit, they had no electricity, essentially, before the storm.”

As readers are all too aware, electricity was not restored to every customer in Puerto Rico until a few weeks ago. Worse, according to the director of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, approximately a quarter of the federally financed $3 billion in repairs will likely have to be redone. San Juan Mayor Yulín Cruz was more direct, posting on Twitter, yesterday: “If he thinks the death of 3,000 people is a success, God help us all.”

Jose Andrés, a Spanish chef who organized an emergency feeding program on Puerto Rico in the wake of one of the U.S.’s most devastating storms, deemed the President’s comments “astonishing: The death toll issue has been one of the biggest cover-ups in American history…Everybody needs to understand that the death toll was a massive failure by federal government and the White House. Not recognizing how many people died in the aftermath meant the resources and full power of the government was taken away from the American people of Puerto Rico.”

Chef Andrés stressed that the failures spread to food and water distribution—a failure belatedly acknowledged by FEMA in a report released in July, acknowledging the agency was unprepared, with empty warehouses and few qualified staff to attend to the disaster, that it had brought the wrong type of satellite phones to Puerto Rico, and did not have truck drivers to deliver aid from the port, adding that the federal disaster relief agency had been without “situational awareness” of what was happening outside. FEMA’s Michael Byrne, the coordinator for the agency’s Puerto Rico response, has ironically confessed that, unlike the White House, “I think one of the most courageous things FEMA has done is to be honest and frank in the after action and say, ‘We need to work on these areas…And we’re going to. We’re going to get better,” adding that among the areas which needed to be improved was the process to inspect damaged homes: many of the 300,000 homes damaged in the storm are still covered by canvas. To which, Amarilis González, a former English teacher who founded Toldos Pa’ Mi Gente, or Tarps for My People, a group that collected house coverings: “Anyone who flies in to Puerto Rico may notice the amount of blue tarps as they are landing, and that is only a small representation of the rest of the municipalities…If that is a ‘success,’ I do not understand the concept.”

The White House reference this week to Puerto Rico as a “colony” made it clear, however, as Gov. Ricardo Rosselló put it: “The historical relationship between Puerto Rico and Washington is unfair and un-American…It is certainly not a successful relationship,” as the Governor called on the President to extend federal coverage to continuing work on housing restoration and clean-up which is still ongoing, noting the hurricane had constituted the “worst natural disaster in our modern history: Our basic

Remembering & Thanking Those Who Serve

September 11, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we remember those who died on 9/11; we remember those leaders, like then Arlington County Deputy Fire Chief Jim Schwartz, who became the incident commander that morning, in command of all local, state, and federal responders, demonstrating that while the federal government can shut down, city and county governments are the only governments in this country that can never shut down, but rather, as Detroit’s Emergency Manager, on the first day of Detroit’s chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy, emailed to every employee of the city: they were to report to work, on time—and the critical operations were to ensure every street light and traffic light was working—and there was a prompt and effective response to every 911 call. This foggy morning, we consider too, the challenge to Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania—a municipality where the population has declined more than 50% since 1930–denied state fiscal assistance, and awaiting the physical wrath of Hurricane Florence, before, finally, assessing changes to halt the shipping discrimination against the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico.

The Bar against Wilkes-Barre. Officials in Wilkes-Barre are regrouping after the coordinators of Pennsylvania’s Act 47 program for struggling municipalities rejected the city’s request made last June 29th for distressed status—a denial having the effect of barring the city from filing for chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy. Mayor Tony George and the city’s consultant, Public Financial Management, were scheduled to meet this week with representatives of the state Department of Community and Economic Development, the overseer of the state’s program for distressed cities. Under the state’s Act 47, the Dept. of Community and Economic Development is authorized to declare certain municipalities as financially distressed—a declaration which provides for the restructuring of debt of financially distressed municipalities, limits the ability of financially distressed municipalities to obtain government funding, authorizes municipalities to participate in federal debt adjustment actions and bankruptcy actions under certain circumstances, and provides for consolidation or merger of contiguous municipalities to relieve financial distress. That means a scheduled call at the end of this week with Pennsylvania DCED could be determinative with regard to a possibility the state could reverse its position and declare the municipality financially distressed.

Mayor Anthony George, last June, had applied for Act 47 “distressed” status, the same month in which S&P dropped the municipality’s credit rating to BBB (minus) with negative implications, noting: “[T]he CreditWatch listing means we believe there is at least a one-in-two chance that we will lower the rating within the coming 90 days following the receipt of information from the city regarding its plans in response to the state’s rejection…Any action on our part regarding the rating—either keeping it the same or revising it downward—hinges on our better understanding of those plans.” DCED, five weeks later, convened a hearing at City Hall, where Mayor George projected an FY2019 shortfall of $3.5 million—one which, according to a DCED overview, could spike to $16 million by FY2021. Under Act 47, the city would have been enabled Wilkes-Barre to triple its emergency services tax to $156 a year, as well as gain access to a $3 million interest free, 10-year loan—as well as gain authorization to enact a commuter tax. However, DCED hearing officer and former York Mayor Kim Bracey, in her final report, wrote that Wilkes-Barre should continue to pursue measures through the state’s early intervention program, in which the city enrolled two years ago. State lawmakers formalized early intervention in 2014 as part of the DCED Act 47 process.

With the greatest number of municipalities of any state in the nation, the process, however, appears confusing—or, as Mayor George put it: “I don’t understand what you [DCED] want us to do.” According to Professor David Fiorenza, the city can fix the deficit with two or three financial decisions that can lay the groundwork for long-term surpluses: “Cities can’t have it both ways, that is, when they have surpluses in their budgets they want less state intervention and when there are deficits they want the commonwealth to be there for the bailouts.” (Professor Fiorenza was a former chief financial officer of Radnor Township.)

The Mayor and his staff expect to learn more from the state DCED Friday via a conference call—weather, of course, permitting. In this instance, the call comes a week Pennsylvania DCED Secretary Dennis Davin stated the state would not declare the municipality financially distressed—noting that, instead, Mayor George should pursue other options to avoid the invocation of Act 47. (According to the Department, a quarter of the city’s current budget relies on intergovernmental assistance, versus 55% from local taxes.)

The municipality’s request for distressed status, however, is not supported by its state representatives, Sen. John Yudichak (D-Plymouth Township) and Rep. Eddie Day Pashinski (D-Wilkes-Barre), who had secured $260,000 in state funds to enable the municipality get Wilkes-Barre into the state’s Early Intervention Program (EIP), writing, in late July, in opposition to Mayor George’s request, noting that the intervention program also had a five-year timetable—from which the city had four years remaining, adding that the city was making progress with the help of PFM as evidenced in the municipal bond restructuring, which, they noted, had improved its cash flow, with Rep. Pashinski adding: “We’re trying to preserve the integrity of the city.”

At the end of last month, Sec. Davin had written: “Opportunities remain to keep the city out of financial distress status: Each and every viable option must be considered, including modest gains in the fund balance and earned income tax collections, the need to perform a property reassessment and recommendations for asset monetization.”

The clock on all this is ticking, with S&P indicating at least a “one-in-two chance” that it would lower its rating within 90 days of receiving any information from the city regarding its follow-up plans, adding: “Any action on our part regarding the rating–either keeping it the same or revising it downward, hinges on our better understanding of those plans.” From his perspective, Professor David Fiorenza of the Villanova School of Business noted: “The state made the right decision…I hope this decision will send the message to Pennsylvania cities and municipalities to take care of their financial house as these deficits can be remedied.” According to the Wilkes-Barre-based Pennsylvania Economy League, 44 of Pennsylvania’s cities, or 77.2%, have experienced population declines since 2010—complicating its efforts to refinance its long-term debt: the city issued $52 million in municipal bonds two years ago to refinance debt and adjust balloon payments to level, and tapped minimum municipal obligation relief under state law to reduce its 2017 pension payment to $5.6 million from $6.5 million. But the state relief program expires this year, while the city’s obligation is projected to spike to $7.1 million in 2020.

Hurricane Relief? Puerto Rico government officials are scheduled to meet at the White House this week to discuss a possible, temporary modification of the Jones Act (as opposed to the Jones-Shafroth Act) to create a five-year administrative exemption in U.S. cabotage statutes, amendments to allow maritime transportation of natural gas between the mainland and Puerto Rico on non-US ships. The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also known as the Jones Act, provides for the promotion and maintenance of the U.S. merchant marine–§27 of the Act addresses cabotage, as opposed to cottage cheese: it provides for the regulation of the U.S. merchant marine and the regulation of maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports, mandating that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried on U.S. flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents. Under the cabotage laws, the maritime cargo between U.S. ports and Puerto Rico must be accomplished in U.S. owned, registered, and crewed boats—that is, at a much greater than free market cost. A temporary administrative exemption, such as the one proposed by Puerto Rican leaders, would have to be granted “in the interest of the national defense” of the U.S., according to a 2013 report from the Government Accountability Office. The protectionist statute means the cost of providing relief to Puerto Rico in the wake of Hurricane Maria was far greater than for other Caribbean nations. Now, the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA), and Puerto Rico Senate Vice President appear hopeful that the U.S. territory and the Southern States Energy Board, a potent combination of the governors of 16 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, might be able to gain an exemption in these discriminatory cabotage laws, with a meeting scheduled next week at the White House to promote the idea that international vessels could also transport natural gas products between U.S. ports and Puerto Rico.

Unsurprisingly, the concept has the support of the Southern States Energy Board, which brings together 16 Republican governors along with the Democrats of the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, and proposes a more comprehensive exemption, to include all energy products. During their September 16-18 meeting in Biloxi, Mississippi, the Southern States Energy Board anticipates considering a resolution by Arkansas State Senator Gary Stubblefield (R-Branch, Arkansas) seeking to have President Trump issue an Executive Order granting a 10 year exemption in the transportation of energy products between Puerto Rico and the mainland—and urging the Congress to enact a permanent waiver.

Municipal Bankruptcies Are Complicated Affairs. Really.

August 17, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we consider a rejection of an appeal challenging Jefferson County’s approved plan of debt adjustment from its chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy, and the recurring governance challenge in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico whether the elected Governor and Legislature—or a federal Judge, or a Control Board ought to be making vital governing decisions.

Please note, there will be a temporary respite for eGnus and eBlog readers before publications resume the last week of this month.

A Fiscally Appealing Chapter 9 case? The U.S. Eleventh Court of Appeals has dismissed a challenge to Jefferson County’s chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy plan of debt adjustment, holding (please see Andrew Bennett et al v. Jefferson County, No. 15-11690, 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, August 16, 2018), holding that the U.S. District Court had erred when  it dismissed Jefferson County’s appeal, holding that the Chapter 9 case brought by a group of ratepayers of Jefferson County’s sewer system could be brought due to the concept of “equitable mootness,” a doctrine the court wrote which, until yesterday, “we have not been asked to apply in a chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy case,” with the court adding: “Municipal bankruptcy proceedings are usually complicated affairs, and the chapter 9 proceeding for Jefferson County, Alabama, involving about $3.2 billion in total sewer-related debt—has proved no different.”

Under the terms of the decision, the County would cut over $100 million in general fund expenditures, and the creditors will write off a significant amount of outstanding debt—over the course of the next four decades, the County is directed to implement a series of single-digit sewer rate increases—totaling about 365%–an amount which the court noted was “not far off of the national increase in inflation in the previous 40 years.” The court, in effect, with its decision, rejected the assertion by County ratepayers that their plan “validated corrupt government activity.”

The court also reviewed, de novo, the lower court’s conclusion that the doctrine of equitable mootness applied to this case—at that lower court, Jefferson County had argued the doctrine of equitable mootness applied and barred the ratepayers’ appeal from the U.S. bankruptcy court. The court here agreed, explaining why said doctrine could apply in a municipal bankruptcy case. (Essentially, the doctrine, the court explained, the courts may, under certain circumstances, reject bankruptcy appeals if the underlying rulings which would have gone into effect would have been “extremely burdensome.” The court went on to decide that some of the principles “will weigh more heavily in chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy cases “precisely because of how many people may be affected,” unlike in a chapter 11 bankruptcy, noting previous chapter 9 municipal bankruptcies we have written about in Stockton and Vallejo, where the district courts’ reasoning involved the implications that “municipalities and their bankruptcies implicate issues of sovereignty; whereas corporations or individuals and their bankruptcies do not—and that, accordingly, it is important for us to tread carefully where self-governance is concerned.” The court further noted: “In addition, it is not at all clear in which direction the ratepayers’ federalism arguments will cut from one chapter 9 bankruptcy to the next. Given the interests of the municipality and those of its residents (among others), there is a countervailing argument that a court ought to be more solicitous to the municipality that has obtained confirmation of its plan….”

Finally, the court recognized that “given the centrality of the constitutional rights to the fabric of the republic, there is a fair argument to be made that we should allow some leniency when a party which has allowed a bankruptcy plan to go into effect asserts,” adding, with regard to federalism concerns, “it will be appropriate to note them when deciding whether the doctrine should bar an appeal in a particular bankruptcy case,” which, is, as the court noted: “precisely what we did.”

 Jefferson County Commissioner David Carrington, a previous State & Local Leader of the Week, who led the county’s negotiations during its municipal bankruptcy case, said County leaders are pleased with the ruling, noting: “We were always confident in our Chapter 9 plan of adjustment,” but wincing that the years of litigation had come at great expense to county taxpayers running into “hundreds of thousands of dollars in frivolous litigation fees that could have been used for capital improvements to the sewer system.” (The County had filed its plan of debt adjustment in November of 2011—a plan subsequently approved by the court five years ago. Nevertheless, as the dean of chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy, Jim Spiotto, noted, the case had become one of the longest municipal bankruptcy cases in U.S. history.

Another Appeal. Meanwhile, south of Jefferson County, Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rosselló confirmed yesterday that the executive branch will also appeal the decision of Judge Laura Taylor Swain, the judge assigned by the federal court to deal with the quasi chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy of Puerto Rico—a decision in which it was determined that the PROMESA Oversight Board has the authority to impose its certified fiscal plan and budget, with the Governor stating: “It has become very clear what is the unworthy colonial situation in Puerto Rico, where some courts have decided that in some aspects of the budget the hands are tied to the Legislative Assembly and somewhat to the executive to make determinations, so of course we are going to appeal,” with his comments coming in the wake of Judge Swain’s dismissal, earlier this month, of nine of the allegations presented in the suit of the Financial Advisory Authority and Fiscal Agency (Aafaf), as well as all the allegations of the lawsuit filed by the Puerto Rico Legislature—and the legislative leadership, where the respective leaders, Thomas Rivera Schatz and Carlos “Johnny” Méndez, already filed an information motion before the court notifying it they would attend the First Circuit of Appeals of Boston—albeit, Governor Rosselló, noted, he would not provide them with the power to “make executive decisions with the vehicle of the executive order.”

Colocar el Interruptor. Nearly a year after Hurricane Maria plunged Puerto Rico into physical and fiscal darkness, NPR’s Adrian Florida reports: “Now nearly 11 months after Hurricane Maria plunged Puerto Rico into darkness, officials there say they are done restoring the island’s power: no more lanterns, and no more “candles.” PREPA has announced its work restoring power to the island is done: it took almost a year, tens of thousands of new poles, thousands of miles of wire, and help from two federal agencies. She described it as a “restoration plagued by scandal and delays. It cost some $3 billion. And now that it’s done, experts agree the power grid is just as fragile as before the hurricane. This morning, Jose Ortiz, the fifth CEO to head the power utility since the storm, was offering a reality check on local radio station WKAQ. Some homes still don’t have power because they’re damaged

Rebuilding the Motor City, and Reconsidering Colonialism in Puerto Rico

July 27, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we consider post-chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy challenges in Detroit, before turning to legislative and legal challenges to Puerto Rico.

A Foreclosed Motor City Future? In Detroit, time is running out for the owners of foreclosed properties under a new program which arose out of a legal settlement two years ago intended to protect the rights of low-income owner-occupants of foreclosed homes to purchase back their properties back for $1,000—a plan which provided that occupied homes on tap for this coming fall’s tax auction will instead be purchased by the City of Detroit and sold to owner-occupants who can prove they qualify for the city’s poverty tax exemption or have in the past—an exemption which would reduce or eliminate property tax liabilities for those who qualify. The plan is an indication of one of the most challenging aspects of fashioning a plan of debt adjustment for recovering from the largest chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history: how does one enhance the property tax base by attracting higher income families to move back into the city without jeopardizing thousands upon thousands of the city’s poorest families?

To date, with a looming deadline in a month, the United Community Housing Coalition has received about 140 applications—the foundation received funds from the City and foundations to purchase the homes—with the assistance available to prospective homeowners who can prove they could have qualified for the tax exemption between 2014 and 2017, but did not receive one—and that they agree to sign a sworn statement they would have qualified in the past. The effort matters: Wayne County Treasurer Eric Sabree estimates as many as 700 owner-occupied homes in Detroit are at risk of being sold at the fall tax foreclosure auction.

Quien Es Encargado? (Who is in charge?) U.S. District Court Judge Laura Taylor Swain Wednesday stated she would issue an opinion soon with regard to the hard federalism question emerging from the by Puerto Rico versus the PROMESA Oversight Board over their authority, noting at the end of the Title II bankruptcy hearing: “I realize the urgency of the situation,” at the end of a Title III bankruptcy hearing in San Juan, referring to two adversary proceedings against the Board–one brought by Gov. Ricardo Rosselló, and the other by the Presidents of the Puerto Rico Senate and House of Representatives—while PROMESA Board attorney Martin Bienenstock described the Governor’s effort to challenge the Board’s efforts to preempt the legislative power and authority of the U.S. Territory’s elected Governor and Legislature as “ineffectual.” Mr. Peter Friedman, representing the Governor and Puerto Rico’s Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority (FAFAA), responded that the Governor was just trying to raise a narrow set of issues: they want the federal court to reject the notion that they have no meaningful role in governing.  But the unelected Mr. Bienenstock said the Governor’s challenge is based on five discrete issues intertwined with the PROMESA Board’s ability to revive the economy, regain capital markets access, and do other things mandated by the PROMESA law, as he focused especially on two issues: what he characterized as the Board’s power over “reprogramming” the use of unused Puerto Rico government funds, arguing before Judge Swain that if the Governor were permitted to appropriate and authorize funding to carry out his responsibilities, then the PROMESA Board would have lost control over the budget, fiscal plan, and debt restructuring.

In response to this extraordinary claim, Judge Swain said that while she recognized the Board has some authority, she questioned whether it applies to funding lines that had been authorized before PROMESA’s passage, describing the issue as a “conundrum,” even as Mr. Bienenstock testified that the Governor wants to make it legal to “knowingly and willingly” spend more than the PROMESA Board budget authorizes. This raised an issue which goes to the heart of governance in a democracy: should those elected by the citizens of a jurisdiction have the final say as opposed to those who neither reside in nor come from such a jurisdiction have the final governing authority?

Crossing Swords. Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rosselló, stated he would not testify before the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee unless Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said he was sorry for a Tweet tweeted from the Committee’s account last week: “Call your office, @ricardorossello,” accompanied an invitation to the hearing, where invited witnesses were to be grilled on a management crisis at PREPA. Gov. Rosselló noted the tweet falsely suggested that he was hard to reach. Perhaps more importantly, for the Governor, the Chairman’s comments appeared to reflect a disrespect which would not be shown to the Governor of any State, emphasizing the perception that the federal government has a colonialist attitude toward the Commonwealth, where residents are U.S. citizens, but are barred from having a vote in the House and Senate. Chairman Bishop did not apologize for the demeaning tweet, asserting that its removal meant no apology was required—a position hard to imagine he would make to Utah Governor Gary Herbert.

Converting Swords to Plowshares? With Congress adjourning today for six weeks, Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner Jenifer Gonzalez hopes her pro-democracy project can be discussed by Chairman Bishop’s Committee in September: her legislation, HR 6246, would enable the admission of the territory of Puerto Rico into the Union as a State. Chair Bishop, according to the Commissioner, “has a plan” to move the prospects for statehood forward in the short 19-day legislative window before this Congress adjourns in November. Rep. Gonzalez affirmed that her legislative goal is to incorporate Puerto Rico as a territory, which would be considered as a promise of statehood, and create a Congress Working Group, so that, within a period of just over a year, there would be a report on changes to laws that would have to be put in place to admit the island as a state in January of 2021.

Lighting up PREPA? Puerto Rico’s Governor Ricardo Rosselló was a no-show at a Congressional hearing Wednesday afternoon on efforts to wrench control of the bankrupt Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority from Puerto Rico’s government—a hearing, “Management Crisis at the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority and Implications for Recovery,” with regard to which Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) had written: “Despite your recognition of the politicization that has plagued PREPA and your commitment towards allowing for independence, the recent departure of PREPA’s CEO after only four months of service and the resignation of the majority of PREPA’s governing board are the most recent signs of the utility’s continued dysfunction and a sign that ‘political forces…continue to control PREPA.’” The Governor, late Tuesday had announced he would not be able to participate in the hearing—a hearing at which there was to be a focus on corruption within the utility and the possibility of privatization—but at which the Committee was scheduled to receive testimony from the invaluable chapter 9 expert Jim Spiotto, as well as DOE Assistant Secretary Bruce Walker.  In its most recent audit, Ernst & Young had noted there substantial  doubt whether PREPA could continue as a going concern, since it does not have sufficient funds to fully repay its obligations as they come due and is restructuring its long-term debt. (PREPA utility filed for bankruptcy one year ago in the face of accruing $9 billion in debt, under PROMESA’s provisions in Title III.

Restoring Power–and Recovering Governing Authority

July 10, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we consider the challenges of restoration of electric power (as opposed to political power) in Puerto Rico, and then try to explore the risks of powers of appointments of emergency managers by a state—here as the City of Flint, Michigan is still seeking to fiscally and physically recover from the human and fiscal devastation caused by the State of Michigan.

Adios. Walter Higgins, the CEO Puerto Rico’s bankrupt PREPA Electric power authority resigned yesterday, just months after he was chosen to oversee its privatization, an appointment made in an effort to fully restore power some ten months after the human, fiscal, and physical devastation wrought by Hurricane Maria. Now his resignation adds to PREPA’s uphill climb to not only fully restore power, but also to address its $9 billion in debt. Gov. Ricardo Rosselló said in a statement that Mr. Higgins had resigned for personal reasons, while Mr. Higgins, in his resignation letter, wrote that the compensation details outlined in his contract could not be fulfilled—with his written statement coming just one month after the Commonwealth’s Justice Secretary said it would be illegal for him to receive bonuses. According to a PREPA spokesperson, Mr. Higgins will remain as a member of the PREPA Board. Nevertheless, his appointment was stormy itself, after, last month, Puerto Rican officials had questioned how and why he had been awarded a $315,000 contract without authorization from certain government agencies—in response to which PREPA’s Board advised the government as a consultant, rather than filling the vacancy for an executive sub-director of administration and finance. Unsurprisingly, his departure will not be mourned by many Puerto Ricans in view of his generous compensation package of $450,000 annual salary compared to the average income for Puerto Ricans of $19,518.  

Nevertheless, PREPA officials, announced that current Board member Rafael Diaz Granados will become the new CEO—with nearly double the compensation: he will assume the position on Sunday and receive $750,000 a year—a level which Puerto Rico Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz described as the “kind of insult that to Puerto Ricans is unacceptable,” as the government and PROMESA Oversight Board continue to struggle to address and restructure Puerto Rico’s $70 billion in public debt. Nevertheless, as PREPA crews continue restoring power to the last 1,000 or so customers who have been without power since Maria hit nearly a year ago and destroyed up to 75% of transmission lines across the territory, the federal government is still operating 175 generators across the island.

Indeed, U.S. House Natural Resources Committee Chair Rob Bishop (R-Utah) has scheduled a hearing for July 25th to assess and inquire about the status of the Electric Power Authority and to examine the functioning and plans for the privatization of PREPA assets, an issue which the territory’s non-voting Congressional Representative Jenniffer Gonzalez noted “has been under the Committee’s jurisdiction for the past two years.” Rep. Gonzalez added: “I’m surprised with the salary: I did not expect that amount. I do not know the elements which affected Mr. Higgin’s resignation, and I believe that these changes affect the process of recovery on the island.”

Meanwhile, Chairman Bishop had announced a second potential hearing—this one to assess the operation of the PROMESA statute and how the PROMESA Oversight Board is working, after, last week, postponing an official trip with a dozen Members of Congress to assess the physical and fiscal recovery on the island, after meeting, early last month in San Juan with the now former PREPA Director Higgins, and after, in the spring, Chair Bishop, Chair Doug LaMalfa (R-Ca.), of the Subcommittee on Island Affairs, and Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) had announced a probe into “multiple allegations of corruption and serious allegations of maladministration” during the restoration of the electric service after the storm.

Out Like Flint? Meanwhile, in a criminal and fiscal case arising out of Michigan’s Flint water crisis in the wake of fatal decisions by a gubernatorially appointed Emergency Manager, closing arguments in the involuntary manslaughter case against state Health and Human Services Director Nick Lyon began yesterday before Genesee District Court Judge David Goggins, who will determine whether Director Lyon will go on trial in the Flint water crisis prosecution on charges of involuntary manslaughter and misconduct in office connected to the 2014-2015 Legionnaires’ disease outbreak in the Flint region which killed at least 12 people and sickened another 79 people. A misdemeanor charge of “willful neglect” to protect the health of Genesee County residents was added last week. Director Lyon is receiving assistance in his defense from John Bursch, a former Michigan Solicitor General, who was hired for that position by Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette—who has brought criminal charges related to the Flint water crisis against Director Lyon and 14 other current and former city and state government employees. Flint still faces financial questions after years of emergency management.

The criminal trial comes as questions still remain with regard to Flint’s long-term financial health, despite six years of state oversight that overhauled the city’s finances, after a 2011 state-ordered preliminary review showed problems with Flint’s finances and ultimately recommended an emergency manager for the city. Last April, State Treasurer Nick Khouri repealed all remaining Emergency Manager orders, with state officials claiming the city’s financial emergency has been addressed to a point where receivership was no longer needed, and, as the Treasurer wrote to Mayor Karen Weaver: “Moreover, it appears that financial conditions have been corrected in a sustainable fashion,” and Flint CFO Hughey Newsome said that while emergency managers had helped Flint get its financial house in order; nevertheless, Flint’s fiscal and physical future remains uncertain: “The after-effects of the water crisis, including the dark cloud of the financials, will be here for some time to come: We’re not out of the woods yet, but I don’t think emergency management can help us moving forward.” In the city’s case, the fateful water crisis with its devastating human and fiscal impacts, hit the city as it was still working to recover from massive job and population losses following years of disinvestment by General Motors. CFO Newsome said the crisis affected the city’s economic development efforts and may have left potential businesses wanting to come to Flint wary because of the water.

Flint’s spending became more in line with its revenues, changes were made to its budgeting procedures, and retiree healthcare costs and pension liabilities were reduced while under emergency management. Nevertheless, past financial overseers have warned the city about what would happen if Flint allows its fiscal responsibilities to slip. Three years ago, former Emergency Manager Jerry Ambrose, in a letter to Gov. Snyder, wrote: “If, however, the new policies, practices and organizational changes are ignored in favor of returning to the historic ways of doing business, it is not likely the city will succeed over the long term: The focus of city leaders will then likely once again return to confronting financial insolvency.”

Today, there are still signs of potential fiscal distress, notwithstanding  the city’s recovery; indeed, Mayor Weaver’s FY2019 budget plans for a more than $276,000 general fund surplus—even as the municipal budget is projected to grow to more than $8 million by FY2023, with that growth attributed by CFO Newsome to ongoing legacy costs and a lack of revenue—or, as he put it: “My last two predecessors have really delivered realistic budgets: I definitely don’t see this administration being irresponsible in that regard, and I don’t see this Council rubberstamping such a budget either.”

And, today, questions about criminal and fiscal accountability are issues for the state’s third branch of government: the judiciary, in District Court Judge William Crawford’s courtroom, where the issues with regard to criminal charges relating to the governmental actions of defendants charged for their actions during the Flint Water Crisis include former Emergency Manager Darnell Early and former City of Flint Public Works Director Howard Croft, and former state-appointed Flint Emergency Manager Jerry Ambrose, who, prosecutors  allege, knew the Flint water treatment plant was not ready to produce clean and safe water, but did nothing to stop it. The trial involves multiple charges, including willful neglect of duty and misconduct in office. (Mr.  Ambrose was the state appointed Emergency Manager from January until April of 2015; he also held the title of Finance Director under former state appointed emergency managers Mike Brown and Darnell Early. To date, four others have entered into a plea agreement in their cases.)

Bequeathing a Legacy of healthcare and retirees benefit costs: When Mr. Ambrose left in 2015 and turned things over the to the Receivership Transition Advisory Board, he stated that Flint’s other OPEB costs had been reduced from $850 million to $240 million, adding that a new hybrid pension plan put in place by state appointed emergency managers had reduced Flint’s long-term liability; however, he warned, on-going legacy costs are still one of the most pressing issues for Flint’s fiscal future: “Remember, the reality we’re facing: we have a $561 million liability to (Municipal Employees’ Retirement System), and the fund is only at $220 million; we also have an obligation to our 1,800 retirees to make sure that we’re paying our MERS obligation.” (A three percent raise for Flint police officers approved earlier this year added to those liabilities, with those increases attributable to two different contracts, which were imposed on officers by former state-appointed Emergency Managers Michael Brown and Darnell Earley in 2012 and 2014, respectively.)

The RTAB asked CFO Huey Newsome in January how the city would pay the additional $264,000 annually in wages and benefits along with a projected $3.4 million in additional retirement costs over the life of the contract—a question he was unable to specify an answer to at the time: “To tell you exactly where those‒where those dollars will come from right at this point in time, I can’t say…I think the ‘so what’ of this is that, you know, the incremental impact from this pay raise is not going to be that large when you think about the three and a half million. The city still needs to figure out where that three and a half million is coming from.” Moreover, he added, because police negotiated the raise, it also could be an issue with other unions wanting a similar increase during their future negotiations, adding that the city is making increased payments to MERS to avoid balloon payments in the future. For example, Mr. Newsome said, Flint will pay an additional $21.5 million this year, adding that all the city’s funds currently have a positive balance. However, Flint’s budget projections show the water fund will have a $2.1 million deficit in FY2018-19, a deficit projected to increase to $3.3 million by FY2022-23; Flint’s fiscal projections eventually put the water fund balance in the red by 2022-23; however, CFO Newsome warned: “The water fund is probably the most tepid one, because it is expected to be below the reserve balance by the end of the year,” noting the city can only account for 60% of the water that goes through its system, adding that the city has an 80% collection rate on its water bills, which is about $28 million this fiscal year, telling the Mayor and Council: “One of our top priorities is better metering.”

The city’s most-recent budget for 2018-19 calls for a combined revenue increase of $1.09 million more than previous budget projections because of increased assessed property values, more income taxes coming in, and additional state revenue sharing. Nevertheless, one Board member, notwithstanding projections for increased revenue, is apprehensive that Flint’s “tax base is likely going to continue to shrink, and the city currently has limited resources to reverse this trend,” or, as CFO Newsome put it: “Right now, revenue is not there: The income tax is relatively flat. The property tax is flat. That’s reality.” The city’s current proposed FY2019 budget calls for an increase of $120,000 from property taxes, $339,000 increase in income tax revenue, and an additional $631,000 in revenue from the state of Michigan. 

 

“Who’s on First? Who’s in Charge–elected or imposed leaders?

June 22, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we consider the physical, fiscal, and mixed governance challenges which must be overcome in Puerto Rico.

Will There Be Luz? Gov. Ricardo Rosselló has signed into law a bill to partially privatize the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, potentially affecting the authority’s $8.9 billion in outstanding debt. The new law is intended to provide for the sale of the public utility’s power generation units and make a concession of its transmission and distribution system, according to a statement by the Governor—a concession which could involve a lease arrangement, as was done for Puerto Rico’s main airport. Under the proposed privatization, revenues realized could be utilized to address PREPA’s debt. purchasers would not assume PREPA’s debt; instead the public utility would use proceeds from any sale of a power plant to pay off a portion of the debt, or, as the Governor put it on Wednesday, the money raised could be used, at least in part, to contribute to PREPA’s underfunded public pension system. The new legislation comes in the wake of, last April, the PROMESA Oversight Board’s certification of a fiscal plan which assumed PREPA privatization—but which did not impose assumptions with regard to how the proceeds would be used. Puerto Rico Senate Minority Leader Eduardo Bhatia, an attorney-at-law and the former 15th President of the Puerto Rico Senate—as well as a former Fulbright scholar, noted: “The bill that Governor Rosselló signed today essentially authorizes the Governor to proceed with a ‘market sound[ing]’ and identify any and all potential private sector interest in the development of a new energy system in Puerto Rico,” adding: “Notable is that the bill does not authorize any sale before the Puerto Rico Legislature prepares, within 180 days, a statement of public policy specifically mandating what the new system will look like in 30 years.” Gov. Rosselló noted that Puerto Rico’s Public-Private Partnerships Authority would oversee the potential leasing of the transmission and distribution grid—a process expected to occur over the next year and a half. From a governance perspective, the Governor, PROMESA Oversight Board, and advisory teams plan to form a working group to steer the process.

Quein Es Encargado II? Meanwhile, the seemingly unending governance question with regard to who is in charge appears to be escalating. In putting an end, yesterday, to Puerto Rico’s debate on Law 80-1976, the Law on Unjustified Dismissal, the Puerto Rico Senate not only opened the door to annul the agreement reached by the Executive and the Oversight Board around the budget, but also appeared to intensify the power struggle between Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz; Governor Ricardo Rosselló Nevares, and the PROMESA Oversight Board. Upon learning the Puerto Rico Senate did not support the repeal of the statute—as demanded by the PROMESA Board, the Governor accused Senate President Schatz of acting to the detriment of Puerto Rico, for political reasons, even as PROMESA Board Chair José Carrión, who, like the Senate President, was in Washington, D.C. yesterday, warned that keeping the labor statute in force would imply reversing the certified tax plan, which includes cuts in vacation leave, days of sickness, and the Christmas bonus, stating: “There is a certified plan. If not (repeal it), we revert to the fiscal plan,” in the wake of his participation at forum sponsored by the Heritage Foundation.

Chair Carrión warned that reversion to the certified fiscal plan would mean at least $300 million in additional budget cuts over the next five years. He noted that the proposed structural reforms seek to “generate economic growth: We have limited powers (to make decisions that boost economic growth), but one of them is the labor area.”

The Board is scheduled to meet a week from today to discuss the upcoming fiscal year budget—scheduled to take effect at the end of next week.

In criticizing the actions of Senate President Rivera Schatz, Gov. Rosselló Nevares said that the upper House leader had opted to “hinder” his administration, and held him responsible for the millions of dollars in cuts that may wreak fiscal harm to the island’s municipios, as well as other governmental entities, noting, in a written statement: “Puerto Rico has just seen how politics is made and not how a future government should be made in times of challenges and difficulties, with this regrettable decision by the President of the Senate. We will follow the path of change and transformation that we have forged; however, this was the time to unite and together to get out of the shameful past we inherited. He chose to hinder, chose to follow the tricks of the past that have put us in this situation: the risk of the loss of billions of dollars for Puerto Rico as a result of restructuring the debt falls on this action. Likewise, the loss of millions of dollars in appropriations for the municipal governments that we had achieved also falls on the President of the Senate. Sen. Rivera Schatz added that he anticipated he would appear before a judicial forum to challenge the powers of the unelected PROMESA Oversight Board to alter Puerto Rico’s budget, noting: “The Senate ends the matter of Law 80. It is not going to repeal Law 80. If it were up to us to go to court to litigate against the Board, I advance that I already talked with lawyers to do so.” (The repeal of Law 80 was a specific condition presented by the Board in exchange for disbursing additional financial aid to municipios, the University of Puerto Rico, and guaranteeing holiday leave and sick days for private sector employees.)

At the same time, during the meeting of the majority caucus of the New Progressive Party, a proposal by Sen. Miguel Romero to ascribe to the Law against discrimination in employment (Law 100-1959) by adding some amendments to Law 80 was defeated  15 -5, with the prevailing majority choosing to defer consideration of the issue during the current session—which ends Monday. Sen. Romero proposed creating a system of fixed payments for dismissals that violate only the Anti-Discrimination Law 100, but insisted on repealing Law 80, which deals with another area of ​​labor law by providing remedies for severance without just cause.

Not unlike in the U.S. Congress, the Puerto Rico House and Senate do not always see ojo to ojo (eye to eye). The House intends to address Puerto Rico’s relationship with the Oversight Board differently, with House President Carlos “Johnny” Méndez stating, yesterday, that he has to study what is the probability of prevailing in a lawsuit with the Oversight Board defense of budget items, adding that he considers the controversy over Law 80 to be over. In response to a question whether the House would join a lawsuit initiated by the Senate to combat the cuts applied by the Board, Senate President Méndez replied: “We have to sit down to see what the arguments are and make a decision: the Promise law has supremacy over everything. It does not even allow us to sue the Oversight Board. We have to see what the arguments are, the legal basis for making a decision. It is not going to be a futile exercise. If we have more than a 50% chance of prevailing, of course we will be there.” He added that, if he opts for litigation, he would challenge the authority and ability of the unelected Oversight Board to establish public policy.

What about Manana? Even as the question of governance proceeded, two PROMESA Board members yesterday concurred with a panel of other experts that an overhaul Puerto Rico’s local labor laws is a key for the territory’s future growth. At a session in Washington, D.C. at the Heritage Foundation, PROMESA Chair Jose Carrion joined Anne Krueger, economics Professor at Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, and fellow Board Member Andrew Biggs—with their discussion coming on some of the same issues. With Puerto Rico’s elected leaders considering instituting the same at-will employment statutes used in many states, as well as adding more restrictive rules for receiving food stamps and instituting an earned income tax credit to encourage work, the panelists described Puerto Rico’s labor laws as more restrictive than any state—a factor, perhaps, that could help explain the exodus from Puerto Rico of so many better economic opportunities on the mainland. The panelists noted the challenge will be to convince the people of Puerto Rico that a more competitive labor market will produce more jobs, with PROMESA Board member Andrew Biggs, noting that economists predict there would be an additional one percentage point of annual economic growth if the reforms were adopted. PROMESA Board Chair Jose Carrión noted he, as an employer in Puerto Rico, is only too well aware of how “onerous” the labor laws are, adding: “[I]t does not make Puerto Rico competitive with places to where we are losing our population such as Florida.” Employers in Puerto Rico, for instance, are required to give workers 24 hours off after they work 8 hours, said Professor Anne Krueger of Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, noting that the labor force participation rate is only 38% on Puerto Rico compared to 63% on the mainland, she said. In the end, the PROMESA Board appeared to reach an agreement with the Governor on proposed labor law changes. Now, warns Chair Carrión, if the legislature does not agree, the PROMESA Board will govern in place of Puerto Rico’s elected leaders.