Oversight board caught in jaws of Corbett's veto
HARRISBURG — One casualty of Gov. Tom Corbett's veto pen is Pittsburgh's Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority, which will lose $300,000 the state Legislature had designated for the oversight board.
Corbett struck that money and other line items from the budget on Thursday.
“Based on conversations with the ICA, the administration does not believe this increased funding is necessary,” the governor's office said in a statement.
Corbett vetoed the money for the ICA in the budget bill and, because it was referenced in the fiscal code, it is out of both bills, his press secretary Jay Pagni said.
ICA Executive Director Henry Sciortino and the board's chairman, Nick Varischetti, could not be reached for comment.
The ICA had asked to increase its $228,000 allocation to $550,000 for fiscal year 2014-15 — something Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa, D-Forest Hills, had said was appropriate to enhance its work.
Sciortino told the Tribune-Review last month that the authority wanted more money to pay for consultants or conduct studies.
In addition to the budget, Corbett signed a related fiscal code that instructs how money is spent, but struck some items. The bill had included about $20 million for projects, most of which were not easily identifiable because of vague language.
Budget Director Charles Zogby said the fiscal code was “pockmarked with earmarks” that the Senate added. Zogby said those grants have been placed in budgetary reserve — meaning use of the money, in effect, is frozen until the governor releases it.
Brad Bumsted is Trib Total Media's state Capitol reporter. Reach him at 717-787-1405 or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.