Drennan: The real mystery of New Jersey’s state budget

OPINION

The stories surrounding state budgets are political folklore: midnight negotiations, threatened shutdowns, surprise tax increases, and revenue projections that seem to materialize from thin air. Every four or eight years, the ritual begins anew. The incoming administration condemns “pork spending” and “Christmas tree items,” while activists and journalists criticize the Legislature for a lack of transparency in crafting the budget.

Having participated in New Jersey’s budget process as a department head, a staff member to two governors, and Executive Director of the State Senate, I have reached a different conclusion. The closer one gets to the process, the more apparent it becomes that the real mystery lies in what occurs before a budget ever reaches the State House chambers and after it is signed by the Governor.

The level of flexibility in the hands of the executive branch is buried within the language of the annual appropriations act. There are hundreds of provisions that allow funds to be transferred, redirected to other purposes, or increased. These actions previously required approval from the Joint Budget Oversight Committee (JBOC), a bipartisan legislative committee established to ensure that changes made after the budget’s passage remained subject to legislative review, thereby providing transparency and accountability.

The frequent use of the phrase “notwithstanding any law to the contrary” has weakened these safeguards. This language allows the administration to override statutory funding requirements and bypass oversight mechanisms. As a result, many budgetary decisions occur after the budget is enacted and with less public visibility.

Even less visible is how the Governor’s budget is developed in the first place. Before a budget is publicly unveiled, departments submit spending plans to the Treasury for review by Treasury officials and the Governor’s Office staff, who scrutinize expenditures, challenge assumptions, and identify reductions or expansions. These conversations determine which programs survive, grow, or disappear. No public hearings, no live streams, and no opportunity for citizens to observe.

Here comes the Legislature, where the process becomes more transparent and dynamic. Contrary to perception, legislative leaders do not simply negotiate over a handful of additions at the end of the process. The Legislature serves as a counterweight to the Governor’s priorities and fulfills its constitutional responsibility as a coequal branch of government.

The 2018 budget battle between Governor Phil Murphy, Senate President Steve Sweeney, and Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin demonstrated this reality. Legislative leaders rejected major elements of the Governor’s proposals and advanced alternatives of their own. The confrontation was public, highly visible, and at times contentious. It produced a negotiated compromise. This illustrated how checks and balances do work. The Legislature proved it was an independent branch capable of reshaping executive priorities and forcing public debate over major policy decisions.

Legislators have secured increased funding for Summer Tuition Assistance Grants to help low-income students complete college. Funding has been directed to Child Advocacy Centers supporting survivors of abuse and neglect, homelessness prevention programs, and initiatives that combat human trafficking. They have expanded support for individuals with physical and developmental disabilities, increased resources for welfare and food assistance programs, and strengthened funding for hospitals that serve uninsured and underinsured populations. Even increased funding for the State Policy Lab at Rutgers. These are not frivolous additions to the budget.

These investments emerge because legislators hear directly from the people affected by public policy. Nonprofits explain unmet community needs. Local officials advocate for services their residents rely upon. Students, parents, seniors, and advocates share their experiences. Legislators then use that information to modify the Governor’s proposal.

Budget hearings are open. Advocacy groups, business organizations, labor unions, and ordinary citizens can participate. Cabinet officials testify under questioning. Legislators routinely raise concerns brought to them by constituents, creating a level of public engagement that simply does not exist during the executive branch’s internal budget deliberations.

The Legislature’s review allows the public to witness the government making difficult fiscal decisions. Transparency is not measured by who writes the first draft of the budget. It is measured by whether decisions are debated in public, challenged by elected representatives, and informed by the voices of the people affected. And in the end, every change made by the legislature is on full display in the score sheet and language changes document.

I commend the Governor and her team, along with the Legislature and legislative staff, for working together to pass a fiscally responsible budget that provides essential services and resources to New Jersey residents. While disagreements are inevitable, the budget process worked as intended. The Governor proposed a budget, the Legislature scrutinized it, the public weighed in, and a compromise was reached.

This process is worth defending. The proper balance of power between the Executive Branch and the Legislature remains intact. Far from being the source of secrecy, the legislative budget process remains one of the most visible and important exercises of democratic governance in New Jersey.

Kevin Drennan is a former Executive Director of the New Jersey State Senate.