Sitting on Gov. Phil Murphy’s desk is a financial transparency measure just waiting for his signature (A-4090). Murphy should sign it, but not without some conditions first.

 Unlike previous bills that called for “transparency”, this one is not a misnomer. It requires that the annual audit of the state finances be published in plain language, so that the state Legislature and concerned citizens can get a true picture of New Jersey’s finances. And as noted by John Reitmeyer in his story last week, it is quite comprehensive.  

Rather than a simple one-year review, it requires a five-year look at revenue collections compared to projections. A detailed accounting of budget reserves and long-term liabilities, such as debt and pension obligations, is also required. The easy-to-read annual report must be published on the state website and a public hearing be held. And it even calls for comparisons of New Jersey with other states in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic. 

Sounds great, right? The Legislature seemed to think so, as it passed on a bipartisan basis without objection. 

I suggest, however, that Murphy conditionally veto the bill. I’m certainly in favor of fiscal transparency. But the problem with the bill is that it doesn’t go far enough. 

First, it concerns itself with the state audit – which primarily looks backwards, not forward. The information in the document, and the new requirements added to this bill, will be helpful to legislators and the public in understanding the true financial picture of the state. For instance, it calls for a comparison of prior years’ projected revenues (as set by the Treasury Department) and the actual revenue collections of each year. That should limit the frequent squabbling over how much the state can be prepared to spend. The bill could go further and ask that multi-year projections of spending, or the lack thereof, be included.

Most importantly, the bill still does not address the broken budget process that occurs every year, whereby legislators make major changes and deals up to the very last minute, in late June. Constitutionally, the annual budget must be approved before the new fiscal year of July 1 and there must be a day between the final approval of the bill by budget committees and a vote by the entire Legislature. If not, state government shuts down as it did in the last year of the Christie administration. (Remember the famous picture of Gov. Christie and his family lying on an empty beach over the July 4 weekend — no one wants to see something like that again.)

Year after year, despite months of public hearings on the governor’s annual budget proposal that’s issued in February, the vote goes down to the wire. In most cases, the press and public never see the massive changes made by the Legislature until it’s too late to do much about them – even if it’s only to ask questions.  

This year was a particular fiasco. The $54.3 billion budget – the largest in history – included $1 billion added to Murphy’s initial request. But the final 300-page document was not available before the crucial committee votes. And there was no opportunity for the public to speak.

Republicans were rightfully enraged with the Democratic-majority, as they were asked to vote on the most important piece of legislation of the year without knowing what was in it. Some Democrats just cast a ‘yes’ vote and left the committee room for the night – even before all the deals were struck. They clearly voted before knowing the contents of the final package.

Now, with the approved fiscal transparency bill, Murphy has an opportunity to fix the process for good. He could issue a conditional veto, asking that the bill be broadened, making more of New Jersey’s fiscal matters transparent. He could ask that guard rails be set up, such as having a proposed legislative budget be issued a month, or even weeks, before the final vote. It could also require that a public hearing be held before the final vote. And, as noted, it can require that the non-partisan Office of Legislative Services make fiscal projections by a certain proposed date.

Murphy is justifiably proud of addressing some of the state’s fiscal problems that have nagged the state for years. He’s had a good economy and extra COVID-19 funding to rely on – but still, he did it. His budgets have fully funded the state’s public pension obligations – something that previous governors from both parties have been unable or unwilling to do. We now have a significant surplus fund, so when an eventual recession occurs, the state’s services are not stripped to the core. The state’s bond rating is rising. And he’s on track to fully fund the court-mandated school aid program, even making some unpopular adjustments to some districts that that have been overfunded due to changes in demographics.  

Of course, all that effort can be undone by the next administration. I can’t imagine the Legislature putting shackles on themselves if not forced to do so. A conditional veto of a very popular bill might just do the trick. 

So, Gov. Murphy, why not put your stamp on something that can’t easily be undone — and make the budget process not just more transparent but professional.