S.B. 725                                                  VETOES

need only take leave for the time the facility was open. The bill would be applied
retroactively to cover employees who were affected by the closings due to power shortages
in the winter of 1994.

During the winter of 1994, there were several days when a policy of liberal' leave was
initially declared, but subsequently State offices were closed. As a result of these closings,
employees who reported to work despite the liberal leave policy were paid for the hours
they worked plus the hours during which State office buildings were closed. On the other
hand, employees who did not come to work on these days were charged with leave for the
full work day. Senate Bill 725 was introduced for the benefit of those employees who
stayed at home but wanted the same paid time off that employees who made the effort to
come to work received.

The State's liberal leave policy allows an employee to take annual, personal or
compensatory leave, without prior approval, when inclement weather prevents the
employee from coming to work. I have always been inclined to declare liberal leave when
weather is bad so that employees can make their own decisions based on their personal
circumstances. While I certainly support each employee's decision to stay home when
liberal leave is declared, I cannot support the expansion of libera! leave proposed in
Senate Bill 725.

When an employee elects to stay home on a day when a liberal leave policy is in effect,
the employee does so with the full knowledge that he or she will lose a day of paid leave.
It is the employee's choice to make. However, when an employee makes the effort to
come to work and offices are subsequently closed, the employee has no choice but to
leave work. It is a matter of fairness that the employee receive paid leave for the hours
the employee would have worked if the offices had remained opened. This principle does
not apply to an employee who has already made the choice to stay home and is not
affected by the closing of State offices. Since the employee was not at work, the employee
was not harmed by the office closing early. Therefore, there is no reason to compensate
the employee with paid leave.

In addition, Senate bill 725 would reduce the incentive for an employee to come to work
when a liberal leave determination is announced. This could negatively impact an
agency's ability to keep offices operating at a minimum level. Furthermore, the bill would
apply only to Executive branch employees in the State Personnel Management System,
and not to the Legislative or Judicial branches or agencies with independent personnel
systems, such as the Department of Transportation. This lack of uniformity is inconsistent
with the provisions of existing employee emergency release procedures.

Finally, Senate Bill 725 has a retroactive provision which would require significant
changes to a large number of employee time records. This approach is inconsistent with
the normal practice of making changes to State personnel policies prospective only.

For these reasons, I have vetoed Senate Bill 725.

Sincerely,

William Donald Schaefer

Governor

- 3748 -