along with maintenance and rental housing at various lakes, and the aquifer study noted
earlier (Budget and Policy Analysis 2008, 4-9, 4-17, 4-37, 4-49, 4-51, and 4-65).
Although Otter’s endorsed a smaller increase for education, he supported new monies to
for information technology, infrastructure, and nursing education needs at various state
universities in addition to the priorities already discussed; and correcting a funding
problem which occurred when allocations to the school districts were based on how much
agricultural equipment was located in a district (Budget and Policy Analysis 2008, 1-22,
1-50, 1-51, and 1-52).
Relative to the Legislature’s statewide appropriation figures for FY2008, the
governor recommended a larger General Fund increase and smaller growth in All Funds
spending. His growth rates were higher for the General Fund spending of education,
public safety, and general government and for the All Funds expenditures of health and
human services, public safety, and natural resources.
Otter’s endorsements for General Fund increases over FY 2008 appropriation
levels were not related with the dollar amounts (n = 38, r = -.068, signif. = .627) or the
size of the percentage increases that were requested (n = 38, r = .202, signif. = .225). In
examining these relationships, we excluded agencies not receiving General Fund monies
and the legislative and judicial branches because the governor decided not to make
recommendations for the items that were requested above the maintenance of current
operations level for these budgets. Otter’s support for All Funds expenditure growth was
also not related with the requested dollar amounts (n = 45, r = -.074, signif. = .627) or
percentage increases (n = 45, r = .262, signif. = .083). In that analysis, we omitted only
the Legislature and the judicial branch.
11
Convention