Governor's ‘slush fund' may get legislative oversight
Photo illustration by Getty Images.
A pot of money estimated to grow to more than $100 million by the end of 2026 — and referred to as the governor's 'slush fund' — may end up having direct oversight by the Montana Legislature.
On just the third day of the 69th legislative session, members of the House Appropriations Committee raised questions about the lack of information in House Bill 4 regarding one item in particular.
The bill described the entry only minimally.
The committee learned it represented an estimated $101 million in interest earnings from remaining federal American Rescue Plan Act dollars allocated to the state during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to remain under control of the Governor's Office, as proposed in HB 4.
Spending for the current biennium was approved last session, but unplanned expenses still come up, such as grant opportunities. HB 4 outlines those budget amendments, mostly for unanticipated federal funds, and $1.27 billion in all, according to a fiscal analysis of the bill.
The significant amount of cash with the Governor's Office and lack of transparency around a plan for it prompted Rep. Mary Caferro, R-Helena, to recently describe the dollars as a 'slush fund,' as have others.
In a press conference this month, Caferro said a bill that would have stabilized rates for Medicaid providers was tabled, and the Governor's Office 'strongly opposed it,' but it has the money to pay for it.
'The slush fund? That could have paid for four years of those provider rates,' Caferro said.
A memo from the Legislative Fiscal Division about the fund said spending included $12 million to purchase the 'old USFB building' for investment, $5 million for a veterinary diagnostic lab building project, and $1.3 million on National Guard recruitment, among other smaller items.
'The interest earned on these funds are not subject to program restrictions and may be spent on any lawful governmental purpose,' the memo said.
Senate President Matt Regier, R-Kalispell, also said this week he had concerns about the lack of legislative oversight when he learned about the fund.
The memo from the Legislative Fiscal Division said $53.2 million of the money, from interest, came out of the 2023 session. It said another $54.2 million was 'appropriated in a budget amendment' in December 2024, to be considered in HB 4 this session.
The bill, requested by the governor's Office of Budget and Program Planning, appropriates amendments for the 2025 fiscal year, and it provides for some spending to continue into 2026 and 2027.
Last session, however, Regier said the bill spelled out the exact dollar amount in that item from the Governor's Office, and this year, a specific figure wasn't included in the bill. Regier also said he does not believe the governor's budget proposal, released in November, discussed the fund.
'I get why the executive would want unrestricted dollars, but that's, in my mind, our job,' Regier said. 'The legislature should be the one appropriating.'
He said the legislature already doubled the governor's emergency fund last session to an estimated $18 million, and this session, it has preliminarily approved another $24 million for the governor to support recruitment and retention of state employees.
Early this week, the Appropriations Committee had yet to take action on HB 4.
However, an amendment in the wings would strike the item from the bill, or change the item to a legislative appropriation.
Rep. Terry Falk, R-Kalispell, requested the amendment, and he said this week he intends to present it, and he believes it easily has support.
'It's not legislative intent for the governor to have money he can just spend willy-nilly,' Falk said.
He said transparency is key for the people of Montana.
'We're fiduciary agents for the people's money and the people's budget. We need to be accountable. People expect that, and they should,' Falk said.
Rep. Llew Jones, chairperson of the House Appropriations Committee and sponsor of HB 4, said he too has requested an amendment to set those funds aside. He said the committee will likely take up the bill next week.
Jones earlier told the Montana State News Bureau the legislature can't direct every dollar of spending, but he told the Daily Montanan this week he anticipates the legislature will have the ability to appropriate the money.
In the past, he and others said the amount of money coming from interest earnings wasn't a large amount, but that has changed.
'It has become a much more significant number,' said Jones, R-Conrad.
The Governor's Office did not respond to a question about whether it would support such an amendment, nor did it respond to the characterization of the dollars as a 'slush fund.'
The memo from the Legislative Fiscal Division said the total actual interest earned on ARPA funds was $80.7 million through Feb. 12, 2025. It said expenditures totaled $18.7 million, leaving a balance of $62 million 'at this point.'
'The Governor's Office has the authority to spend this appropriation, so this balance is at a point in time and may change,' the memo said.
At the initial hearing, Rep. Jane Gillette, R-Three Forks, said she wondered if all the budget amendments should actually be included in HB 4, since its purpose is for spending that couldn't have been foreseen.
Gillette, who said she's most familiar with items related to the health department, wondered if 'mission creep' might be taking place, or miscommunication, and if some items should be in HB 2, the main budget bill, more directly under the control of the lawmakers.
'I'm not really sure what's going on, but it feels like these things should be in the budget,' Gillette said. 'They're not things we didn't anticipate. They're programs that are long standing. And so can you help explain any of that?'
This week, Gillette said she doesn't believe anything malicious is taking place with HB 4, but she said she suspects that as the baton has gotten passed from one administration to the next, some items that represent ongoing spending end up in HB 4 anyway.
'It impedes legislators from getting the full picture,' Gillette said.
In response to Gillette in January, Jones said a conversation about the larger purpose of HB 4 had started, and the committee wouldn't take action on the bill until right before its transmittal deadline, more than halfway into the session, so legislators would have time to learn more.
A budget official from the Budget and Program Planning of the Governor's Office referred Gillette to statute.
Rep. Luke Muszkiewicz, D-Helena, said he appreciated the short narratives in the bill about what the amendments cover. For example, under the Office of Public Instruction, the bill lists farm-to-school grants as an expense.
Those amendments are signed off on by 'approving authorities' for each branch of the government. That means the chief justice of the Montana Supreme Court for expenses related to the judicial branch, for example, or the governor for executive agencies.
But Muszkiewicz said the item from the Governor's Office simply said '31 CFR, Part 35,' or Code of Federal Regulations, Pandemic Relief Programs, and he wanted more information.
'What we have appropriated right now for ARPA interest, for this biennium, is $101 million of that,' said Errolyn Lantz, from the Governor's Office. 'That is a projection of what will be earned on the ARPA interest money through 2027.'
The fiscal analysis for the bill said $92 million was part of the Governor's Office, and Muszkiewicz wanted to know what portion the item in the bill represented.
Lantz said all but $3.6 million comes from ARPA interest.
Caferro also asked whether the item in question should be in the main budget bill. Amendments in HB 4 relate to the current 2025 budget year, she said, but the item in question requests authority to continue through fiscal year 2027.
Evelyn Davis, from the governor's budget office, said the Legislative Finance Committee had already seen and approved money for the current fiscal year, and placing items that have a later end date in HB 4 would approve their continuation after the end of the federal fiscal year.
At the meeting, Caferro said she wanted to know details as well: 'What do you plan to spend this $92 million on in the next biennium?'
At the time, Lantz said she would provide a list of how the money had been spent.
'I will say that current and future expenditures will follow federal guidelines, as it's federal funding,' Lantz said.
'I believe you,' Caferro said at the hearing.
But Caferro said this week she had not yet seen a list. The Governor's Office did not respond to an email Tuesday requesting more information about the fund.
Falk, however, said he believes the information in the memo from the Legislative Fiscal Division represents most of the available detail to date.
ARPA money has been used for a variety of expenses, including infrastructure and communications, and HB 4 includes some ongoing projects. The money is obligated but not all of it is spent yet, although it must be spent by the end of 2026.
At the meeting, Jones said it wouldn't be unusual to have an appropriation continue. He also said the bill would be in the committee for a while, and typically, three or four amendments would come up as federal grants arose that require legislative action.
In the meantime, he said, he wanted to be sure committee members received answers to all of their questions about the bill.
This week, Jones said the legislators may want to put the money toward infrastructure programs that fell short, or in a capital development fund.
He said a precise amount is difficult to estimate because ARPA funds are being spent down along the way, and interest is variable, but he expects legislators will 'suggest an appropriation of that money.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Last certificates issued through State Library training institute victimized by budget cuts
(Getty Images) The students who earned their certificates of library management this month with the aid of the South Dakota State Library will be the last for now, due to budget cuts. The Public Library Training Institute 'has long served as a continuing education program for library practitioners, support staff, and trustees of South Dakota public libraries who do not hold formal library degrees,' according to a Wednesday press release from the state Department of Education. Fifteen students from 13 libraries, with jobs ranging from library director to front-line staff, attended the 2025 training. The institute has helped librarians earn their certificates – typically pursued by those seeking a master's degree in library science – since 1985, initially with courses at what was then Northern State College in Aberdeen. State Library secures full federal funding, will resume interlibrary loan deliveries The State Library, in partnership with the Institute of Museum and Library Services in Washington, D.C., has offered financial support for the training. Students attend in-person sessions for one week each June, supplemented by online coursework throughout the year. Librarians who complete the program are awarded a certificate of public library management and are recognized as certified library practitioners. 'This year, our students delved into crucial aspects of information literacy, library resources, and emerging technologies,' State Librarian George Seamon said in the press release on this year's graduates. 'They explored topics such as digital literacy, AI in libraries, makerspaces, SDSL-provided resources, educational programming through the SD Discovery Center, and research databases.' Due to cuts by the South Dakota Legislature, however, 2025 will be the final year for the institute 'in its current form,' Wednesday's press release said. Former Gov. Kristi Noem had proposed budget cuts large enough to threaten the State Library's access to federal funding. Lawmakers compromised on a budget figure large enough to allow the state to secure federal matching funds, but not large enough to maintain the full range of library services. The State Library will still pay for statewide access to a host of curated databases, keep most of its staff, and carry books ordered via interlibrary loan from place to place. The library cut the equivalent of two and a half staff members, however. The State Library 'remains committed to supporting public library staff through continuing education,' Wednesday's news release said, and 'future training opportunities will evolve to meet changing needs and circumstances across the state.' The following people earned a Certificate of Public Library Management during this month's institute: Tiana McKinney, Canton Public Library; Holly Demery, Faulk County Library, Faulkton; Crystal Gering Nelson, Freeman Public Library; Joanne Urban, Grant County Library, Milbank; Heather Lee and Mary Terrones, Hot Springs Public Library; Danyelle Brotherton, Huron Public Library; Cindy Percy, Marcus P. Beebe Memorial Library, Ipswich; Arlene Hicks, Jackson County Library, Kadoka; Megan Stietz, Piedmont Valley Library; Tanya Bult and Billie Jo Hayes, Scotland Community Library; Kelly Namminga, Evelyn Lang Public Library, Springfield; Becky Nutley, Viborg Public Library; and Sarah Overvaag, Watertown Regional Library.


Forbes
33 minutes ago
- Forbes
What Good Is AI On Blockchain If No One Can Use It Easily In Practice
The interaction of Artificial intelligence (AI) and Blockchain are emerging. (Photo Illustration by ... More Budrul Chukrut/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images) An increasing number of blockchains is actively seeking to integrate AI capabilities, but this 'AI on blockchain' growth is accompanied by significant challenges, most notably the issue of "chain silos", which fragment the sector and can hold back the full realization and utility of Decentralized AI (DeAI) potential. Afterall, if there's no widely available use case scenario, how do we continue the narrative and innovation of the currently already-overhyped DeAI sector? Take blockchain-native autonomous AI agents as an example, while a precise census of AI agents on the blockchain is elusive, the available data strongly suggests a rapidly growing and dynamic landscape. The number is likely in the hundreds to potentially thousands when considering individual deployed agents across various platforms and projects. All these AI agents reside in a scattered landscape of chains. It's like when computers could not communicate with other computers before the World Wide Web was invented, as a result, the full potential of computers could not be unleashed. While centralized AI suffers from data silos controlled by corporations, DeAI risks creating new silos at the blockchain level if interoperability is not prioritized, blocking DeAI's full potential. This fragmentation is not merely about data residing on different ledgers. It extends to the unique protocols, smart contract languages, virtual machine environments, consensus mechanisms, and overall operational logic of each distinct blockchain. For example, a DeAI application built to leverage the specific features of Ethereum and its EVM may not be able to natively interact with or utilize AI models deployed on a non-EVM chain like Solana without resorting to complex and potentially insecure bridging solutions. Similarly, AI agents trained within one chain's environment may find it difficult to operate effectively elsewhere. This leads to scenarios where separate databases or non-communicating tools on different chains effectively become isolated islands of DeAI activity. Fragmentation issues, similar to those seen in decentralized identity systems or healthcare electronic health records due to platform incompatibilities, can limit the scalability and impact of DeAI solutions. The DeAI community's vision extends beyond isolated applications on single blockchains. Building "Super AI Applications" is becoming a key mission for many. Imagine it as an all-encompassing platform or a network of integrated services that accommodates diverse AI functionalities – such as sophisticated data analysis, distributed model training, autonomous agent deployment, and complex decision making – across different, often varied and disparate blockchain environments. Such an application would not be confined to the resources or limitations of a single chain. On one hand, specialized Layer 1 blockchains like Bittensor, and Gensyn are being engineered from the ground up with DeAI specific requirements in mind. These platforms aim to provide optimized environments for tasks like high-volume data processing, intensive computation, or unique AI model incentive mechanisms, based on the premise that general-purpose L1s may not be ideally suited for the distinct demands of DeAI. On the other hand, many prominent DeAI Apps and protocols, such as Ocean Protocol and SingularityNET, initially launched on established, general-purpose L1s like Ethereum and are now pursuing multichain strategies. Then a key debate arose: Commit to a specialized L1 for potentially superior tailored performance but a smaller initial ecosystem, or build on/across established L1s/L2s to tap into broader reach but with possible limitations in AI specific optimizations? Inevitably, successful DeAI platforms will increasingly rely on reliable and functional cross-chain capabilities to access wider markets, liquidity, and data sources, regardless of their foundational architecture, thereby avoiding the very 'silo-zation' they aim to overcome. Realizing the Super AI APP vision is charged with significant challenges though. Despite these challenges, industry players are proactively exploring solutions and standardization for DeAI Super Applications to cross chain, including leaders like BSC and Solana, although this is still at an infant stage. In the meantime, innovations in protocols, platforms, and conceptual frameworks are also taking shape to construct a more interconnected DeAI ecosystem which can potentially become real utility for even novice internet users. This trend is inevitable, driven by the enormous potential underneath AI and blockchain's synergistic benefits. The inherent characteristics of blockchain can address some of AI's most pressing challenges, while AI can unlock new functionalities and efficiencies for decentralized systems, such as network optimization and intelligent resource allocation, or automated security auditing, and more. For the benefits and advantages of AI on blockchain over centralized AI, I've discussed in my previous articles: How To Solve Data Collection Challenges For Your Business's AI Needs DeepSeek's Lesson: The Future Of AI Is Decentralized And Open-Source Top 5 Decentralized Data Collection Providers In 2025 For AI Business
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Wisconsin State Bar leadership betrays the rule of law
Why has the Wisconsin State Bar take a pass on condemning unconstitutional intimidation of lawyers? And why can't anyone find out the details of how that decision was made? |Getty Images Creative The State Bar of Wisconsin was created by the Wisconsin Supreme Court as the trade association that all Wisconsin lawyers must join to obtain their law licenses. Its vision statement declares its cardinal purpose: 'Our members are the respected guardians of the dignity and integrity of the rule of law within a fair and accessible justice system.' Yet recently, State Bar leaders deliberately violated their own vision statement by refusing in any way to push back against President Donald Trump's blatantly illegal executive orders attacking lawyers, without whom the rule of law cannot exist 'within a fair and accessible justice system.' Why they shirked their express mission remains a mystery because State Bar leaders voted in secrecy on the issue and refused to explain themselves to the 25,000 State Bar members they purportedly serve. Instead, they have stonewalled membership with a bogus cone of silence over their deliberations. Here is the context: Earlier this Spring, President Donald Trump issued punitive executive orders targeting 14 prominent law firms because he didn't like their lawyers, clients, cases, or speech. He acted to cripple their ability to provide legal services to their clients. Trump then offered these firms an extortionate 'deal' he thought they couldn't refuse: agree to provide millions of dollars in pro bono legal work to further Trump's political agenda, such as free work for the coal industry, or else lose security clearances, access to federal buildings and even government contracts held by their clients. Several of the firms capitulated, offering roughly $1 billion in legal services to Trump that otherwise would have funded true 'pro bono' work for the underserved. Several others, including Perkins Coie, a distinguished national firm with Wisconsin members, refused. They fought back in court, and won. Their wins are unsurprising. The U.S. Constitution undeniably bars our government from wielding its power to target lawyers based on their representation of clients, their employment decisions, or their advocating positions the administration doesn't like. Federal courts have been unanimous and unsparing in condemning Trump's orders. One judge characterized such an order as a 'personal vendetta' by Trump that 'the framers of our Constitution would see…as a shocking abuse of power.' Retired conservative federal judge J. Michael Luttig commented that executive orders targeting law firms are 'the most sinister and corrupt' of the 'ocean of unconstitutional orders' coming out of the White House. He correctly emphasized that the legality of the executive orders is beside the point for Trump, who knows that no court will uphold them. The purpose, rather, is to intimidate lawyers. Wisconsin lawyers are officers of the court, sworn to support the Constitution of the United States. We are thus duty-bound to guard the Constitution against existential hazards like Trump's illegitimate orders. The rule of law requires no less. Because the State Bar, through its governing board, is uniquely positioned to speak on issues of universal concern to all lawyers, we and others have repeatedly urged the Bar to honor its vision statement and publicly condemn Trump's orders. Various versions of a statement supporting the rule of law have been offered for the board of governors' consideration and adoption, statements that no reasonable lawyer could find objectionable while remaining true to the lawyer's oath. We are not asking a lot. Already the State Bar—once a national leader in advancing the rule of law—is woefully behind many other respected lawyer organizations. On March 26, 2025, for example, the American Bar Association was joined by more than a hundred other lawyer organizations in a public statement specifically rejecting 'the notion that the U.S. government can punish lawyers and law firms who represent certain clients…' The ABA statement continued: 'There are clear choices facing our profession. We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue or we can stand for the rule of law and the values we hold dear. We call upon the entire profession… to speak out against intimidation.' On May 22, we were informed by a single member of the Wisconsin State Bar board of governors that the board met in closed session May 14, and 'following extensive discussion protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Board voted to make no statement concerning recent actions taken by the Executive Branch of the federal government.' That's all we know because board members also voted to remain silent on what occurred during the closed meeting, for reasons they will also not disclose. Newly-elected members of the board of governors taking office July 1 will be barred from learning more about the May 14 closed meeting until they first take a vow of silence on what they may learn even though they are instructed by their position description to '[c]ommunicate regularly with constituents,' and to '[b]e well versed in the State Bar's public policy positions and be prepared to explain them to…members of the bar.' We have since asked 12 representatives on the board several questions about what happened in secret and why. Only three replied, but they provided little information. We still don't know: (1) why the question was taken up in closed session, (2) why State Bar leaders needed legal counsel to advise whether the Bar should issue a statement supporting the rule of law, (3) what was discussed, (4) why no statement was issued, and (5) what was the final vote. We asked State Bar leadership and staff to forward our questions to all 52 members of the board but, despite an agreement to do so, the questions were not sent. We still have no answers. More than 400 years ago Shakespeare highlighted the tyrant's tactic for thwarting the rule of law: 'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.' Federal District Judge Beryl Howell invoked Shakespeare's warning in her scathing takedown of the executive order targeting Perkins Coie, further observing that when American history is written, 'those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded.' The success of Trump's intimidation campaign depends largely on whether lawyers forcefully resist his illegal bullying at every opportunity. Thus, the State Bar's cowering non-response bodes ill for the rule of law in Wisconsin. As the American Bar Association stated: 'If the lawyers do not speak…who will protect the bedrock of justice?' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX