Governor Dalrymple Orders 95% Budgets For Next Session Governor Dalrymple has ordered state agencies to develop budgets at 95% of the post-allotment

      Web Version   Preferences   Unsubscribe  
North Dakota Watchdog Network Logo

Governor Dalrymple Orders 95% Budgets For Next Session

Governor Dalrymple has ordered state agencies to develop budgets at 95% of the post-allotment figures, but is it enough, and will it actually be done?

May 4th, 2016

General Fund Budget Increases

Governor Dalrymple has order state agencies to prepare budgets at a level of 95% of what the current budget is sitting at, after the allotment cuts made in February.

But is it enough considering that most legislators and analysts expect another round of cuts to occur in August when the next Moody's projection is released?

Will this 95% budget be based on the 2nd round of cuts, which many estimate to be in the 3.5%-5% range?

Or will it be based on the 1st round of cuts, which will basically make it a flat budget proposal for the legislature to start with next session?

In recent years, there have been a lot of games that have been played by governors with regard to the state budget, and it has caused more work for legislator who have to deal with convoluted budget plans.

In 2010, Governor Hoeven ordered agencies to prepare for a spending freeze in the summer, but that order never made it too far because by the time Governor Dalrymple took office, some budget games were starting to be played to hide the real spending figures. and the spending increase came out at around a 25% increase - far from a "freeze".

As you hear the candidates talk about the budget, keep in mind that what gets discussed before elections and what happens during the legislative session generally is vastly different, as illustrated by the 2011 incident where a "spending freeze" became a 25% spending increase that was hidden in some sneaky accounting.

Taxpayer Funding & Debate Fairness

Every election cycle there seems to be a argument about debates. There always seems to be a candidate or three that think they deserve to be on the debate stage, and the media outlet putting on the debate has the final say. When the media outlet is a private company, as conservatives, we generally will say "fine, it's their stage and their station".

Prairie Public Funding

In North Dakota there is currently a controversy on this issue, but it is a bit different because it involves Prairie Public Broadcasting.

There is an effort to keep out one of the Republican candidates for governor in an upcoming debate, but this is not about a single candidate (I won't even name the candidate because its not about the candidate) - this is about fairness, and the idea that a media outlet that is publicly funding can block any candidate on the ballot from having equal access to the debate stage.

Prairie Public Broadcasting has received over $10 million the last 8 years from the state of North Dakota. Some was for advertising, but a lot of it was a straight-up subsidy (grant).

Prairie Public Broadcasting says they are simply following the criteria they always use. But the public deserves to see all the candidates on the ballot in a contested primary race on the stage at the same time.

If you want to send a message to Prairie Public Broadcasting that they serve the public, and if they want to keep getting their tax-payer funded state subsidies, they should practice fairness when they make their political decisions.

Email Matt Olien at and tell him you want to see all the candidates on the debate stage at the same time.

We should not be the type of state that sends taxpayer dollars to media outlets that are not willing to level the playing field for all legitimate candidates in a contested race.


Dustin Gawrylow, Managing Director

North Dakota Watchdog Network

(701) 390-9231

Paypal Button