Driving to and from work for some state employees in state-owned vehicles will still be allowed–without reimbursement to the state–after a measure passed by the legislature requiring reimbursement for the vehicles’ personal use was vetoed earlier this week by Gov. Bill Ritter.  House Bill 1287 had passed the legislature with bipartisan sponsorship and near-unanimous approval in both chambers.

Bill sponsor Rep. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, said that the governor’s veto leaves in place a system that allows state employees to enjoy a benefit few in the private sector enjoy, namely, use of a vehicle other than their own to commute to and from work. Private-sector employees who do have the perk are taxed for it by the federal government, including for commuting to and from the workplace.  HB1287 would have tightened the definition of personal use and would have required compensation to the state–estimated to amount to $2.7 million annually.

“After three state audits that say we need to do something about this, we still need to do something about this,” Lambert said. “People are basically commuting on taxpayer dollars–which doesn’t make a lot of sense, particularly when people in the private sector are losing their jobs.”

However, Ritter said in his official veto letter the savings could be detrimental to the well-being of the state’s citizens.

“Although the intent of this bill is commendable, particularly in light of the state’s budgetary circumstances, the savings do not justify the harm it would cause to public health, safety, and welfare,” Ritter said, noting some state employees need access to their state vehicles to do their jobs effectively.

Current practice allows state department heads to make determinations about who has access to the state’s vehicles and what constitutes a “perk” as opposed to legitimate, work-related commuting. An example is an investigator with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation responding to a crime scene from his or her home.

Yet, Lambert also said that without the provisions of HB 1287, the state now is leaving itself vulnerable to the IRS, which will make the determination based on its own criteria.

“Right now, there is not adequate oversight and there have been documented cases of abuse that are being overlooked,” he said. “The IRS could come in anytime, and (it) will charge the state for not administering its programs correctly.”

Still, Ritter said he is concerned that prospective state employees would avoid state jobs if they were subject to the stricter guidelines in HB 1287.

“Under this bill, a large number of state employees who are required to use a state-owned vehicle as an essential tool for performing their jobs would be financially penalized.  As a result of imposing this financial burden, it would be harder to hire and retain employees in these positions that are vital to the health and safety of the public,” he said.

Lambert said he doesn’t buy the governor’s reasoning and maintains that job-related miles are distinctly different from the act of showing up to perform one’s duties on the job.

“Going from your front door to the office—that’s commuting. Private-sector employees have to do it on their own dime and so should state employees,” Lambert said.