FRANKFORT — State lawmakers continued to question implementation of plans to furlough state employees and cut costs at state parks even though most of the austerity measures are the result of shrinking state budgets passed by lawmakers.

At least one member of the Interim Joint Committee on State Government pointed the finger of blame in the direction of lawmakers. Rep. Jim Wayne, D-Louisville, told Marcheta Sparrow, secretary of the Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet, which includes the state parks system, they should talk to lawmakers about passing tax reform to fund state government.

But Wayne and his colleagues on the committee questioned the impact on lower-salaried parks employees of cost-cutting measures by the department, including privatizing golf course operations, closing other parks three days a week during non-peak winter months, and cutting employees’ hours. They were especially concerned that furloughs on top of those cut hours would be unfair to the lower paid employees.

Rep. Tanya Pullin, D-South Shore, said the cut in hours already represented a “de-facto furlough on top of the other furloughs” and adding those furloughs called for by Gov. Steve Beshear across state government to help balance the budget are a “double furlough.”

Sparrow responded by saying the parks department was required to cut $6 million from its budget and the cut in hours was approved before Beshear announced his furlough plan. The legislature previously authorized the parks to cut back hours during non-peak seasons and some employees may be cut back to as few as 30 hours a week during winter months.

But, Sparrow said, the move allows the state to retain employees’ jobs and to keep parks open.

Pullin said by spreading out the furlough days — Beshear’s plan calls for six over the calendar year for all state employees, three specifically tied to days adjacent to state holidays — rather than closing the parks during the off season, which prevents employees from receiving unemployment benefits. Many of them are the lowest paid employees, she said.

“Some of those people essentially will be living in poverty yet will not be eligible for unemployment,” Pullin said.

Lawmakers were also confused about some of the other moves planned by the department such as using a temporary agency to hire seasonal workers and whether current employees would be hired by private concessionaires who take over golf course and some restaurant operations. Sparrow said merit employees will have the option of taking jobs with the private vendors or other jobs in the parks system but she could not rule out transfers to other parks and to other duties.

The same committee heard from Dinah Bevington, executive director of the Office of Legal Services in the Personnel Cabinet, about the furlough plan. She said the language in the budget required the executive branch to treat all employees – merit or career employees and political appointees alike. But Sen. Julian Carroll, D-Frankfort, noted the budget contains a provision that allows political appointees to be furloughed additional days. Bevington agreed, and said some of those jobs may be eliminated as well.

Rep. Johnny Bell, D-Glasgow, asked Bevington if any consideration will be given to relative pay scales when implementing furloughs. He said six furlough days — roughly 2.5 percent salary reduction — represented a greater financial hardship for a $30,000 a year employee than for one who makes $90,000.

“What I’d like to see is for everyone to feel the same pinch,” Bell said. “Six days at $32,000 is different than six days at $90,000.” But Bevington said the language in the budget says furloughs “must be applied evenly across the board.” She said no decision has been made about additional furloughs for political appointees but, “Frankly, permanent reductions of non-merit jobs are going to be made.”

Ronnie Ellis writes for CNHI News Service and is based in Frankfort. He may be contacted by email at rellis@cnhi.com. Follow CNHI News Service stories on Twitter at www.twitter.com/ cnhifrankfort.