Governor Brad Henry’s veto of a $7 billion budget deal drew both praise and blame from members of Cleveland County’s legislative delegation.

Earlier this week, Henry vetoed almost all of the state’s 2008 budget, saying House Speaker Lance Cargill and Senate leaders Mike Morgan and Glen Coffee employed “a flawed, closed-door process” to craft a budget that “did not represent the best interests” of state taxpayers.

“I do not use my veto authority lightly,” Henry said. “But given the flawed process and the flawed product it created, I had no other choice but to strike down the spending bill to protect taxpayers’ best interests.”

Henry’s veto derailed about $6.8 billion in new spending for fiscal year 2008 and a $1 million supplemental appropriation for the Legislative Service Bureau. Henry did approve $92 million in supplemental funds for common education, prisons, career technology centers and the Oklahoma’s Promise scholarship program.

“Schools, prisons and other critical need areas are getting the emergency funds they must have to operate,” the governor said. “Unfortunately, this legislation does not provide adequate funding for corrections and public safety, so we will have to address their additional emergency needs very quickly.”

Two area lawmakers — both Democrats — agreed with Henry’s veto, while two Republican House members said they were “disappointed” by the action.

Rep. Wallace Collins, D-Norman, said he was proud of Henry’s veto and “encouraged the governor to do so” in a letter he sent to Henry earlier this week. “While I originally voted for the bill, I thought there were many things left out,” Collins said. “Not knowing the future, I voted ‘yes’ but I held my nose doing it.”

Collins said the measure contained several problems, including a $5 million funding shortage for the Norman Veterans Center. “They have problems with water seepage, mold and outdated technology,” he said. “And their pay rate is too low. They have a high turnover rate which prevents veterans from getting top quality care. These issues need to be addressed, and vetoing the bill would be the way to take care of them.”

Collins said he was concerned the appropriations bill — House Bill 1234 — didn’t include a provider fee increase for facilities that offer substance abuse treatment services.

“We were promised a three-year state provider rate increase for facilities who offer substance abuse treatment,” he said. “This year providers were supposed to get $4.3 million in funding. Those funds were left out of the bill.”

Moore Republican Paul Wesselhoft saw the veto differently.

“I think the governor’s veto is unfortunate,” Wesselhoft said Thursday afternoon. “It was a very good budget. It was bipartisan and it only grows state government by 3.4 percent.”

Wesselhoft said his biggest fear was that lawmakers would create a budget “which might be in the neighborhood of last year’s budget.”

The 2007 budget, he believes, spent “way to much.”

“If we get close to that type of increase again, then I’ll vote ‘no,’” Wesselhoft said. “Whoever authors it.”