AUGUSTA -- A tiny fraction of the $190 million budget played an outsized role in debates last week, bringing recognition to a little-known state government office.

It's likely most people hadn't heard of the Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability until recently. A proposal to drastically reduce staff, cut funding by $1.2 million, and move them to a different office drew an unusually strong and angry response.

The reason?

Statehouse regulars and legislators offered different ideas, ranging from blatant campaign year politics to conspiracy theories that the government watchdog is embarrassing people in power.

"It's surprising to me it's taken on a life of it's own given the other cuts in the budget," said Mary Anne Turowski, political director for the Maine State Employees Association. "It's disturbing."

The majority budget that will come up for votes again today cuts $65 million from the Department of Health and Human Services and $34 million in general purpose education money. And although it does not raise taxes or use the state's rainy day fund, it does take money from several other agencies in state government.

Early on, the rallying cry at the Statehouse was from those who use social services because many of their programs were proposed to be cut by Gov. John Baldacci's budget. But Democrats reduced many of the cuts, and a last minute decision to propose cuts to the state watchdog office to help fill the gap created a buzz in the Statehouse.

"OPEGA became an election year rallying point," said Senate Majority Leader Elizabeth Mitchell, D-Vassalboro. "It became so contentious you couldn't even look at it. It was so small in the big scheme of things."

Mitchell found herself in the midst of some of the crossfire as she served as the most public defender of the proposal to cut the staff.

The way she sees it, the proposal to cut staff from seven to two and move it to an existing nonpartisan office made sense. The $1.2 million cut would be used to balance the hole in the budget and was one way to save money without cutting services.

Others agreed.

But over in the House, Rep. Richard Cebra, R-Naples, offered a different explanation.

"OPEGA's a pawn in the game," he said. "It's designed to be an extra bargaining chip."

Cebra said the office may be poking around in places where it's not welcome.

"It very well may be this is to rattle some people's cages," he said. The office has been controversial from the start.

Former state representative David Trahan, a Republican known as the father of OPEGA, spent years working to get the program put into state law. With help from current Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap, a Democrat, a bill to create the new office passed in 2003.

By fall of 2005, the office was at full staff with five analysts, an executive director and a secretary.

The office is a nonpartisan, independent agency with its own space in the Cross State Office Building. It's annual budget is about $950,000 a year.

The staff works under the direction of a bipartisan group of legislators that directs them to evaluate the efficiency of government programs. In essence, the office is a nonpartisan, independent group similar to the federal Government Accountability Office. Across the country, 45 states have these types of government watchdog offices, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Some of the uproar over cutting the office is likely the result of its unstable roots, said Rep. Pat Flood, R-Winthrop, a member of the Appropriations Committee.

"As people look at changing it, it brings up maybe some old battle scars," he said. "It's a relatively small group, but it's at the focal point of finding the very efficiencies and savings we say are critical."

Steve Bowen of the Maine Heritage Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Portland, said if lawmakers needed to cut money from the legislative budget, he would recommend looking at partisan staff.

A former Republican lawmaker, he said it wasn't a very smart political move for Democrats to suggest cutting OPEGA.

"There are plenty of places for the Legislature to cut its budget," he said. "To target OPEGA smacks of trying to silence an independent agency."

But for others, the proposal was about balancing the budget and making the office more efficient.

Rep. Janet Mills, D-Farmington, a member of the Appropriations Committee, said it made sense to her to move OPEGA to the Office of Fiscal and Program Review.

"It has done some good things," she said. "In my view, they would benefit from being combined with another nonpartisan government body with experience."

After the original proposal faced fierce opposition -- "people got very emotional about it," Mills said -- the House amended the budget to restore two positions to the office. It remains to be seen today what happens to the office in the final version of the budget.

Part of the reason for the backlash to the proposal seems to stem from the way it was put into the budget.

During House debate last week, Rep. Richard Burns, D-Berwick, asked for someone to explain how it happened.

Appropriations Committee member Rep. Sawin Millett, R-Waterford, said the proposal came at 11:17 p.m. March 20.

The budget had closed, meaning the Appropriations Committee was done working on it. Or so they thought.

Democrats made a motion to reconsider the budget and add new language.

"We asked what was going on and we asked to see it," said Millett, a Republican with 10 years of legislative experience.

There was a vote to include language to significantly reduce funding for the state government watchdog office.

"It took place in about 30 seconds," he said. "It came out of nowhere, in our view."

Sen. Kevin Raye, R-Perry, a member of the committee that oversees OPEGA, questioned during Senate debate why the proposal came at such a late hour.

"It is disheartening and it adds to public cynicism that a proposal to eliminate OPEGA emerged from the ether in the dark of night," Raye said.

As for the ruckus the proposal created, lobbyist Ed Pineau said it tapped into a hot topic in political circles and is an issue voters can easily understand.

"Accountability is the buzzword," he said.

Susan Cover -- 623-1056

scover@centralmaine.com