Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/18/1998 09:20 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 76
"An Act relating to long-term plans of certain state
agencies and recommendations regarding elimination of
duplication in state agency functions."
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 76(STA)
"An Act relating to results-based government and the
state budget; relating to state agency program and
financial plans; relating to the withholding or
reduction of appropriations to a state agency; and
relating to state agency performance and other
reports."
Co-chair Sharp invited Senator Parnell to review his sponsor
statement for the committee. Senator Parnell said under
this legislation the Legislature would establish policy by
issuing mission statements and desired results for each
State agency to achieve. The results would be reported
quarterly to the Legislature for continuity and effective
oversight. The bill would enable government to be more
responsive to the needs and priorities of Alaskans.
Senator Adams referred to page one, lines nine and ten,
lines eleven and twelve of CSSB 76(STA). He said one should
take a look at what other States are doing and noted that
this type of performance does not work. He felt this was
premature and felt the executive budget accomplished what
was trying to be set out in missions and measures. He
further felt it would not work for all agencies.
Senator Parnell responded and said they have done far more
with the budget discussions and mission statements and found
them to be very useful.
Senator Adams referred to page three, line thirty-one and
quoted: "The copies shall be accompanied by a statement of
"Truth in Budgeting prepared under (e) of this section.".
He felt the public should be informed of what this meant.
He said the Administration should put a fair budget before
the public. The Legislature, who has the appropriation
powers, should also be included in "truth and budgeting".
Senator Phillips responded to Senator Phillips and explained
how public policy is measured.
Jack Fargnoli, Senior Policy Analyst, Automated Budget
Development Project, Office of Management and Budget was
invited to join the committee. He noted the importance of
this bill to Ms. McConnell, Director, Office of Management
and Budget and Governor Knowles. He noted much effort spent
working on this piece of legislation and also with Senator
Parnell. He said they agreed basically with everything in
the bill and the intent of the sponsor. The only difference
was with respect to the timing of it. Mr. Fargnoli said
they wanted to work out a few operational concerns with the
bill so there would be no disruption to anyone. He told the
committee that Mr. Jim Baldwin was present to answer any
legal questions.
Senator Adams referring to page five, line fifteen asked who
would pay to gather opinions? Mr. Fargnoli said that
information may not be available and it was rather expensive
to search for information. Senator Parnell advised the
committee that departments already do customer surveys and
there would be no additional costs.
Jim Baldwin, assistant Attorney General, Department of Law
was invited to join the committee. He explained how they
would advise the Governor regarding this bill if it were
presented. He noted some issues raised in the last
committee of referral. He concurred with Mr. Fargnoli and
said the main question was how this bill was going to be
implemented. Mr. Baldwin described a present litigation
with the Legislature regarding proper responses to the
Legislature with respect to intent language inserted in the
budget. His main concern was the Legislature's intent with
respect to SB 76 to include the framework for the results-
based government into the budget itself. He felt this was a
legal issued the committee should directly consider and
explained that it was exactly what was being raised in the
present litigation he had referred to. What kind of
operative effect can intent language have as far as binding
agencies to a particular action? Many jurisdictions
implementing the results-based budgeting do not have the
kind of provisions in their constitutions that Alaska has.
Therefore, the ability of the Legislature is limited to do
certain things within budget bills. He referred
specifically to the "Confinement Provision, Article II". It
read: "Appropriation bills shall be confined to
appropriations." He continued to explain the Governor's
counterclaim. He said he feared the very worthwhile effort
of the Legislature to implement results-based budgeting
would get bound up in a long running legal dispute.
Therefore, goals would not be achieved.
(Tape #80 switched to side B at log 591.)
Mr. Baldwin, in continuing, said money could be moved
between allocations, and felt the bill was merely a
guideline. However, he said it was somewhat ambiguous and
should be meant to have flexibility as a guideline or
allocation, which may be acceptable and not violate some of
the provisions he previously alluded to. But he thought the
legislative intent was that the agency shall follow the
goals to the maximum extent possible. Without intending any
offense to the committee and its jurisdiction, formulation
of a budget is assigned in the Constitution to the Governor.
There are certain things, however, the Legislature can do,
i.e., specify the time the budget is to be submitted. They
cannot tell the Governor how he is to prepare his budget.
In another litigation case in the State, the Court did
decide the Legislature could properly specify when certain
budget documents were open to the public. He did not read
that case that the Legislature had the power to tell the
Governor how to exercise his constitutionally assigned power
to form the budget. He continued to voice his concern that
the truth in budgeting provision may go beyond what is
necessary pointed that out for the committee.
Senator Parnell noted there were several options open to the
Legislature. He felt they could work with the Governor and
the executive branch in what the missions were, what the
desired results were and what was trying to be achieved with
the dollars spent. He said it should not be a problem for
the Governor to use the law as a guideline for action. If
there was intent language not vetoed by the Governor then
that intent language could be used as a guideline. With
reference to truth in budgeting he did not feel they were
telling the Governor what to do.
Senator Adams asked for a time line on the settlement of the
mentioned litigation. Mr. Baldwin said they recently
entered into a stipulation with the attorneys and the case
was ripe for presentation to the Superior Court by early
summer. However, he expected one side or the other would
appeal the decision for what it involves. That decision,
appealed to the Supreme Court, could be a year away.
Senator Parnell MOVED amendment #1. Senator Adams OBJECTED
for purpose of discussion.
Richard Vitale, staff to Senator Parnell was invited to join
the committee. He said the amendment would clarify the
original intent of the legislation in that the reporting of
quarterly reports would only be on the results and the
measurements that were done, including the results of that
measurement, and not on the lines that followed after that.
Senator Adams WITHDREW his objection. Therefore, WITHOUT
OBJECTION, amendment #1 was ADOPTED.
(pause on record)
Co-chair Sharp asked Senator Parnell to comment on the
fiscal note from the Department of Health and Social
Services, which proposed to add two individuals to the
department. Senator Parnell said the fiscal notes related
to the prior version of the bill and not the one now before
the committee. He asked the Senate Finance Committee to
issue a zero fiscal note. There were no additional duties
placed on the agency.
Co-chair Sharp asked about the fiscal note from OMB and if
it should be the only one attached to the bill. Mr. Vitale,
advised the Co-chair that all the fiscal notes should read
zero.
(at ease - return)
Mr. Fargnoli was recalled to join the committee. He
explained the fiscal note submitted by OMB and said that the
work cannot be done without impact.
Senator Parnell said agencies participate in the budget
process each year and it is built into the base of their
budget. Results-based budgeting was being implemented in
the committee and it does take time. He continued to argue
the fiscal notes should be zero as stated by Mr. Vitale.
The original bill had a long-range planning component to it,
which required the agencies to do five years of planning.
The present form of the bill indicates that the Legislature
will establish the missions and desired results for the
agencies and issue them guidelines. There would be no
additional cost doing that at this time, based upon the
already ongoing process. There is cost to doing it and
already the work is being done as part of the budget
process.
Senator Adams, in referring to section one, that mission
statements and desired results should represent the
priorities of the majority of Alaska residents, and some way
that information needs to be gathered. He felt that in
gathering this information there was a cost involved outside
the agencies.
Mr. Fargnoli concurred with Senator Adams. He noted there
were external costs needed to implement the missions and
measures. Also the internal costs as related to information
system and what kinds of information were to be gathered
generally have had to have substantial retellings. And that
is not in any agencies' base at this time. This is the
largest hidden cost in the results-based government.
Otherwise one runs the risk of using proxy information. It
cannot be represented to be cost free in anyone's budget.
Senator Parnell MOVED that a zero fiscal note be attached to
the current bill. Senator Adams OBJECTED. A roll call was
taken and by a vote of 4 yeas and 1 nay (Adams) the motion
PASSED.
Co-chair Sharp said a zero fiscal note would be attached to
the bill as passed out of committee.
Senator Parnell MOVED CSSB 76(FIN) with attached zero fiscal
notes and individual recommendations. Senator Adams
OBJECTED. By a roll call vote of 4 yeas and 1 nay (Adams)
CSSB 76(FIN) was REPORTED OUT with zero fiscal notes and
individual recommendations.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|