Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/16/2011 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
HB166 | |
HB110 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
+= | HB 166 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | HB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 166 "An Act relating to performance reviews and audits of executive branch agencies, the University of Alaska, and the Alaska Court System; and providing for an effective date." 1:41:34 PM Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to ADOPT workdraft CS HB 166 (FIN) (27-LS0492\X, Kirsch, 3/14/11) as a working document in front of the committee. Hearing no objection it was so ordered. [NOTE: The bill version used can be located on BASIS under the Documents section and is titled: "HB 166 Comparison version I to X.pdf"] JAMES ARMSTRONG, STAFF FOR REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, discussed that Sharon Kelly, Staff to Representative Mike Chenault had been the lead staff on the legislation. He noted that there had been a meeting on March 3, 2011 that included Representative Hawker, staff from the Office of Management and Budget, and other offices. He thanked Lisa Kirch in Legislative Legal for her hard work on the CS and all of the workdrafts that came before it. He relayed that the committee was in possession of the workdraft, the comparison, and new fiscal note. He added that the agencies had been reordered and bracketed in the legislation. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, SPONSOR, thanked the committee for hearing the bill. During the March 3rd meeting approximately 20 issues had been reviewed and the current CS was based on the consensus of the work team. He asked his staff to discuss the changes of the bill. SHARON KELLY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, highlighted several of the major items in the CS. She discussed that the review team would operate under the Legislative Audit Division instead of the Budget and Audit Committee. She explained that the order of department reviews had been changed slightly to group "like" departments together. Additionally, the Budget and Audit Committee had the authority to accelerate audits and at the request of the review team the legislature and the Office of the Governor were added to the list. Lastly, the timing of the process was changed slightly to accommodate the legislative process and the review process would sunset after the first round of reviews to ensure that the legislature's desired results were accomplished. Co-Chair Thomas asked why the legislation would have a sunset versus a continuous review. Ms. Kelly responded that Legislative Audit had requested the sunset to make certain that the process was working correctly. Representative Doogan asked whether it was possible to speed the process up to receive reviews sooner than 10 or 11 years out. Ms. Kelly responded that it was a ten-year cycle but that the Budget and Audit Committee could choose to accelerate the process if they wished. Representative Doogan wondered whether the entire process could be accelerated. Ms. Kelly replied in the affirmative. Representative Doogan was concerned about the length of time it would take to complete the process given that institutional knowledge within the legislature could be lost during the ten-year period. Co-Chair Stoltze suspected that it could be a dynamic that was in the purview. He noted that there were routine eight- year audits and that some boards, commissions, and agencies had experienced the problem. Vice-chair Fairclough remarked that it was possible to include more money in the fiscal note in order to advance a project. She believed that the proposed CS would allow the legislature to look at the numbers in the first few years to determine what could be accomplished with the allocated funds. She noted that the legislature could revisit the fiscal note at anytime to advance things to a more rapid pace. She supported the ten-year outlook and the ability to learn from the first departments that would go through the process. Representative Hawker relayed that the work team had discussed at length whether the ten-year review cycle was frequent enough. The solution incorporated in the bill on Page 3, Lines 15-17 included language that would specifically provide the legislature the statutory authority to conduct reviews prior to the ten-year date at the discretion of the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee. Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that the agencies could not be eliminated through the sunset provision. Representative Edgmon voiced his support of the legislation. He asked whether the bill would help the process regarding the scrutiny of agency budgets and provide a better understanding of division activities and court duties. Ms. Kelly responded in the affirmative. She relayed that as part of the requirements Legislative Finance and Legislative Audit would provide the review team and finance subcommittees with an in depth report of issues that had arisen during the process. Representative Edgmon wondered how the timing of the process worked with the governor's budget that was released annually on December 15 and with the legislative session that began January. Ms. Kelly replied that beginning in 2012 Legislative Audit would receive information from departments throughout the year and that the audit would then go to the Budget and Audit Committee about the same time that the governor's budget was released every December. The departments would continue to have approximately one month to respond and the information would then be available for the finance subcommittees when their work began every January. Representative Guttenberg referred to Page 3, Lines 14-17. He was concerned about how to handle multiagency relationships with programs, such as the Departments of Law, Public Safety, Corrections, and the Court System that were interrelated in the work that they did. He wondered whether there was a way that the integration of a justice system could work in the process. Ms. Kelly replied in the affirmative. She referred to Page 3, Lines 11-13 and explained that overlapping services between departments would be recognized as Legislative Audit developed the scope of the audit that would be approved by the Budget and Audit Committee. She stated that it could be more appropriate for the justice system integration to occur in 2013, while issues related to other departments could be addressed at the time of the Budget and Audit Committee review. Representative Guttenberg wondered how the logistics of the process would take place. He discussed that the new process would have significant legislative authority; however, the final product would have to come before the legislature for approval. He noted that the bill would allow Legislative Audit to rewrite missions and measures and wondered whether a new section of expertise would be required given that an understanding of exactly what programs were supposed to accomplish would be necessary. Ms. Kelly responded that the missions and measures language was the result of a request by a member of the review team. She believed that Legislative Audit would look at the missions and measures to determine whether they appropriately measured work conducted by state agencies on behalf of the Alaskan public. She added that the committee would have the ability to recommend any changes that it would see fit. Representative Wilson wanted to make certain the reports would be available to the public. She cited language on Page 3, Lines 8-10, that read "performance review reports are confidential unless the report has been approved…" Ms. Kelly replied the reports would become public. She noted that Page 3, Section 2 referred to work that would be completed prior to its transmittal to Legislative Audit. Currently and continuing forward the information was confidential during the month-long process and the Budget and Audit Committee would release the report following the designated period. She read from the legislation that "one week before the first day of the regular session of the legislature in the year following the review [year set out in AS 44.66.020(a)], the review team shall provide to the chairs or cochairs of the [senate and house finance] committees a final report…"(Page 6, Lines 15-18). Representative Gara wondered about the general fund budget for the University of Alaska. Ms. Kelly responded that it was approximately $360 million. Representative Gara was concerned that the bill included language that would allow department budget reductions of at least ten percent when inefficiencies were identified; however, he agreed with the general concept of the bill, an external review, and the goal to identify duplicate efforts and inefficiencies. He believed the ten percent figure was arbitrary and relayed that it would be his preference to receive a report that cited inefficiencies, provided solutions, and recommended ways to save money. He opined that in some circumstances it could decimate an agency to take ten percent. He expressed that the figure would equate to $110 million to $120 million for the Department of Education and Early Development's (DOEED) budget and that the significant reduction would only reduce the effectiveness of the state's education system. He added that he might introduce an amendment on the House floor that would change the language for DOEED. Ms. Kelly responded that it was not mandatory that the legislature accept the ten percent reduction. She explained that the sponsor had looked at the "Texas sunset bill" and that the Texas budget committee was recommending a fifteen percent cut. Although the bill aimed at a ten percent cut to reduce inefficiencies, it did not intend agencies to cut ten percent across the board. She remarked that the legislature may decide to invest in the infrastructure to increase savings in the future. Representative Gara reiterated concern that the bill required departments to find inefficiencies, duplications, and things not authorized by statute that equaled at least ten percent of the budget. He understood that the legislature had the ultimate appropriation authority; however, he believed that the standards outlined in the bill may not exist. He explained that some agencies may cut fifteen percent and others could be forced to cut ten percent from areas outside of the bill's standards. Representative Chenault remarked that without the inclusion of a set percentage a department may profess that it was not able to make any cuts. He communicated that the state was fortunate that it did not have to currently require cuts of a set percentage; however, that could change in the future due to issues that were out of its control. He believed that allowing the departments to review their own programs to determine the inefficiencies and select areas that could handle budget reductions would be better than arbitrary cuts made by the legislature in the future. Representative Gara believed that their view points on the bill were not very far apart and that the legislature would not be required to accept the budget cut recommendations. He reiterated his concern that a reduction of $110 million to the DOEED would do nothing but hurt the quality of education provided to Alaskans. Representative Chenault agreed; however, he noted that in order to have the legislative "buy-in" to the budget process, it was also necessary to have a department "buy- in." 2:02:58 PM Vice-chair Fairclough appreciated the ten percent language and would support it on the House floor. She remarked during the review of the DOEED and University of Alaska budgets those involved had worked to make the agencies aware that oil production was declining, but the increased oil price had camouflaged the decline for the general public. Two years earlier she had a conversation with the University of Alaska President Mark Hamilton who had reported that 100 new programs had been implemented and 3 had been eliminated in the last decade. She delineated that the 100 new programs did not necessarily have full classrooms, but that agencies were leaving them on the books. She opined that for transparency purposes it was important to have a prioritization of services and programs to benefit Alaskans. She explained that the legislature had worked to communicate to the university for the past six years that budget cuts may occur in the event of an oil production decline. Representative Doogan asked whether there had been consideration to the idea of ranking the activities and programs of each agency from most important to least important. He wondered whether a ranking process in the audit would help to address the likelihood that priorities would change over time. Ms. Kelly replied that AS 37.07.050(a)(13) required departments to prioritize every agency underneath their jurisdiction (Page 7). She discussed that Representative Hawker's office had located one of the prioritization lists from 2004 and had recommended that the language be included in the legislation. 2:06:12 PM Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether there were any comments regarding the fiscal note. Representative Doogan MOVED a conceptual amendment to shift the sections that dealt with the legislature and the governor to the top of the list and to have reviews conducted for the two agencies every two years. Vice-chair Fairclough OBJECTED. Representative Doogan believed that it would be more effective to begin the review process with the legislature. He explained that he was not attached to the idea of conducting the review every two years and that every four years was another option. He thought that conducting the review every ten years would not satisfy the people of Alaska and would not help to road test what would be done with the budgets. Co-Chair Stoltze had no objection, but wondered how the mechanics of the amendment would work. Vice-chair Fairclough relayed that there had been prior discussions regarding the order in which the departments were listed. She was happy to have the legislature go through the review process at a much earlier year; however, she believed that until the first audit was conducted there was no way to know what resources would be required from the legislative divisions, what administrative resources would be necessary to support the departments as they went through the review process, and how much the governor's budget would be affected. Representative Hawker was concerned about moving forward with a conceptual amendment that had not been deliberated and discussed with those who would be administrating the audits. He relayed that there were specific reasons to begin with a single agency and that resources would need to be put into place and policies and procedures would need to be established. He remarked that the items could be accommodated under the amendment; however, it would be necessary to have the precise language in front of the committee in order to evaluate exactly what the impact would be. He added that even though the legislature and the governor were included in the ten-year rotation, there was a provision in the bill that would allow the legislature to accelerate the review schedule at any time. Representative Edgmon believed that the current department order should be maintained because oil production was declining and the intent of HB 166 was to create efficiencies, prioritization, and to focus on savings. He opined that in the event of a major decline in oil revenue a self audit of the legislature and the governor's office could occur very quickly. Representative Guttenberg was supportive of the bill but believed that the legislature should show other agencies that it was willing to go through the review process first which would help to eliminate resistance from state employees. He expressed that other agencies would be able to see that the legislature was not treated differently and that problems detected in the initial review process would be modified and improved prior to audits of other agencies. Representative Wilson wondered about the possibility of moving only the legislature to the top of list. She wanted to make the general public aware that the legislature believed in the idea and was willing to put itself through the process first. She was very supportive of the legislation and believed that agencies, such as DOEED needed to take a close look at their programs to increase efficiencies. Co-Chair Stoltze asked Representative Doogan to restate the conceptual amendment. Representative Doogan replied that the proposed amendment was to move the legislature and the governor to the top of the list and to require a review for the two groups every two years. 2:17:24 PM Representative Gara believed that the amendment maintained the bill and would add public confidence. He expounded that the Department of Health and Social Services and DOEED would be very large audits given the size of each department and that comparatively it would be easy to include the legislature, the governor's office, and the Department of Corrections (DOC) in the first year of the review given their small size. Representative Hawker wondered about the intent to "move [the legislature and the governor's office] to the top of the list." He asked whether the intent would be to have the two agencies share the top of the list with DOC or to appropriately adjust DOC and the remaining agencies to later years. Representative Doogan clarified that the intent was for the legislature and the governor's office to be included in addition to DOC. Representative Hawker advised that the committee solicit the counsel of the audit administrators in regards to the impact of moving from one to three agencies in the first year. He explained that the first year was specifically limited to one agency to account for time to hire personnel, and outside contracts. Co-Chair Stoltze opposed the current amendment, but believed that there was potential to accomplish the goal with further deliberation on the House floor. Representative Doogan WITHDREW the conceptual amendment. He supported the legislation, but would reintroduce a similar version of the amendment on the House floor. Co-Chair Stoltze believed that a compromise could be reached through discussion outside of the committee. 2:22:13 PM Vice-chair Fairclough hoped that any amendment would be discussed with the affected bodies as recommended by Representative Hawker. Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to report CS HB 166(FIN) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. CS HB 166(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with new fiscal notes from the Office of the Governor and the Legislature. 2:23:02 PM AT EASE 2:30:21 PM RECONVENED
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
HB166NEW FN LEG 030711 fiscal note.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 166 |
HB166 CS WORKDRAFT 27LSO492X.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 166 |
HB 166 Comparison version I to X.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 166 |
HB110 DOR-Response 1 to HFIN 02-18-2011.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 110 |
HB110 DOR Response2HFIN 03-14-2011.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 110 |