Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
03/08/2022 11:30 AM House WAYS & MEANS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB376 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 376 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
March 8, 2022
11:35 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Chair
Representative Adam Wool, Vice Chair
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Calvin Schrage
Representative Andi Story
Representative David Eastman (via teleconference)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mike Prax
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 376
"An Act relating to the Executive Budget Act; relating to
strategic plans, mission statements, performance plans, and
financial plans for executive branch agencies; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 376
SHORT TITLE: STRATEGIC PLANS FOR STATE AGENCIES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KAUFMAN
02/22/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/22 (H) W&M, STA, FIN
03/08/22 (H) W&M AT 11:30 AM DAVIS 106
WITNESS REGISTER
NEIL STEININGER, Director
Office of Management and Budget
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 376, described the
current process used by the administration to measure agency
performance and incorporate mission statements into the budget
process.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KAUFMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the prime sponsor, introduced HB 376.
MATTHEW HARVEY, Staff
Representative James Kaufman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Kaufman, prime
sponsor of HB 376, provided a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"Strategic Planning, Budgeting, Execution, and Reporting to
Improve Outcomes and Address Longstanding Performance and
Management Issues."
ACTION NARRATIVE
11:35:56 AM
CHAIR IVY SPOHNHOLZ called the House Special Committee on Ways
and Means meeting to order at 11:35 a.m. Representatives Wool,
Josephson, Eastman (via teleconference), Schrage, Story, and
Spohnholz were present at the call to order.
HB 376-STRATEGIC PLANS FOR STATE AGENCIES
11:36:30 AM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 376, "An Act relating to the Executive Budget
Act; relating to strategic plans, mission statements,
performance plans, and financial plans for executive branch
agencies; and providing for an effective date."
11:37:28 AM
NEIL STEININGER, Director, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), described the current process used by the administration
to measure agency performance and incorporate mission statements
into the budget process to give context to the ideas in HB 376.
He explained that while the budget process in the legislative
branch is confined to legislative session, the executive branch
begins its budget process for the next year on the day the
conference committee passes a final budget and is passed out of
both bodies of the legislature. That internal process has
different phases and steps to it, he said, and accommodates the
changes made from the governor's budget to what is finally
enacted, and changes made from vetoes, and how that sets up a
foundation toward building the next year's budget.
MR. STEININGER related that when [the executive branch] receives
the conference committee report out of the legislature, the
first step is to work through the veto review process with the
departments and the governor and how that impacts program plans
going forward. He said changes to the prior December's plans
are considered through the authorize process internally, which
builds to the authorize budget which is net of conference
committee, veto actions taken, and fiscal notes for passed
legislation. He stated that agencies are internally looking at
what they are authorized to spend for that given fiscal year,
and from that authorized number the management plan is built.
MR. STEININGER noted that while the management plan isn't
directly called out in statute, it is reflection of the program
plans and financial plans discussed in the Executive Budget Act
(EBA). He said that is where the state agencies look at how
much money they are authorized and they then provide OMB and the
governor with the detailed financial information called for in
the EBA, referred to as the revenue detail and expenditure
detail reports that are part of the annual budget books. That
information, he elaborated, defines the line items, specific
expenditures, specific contracts that the departments are
intending to engage in, as well as the position control numbers
(PCNs), the salary levels, and the classification information.
MR. STEININGER advised that the due date for departments to put
together this large volume of information is generally the end
of July because the departments are simultaneously closing out
their prior year's budgets. From there, he said, OMB issues a
memo with more specific guidance on what the governor's office
is looking for as each department thinks about its mission and
vision in development of the next year's budget. That is
informed by the work that happened immediately after conference
committee, he added, internal conversations are started about
how to build and execute a budget for the following fiscal year.
11:42:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY requested an example of what the memo would
say to inform a department commissioner about what the governor
would like to see happen.
MR. STEININGER replied that every year the memo is slightly
different, as would be expected. For example, he recalled, a
[2020] memo asked agencies how they were responding to the
sudden shift in workforce from working in the office to working
remotely [due to the COVID-19 pandemic]. He said the memo asked
for specific deliverables, the number of employees that had gone
out of the office, what types of work went out of the office,
how that was initially impacting delivery of services, and how
that could have either beneficial or detrimental impacts to
services if it became a long-term way of doing business.
Oftentimes, he advised, there are questions about the individual
programs in each agency and the agency's statutory obligations,
and the agency is asked to weigh those against the current
reality of delivering government services in the state and
provide advice and information on that. This year is a year
into telework, Mr. Steininger continued, and the agencies were
asked more questions about their longer-term thoughts on things
like space needs. Getting information now isn't just for the
next year, he explained, but also for a budget change that may
be needed four years from now.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether an overall goal is to create
efficiencies and create the smallest state budget as possible.
MR. STEININGER responded that when facing large budget deficits,
a big piece of the goal is ensuring that limited resources are
prioritized well. He said a subgoal is working towards the goal
of delivering services well and operating a department the best
it can be operated. Whether facing a budget constraint or
surplus, he added, the goal is to deliver services as best as
possible.
11:46:38 AM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ inquired about the way that performance measures
and indicators are incorporated into the executive branch's
planning process.
MR. STEININGER answered that the performance measures themselves
are a living document constantly being worked on to meet those
objectives. They come into the annual budget cycle, he said, in
the internal discussion when departments have received the memo
and are working on their proposals and recommendations to OMB
and the governor's office for where to take their department in
the next fiscal year. During that time, he continued, [the
departments] also gather the data to show if they have met or
not met their performance measures, whether those were set
recently or 20 years ago. How much attention is given to that
process, he advised, varies department by department and how
frequently a department is changing the questions it's asking
about how it's performing. Some departments take the current
mechanical system of performance measures, the information put
into the budget books and posted on the OMB website, as their
way to advertise their work and show their accomplishments and
efforts in the service they provide. Some do a very active job,
he noted, while others rely on updating performance measures
that were put together 20 years ago, a different mechanical
means that doesn't necessarily fit into that same box that is
set up right now. But no department puts together its budget
recommendations without thinking about what's best for the
service delivery of that department, Mr. Steininger added, some
just do that more actively and some more passively.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked which departments are taking an active
approach as opposed to static and not focusing on those annual
performance indicators.
MR. STEININGER replied that a good example of a department
having its mission and vision ingrained is the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) through the Alaska
Education Challenge. He said each group within DEED considers
the mission and vision and how that fits into delivering
education to students.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked whether there are other departments not
using [performance indicators] as actively.
MR. STEININGER responded that he doesn't want to shame any
departments. He stated that in looking at the budget book for
OMB, OMB's key accomplishment of fiscal year 2021 (FY 21) was
that it delivered the December budget's mission on time.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ suggested that the performance indicators are
maybe not being used in a way they were intended, which is to
improve outcomes for Alaskans. She inquired about the mechanism
for updating those.
MR. STEININGER answered that he would say OMB accomplished a lot
more than that in FY 21 and he needs to put more attention to
this next year. He explained that the budget books kept in the
House Finance Committee room are the voluminous information
called for in the Executive Budget Act. For example, he noted,
the budget book for the Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS) is over 1,500 pages, while the budget books for smaller
departments are a couple hundred pages. He pointed out that to
get a quality output from any kind of performance measure,
effort must be put in by the person producing it, but effort
must also be put in by the person consuming it, and the
legislature is the one consuming these products. He advised
that light is added by asking questions in subcommittee about
performance measures and how they show that departments are
meeting their missions and services to Alaskans that the
legislature expects of the executive branch. The mechanism is
that both sides need to be actively engaged in the process.
11:55:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY agreed with Mr. Steininger's assessment of
DEED, and that the legislature comes up behind that. She stated
that the DEED commissioner really ran with the Alaska Education
Challenge which was put together by hundreds of stakeholders.
She related that at a recent joint meeting of the House and
Senate education committees, DEED provided an excellent
presentation about what it was doing in each of five categories.
Last year, she further related, the House Education Standing
Committee put in budget and intent language to learn what
reading curriculum was being used by each district. A report
was given to the legislature on 1/22/22, she continued, and DEED
is using that information to talk to the districts about whether
their reading curriculums are giving the results they want. She
said that is a great example in how the different policymakers
need to be working together so missions are resourced well.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ offered her agreement and said part of the
reason that DEED is so focused is the combination of leadership
and a broad planning process that involved many stakeholders
across the state. Broad stakeholder alignment and committed
leadership creates a lot of ownership in a process, she stated.
11:58:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL, regarding Mr. Steininger's self-critique of
OMB, asked whether OMB didn't publish its accomplishments or
didn't focus enough on the accomplishments on certain items.
MR. STEININGER replied that he would say both. He explained
that it's easy to get lost in just doing the work, and not think
about how to communicate the accomplishments externally or how
to measure the accomplishments. An example of this, he stated,
was dealing with all the COVID-19 pandemic money that came into
the state in FY 21 and making sure it was going in the best
directions for the state. He advised that OMB interacts with
the agencies to get budget objectives and works through budget
deliverables to put together the best budget possible. The
memo, he continued, asks leading questions to get the department
to think about a subject matter deliberately. He stated that
asking the departments in the early stages of the pandemic to
deliberately think about how telework was going to change their
department was to force them to step back from the moment and do
some forward thinking about what they're doing and why. He said
it shows in OMB's budget book that OMB didn't apply the same
standard to itself.
12:01:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL commented that it's analogous to planning a
party and cleaning the house before [guests] show up, so not
only showing them the house but doing the work to make the
exposition favorable.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ shared her belief that some of the performance
indicators make sense and some strike her as make work. She
said a great performance measure focuses on improving the work
product to meet organizational goals. Rather than chasing
around the annual budget process, she continued, the questions
to ask are what should be done and how should it be done to
ensure that Alaskans are getting their needs met. Government's
role, she opined, is to create a community in which people
thrive and succeed and business succeeds, which means examining
what is being done, whether it should continue being done, or
whether it should be let go so other things can be done better
and not have an inefficient use of resources.
12:04:49 PM
MR. STEININGER resumed his discussion of the budget process. He
stated that performance measures and discussion of mission
measures and accomplishments happen during the budget process,
and that deliberate work and deliverables are involved in
putting together the budget book at the end of the process. He
advised, however, that the focus during the budget development
process is on the iterative change records because that is
what's going to be discussed most during legislative session, so
production of the other documentary materials is a side project
in that process.
MR. STEININGER noted that there is a wide variation in what the
departments put forward depending upon how a department is
structured and whether the department is thinking about those
documents as a messaging tool about their accomplishments and
challenges. Those documents come to OMB towards the end of
November or early December, he said, so they are one of the last
things OMB is reviewing before release of the budget on December
15. He offered his belief that the statutory deadline for the
budget books is a couple days before the start of session.
MR. STEININGER stated that the end product from this process is
a narrative of the department's accomplishments or challenges in
delivery of mission along with reports, as per the requirements
of the Executive Budget Act. He noted that about two-thirds of
the overall volume in the budget books is the financial
information requested by the legislature through that statute.
From there, he continued, is the start of the legislative budget
process and the start of session where discussion is primarily
about those iterative changes in the change records and what is
being changed, not necessarily what was done.
12:08:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL recalled Mr. Steininger stating that the
budget books and reports are a big part of what OMB does. He
asked whether enough eyes are seeing them and whether the budget
books are being utilized as originally intended.
MR. STEININGER responded that during his six and a half years at
OMB it has at times felt like a lot of work went into a document
that he never got questions about, but there have also been
times when there was conversation about whether this body of
work could be slimmed down. So, he said, people were looking at
it and not necessarily generating questions. He related that
OMB receives a lot of clarifying questions and dialogue about
the change records, but not as much about the narrative
description of the challenges of an individual component. In
the subcommittee process, he continued, the departments are
probably experiencing this much differently than is OMB and are
receiving questions about what is written in those documents.
He said he thinks they are being used, but that they could be
improved. The work product, he stated, is only as good as the
effort that goes in and the engagement from the consumer of the
product, and both sides need to come together to make this
better.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL commented that as a consumer his critique
isn't of the reports but that the jobs of [subcommittee members]
are so full that there are time and bandwidth constraints which
make it frustrating to not be able to delve deeper into the data
and reports. He said he appreciates the work being done.
12:11:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY stated that as a consumer she wants to
resource the missions of the departments; for example,
resourcing substance abuse interventions related to the opioid
epidemic. She noted that when the legislature put in an
increment for social workers last year it was vetoed, but now it
is being funded by the administration. She asked how much
[consideration] is given by managers when they hear resounding
messages to fund something.
12:13:21 PM
MR. STEININGER answered that between sessions there is a
deliberative process where the directive from the governor is
discussed and then advice of program managers flows up to the
division directors that flows up to the commissioner who then
talks to the governor. Sometimes, he added, that results in the
governor talking to the program manager to get more information.
There is room in the process for back-and-forth to try to meet
existing challenges, he continued. Sometimes, he noted, the
performance measures don't necessarily get to the heart of the
actual delivery of the service or the real need in the
community.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ expressed her appreciation for OMB's hard work
on the complicated issue of producing the state budget. She
related that the committee is considering how to make more
efficient uses of state resources, so the committee wants to
understand the relationship between performance and the budget.
She said it sounds like there are opportunities to address this
and the segue is probably HB 376.
MR. STEININGER stated that shining light on these things and
having these conversations is how to improve them and get to a
better process.
12:17:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KAUFMAN, Alaska State Legislature, as the
prime sponsor, introduced HB 376. He spoke from the sponsor
statement [included in the committee packet], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Alaska is often in the news for the wrong reasons.
When it comes to national rankings of states by
performance metrics in key societal areas, we often
come close to the bottom. This includes critical areas
such as education, health, and public safety.
We spend billions (with a "B") to serve a relatively
small population, but somehow improvement seems
elusive, and sometimes impossible to achieve. We live
in a beautiful and truly amazing state, but the
performance of our state programs has not done justice
to our unbounded potential.
A main reason for this is that the State of Alaska is
a vast and complex multi-billion-dollar enterprise
that does not have a well-developed and fully
integrated Operations Management System and Quality
Management System (OMS/QMS). We have fragments of what
an appropriate enterprise-scale performance management
system might look like, but not something of the order
that would be expected in other endeavors of our
magnitude.
So, the question is: How can we start to drive a
higher level of performance, rising to meet our many
challenges while successfully improving the
cost/benefit ratio of our programs?
Fortunately, the answer to that question is available,
and has been successfully implemented by high
performing organizations in both the public and
private sector. We have referenced and adapted those
systems in the creation of HB 376.
So, what is HB 376, and how could it drive a
beneficial transformation?
HB 376 revises the Executive Budget Act (EBA). Under
the new system, every annual budgeting cycle will
occur within the framework of a 4-year strategic plan,
biennial strategic plan updates, and 1 year
performance management/execution plans. The people
managing and doing the work will set goals,
objectives, and key performance metrics to meet
legislative intent that is confirmed with every budget
cycle. The legislature will fund budgets that are
aligned with strategic and performance management
plans.
Switching to this form of planning, budgeting and
performance management will put us on a much better
path towards a leaner and stronger future. Our OMS
will guide how our enterprise runs, while the QMS will
address how we continually improve, and how
improvements are sustained.
To be clear, HB 376 does not provide an instant cure
for all problems, but by reforming the EBA, which is
the foundation of how we plan, manage, measure, and
fund our programs, we will be able to pursue other,
more comprehensive continuous improvement processes
that will lead to better outcomes.
12:20:36 PM
MATTHEW HARVEY, Staff, Representative James Kaufman, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kaufman, prime
sponsor of HB 376, provided a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"Strategic Planning, Budgeting, Execution, and Reporting to
Improve Outcomes and Address Longstanding Performance and
Management Issues." He displayed slide 2, "Overview," and said
he would discuss the problem statement; current state under
Alaska Statute (AS) 37.07, the Executive Budget Act (EBA); and
proposed future state with HB 376, including its structural
changes to AS 37.07, plan content summaries, and boards and
commissions; benefits; and examples of other states.
MR. HARVEY moved to slide 3, "Problem Statement." He said
Alaska's management of programs and projects has not been as
strong as many citizens expect from the government. He reported
that Alaska consistently scores lower than other states in many
key metrics. For example, he continued, Alaska is number 45
overall in best states according to US News, and Alaska received
a C-minus report card for infrastructure by the American Society
of Civil Engineers (ASCE). He related that Alaska has fragments
of an appropriate enterprise-scale management system, but not
something that cohesively blends operational, performance, and
quality management. He asked the question, "How can we start to
drive a higher level of performance while successfully improving
our overall cost/benefit ratio?"
MR. HARVEY addressed slide 4, "Current Executive Budget Act."
He explained that the sponsor started by looking at the EBA
where budgeting is tied to performance under Title 37, Public
Finance, and Chapter 07, Executive Budget Act. He said HB 376
does not propose the statement of policy under Sec. 37.07.010,
which states in part: "It is the purpose of this chapter to
establish a comprehensive system for state program and financial
management that furthers the capacity of the governor and
legislature to plan and finance the services that they determine
the state will provide for its citizens." He related that the
EBA describes the role of the legislature, OMB, and the governor
in the budgeting and program execution process. He further
related that the EBA includes two sections which deal mainly
with planning and performance: AS 37.07.050 which describes
what goes into the budget books currently and the roles and
responsibilities for issuing and setting mission statements and
desired results; and AS 37.07.080 which is program execution and
which states that the executive branch still has full authority
for executing the programs.
12:23:27 PM
MR. HARVEY turned to slide 5, "Proposed Future State: HB 376,"
and discussed the three proposals in HB 376. First, he said,
the bill would change some of the responsibilities. Mission
statements and desired results are currently issued by the
legislature, he related, but what is not written in statute
would be pushed down to the executive branch, the people who are
closer to doing the work and closer to the customers of the
services. They would publicize their measures and results and
targets so that they have ownership over them. Second, to
increase the organization of what is currently in AS 37.07.050,
the bill would change the planning hierarchy by breaking out AS
37.07.050 into different sections statewide priorities,
strategic plans, performance plans, and financial plans. Three
to six long-term statewide priorities would be set by the
governor, he elaborated, and these can be high level. The
strategic plans would list the mission, goals, and objectives
for each agency, he continued, and the mission can be set in
statute, or some units of the agency can set them themselves if
they are not set in statute. He said the performance and
financial plans would be annual plans. The performance plans
would state the program structure and performance history and
targets, he added, and the financial plans would state financial
history and budget information. Third, to aid in transparency
and reporting, Mr. Harvey explained the bill [would require]
quarterly performance reports on progress towards measures,
targets, and any results that are being added throughout the
year. These plans and reports would be posted on a single,
public website, he noted.
12:25:07 PM
MR. HARVEY showed slide 6 depicting a graphic of the hierarchy
of planning. The hierarchy, he explained, starts with statewide
priorities at the top, which are executed through agency mission
statements, goals, and objectives that are in an agency's
strategic plans. These four-year strategic plans, he said, are
updated every two years with the first coming at the beginning
of a gubernatorial term. Annual performance and financial
plans, he noted, are tied to the objectives, and the financial
history and budget information are worked alongside the
performance measures.
12:25:45 PM
MR. HARVEY continued to slide 7, "Structural Changes to AS
37.07," and provided an overview of [four] of the structural
changes proposed to the Executive Budget Act. He said the first
would be a title change of AS 37.07.016 that would add reference
to strategic plans and performance plans. The second, he
stated, would be a title change of AS 37.07.050 that would add
reference of strategic plans with the goal of refocusing this
section on strategic plans and breaking out what is currently
listed as necessary for the budget books. He advised that it
changes the title due to moving some of that performance and
financial information to their own sections. The third change,
he explained, would be a new section AS 37.07.055 for specific
requirements for boards and commissions so that they would not
be required to do their own strategic, performance, and
financial plan; they would have an operations plan and financial
information for a budget. The fourth change, he related, would
be a new section AS 37.07.085 to describe the annual
[performance and financial] plans.
12:26:48 PM
MR. HARVEY proceeded to slide 8, "Agency Strategic Plans - AS
37.07.050." He explained that four-year strategic plans would
be submitted at the beginning of each gubernatorial term and
these plans would be updated at least once every two years
during the four-year cycle. He said these plans would include:
a description of the strategic plan and mission statement; three
to six goals for the agency, with a definition of goals included
in the bill; specific, measurable, realistic, and timely
objectives, with a definition of objectives included in the
bill; methods of gathering user group opinions, which is
currently in .050; populations served by the agency and
population trends; key external factors; and required
legislation and regulatory changes if needed to complete the
goals and objectives.
12:27:40 PM
MR. HARVEY spoke to slide 9, "Agency Performance Plans | New AS
37.07.085(b)." He explained that annual performance plans would
th
be submitted to the legislature by December 15 of each year to
incentivize planning for performance alongside the budgeting
process. He said these plans would include: description of the
agency's program structure and proposed changes to the program
structure that say how the agency needs to be organized to
achieve these goals and objectives; identification of each
program's constitutional or statutory authority; defining the
agency's program with a program purpose statement to describe
the services provided, customers served by those services, and
the benefit or intended outcome of the program; [identification
of] the performance measures aligned with the strategic plan and
stating which goals and objectives each performance measure will
be tied to; [identification of] the results for each performance
measure over the past four years, if available; and
[identification of] performance targets for each measure for the
next fiscal year.
12:28:39 PM
MR. HARVEY reviewed slide 10, "Agency Financial Plans | New AS
37.07.085(c)." He stated that annual financial plans would be
submitted to the legislature by December 15 of each year. He
said these plans would include revenue and expenditure history
for the prior four fiscal years; breakdowns of each revenue
source and amount expended on each type of expenditure;
estimates [of revenue and expenditures] for the current and next
fiscal year; budget requested for the succeeding fiscal year;
number of positions; cost of services; reports of receipts made
the last year and estimates for the current and next years; and
other information required by OMB.
12:29:19 PM
MR. HARVEY discussed slide 11, "Boards and Commissions | New AS
37.07.055." He related that this new section would create a
section specific for boards and commissions and would require a
financial plan and an operations plan, which are currently
required from boards and commissions. The financial plan, he
noted, would include the budget requested for next year;
expenditures for the last year, authorized for this year, and
proposed for next year; an explanation of the services to be
provided by the board or commission for next year, including the
need and the cost for services; total positions; report of
receipts; and any identified legislation that is required for
that board or commission. He further related that under this
new section: the boards and commissions would be required to
annually provide a plan for operation of programs; the boards
and commissions would be required to develop a method of
measuring results; and a board or commission would be required
to provide a closeout report upon its termination, and agency
programs related to the board or commission.
12:30:41 PM
MR. HARVEY addressed slide 12, "Benefits." He reiterated the
benefits: align the strategy of all agencies with the
governor's statewide priorities, which are publicized; link
short-term tactics and funding to mid-range department level
strategy, which is in line with the governor's statewide
priorities; push responsibility for defining measures and
targets to the executive branch, which are the people closest to
the customers of the services; reduce duplication of goal-
setting and financial information at a program or component
level because the planning will be led by department level and
divisions and programs should be contributing to the department
plan; and increase the level of detail regarding program
structure and program definition.
12:31:51 PM
MR. HARVEY moved to slide 13, "Examples." He outlined several
examples: the [1993] federal Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA) and the [2010] GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA);
Arizona strategic plans; North Caroline strategic plans; and New
Mexico's Accountability in Government Act.
12:32:36 PM
MR. HARVEY displayed the graphs on slide 14 related to the
Department of Defense (DOD) which has a [Planning, Programming,
Budgeting, and Execution] (PPBE) program. He noted that the
goal is five years out and that the goal [is reached] by
programming backwards through [five] annual plans.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN remarked that he likes the Planning Ahead
Programming with Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). He said
DOD is trying to anticipate where it should be defensively in
that point in time and so is measuring a goal. There is a lot
of argument about money, he stated, and he likes that this is
talking about where DOD needs to be and looking at that
strategically over that time period.
12:33:34 PM
MR. HARVEY addressed the diagram on slide 15 from The Standard
for Portfolio Management by Project Management Institute, a
professional organization that has global standards for project
portfolio management. He drew attention to the hierarchy
outlined in the diagram of vision and mission leading down to
management of operations and programs and projects.
MR. HARVEY explained that the diagram on slide 16 is from the
federal government and is a result of the GPRAMA. He said it
depicts the federal government's hierarchy of planning from
mission, goals, objectives, performance indicators, and the
different types of outcomes, input, and efficiency indicators
below that. He said this is out of OMB's guidance at the
federal level.
12:34:33 PM
MR. HARVEY next provided a sectional analysis of HB 376
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided with some formatting changes]:
Section 1:
Revises an existing Executive Budget Act reference in
AS 16.05.110(b) to the newly created AS 37.07.085,
"Performance and Financial Plans", due to the
reference to budget request supporting information.
Section 2:
Revises AS 37.07.010 to include reference to strategic
plans, associated strategies, and the change to
multiple planning periods
Section 3:
Revisions to AS 37.07.014(a): Responsibilities of the
legislature.
• Changes the role of the legislature from issuing
mission statements for agencies and subunits to
reviewing and analyzing mission statements and
performance plans issues by the governor for each
agency.
o Some missions are set in statute and this
method can still be carried out. Where not set
in statute there is not a clear mechanism for
changing mission statements of agencies.
Providing agencies the ability to write and
communicate their mission statements will allow
a higher likelihood of progress in the
direction of statewide priorities
• Removes the issuance of desired results and
replaces with reference to the performance plan.
Section 4:
Revisions to AS 37.07.014(b): Responsibilities of the
legislature.
• Removes language directing the legislature to
adopt a method of measuring results.
o There is not a clear way of adopting these
'methods of measuring results' so they do not
often change.
• Replaces the semi-annual reporting requirement
with a reference to AS 37.07.014(f)
o This bill adds a requirement for a quarterly
performance report to be made available on a
public-facing website in subsection (f)
• Adds a reference to a strategic plan
Section 5:
Revision to AS 37.07.014(c): Responsibilities of the
Legislature
• Replaces 'operating program' with strategic plans
and financial plans
Section 6:
Revision to AS 37.07.014(d): Responsibilities of the
Legislature
• Adds a reference to strategic planning
• Clarifies that the legislature's role is to
authorize the capital program and financial plans
necessary to implement agency performance plans
• Reinforces the hierarchy of planning, from
strategic planning to performance and financial
plans
o Review and analyze strategic plans and mission
statements
o Assess how annual plans contribute to multi-
year plans
o Review and integrate financial plans into
performance plans
o Maintain all plans on a publicly available
internet website
Section 7:
Revision to AS 37.07.014(f): Responsibilities of the
Legislature
• To help fulfill the legislature's
responsibilities, each agency shall:
o Allocate resources to implement multi-year
plans
o Express program results in measurable terms
o Measure progress towards multi-year plans and
other results
o Promote activities consistent with multi-year
plans that reduce future costs
o Plan for both the short- and long-term
o Require accountability at all levels for
meeting multi-year plans
o Adds a reference to strategic planning
o Requires quarterly reporting to OMB on progress
towards the performance plan
Section 8:
Revision to AS 37.07.014(g): Responsibilities of the
Legislature
• Removes Boards and Commissions from this section.
o Boards and Commissions are moved to a newly
created section AS 37.07.055
Section 9:
Revision to AS 37.07.016: Governor's use of strategic
plans, mission statements, and performance plans
• Adds reference to strategic plans and performance
plans in title of section
• Directs the [Governor] to review strategic plans,
mission statements, and performance plans
• After review, the Governor shall approve, or
require OMB to revise, the strategic plans,
mission statements, and performance plans
• Strategic plans and mission statements shall be
used to implement and execute the law
• Performance plans shall be used to achieve the
desired results of the strategic plans and
mission statements
Section 10:
Revision to AS 37.07.020: Responsibilities of the
Governor
• Adds reference to two new sections
o The additional references ensure that agency
strategic, performance, and financial plans as
well as boards and commissions operations and
financial plans will be submitted along with
the budget
Section 11:
Revision to AS 37.07.040: Office of Management and
Budget
• Adds new plan names to the list of plans in which
OMB must assist in coordination, analysis,
development, and updates.
• Removes OMB's responsibility for the
administration of a state agency program
performance management system
• Adds three new subsections which clarify OMB's
role in the hierarchy of planning and reporting
o (12) Compile strategic plans and submit to the
governor
o 13) Compile performance plans and submit to the
governor
o (14) Compile quarterly reports and submit to
the legislature
Section 12:
Repeals and Reenacts AS 37.07.050: Agency Strategic
Plans; Mission statements
• Each agency shall develop 4-year strategic plans
that are consistent with authority and the
governor's statewide priorities
• Plans must be updated and submitted to OMB at the
beginning of each gubernatorial term and at least
once every two years
• Strategic plan must include:
o Description of strategic plan and mission
statement
square4 Mission Statement must:
• state the public purpose of agency and
programs
• describe services provided and activities
conducted
• include explanation of why and for whom
services and activities are provided or
conducted
o Identify three six goals for the agency
square4 Sec 20: "goal" means a broad statement
generally describing a desired outcome for
an agency or a program of the agency
o Identify specific, measurable, realistic, and
timely objectives related to each goal
square4 Must contribute to progress towards goals
square4 Must be based on recommendations of division
directors of the agency
o Describe methods of gathering user group
opinions
o Describe population served by the agency and
trends affecting that population
o Identify key external factors that could affect
progress
o Identify legislation and regulatory changes
required
• OMB's role in development of the hierarchy of
plans
o Review the strategic plan. Ensure consistency
with statewide priorities and other provisions
o Approve or require agencies to revise the
strategic plans.
o Review each performance plan. Ensure
consistency with statewide priorities and
strategic plans.
o Approve or require agencies to revise the
performance plans.
• OMB may prepare strategic plans if a state agency
fails to transmit information by a date specified
by OMB
• All documents submitted to the office under this
section are public information
• Removes boards and commissions from this section
Section 13:
Adds a new section AS 37.07.055: Boards and
commissions: programs; operations and financial plans
• Financial Plans
o Boards and commissions shall submit a financial
plan by December 15th to OMB, Legislative
Finance, and the legislature.
o Plan must include:
square4 Budget information
• Budget requested for next fiscal year
• Expenditures made during previous fiscal
year
• Expenditures authorized for current fiscal
year
• Expenditures proposed for next fiscal year
• Explanation of services, need for
services, and cost of services
• Number of total positions employed or
under contract, including for capital
improvements
• Other information required by OMB
square4 Receipts information
• Receipts for previous fiscal year
• Estimate of receipts for current fiscal
year
• Estimate of receipts for next fiscal year
square4 Identification of legislation required to
implement financial plan
• Operations plans
o Boards and commissions shall submit an annual
operations plan by a date prescribed by OMB
o OMB shall:
square4 Review each operations plan for alignment
with statewide priorities, appropriations,
planning methods, and legislative authority
square4 Approve or require revision of the
operations plan
• OMB shall assist in preparation of financial plan
• OMB may prepare financial or operations plans if
a board or commission fails to transmit either
plan by an OMB specified date
• OMB shall compile and submit a summary of boards
and commissions financial plans by December 15th
to a governor-elect
• All information from a board or commission to OMB
is public information
• Appropriations requests
o Identification of objectives intended for the
program and problem or need that the program is
intended to address
o An assessment of achievement of original
objectives of the program
o A statement of costs, performance, and
accomplishments in each of last four fiscal
years
o A statement of number and types of persons
affected by the program
o A summary statement of the number and cost of
personnel employed or under contract over the
last three completed fiscal years
o An assessment of the effect of the program on
the economy of the state o An assessment of the
how the policies meet the objective of the
legislature
o An analysis of services and performance
estimated to be achieved over the life of the
agency
o A prioritized list of the activities the board
or commission would expect to perform if the
life of the agency were to be continued.
• Boards and commissions shall develop methods for
measuring agency results
• OMB shall report quarterly to the governor and
legislature on operations of the boards and
commissions
Section 14:
Revision to AS 37.07.060(a): Governor's Recommendation
• Requires the governor to identify three to five
statewide priorities to guide strategic and
annual planning
• Adds reference to the new planning statutes
• Adds reference to new plan structure
• Removes reference to the previously used mission
and desired results
Section 15:
Adds a new section to AS 37.07.060: Governor's
Recommendation
• Requires the governor to present the strategic
plans and mission statements in a joint session
at the same time as the governor's budget message
Section 16:
Amends section AS 37.07.070: Legislative Review
• Adds the new, cohesive structure of planning to
the legislative review list
Section 17:
Amends section AS 37.07.080(a): Program Execution
• Adds a reference to strategic plans
• Removes desired results as an exception to the
agencies' authority to execute their programs
Section 18:
Amends section AS 37.07.080(d): Program Execution
• Clarifies that salary increases must be in
accordance with strategic and performance plans
as well as any annual operations plan
Section 19:
Adds a new section AS 37.07.085: Performance Plan and
Financial Plan
• Each agency shall develop annual performance and
financial consistent with the strategic plan
• Plans must be submitted to Legislative Finance,
the Senate, and the House by December 15th of
each year
• The Performance plan must include:
o Description of the agency's program structure
and any proposed changes
o Identification of each program
square4 Constitutional and/or statutory authority
square4 A program purpose statement which describes
the services provided, the customers served
by the program, the benefit or intended
outcome of the program
o Identify performance measures which contribute
to progress towards the agency's strategic plan
square4 Identify goals and objectives that each
performance measure corresponds to
o Identify results for each performance measure
over the past four fiscal years
o Identify performance targets for each
performance measure for the succeeding fiscal
year
• The financial plan must include:
o Revenue and expenditures for each program for
the prior four fiscal years
o Breakdowns of revenue and expenditures for each
program: Amounts received by each revenue
source and amounts expended on each type of
expenditure
o Estimates of revenue and expenditures for
current and next fiscal year
o Budget requested to carry out proposed plans of
the agency in succeeding fiscal year
o Expenditures authorized for current fiscal year
o Expenditures proposed for succeeding fiscal
year
o Number or positions employed or under contract
o Cost of services provided by each program
o Report of receipts of agency for expenditures
made during prior year, estimate for current
year, and estimate for next year
o Identification of legislation required to
implement the proposed financial plan
o Other information as necessary
• OMB shall assist in preparation of performance
and financial plans.
• If any state agency fails to submit these plans,
the plans may be prepared by OMB
• Once each calendar quarter, each agency must
prepare and present a performance report
o Identification of performance measures and
related goals and objectives
o Results for each performance measure and
progress towards target
• All performance and financial plan documents and
reports are public information once forwarded to
OMB.
• All plans and reports must be published on a
publicly available internet website
• Performance plans must be developed with employee
participation
Section 20:
Adds new paragraphs to AS 37.07.120: Definitions
• Goal: A broad statement generally describing a
desired outcome for an agency or a program of the
agency
• Objective: A measurable target that describes the
end result that a service or program is expected
to accomplish in a given amount of time
• Performance Measure: A quantifiable and enduring
measure of an outcome, output, efficiency, or
effectiveness
• Strategic plan: A strategic plan developed under
AS 37.07.050
Section 21:
Amends Section AS 44.66.020(c): Agency Programs
• Removes reference to previous method of mission
and measures
Section 22:
Amends Section AS 44.66.020(d): Agency Programs
• Removes reference to previous method of agency
priorities
Section 23:
Amends Section AS 44.66.050(a): Legislative Oversight
• Updates the new 65---reference to the budget of
boards and commissions
12:43:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that much of this
information would be relatively easy to have when there is
continuity in the administration from one year to the next.
However, he posited, in the case of a new administration,
some of the deadlines would be very early on.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN replied that there may be work that
could be done on the cadence, but even now a new governor
must respond quickly when coming into office. He allowed
the bill isn't a fix for everything, but said the
difference is that a new governor would be coming into an
organization that was aligned along the concept of four-
year strategic plans updated bi-annually and then the
execution plans that go with it. A new governor would be
coming into an organization that was more aligned to
achieving strategic objectives, he continued, and therefore
the system would be more able to integrate the new
governor's strategic objectives as actual deliverables for
the budgeting process, and then once budgeted, for the
ensuing goal driven management process.
12:45:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE drew attention to the hierarchy
depicted on slide 6 and asked how the legislature's role
would change if HB 376 was enacted.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN responded that the difference is
moving down the setting of goals to the people who are
doing the work, which moves it closer to the customer,
which gets better alignment along a strategic high-level
plan, as opposed to setting that in some cases
legislatively.
12:47:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE offered his understanding that it
would remove the goal setting process from the legislature
and put it into the hands of the executive. He asked
whether at that point the legislature would be sitting by
to let the executive navigate that process on its own. He
further asked whether the executive would then have to come
to the legislature for approval of those goals.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN answered that the annual budgeting
process would include the goal and implementation of the
goal. This would be a more vibrant discussion, he said,
than just saying what was spent last year and how the
agency did. It would get into a leaner discussion, he
continued, meaning a more focused, more effective
discussion of achieving the desired results: What was the
mission? What was the outcome? What was measured? How
well was the funding used to do what [the agency] said it
would do? If the target wasn't met, how will the target be
met in the future? Representative Kaufman stated that at a
very high level the orientation of the programs is designed
into the legislation that creates the program. If the
legislature creates a program, he continued, there is a
legislative intent on what it does and that flows down to
the granular level of program management within the
structure of the agency. The legislature wouldn't be out
of the picture, he stated, it would be a different role,
more like a board would approach a chief executive with
everyone understanding what the mission is, and what is
being judged is how well that mission is being implemented.
12:49:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE related that in his experience
sitting on boards, the board sets objectives, then the
executive creates a management plan with key results, and
the executive comes back to the board with updates on how
that is going.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ interjected that the other difference
between a board and a legislature is that a board hires and
fires the CEO, which is a key way that the board drives
focusing in on the goals the board has set, whereas a
legislature does not do that.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN clarified that it was just an
analogy for illustrative purposes.
MR. HARVEY explained [the bill] would remove issuance of
mission and desired results. He said several departments
and agency subunits have their mission set in statute and
the programs defined in statute with legislative intent, so
that will be defined still. The program execution part of
the Executive Budget Act, he continued, still says the role
of the executive branch is to execute the laws as written
by the legislature, so they will fulfill that intent. The
goals, objectives, performance measures, and targets, he
stated, will be set by the executive branch for how it can
best fulfill the legislative intent by using the mission
statements, many of them set by the legislature in statute.
So, Mr. Harvey summarized, it is removing the words
issuance of mission and desired results and setting up a
performance system, but it is baking the performance system
into the Executive Budget Act and the mission and
legislative intent of programs will still be in statute.
12:52:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked why it would only be up to the
governor. He noted that OMB creates many reports, and lots
of these reports are required by the legislature. He
observed that [HB 376] would implement a four-year plan, a
two-year update, an annual report, and a quarterly report.
He surmised that this would be a lot of labor and that the
fiscal note reflects additional labor requirements. The
sponsor seems to have a bone to pick with boards and
commissions, he contended, and many of the requirements
that would be made of them informally would be similar to
what are made of departments. He asked whether boards and
commissions are a particular problem that the sponsor is
trying to solve.
MR. HARVEY replied that it's what boards and commissions do
now. He related that the sponsor didn't want to include
them in strategic plans, financials, and performance plans
as required of agencies. He said it's more an organization
of what is currently in .050, the agency program and
financial plan's mission statement section, which puts all
of this in one section by organizing it and making some of
it a longer-term cycle. The boards and commissions would
only have to do some of that work every other year in
planning for four years. It isn't necessarily a new
report, it's splitting it out into a longer-term cadence
for planning and reporting some of that information.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that some of this seems more
applicable in corporate settings with CEOs and boards that
don't change every two to four years and there is not so
much tension between components of the organization as
there is here. He said he questions whether this would
work but allowed that the sponsor has references to state
governments that have implemented some of these techniques.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN responded that currently the fiscal
note is indeterminate because of the possibility that this
could be a net reduction in what is produced in the budget
books, which are massive and take a lot of work. He
related that HB 376 was a daunting 10-month project, so he
realizes the bill is daunting to hear. He said the reason
wasn't to turn corporate, but rather how to fit a
continuous improvement process within state government as
has been done elsewhere. The nexus for all this is the
Executive Budget Act, not so much as the quality
improvement part of it, but more of the alignment of
processes around strategic planning and better long-term
planning. In looking at the cadence of planning, he
stated, four years matches the election cycle and seemed
about right. Others have done five years for various
reasons and that could be something to look at, he noted,
but the net result should be less work, not more.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN continued his response. He stated
that currently everything is messy and very hard to sort
through because it evolved over time. Creating this new
platform would open the door for quality management, he
said, but presently there is no alignment with that because
of not running on strategic plans which would give a high-
level view to allow the whole executive branch to be
aligned along a strategic plan and more standardized. The
more standardized, the easier it is to measure because
similar styles are being looked at while dealing with the
different pieces, he advised. For example, auditing a
well-run company is remarkably easy because everything is
apparent, present, and presentable, but auditing a company
that is having trouble is a slog because it is hard to get
what is needed for the audit and people are running around
hair on fire. This is an opportunity to simplify the
process, he stated, even though it may not seem like it
because of the volume of material presented today. Once
this is worked through, he continued, the Finance Committee
will have a much tighter deliverable that gets at the meat
and potatoes of what needs to be done, how it is being
done, how it is being funded, what the changes are, and so
forth. The goal is a tighter package that is more relevant
while looking at budgeting. The legislature, he added,
would be thinking in a more strategic long-term cadence
like the military Department of Defense graph where DOD is
not saying, "What are we going to spend?" but instead
saying, "Where are we trying to get over that longer term
four-year planning period."
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ stated that the legislature must look at
what passage of this bill would mean now and into the
future, and the indeterminate fiscal note strikes her as
not fully accurate of the short-term fiscal impacts. She
agreed that results-based management could get to saving
money down the line but argued that in the short term this
would create a significant amount of work for any
administration that is responsible for implementing this
totally new process, which is worth pursuing. She said the
goals of HB 376 are commendable.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ drew attention to Section 6 which describes
the legislature's responsibility to review and integrate
financial plans into performance plans. She asked whether
this isn't something the administration should be doing and
then the legislature would review the administration's
proposal when the legislature reviews the plans and budget.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN answered that when it says to review
and analyze [the legislature] is looking at a strategic
plan and mission statement and understanding it within the
context of the annual budget cycle.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ stated that the bill's proposal to move the
results-based management and the planning process from the
legislature to the administration makes sense since the
administration does the operations and execution of
administration. But, she continued, it looks here that the
legislature is being asked to implement something that is
being proposed by the administration. She said having the
administration do that makes more sense and then the
legislature approves or disapproves that, given the
legislature doesn't do implementation.
MR. HARVEY replied that OMB would still be responsible for
compiling and working with the agencies to produce the
performance plan and the financial plan. The legislature
would still be responsible for the appropriation process,
he continued, to ensure that the legislative intent and the
legislative and statutory mission statements can be met and
to ensure the performance plan can be executed, which
includes the program structures and performance measures.
He related that if the legislature funds part of the
financial plan then it could change the program structure,
which would mean that they would have to come back with an
update on the performance plan and the financial plan,
similar to what they currently do with an authorized budget
and a management plan. He further related that after it
passes conference committee the financial plan could
change, likely will change, which means that they would
have to come back with an authorized performance plan and
financial plan.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ remarked that one of the tensions with this
planning process is the possibility of situations where the
administration approves and puts forth a plan but then the
legislature says, "Not so fast." An interesting tension in
government, she continued, is that government is defined to
be efficient in some respects because of the three
branches, but this makes it difficult to be efficient in
the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN responded that a recent example was
in Legislative Budget and Audit (LB&A) where the cure for
an audit finding was to hire two personnel to provide a
certain function. He said LB&A made sure the finance
subcommittee was aware that this was linked to the audit
finding and not adding staff for no reason. That is an
example, he added, of how having understanding in the
legislature helps achieve goals. He agreed with the chair
that it can be a challenge.
1:06:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY drew attention to the pyramid depicted
on slide 6 and suggested making the top wide to include the
governor and the legislature because they represent the
people. The governor and legislature need to come up with
the statewide priorities and goals, she posited, because
they are equal bodies of governance. This would result in
common goals, she continued, so that when administrations
change there won't be a long deviation in the plan. She
pointed out that boards and commissions and their executive
directors spend time together coming up with a plan and in
school districts the superintendents talk to their board
members and their communities. Representative Story
related that in her experience with school boards it costs
a lot of money to do evaluations of programs that are truly
unbiased. In the human needs arena, she added, it takes
commitment of revenues to truly measure how an intervention
is working under the Department of Health and Social
Services. She asked if HB 376 would apply to state
corporations and if they are accounted for in the bill.
MR. HARVEY answered that he believes the Executive Budget
Act does not apply to all state corporations. He said it
would include the University of Alaska but would not
include the Alaska Railroad Corporation which is not
subject to the EBA. He said he would get back to the
committee with a list.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY agreed with receiving a list and
suggested the committee also receive a different top
structure.
1:10:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN responded to Representative Story
that he appreciates the difficulty of making good
performance measures and not spending time and effort
measuring the wrong thing. He asserted that there is a
huge cultural opportunity to get better at measuring
performance, and the goal to reduce cost is really the goal
is to improve. He said every inefficient thing has a high
opportunity cost, not just a monetary cost and that is a
big part of it. He related that he loved the human side of
his career in quality management because somebody's
wellbeing in their job could often be improved by simply
finding the right things and fixing the right things. The
opportunity and the challenge with this bill, he continued,
is to make it all work well together. He allowed it's
going to be a long haul and he appreciates discussions
about how to improve outcomes. He said the permanent fund
is an example of excellence in Alaska's system and the
reason why is that an enterprise management type model was
adopted, and there are opportunities in the other sectors
of Alaska's government as well.
[HB 376 was held over.]
1:14:24 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the
House Special Committee on Ways and Means meeting was
adjourned at 1:14 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 376 Presentation 3.8.22.pdf |
HW&M 3/8/2022 11:30:00 AM |
HB 376 |
| HB 376 Fiscal Note, OMB, 3.7.22.pdf |
HW&M 3/8/2022 11:30:00 AM |
HB 376 |
| HB 376 Sectional Analysis 3.7.22.pdf |
HW&M 3/8/2022 11:30:00 AM |
HB 376 |
| HB 376 Sponsor Statement 3.7.22.pdf |
HW&M 3/8/2022 11:30:00 AM |
HB 376 |
| HB 376 Supporting Document - Leg Research Report.pdf |
HW&M 3/8/2022 11:30:00 AM |
HB 376 |