Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/03/1998 03:00 PM House 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."
Co-Chair Therriault provided members with Amendment 1 at the
request of the Office of Management and Budget (copy on
file).
Page 1, Line 9:
Change: "issue"
To: "adopt"
Page 1, Line 11:
Change: "issue"
To: "adopt"
Page 1, Line 12:
Delete: "should represent the priorities of the
majority of state residents and"
Page 3, Line 12:
Change: "issued"
To: "adopted"
Page 3, Line 12:
Change: "the guide"
To: "a guide"
Page 3, Line 13:
After the word "law", insert:
"unless contrary to law "
Page 3, Lines 13 - 14:
Delete: "The governor shall assure that each agency
complies with the mission statement and
achieves the desired results identified by the
legislature."
Page 4, Line 14:
Replace: "each agency shall, on a quarterly basis,
identify"
With: " each agency shall report periodically on"
Page 4, Line 16:
Change: "issued"
To: "adopted"
Page 4, Line 19:
Replace: ".legislative finance division. The
information must"
With: ".legislative finance division; this
information must"
Page 4, Line 29:
Change: "issued"
To: "adopted"
Page 5, Line 3:
Change: "issued"
To: "adopted"
Page 5, Lines 23 - 25:
Delete: All of subsection (12); i.e., lines 23 - 25,
inclusive.
Page 6, Line 16:
Change: "issued"
To: "adopted"
Page 6, Line 24:
Change: "issued"
To: "adopted"
Page 6:
Insert new section, to read as follows:
* Sec. 10 Transition.
(a) To provide for an orderly implementation of the
process envisioned in sections 1-9, sections 1-9
shall apply to:
(1) two departments of the executive branch, to
be selected jointly by the legislature and the
governor, in the preparation of their fiscal year
2000 operating budgets, and
(2) all departments and agencies of the
executive branch in the preparation of their
operating budgets for fiscal year 2001 and
afterwards.
(b) Mission statements, desired results, performance
measures, and the frequency of performance reporting
for departments under (a)(1) shall be issued by the
legislature through a concurrent resolution.
(c) The finance committees of the legislature and the
office of management and budget shall jointly formulate
procedures and timetables for applying the provisions
of sections 1-9 under (a)(1) and under (a)(2).
Procedures shall address, at a minimum, how agency
missions may be issued or established, and modified;
how aspects of agency performance should be selected
for measurement; how performance-related information
should be collected and reported, including the
frequency of reporting; how performance assessment
activity should be incorporated into the executive
branch and legislative branch budget processes; and how
costs associated with the adoption of performance
assessment should be identified.
(d) The finance committees of the legislature and the
office of management and budget shall publish the
results of their efforts and their recommendations
under (c) no later than October 1, 1998.
Recommendations shall include the identification of
issues or problems, which have not been resolved, and
options for resolving them.
(e) In its fiscal year 2000 operating budget
instructions to departments, after consultation
with the legislature, the office of management
and budget shall include as much or as many of
the procedures and timetables published under
(d) as it deems practicable. Upon issuance of
the instructions, the office of management and
budget shall identify in writing to the finance
committees the procedures or timetables
published under (d) which it has chosen not to
include, and its reasons for not including
them.
(f) No later than January 15, 1999, the office of
management and budget shall submit to the finance
committees in writing:
(1) its findings regarding the adequacy of the
procedures and timetables adopted under (e),
(2) its findings regarding cost impacts
experienced by departments under (a)(1),
(3) its recommendations regarding application of
the provisions of sections 1-9 under (a)(2), and
(4) Any proposals for clarifying amendments or
legislation, which it may consider, appropriate.
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to ADOPT New Amendment 1.
JACK FARGNOLI, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR discussed New Amendment
1. He explained that the amendment has two pieces. One
piece is the transition section. The other part conforms to
the transition section. He explained that the transition
section would describe a transition period and a set of
activities. During the next budget cycle two departments
would implement mission statements and performance measures.
The two departments would be selected jointly by the
legislature and the governor. This would be for preparation
of their fiscal year 2000 operating budgets. Mission
statements and performance measures would be included for
all departments and agencies for the fiscal year 2001 and
every year thereafter. The mission statements and
performance measures would be included in a concurrent
resolution. This would avoid intent language in the
operating budget. He maintained that a concurrent
resolution would be the simplest form to put the principles
forward. He maintained that there would be no intent
language conflicts. The resolution would be for the year
2000.
Mr. Fargnoli explained that subsection (c) would provide
that the finance committees of the legislature work with the
Office of Management and Budget to jointly formulate
procedures and timetables. The details of the process would
be worked out.
Mr. Fargnoli noted that by Oct 1, 1999 the findings and
recommendations of the joint effort would be published. Any
areas that remain unresolved would be identified.
Mr. Fargnoli observed that subsection (f) provides that the
Office of Management and Budget include as much of the
procedures and timetables published under (d) as it deems
practicable. The Office of Management and Budget would
identify in writing areas not included, and its reasons for
not including them.
Mr. Fargnoli explained that Office of Management and Budget
would, no later than January 15, 1999, submit to the finance
committees in writing:
(1) Findings regarding the adequacy of the
procedures and timetables adopted under (e),
(2) Findings regarding cost impacts experienced by
departments under (a)(1),
(3) Recommendations regarding application of the
provisions of sections 1-9 under (a)(2), and
(4) Any proposals for clarifying amendments or
legislation, which it may consider, appropriate.
Mr. Fargnoli clarified that "adopted" was substituted for
"issue" to reflect that a resolution would be adopted.
Mr. Fargnoli stated that "unless contrary to law " was added
to clarify the separation of powers.
SENATOR SEAN PARNELL discussed New Amendment 1. He stated
that the amendment fails to recognize that mission
statements can already be statutes. Additional mission
statements could be implemented through intent language,
statute or adoption of a resolution. He maintained that the
amendment would restrict mission statements and performance
measures. He asserted that the current language is more
open. He felt that New Amendment 1 would add unnecessary
tonnage. He acknowledged that the process may be going in
the direction of the amendment but stressed that it is
premature. He maintained that New Amendment 1 would add
unnecessary cost.
Senator Parnell expressed his willingness to change the
reporting requirement to semi annual. He stated that one
report can come at the end of the fiscal year and the next
report can be submitted with the budget. He supported the
change to page 4, line 19:
Replace: ".legislative finance division. The
information must"
With: ".legislative finance division; this
information must"
Senator Parnell stated that "unless contrary to law" is
already assumed.
Representative Grussendorf asked if the deletion on page 1,
line 12, "should represent the priorities of the majority of
state residents and" is also assumed. Senator Parnell
acknowledged that if something is enacted into statute that
it can be assumed that it represents the majority of the
State.
Senator Parnell reiterated that the transition section is
more complicated than what he thinks is warranted.
Representative Davies noted that the legislation provides on
page 3, line 20 that the budget must be accompanied by the
information required under ASA 37.07.050. He maintained
that the legislation requires 100 percent participation and
does not allow flexibility.
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to divide New Amendment 1.
Amendment 1A would begin with the addition of a new section
on page 6:
Insert new section, to read as follows:
* Sec. 10 Transition.
(b) To provide for an orderly implementation of the
process envisioned in sections 1-9, sections 1-9
shall apply to:
(1) two departments of the executive branch, to
be selected jointly by the legislature and the
governor, in the preparation of their fiscal year
2000 operating budgets, and
(3) all departments and agencies of the
executive branch in the preparation of their
operating budgets for fiscal year 2001 and
afterwards.
(b) Mission statements, desired results, performance
measures, and the frequency of performance reporting
for departments under (a)(1) shall be issued by the
legislature through a concurrent resolution.
(c) The finance committees of the legislature and the
office of management and budget shall jointly formulate
procedures and timetables for applying the provisions
of sections 1-9 under (a)(1) and under (a)(2).
Procedures shall address, at a minimum, how agency
missions may be issued or established, and modified;
how aspects of agency performance should be selected
for measurement; how performance-related information
should be collected and reported, including the
frequency of reporting; how performance assessment
activity should be incorporated into the executive
branch and legislative branch budget processes; and how
costs associated with the adoption of performance
assessment should be identified.
(d) The finance committees of the legislature and the
office of management and budget shall publish the
results of their efforts and their recommendations
under (c) no later than October 1, 1998.
Recommendations shall include the identification of
issues or problems, which have not been resolved, and
options for resolving them.
(f) In its fiscal year 2000 operating budget
instructions to departments, after consultation
with the legislature, the office of management
and budget shall include as much or as many of
the procedures and timetables published under
(d) as it deems practicable. Upon issuance of
the instructions, the office of management and
budget shall identify in writing to the finance
committees the procedures or timetables
published under (d) which it has chosen not to
include, and its reasons for not including
them.
(f) No later than January 15, 1999, the office of
management and budget shall submit to the finance
committees in writing:
(1) its findings regarding the adequacy of the
procedures and timetables adopted under (e),
(2) its findings regarding cost impacts
experienced by departments under (a)(1),
(3) its recommendations regarding application of
the provisions of sections 1-9 under (a)(2), and
(4) Any proposals for clarifying amendments or
legislation, which it may consider, appropriate.
Co-Chair Hanley referred to subsection 1(a)(1) and (2). He
spoke in support of doing a smaller subset of the entire
process on the first year.
RICHARD VITALE, STAFF, SENATOR SEAN PARNELL observed that
all of the agencies are currently submitting mission
statements. He pointed out that adoption of subsection
1(a)(1) and (2) would reverse the current process. He
acknowledged that the intent was that the process be on a
deeper level for two agencies. Representative Davies
acknowledged that the agencies have been issuing mission
statements. He emphasized that the difference is that the
Legislature and the Administration are now having a
discussion and are reaching a consensus about the mission
statements. He maintained that the joint discussion process
should be limited. Mr. Vitale agreed with Representative
Davies' assessment, but pointed out that subsection 1(a)(1)
and (2) by themselves do not mandate joint discussion. The
legislation would begin joint discussions during the
session.
Senator Parnell agreed that collaboration and coordination
is needed between the legislative and executive branches.
He observed that the effort has been present during the
current year. The legislation's intent is to codify the
process.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Representative
Davies noted that agencies are required to submit their
mission statements on page 3, line 20 and on page 5, lines
27. Senator Parnell added that existing law under AS
37.07.050 says that each state agency on the date and in the
form prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget shall
prepare the goals and objectives of the agency's programs
and the proposed plans to implement goals and objectives.
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to amend Amendment 1A by
deleting subsections (b) through (g).
Representative Davies stressed that the difference between
Amendment 1A and current statute is that the amendment
directs a joint effort of the Legislature and the
Administration to focus on two departments. Senator
Parnell felt that the amendment would short-circuit the
joint process that has taken place during the 1998 session.
Representative Grussendorf pointed out that a new
administration may not be as cooperative.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1A was amended.
Insert new section, to read as follows:
* Sec. 10
Transition. (a) To provide for an orderly
implementation of the process envisioned in sections 1-
9, sections 1-9 shall apply to:
(1) Two departments of the executive branch, to be
selected jointly by the legislature and the
governor, in the preparation of their fiscal year
2000 operating budgets.
(2) All departments and agencies of the executive
branch in the preparation of their operating
budgets for fiscal year 2001 and afterwards.
Representative Davis spoke in support of Amendment 1A. He
expressed concern that the full process would be required
during the first year under the legislation. Senator
Parnell emphasized that the agencies already engage in the
process.
Representative Davies stressed that the process during the
1998 session has been different that previous years. Time
was spent in committees and subcommittees working jointly
with the legislature and the executive branch. Results
Based Government was focuses on coming to consensus about
the mission statements. He pointed out that mission
statements have been issued in previous years, but were not
discussed. A lot of the difficult discussion centered on
measuring success. He felt that the legislation was a
little premature. He spoke in support of a measured
approach to phase in the process and allow flexibility.
Co-Chair Hanley referred to section one of CSSB 76 (RLS).
He asked how the Legislature would issue a mission
statement. Senator Parnell envisioned mission statements as
taking the form of intent language in the operating budget.
He stated that he wants to encourage coordination and
cooperation between the legislative and executive branches.
Mission statements by the Legislature could also be put into
statute or adopted in a resolution. Co-Chair Hanley pointed
out that the House and Senate may not always agree on the
mission statement. Senator Parnell stated that whatever is
enacted into law would represent the majority of the
legislators. Co-Chair Therriault stated that negotiated
intent language is the easiest route.
Representative Grussendorf emphasized that a lot of time
would be spent on letters of intent. He stressed that there
would be nothing to stop letters of intent by individual
legislators that are parochial in nature. He questioned if
the conference committee would want to struggle over mission
statements.
Representative Grussendorf spoke in support of Amendment 1A.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Davies, Grussendorf
OPPOSED: Mulder, Davis, Kelly, Therriault, Hanley
Representatives Kohring, Martin, Moses and Foster were
absent from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-5).
Representative Grussendorf did not move Amendment 1B.
Representative Grussendorf questioned if language on page 5,
lines 23 - 25 should be deleted: "include an evaluation of
the advantages and disadvantages of specific alternatives to
existing or proposed agency activities or administrative
methods. Senator Parnell emphasized that the language is in
current law. Mr. Fargnoli spoke in support of the deletion.
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2,
delete on page 5, lines 23 - 25. Senator Parnell spoke
against the amendment. He emphasized that it is helpful to
have evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of
specific alternatives. He questioned if existing law is
being followed. Representative Davis spoke in favor of the
amendment. Co-Chair Hanley suspected that the Division is
not fulfilling the requirement of the language.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Davies, Davis, Grussendorf
OPPOSED: Mulder, Foster, Kelly, Hanley, Therriault
Representatives Martin, Moses and Kohring were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (3-5).
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, to
change "quarterly" to "semi annually". There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4, on
page 4, line 19:
Replace: ".legislative finance division. The information
must"
With: ".legislative finance division; this
information must"
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5, on
page 3, lines 13 and 14, Delete: "The governor shall
assure that each agency complies with the mission statement
and achieves the desired results identified by the
legislature."
Mr. Vitale observed that Senator Parnell does not support
the deletion.
Representative Davies MOVED to AMEND the amendment, to add
"The governor shall assure that each agency complies with
the mission statement and strives to achieve the desired
results identified by the legislature."
Mr. Vitale thought that the sponsor would accept the
amendment to the amendment.
Representative Kelly questioned if "good faith effort" would
be preferable. He pointed out that "good faith effort" is
defined in law.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to amend Amendment
5.
IN FAVOR: Davies, Grussendorf, Hanley
OPPOSED: Davis, Foster, Kelly, Mulder, Therriault
Representatives Kohring, Moses and Martin were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (3-5).
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
5.
IN FAVOR: Davies, Grussendorf, Hanley
OPPOSED: Davis, Foster, Kelly, Mulder, Therriault
Representatives Kohring, Moses and Martin were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (3-5).
Representative Davis MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 6, on page 1,
line 12 Delete: "should represent the priorities of the
majority of state residents and." Co-Chair Hanley spoke in
support of the amendment. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 7, on page 3,
line 12, change "the guide" to "a guide."
Mr. Vitale stated that the only guides that the governor
should have are the statutes. Co-Chair Hanley questioned if
mission statements are defined as statutes. He spoke in
support of the amendment. He maintained that the governor
should consider intent language passed by the legislature as
a statement of the legislature.
Representative Davies pointed out that statues for the
Department of Natural Resources exist in several titles. He
questioned which is the mission statement. Senator Parnell
pointed out that it depends on which division is being
looked at. If the mission statement is not clearly defined
in statute than they may be found in intent language passed
by the legislature.
Representative Davies maintained that what constitutes a
mission statement for an agency is ambiguous.
Representative Davis spoke in support of the amendment.
Senator Parnell stated that he did not object to the
amendment.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 7 was adopted.
Representative Davies referred to Article II, Section 13 of
the Alaska State Constitution. The Constitution states that
"bills for appropriation shall be confined to
appropriations." He cautioned that mission statements that
have the effect of statute should not be in an appropriation
bill.
Representative Grussendorf spoke in support of changing
"issue" to "adopt".
Representative Mulder MOVED to report HCS CSSB 76 (FIN) out
of Committee with the accompanying fiscal note.
HCS CSSB was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with zero fiscal note by the Senator
Finance Committee, 3/20/98.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|