Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/24/1998 03:40 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 76 - STATE LONG-TERM PLANNING
SENATOR PARNELL presented SB 76, which, he said, fosters government
that gets results and encourages communication between the
Legislature and the Administration. He said this legislation amends
the Executive Budget Act to foster results-based government. He
explained the bill empowers the Legislature to establish mission
statements and desired results for the Administration. SENATOR
PARNELL stated that the guts of the bill mandates the legislature
allocate the state's resources for effective and efficient public
service by clearly identifying desired results, setting priorities,
assigning accountability and using methods for measuring, recording
and reporting results. SENATOR PARNELL commented that for too long
the system has been mushy and that because of this, discussions of
policy never even occur. He hopes this bill will set forth a state
policy where the focus on is getting results.
MR. JACK FARGNOLI, representing the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) stated that his testimony is essentially unchanged from his
comments previously. He said he could not agree more with the
concept of the bill but is concerned with some legal issues and
fears it may be difficult to meld Legislative and Executive efforts
into an orderly budget. MR. FARGNOLI also said the bill's timing is
premature and he expressed concern with the vague usage of the term
"mission statement." He does not know exactly how the process of
issuance of these mission statements would occur or what the intent
behind this provision is. JACK FARGNOLI said his understanding is
the Legislature fulfills its plenary powers in the enactment of
legislation and the Governor fulfills his plenary powers in the
process of providing guidance for these laws. He said something in
between these might be desirable, but he's unable to tell from the
bill. MR. FARGNOLI expressed uncertainty of what would be left in
statute and worry over the resulting confusion he envisions. He
proposed this area of the bill needs to be firmed up and said he
would leave discussion of the legal issues to MR. JIM BALDWIN from
the Department of Law. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for clarification of
his primary concern and he explained it was the phrase "issue a
mission statement." He said he did not know if this was meant to be
a statutory process and how it would be handled. His concern is the
possible problem resulting from a mission statement conveyed from
the Legislature that is contradictory to a department's existing
mission statement in statute.
MR. JIM BALDWIN, from the Department of Law, began by saying he
likes the concept of results-based budgeting and has seen it gain
widespread national support. He explained that the problem with the
bill is constitutional. Article 2, section 13, of the Alaska
Constitution limits what can be done in an appropriation bill. He
said it is unclear whether the intent of the bill is to have this
mission statement included in the appropriation's bill, and said
this would cause a problem as an appropriation bill must be
confined to appropriations. He said this confinement provision is
fairly unique to Alaska and makes it difficult to relate other
states' experience to ours. He concluded that this is such a good
concept, he would not want to see it bogged down in a debate over
the meaning and effect of intent statements in the budget. MR.
BALDWIN said his reading of the word issue in the bill, with the
knowledge that the job of the Legislature is to enact legislation,
says the issuance of a mission statement would affect an agency's
mission by affecting what law it operates under. MR. BALDWIN said
a mission statement might be enacted into law, which is within the
power of the Legislature, or that it might be done by regulation
with a collaboration of both Legislative and Administration input.
He offered the committee a copy of the Florida bill as an example
of how another state has approached this collaborative method.
MR. BALDWIN discussed other issues within the bill. He mentioned
the truth in budgeting provision and said this would be a problem
if it were enacted into law. He remarked that the Administration
has no trouble with being truthful in budgeting, but said it is a
matter of definition as to when a deficit is a deficit. He observed
that the Governor's power to submit a budget derives from the
Constitution and he questions the validity of a statute that tells
the Governor how to characterize his own budget. He believes this
is a matter of separation of powers, and this appears to be an
attempt to define a purely Executive power by statute. MR. BALDWIN
said the repeal in section 10 of the bill is appropriate and
consistent with a court ruling which determined that statute
invalid.
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that enacting a mission statement into law
might be problematic, as she assumes mission statements are
somewhat fluid over time.
MR. BALDWIN said the establishment of a mission statement is a
blend of Executive and Legislative powers and one of the concerns
is that the bill does not specify whether the process could be
characterized as top down or meeting in the middle. He would
anticipate problems with a top down process in such a complex
issue. He stated that some aspects of a mission statement may not
be amenable to being put into statute. He also noted the possible
dilemma that would result from a mission statement that conflicts
with statute.
SENATOR WARD asked if the Florida bill is currently law. MR.
BALDWIN did not know, but said he was interested by it because of
the collaborative process it employs in creating mission
statements. He found it on the Internet. SENATOR WARD said the
process does not work unless there is cooperation.
MS. CHERYL FRASCA, a former budgeteer, came forward to speak to the
value of the Legislature expressing its expectations regarding the
information on performance and results that is being requested in
SB 76.
TAPE 98-8, SIDE B
Number 001
MS. FRASCA emphasized the importance of having the Legislature work
with the Governor for a framework and a process to use information
to make better budget decisions. She wanted to lend support for
legislation that will lay out this framework.
SENATOR PARNELL appreciated this discussion. He indicated that the
Legislature is the policy making body of the state and is a coequal
power, not a top down body. With respect to the Executive branch,
he said this is not an attempt to step on their veto power and
rule-making power, only to say that the Legislature is going to
establish policy. SENATOR PARNELL answered the question raised
about the issuance of a mission statement, saying he purposefully
left the bill flexible in an attempt to establish a collaborative
process and foster discussion with the agencies.
SENATOR PARNELL believed MR. BALDWIN thought a mission statement
would be included in an appropriation bill due to the word
"legislation" appearing on page 2, line 12. SENATOR PARNELL
suggested this word should be changed to "Legislature." He said his
bill is flexible enough to put missions and desired results in
statute or be enacted as intent language.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked what would happen if there was a conflict
between a department's statutory responsibilities and a given
mission statement. SENATOR PARNELL replied that departments'
missions are somewhat defined in statute and mission statements
must be in compliance with that law or the law could be changed. He
said there could be no conflict. SENATOR PARNELL did say the
activities used to achieve the mission are up to the Executive
Branch.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked about the issue regarding truth in budgeting
and SENATOR PARNELL responded that he had no answer for MR.
BALDWIN's question regarding the constitutionality of these
sections. He said he found it rather interesting and the intent was
only to ensure that what the Legislature hears in December mirrors
the bill they see in January. SENATOR PARNELL noted in the past
those two paths have diverged, but said he is not wed to these
sections.
CHAIRMAN GREEN commented that she sees the intent of the bill and
likes it. SENATOR WARD asked SENATOR PARNELL if he had looked at
the Florida bill. SENATOR PARNELL had not but said MR. BALDWIN's
description of the process of the bill whereby the Governor sets
the mission statement and the Legislature follows along, seems the
reverse of the Alaska Constitution and the Legislature's role of
setting policy. He said to him that appears to be a top down
approach. SENATOR PARNELL observed that it seemed as if the
Administration was offering the Florida bill as a solution. He said
when he was working on the bill initially he had asked for
cooperation from a top official in the Governor's office, he had
incorporated every requested change from them into a work draft
that was subsequently rejected. In light of that, he plans to work
within the committee process on this bill.
SENATOR PARNELL said he had two small changes. SENATOR WARD moved
the change from legislation to Legislature on page 2, line 12 as
amendment #1. Without objection, it was so ordered.
SENATOR PARNELL said page 6, lines 22-24 the words "goals and
objectives" should be deleted and replaced with "missions and
desired results." He said "missions and desired results" would also
replace the words "goals and objectives" at the end of line 23.
SENATOR WARD moved the above change as amendment #2 and without
objection, it was so ordered.
SENATOR WARD then made a motion to move CSSB 76(STA) from committee
with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
Without objection, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|