Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/23/1999 01:40 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. 49
"An Act relating to missions and measures to be applied
to certain expenditures by the executive branch of
state government and the University of Alaska from the
state operating budget for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1999; and providing for an effective date."
SENATOR SEAN PARNELL commented that when the Legislature
passed last year's operating budget (Sec. 31, Ch.137, SLA
1998), it passed missions and measures as intent language.
That was the Legislature's effort to comply with its
obligations related to results based budgeting as expressed
in the Executive Budget Act. The Governor vetoed the
missions and measures from the FY 99 operating budget bill.
Senator Parnell pointed out that SB 49 would enact missions
and measures into substantive law rather than through an
appropriation bill. SB 49 would specifically apply only to
the FY 1999 appropriations contained in the operating budget
bill passed last year, Sec. 21, Ch. 137, SLA 1998. No new
missions or measures have been implemented or drafted as
part of the bill.
He continued that minor changes had been made to last year's
missions and measures and that all those changes were
technical in nature. In the Senate Finance Committee, a new
immunity section was added to Page 24, Section #2, at the
request of Senator Adams. Senator Parnell concluded that it
was time to provide the subcommittees a tool to implement
Results Based Budgeting and hold departments accountable for
spending.
Co-Chair Therriault requested Senator Parnell to highlight
the areas of change from last year's legislation. Senator
Parnell noted that there are six areas of change. On Page
2, Lines 10-12, the information services date was changed.
Page 5, Line 11 contains new language. The third change was
to the section that referenced a community mental health
program, which was deleted; Page 12, Lines 6-22, initially
indicated only services available at McLaughlin not at the
other youth correction facilities, and that language was
changed. On Page 13, Line 6, a typo correction was made;
Page 15, Line 8, a hyphen draft change, and lastly, the
addition of the immunity section.
Representative Grussendorf pointed out that the legislation
was aimed at the current fiscal year, although, in the
supplemental, many of these areas are not being funded.
Senator Parnell noted that concern should be addressed in
budget subcommittees. SB 49 would be applicable to the
operating budget passed last year. The numbers are valid as
they were passed, and will be adjusted in the appropriation
bill. A companion bill in the future will pass with the
operating budget and each subcommittee would then consider
if a supplemental would be needed.
Representative Grussendorf inquired if an allocation amount
would need to be present because it would be a companion
bill. Senator Parnell replied that it would, although,
numbers should not be replaced from the original ones.
Representative Grussendorf asked what would occur if there
was a disagreement between the Legislature and the Governor
regarding a goal or mission. Senator Parnell proposed that
the Governor could always veto the bill.
Representative G. Davis pointed out that the same detailed
process of missions and measures which the Department of
Public Safety went through last year, was not attempted this
year. He noted the proposal does not fit with the current
process that the subcommittee undertook and that the changes
recommended are lengthy and would be not in amendment form
at this time. He suggested that adequate verbiage would be
necessary.
Co-Chair Therriault asked Senator Parnell if he intended for
the language to reflect changes and modifications that were
in the mission statement from last year. Senator Parnell
understood that each of the mission and measures came
through the subcommittee process last year. The ones in the
bill do need refinement, as they are a statement of what was
passed last year. The intent this year is to produce new
missions within the departments for each division and to
refine existing measures.
Representative Bunde asked if the FY 2000 budget would be
accompanied with another bill such as SB 49. Senator
Parnell stated that it would include the refinement plus the
new missions as agreed to with the Administration.
Representative G. Davis noted that Major Randy Crawford from
the Department of Public Safety was online to clarify any
questions regarding the Department of Public Safety's
intent.
MAJOR RANDY CRAWFORD, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERANCE),
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ANCHORAGE, noted that
Department of Public Safety was working on refinement
information which would accompany the mission and measure
statement for FY 2000 budget.
ANNALEE MCCONNELL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, pointed out that the legislation would be applicable
to FY99. She explained that the Administration was
comfortable having a separate budget bill which accompanies
the operating budget. She pointed out that there could be
an issue during the last days of the session, when budget
amount change substantially in Conference Committee if the
correlating performance measures had not been changed. She
suggested to notice the changes on Internet, which could
indicate where the State was on performance issues and
budget amounts.
Representative Grussendorf asked the Conference Committee
procedure for the year 2000. Co-Chair Therriault replied
that last year, a cooperative system was used. Senator
Parnell emphasized that SB 49 was a substantive bill, not an
appropriation bill. If there are differences between the
House and Senate, they would be worked out in the Conference
Committee.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSSB 49 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying zero fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it
was so ordered.
CSSB 49(FIN) was reported out of Committee with "individual
recommendations" and with the accompanying zero fiscal note
by the Office of the Governor dated 2/18/99.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|