Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/08/1996 08:00 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 22 - STATE LONG-TERM PLANNING The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Committee was HB 22. Number 0710 CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Sean Parnell, sponsor of HB 22. REPRESENTATIVE SEAN PARNELL said this was deja vous for three out of the four member of the House State Affairs Committee because the same bill passed the legislature two years ago. He said long-range planning had taken on a special meaning in the past few years to include closing the fiscal gap based on the charges of the long- range fiscal planning commission. He said HB 22 did not necessarily close the fiscal gap, but rather addressed the accountability and performance of government for expenditures. He noted that one of the recommendations of the long-range fiscal planning commission, was to start performance based budgeting. He further said there was no rational or objective way for the legislature or the Governor to make budget choices and establish priorities; there was a lack of accountability for funds spent; there was a basic distrust of government; and lastly there was a focus on programs rather than serving the public. He further said HB 347 passed with wide bi-partisan support last session in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. However, it was vetoed by Governor Hickel. The reason it was vetoed, he said, was because the Commissioners thought the legislature should not be telling the Governor to long-range plan, creating a turf battle. He said the legislative and the executive branch should work together regarding long-range planning. Representative Parnell said HB 22 tried to implement performance measures as part of the budget process. He further stated the departments were notorious for using irrelevant performance measurements. He said a department would testify it had fewer state troopers than last year, for example, which was not relevant to the financial discussion. The citizens, he alleged, cared about the services, for example, the safety of the Seward Highway, and not the number of state troopers. Therefore, HB 22 established the framework for long-range strategic planning. He further said goals and objective performance measures would be established by each department with public input, and the budget submitted to the legislature would include those performance measures. The process he said was known as performance based budgeting and had been implemented at the federal, city and state government level. He said Hawaii, Connecticut, Iowa, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oregon and Texas used performance based budgeting. He further said Texas was chosen as the model because it was experiencing financial strains and had a natural resource base similar to Alaska. House Bill 22 would follow a five point time line. He said at the beginning of the term the Governor would develop statewide goals to be issued on May 1 when the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would provide economic and population forecasts to the departments. By July 1 OMB would approve each agencies' goals and by October 1 each agency would submit its long-term plan to OMB. He said the dates corresponded to the submission of the budget to OMB. He further said the plans would cover a six year period and would be used by the Governor, the agency and the legislature to develop the following year's budget. The bill provided a phase-in period where three departments would be chosen by OMB for the first year of implementation. He said this was a result of a compromise on HB 347 (a bill from the 18th Alaska State Legislature) as the departments felt they needed more time to prepare. He alleged it would make budget review jobs easier for the legislators. He noted the legislature in Oregon experienced a decrease in the amount of sub-committees needed. In conclusion, he said unless long-range planning was tied to the budget it would not be a useful document. He said it was not the all-to-end-all, but rather a tool to make government more accountable to its expenditures. It was not meant to be an additional job for the department, but rather supplants what they were already doing for the budget. He lastly said performance based budgeting was a step towards making the government work for the people. Number 1185 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if performance based budgeting incorporated zero based budgeting. Number 1234 REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL replied the correlation between performance based budgeting and zero based budgeting was that performance based budgeting established priorities. Therefore, you would start at zero and fund the priorities. Number 1245 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented on the zero fiscal note from OMB. He wondered if HB 22 would require additional work from the departments to warrant a positive fiscal note. Number 1285 REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL said it was what the departments should be doing anyway. The departments gave a zero fiscal note for HB 22 because they realized it was merely a shift of focus on something they should be doing. Number 1308 CHAIR JAMES said she was excited about this type of approach. She further said it was frustrating to plan because of the short time spent in the legislature. She asserted a cooperative effort was needed for success between the Administration and the legislature, and HB 22 tied them together. She further said it was difficult to cut the budget without taking away programs, and the procedure in HB 22 would allow the legislators to see what should be done. She also said it was a move in the right direction to return the public's confidence in state government. Number 1390 REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL referred the committee members to page 2 of the handout titled "General Appropriations Act, 1993 State of Texas, Excerpt from Texas Department of Public Safety." The example illustrated the goal, objective, outcome, strategy and measurement from the Department of Public Safety. He alleged the Alaska budget was not as understandable or readable. Number 1485 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said as a freshman legislator he would welcome the change. He said the budget currently reflected the number of positions and did not describe the nature of the job. Number 1502 CHAIR JAMES replied the number of positions were even a disillusionment because not all of the positions were filled. Number 1515 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented the current budget process was department friendly but not user friendly. He further said HB 22 would create stability because it committed the departments. Number 1538 REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL said an amendment was needed to HB 22 to change the dates accordingly. Number 1562 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved that page 3, line 25 and 26, change the dates from "1996" to "1997." Hearing no objection, it was so moved. CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any further testimony. No one responded so she called on a motion. Number 1589 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved that HB 22 as amended move from the committee with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note. Hearing no objection, HB 22 was moved from the House State Affairs Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|