To the credit of Speaker Frank Chopp (D) and a long list of bi-partisan
House members, 2005 is shaping up to be the session of budget accountability
in the House. Speaker Chopp has indicated a comprehensive
and independent performance audit bill will be fast tracked to passage.
Along with this effort, a bill has been proposed in the House to put into
law the common sense Priorities of Government (POG) budget model.
The POG process helps focus the budget around four key principles:
1) How much money does the state have? (What is the existing and forecasted
revenue?)
2) What does the state want to accomplish? (What are the essential services
we must deliver to citizens?)
3) How will the state measure its progress in meeting those goals?
4) What is the most effective way to accomplish the state's goals with
the money available?
HB 1242 would add the following new section to the state's Budget and Accounting
Act (RCW 43.88):
The legislature finds that agency missions, goals, and objectives
should focus on statewide results. It is the intent of the legislature
to focus the biennial budget on how state agencies produce real results
that reflect the goals of statutory programs. Specifically, budget managers
and the legislature must have the data to move toward better statewide
results that produce the intended public benefit. This data must be supplied
in an impartial, quantifiable form, and demonstrate progress toward statewide
results. With a renewed focus on achieving true results, state agencies,
the office of financial management, and the legislature will be able to
prioritize state resources.
HB 1242 also contains the following requirements in regard to the state's
budget process:
The governor shall communicate statewide priorities to agencies
for use in developing biennial budget recommendations for their agency
and shall seek public involvement and input on these priorities.
[Agency] Objectives must specifically address the statutory
purpose of the program or activity and focus on data that measure whether
the agency is achieving or making progress toward the purpose of the program
or activity and toward statewide priorities.
The office of financial management shall regularly conduct
reviews of selected programs or activities to analyze whether the objectives
and measurements submitted by agencies demonstrate progress toward statewide
results.
In reviewing agency budget requests in order to prepare the
governor's biennial budget request, the office of financial management
shall consider the extent to which the agency's programs demonstrate progress
toward the statewide priorities, identified by the governor and the legislature...
The biennial budget document or documents shall also describe
accountability indicators that demonstrate measurable progress towards
priority results.
The governor's operating budget document or documents shall
reflect the statewide priorities as required by RCW 43.88.090. The governor's
operating budget document or documents shall identify programs that are
not addressing the statewide priorities.
HB 1242 appears to partially address the recommendations of the Joint Legislative
Audit and Review Committee (JLARC), which last
year suggested the legislature do the following concerning POG:
1. Set statewide priorities and targets by publishing an annual "state-of-the-state"
report.
2. Focus on outcomes by routinely requesting and using "performance
information in policy and budget decisions."
3. Take a more active and direct role in agency activities and decisions.
4. Base legislative committee decisions on performance outcomes by structuring
committees around the state's governing priorities (EFF agrees this reform
is urgently needed to maximize the benefits of POG).
Due to the bi-partisan support of HB 1242 as demonstrated by the bill's
sponsors, there is great potential for these POG reforms becoming law. One
possible obstacle is the last section of HB 1242, which makes the reforms
null and void without specified appropriations in the 2005-07 budget.
This section of HB 1242 is unnecessary as the reforms implemented by the
bill should be considered the core function of the Office of Financial Management
in overseeing the budget process.
Responsible budgeting requires a clear connection between core governing
functions, agency mission statements, goals and objectives, performance
measures, performance evaluation, and the budget-writing process itself.
While our state has made tremendous progress adopting the new priority-based
budget model, it is time to take the next step and improve the process to
provide legislators, citizens and the media with a more transparent and
accessible budget. This also means adopting true and independent performance
audits. A transparent and measurable budget is the best way to ensure efficiency,
economy and effectiveness in state programs, and the best way to restore
critical trust in government.
Prepared by: Jason
Mercier | Budget Research Analyst | 360.956.3482
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"