Initial Hearing on Separation of Powers and Legislative Oversight—House Policy Staff Briefings

Initial Hearing on Separation of Powers and Legislative Oversight—

House Policy Staff Briefings

Gary Ciminero, Michael Civittolo and Sandra Whitehouse

Rhode Island House Policy Office

Before the

Rhode Island House Committee on Separation of Powers

March 10, 2004

2

Today’s agendaSeparation of Powers and Legislative Oversight

I. Purpose and Scope of Hearings—Rep. Elaine Coderre, Chair

II. Legislative Oversight and Program Policy Evaluation of Executive Branch Performance—Survey of Other States—Gary Ciminero, House Policy Office

III. Survey of Separation of Powers and Legislative Oversight in Rhode Island—Michael Civittolo, House Policy Office

IV. Legislative Oversight—Current Case: House “Bay Trust Study Commission”—Sandra Whitehouse, House Policy Office

3

Purpose & Scope of Hearings

Introductory Remarks: Purpose and Scope of Hearings

Chair Elaine Coderre

4

Legislative Oversight and Program Policy Evaluation of Executive Branch Performance

• Legislative Oversight—Survey of Approaches in Other States

• Program Policy Evaluation—Survey of Approaches in Other States

5

Legislative Oversight

Legislative Oversight—

Survey of Approaches and Resources in Other States

• Full-time vs. Part-time Legislatures

• Legislative Capacity Measures

• Staff Resources

6

Legislative Oversight

Legislative Oversight—Survey of Approaches in Other States

“Being a legislator doesn’t just mean attending legislative sessions and voting on proposed laws. State legislators also spend large amounts of time assisting constituents, studying state issues during the interim and campaigning for election. These activities go on throughout the year. Any assessment of the time requirements of the job should include all of these elements of legislative life.” [“What Happened to the ‘Citizen’ in the ‘Citizen Legislature’”, State Legislatures, July-August 2003, pg. 7, National Council of State Legislatures.]

7

Legislative Oversight—Full-time vs. Part-time Legislatures

Oversight Capacity of Legislatures—“Red, White & Blue Legislatures” [NCSL—National Legislative Program Evaluation Society, spring 2000 study.

Updated to 2003.]

• NCSL looked broadly at the capacity of legislatures to function:– as independent branches of government

– capable of balancing the power of the executive branch

– having the information necessary to make independent, informed policy decisions

• Measure of capacity of legislatures is based on:– amount of time legislators spend on the job

– the amount they are compensated

– the size of the legislature’s staff

8

Legislative Oversight Capacity

Staff Trends in the 50 State Legislatures: 1979, 1988, 1996, 2003

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

1979 1988 1996 2003

Permanent Session Only TOTAL STAFF

9

Legislative Oversight Capacity—NCSL Categories

“RED, WHITE & BLUE” LEGISLATURES—Categories

• Red legislatures require the most time of legislators,– usually 80 percent or more of a full-time job– 11 largest states.

• White Legislatures are hybrids. Legislatures in these states typically say that they – spend about two-thirds of their time being legislators– 23 mid-sized states.

• Blue Legislatures require the average lawmaker to– spend about half-time doing legislative wor– remaining smaller states.

10

Legislative Oversight Capacity—“Red” Legislatures

“RED” LEGISLATURES—Characteristics:

• Red legislatures require the most time of legislators– Usually 80 percent or more of a full-time job.– They have large staffs.

• In most Red states, legislators are paid enough to make a living without requiring outside income– These legislatures are the most professional ones.– Most of the nation's largest population states fall in this

category.

• “Red” vs. “Red Lite”: Due to marked differences within the category it is subdivided into– “Red” legislatures with more professional members than– Legislatures categorized in “Red Lite”

11

Legislative Oversight Capacity—“White” Legislatures

“WHITE” LEGISLATURES—Characteristics:

• Typically spend about two-thirds of their time being legislators.– Their income from legislative service is

usually inadequate to make a living without having other sources of income.

– Have intermediate sized staffs.

• States in the middle of the population range tend to have White legislatures.

12

Legislative Oversight Capacity–“Blue” Legislatures

“BLUE” LEGISLATURES—Characteristics:

• The average lawmaker typically spends about half-time doing legislative work. – Typically low compensation requires them to have other sources

of income in order to make a living.– Have relatively small staffs.

• They are often called traditional or citizen legislatures– Usually smallest population, more rural states.

• “Blue” vs. “Blue Lite”: The category it is subdivided into– “Blue”, which are most traditional citizen legislatuires.– Legislatures categorized in “Blue Lite” are somewhat less

traditional or have other distinguishing characteristics.

•

13

Legislative Oversight Capacity—States by NCSL Categories

Red Red Lite White Blue Lite Blue California Alaska Alabama Minnesota Georgia Montana Michigan Illinois Arizona Missouri Idaho New Hampshire New York Florida Arkansas Nebraska Indiana North Dakota Pennsylvania Ohio Colorado North Carolina Kansas South Dakota Massachusetts Connecticut Oklahoma Maine Utah New Jersey Delaware Oregon Mississippi Wyoming Wisconsin Hawaii South Carolina Nevada Indiana Tennessee New Mexico Iowa Texas Rhode Island Kentucky Virginia Vermont Louisiana Washington West Virginia Maryland

14

Legislative Oversight Capacity—Summary of NCSL Categories—“Time on the job”

Category of Legislature Time on the Job (1)

Red 80% White 70% Blue 54%

Compare RI “Blue Lite” ~50%? (1) Estimated proportion of a full-time job spent on legislative work including time in session, constituent service, interim committee work, and election campaigns.

15

Legislative Oversight Capacity—2003 Legislator Compensation

State Salary

Alabama $10/day (C)

Alaska $24,012/year

Arizona $24,000/year

Arkansas $13,751/year

California $99,000/year

Colorado $30,000/year

Connecticut $28,000/year

Delaware $34,800/year

Florida $27,900/year

Georgia $16,200/year

Hawaii $32,000/year

Idaho $15,646/year

Illinois $55,788/year

Indiana $11,600/year

Iowa $20,758/year

Kansas $78.75/day (C)

Kentucky $166.34day (C)

Louisiana $16,800/year

Maine $11,384/year for first regular session; $7,725/year for second regular session.

Maryland $31,509/year

Massachusetts $53,379.93/year

Michigan $77,400/year

Minnesota $31,140/year

State Salary

Nebraska $12,000/year

Nevada $130/day maximum of 60 days of session

New Hampshire

$200/two-year term

New Jersey $49,000/year

New Mexico None

New York $79,500/year

North Carolina

$13,951/year

North Dakota $125/day (C)

Ohio $53,706.75/year

Oklahoma $38,400/year

Oregon $15,396/year

Pennsylvania $64,638.05/year

Puerto Rico $60,000/year

Rhode Island $11,236/year

South Carolina

$10,400/year

South Dakota $12,000/two-yr term

Tennessee $16,500/year

Texas $7,200/year

Utah $120/day (C)

Vermont $536/week during session

Virgin Islands $65,000

Virginia $18,000/year Senate

$17,640/year House

Washington $33,556/year

West Virginia $15,000/year

Wisconsin $45,569/year L = Legislative day C = Calendar day

16

Legislative Oversight Capacity—Summary of NCSL Categories—“Compensation”

Category of Legislature Compensation (2) Red $68,599

White $35,326 Blue $15,984

Compare RI “Blue Lite” $11,200/33rd (2) Estimated annual compensation of an average legislator including salary, per diem, and any other unvouchered expense payments.

17

Legislative Oversight Capacity—2003 Full-Time Staff per Legislator

2003 Staff Count Survey Number of Full-time RANK Number of Full-time RANK

Total Full- State Staff per Staff per Total Full- State Staff per Staff perSTATE Time Staff Legislators Legislator Legislator STATE Time Staff Legislators Legislator LegislatorCalifornia 2334 120 19.45 1 Hawaii 170 76 2.24 26New York 3077 212 14.51 2 Connecticut 393 187 2.10 27Pennsylvania 2947 253 11.65 3 Colorado 209 100 2.09 28Florida 1650 160 10.31 4 Oklahoma 302 149 2.03 29New J ersey 1206 120 10.05 5 Indiana 304 150 2.03 30Texas 1745 181 9.64 6 Oregon 181 90 2.01 31Michigan 1153 148 7.79 7 Tennessee 253 132 1.92 32Arizona 631 90 7.01 8 North Carolina 290 170 1.71 33Wisconsin 756 132 5.73 9 Missouri 321 197 1.63 34Alaska 307 60 5.12 10 West Virginia 195 134 1.46 35Illinois 905 177 5.11 11 South Carolina 247 170 1.45 36Louisiana 688 144 4.78 12 Delaware 84 62 1.35 37Massachusetts 935 200 4.68 13 New Mexico 145 112 1.29 38Maryland 850 188 4.52 14 Iowa 172 150 1.15 39Nebraska 217 49 4.43 15 Utah 108 104 1.04 40Ohio 505 132 3.83 16 Mississippi 150 174 0.86 41Washington 561 147 3.82 17 Maine 156 186 0.84 42Nevada 230 63 3.65 18 Montana 122 150 0.81 43Alabama 422 140 3.01 19 Idaho 75 105 0.71 44Minnesota 602 201 3.00 20 Kansas 100 165 0.61 45Virginia 410 140 2.93 21 South Dakota 56 105 0.53 46Kentucky 386 138 2.80 22 New Hampshire 165 424 0.39 47Rhode Island 297 113 2.63 23 Wyoming 29 90 0.32 48Georgia 603 236 2.56 24 Vermont 52 180 0.29 49Arkansas 339 135 2.51 25 North Dakota 32 141 0.23 50

18

Legislative Oversight Capacity—Summary of NCSL Categories—“Staff per Member”

Category of Legislature Staff per Member (3) Red 8.9

White 3.1 Blue 1.2

Compare RI “Blue Lite” 2.6 [~290/113] Ranking 23rd (3) Ratio of total legislative staff to number of legislators.

19

Legislative Program Policy Evaluation of Executive Branch Performance

Program Policy Evaluation—Approaches in Other States

– Special standing committees

– Auditor General

– Inspector General

20

Legislative Program Policy Evaluation—Definition of Imperative

“Among the many roles that state legislatures play—passing laws, appropriating funds, and debating public policy—is the fundamental responsibility to oversee government operations and ensure that public services are delivered to citizens in an effective and efficient manner. This accountability role is essential to ensuring the trust that citizens place in government.”[Ensuring the Public Trust: How Program Evaluation is Serving State Legislatures, NCSL, National Legislative Program Evaluation Society, (2000). www.ncsl.org/programs/nlpes/research/survey/survey.htm]

21

Legislative Program Policy Evaluation of Executive Branch Performance—Evaluation Entities

2003 Staff Count Survey Data-FinalProgram Policy Evaluation

Professional StaffFTEs

STATE Entity NameAlabama 12 Dept. of Examiner of Public AccountsAlaska 33 Division of Legislative AuditArizona 165 Office of the Auditor GeneralArkansas 186 Division of Legislative AuditCalifornia 100 State Auditor, Bur. Of State AuditsColorado 55 Office of the State AuditorConnecticut 12-15 Office of Program Review & InvestigationsDelaware (NA)Florida 88 Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government AccountabilityGeorgia 29 Performance Audit Operations, Dept. of AuditsHawaii 26 Office of the AuditorIdaho 7.5 Office of Performance EvaluationsIllinois 54 Office of the Auditor GeneralIndiana 14 Off. of Fiscal & Mgt. Analysis (div. of Legislative Services Agency)Iowa 27 Legislative Fiscal Bu.Kansas 20 Legislative Division of Post AuditKentucky 6 Legislative Research CommissionLouisiana 31 Office of the Legislative AuditorMaine (NA)Maryland 90 Office of Legislative AuditsMassachusetts (NA)Michigan 155 Office of the Auditor GeneralMinnesota 16 Office of the Legislative AuditorMississippi 25 Legislative PEER CommitteeMissouri 17 Oversight Division, Committee on Legislative Research

22

Legislative Program Policy Evaluation of Executive Branch Performance—Evaluation Entities, cont.

Professional StaffFTEs

STATE Entity NameMontana 47 Legislative Audit DivisionNebraska 5 Nebraska Legislative Program Evaluation UnitNevada 24 Legislative Counsel BureauNew Hampshire 34 Office of Legislative Budget Assistant, Audit DivisionNew Jersey (NA)New Mexico 8 Legislative Finance CommitteeNew York (NA)North Carolina 31 Fiscal Research DivisionNorth Dakota 18 ND Legislative CouncilOhio 12 Legislative Office of Education OversightOklahoma (NA)Oregon 75 OR Audits Div., Secr. of StatePennsylvania 17 Legislative Budget & Finance CommitteeRhode Island 38.2 Office of the Auditor GeneralSouth Carolina 15 Legislative Audit CouncilSouth Dakota (NA)Tennessee 16 Research & Ed. Accountability, Off of the comptroller of the TreasuryTexas 277 State Auditor's Office (251 FTEs) Sunset Advisory commission (26 & 5 FTEs)Utah 20 Office of the Legislative Auditor GeneralVermont (NA)Virginia 28 Joint Legislative Audit and Review CommissionWashington 14 Joint Legislative Audit and Review CommitteeWest Virginia 17 Performance Evaluation and Audits DivisionWisconsin 74 Performance Audit Div., WS Audit Bu.Wyoming 7 Legislative Service Office

23

Legislative Program Policy Evaluation of Executive Branch Performance—Governing Body

2003 Staff Count Survey Data-Final

STATE Governing BodyAlabama Legislative Committee on Public Accounts. Legislative Sunset CommitteeAlaska (Joint) Legislative Budget & Audit CommitteeArizona Joint Legislative Audit CommitteeArkansas Legislative Joint Audit CommitteeCalifornia Joint Legislative Audit CommitteeColorado Legislative Audit CommitteeConnecticut Legislative Program Review & Investigations CommitteeDelaware

Florida Joint Legislative Auditing CommitteeGeorgia GA General Assembly Budgetary Responsibilty Oversight CommitteeHawaii Performance Audits/studies, sunrise/-set analyses, financial audits, HEALTH INSURANCE ANALYSESIdaho Joint Legislative Oversight CommitteeIllinois Independent Constitutional Officer, Audit reports reviewed by the "Legislative Audit Commission"Indiana Legislative CouncilIowa Legislative Fiscal Committee of the Legislative CouncilKansas Legislative Post Audit CommitteeKentucky Program Review & Investigation CommitteeLouisiana Legislative Audit Advisory CouncilMaine

Maryland Joint Audit CommitteeMassachusetts

Michigan (Constitutionally created.)Minnesota Legislative Audit CommissionMississippi Standing Joint PEER Committee (5 each fr. House & Senate Program evaluations, economy and efficiency reviews.Missouri Joint Committee on Legislative Research

24

Legislative Program Policy Evaluation of Executive Branch Performance—Governing Body, cont.

Governing BodyMontana Legislative Audit CommitteeNebraska Legislative Program Evaluation CommitteeNevada The Legislative CommissionNew Hampshire Joint Legislative Fiscal Committee and Joint Legislative Performance Audit and Oversight CommitteeNew J ersey

New Mexico The (Joint) Audit, Contract & Computer Subcommittee of the Legislative Finance CommitteeNew York

North Carolina NC GA Fiscal Research Div.North Dakota ND (Joint) Legislative Council, 15 LegislatorsOhio Legislative Committee on Legislative OversightOklahoma

Oregon Secretary of StatePennsylvania Legislative Budget & Finance CommitteeRhode Island Joint Committee on Legislative ServicesSouth Carolina Legislative Audit Council, citizen body of five members that are elected by the GA for 6-year termsSouth Dakota

Tennessee TN GATexas Legislative Audit Committee Sunset Advisory CommitteeUtah Audit Subcommittee of the Legislative Management CommitteeVermont

Virginia Joint Legislative Audit and Review CommissionWashington Joint Legislative Audit and Review CommitteeWest Virginia Legislative Auditor who reports to the Joint Committee on Government & FinanceWisconsin Joint Legislative Audit CommitteeWyoming Legislative Management Audit Committee

25

Legislative Program Policy Evaluation of Executive Branch Performance—Main Products.

2003 Staff Count Survey Data-Final

STATE Main ProductsAlabama Conducts reports by legislative request.Alaska General Annual Financial Report, federal compliance audit, performance audit of select agencies, sunset auditsArizona Fin. Statement audits, single & performance audits, special audits, etc.Arkansas Financial/compliance audits of state agencies, higher ed, counties. Special reports prepared as directed by the LJACCalifornia Performance, financial, and compliance audits as directed by statute or requested by Legislators.Colorado Performance & Financial AuditsConnecticut Performance audits, investigations, mgt./org. reviewsDelaware

Florida Program evaluations/policy analyses/agency-proposed performance measures, Best Practices reviews of school districts, etc.Georgia Performance Audits, Program Evaluations, and Special ProjectsHawaii Performance Audits/studies, sunrise/-set analyses, financial audits, HEALTH INSURANCE ANALYSESIdaho Performance evaluations reports, federal mandate reviews, policy analyses.Illinois Financial & Compliance audits, management and program audits, special studies.Indiana Performance audits/program evaluations (15%) and Fiscal notes (85%).Iowa Fiscal/budget analyses, intent language/performance oversight, fiscal notes, etc.Kansas Performance/program evaluations (99%), Financial/compliance audits (1%).Kentucky Performance audits/program evaluations, Investigations, Policy Analyses.Louisiana Financial/compliance audits, Performance audits/ program evaluations, investigations.Maine

Maryland Financial/compliance audits, Performance audits/program evaluations.Massachusetts

Michigan Financial/compliance audits, performance audits/evaluations.Minnesota Performance audits/program evaluations, policy analysesMississippi Program evaluations, economy and efficiency reviews, financial audits, etc.Missouri Performance audits/program evaluations, fiscal notes.

26

Legislative Program Policy Evaluation of Executive Branch Performance—Main Products, cont.

Main ProductsMontana Performance audits/program evaluations, financial/compliance auditsNebraska Performance audits/evaluations.Nevada Financial/compliance audits, Performance audits/program evaluations.New Hampshire Performance audits/program evaluationsNew J ersey

New Mexico Performance audits/reviews, system audits/reviews, etc.New York

North Carolina Policy analyses, assessments of performance measures, other.North Dakota Fiscal Analysis/evaluation, Policy analysis, bill drafting.Ohio Performance audits/program evaluations, Policy analyses, assessments of performance measures, etc. Oklahoma

Oregon Pennsylvania Performance audits/program evaluations, Informational audit reports.Rhode Island Financial and Performance AuditsSouth Carolina Performance audits/program evaluations, policy analysesSouth Dakota

Tennessee Performance audits/program evaluations, Policy analyses, fiscal notes, etc.Texas Financial/compliance reports, Performance audits/program evaluations/performance measures assessments/sunset reviews.Utah Performance audits/program evaluations, Policy analyses, investigationsVermont

Virginia Performance audits/program evaluations, policy analyses, investigations, etc.Washington Performance audits/program evaluations, policy analyses, Sunset reviews.West Virginia Performance audits/program evaluations, performance assessments.Wisconsin Financial compliance audits, performance audits/program evaluations, best practices reviews.Wyoming Performance audits/program evaluations, policy analyses.

27

Legislative Program Policy Evaluation of Executive Branch Performance—Main Products, cont.

The Office of the Auditor General (OAG) is the State of Rhode Island's legislative audit agency. We conduct financial and performance audits to provide independent and reliable information to the General Assembly on a variety of topics including the State's financial condition, its use of federal funds in compliance with federal law and regulations, and whether programs are operating efficiently and effectively. Our audits also provide valuable recommendations to help auditees improve their operations, enhance program controls, or provide services at a lower cost. Our audit reports enhance the accountability of State government by providing Rhode Island citizens with objective information on the operations of their State.

28

Survey of Separation of Powers and Legislative Oversight in Rhode Island

1. Background and summary of events leading up to placing of Separation of Powers referendum on ballot.

2. What is Separation of Powers?

3. Referendum to be voted on in November removes legislators or persons appointed by them from boards and commissions which perform executive functions.

4. Oversight by Legislative branch

29


Background and summary of events leading up to placing of Separation of Powers referendum on ballot.

30


What is Separation of Powers?

31


Referendum to be voted on in November removes legislators or persons appointed by them from boards and commissions which perform executive functions.

32


Oversight by Legislative branch

Documents

Initial Hearing on Separation of Powers and Legislative Oversight—House Policy Staff Briefings