SENATE BILL REPORT
SB 5278
This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent. |
As of January 14, 2016
Title: An act relating to legislative oversight of state agency performance.
Brief Description: Concerning legislative oversight of state agency performance.
Sponsors: Senators Miloscia, Jayapal, Hill, Keiser and Chase.
Brief History:
Committee Activity: Accountability & Reform: 1/21/15, 1/13/16.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY & REFORM |
Staff: Karen Barrett (786-7413)
Background: For the last five biennia, state agencies have been submitting an activity view of the budget in addition to the traditional decision packages. An activity is a plain-language description of an agency's work, what it produces or accomplishes, and how it makes a difference. The Office of Financial Management (OFM) maintains a database of every agency's activities. This inventory - a subset of the state's Budget Development System - contains short descriptions of activities, expected results, performance data, and estimated cost. Each year, OFM coordinates the production of information the state uses to prepare budgets for adoption and performs quality assurance over data about government performance. Statutorily, these directives appear in chapter 43.88 RCW, otherwise known as the State Budgeting, Accounting and Reporting Act.
Summary of Bill: As OFM reviews and analyzes its inventory to decide whether objectives and measurements submitted by agencies demonstrate progress, it must also convey its conclusions to the fiscal committees of the State Legislature by submitting a report.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Available.
Committee/Commission/Task Force Created: No.
Effective Date: Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.
Staff Summary of Public Testimony: Testimony from 2015 Regular Session. OTHER: OFM currently reports the agency performance analysis to legislative fiscal committees as part of the budget request process. Clarification of the information provided could be considered.
Testimony from 2016 Regular Session. OTHER: There is a language concern. Who decides a measure is "pertinent" and would the UW be benchmarked against peers or some national standard? Would agencies be asked to submit analysis not otherwise performed today to file a budget request? Do lawmakers want OFM commentary on major activities or the rate of change in performance? Answers would help clarify the effect and reach of this bill as proposed.
Persons Testifying: Persons Testifying From 2015 Regular Session. OTHER: Jim Crawford, OFM.
Persons Testifying From 2016 Regular Session. OTHER: Genesee Adkins, University of Washington.