Over the years I have greatly enjoyed the opportunity to work with the Senators whose Senate districts overlap with House District 31. I have found that these Senators often share the common value of smaller and more fiscally responsible government, and I have always been happy to work with them to accomplish the goal of applying conservative economic principles to state government.
In 2008, one of these Senators, Senator Patrick Anderson asked me to serve as the House sponsor for his Senate Bill 1398. Anderson has always maintained that state government should avoid unnecessary debt and was concerned because the Oklahoma Regents for Higher Education were issuing millions of dollars of debt without legislative approval or approval from the voters of Oklahoma.
The regents have been issuing this debt as part of what is known as the real property master lease program. In past, apparently the Legislature allowed higher ed to start this program so that the regents could fix items such as roofs on buildings or replace air conditioning systems.
In 2008, however, we learned that the program was being used for superfluous items such as a very expensive scoreboard at the University of Oklahoma’s football stadium. This fiscal policy seemed very irresponsible and Anderson proposed that we pass a bill to give the Legislature the ability to stop the regents if their efforts to issue debt grew out of control. This is what Senate Bill 1398 proposed to do.
Senate Bill 1398 was approved by the Legislature and signed by Governor Henry. It stated that any attempt by the regents to expend the higher ed master lease schedule could be rejected by the Legislature, provided we took action within the first 45 days of session.
This year, the regents again went too far in my view. Instead of just using the lease program to issue debt for maintenance items, the regents proposed incurring 40 million dollars of debt to build the new 45,000 square foot building on the UCO campus as the new office for the state medical examiner.
In recent years, the Legislature has considered taking up the issue of issuing bonds for the medical examiner project, but as the economic downturn occurred and with the dramatic swing in the Legislature to the fiscal conservative point of view, these types of bond issuances have become unpopular. It is clear the Legislature will not approve the bond issuance if asked to vote on it. If the Legislature is going to approve the construction of this new building, it should be with future surpluses that would allow the state to avoid issuing new debt or by dedicating a revenue source for the project. The state’s debt now stands at about 2 billion dollars, the payments on the debt seem to grow every year, and multiple legislators are becoming concerned that we have too much debt on the books.
The regents’ action of placing this project on their real property master lease program circumvents the legislative process and would issue the debt without a vote by the legislators. I don’t believe this was the intent of the master lease program.
While the legislature doesn’t get to vote to approve the expenditures on the master lease program, because of the passage of Senate Bill 1398 in 2008, we do have the ability with a majority vote of both the House and Senate to stop this proposed expenditure.
To that end, Senator Anderson sponsored Senate Concurrent Resolution 30 and on Friday I filed House Concurrent Resolution 1033. These mirror resolutions if approved would disapprove of this attempted debt issuance.
In fact, the whole lease program probably needs to be shut down. Higher education officials should budget for operational needs without issuing debt. It is now clear that the program will always be susceptible to bad decision making that will continue to tag Oklahoma taxpayers with millions of dollars of unnecessary debt for many years into the future.
It upcoming years, it will be important for those of us who are fiscally conservative legislators to continue working to instill a pay-as-you-go mindset in state government. Expenditures such as the new ME office should be paid for without incurring the unnecessary millions of dollars of fees and interest that accompany the issuance of debt.
It will be important for us to offer positive solutions to the valid needs of state government without forcing the taxpayer to incur more debt. One of those solutions will be the content of a future article.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
Exposing Lobbyist Influence
Oklahoma labor Commission Mark Costello recently provided Oklahomans with a service by exposing lobbyist influence.
You may be aware that Costello campaigned for office and won election on a platform of not accepting political contributions from lobbyists. This means that as a statewide elected official Costello is turning down thousands of lobbyist-directed dollars that would no-doubt be flowing into his re-election account had he not taken this pledge.
Costello has now started to expose and champion the case for why politicians should reject this funding.
To make his case he has pointed to a group that has historically contributed heavily to Democrats but has subsequently shifted gears and now contributes predomintly to Republicans. Why the change? With every statewide elected position and the Legislature in Republican hands those who are seeking influence now appear to be buying that influence from Republicans.
Here is what Costello said in an email to Republican party officials.
“In 2010, when Republicans held a majority in both chambers, the public employees’ PAC contributed $102,750 to Republican candidates. This compares to only $57,750 donated to Democrat candidates in the same year.
Until we became a majority in the legislature, the public employees’ PAC was a long-time political enemy of Republicans; in 2004 the OPEA contributed $86,143 to Democrats in an effort to prevent Republicans from gaining a majority of House seats while contributing $2,500 to a handful of Republicans – a 34 to 1 ratio for Democrats. We won – they lost.”
I find it remarkable when politicians attempt to assert that lobbyist contributions do not matter. Whenever a politician makes this point, in my view, he is either extremely naive or very dishonest. Costello has provided a service to the people of Oklahoma in that he has quantified this influence by documenting the shift in contributions from Democrats to Republicans. This is an obvious effort to buy influence with Republicans because of the change in power.
Working inside of the legislative environment for the past five years has allowed me to see this influence first hand. We know that we have to factor in for lobbyist opposition whenever we try to downsize the size of government. Even the most basic and important of modernization reforms will come under fire from those lobbyists who are attempting to preserve the status-quo and the benefits that their employer receives from inefficient, big-spending state government.
Since this last legislative week was the first week of the legislative session much of the work was in committees. Lobbyists aggressively work to influence the bills in the committee process because this is the vital first step to passing or defeating a bill. These lobbyists will fill committee meetings, feed questions to the members of the committee who are carrying water for them and will put great pressure on the other members to vote their way. They are professional relationship manipulation experts, and expert strategists and they know the pressure points to push to get a key lawmaker’s vote. Their attempts to kill a good bill appear to be rather like a game to them. A team of lobbyist can point to a dead bill much like a trophy and use it as a warning to other legislators who might try to upset their deal. Anyone who believes those big campaign contributions don’t factor into the voting consideration of some of the legislators is very much out of touch.
Costello is right to call on lawmakers to refuse these lobbyist-direct political contributions. Lawmakers who do not have to worry about these campaign contributions are freed up to vote on bills on the merits without undue special interests influence. I can personally testify that not taking gifts or contributions from lobbyists was one of the best decisions I could have made because it has absolutely liberated me from having to take the lobbyists influence into account when casting my vote.
You may be aware that Costello campaigned for office and won election on a platform of not accepting political contributions from lobbyists. This means that as a statewide elected official Costello is turning down thousands of lobbyist-directed dollars that would no-doubt be flowing into his re-election account had he not taken this pledge.
Costello has now started to expose and champion the case for why politicians should reject this funding.
To make his case he has pointed to a group that has historically contributed heavily to Democrats but has subsequently shifted gears and now contributes predomintly to Republicans. Why the change? With every statewide elected position and the Legislature in Republican hands those who are seeking influence now appear to be buying that influence from Republicans.
Here is what Costello said in an email to Republican party officials.
“In 2010, when Republicans held a majority in both chambers, the public employees’ PAC contributed $102,750 to Republican candidates. This compares to only $57,750 donated to Democrat candidates in the same year.
Until we became a majority in the legislature, the public employees’ PAC was a long-time political enemy of Republicans; in 2004 the OPEA contributed $86,143 to Democrats in an effort to prevent Republicans from gaining a majority of House seats while contributing $2,500 to a handful of Republicans – a 34 to 1 ratio for Democrats. We won – they lost.”
I find it remarkable when politicians attempt to assert that lobbyist contributions do not matter. Whenever a politician makes this point, in my view, he is either extremely naive or very dishonest. Costello has provided a service to the people of Oklahoma in that he has quantified this influence by documenting the shift in contributions from Democrats to Republicans. This is an obvious effort to buy influence with Republicans because of the change in power.
Working inside of the legislative environment for the past five years has allowed me to see this influence first hand. We know that we have to factor in for lobbyist opposition whenever we try to downsize the size of government. Even the most basic and important of modernization reforms will come under fire from those lobbyists who are attempting to preserve the status-quo and the benefits that their employer receives from inefficient, big-spending state government.
Since this last legislative week was the first week of the legislative session much of the work was in committees. Lobbyists aggressively work to influence the bills in the committee process because this is the vital first step to passing or defeating a bill. These lobbyists will fill committee meetings, feed questions to the members of the committee who are carrying water for them and will put great pressure on the other members to vote their way. They are professional relationship manipulation experts, and expert strategists and they know the pressure points to push to get a key lawmaker’s vote. Their attempts to kill a good bill appear to be rather like a game to them. A team of lobbyist can point to a dead bill much like a trophy and use it as a warning to other legislators who might try to upset their deal. Anyone who believes those big campaign contributions don’t factor into the voting consideration of some of the legislators is very much out of touch.
Costello is right to call on lawmakers to refuse these lobbyist-direct political contributions. Lawmakers who do not have to worry about these campaign contributions are freed up to vote on bills on the merits without undue special interests influence. I can personally testify that not taking gifts or contributions from lobbyists was one of the best decisions I could have made because it has absolutely liberated me from having to take the lobbyists influence into account when casting my vote.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Eliminating the Income Tax Enables Property Tax Reform
Last week I wrote about the recently released plan from the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs and former Reagan economic advisor Arthur Laffer (the author of the Laffer Curve). The plan shows the positive economic impact that Oklahoma would experience if the state’s progressive income tax were to be phased out over the next ten years.
The plan opines that by phasing out the tax in steps the state could incorporate the benefits of the resulting positive economic impact into the state budget and thus not have to resort to increasing any other tax to make up for the loss of revenue.
This point is especially important. I have found that the number one reason some fear the elimination of the income tax is due to their even stronger dislike of the property tax. Senior citizens especially dislike the property tax because it threatens to force them out of the home they have worked all their lives to pay off.
This fear can usually be traced to the fact that Texas has high property tax rates. Whenever someone mentions the fact that Texas has no state income tax, the comment is invariably followed by someone else describing Texas’ less-than-friendly property tax policy.
I have always been a big believer in omnibus property tax reform. In the past, I have written about how this could be accomplished through the implementation of parental choice and education reform. I intend to write more about this in the future.
I also believe that another component of property tax reform and reducing property tax rates can be accomplished by eliminating the state income tax.
In Oklahoma, state government does not have a statewide property tax. The property tax is collected at the county level where it is mostly distributed to schools and career techs, with a small percent going to county government. Local governments also sometimes use the property tax to fund the creation of real property capital assets such as new buildings.
So how does the elimination of the income tax assist with property tax reform?
According to the OCPA study, the elimination of the state income tax would result in significant amounts increased economic activity. This activity would increase the income of Oklahomans by nearly 50 billion dollars. When this money is spent, sales tax collections would increase local government revenue by 3.5 billion dollars. With the increased sales tax collections, fewer local governments would need to ask for property tax increases to build their real property assets.
In fact, it may be possible for policy makers to capture some of this increased revenue by creating a property tax rebate fund and channeling some of the new growth income into the fund. The fund could be used to rebate property tax income to counties and schools as a result of new decreased property tax rates.
A rising tide lifts all boats. When the government has the courage to use tax reform to allow its citizens to keep their money, that money will be used to provide jobs and economic activity. This expands the tax base and makes even more tax reform possible.
Eliminating the income tax should be viewed as an important step in the effort to reduce property tax rates.
The plan opines that by phasing out the tax in steps the state could incorporate the benefits of the resulting positive economic impact into the state budget and thus not have to resort to increasing any other tax to make up for the loss of revenue.
This point is especially important. I have found that the number one reason some fear the elimination of the income tax is due to their even stronger dislike of the property tax. Senior citizens especially dislike the property tax because it threatens to force them out of the home they have worked all their lives to pay off.
This fear can usually be traced to the fact that Texas has high property tax rates. Whenever someone mentions the fact that Texas has no state income tax, the comment is invariably followed by someone else describing Texas’ less-than-friendly property tax policy.
I have always been a big believer in omnibus property tax reform. In the past, I have written about how this could be accomplished through the implementation of parental choice and education reform. I intend to write more about this in the future.
I also believe that another component of property tax reform and reducing property tax rates can be accomplished by eliminating the state income tax.
In Oklahoma, state government does not have a statewide property tax. The property tax is collected at the county level where it is mostly distributed to schools and career techs, with a small percent going to county government. Local governments also sometimes use the property tax to fund the creation of real property capital assets such as new buildings.
So how does the elimination of the income tax assist with property tax reform?
According to the OCPA study, the elimination of the state income tax would result in significant amounts increased economic activity. This activity would increase the income of Oklahomans by nearly 50 billion dollars. When this money is spent, sales tax collections would increase local government revenue by 3.5 billion dollars. With the increased sales tax collections, fewer local governments would need to ask for property tax increases to build their real property assets.
In fact, it may be possible for policy makers to capture some of this increased revenue by creating a property tax rebate fund and channeling some of the new growth income into the fund. The fund could be used to rebate property tax income to counties and schools as a result of new decreased property tax rates.
A rising tide lifts all boats. When the government has the courage to use tax reform to allow its citizens to keep their money, that money will be used to provide jobs and economic activity. This expands the tax base and makes even more tax reform possible.
Eliminating the income tax should be viewed as an important step in the effort to reduce property tax rates.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
State Government Needs A Performance Audit
One of the most important components of this year’s House government modernization effort will involve acting on a request from State Auditor Gary Jones.
Jones has requested the Legislature to take action and allow his office to establish a performance audits division that could conduct a series of performance audits of state government entities during each year.
The proposal would allow the people of Oklahoma to vote next November to place this proposal into the Oklahoma Constitution.
It is important for the proposal to be approved as a constitutional amendment to ensure the performance audits remain free from political interference (legislators can not amend the Constitution). Thorough performance audits may make many politicians very uncomfortable as they will tend to shine the light of day on the failure of state government to perform efficiently. I also suspect they will reveal a large number of state government processes that are highly vulnerable to corruption.
Currently, the Auditor can conduct these audits at the request of the Governor, the Legislature, or the head of an agency. As you might image, it is highly unlikely agency officials from a poorly performing agency would ever request the Auditor to audit their agency.
Earlier this year, Governor Fallin authorized a performance audit of the state-owned Grand River Dam Authority. That audit was released last week and brought to light a number of concerning details questioning the method by which millions of dollars were being spent. Specifically, the audit found a volatile environment exists within the GRDA thus increasing exposure to fraud, waste and abuse. If you are inclined to peruse audit documents, the entire document can be read at hd31.org/185.
The Auditor’s proposal would not only give the Auditor the authority to audit an agency but would also provide the funding mechanism to conduct the audits. This would enable the Auditor’s office to conduct a series of performance audits each year instead of just the occasional audit at the request of a public official. It would also give them a dependable revenue stream for conducting several audits at one time.
These audits would serve as the inspiration for legislation that I believe would result in significant savings to the taxpayers. The direct savings would no doubt be many times higher than the cost of the audit. The indirect savings would also be significant as I believe state officials would modify their agency’s procedures to eliminate inefficiencies due to the fact that they could be audited at any time. I have no doubt, that the implementation of these audits and ensuing legislation will prove transformative to state government.
This bill will be filed soon and I hope and believe it will be approved by the Legislature and subsequently the voters.
Jones has requested the Legislature to take action and allow his office to establish a performance audits division that could conduct a series of performance audits of state government entities during each year.
The proposal would allow the people of Oklahoma to vote next November to place this proposal into the Oklahoma Constitution.
It is important for the proposal to be approved as a constitutional amendment to ensure the performance audits remain free from political interference (legislators can not amend the Constitution). Thorough performance audits may make many politicians very uncomfortable as they will tend to shine the light of day on the failure of state government to perform efficiently. I also suspect they will reveal a large number of state government processes that are highly vulnerable to corruption.
Currently, the Auditor can conduct these audits at the request of the Governor, the Legislature, or the head of an agency. As you might image, it is highly unlikely agency officials from a poorly performing agency would ever request the Auditor to audit their agency.
Earlier this year, Governor Fallin authorized a performance audit of the state-owned Grand River Dam Authority. That audit was released last week and brought to light a number of concerning details questioning the method by which millions of dollars were being spent. Specifically, the audit found a volatile environment exists within the GRDA thus increasing exposure to fraud, waste and abuse. If you are inclined to peruse audit documents, the entire document can be read at hd31.org/185.
The Auditor’s proposal would not only give the Auditor the authority to audit an agency but would also provide the funding mechanism to conduct the audits. This would enable the Auditor’s office to conduct a series of performance audits each year instead of just the occasional audit at the request of a public official. It would also give them a dependable revenue stream for conducting several audits at one time.
These audits would serve as the inspiration for legislation that I believe would result in significant savings to the taxpayers. The direct savings would no doubt be many times higher than the cost of the audit. The indirect savings would also be significant as I believe state officials would modify their agency’s procedures to eliminate inefficiencies due to the fact that they could be audited at any time. I have no doubt, that the implementation of these audits and ensuing legislation will prove transformative to state government.
This bill will be filed soon and I hope and believe it will be approved by the Legislature and subsequently the voters.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Open Government Laws Should Apply To Legislature
Last year, I filed Legislation that would apply Oklahoma’s open meetings and records laws to the Legislature. As you are probably aware, these are the important laws designed to ensure that transparency follows the taxpayer dollar. Whenever the government spends your money, these laws are supposed to provide you with access to the documents and meetings affecting the decision to spend your money. Over the years, these transparency laws have evolved to become an important part of the ethics that govern the actions of government.
However, when the Oklahoma Legislature passed Oklahoma’s open records and meeting laws, they also exempted the Legislature from those laws. In other words, the laws that apply to Oklahoma governments don’t apply to the most important part of Oklahoma government.
I know it is only a matter of time before this law is applied to the Legislature as well. The hypocrisy of the unequal application is too apparent to be defended by even the most determined advocates of the status quo.
This summer, House Speaker Kris Steele approved an interim study of this proposal, and assigned the study to the Government Modernization Committee. The committee heard testimony of the law’s successful application in other states. I appreciated the fact that the Speaker allowed this study to take place. Speaker Steele has made it clear that he desires to continue opening up the legislative process and values the discussion about the law’s potential passage. I believe the time is right to continue advancing the measure, and I look forward to spending time developing and advocating the proposal during the upcoming session.
In the upcoming weeks I plan to write more about this bill and also intend to describe the next generation of government modernization legalization as it is introduced.
One of the most important modernization initiatives will not occur through the implementation of a single bill, but will take place during the appropriations and budget process.
You may recall my description of the millions of dollars set to be saved because of the state’s Information Technology consolidation effort. This is the year when those savings should be realized through the appropriations process. It will be vital for our appropriations officials to understand the many nuances of the consolidation so that agencies truly realize the savings.
The recent appointment of Edmond Senator Clark Jolley to Chair the Senate A&B Committee greatly enhances the chances of the successful realization of the savings. Jolly has been the Senator author of nearly every piece of government modernization, including the multi-million dollar savings from the consolidation of inefficient IT processes. Because of Jolley's knowledge of best practices and due to his role as A&B Chairman, he is in the perfect position to realize the savings on behalf of taxpayers.
I don’t doubt that some agencies will try to get an exemption from the reform by opposing the realization of the savings. Holding the line and realizing the savings will be an important component of the effort to shrink the size of government.
However, when the Oklahoma Legislature passed Oklahoma’s open records and meeting laws, they also exempted the Legislature from those laws. In other words, the laws that apply to Oklahoma governments don’t apply to the most important part of Oklahoma government.
I know it is only a matter of time before this law is applied to the Legislature as well. The hypocrisy of the unequal application is too apparent to be defended by even the most determined advocates of the status quo.
This summer, House Speaker Kris Steele approved an interim study of this proposal, and assigned the study to the Government Modernization Committee. The committee heard testimony of the law’s successful application in other states. I appreciated the fact that the Speaker allowed this study to take place. Speaker Steele has made it clear that he desires to continue opening up the legislative process and values the discussion about the law’s potential passage. I believe the time is right to continue advancing the measure, and I look forward to spending time developing and advocating the proposal during the upcoming session.
In the upcoming weeks I plan to write more about this bill and also intend to describe the next generation of government modernization legalization as it is introduced.
One of the most important modernization initiatives will not occur through the implementation of a single bill, but will take place during the appropriations and budget process.
You may recall my description of the millions of dollars set to be saved because of the state’s Information Technology consolidation effort. This is the year when those savings should be realized through the appropriations process. It will be vital for our appropriations officials to understand the many nuances of the consolidation so that agencies truly realize the savings.
The recent appointment of Edmond Senator Clark Jolley to Chair the Senate A&B Committee greatly enhances the chances of the successful realization of the savings. Jolly has been the Senator author of nearly every piece of government modernization, including the multi-million dollar savings from the consolidation of inefficient IT processes. Because of Jolley's knowledge of best practices and due to his role as A&B Chairman, he is in the perfect position to realize the savings on behalf of taxpayers.
I don’t doubt that some agencies will try to get an exemption from the reform by opposing the realization of the savings. Holding the line and realizing the savings will be an important component of the effort to shrink the size of government.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
What is Next?
In my last update I described the conclusion of this year’s interim study process that occurred one week ago on Thursday. I wrote about the hearings that demonstrated the increasingly rapid application of our government reform proposals and the millions of dollars of savings that are starting to be realized.
Last week, my focus shifted to organizing the next generation of legislation designed to implement new government reduction, efficiency and transparency policies.
Throughout the year I attempt to conscientiously record reforms taking place in other states and couple that with input and ideas received from constituents, other legislators, and state employees who are in the system. As the previously adopted reforms continue to be applied, I also make note of the needs for revisiting those policies in order to maximize their cost savings and effectiveness and ensure that they continue to be viable.
As the first legislative deadlines for the next session are approaching, it is my job to review this list and distill these ideas and suggestions into a manageable dialog that can eventually be expressed as statutory policy changes. I review the practicality of each idea, the potential savings or increased transparency that will be accomplished by the idea, and the political viability of winning support for the idea in the current political environment.
I then organize these ideas into their respective policy areas, assign them to hypothetical bills, and arrange them in a manner I can present to officials in House and Senate leadership and the Governor’s office. It is my belief that these officials will make some of these ideas a part of their respective agendas for the next session. Government modernization proposals have been heavily supported by legislative leadership and the Governor during the past year and I enjoy the opportunity to provide them a compendium of the next set of great ideas for reform.
This process constitutes the first stage in developing the government modernization agenda of bills for the next legislative year. The second stage of this process constitutes finding House and Senate authors for the ideas that find acceptance with legislative leadership and the Governor. Sometimes, because the idea came from a legislator, the legislative author will naturally be the person who thought of the reform proposal.
Having a standing Government Modernization Committee has been a fantastic tool for finding those legislators who enjoy this area of policy and want to advance these ideas. There are several legislators who serve on the committee who are very dedicated to investing time and effort to reduce the size of government and increase transparency.
This means that there is a team of legislators who are ready to advocate for reform. It also means that a new mindset of reform has been created among committee members and members of the legislature. Because this mindset has started to become institutionalized, legislators are more likely to think of and share new ideas for reform.
In other words, the House government modernization effort is much like a snowball rolling downhill, and this year’s list of proposed legislation is by far the largest list that I have seen since modernization efforts started. In the upcoming months, I look forward to writing about this long list containing the next generation of reforms.
Last week, my focus shifted to organizing the next generation of legislation designed to implement new government reduction, efficiency and transparency policies.
Throughout the year I attempt to conscientiously record reforms taking place in other states and couple that with input and ideas received from constituents, other legislators, and state employees who are in the system. As the previously adopted reforms continue to be applied, I also make note of the needs for revisiting those policies in order to maximize their cost savings and effectiveness and ensure that they continue to be viable.
As the first legislative deadlines for the next session are approaching, it is my job to review this list and distill these ideas and suggestions into a manageable dialog that can eventually be expressed as statutory policy changes. I review the practicality of each idea, the potential savings or increased transparency that will be accomplished by the idea, and the political viability of winning support for the idea in the current political environment.
I then organize these ideas into their respective policy areas, assign them to hypothetical bills, and arrange them in a manner I can present to officials in House and Senate leadership and the Governor’s office. It is my belief that these officials will make some of these ideas a part of their respective agendas for the next session. Government modernization proposals have been heavily supported by legislative leadership and the Governor during the past year and I enjoy the opportunity to provide them a compendium of the next set of great ideas for reform.
This process constitutes the first stage in developing the government modernization agenda of bills for the next legislative year. The second stage of this process constitutes finding House and Senate authors for the ideas that find acceptance with legislative leadership and the Governor. Sometimes, because the idea came from a legislator, the legislative author will naturally be the person who thought of the reform proposal.
Having a standing Government Modernization Committee has been a fantastic tool for finding those legislators who enjoy this area of policy and want to advance these ideas. There are several legislators who serve on the committee who are very dedicated to investing time and effort to reduce the size of government and increase transparency.
This means that there is a team of legislators who are ready to advocate for reform. It also means that a new mindset of reform has been created among committee members and members of the legislature. Because this mindset has started to become institutionalized, legislators are more likely to think of and share new ideas for reform.
In other words, the House government modernization effort is much like a snowball rolling downhill, and this year’s list of proposed legislation is by far the largest list that I have seen since modernization efforts started. In the upcoming months, I look forward to writing about this long list containing the next generation of reforms.
Monday, November 14, 2011
A Rewarding Day
I consider last Thursday to have been the most exciting and rewarding days that I have experienced as a legislator.
On that day, I enjoyed the opportunity to chair hearings during which state government officials described the millions of dollars of savings that are now taking place and the efficiencies that are being instituted. This is occurring because of the passage of the legislation reform mentioned in previous updates.
Oklahoma’s Chief Information Officer explained that he has just started to effect the consolidation of state agency IT functions. In these agencies, the number of IT personnel has been reduced by 20 percent, computer server costs have been cut by 50 percent and in those few agencies alone, the state will save 170 million dollars over the next seven years.
The Communications Director for the Department of Education described how the consolidation has transformed his agency’s IT functions. The consolidation will save the department 3.5 million dollars over the next few years and is allowing them to provide better service to state taxpayers. Despite the significant reduction of costs, there have not been drop offs in service levels.
Probably one of the most exciting aspects of the presentation was the demonstration of the web-based performance metrics for the consolidated IT operation. Taxpayers can view the performance of IT employees, and agency officials can not only view these metrics but can drill down to the performance of a single individuals within the IT organization (see hd31.org/179 for an example). This allows for a tremendous amount of accountability and transparency and is a system that should be quickly duplicated within all of state government (this could be a major part of next year’s modernization legislation).
The Director of the Office of State Finance testified that he has already identified four million dollars of savings due to this year’s agency consolidation plan. This was really exciting to hear. Just 11 months ago, we presented this consolidation plan in the same type of House hearing. To see a plan go from development to implementation and then result in significant savings in this short of time is a vary rare experience in state government where reform normally occurs very slowly. And, nearly a quarter of this savings is just from the reduction of unnecessary administrative overhead and reducing the amount of space leased by the agencies.
Perhaps one of the most interesting components of the Director’s testimony was his description of an interaction he had with an employee from one of the consolidated agencies. The employee said that they had not been assigned enough work under the old system and expressed the desire to take on additional responsibilities.
The was a meaningful story for me. In debating against the consolidation legislation on the House floor, the political opposition attacked the proposal on the grounds that the bill would result in fewer government jobs -- which it will! I responded by explaining my belief that state employees are not asking for unnecessary or ghost jobs. They don’t want work just for the sake of work. They want to provide value to the taxpayers and they take pride in their work. They are not asking for a handout or an unnecessary job.
I believe these consolidations will empower state employees to provide taxpayers with better, more efficient services at a lower price. And it was most rewarding to see that reform is no longer moving at a snail’s pace, but is now being rapidly implemented.
Also, you may remember my accounting in a previous update of how a number of state agencies had not complied with the reporting requirements of the IT consolidation law. I wrote that I intended to enter the names of those agencies into the record of this hearing. Since that article, with the help of the Governor’s office, each and every state agency now appears to have come into compliance.
On that day, I enjoyed the opportunity to chair hearings during which state government officials described the millions of dollars of savings that are now taking place and the efficiencies that are being instituted. This is occurring because of the passage of the legislation reform mentioned in previous updates.
Oklahoma’s Chief Information Officer explained that he has just started to effect the consolidation of state agency IT functions. In these agencies, the number of IT personnel has been reduced by 20 percent, computer server costs have been cut by 50 percent and in those few agencies alone, the state will save 170 million dollars over the next seven years.
The Communications Director for the Department of Education described how the consolidation has transformed his agency’s IT functions. The consolidation will save the department 3.5 million dollars over the next few years and is allowing them to provide better service to state taxpayers. Despite the significant reduction of costs, there have not been drop offs in service levels.
Probably one of the most exciting aspects of the presentation was the demonstration of the web-based performance metrics for the consolidated IT operation. Taxpayers can view the performance of IT employees, and agency officials can not only view these metrics but can drill down to the performance of a single individuals within the IT organization (see hd31.org/179 for an example). This allows for a tremendous amount of accountability and transparency and is a system that should be quickly duplicated within all of state government (this could be a major part of next year’s modernization legislation).
The Director of the Office of State Finance testified that he has already identified four million dollars of savings due to this year’s agency consolidation plan. This was really exciting to hear. Just 11 months ago, we presented this consolidation plan in the same type of House hearing. To see a plan go from development to implementation and then result in significant savings in this short of time is a vary rare experience in state government where reform normally occurs very slowly. And, nearly a quarter of this savings is just from the reduction of unnecessary administrative overhead and reducing the amount of space leased by the agencies.
Perhaps one of the most interesting components of the Director’s testimony was his description of an interaction he had with an employee from one of the consolidated agencies. The employee said that they had not been assigned enough work under the old system and expressed the desire to take on additional responsibilities.
The was a meaningful story for me. In debating against the consolidation legislation on the House floor, the political opposition attacked the proposal on the grounds that the bill would result in fewer government jobs -- which it will! I responded by explaining my belief that state employees are not asking for unnecessary or ghost jobs. They don’t want work just for the sake of work. They want to provide value to the taxpayers and they take pride in their work. They are not asking for a handout or an unnecessary job.
I believe these consolidations will empower state employees to provide taxpayers with better, more efficient services at a lower price. And it was most rewarding to see that reform is no longer moving at a snail’s pace, but is now being rapidly implemented.
Also, you may remember my accounting in a previous update of how a number of state agencies had not complied with the reporting requirements of the IT consolidation law. I wrote that I intended to enter the names of those agencies into the record of this hearing. Since that article, with the help of the Governor’s office, each and every state agency now appears to have come into compliance.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)