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.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
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.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Putting An End to Lobbyist Gift Giving
Twice each year the media publishes a list of personal gifts received by legislators from registered lobbyists. The reason this list is published each six months is due to the fact that lobbyists are required to report their gift giving up until the end of June and until the end of December.
Usually, the June report is the report that demonstrates most of the gift giving and this is because the Legislature is in session during most of the January through June reporting period. Invariably, over the years, the media reported thousands of dollars of gift giving that had occurred during this time frame.
This year’s post-session report included what may on the surface appear to be an anomaly. Several legislators were listed as not receiving any gifts from lobbyists during this year’s legislative session. It might be understandable for several legislators to not accept gifts during the non-session report because many of the legislators are back in their district and not so exposed to lobbyists, but it is certainly unusual for several legislators to refuse gifts for the entire year.
In the few years that I have served in the Legislature, I believe I have observed a change in the general sentiment regarding lobbyist gift giving. When I first arrived, there were legislators who took pride in accepting a large number of gifts. Now, things are changing. The idea that it is absolutely inappropriate for lobbyists to give personal gifts to legislators has gained traction. Several legislators have taken the pledge to not accept any gifts from lobbyists. These legislators are honoring their pledge.
The change is in part because of new ethics rules that were put in place a few years ago that greatly cut the amount of gifts that lobbyists can give. In my view, the Oklahoma Ethics Commission did the citizens of Oklahoma a great service when they instituted this new policy.
I also think this change is due in part to term limits. The number of legislators who served during the time when lobbyists could legally give much more expensive gifts has dwindled. No longer is the Legislature dominated by powerful personalities who view the acceptance of gifts as their right. The new freshmen legislators have never seen the old level of gift giving and do not seem to expect as many expenditures on their behalf.
I still believe the Ethics Commission should post the official lists of legislators who wish to be on the record as refusing lobbyist gifts and political contributions. To this day, I must return unsolicited gifts and political contributions, despite the fact that I have had a policy of refusing these gifts for the last five years. An official list would not only provide an officially recognized method for turning down gifts and contributions, but would also allow the citizens of Oklahoma to insist that their Representatives and Senators take the no-gift pledge and opt in to the official list.
Of course, the Legislature could and should do the right thing and put a complete prohibition on lobbyist gift giving. With the changes I have witnessed over the last five-years, I believe that history is clearly on the side of reform and the enactment of this important policy is only a matter of time. I think there will be a time in the not so distant future when even legislators will look back with disbelief on the time when lobbyists gave thousands of dollars of personal gifts to legislators.
Usually, the June report is the report that demonstrates most of the gift giving and this is because the Legislature is in session during most of the January through June reporting period. Invariably, over the years, the media reported thousands of dollars of gift giving that had occurred during this time frame.
This year’s post-session report included what may on the surface appear to be an anomaly. Several legislators were listed as not receiving any gifts from lobbyists during this year’s legislative session. It might be understandable for several legislators to not accept gifts during the non-session report because many of the legislators are back in their district and not so exposed to lobbyists, but it is certainly unusual for several legislators to refuse gifts for the entire year.
In the few years that I have served in the Legislature, I believe I have observed a change in the general sentiment regarding lobbyist gift giving. When I first arrived, there were legislators who took pride in accepting a large number of gifts. Now, things are changing. The idea that it is absolutely inappropriate for lobbyists to give personal gifts to legislators has gained traction. Several legislators have taken the pledge to not accept any gifts from lobbyists. These legislators are honoring their pledge.
The change is in part because of new ethics rules that were put in place a few years ago that greatly cut the amount of gifts that lobbyists can give. In my view, the Oklahoma Ethics Commission did the citizens of Oklahoma a great service when they instituted this new policy.
I also think this change is due in part to term limits. The number of legislators who served during the time when lobbyists could legally give much more expensive gifts has dwindled. No longer is the Legislature dominated by powerful personalities who view the acceptance of gifts as their right. The new freshmen legislators have never seen the old level of gift giving and do not seem to expect as many expenditures on their behalf.
I still believe the Ethics Commission should post the official lists of legislators who wish to be on the record as refusing lobbyist gifts and political contributions. To this day, I must return unsolicited gifts and political contributions, despite the fact that I have had a policy of refusing these gifts for the last five years. An official list would not only provide an officially recognized method for turning down gifts and contributions, but would also allow the citizens of Oklahoma to insist that their Representatives and Senators take the no-gift pledge and opt in to the official list.
Of course, the Legislature could and should do the right thing and put a complete prohibition on lobbyist gift giving. With the changes I have witnessed over the last five-years, I believe that history is clearly on the side of reform and the enactment of this important policy is only a matter of time. I think there will be a time in the not so distant future when even legislators will look back with disbelief on the time when lobbyists gave thousands of dollars of personal gifts to legislators.
Monday, October 31, 2011
City and County Realizing Savings for Taxpayers
If you have read very many of these updates in the past, you are familiar with the savings to taxpayers due to the modernization of state government processes. However, it is important to note that the commitment of the Legislature and Governor to make state government processes more efficient does not just result in savings in state government. Because of these reforms, the taxpayers are realizing a savings at the local level of government as well.
For example, one of the most important focuses of the efforts to streamline government processes has been the effort to reform the state central purchasing policies. Past legislation has made it possible for state purchasing officials to focus on managing contracts on behalf of the taxpayers and it has given them the ability to renegotiate contracts when taxpayers are no longer getting the best possible service.
Once these contracts are managed, purchasing officials are supposed to analyze the usage of the contract and leverage the buying power of the state to buy in bulk and continue to drive down costs.
Taxpayer savings under this new system is approximately $20M over the life of the managed contracts. It’s important to note that not all of this savings is from state government, however. City and county governments are also eligible to participate in contracts and receive the same pricing structure as state agencies. Sometimes vendors will just provide the product or service to the local government entity at the state contract rate. At other times, local governments will opt in to a state contract.
For instance, Logan County District 2 recently needed to replace three trucks. By using the state’s vehicle contract, District 2 saved approximately $20,000 on the purchase price. To put this in perspective, the $20,000 saved represents approximately one-ninth of the cost of the very important two mile Midwest Road repaving project that is set to commence shortly. Midwest Road is probably the worst road in Logan County and local residents have waited many years for this project.
The City of Guthrie recently opted into the state’s purchase card contract. This contract should allow the city to streamline their purchasing procedures and earn a rebate on each purchase made.
The City of Guthrie has also entered into a managed document service contract with the company that pioneered the state mandatory document service contract model and saved the state thousands of dollars. If the City of Guthrie replicates the state model, I would expect the savings to be considerable.
By taking advantage of or emulating state reforms, local officials are serving their taxpayers well by preventing the needless waste of tax dollars through inefficient processes.
For example, one of the most important focuses of the efforts to streamline government processes has been the effort to reform the state central purchasing policies. Past legislation has made it possible for state purchasing officials to focus on managing contracts on behalf of the taxpayers and it has given them the ability to renegotiate contracts when taxpayers are no longer getting the best possible service.
Once these contracts are managed, purchasing officials are supposed to analyze the usage of the contract and leverage the buying power of the state to buy in bulk and continue to drive down costs.
Taxpayer savings under this new system is approximately $20M over the life of the managed contracts. It’s important to note that not all of this savings is from state government, however. City and county governments are also eligible to participate in contracts and receive the same pricing structure as state agencies. Sometimes vendors will just provide the product or service to the local government entity at the state contract rate. At other times, local governments will opt in to a state contract.
For instance, Logan County District 2 recently needed to replace three trucks. By using the state’s vehicle contract, District 2 saved approximately $20,000 on the purchase price. To put this in perspective, the $20,000 saved represents approximately one-ninth of the cost of the very important two mile Midwest Road repaving project that is set to commence shortly. Midwest Road is probably the worst road in Logan County and local residents have waited many years for this project.
The City of Guthrie recently opted into the state’s purchase card contract. This contract should allow the city to streamline their purchasing procedures and earn a rebate on each purchase made.
The City of Guthrie has also entered into a managed document service contract with the company that pioneered the state mandatory document service contract model and saved the state thousands of dollars. If the City of Guthrie replicates the state model, I would expect the savings to be considerable.
By taking advantage of or emulating state reforms, local officials are serving their taxpayers well by preventing the needless waste of tax dollars through inefficient processes.
Monday, October 24, 2011
This Year's Modernization Interim Studies
The Government Modernization Committee will conduct a series of interim studies next month.These studies are designed to bring attention to the implementation of past modernization reforms and begin the process of developing the next round of modernization legislation.
On November 8, our committee will take up a request for a study from Republican Speaker-designate T.W. Shannon. Shannon will ask the committee to consider a system for returning excess state-owned property to the private sector. You may recall my past articles about the importance of inventorying and liquidating unneeded state assets. Shannon’s proposal would do this by documenting the assets that are not being used by state government, selling those assets, and placing the proceeds into an endowment fund that could be used to maintain existing state assets, such as the crumbling exterior of the Oklahoma Capitol, and other state buildings.
Also on November 8, the Government Modernization Committee will receive an update about the savings that taxpayers continue to realize from our purchasing system reforms. The committee will consider the implementation of additional purchasing best practices and analyze the ability of central purchasing officials to renegotiate contracts containing spend items that no longer offer a savings when compared to items commonly found at major retailers. The study will certainly highlight the recent reforms implemented in this year’s House Bill 1086 that require state agency purchasing officials to report their observation of state mandatory contract commodities that are more expensive than traditional market prices.
Also on that same day, at the request of Representative Ann Coody, our committee will review the impact of state auditing procedures on local government.
On November 10, I will ask the committee to analyze the impact of recent legislative changes that required House conference committees to meet in public for the first time in many years. I believe the impact of these rules will be far reaching and that these reforms should be highlighted. I will also ask the committee to consider the proposal to apply Oklahoma’s open meetings and open records laws to the Legislature. This is an important reform that should have happened a long time ago and the time is right for the Legislature to follow the same laws that apply to Oklahoma’s other governing entities.
The committee will receive an update from state central services officials on ongoing agency and process consolidation efforts. We will receive an update about the consolidate of state agencies that is currently occurring because of this year’s legislation and the consolidation of the state’s technology information infrastructure. And per my earlier article, I will ask Oklahoma state Chief Information Officer Alex Pettit to provide the committee with a list of state agencies that have refused to comply with the IT consolidation law.
Also on November 10, Representative Lewis Moore from Edmond will ask the committee to analyze the method by which state agencies must purchase workers compensation insurance coverage and explore opportunities for lowering the cost of the coverage.
Each of these studies will take place at the State Capitol in room 432A. The meetings will begin at 9 a.m.
On November 8, our committee will take up a request for a study from Republican Speaker-designate T.W. Shannon. Shannon will ask the committee to consider a system for returning excess state-owned property to the private sector. You may recall my past articles about the importance of inventorying and liquidating unneeded state assets. Shannon’s proposal would do this by documenting the assets that are not being used by state government, selling those assets, and placing the proceeds into an endowment fund that could be used to maintain existing state assets, such as the crumbling exterior of the Oklahoma Capitol, and other state buildings.
Also on November 8, the Government Modernization Committee will receive an update about the savings that taxpayers continue to realize from our purchasing system reforms. The committee will consider the implementation of additional purchasing best practices and analyze the ability of central purchasing officials to renegotiate contracts containing spend items that no longer offer a savings when compared to items commonly found at major retailers. The study will certainly highlight the recent reforms implemented in this year’s House Bill 1086 that require state agency purchasing officials to report their observation of state mandatory contract commodities that are more expensive than traditional market prices.
Also on that same day, at the request of Representative Ann Coody, our committee will review the impact of state auditing procedures on local government.
On November 10, I will ask the committee to analyze the impact of recent legislative changes that required House conference committees to meet in public for the first time in many years. I believe the impact of these rules will be far reaching and that these reforms should be highlighted. I will also ask the committee to consider the proposal to apply Oklahoma’s open meetings and open records laws to the Legislature. This is an important reform that should have happened a long time ago and the time is right for the Legislature to follow the same laws that apply to Oklahoma’s other governing entities.
The committee will receive an update from state central services officials on ongoing agency and process consolidation efforts. We will receive an update about the consolidate of state agencies that is currently occurring because of this year’s legislation and the consolidation of the state’s technology information infrastructure. And per my earlier article, I will ask Oklahoma state Chief Information Officer Alex Pettit to provide the committee with a list of state agencies that have refused to comply with the IT consolidation law.
Also on November 10, Representative Lewis Moore from Edmond will ask the committee to analyze the method by which state agencies must purchase workers compensation insurance coverage and explore opportunities for lowering the cost of the coverage.
Each of these studies will take place at the State Capitol in room 432A. The meetings will begin at 9 a.m.
Monday, October 17, 2011
The Positive Impact of the New Legislators
The Legislature has greatly benefited this year from the influx of a large number of freshmen members elected during the 2010 election cycle. Because they are a product of this important election cycle, they know firsthand how important it is for Oklahoma’s policy makers to cut government spending.
Here is one example:
For years, various attempts have been made in the Legislature to bring some common sense to the way the state allocated benefits to state employees. Believe it or not, with very limited exceptions, state policy mandated that state employees receive a rich health benefit allowance even if the state employee had health coverage with another source. It made absolutely no sense that the taxpayers were forced to pay for a duplicative benefit that was not even needed.
Attempts to allow otherwise covered state employees to opt out of health coverage met with opposition and were always defeated. Advocates of the status quo argued that the removal of these employee from the state’s self insurance PPO would risk prejudicing the makeup of the universe of participants, and they didn’t want to set a trend of allowing certain employees to opt out.
Of course this resulted in an absolute absurdity because taxpayers were forced to spend thousands of dollars providing coverage for those who didn’t even need it.
Legislation to fix this problem was assigned to the Government Modernization Committee where we would always support it and send it on to the rest of the Legislature. But it never made it through the entire Legislature, and eventually died every time.
So this year, when freshmen Representative Dustin Roberts and Senator Josh Brecheen sponsored House Bill 1062, a limited version of the opt out legislation, it looked like all the other past failed attempts. I doubt that many believed the legislation would be successful because after all, similar approaches had always been defeated.
This did not deter the freshmen legislators from not only continuing to advance the proposal, but expanding it to include all state employees. Because of their hard work, the law was approved by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor.
Now, for the first time, as state employees are signing up for their benefits for next year, they can opt out of the system. Each employee who chooses to opt out saves the taxpayers thousands of dollars.
I believe this success is partially due to the fact that freshmen legislators did not know they were attempting a task that veteran legislators had already failed to accomplish. Their intent was to right an obvious wrong and save the taxpayers money. They did not care about the politics of the issue or the difficulty of the task.
In my view, the legislative freshmen serve as a good example of the importance of term limits and the value that newcomers bring to the legislative environment.
Here is one example:
For years, various attempts have been made in the Legislature to bring some common sense to the way the state allocated benefits to state employees. Believe it or not, with very limited exceptions, state policy mandated that state employees receive a rich health benefit allowance even if the state employee had health coverage with another source. It made absolutely no sense that the taxpayers were forced to pay for a duplicative benefit that was not even needed.
Attempts to allow otherwise covered state employees to opt out of health coverage met with opposition and were always defeated. Advocates of the status quo argued that the removal of these employee from the state’s self insurance PPO would risk prejudicing the makeup of the universe of participants, and they didn’t want to set a trend of allowing certain employees to opt out.
Of course this resulted in an absolute absurdity because taxpayers were forced to spend thousands of dollars providing coverage for those who didn’t even need it.
Legislation to fix this problem was assigned to the Government Modernization Committee where we would always support it and send it on to the rest of the Legislature. But it never made it through the entire Legislature, and eventually died every time.
So this year, when freshmen Representative Dustin Roberts and Senator Josh Brecheen sponsored House Bill 1062, a limited version of the opt out legislation, it looked like all the other past failed attempts. I doubt that many believed the legislation would be successful because after all, similar approaches had always been defeated.
This did not deter the freshmen legislators from not only continuing to advance the proposal, but expanding it to include all state employees. Because of their hard work, the law was approved by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor.
Now, for the first time, as state employees are signing up for their benefits for next year, they can opt out of the system. Each employee who chooses to opt out saves the taxpayers thousands of dollars.
I believe this success is partially due to the fact that freshmen legislators did not know they were attempting a task that veteran legislators had already failed to accomplish. Their intent was to right an obvious wrong and save the taxpayers money. They did not care about the politics of the issue or the difficulty of the task.
In my view, the legislative freshmen serve as a good example of the importance of term limits and the value that newcomers bring to the legislative environment.
Monday, October 10, 2011
More About the 2011 Modernization Reforms
I wanted to write just one more article describing some of the reform in this year’s successful Government Modernization legislation. These reforms put into place a comprehensive framework to increase the transparency of state government process, lower the cost of government to the taxpayer, and significantly enhance the ability of the citizen to access government documents and records.
Reducing the need for small business owners to interact with the bureaucracy. Oklahoma business owners must navigate through a series of state bureaucracies to obtain licenses and permits. House Bill 1601 builds on Oklahoma’s existing business one-stop web portal to offer the state’s licensing and permitting from one convenient online location. This means that small business owners should spend less time in line at multiple bureaucracies, and more time building their business and strengthening Oklahoma’s economy.
Placing state documents and reports in a single online location. Countless reports and studies are relegated to state archives, never to be seen again. You may remember from my update two weeks ago that I wrote about the effort to centralize access to state government forms. This reform is similar in that it places reports and studies online where they can be indexed and searched by keyword or term. The transparency impact should be significant. For instance, the 2005/2006 IBM study that was key to reforming the state's purchasing system, had received little attention prior to being discovered by a House interim study in 2007. It appears that prior to the House study, the document had already been shelved and was mostly ignored by the bureaucracy. These types of oversights should occur less frequently when the studies are integrated inside the one-stop documents.ok.gov portal where everyone can see them.
Integrating school district spending data with OpenBooks. During the 2010 legislative session, Oklahoma's local school district transparency data was mandated for online placement. However, the data was placed online through the Department of Education’s site and not co-located with other state spending data. House Bill 1086 co-locates the common education spending data with the state spending data through the OpenBooks web site.
Bringing transparency to state revolving funds. The state maintains a series of revolving funds that are not subject to limitation by fiscal year. The public and state policy officials have limited easy access to the status of these funds. House Bill 1086 mandates the ongoing publication of the fund balances through the data.ok.gov web portal. As with all data.ok.gov data feeds, this data is to be published in a standardized format.
Allowing the public to see the current condition of state Information Technology projects. State officials have the ability to engage in costly IT related projects with little oversight from the public, the press or policy leaders. House Bill 1086 creates a project management platform that is publicly accessible. Project updates must be publicly posted, allowing the public and policy leaders to quickly ascertain when a project experiences a cost or time overrun, or a deterioration in the projected value of project deliverables.
Ending the practice of incentivizing state travel. State employees have been incentivized to travel on the state’s dime because frequent flyer miles awarded for taxpayer-funded travel could be retained for personal use by the employee. The continued use of state travel expenditures during the economic downturn has been especially disturbing. House Bill 1086 develops a policy similar to policies implemented in other states that stops this practice.
Consolidating payroll services. Past testimony before the Government Modernization Committee has described how state government could save about $2 million each year through the consolidation of the state’s payroll system. House Bill 1086 consolidates the state’s payroll processing system into a single offering.
Over the past three weeks I have been able to talk about many of this year’s government modernization reforms. To see a more detailed listing, visit hd31.org/151.
Reducing the need for small business owners to interact with the bureaucracy. Oklahoma business owners must navigate through a series of state bureaucracies to obtain licenses and permits. House Bill 1601 builds on Oklahoma’s existing business one-stop web portal to offer the state’s licensing and permitting from one convenient online location. This means that small business owners should spend less time in line at multiple bureaucracies, and more time building their business and strengthening Oklahoma’s economy.
Placing state documents and reports in a single online location. Countless reports and studies are relegated to state archives, never to be seen again. You may remember from my update two weeks ago that I wrote about the effort to centralize access to state government forms. This reform is similar in that it places reports and studies online where they can be indexed and searched by keyword or term. The transparency impact should be significant. For instance, the 2005/2006 IBM study that was key to reforming the state's purchasing system, had received little attention prior to being discovered by a House interim study in 2007. It appears that prior to the House study, the document had already been shelved and was mostly ignored by the bureaucracy. These types of oversights should occur less frequently when the studies are integrated inside the one-stop documents.ok.gov portal where everyone can see them.
Integrating school district spending data with OpenBooks. During the 2010 legislative session, Oklahoma's local school district transparency data was mandated for online placement. However, the data was placed online through the Department of Education’s site and not co-located with other state spending data. House Bill 1086 co-locates the common education spending data with the state spending data through the OpenBooks web site.
Bringing transparency to state revolving funds. The state maintains a series of revolving funds that are not subject to limitation by fiscal year. The public and state policy officials have limited easy access to the status of these funds. House Bill 1086 mandates the ongoing publication of the fund balances through the data.ok.gov web portal. As with all data.ok.gov data feeds, this data is to be published in a standardized format.
Allowing the public to see the current condition of state Information Technology projects. State officials have the ability to engage in costly IT related projects with little oversight from the public, the press or policy leaders. House Bill 1086 creates a project management platform that is publicly accessible. Project updates must be publicly posted, allowing the public and policy leaders to quickly ascertain when a project experiences a cost or time overrun, or a deterioration in the projected value of project deliverables.
Ending the practice of incentivizing state travel. State employees have been incentivized to travel on the state’s dime because frequent flyer miles awarded for taxpayer-funded travel could be retained for personal use by the employee. The continued use of state travel expenditures during the economic downturn has been especially disturbing. House Bill 1086 develops a policy similar to policies implemented in other states that stops this practice.
Consolidating payroll services. Past testimony before the Government Modernization Committee has described how state government could save about $2 million each year through the consolidation of the state’s payroll system. House Bill 1086 consolidates the state’s payroll processing system into a single offering.
Over the past three weeks I have been able to talk about many of this year’s government modernization reforms. To see a more detailed listing, visit hd31.org/151.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Consolidating State Agencies
Last week I wrote about the large number of modernization initiatives that were approved this year by members of the Government Modernization Committee, the Legislature and Governor. In that article I described a small sampling of these initiatives. These efforts were designed to result in cost savings and greater transparency. In this week’s update I have described House Bill 2140 and House Bill 1304. These two modernizations bills are designed to transform Oklahoma state governance and result in millions of dollars of savings to the taxpayer.
Until passage of House Bill 2140, Oklahoma’s central service functions such as procurement, human resources and financial services were divided into seven different agencies. In some cases, these bureaucracies offered competing shared services services. State employees were forced to navigate a gauntlet of central service bureaucracies to obtain services for their agency. HB 2140 consolidated five of these agencies into one and created a central services one-stop shop for state employees. A multi-million dollar savings mandate was attached to the legislation.
This consolidation should allow the state to focus its policy efforts and yield considerable additional savings to the taxpayer. Here is one example of an absurdity created by the fact that so many agencies overlap on policy. State employee benefits policy has historically been divided between two separate state agencies. This year, one of these state agencies subsidized the state employees’ PPO health care premium costs by using income from that agency’s investments. This means that the employees’ cost for their PPO health plan premium did not increase.
A second state agency awarded HMO contracts that reflected an increase in premium. Because the state employee benefit allowance is tied to a formula that accounts for the price of the HMO plans, the employees' benefit allowance is set to increase.
This means the cost of purchasing health insurance will stay the same for many of the employees who use the PPO plan. This is at time when their benefit allowance is increasing. Many employees already have 100% of their benefits paid for, so the excess allowance will be taken in the form of direct monetary compensation. In other words, state agencies must now pay their employees thousands of dollars in benefit allowance that is not needed to purchase benefits. This is a pay increase without a vote of the Legislature or approval of the employees’ agency-level employers.
House Bill 2104 consolidated both of these agencies, and should put an end to these types of absurd outcomes.
House Bill 1304 consolidates much of Oklahoma state government’s information technology processes. Currently, millions of dollars of information technology spending is segregated across countless state agencies. Information technology is not coordinated, strategized or planned on an enterprise-wide basis. A 2011 study found that Oklahoma spends over $40 million more than comparable organizations in IT spend each year. HB 1304 cuts through the bureaucracies and views information technology activities from the perspective of a single entity. Once completely implemented, the legislation is designed to save about $80 million each year.
The Department of Education volunteered for inclusion in the IT consolidation even before the law takes full effect. This one state agency alone is estimated to experience an approximate savings of $600,000 per year because of the consolidation.
This article has just began to scratch the surface of the impact that these bills will have on state policy in the years to come. If properly implemented, the savings and efficiency will be considerable.
Until passage of House Bill 2140, Oklahoma’s central service functions such as procurement, human resources and financial services were divided into seven different agencies. In some cases, these bureaucracies offered competing shared services services. State employees were forced to navigate a gauntlet of central service bureaucracies to obtain services for their agency. HB 2140 consolidated five of these agencies into one and created a central services one-stop shop for state employees. A multi-million dollar savings mandate was attached to the legislation.
This consolidation should allow the state to focus its policy efforts and yield considerable additional savings to the taxpayer. Here is one example of an absurdity created by the fact that so many agencies overlap on policy. State employee benefits policy has historically been divided between two separate state agencies. This year, one of these state agencies subsidized the state employees’ PPO health care premium costs by using income from that agency’s investments. This means that the employees’ cost for their PPO health plan premium did not increase.
A second state agency awarded HMO contracts that reflected an increase in premium. Because the state employee benefit allowance is tied to a formula that accounts for the price of the HMO plans, the employees' benefit allowance is set to increase.
This means the cost of purchasing health insurance will stay the same for many of the employees who use the PPO plan. This is at time when their benefit allowance is increasing. Many employees already have 100% of their benefits paid for, so the excess allowance will be taken in the form of direct monetary compensation. In other words, state agencies must now pay their employees thousands of dollars in benefit allowance that is not needed to purchase benefits. This is a pay increase without a vote of the Legislature or approval of the employees’ agency-level employers.
House Bill 2104 consolidated both of these agencies, and should put an end to these types of absurd outcomes.
House Bill 1304 consolidates much of Oklahoma state government’s information technology processes. Currently, millions of dollars of information technology spending is segregated across countless state agencies. Information technology is not coordinated, strategized or planned on an enterprise-wide basis. A 2011 study found that Oklahoma spends over $40 million more than comparable organizations in IT spend each year. HB 1304 cuts through the bureaucracies and views information technology activities from the perspective of a single entity. Once completely implemented, the legislation is designed to save about $80 million each year.
The Department of Education volunteered for inclusion in the IT consolidation even before the law takes full effect. This one state agency alone is estimated to experience an approximate savings of $600,000 per year because of the consolidation.
This article has just began to scratch the surface of the impact that these bills will have on state policy in the years to come. If properly implemented, the savings and efficiency will be considerable.
Monday, September 12, 2011
A Really Annoying Excuse - How State Agencies Are Fighting Reform
In recent weeks, I have started to hear some of the most aggravating logic coming from state bureaucracies.
This year the Legislature and the Governor approved an aggressive series of far-reaching legislative initiatives designed to streamline government processes and eliminate some of the most costly and obviously wasteful practices that have existed in state government for many years.
As these laws start to take effect, state bureaucracies are trotting out their arguments for why they do not want to comply.
For example, it appears that over 50 agencies have yet to comply with an important initial phase of the state’s information technology consolidation effort.
One of the reasons given by agencies for attempting to opt out of this law is the allegation that the reforms will actually cost the agencies money because they will not be able to receive as much federal money. In other words, modernizing and streamlining services is not acceptable because the money used to maintain these inefficient services is also used to match federal money.
These state agencies are trapped in a bubble where they believe one of their primary missions is to leverage the “free” federal money in every way possible even if it means spending the state money inefficiently.
I don’t think wasting taxpayer money is ever acceptable. It does not matter if the money comes from state taxes and fees or the federal government’s money printing presses. In one way or another, the taxpayers are going to pay the price for inefficiency and massive spending.
Even if no state money were involved, we shouldn’t allow inefficient state government processes to waste federal money.
In fact, our goal should be to modernize, streamline and cut the scope of state government processes and services to the point that we can liberate ourselves from many of the countless federal mandates that accompany the federal funding.
In my view, the highest levels of state bureaucracies are all too often habituated by bureaucrats who desperately desire to preserve the big government status quo. They fear and oppose efforts that will take away their control over big government processes. They oppose new efficient strategies because they do not want to give up their ability to control the millions of dollars of state and federal taxpayer dollars -- and they will fight to preserve that control even when it means defending the most wasteful of practices. For them, it seems it isn’t about doing the right thing, it is about keeping the power that comes with all that money.
On November 10, I will chair a hearing of the Government Modernization Committee that will examine the ongoing state agency and process consolidation process. The Speaker of the House has requested our committee to create a report based on these hearings this year. It is my intent to enter into the record the list of agencies that are opposing the efficiencies and that may be in violation of the law.
It is my hope that by that time, these agencies will realize that Oklahoma’s policy makers are serious about following through with these reforms so the bureaucrats will not be allowed to maintain the big spending status quo.
This year the Legislature and the Governor approved an aggressive series of far-reaching legislative initiatives designed to streamline government processes and eliminate some of the most costly and obviously wasteful practices that have existed in state government for many years.
As these laws start to take effect, state bureaucracies are trotting out their arguments for why they do not want to comply.
For example, it appears that over 50 agencies have yet to comply with an important initial phase of the state’s information technology consolidation effort.
One of the reasons given by agencies for attempting to opt out of this law is the allegation that the reforms will actually cost the agencies money because they will not be able to receive as much federal money. In other words, modernizing and streamlining services is not acceptable because the money used to maintain these inefficient services is also used to match federal money.
These state agencies are trapped in a bubble where they believe one of their primary missions is to leverage the “free” federal money in every way possible even if it means spending the state money inefficiently.
I don’t think wasting taxpayer money is ever acceptable. It does not matter if the money comes from state taxes and fees or the federal government’s money printing presses. In one way or another, the taxpayers are going to pay the price for inefficiency and massive spending.
Even if no state money were involved, we shouldn’t allow inefficient state government processes to waste federal money.
In fact, our goal should be to modernize, streamline and cut the scope of state government processes and services to the point that we can liberate ourselves from many of the countless federal mandates that accompany the federal funding.
In my view, the highest levels of state bureaucracies are all too often habituated by bureaucrats who desperately desire to preserve the big government status quo. They fear and oppose efforts that will take away their control over big government processes. They oppose new efficient strategies because they do not want to give up their ability to control the millions of dollars of state and federal taxpayer dollars -- and they will fight to preserve that control even when it means defending the most wasteful of practices. For them, it seems it isn’t about doing the right thing, it is about keeping the power that comes with all that money.
On November 10, I will chair a hearing of the Government Modernization Committee that will examine the ongoing state agency and process consolidation process. The Speaker of the House has requested our committee to create a report based on these hearings this year. It is my intent to enter into the record the list of agencies that are opposing the efficiencies and that may be in violation of the law.
It is my hope that by that time, these agencies will realize that Oklahoma’s policy makers are serious about following through with these reforms so the bureaucrats will not be allowed to maintain the big spending status quo.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Cutting Logan County Taxes
It is my belief that Logan County’s high sales tax rate has been a deterrent to retail-based economic growth. In 2005, the county made the unfortunate decision to increase taxes to the maximum amount allowed by state law. This placed Logan County businesses at a significant disadvantage when compared to their counterparts in other metro area communities that have a much lower sales tax rate.
For years, the valid perception has existed that Logan County residents will save money if they go out of the county to make big purchases. The financial impact of this perception is difficult to quantify, but I believe it has been substantial. Although, I certainly do not begrudge the communities that have offered Logan County residents a better deal by charging much less in sales tax.
Over the next few years, much of this is set to change. As soon as November, the county portion of the Logan County sales tax is set to fall by 43%. This will decrease the sales tax in Guthrie to 8.5% and the sales tax in south Logan County to just 5.5%.
Because of this decrease, by next year, the Guthrie sales tax may be just a quarter cent higher than the Edmond sales tax and just over a tenth of a cent higher than the Oklahoma City sales tax rate.
Over the next few years, as tax for the new Logan County jail is no longer needed, the Guthrie rate could fall to 7.75% and the south Logan County rate to 4.75%. This means that for the first time in many years, the Guthrie tax rate should be lower than the tax in both Edmond and Oklahoma City, and one of the lowest in the metro area. The south Logan County rate will be one of the lowest in the entire state.
I believe that recent actions by county leaders to cut sales taxes will have very beneficial long term results. I feel that one of Edmond’s keys to success was the commitment to keep lower sales tax rates when compared to surrounding communities. Now, as the growth continues to the north, Logan County officials should copy the Edmond low-tax model.
The low tax rate should serve as a strong motivator for additional retail growth in South Logan County. Over the last few years, retail businesses have already started to invest in south Logan County. These additional buying opportunities, coupled with one of the lowest sales tax rates in the state, should incentivize this growth even more. South Logan County residents will be hard pressed to justify paying in excess of an 8% sales tax in one of the surrounding communities when they can stay close to home and pay 4.75%. In fact, those who live in north Edmond will likely find it easier to avoid the traffic and cut costs when making quick purchases by driving north to south Logan County.
These impending changes will transform the area from Seward Road, south to Waterloo, into a very low tax zone, and perhaps in the future will give officials in surrounding communities a good reason to avoid raising their own taxes.
Logan County officials must maintain their current policy of tax-reduction. Lowering taxes has not been an easy task to accomplish, but implementing a low-tax policy is the right thing to do for local merchants who have invested so much into the community. Logan County’s past policy of high taxation has unfairly punished these individuals. It is also the right thing to do for the local residents who have worked hard for their income, and who will spend the savings with much more wisdom than the government ever could.
For years, the valid perception has existed that Logan County residents will save money if they go out of the county to make big purchases. The financial impact of this perception is difficult to quantify, but I believe it has been substantial. Although, I certainly do not begrudge the communities that have offered Logan County residents a better deal by charging much less in sales tax.
Over the next few years, much of this is set to change. As soon as November, the county portion of the Logan County sales tax is set to fall by 43%. This will decrease the sales tax in Guthrie to 8.5% and the sales tax in south Logan County to just 5.5%.
Because of this decrease, by next year, the Guthrie sales tax may be just a quarter cent higher than the Edmond sales tax and just over a tenth of a cent higher than the Oklahoma City sales tax rate.
Over the next few years, as tax for the new Logan County jail is no longer needed, the Guthrie rate could fall to 7.75% and the south Logan County rate to 4.75%. This means that for the first time in many years, the Guthrie tax rate should be lower than the tax in both Edmond and Oklahoma City, and one of the lowest in the metro area. The south Logan County rate will be one of the lowest in the entire state.
I believe that recent actions by county leaders to cut sales taxes will have very beneficial long term results. I feel that one of Edmond’s keys to success was the commitment to keep lower sales tax rates when compared to surrounding communities. Now, as the growth continues to the north, Logan County officials should copy the Edmond low-tax model.
The low tax rate should serve as a strong motivator for additional retail growth in South Logan County. Over the last few years, retail businesses have already started to invest in south Logan County. These additional buying opportunities, coupled with one of the lowest sales tax rates in the state, should incentivize this growth even more. South Logan County residents will be hard pressed to justify paying in excess of an 8% sales tax in one of the surrounding communities when they can stay close to home and pay 4.75%. In fact, those who live in north Edmond will likely find it easier to avoid the traffic and cut costs when making quick purchases by driving north to south Logan County.
These impending changes will transform the area from Seward Road, south to Waterloo, into a very low tax zone, and perhaps in the future will give officials in surrounding communities a good reason to avoid raising their own taxes.
Logan County officials must maintain their current policy of tax-reduction. Lowering taxes has not been an easy task to accomplish, but implementing a low-tax policy is the right thing to do for local merchants who have invested so much into the community. Logan County’s past policy of high taxation has unfairly punished these individuals. It is also the right thing to do for the local residents who have worked hard for their income, and who will spend the savings with much more wisdom than the government ever could.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Murphey Receives a 100% Conservative Rating
Murphey Receives a 100% Conservative Rating
State Representative Jason Murphey (R-Guthrie) has received a rating of 100% from Oklahoma's longest running conservative publication for his work during the 2011 legislative session.
The 100% rating was given to Murphey by The Oklahoma Constitution Newspaper. Each year since 1979, The Oklahoma Constitution has graded Oklahoma legislators and published a Conservative Index by which the constituents of the legislator can gauge how conservative or liberal their legislator votes.
Each year bills nominated for use on the Conservative Index are submitted to the Oklahoma Conservative PAC (OCPAC). The group contains 200+ members. The membership takes input from both lawmakers and citizens and uses that input to debate and then vote on the top 10 issues by which the lawmakers are graded. This process takes place over two weeks time. During the process, OCPAC members are not told how the legislators voted in order to not bias the vote.
The 10 issues and the rankings of the lawmakers are subsequently published in the Conservative Index. The index grades lawmakers on both their session score and their cumulative lifetime score in order to keep track of the voting habits of lawmakers during their entire time in office.
Murphey was credited for his vote against issuing millions of dollars of additional government debt and for being one of just seven Representatives to vote against a new fee increase on Oklahoma taxpayers. Murphey was also given points for his votes for tort reform, a key right-to-life issue, property tax reform and second amendment rights.
"When I campaigned for office I ran on a platform of representing conservative values. I believe this ranking shows that I am keeping my word," Murphey said.
Murphey was the only Oklahoma lawmaker to score a 100% this year and remains the only Oklahoma Legislator to maintain a lifetime score of 100% having scored a 100% on the index in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and now 2011.
State Representative Jason Murphey (R-Guthrie) has received a rating of 100% from Oklahoma's longest running conservative publication for his work during the 2011 legislative session.
The 100% rating was given to Murphey by The Oklahoma Constitution Newspaper. Each year since 1979, The Oklahoma Constitution has graded Oklahoma legislators and published a Conservative Index by which the constituents of the legislator can gauge how conservative or liberal their legislator votes.
Each year bills nominated for use on the Conservative Index are submitted to the Oklahoma Conservative PAC (OCPAC). The group contains 200+ members. The membership takes input from both lawmakers and citizens and uses that input to debate and then vote on the top 10 issues by which the lawmakers are graded. This process takes place over two weeks time. During the process, OCPAC members are not told how the legislators voted in order to not bias the vote.
The 10 issues and the rankings of the lawmakers are subsequently published in the Conservative Index. The index grades lawmakers on both their session score and their cumulative lifetime score in order to keep track of the voting habits of lawmakers during their entire time in office.
Murphey was credited for his vote against issuing millions of dollars of additional government debt and for being one of just seven Representatives to vote against a new fee increase on Oklahoma taxpayers. Murphey was also given points for his votes for tort reform, a key right-to-life issue, property tax reform and second amendment rights.
"When I campaigned for office I ran on a platform of representing conservative values. I believe this ranking shows that I am keeping my word," Murphey said.
Murphey was the only Oklahoma lawmaker to score a 100% this year and remains the only Oklahoma Legislator to maintain a lifetime score of 100% having scored a 100% on the index in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and now 2011.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Staying Focused
Earlier this year, I wrote about my decision to help bring attention to the need for a federal balanced budget amendment. I enjoyed the opportunity to document the significant amount of support in the Oklahoma Legislature for ratifying the amendment if Congress would just give us the opportunity to do so.
I also mentioned my hesitance to take on new tasks. Over the past few years I have become very focused on finding inefficient government processes and helping write and pass the legislation to transform those processes. It is my belief that this effort could result in massive tax reduction for Oklahoma taxpayers. I think it is immoral for state government to take your money and waste it in unbelievably inefficient and dysfunctional processes.
I firmly believe that these reforms could allow Oklahoma to completely eliminate its state income tax. This is one of the most important reforms that could happen because studies have shown that the absence of an income tax has been a key factor in incentivizing economic growth.
As you might imagine, this work has taken time. One of my biggest challenges has been to stay focused and not take on too many major efforts. This isn’t easy because there are so many areas in state government that need reform. At any moment, I am likely to take on a new major reform effort.
For instance, I am tempted to focus on welfare reform each time I observe someone using an access card (your money) to purchase junk food while using their own money to purchase cigarettes.
Each time higher education institutions raise tuition on students yet again, while their own budgets skyrocket upwards, even during an economic downturn, I feel the temptation to invest my energy in reforming the higher education system. I think the actions of higher education over the past few years have proven that the Legislature should have never turned over the right to raise tuition to higher education. Technology should be driving down the cost of education. The increases do a great disservice to Oklahoma students.
I am tempted to focus my efforts on human services reform whenever I see reports of DHS placing a child in a dangerous environment or see them remove a child from a safe environment. I have a series of ideas for human services reform that I plan to write about in the future.
Of course, common education reform represents one of the greatest areas of need for reform. There are far too many school districts, way too much red tape, and limited freedom of parental choice. The Legislature's refusal to act more proactively over the years on education reform has trapped thousands of students in failing school systems. I have a great distaste for the actions of politicians who grandstand on the education issue while constantly blocking attempts to enact reform.
And, then there is the antiquated system for addressing the state’s road needs. From an antiquated funding formula to a bureaucracy-heavy, top-down approach to paving local roads, too much money is soaked up in costly bureaucratic processes that are feeding a government bureaucracy and taking money away from paving roads. I could commit a great deal of focus on this issue.
These are just a few of the efforts, each of which one could spend their entire time in the Legislature seeking to accomplish. At this time, I am determined to stay focused on the effort to reduce the size of state government. However, I am also subject to taking on one or several of these efforts -- and others I haven't mentioned yet. And of course, I am always prepared to vote in support of my colleagues in the House and Senate who are working to accomplish these and other reforms. I also very much appreciate your continued feedback and suggestions. My views on the need for these reforms have been heavily influenced by the input I have received.
I also mentioned my hesitance to take on new tasks. Over the past few years I have become very focused on finding inefficient government processes and helping write and pass the legislation to transform those processes. It is my belief that this effort could result in massive tax reduction for Oklahoma taxpayers. I think it is immoral for state government to take your money and waste it in unbelievably inefficient and dysfunctional processes.
I firmly believe that these reforms could allow Oklahoma to completely eliminate its state income tax. This is one of the most important reforms that could happen because studies have shown that the absence of an income tax has been a key factor in incentivizing economic growth.
As you might imagine, this work has taken time. One of my biggest challenges has been to stay focused and not take on too many major efforts. This isn’t easy because there are so many areas in state government that need reform. At any moment, I am likely to take on a new major reform effort.
For instance, I am tempted to focus on welfare reform each time I observe someone using an access card (your money) to purchase junk food while using their own money to purchase cigarettes.
Each time higher education institutions raise tuition on students yet again, while their own budgets skyrocket upwards, even during an economic downturn, I feel the temptation to invest my energy in reforming the higher education system. I think the actions of higher education over the past few years have proven that the Legislature should have never turned over the right to raise tuition to higher education. Technology should be driving down the cost of education. The increases do a great disservice to Oklahoma students.
I am tempted to focus my efforts on human services reform whenever I see reports of DHS placing a child in a dangerous environment or see them remove a child from a safe environment. I have a series of ideas for human services reform that I plan to write about in the future.
Of course, common education reform represents one of the greatest areas of need for reform. There are far too many school districts, way too much red tape, and limited freedom of parental choice. The Legislature's refusal to act more proactively over the years on education reform has trapped thousands of students in failing school systems. I have a great distaste for the actions of politicians who grandstand on the education issue while constantly blocking attempts to enact reform.
And, then there is the antiquated system for addressing the state’s road needs. From an antiquated funding formula to a bureaucracy-heavy, top-down approach to paving local roads, too much money is soaked up in costly bureaucratic processes that are feeding a government bureaucracy and taking money away from paving roads. I could commit a great deal of focus on this issue.
These are just a few of the efforts, each of which one could spend their entire time in the Legislature seeking to accomplish. At this time, I am determined to stay focused on the effort to reduce the size of state government. However, I am also subject to taking on one or several of these efforts -- and others I haven't mentioned yet. And of course, I am always prepared to vote in support of my colleagues in the House and Senate who are working to accomplish these and other reforms. I also very much appreciate your continued feedback and suggestions. My views on the need for these reforms have been heavily influenced by the input I have received.
Monday, August 15, 2011
2011 Local Redistricting Observations
Hi!
I have attached my update for this week. Thank you and have a great day.
Jason
2011 Local Redistricting Observations
As you are probably aware, this is the year when state and local government divisions redraw the boundary lines defining the area from which their public officials are elected.
This important process is designed to ensure that each district contains the same number of people. It results from a Supreme Court decision in the 1960s that established the principle that one group of people should not be disadvantaged due to the fact that there are more people living inside of their particular district thus diluting their voting power.
Every 10 years, government units equalize each district’s population using the data from the recently concluded census.
As you might imagine this has been a challenging process in our area because of the rapidly growing local population. Making matters more challenging is the fact that the growth has been heavily concentrated, meaning that over the last 10 years large population inequities have developed between the various districts. Statistically, areas of North Oklahoma County and South Logan County have been under-represented in government over the past years and the districts that cover those areas have to give up a significant amount of their population.
This growth has had a huge impact on House District 31. As a result of redistricting, the House District has lost approximately half of its geographic area. All areas north of the Cimarron River and east of Indian Meridian Road will be transferred to other districts. And, with a very small exception, the entirety of a large north and westside Guthrie precinct (voting at Guthrie Christian Church) will also transfer away from House District 31.
House District 31 actually expands in the south and picks up 16 square miles of the Deer Creek area.
Oklahoma County Commission District Three will also change to reflect local growth trends. This district includes much of the North Oklahoma County area and contained 44,000 more residents than it did in the year 2000. This tremendous amount of growth meant that the district had to give up much of the Luther area.
In Logan County, Logan County Districts One and Two have also grown because of the influx of population into south Logan County. Both of these districts had to give up territory in the Guthrie area. This gives Guthrie a much stronger voice in Logan County District Three within which about two-thirds of the town’s population now lives. For the first time in many years, Logan County District One has almost completely been removed from the Guthrie area with just small portions on the south and west sides of town remaining in the district.
Logan County District Two becomes much more representative of south Logan County as the district gave up 2,000 residents in the Guthrie and Langston areas and picked up 2,000 south Logan County residents from District One. To see if your neighbored was affected by the Logan County redistricting action you may review the new map at http://hd31.org/146.
As an observer of Logan County government, it was refreshing to see the contrast in this year’s county redistricting progress when compared to the last redistricting. In 2001, the County Commission initially redistricted the county in violation of the one-man, one-vote concept. They attempted to cram nearly 2,500 more residents into Logan County District One than Logan County District Three. This resulted in a staggering 13.96 deviation from the mean population distribution and far exceeded the amount allowed by law. In short, the Commission appeared to simply ignore the law and flagrantly violated the one-man, one-vote principle.
That was one of my first experiences observing what I believed to be the local good-old-boy system and served as an inspiration to work for the reform of area government.
Today, things are much different. The 2011 redistricting plan equalizes the population between districts and allows for county residents to be equally represented in local government.
I have attached my update for this week. Thank you and have a great day.
Jason
2011 Local Redistricting Observations
As you are probably aware, this is the year when state and local government divisions redraw the boundary lines defining the area from which their public officials are elected.
This important process is designed to ensure that each district contains the same number of people. It results from a Supreme Court decision in the 1960s that established the principle that one group of people should not be disadvantaged due to the fact that there are more people living inside of their particular district thus diluting their voting power.
Every 10 years, government units equalize each district’s population using the data from the recently concluded census.
As you might imagine this has been a challenging process in our area because of the rapidly growing local population. Making matters more challenging is the fact that the growth has been heavily concentrated, meaning that over the last 10 years large population inequities have developed between the various districts. Statistically, areas of North Oklahoma County and South Logan County have been under-represented in government over the past years and the districts that cover those areas have to give up a significant amount of their population.
This growth has had a huge impact on House District 31. As a result of redistricting, the House District has lost approximately half of its geographic area. All areas north of the Cimarron River and east of Indian Meridian Road will be transferred to other districts. And, with a very small exception, the entirety of a large north and westside Guthrie precinct (voting at Guthrie Christian Church) will also transfer away from House District 31.
House District 31 actually expands in the south and picks up 16 square miles of the Deer Creek area.
Oklahoma County Commission District Three will also change to reflect local growth trends. This district includes much of the North Oklahoma County area and contained 44,000 more residents than it did in the year 2000. This tremendous amount of growth meant that the district had to give up much of the Luther area.
In Logan County, Logan County Districts One and Two have also grown because of the influx of population into south Logan County. Both of these districts had to give up territory in the Guthrie area. This gives Guthrie a much stronger voice in Logan County District Three within which about two-thirds of the town’s population now lives. For the first time in many years, Logan County District One has almost completely been removed from the Guthrie area with just small portions on the south and west sides of town remaining in the district.
Logan County District Two becomes much more representative of south Logan County as the district gave up 2,000 residents in the Guthrie and Langston areas and picked up 2,000 south Logan County residents from District One. To see if your neighbored was affected by the Logan County redistricting action you may review the new map at http://hd31.org/146.
As an observer of Logan County government, it was refreshing to see the contrast in this year’s county redistricting progress when compared to the last redistricting. In 2001, the County Commission initially redistricted the county in violation of the one-man, one-vote concept. They attempted to cram nearly 2,500 more residents into Logan County District One than Logan County District Three. This resulted in a staggering 13.96 deviation from the mean population distribution and far exceeded the amount allowed by law. In short, the Commission appeared to simply ignore the law and flagrantly violated the one-man, one-vote principle.
That was one of my first experiences observing what I believed to be the local good-old-boy system and served as an inspiration to work for the reform of area government.
Today, things are much different. The 2011 redistricting plan equalizes the population between districts and allows for county residents to be equally represented in local government.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
All Bills Should Receive a Vote
This year, Representative Charles Key presented the Oklahoma House of Representatives with a proposed rule change to require that all bills must receive a hearing from the House committee to which they were assigned.
The proposal posits that by virtue of his election, a State Representative should have the right to ask for an on-the-record vote by Oklahoma’s policy makers for or against an idea.
I have observed at all levels of government that those who do not want to be on the record with a controversial vote will try to control the agenda and deprive one of their own members from the right to place an item before the group for consideration. Filtering agenda items through a chairman or mayor is probably the most common method used by those who wish to have exclusive control over the agenda.
I have always felt that it should be a fundamental right of an elected official to place an item before a board and at the very least receive an on-the-record vote.
At some point in the past, the Legislature put in place the system by which the chairman of a committee was granted the discretion over which bills would be heard and which bills would not receive consideration.
There are rarely used provisions of the rules that allow the members of a committee to bypass the chairman, but excising these provisions are so controversial that they are almost never attempted.
This vests a tremendous amount of authority in the handful of a few chairmen and essentially creates two classes of legislators. As you might imagine, the special interests and lobbyists heavily invest in a chairman’s re-election committees, almost guaranteeing the chairman’s re-election. Of course, this also makes the chairman very responsive to the special interests. This warps the policy-making process and in my view, provides an unhealthy advantage to the special interest.
I am certainly the first to admit that many bad pieces of legislation quickly disappear without consideration because of this system. This is probably the most convincing argument used by the proponents of the status quo. But I am a big believer in the fact that even if it costs him his next election, it is the job of the legislator to man up and vote “No” on bad legislation.
I supported the Key proposal. While his effort was not successful this year, I believe that the groundwork has been laid for continual reforms in this area. Over the past seven years, the House has experienced a series of process and transparency reforms and I am optimistic that they will continue in a responsible yet consistent manner. In my view, the time is not far off when each bill will receive a hearing.
Next week, I will write about how I reconcile my belief that each bill should be heard with my responsibilities as a committee chairman in a system where committee chairmen are expected to kill bad legislation.
The proposal posits that by virtue of his election, a State Representative should have the right to ask for an on-the-record vote by Oklahoma’s policy makers for or against an idea.
I have observed at all levels of government that those who do not want to be on the record with a controversial vote will try to control the agenda and deprive one of their own members from the right to place an item before the group for consideration. Filtering agenda items through a chairman or mayor is probably the most common method used by those who wish to have exclusive control over the agenda.
I have always felt that it should be a fundamental right of an elected official to place an item before a board and at the very least receive an on-the-record vote.
At some point in the past, the Legislature put in place the system by which the chairman of a committee was granted the discretion over which bills would be heard and which bills would not receive consideration.
There are rarely used provisions of the rules that allow the members of a committee to bypass the chairman, but excising these provisions are so controversial that they are almost never attempted.
This vests a tremendous amount of authority in the handful of a few chairmen and essentially creates two classes of legislators. As you might imagine, the special interests and lobbyists heavily invest in a chairman’s re-election committees, almost guaranteeing the chairman’s re-election. Of course, this also makes the chairman very responsive to the special interests. This warps the policy-making process and in my view, provides an unhealthy advantage to the special interest.
I am certainly the first to admit that many bad pieces of legislation quickly disappear without consideration because of this system. This is probably the most convincing argument used by the proponents of the status quo. But I am a big believer in the fact that even if it costs him his next election, it is the job of the legislator to man up and vote “No” on bad legislation.
I supported the Key proposal. While his effort was not successful this year, I believe that the groundwork has been laid for continual reforms in this area. Over the past seven years, the House has experienced a series of process and transparency reforms and I am optimistic that they will continue in a responsible yet consistent manner. In my view, the time is not far off when each bill will receive a hearing.
Next week, I will write about how I reconcile my belief that each bill should be heard with my responsibilities as a committee chairman in a system where committee chairmen are expected to kill bad legislation.
All Bills Should Receive a Vote
This year, Representative Charles Key presented the Oklahoma House of Representatives with a proposed rule change to require that all bills must receive a hearing from the House committee to which they were assigned.
The proposal posits that by virtue of his election, a State Representative should have the right to ask for an on-the-record vote by Oklahoma’s policy makers for or against an idea.
I have observed at all levels of government that those who do not want to be on the record with a controversial vote will try to control the agenda and deprive one of their own members from the right to place an item before the group for consideration. Filtering agenda items through a chairman or mayor is probably the most common method used by those who wish to have exclusive control over the agenda.
I have always felt that it should be a fundamental right of an elected official to place an item before a board and at the very least receive an on-the-record vote.
At some point in the past, the Legislature put in place the system by which the chairman of a committee was granted the discretion over which bills would be heard and which bills would not receive consideration.
There are rarely used provisions of the rules that allow the members of a committee to bypass the chairman, but excising these provisions are so controversial that they are almost never attempted.
This vests a tremendous amount of authority in the handful of a few chairmen and essentially creates two classes of legislators. As you might imagine, the special interests and lobbyists heavily invest in a chairman’s re-election committees, almost guaranteeing the chairman’s re-election. Of course, this also makes the chairman very responsive to the special interests. This warps the policy-making process and in my view, provides an unhealthy advantage to the special interest.
I am certainly the first to admit that many bad pieces of legislation quickly disappear without consideration because of this system. This is probably the most convincing argument used by the proponents of the status quo. But I am a big believer in the fact that even if it costs him his next election, it is the job of the legislator to man up and vote “No” on bad legislation.
I supported the Key proposal. While his effort was not successful this year, I believe that the groundwork has been laid for continual reforms in this area. Over the past seven years, the House has experienced a series of process and transparency reforms and I am optimistic that they will continue in a responsible yet consistent manner. In my view, the time is not far off when each bill will receive a hearing.
Next week, I will write about how I reconcile my belief that each bill should be heard with my responsibilities as a committee chairman in a system where committee chairmen are expected to kill bad legislation.
The proposal posits that by virtue of his election, a State Representative should have the right to ask for an on-the-record vote by Oklahoma’s policy makers for or against an idea.
I have observed at all levels of government that those who do not want to be on the record with a controversial vote will try to control the agenda and deprive one of their own members from the right to place an item before the group for consideration. Filtering agenda items through a chairman or mayor is probably the most common method used by those who wish to have exclusive control over the agenda.
I have always felt that it should be a fundamental right of an elected official to place an item before a board and at the very least receive an on-the-record vote.
At some point in the past, the Legislature put in place the system by which the chairman of a committee was granted the discretion over which bills would be heard and which bills would not receive consideration.
There are rarely used provisions of the rules that allow the members of a committee to bypass the chairman, but excising these provisions are so controversial that they are almost never attempted.
This vests a tremendous amount of authority in the handful of a few chairmen and essentially creates two classes of legislators. As you might imagine, the special interests and lobbyists heavily invest in a chairman’s re-election committees, almost guaranteeing the chairman’s re-election. Of course, this also makes the chairman very responsive to the special interests. This warps the policy-making process and in my view, provides an unhealthy advantage to the special interest.
I am certainly the first to admit that many bad pieces of legislation quickly disappear without consideration because of this system. This is probably the most convincing argument used by the proponents of the status quo. But I am a big believer in the fact that even if it costs him his next election, it is the job of the legislator to man up and vote “No” on bad legislation.
I supported the Key proposal. While his effort was not successful this year, I believe that the groundwork has been laid for continual reforms in this area. Over the past seven years, the House has experienced a series of process and transparency reforms and I am optimistic that they will continue in a responsible yet consistent manner. In my view, the time is not far off when each bill will receive a hearing.
Next week, I will write about how I reconcile my belief that each bill should be heard with my responsibilities as a committee chairman in a system where committee chairmen are expected to kill bad legislation.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Supporting the Balanced Budget Amendment
Last month, a grassroots group known as Pass the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) sought support from legislators across the nation to bring attention to the need for a balanced budget amendment to the United States constitution. Since three-fourths of the states must ratify any constitutional amendment, it is important for state legislators to support the proposal.
This is not a new concept. In 1982, President Ronald Regean called on Congress to approve a balanced budget amendment.
Reagan stated, “This amendment will, of course, have to be ratified by three-fourths of the States. But I'm confident that the grassroots support for a balanced budget amendment is out there and will carry the day against the special interests. Most Americans understand the need for a balanced budget, and most Americans have seen how difficult it is for the Congress to withstand the pressures for more spending. This amendment will force government to stay within the limit of its revenues. Government will have to do what each of us does with our own family budgets -- spend no more than we can afford. Only a constitutional amendment will do the job. We've tried the carrot and it failed. With the stick of a balanced budget amendment, we can stop government squandering, overtaxing ways, and save our economy.”
Congress never heeded Reagan’s call. At that time, the national debt was under 2 trillion dollars. Now, the debt is set to surpass 14 trillion dollars, and charts show the debt is rapidly increasing in a frightening hockey stick curve.
I believe that when Congress refused to heed Reagan’s call, they may have passed the point of no return. However, some in Congress have viewed the recent debate over raising the national debt limit as another opportunity to introduce the balanced budget amendment.
I felt this issue was of such importance that I volunteered to circulate a letter documenting the commitment of Oklahoma legislators to ratify the amendment.
I am happy to report that there is a tremendous amount of support for the proposal in our legislature. Getting legislators to sign a policy letter during a legislative interim is not an easy task. However, the sentiment for the issue was so strong, that 42 legislators immediately signed on. I don’t think I ever recall a time when so many legislators signed onto a policy letter.
After the letter was mailed, a significant number of additional legislators expressed a desire to also sign the letter. We will have to send another letter. In total, it appears that a bi-partisan majority of the Oklahoma House of Representatives will have signed on.
There is little doubt that if given the opportunity, Oklahoma will become one of the first states to ratify the balanced budget amendment.
This is not a new concept. In 1982, President Ronald Regean called on Congress to approve a balanced budget amendment.
Reagan stated, “This amendment will, of course, have to be ratified by three-fourths of the States. But I'm confident that the grassroots support for a balanced budget amendment is out there and will carry the day against the special interests. Most Americans understand the need for a balanced budget, and most Americans have seen how difficult it is for the Congress to withstand the pressures for more spending. This amendment will force government to stay within the limit of its revenues. Government will have to do what each of us does with our own family budgets -- spend no more than we can afford. Only a constitutional amendment will do the job. We've tried the carrot and it failed. With the stick of a balanced budget amendment, we can stop government squandering, overtaxing ways, and save our economy.”
Congress never heeded Reagan’s call. At that time, the national debt was under 2 trillion dollars. Now, the debt is set to surpass 14 trillion dollars, and charts show the debt is rapidly increasing in a frightening hockey stick curve.
I believe that when Congress refused to heed Reagan’s call, they may have passed the point of no return. However, some in Congress have viewed the recent debate over raising the national debt limit as another opportunity to introduce the balanced budget amendment.
I felt this issue was of such importance that I volunteered to circulate a letter documenting the commitment of Oklahoma legislators to ratify the amendment.
I am happy to report that there is a tremendous amount of support for the proposal in our legislature. Getting legislators to sign a policy letter during a legislative interim is not an easy task. However, the sentiment for the issue was so strong, that 42 legislators immediately signed on. I don’t think I ever recall a time when so many legislators signed onto a policy letter.
After the letter was mailed, a significant number of additional legislators expressed a desire to also sign the letter. We will have to send another letter. In total, it appears that a bi-partisan majority of the Oklahoma House of Representatives will have signed on.
There is little doubt that if given the opportunity, Oklahoma will become one of the first states to ratify the balanced budget amendment.
Monday, July 18, 2011
State Officials Making a Difference
During the past three weeks I have used this medium to describe the role Oklahoma’s newly elected officials have played in working toward smaller state government.
I initially envisioned that I would write about this in just one article. However, I have observed so many different attempts by these officials to eliminate wasteful spending, that one article has grown into four.
I enjoyed the opportunity to work with new Labor Commissioner Mark Costello this year. I spent a significant amount of time this year working with Labor Department officials as part of our state agency consolidation processes. Costello has made of point of declaring his opposition to “sacred cows” in state government and has been a strong advocate for reducing the size of government through agency consolidation. I look forward to working with Costello in the future to consolidate unnecessary overhead in state government. Without a doubt, Costello has emerged as one of the state’s leading advocate for government reform.
I am also extremely appreciative of the fact that new Oklahoma Lieutenant Governor Todd Lamb is drawing attention to the state’s need for asset management. You may recall in the past that I have described how state assets such as buildings have not even been included in a centralized inventory. Can you image what would happen to a privately owned business that could not even tell you what buildings it owned? A cursory compendium of state assets has recently been curated, and this document should provide us a start in attempting to get a handle on this huge problem.
The Lieutenant Governor’s leadership on this issue will be crucial in finding the millions of dollars of state assets that should be removed from the hands of the government and returned to the free market where they belong.
This fall, the Government Modernization committee will conduct a study led by State Representative TW Shannon to analyze the need for a much more aggressive state asset management solution.
Finally, a most dramatic transformation has occurred in the state Department of Education. You may recall from a previous article how at the end of 2010, the department refused to follow state law that required an assessment of their information technology assets. This was an important study that was necessary to determine the possible money savings from the implementation of an enterprise-wide IT consolidation plan. It was incredible that a state bureaucracy just ignored the law.
Once new Superintendent of Education Janet Barresi took office, all of this changed. The Department of Education transformed into a leader in following the IT consolidation law and actually became the first large state agency to consolidate under the state’s IT consolidation plan. The savings is expected to run as high as $600,000 each year. At a time when too many state agencies are still fighting the IT consolidation, it is very exciting to see this type of transformation occur inside a state bureaucracy. $600,000 is a lot of money and the taxpayers have been well served by this decision.
I believe these actions reflect the fact that many of Oklahoma’s newly elected officials have a real desire to reduce government spending. I am confident that most of them will remain true to this goal and that Oklahoma will be well served in the upcoming years.
I initially envisioned that I would write about this in just one article. However, I have observed so many different attempts by these officials to eliminate wasteful spending, that one article has grown into four.
I enjoyed the opportunity to work with new Labor Commissioner Mark Costello this year. I spent a significant amount of time this year working with Labor Department officials as part of our state agency consolidation processes. Costello has made of point of declaring his opposition to “sacred cows” in state government and has been a strong advocate for reducing the size of government through agency consolidation. I look forward to working with Costello in the future to consolidate unnecessary overhead in state government. Without a doubt, Costello has emerged as one of the state’s leading advocate for government reform.
I am also extremely appreciative of the fact that new Oklahoma Lieutenant Governor Todd Lamb is drawing attention to the state’s need for asset management. You may recall in the past that I have described how state assets such as buildings have not even been included in a centralized inventory. Can you image what would happen to a privately owned business that could not even tell you what buildings it owned? A cursory compendium of state assets has recently been curated, and this document should provide us a start in attempting to get a handle on this huge problem.
The Lieutenant Governor’s leadership on this issue will be crucial in finding the millions of dollars of state assets that should be removed from the hands of the government and returned to the free market where they belong.
This fall, the Government Modernization committee will conduct a study led by State Representative TW Shannon to analyze the need for a much more aggressive state asset management solution.
Finally, a most dramatic transformation has occurred in the state Department of Education. You may recall from a previous article how at the end of 2010, the department refused to follow state law that required an assessment of their information technology assets. This was an important study that was necessary to determine the possible money savings from the implementation of an enterprise-wide IT consolidation plan. It was incredible that a state bureaucracy just ignored the law.
Once new Superintendent of Education Janet Barresi took office, all of this changed. The Department of Education transformed into a leader in following the IT consolidation law and actually became the first large state agency to consolidate under the state’s IT consolidation plan. The savings is expected to run as high as $600,000 each year. At a time when too many state agencies are still fighting the IT consolidation, it is very exciting to see this type of transformation occur inside a state bureaucracy. $600,000 is a lot of money and the taxpayers have been well served by this decision.
I believe these actions reflect the fact that many of Oklahoma’s newly elected officials have a real desire to reduce government spending. I am confident that most of them will remain true to this goal and that Oklahoma will be well served in the upcoming years.
Monday, July 4, 2011
Modernizing the State Treasurer's Office
This year I enjoyed the opportunity to work with several of Oklahoma's new statewide elected officials in their efforts to modernize state government. I served as the House author for modernization legislation on behalf of State Treasurer Ken Miller, State Auditor Gary Jones, Attorney General Scott Pruitt and State Superintendent Janet Barresi.
When State Treasurer Ken Miller took office, he commissioned his staff with the responsibility of finding inefficiencies and drafting proposed updates of state law when necessary to address those inefficiencies.
Miller’s modernization proposal was sponsored in the form of Senate Bill 571. The bill was authored by Senator Clark Jolley in the Senate and I carried the bill in the House.
Senate Bill 571 targeted several areas. The bill updated procedures for the liquidation of properties deposited into the state’s unclaimed property fund. In the past, state officials had to engage in antiquated and duplicative procedures that added unnecessary cost and had to eventually be paid by those who owned the property. Miller’s bill streamlined those unnecessary process procedures so that the unnecessary cost was not passed on to property owners.
Miller also noted that the state had thousands of dollars remaining in an old account that had been used to pay claims from a 2004-era tax refund program. The fund had not experienced a claim for several years but the funds were tied down awaiting claims that were obviously never going to be filed. SB 571 closed down this unnecessary fund.
SB 571 also put an end to redundant reporting processes that interfered with each other because they used the same data but had to be filed at two different times. SB 571 synchronized the filing process so that the reports could be filed using the same data sets.
These provisions of SB 571 probably won’t receive any attention from the media. Very few citizens realized any of these issues even existed. But that bill will save taxpayer money and resources that otherwise would have been wasted. I especially appreciate Treasurer Miller’s commitment to doing the right thing and modernizing government process even when no one was paying attention. I believe that speaks to his good intent and am happy to have been able to assist Miller and Senator Jolley in doing the right thing for state taxpayers.
Next week I intend to write about some of the other modernization initiatives requested by other state officials.
When State Treasurer Ken Miller took office, he commissioned his staff with the responsibility of finding inefficiencies and drafting proposed updates of state law when necessary to address those inefficiencies.
Miller’s modernization proposal was sponsored in the form of Senate Bill 571. The bill was authored by Senator Clark Jolley in the Senate and I carried the bill in the House.
Senate Bill 571 targeted several areas. The bill updated procedures for the liquidation of properties deposited into the state’s unclaimed property fund. In the past, state officials had to engage in antiquated and duplicative procedures that added unnecessary cost and had to eventually be paid by those who owned the property. Miller’s bill streamlined those unnecessary process procedures so that the unnecessary cost was not passed on to property owners.
Miller also noted that the state had thousands of dollars remaining in an old account that had been used to pay claims from a 2004-era tax refund program. The fund had not experienced a claim for several years but the funds were tied down awaiting claims that were obviously never going to be filed. SB 571 closed down this unnecessary fund.
SB 571 also put an end to redundant reporting processes that interfered with each other because they used the same data but had to be filed at two different times. SB 571 synchronized the filing process so that the reports could be filed using the same data sets.
These provisions of SB 571 probably won’t receive any attention from the media. Very few citizens realized any of these issues even existed. But that bill will save taxpayer money and resources that otherwise would have been wasted. I especially appreciate Treasurer Miller’s commitment to doing the right thing and modernizing government process even when no one was paying attention. I believe that speaks to his good intent and am happy to have been able to assist Miller and Senator Jolley in doing the right thing for state taxpayers.
Next week I intend to write about some of the other modernization initiatives requested by other state officials.
Monday, June 20, 2011
The Year of the Reprimand
The Oklahoma Constitution contains a clause that says that for any speech or debate in the Legislature, legislators shall not be questioned in any other place. In other words, the speech of Representatives while considering legislation is sacrosanct. The clause mirrors a provision in the US Constitution and places a priority on the ability of legislators without fear of retribution to expose any wrong, debate any idea, and express any point of view, regardless of how unpopular or controversial the viewpoint.
For the past five years as I have served in the Legislature, I have observed plenty of political grandstanding, less-than-accurate demonization of the opposition, and significant amounts of hyperbole. I have also witnessed countless dilatory and unnecessary procedure motions which are designed to throw a monkey wrench into the process. This mostly serves to force the other Representatives into a time crunch to such an extent that they have to dispense with normal debate procedures, and thus the dilatory parliamentary process does little more than take away the opportunity for the debate and counteracts the stated end goal of those who engage in those tactics.
But all of that is part of the process. It is the prerogative of any Representative to be an obnoxious jerk if that is what he thinks he must do to make his point. He will be judged by those he represents and unless he is subject to impeachment, it has not been the place of other Representatives to stand in judgement of his actions.
At least not until this year.
This year we have inexplicably been asked not once, not twice, but three times to vote for a “motion to reprimand” our fellow Representatives. Unbelievably, the last of these motions was made to reprimand a Representative specifically for comments made in debating for passage of a bill.
I have voted against the motion to reprimand each and every time. I know it is not my place to judge an elected Representative from another district and I never want my vote to reprimand another Representative to be used as a political tool against them in their next election. The voters of that district should be the ones who stand in judgement of their Representative’s actions.
These demoralizing motions have greatly reduced the dignity of the House and have created an atmosphere where the House floor feels a bit like a grade school playground. This playground is roamed by a few bullies who are natural political grandstanders and have no problem inflicting pain and humiliation to a colleague in order to advance their own warped vision of a successful political career. The newly discovered “motion to reprimand” could be their perfect tool for inflicting this pain to anyone who dares cause them trouble or who does not fit their view of being politically correct. And make no mistake, it will be deployed in the next campaign season to try to defeat the victims of the reprimands.
I believe this alarming and inappropriate new trend will have a stifling effect on the ability of Representatives to debate issues openly, and I think it is contrary to the spirit of the important Constitutional provision I previously referenced. Every comment and debate, both on and off the House floor, must now be carefully couched to ensure that it cannot be used by the opposition to engage in the latest political correctness witch hunt followed by the now dreaded “motion to reprimand."
I believe these unfortunate actions will cause many to think back on this year as the year when politicians played a series of unprecedented petty games which demeaned the reputation of the House. This is unfortunate because there have been a number of significant policy accomplishments this year.
I certainly hope this was a temporary trend, that Oklahoma legislators will stop the foolishness, and that the year of the reprimand will be never again be repeated.
For the past five years as I have served in the Legislature, I have observed plenty of political grandstanding, less-than-accurate demonization of the opposition, and significant amounts of hyperbole. I have also witnessed countless dilatory and unnecessary procedure motions which are designed to throw a monkey wrench into the process. This mostly serves to force the other Representatives into a time crunch to such an extent that they have to dispense with normal debate procedures, and thus the dilatory parliamentary process does little more than take away the opportunity for the debate and counteracts the stated end goal of those who engage in those tactics.
But all of that is part of the process. It is the prerogative of any Representative to be an obnoxious jerk if that is what he thinks he must do to make his point. He will be judged by those he represents and unless he is subject to impeachment, it has not been the place of other Representatives to stand in judgement of his actions.
At least not until this year.
This year we have inexplicably been asked not once, not twice, but three times to vote for a “motion to reprimand” our fellow Representatives. Unbelievably, the last of these motions was made to reprimand a Representative specifically for comments made in debating for passage of a bill.
I have voted against the motion to reprimand each and every time. I know it is not my place to judge an elected Representative from another district and I never want my vote to reprimand another Representative to be used as a political tool against them in their next election. The voters of that district should be the ones who stand in judgement of their Representative’s actions.
These demoralizing motions have greatly reduced the dignity of the House and have created an atmosphere where the House floor feels a bit like a grade school playground. This playground is roamed by a few bullies who are natural political grandstanders and have no problem inflicting pain and humiliation to a colleague in order to advance their own warped vision of a successful political career. The newly discovered “motion to reprimand” could be their perfect tool for inflicting this pain to anyone who dares cause them trouble or who does not fit their view of being politically correct. And make no mistake, it will be deployed in the next campaign season to try to defeat the victims of the reprimands.
I believe this alarming and inappropriate new trend will have a stifling effect on the ability of Representatives to debate issues openly, and I think it is contrary to the spirit of the important Constitutional provision I previously referenced. Every comment and debate, both on and off the House floor, must now be carefully couched to ensure that it cannot be used by the opposition to engage in the latest political correctness witch hunt followed by the now dreaded “motion to reprimand."
I believe these unfortunate actions will cause many to think back on this year as the year when politicians played a series of unprecedented petty games which demeaned the reputation of the House. This is unfortunate because there have been a number of significant policy accomplishments this year.
I certainly hope this was a temporary trend, that Oklahoma legislators will stop the foolishness, and that the year of the reprimand will be never again be repeated.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Health Care Lawsuit and Business Activity Taxes
Over the past few days I have received questions regarding a couple of issues. I know that if several people have asked questions about these matters, it’s possible that a number of other constituents are wondering the same thing.
As constituents watch news sources about the Florida legal action against the federal health care proposal they may notice that Oklahoma is not listed as one of the 26 states that filed the action. They want to know why Oklahoma has not taken action.
It is true that Oklahoma has not joined the Florida lawsuit against the proposal. However, Oklahoma has filed its own separate action. There is an important reason why Oklahoma's suit should be kept separate from the Florida’s suit.
Last year, the Legislature approved an initiative to allow the voters to place a provision in the Oklahoma Constitution. This initiative was approved by voters in last November’s election. It placed a clause in the Constitution to keep Oklahomans from being forced to purchase health insurance. Oklahoma is one of just three states to have adopted a similar Constitutional provision.
This provision gives Oklahoma additional standing in seeking to stop the federal mandate. As such, Oklahoma has a stronger case by filing suit on its own merit instead of joining the Florida lawsuit. Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt filed the action January 21, 2011 in the federal district court for eastern Oklahoma. You can view the filing by visiting hd31.org/125.
I have also received questions about Oklahoma’s Business Activity Tax (BAT). The BAT is a $25 assessment on Oklahoma businesses. It is offset by either a $25 tax credit or a $25 credit against the certification or registration fees paid to the Secretary of State. This is a nuisance for business owners and the Tax Commission who must fill out the paperwork and administer the tax. You are likely understandably curious about why the an offsetting tax like this is on the books.
The BAT is a response to a 2009 Supreme Court ruling that stated Oklahoma must tax businesses for business activity items such as intangible property. They stated that items exempted from taxation, even intangible ones, must be specifically exempted in the Constitution. You can only image how complicated this would become when business owners had to report and be taxed on intangible items such as trademarks, software, patents, licenses, contracts, customer lists, and even goodwill. This could have been a huge tax increase for business owners.
The BAT appears to meet the mandate of the court without requiring the massive new amounts of taxation and will sunset at the end of 2012. This will give the Legislature the ability to send a question to the voters in the 2012 election to amend the Constitution and make it clear that intangible business activity items are not taxed.
If you have questions about these or other issues, please do not hesitate to contact me. I enjoy the opportunity to provide insight as to why things happen as they do. Your questions let me know what I need to address in these articles.
As constituents watch news sources about the Florida legal action against the federal health care proposal they may notice that Oklahoma is not listed as one of the 26 states that filed the action. They want to know why Oklahoma has not taken action.
It is true that Oklahoma has not joined the Florida lawsuit against the proposal. However, Oklahoma has filed its own separate action. There is an important reason why Oklahoma's suit should be kept separate from the Florida’s suit.
Last year, the Legislature approved an initiative to allow the voters to place a provision in the Oklahoma Constitution. This initiative was approved by voters in last November’s election. It placed a clause in the Constitution to keep Oklahomans from being forced to purchase health insurance. Oklahoma is one of just three states to have adopted a similar Constitutional provision.
This provision gives Oklahoma additional standing in seeking to stop the federal mandate. As such, Oklahoma has a stronger case by filing suit on its own merit instead of joining the Florida lawsuit. Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt filed the action January 21, 2011 in the federal district court for eastern Oklahoma. You can view the filing by visiting hd31.org/125.
I have also received questions about Oklahoma’s Business Activity Tax (BAT). The BAT is a $25 assessment on Oklahoma businesses. It is offset by either a $25 tax credit or a $25 credit against the certification or registration fees paid to the Secretary of State. This is a nuisance for business owners and the Tax Commission who must fill out the paperwork and administer the tax. You are likely understandably curious about why the an offsetting tax like this is on the books.
The BAT is a response to a 2009 Supreme Court ruling that stated Oklahoma must tax businesses for business activity items such as intangible property. They stated that items exempted from taxation, even intangible ones, must be specifically exempted in the Constitution. You can only image how complicated this would become when business owners had to report and be taxed on intangible items such as trademarks, software, patents, licenses, contracts, customer lists, and even goodwill. This could have been a huge tax increase for business owners.
The BAT appears to meet the mandate of the court without requiring the massive new amounts of taxation and will sunset at the end of 2012. This will give the Legislature the ability to send a question to the voters in the 2012 election to amend the Constitution and make it clear that intangible business activity items are not taxed.
If you have questions about these or other issues, please do not hesitate to contact me. I enjoy the opportunity to provide insight as to why things happen as they do. Your questions let me know what I need to address in these articles.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Modernization Efforts Approved
Three weeks ago I wrote an article in which I described how most our 2011 modernization initiatives were still pending in the legislative process. With only one week left in the session, it was our challenge to win approval for all these initiatives.
I am happy to report that during the last week of session, each of these proposals were approved by the Legislature and all the legislation has been signed by Governor Fallin over the last few days.
The proposals aggressively consolidate a significant number of state government processes and several state agencies. These changes are transformative and if implemented correctly, will result in millions of dollars of yearly savings to the taxpayer.
Additionally, there are a myriad of smaller accompanying proposals designed to utilize technology to provide transparency and process efficiencies that will continue to transform Oklahoma state governance structure into a more open and efficient model.
It is my goal to write about a number of these initiatives in the upcoming weeks. In the past, I provided House District 31 constituents with an end-of-the-year update of modernization efforts over the course of a few updates. However, this year the reforms are so comprehensive and wide ranging, I could write a book describing the changes and the impact I believe they will have.
These changes came about because of the dedicated effort of a number of individuals.
Our House Speaker Kris Steele and our House leadership made a 100% commitment to modernizing state government. They stood by that commitment through the entire session and I cannot recall a single modernization proposal that was stopped by leadership. The members of our House Government Modernization Committee stood by, and sponsored or co-sponsored the modernization efforts and helped elevate the importance of the issues with our House colleagues.
The reforms would never have happened without the work and support of Senate President Pro-Temp Brian Bingman, Senators Clark Jolley, Anthony Sykes and Josh Breechen. These four senators sponsored almost all of the legislative modernization proposals and did a great job vetting the issues with and winning the support of the Senate.
Governor Mary Fallin made all the difference by calling for reforms from the very beginning of session. After her call for change, some of these proposals met with significant resistance; however, the Governor never backed down from her proposals but worked through the opposition. In my view this leadership was very much the reason for why we were able to maintain the necessary support for these far-reaching reforms in the face of opposition.
At some point in the future I also intend to write about the support and input regarding modernization and streamlining of services that we have received from nearly all of the other statewide elected officials.
It has been such a privilege to work with those who are committed to reducing the burden of government on Oklahoma taxpayers while taking to heart the taxpayers’ trust to guard their money.
I am happy to report that during the last week of session, each of these proposals were approved by the Legislature and all the legislation has been signed by Governor Fallin over the last few days.
The proposals aggressively consolidate a significant number of state government processes and several state agencies. These changes are transformative and if implemented correctly, will result in millions of dollars of yearly savings to the taxpayer.
Additionally, there are a myriad of smaller accompanying proposals designed to utilize technology to provide transparency and process efficiencies that will continue to transform Oklahoma state governance structure into a more open and efficient model.
It is my goal to write about a number of these initiatives in the upcoming weeks. In the past, I provided House District 31 constituents with an end-of-the-year update of modernization efforts over the course of a few updates. However, this year the reforms are so comprehensive and wide ranging, I could write a book describing the changes and the impact I believe they will have.
These changes came about because of the dedicated effort of a number of individuals.
Our House Speaker Kris Steele and our House leadership made a 100% commitment to modernizing state government. They stood by that commitment through the entire session and I cannot recall a single modernization proposal that was stopped by leadership. The members of our House Government Modernization Committee stood by, and sponsored or co-sponsored the modernization efforts and helped elevate the importance of the issues with our House colleagues.
The reforms would never have happened without the work and support of Senate President Pro-Temp Brian Bingman, Senators Clark Jolley, Anthony Sykes and Josh Breechen. These four senators sponsored almost all of the legislative modernization proposals and did a great job vetting the issues with and winning the support of the Senate.
Governor Mary Fallin made all the difference by calling for reforms from the very beginning of session. After her call for change, some of these proposals met with significant resistance; however, the Governor never backed down from her proposals but worked through the opposition. In my view this leadership was very much the reason for why we were able to maintain the necessary support for these far-reaching reforms in the face of opposition.
At some point in the future I also intend to write about the support and input regarding modernization and streamlining of services that we have received from nearly all of the other statewide elected officials.
It has been such a privilege to work with those who are committed to reducing the burden of government on Oklahoma taxpayers while taking to heart the taxpayers’ trust to guard their money.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Reporting Storm Damage
As you are probably aware, the tornado that damaged Logan County properties from Cashion to Guthrie and parts in-between has now been assessed by the national weather service as an EF-4 category tornado.
This storm damaged the property of a large number of Logan County properties and will have an impact on affected property owners for a long time to come.
If your property was damaged, please do not hesitate to contact my office if I provide any assistance. One of the most important parts of my job is to ensure that constituents receive the benefit of fair due process as they interact with government entities. This certainly applies when recovering from a storm.
I am also always happy to assist in matching those who need help with available resources. In the upcoming weeks and months, please view my office as a resource.
If your property value has been damaged by the storm, it is important to notify the county as soon as possible.
The storm occurred just days before the county assessor's office will be taking final request for adjustments on next year’s taxes. Logan County Assessor Tisha Hampton is requesting that her office be notified of storm damage which has an impact on the value of any damaged properties.
Assessor Hampton has manged to obtain an extension of the normal deadline for reporting storm damage. This means she can reflect the impact of the damage by lowering next year’s property taxes on the affected properties if her office is notified by June 10.
My office may be contact by phone at 405-557-7350 and by email at Jason.Murphey@okhouse.gov. The assessor’s office may be reached at 405-282-3509.
This storm damaged the property of a large number of Logan County properties and will have an impact on affected property owners for a long time to come.
If your property was damaged, please do not hesitate to contact my office if I provide any assistance. One of the most important parts of my job is to ensure that constituents receive the benefit of fair due process as they interact with government entities. This certainly applies when recovering from a storm.
I am also always happy to assist in matching those who need help with available resources. In the upcoming weeks and months, please view my office as a resource.
If your property value has been damaged by the storm, it is important to notify the county as soon as possible.
The storm occurred just days before the county assessor's office will be taking final request for adjustments on next year’s taxes. Logan County Assessor Tisha Hampton is requesting that her office be notified of storm damage which has an impact on the value of any damaged properties.
Assessor Hampton has manged to obtain an extension of the normal deadline for reporting storm damage. This means she can reflect the impact of the damage by lowering next year’s property taxes on the affected properties if her office is notified by June 10.
My office may be contact by phone at 405-557-7350 and by email at Jason.Murphey@okhouse.gov. The assessor’s office may be reached at 405-282-3509.
Monday, May 16, 2011
One More Week!
Legislative leaders negotiated a budget agreement with the Governor last week and came to terms with proposals for redistricting the House and Senate. With these issues addressed, legislators have been encouraged to move their bills through the conference committee process with the expectation that the group could adjourn for the year as soon as this week.
The House officially approved the redistricting plan I wrote about in last week’s update. The plan experienced little opposition and was adopted by a vote of 93-3. It now heads to the Senate for approval.
The Senate has also announced their redistricting plan. The Senate plan will reduce the number of Senate districts which crisscross House District 31. Four of these districts currently divide up Logan County. Logan County will now be placed into Senate District 20. The new Senator for Logan County will be Senator David Myers from Ponca City. This district will also cover all of Noble, Pawnee, and part of Kingfisher Counties. Logan County accounts for over 50% of the population of the new district.
The change will also affect the Edmond legislative delegation; a third Senator, Senator Rob Johnson, will join the group as the Senator for the west side of Edmond. The Senate will vote on their plan this week, and that vote will be followed by House consideration of the plan.
There are a number of state government modernization issues that are still working their way through the conference committee process. It will be my responsibility this week to ensure that these issues don’t get lost in the process and will hopefully be approved and sent to the Governor.
The outstanding modernization issues include the proposal to consolidate five state government agencies, establish a business-friendly licensing one-stop shop, consolidate the state’s information technology infrastructure, create a series of taxpayer transparency review processes, consolidate the state’s payroll processing infrastructure systems, and enact the Governor's proposal to the save significant taxpayer dollars through the use of an electronic payments system for the state’s vendors.
There are many millions of taxpayer dollars of savings at stake with these bills. I hope to have good news to report next week.
This will also be the last week that the House District 31 constituent survey is available. If you have not had a chance to take the survey and you live in House District 31, please visit housedistrict31.com and let me know what you think about some of the issues the Legislature has considered this year.
The House officially approved the redistricting plan I wrote about in last week’s update. The plan experienced little opposition and was adopted by a vote of 93-3. It now heads to the Senate for approval.
The Senate has also announced their redistricting plan. The Senate plan will reduce the number of Senate districts which crisscross House District 31. Four of these districts currently divide up Logan County. Logan County will now be placed into Senate District 20. The new Senator for Logan County will be Senator David Myers from Ponca City. This district will also cover all of Noble, Pawnee, and part of Kingfisher Counties. Logan County accounts for over 50% of the population of the new district.
The change will also affect the Edmond legislative delegation; a third Senator, Senator Rob Johnson, will join the group as the Senator for the west side of Edmond. The Senate will vote on their plan this week, and that vote will be followed by House consideration of the plan.
There are a number of state government modernization issues that are still working their way through the conference committee process. It will be my responsibility this week to ensure that these issues don’t get lost in the process and will hopefully be approved and sent to the Governor.
The outstanding modernization issues include the proposal to consolidate five state government agencies, establish a business-friendly licensing one-stop shop, consolidate the state’s information technology infrastructure, create a series of taxpayer transparency review processes, consolidate the state’s payroll processing infrastructure systems, and enact the Governor's proposal to the save significant taxpayer dollars through the use of an electronic payments system for the state’s vendors.
There are many millions of taxpayer dollars of savings at stake with these bills. I hope to have good news to report next week.
This will also be the last week that the House District 31 constituent survey is available. If you have not had a chance to take the survey and you live in House District 31, please visit housedistrict31.com and let me know what you think about some of the issues the Legislature has considered this year.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Redistricting Plan to be Considered this Week
This week the House will take action on a redistricting proposal. Every 10 years, lawmakers are required to adjust House district boundaries to ensure each district contains an equally balanced population.
Changes to local political boundaries have been expected for some time since the 2010 census data demonstrated that House District 31 was the 10th largest district in the state, contained more unincorporated residents than any other district, and consisted primarily of the state’s fourth fastest growing county. The district must be reduced in size by approximately 7,000 residents.
The redistricting plan will transfer all parts of House District 31 that are located north of the Cimarron River and one Guthrie precinct to House District 38. This includes Cimarron City, Crescent, Lovell, Marshall, Mulhall and Orlando. Guthrie precinct 305, the polling location at Guthrie Christian Church at 17th and Logan, will also become a part of House District 38.
House District 38 is a rural district consisting of a several counties and a significant number of small towns. It would become one of the largest districts in terms of area; it would stretch north from Warner Street in Guthrie until reaching the Kansas state line.
House District 31 will also lose the land between Indian Meridian and Pottawattomie Road, as well as some territory west of Indian Meridian Road in the Langston Lake area. This transfer will include the town of Meridian. House District 32 will pick up this area and the town of Langston and will now consist principally of Lincoln and eastern Logan counties.
House District 33 will lose Langston to House District 32 but will continue to include Coyle and several miles of rural Logan County land located north of County Road 75.
Four Representatives will now represent Logan County. In addition to myself, those Representatives are Rep. Danny Morgan in House District 32, Rep. Lee Denney in House District 33 and Rep. Dale Dewitt in House District 38.
The Oklahoma County portion of House District 31 will also experience changes. Several miles of northern Oklahoma County will be exchanged between House District 31 and House District 39. House District 39, represented by Rep. Marian Cooksey, will take four square miles between Kelly and Bryant from Waterloo to Coffee Creek. House District 31 will pick up four square miles between Western and May from Waterloo to Coffee Creek and 12 square miles between May and Rockwell from Waterloo to Covell.
These transfers include the east side of Oak Tree, Belmont Farms, Twin Bridges and Caliburn neighborhoods that will become a part of House District 39, and a significant portion of the Deer Creek area that will be transferred into House District 31.
If the plan is approved, it is certainly going to be sad to lose all of those in the transferred areas whom I have enjoyed getting to know and have been honored to represent. I will still be available to assist these residents with their issues of concern and will assist in the transition process to the new State Representatives.
I do look forward to serving on behalf of those from Deer Creek and will enjoy getting to know and represent them. This area is rapidly growing and in conjunction with the other rapidly growing areas of House District 3,1 there is every reason to expect that it will once again become one of the largest districts in the state.
The maps of these changes are online and you may review them at the http://www.HD31.org/105 web address.
Changes to local political boundaries have been expected for some time since the 2010 census data demonstrated that House District 31 was the 10th largest district in the state, contained more unincorporated residents than any other district, and consisted primarily of the state’s fourth fastest growing county. The district must be reduced in size by approximately 7,000 residents.
The redistricting plan will transfer all parts of House District 31 that are located north of the Cimarron River and one Guthrie precinct to House District 38. This includes Cimarron City, Crescent, Lovell, Marshall, Mulhall and Orlando. Guthrie precinct 305, the polling location at Guthrie Christian Church at 17th and Logan, will also become a part of House District 38.
House District 38 is a rural district consisting of a several counties and a significant number of small towns. It would become one of the largest districts in terms of area; it would stretch north from Warner Street in Guthrie until reaching the Kansas state line.
House District 31 will also lose the land between Indian Meridian and Pottawattomie Road, as well as some territory west of Indian Meridian Road in the Langston Lake area. This transfer will include the town of Meridian. House District 32 will pick up this area and the town of Langston and will now consist principally of Lincoln and eastern Logan counties.
House District 33 will lose Langston to House District 32 but will continue to include Coyle and several miles of rural Logan County land located north of County Road 75.
Four Representatives will now represent Logan County. In addition to myself, those Representatives are Rep. Danny Morgan in House District 32, Rep. Lee Denney in House District 33 and Rep. Dale Dewitt in House District 38.
The Oklahoma County portion of House District 31 will also experience changes. Several miles of northern Oklahoma County will be exchanged between House District 31 and House District 39. House District 39, represented by Rep. Marian Cooksey, will take four square miles between Kelly and Bryant from Waterloo to Coffee Creek. House District 31 will pick up four square miles between Western and May from Waterloo to Coffee Creek and 12 square miles between May and Rockwell from Waterloo to Covell.
These transfers include the east side of Oak Tree, Belmont Farms, Twin Bridges and Caliburn neighborhoods that will become a part of House District 39, and a significant portion of the Deer Creek area that will be transferred into House District 31.
If the plan is approved, it is certainly going to be sad to lose all of those in the transferred areas whom I have enjoyed getting to know and have been honored to represent. I will still be available to assist these residents with their issues of concern and will assist in the transition process to the new State Representatives.
I do look forward to serving on behalf of those from Deer Creek and will enjoy getting to know and represent them. This area is rapidly growing and in conjunction with the other rapidly growing areas of House District 3,1 there is every reason to expect that it will once again become one of the largest districts in the state.
The maps of these changes are online and you may review them at the http://www.HD31.org/105 web address.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
More Encouraging News
It was an incredible experience to participate in a historic occurrence in the State House of Representatives last Wednesday.
In the past, one of the foremost abuses of legislative power would often occur at the end of each legislative session. During this time, legislators would insert amendments into bills through what is known as a conference committee amendment.
The amendments could completely change the bills and include any number of items favoring special interests. The reason this was so dangerous is because amendments were not approved by a committee which met in the purview of the public, but were instead approved by legislators who simply signed their names to the amendments. These new bills would then be posted for consideration by the House and Senate where in some cases they could be considered minutes after posting.
You may recall how I have described in the past how challenging it has been to try to read these bills as they were posted to the calender, knowing that minutes later the bill could be brought up for a vote. If it was this hard for a legislator to keep up with what was being proposed, you can only imagine how impossible it was for a citizen to ever know what laws were being proposed.
By the time the public found out about these laws, it was too late and the changes were already on the way to the Governor. Imagine how it would feel if you were in an industry which experienced a huge fee increase from the government without ever having the opportunity to call your legislator and tell them how you felt.
This year, all of that seems to have changed.
During the last legislative interim, incoming House Speaker Kris Steel formed a committee to recommend changes to the rules of the House. The committee recommended requiring the creation of standing conference committees to vote on bills in public and recommended that all bills be on the House agenda for a set amount of time before becoming eligible for consideration.
These recommendations were accepted by the House, and the conference committees have been formed. Between now and the end of session these committees will meet and it is my hope that not a single house bill will be exempted from a public hearing prior to being considered by the House.
I will serve as the Vice-Chair for the conference committee on Government Modernization and Rules. The committee will consider bills which originated from the House Administrative Rules, Rules and Government Modernization Committees. On Wednesday, our conference committee was the first to meet under the new rules.
This reform will be far reaching and I believe it will have a chilling effect on the ability of special interests to move their legislation during the last days of session.
This legislative reform continues a progression of significant reforms which have continually opened up the legislative process over the past few years. The pace of reform has not been to my personal satisfaction, but there is no arguing that changes have taken place in a responsible and process-changing manner.
In the past, one of the foremost abuses of legislative power would often occur at the end of each legislative session. During this time, legislators would insert amendments into bills through what is known as a conference committee amendment.
The amendments could completely change the bills and include any number of items favoring special interests. The reason this was so dangerous is because amendments were not approved by a committee which met in the purview of the public, but were instead approved by legislators who simply signed their names to the amendments. These new bills would then be posted for consideration by the House and Senate where in some cases they could be considered minutes after posting.
You may recall how I have described in the past how challenging it has been to try to read these bills as they were posted to the calender, knowing that minutes later the bill could be brought up for a vote. If it was this hard for a legislator to keep up with what was being proposed, you can only imagine how impossible it was for a citizen to ever know what laws were being proposed.
By the time the public found out about these laws, it was too late and the changes were already on the way to the Governor. Imagine how it would feel if you were in an industry which experienced a huge fee increase from the government without ever having the opportunity to call your legislator and tell them how you felt.
This year, all of that seems to have changed.
During the last legislative interim, incoming House Speaker Kris Steel formed a committee to recommend changes to the rules of the House. The committee recommended requiring the creation of standing conference committees to vote on bills in public and recommended that all bills be on the House agenda for a set amount of time before becoming eligible for consideration.
These recommendations were accepted by the House, and the conference committees have been formed. Between now and the end of session these committees will meet and it is my hope that not a single house bill will be exempted from a public hearing prior to being considered by the House.
I will serve as the Vice-Chair for the conference committee on Government Modernization and Rules. The committee will consider bills which originated from the House Administrative Rules, Rules and Government Modernization Committees. On Wednesday, our conference committee was the first to meet under the new rules.
This reform will be far reaching and I believe it will have a chilling effect on the ability of special interests to move their legislation during the last days of session.
This legislative reform continues a progression of significant reforms which have continually opened up the legislative process over the past few years. The pace of reform has not been to my personal satisfaction, but there is no arguing that changes have taken place in a responsible and process-changing manner.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Property Tax Reform Finally Approved
The Legislature took action last week to approve an issue about which I have written many times during my four years as State Representative.
Time and again I have heard from House District 31 constituents about their desire to slow the rate by which property tax assessments increase each year. Every year since I have been in the Legislature, this proposal has partially worked its way through the legislative process, only to meet a road block and become derailed.
This fact obviously does nothing to help the sense of desperation in the requests for reform from Oklahoma property owners who feel helpless and unable to respond to the increases that in some cases threaten to force families to sell their family homes. In many cases, these home owners have seen 5% increases each year for a number of years as property tax bills struggle to catch up with property tax assessments.
A senior citizen constituent visited my office once and produced a detailed spreadsheet calculating the implications of a continued 5% increase on his home assessment price over the upcoming years. He could demonstrate how, with compounded interest, the amount of his property tax would double over the next several years. His home property taxes were nearly equal to 25% of his social security income.
And even though property values are currently in a state of decline, because assessors have had to increase the price of properties in excess of the 5% cap in the past, many homeowners will likely continue to see their assessments rise by 5% even in a down economy when their personal budgets may be shrinking.
Now, you will finally have a chance to take action and let your voice be heard on this issue. By a vote of 77-16, the House of Representatives has approved House Joint Resolution 1002. HJR 1002 will allow the people of Oklahoma to vote on changing the Oklahoma Constitution to lower the state’s property tax increase cap from 5% to 3%.
This becomes one of the first state questions which the Legislature has approved to be placed on the 2012 general election ballot.
The adoption of this important reform makes this the best year for tax reform since I started in the Legislature in 2007. Earlier this year it was learned that a statutory trigger previously approved by the Legislature will be enacted and will lower the state income tax to 5.25% starting on January 1st of next year. With the property tax cap likely being reduced and the income tax also getting smaller, I believe this is the most encouraging year for Oklahoma taxpayer in the last 5 years.
You can watch the House discussion of the property tax reform proposal by visiting hd31.org/89 online.
Time and again I have heard from House District 31 constituents about their desire to slow the rate by which property tax assessments increase each year. Every year since I have been in the Legislature, this proposal has partially worked its way through the legislative process, only to meet a road block and become derailed.
This fact obviously does nothing to help the sense of desperation in the requests for reform from Oklahoma property owners who feel helpless and unable to respond to the increases that in some cases threaten to force families to sell their family homes. In many cases, these home owners have seen 5% increases each year for a number of years as property tax bills struggle to catch up with property tax assessments.
A senior citizen constituent visited my office once and produced a detailed spreadsheet calculating the implications of a continued 5% increase on his home assessment price over the upcoming years. He could demonstrate how, with compounded interest, the amount of his property tax would double over the next several years. His home property taxes were nearly equal to 25% of his social security income.
And even though property values are currently in a state of decline, because assessors have had to increase the price of properties in excess of the 5% cap in the past, many homeowners will likely continue to see their assessments rise by 5% even in a down economy when their personal budgets may be shrinking.
Now, you will finally have a chance to take action and let your voice be heard on this issue. By a vote of 77-16, the House of Representatives has approved House Joint Resolution 1002. HJR 1002 will allow the people of Oklahoma to vote on changing the Oklahoma Constitution to lower the state’s property tax increase cap from 5% to 3%.
This becomes one of the first state questions which the Legislature has approved to be placed on the 2012 general election ballot.
The adoption of this important reform makes this the best year for tax reform since I started in the Legislature in 2007. Earlier this year it was learned that a statutory trigger previously approved by the Legislature will be enacted and will lower the state income tax to 5.25% starting on January 1st of next year. With the property tax cap likely being reduced and the income tax also getting smaller, I believe this is the most encouraging year for Oklahoma taxpayer in the last 5 years.
You can watch the House discussion of the property tax reform proposal by visiting hd31.org/89 online.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Murphey Update: Redistricting 2011
Not that I am counting or anything, but there are now just six weeks left in this year’s legislative session.
During this time, the legislature must complete its normal set of responsibilities, in addition to developing congressional and legislative redistricting plans. This will be a unique experience for many of us. Legislative redistricting only takes place once every ten years, and since legislators can only serve 12 years due to term limits, this will be the only legislative redistricting process we will ever take part in.
It has been interesting to watch the process as it has evolved throughout the season. Early on, the careful observer could note that lawmakers were on the House floor carrying maps and consulting with the colleagues with whom they shared district borders. The process allowed representatives to draw their own draft redistricting maps and we worked with each other to suggest possible redistricting changes which balanced out the populations in our districts.
Following the creation of these first drafts, the Redistricting Committee Chairmen went to work to build their own proposals which re-shaped the current boundaries and the drafts compiled by the legislators. This is a politically charged process, because one of the foremost ways to make a legislator unhappy is to upset the composition of his/her district.
The population shifts in Oklahoma during the last ten years are almost certain to mean several of our districts will be significantly affected, and this impact will be heavily felt in the area which I represent. As rural Oklahoma fails to keep pace with the state’s population growth, the rural districts must expand in size.
For instance, the district located in the Oklahoma Panhandle must get larger. When it expands to the east and south, it will create a domino effect by pushing other legislative districts to the east. These districts may also already need to pick up new people due to population losses. The domino effect will not stop until it reaches areas like ours which have grown in size. Thus, some of the most dramatic redistricting changes could occur in our area because House District 31 sits directly on the boundary between rural and urban Oklahoma.
I believe it is important for those of us in growth areas to understand the challenge which is facing our rural colleagues and to work with them to facilitate the orderly expansion of their districts in a way that allows their districts to stay as compact as possible. The first map of these proposed changes could be made available as early as this week.
A similar map of proposed congressional district changes has already been made public and can be viewed online at www.hd31.org/83. Unlike the legislative map, the current congressional map does not contain any changes to area congressional representation and has already received the unanimous support of the House Redistricting Committee.
I will continue to provide updates about the redistricting process as it nears its conclusion in the next few weeks.
During this time, the legislature must complete its normal set of responsibilities, in addition to developing congressional and legislative redistricting plans. This will be a unique experience for many of us. Legislative redistricting only takes place once every ten years, and since legislators can only serve 12 years due to term limits, this will be the only legislative redistricting process we will ever take part in.
It has been interesting to watch the process as it has evolved throughout the season. Early on, the careful observer could note that lawmakers were on the House floor carrying maps and consulting with the colleagues with whom they shared district borders. The process allowed representatives to draw their own draft redistricting maps and we worked with each other to suggest possible redistricting changes which balanced out the populations in our districts.
Following the creation of these first drafts, the Redistricting Committee Chairmen went to work to build their own proposals which re-shaped the current boundaries and the drafts compiled by the legislators. This is a politically charged process, because one of the foremost ways to make a legislator unhappy is to upset the composition of his/her district.
The population shifts in Oklahoma during the last ten years are almost certain to mean several of our districts will be significantly affected, and this impact will be heavily felt in the area which I represent. As rural Oklahoma fails to keep pace with the state’s population growth, the rural districts must expand in size.
For instance, the district located in the Oklahoma Panhandle must get larger. When it expands to the east and south, it will create a domino effect by pushing other legislative districts to the east. These districts may also already need to pick up new people due to population losses. The domino effect will not stop until it reaches areas like ours which have grown in size. Thus, some of the most dramatic redistricting changes could occur in our area because House District 31 sits directly on the boundary between rural and urban Oklahoma.
I believe it is important for those of us in growth areas to understand the challenge which is facing our rural colleagues and to work with them to facilitate the orderly expansion of their districts in a way that allows their districts to stay as compact as possible. The first map of these proposed changes could be made available as early as this week.
A similar map of proposed congressional district changes has already been made public and can be viewed online at www.hd31.org/83. Unlike the legislative map, the current congressional map does not contain any changes to area congressional representation and has already received the unanimous support of the House Redistricting Committee.
I will continue to provide updates about the redistricting process as it nears its conclusion in the next few weeks.
Monday, April 11, 2011
The State Government Transparency Proposals
In last week’s update I wrote about a series of what I believe to be innovative transparency and accessibility enhancing reforms which are part of House Bill 1086 that I authored with state Senator Clark Jolley.
In addition to the reforms that I wrote about in last week’s update, the bill also proposes to make state governance processes open to the public.
For instance, all too often, governments embark on expensive information technology projects only to meet with delayed deadlines and implementation, cost overruns, and deliverables which do not meet the envisioned result. House Bill 1086 creates the projects.ok.gov web presence through which the public can monitor the progress of these projects. This will allow the public and policy makers to note when projects start to fall behind schedule or cost more than initially projected.
One of the challenges facing state purchasing offices is communicating with potential vendors who are interested on bidding for government business. All too often, unfortunately, a prospective vendor is uncertain about the details in the state’s request for proposal, and purchasing officials understandably do not wish to privately communicate with one particular vendor for fear of being seen prejudicing the bidding process. If the bidder’s concerns are not addressed in a pre-bid conference, he/she may price the uncertainty into the cost of the bid, thus costing state taxpayers more money. House Bill 1086 establishes a public Wiki platform through which this communication could occur in a public discourse at any time, and therefore mitigate this liability.
The bill also allows state agency-level purchasing officers to use a public Wiki platform to report items which are on a mandated state purchasing schedule and which can be found for less money off the shelf at area businesses. This will have the effect of helping centralized purchasing personnel manage state spend contracts to ensure the state’s purchasing power is properly leveraged. It will also bring transparency to the failure of centralized purchasing officers to address these situations when they arise.
While not part of the reforms in House Bill 1086, House Bill 1601 and Senate Bill 772 (authored by Representative Aaron Stiles and Senator Clark Jolley) also use technology to assist the taxpayers with accessing state government by establishing the state’s business licensing one-stop location. This is a result of a request from Governor Mary Fallin and the policy in these bills is designed to enable business owners get their licenses and permits in one convenient location. Previous state government modernization reforms placed state license and permitting processes online. These bills are now seeking to enable users to access real-time processing and a one-stop location for all of their licensing and permitting needs. This will enable business owners to spend less time dealing with the government and more time growing their businesses and creating jobs.
House Bill 1086 and Senate Bill 772 were approved by a Senate committee last week and now go before the full Senate for consideration. We will consider Senate Bill 772 in the Government Modernization Committee later this week.
In addition to the reforms that I wrote about in last week’s update, the bill also proposes to make state governance processes open to the public.
For instance, all too often, governments embark on expensive information technology projects only to meet with delayed deadlines and implementation, cost overruns, and deliverables which do not meet the envisioned result. House Bill 1086 creates the projects.ok.gov web presence through which the public can monitor the progress of these projects. This will allow the public and policy makers to note when projects start to fall behind schedule or cost more than initially projected.
One of the challenges facing state purchasing offices is communicating with potential vendors who are interested on bidding for government business. All too often, unfortunately, a prospective vendor is uncertain about the details in the state’s request for proposal, and purchasing officials understandably do not wish to privately communicate with one particular vendor for fear of being seen prejudicing the bidding process. If the bidder’s concerns are not addressed in a pre-bid conference, he/she may price the uncertainty into the cost of the bid, thus costing state taxpayers more money. House Bill 1086 establishes a public Wiki platform through which this communication could occur in a public discourse at any time, and therefore mitigate this liability.
The bill also allows state agency-level purchasing officers to use a public Wiki platform to report items which are on a mandated state purchasing schedule and which can be found for less money off the shelf at area businesses. This will have the effect of helping centralized purchasing personnel manage state spend contracts to ensure the state’s purchasing power is properly leveraged. It will also bring transparency to the failure of centralized purchasing officers to address these situations when they arise.
While not part of the reforms in House Bill 1086, House Bill 1601 and Senate Bill 772 (authored by Representative Aaron Stiles and Senator Clark Jolley) also use technology to assist the taxpayers with accessing state government by establishing the state’s business licensing one-stop location. This is a result of a request from Governor Mary Fallin and the policy in these bills is designed to enable business owners get their licenses and permits in one convenient location. Previous state government modernization reforms placed state license and permitting processes online. These bills are now seeking to enable users to access real-time processing and a one-stop location for all of their licensing and permitting needs. This will enable business owners to spend less time dealing with the government and more time growing their businesses and creating jobs.
House Bill 1086 and Senate Bill 772 were approved by a Senate committee last week and now go before the full Senate for consideration. We will consider Senate Bill 772 in the Government Modernization Committee later this week.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)