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.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)