 |
Home | Contact Us | Press Room | Site Overview | Help | Login | Register |
 |
 |
| About NCSL | State & Federal Issues | Legislatures | Legislative Staff | Meetings | Bookstore | Legislators & Staff Only |
| NCSL Home > State & Federal Issues: Issue Areas > Budget & Tax > | Add to MyNCSL |
Legislative Authority Over the Enacted BudgetAs part of Legislative Budget Procedures: A Guide to Appropriations and Budget Processes in the States, Commonwealths and Territories, NCSL has made its 1992 publication, Legislative Authority Over the Enacted Budget, freely available in portable document format. This content of this document dates from a survey conducted in fall 1991 and has not been updated. Following is its executive summary and table of contents. Executive SummaryThe enacted budget is an area of contention between legislators and governors: legislators want to ensure that the budget is implemented in accordance with their intent, and governors want to prevent legislators from interfering with executive budget administration. Although this dispute is longstanding, it has been enflamed during the past two years because of serious state fiscal problems. Monitoring the executive’s implantation of the budget helps legislatures determine if their intent is fulfilled. Although constitutional responsibilities and legislative accountability justify the need for effective budget oversight, much of the emerging interest in oversight has been fueled by recent dynamics. But despite their interest in improving budget oversight, legislators are hindered by their part-time status, the length of their sessions, their short time horizons, and an emphasis on enacting new laws, rather than scrutinizing old ones. State legislatures use a variety of mechanisms to conduct budget oversight: structures, procedures, staff, fiscal information, and audits and evaluations. Legislative structures, especially fiscal and oversight committees, play a key role. Because substantive committees review agencies when they contemplate policy changes, several legislatures have tried to link the work of fiscal and substantive committees. Legislators have developed or modified their budget procedures to improve oversight. Several legislatures have enhanced budget directives or intent statements to provide more and better guidance to agencies in implementing the budget. Every legislature depends on its staff to assist with budget oversight. Fiscal staff in particular assist through the day-to-day budget work: reviewing agency expenditures, reviewing new budget requests, communicating with agency staff, and conducting fiscal studies. Effective budget oversight depends on access to high-quality fiscal data. Legislatures in half the states have direct, on-line access to some type o fiscal data—revenue collections, agency expenditures, or federal funds receipts. Most of the other legislatures receive monthly fiscal reports, although a few receive information less frequently or only upon request. Audits and evaluations have played an increasingly important role in legislative budget oversight. Forty-three legislatures undertake some form of program evaluation or auditing activity. In 30 states, the evaluation process is linked to the budget process. Legislative staff in two-thirds of the states described their budget oversight mechanisms as adequate or better than adequate, although several reported that they would like to strengthen them. Five legislatures find their tools inadequate. A number of respondents said that effective oversight is hindered because the legislature has too few staff devoted to oversight activities. Because many state legislatures have taken an active role in overseeing the enacted budget, they have taken greater interest in provisions governing appropriations transfers and budget reductions. The degree of executive authority over transfers depends on the type of transfer: two-thirds of the state do not allow interdepartmental transfers, but most permit transfers between programs or objects of expenditure within a department. The legislative role in appropriations transfers varies considerably, but at least 18 states require some form of legislative approval. In five states, a joint legislative-executive board or committee is the approving authority. Generally, the authority to cut the enacted budget belongs to the executive. In 15 states there are no broad restrictions on the executive’s budget-cutting authority. Nine states permit only across-the-board cuts. Six states restrict the executive to reductions that do not exceed some specified percentage. In 14 states, legislative approval of executive cuts is necessary. Most legislatures reported that their level of control over unanticipated revenues such as federal funds and agency-generated revenues is inadequate. For example, in 11 states the legislature exercises no authority over the receipt of unanticipated federal funds. Legislators generally are dissatisfied with their level of control over enacted budgets but have been slow to make reforms. In an attempt to enhance their control, some legislatures have tightened provisions governing budget implementation, increased agency reporting requirements, or tied the budget process to agency performance. In several states, court rulings have affected the extent of legislative or executive control over the enacted budget. Recent cases in Alabama, Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin illustrate the types of disputes, which range from the extent of executive veto authority to the executive’s ability to make interdepartmental budget transfers. Table of Contents
Published 1992; posted January 2007. |
© 2008 National Conference of State Legislatures, All Rights Reserved
Denver Office: Tel: 303-364-7700 | Fax: 303-364-7800 | 7700 East First Place | Denver, CO 80230 | Map
Washington Office: Tel: 202-624-5400 | Fax: 202-737-1069 | 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515 | Washington, D.C. 20001
