• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

Legislative Effectiveness Committee

INNOVATIVE LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

There is something new under the sun. State legislatures are changing and coming up with new ways and approaches to reach out to the public, educate members and staff, conduct business and interest people in public service.

The National Conference of State Legislatures' Legislative Effectiveness Committee surveyed the states to find out about innovative legislative management practices. Specifically, the survey asked for information on innovative practices-new programs states have created to improve effectiveness in the legislative management area. Eleven states responded, several sharing a number of innovative practices.

The legislatures provided a brief description of their innovative practices, who was involved, the underlying problem and the cost. They also provided advice for other states and gave contact persons so that other state legislatures interested in the idea could contact them.

The innovative practices often involved the use of new technology, so the specific state information will be described under two categories:

• Information technology
• Management and member services

State legislatures are embracing the new technology, particularly as a way to directly and quickly reach citizens with important legislative information. The Virginia Senate partnered with James Madison University to create a CD-ROM that allows students to play a game and learn about Virginia government at the same time. South Dakota and Florida both mention Web sites in their surveys. South Dakota provides very informative information for those unfamiliar with the legislature. Florida's Office of Program Policy and Analysis has created the Florida Government Accountability Report (FGAR), which is an Internet encyclopedia on Florida state government with profiles on 400 state programs and agencies. Other states have submitted practices relating to chamber automation; information management systems; and the use of PowerPoint, e-mail, pagers and closed circuit television.

Legislative innovations aren't just technical. Legislatures are rethinking and retooling many existing programs or creating new ways of providing services. Arkansas and Louisiana both submitted reports on revamped new member orientation. Arkansas, in particular, had to change its approach to training in light of very short term limits combined with a biennial session legislature. Nevada is using new deadlines to be more productive in a short legislative session. The Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau has created a formal mentoring system for new employees that has thoughtful guidelines to make sure that it augments, rather than hinders, the role of supervisors. Kentucky notes that its use of leadership meetings and budget subcommittees have been helpful. Illinois has found success in attracting young people to public service by regularly working the job fair/career day programs. A new House constituency services office has been a success in Arkansas, allowing representatives to meet increased constituent services demands in a cost-effective and professional manner. Lastly, the Florida Senate has developed a motions and procedures guide for committee chairs and vice chairs.

The innovative practices summarized are:

1. Briefly describe the innovative legislative management practice, program or change.

• Why Florida provides the program, how the program operates, and who it serves;
• The amount of funding and number of personnel positions authorized for the program;
• Electronic links to statutes imbedded within narrative descriptions of each program in context;
• Comments by the Legislature's Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability regarding the program;
• Concerns and issues facing the program; and
• References and electronic links to other sources of program information and assessments, agency annual reports, federal audits, etc.

1. What is the underlying problem the practice, program or change addresses?

   Legislators and the general public had no electronic access to a comprehensive source about all state government agencies and programs. For example, a legislator might want to identify every program in Florida having anything to do with "fish." Getting information might involve days of detective work in a library locating books, doing a search on the Internet, or making telephone calls to agencies and waiting for responses. Even if information were retrieved, the legislator still had little assurance that information was complete or if the sources used were reliable. Audit reports, annual reports, and scholarly studies might be available but not publicized and therefore unknown to the legislator. With FGAR, the legislator can use the search tool and enter the term "fish." FGAR will list every program in Florida government for which "fish" is mentioned. The legislator can then open each profile identified and see what "fish" activities go on. FGAR will discover unexpected relationships such as the Florida Department of Revenue's Child Support Enforcement program's partnership with the Game and Freshwater "Fish" Commission. The Commission suspends hunting and fishing licenses of individuals who have not paid child support.

   New legislators may wish to consult FGAR until the legislator establishes a network of contacts. Term limits are bringing in numerous new legislators who expect reliable electronic information and will not want to depend upon traditional sources that take years to develop. FGAR helps with constituent case work. Legislators may suggest FGAR to constituents who are asking for information, particularly students doing research papers on Florida government and public policy. FGAR presents opportunities for legislators who want to do more work for constituents who need help cutting through red tape or finding where to file complaints or locate offices.

   Before FGAR, OPPAGA staff experienced "learning curve" delays when starting performance audits or conducting reviews of state programs. FGAR has substantially reduced learning curves because there is an OPPAGA staff person assigned to monitor every program. In addition, new OPPAGA employees use FGAR profiles during training to improve understanding about Florida government.

   Because FGAR is comprehensive, it provides a means of establishing much needed context about issues that is often lacking when a story breaks in the news. The depth and breadth of FGAR enables anyone to see the full dimensions of an issue about Florida government, not just the bits and pieces that emerge during controversy that are often out of context.

2. What types of legislators and staff are involved?

   The Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) is the legislature's performance audit and program evaluation agency. See: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/government. In 1996, Joint Legislative Auditing Committee approved a request by the Director of OPPAGA to develop and maintain FGAR. OPPAGA has a staff of 88 employees. The OPPAGA Director and a small team of OPPAGA staff conceptualized FGAR Infinity Software, Inc., a Tallahassee computer services firm, worked with the OPPAGA designers. OPPAGA analysts did the initial compilation of data and design and currently maintain profiles of all 400 Florida agencies and programs in addition to conducting other examinations of state government. For information on the Joint Legislative Auditing Committee, see http://www.leg.state.fl.us/senate/committees/joint/auditing/index.html

   Florida has a complex government that contends with unique social and environmental problems associated with the fourth largest state. It took OPPAGA staff 23 person years in staff time at a cost of $1.8 million to develop and launch FGAR. Most of the cost was in staff time spent researching and writing the 400 detailed profiles or "encyclopedia articles." Keeping FGAR updated uses about 14% of OPPAGA's staff time at an annual recurring cost of about $980,000.

   For its FGAR Web server hardware, OPPAGA uses a small-to-mid-sized server-class computer with a RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks) disk array and a tape backup device. This machine also hosts the other portion of OPPAGA's Web presence, the Florida Monitor http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us. Since the Web server is not attached to OPPAGA's LAN (Local Area Network), the tape drive provides the primary means of transferring new FGAR content to the server. An UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply) is used to prevent outages during brief power problems. A T1 telephone line provides connectivity to the Internet. The server operating system is Microsoft's Windows NT 4.0, with its Internet Information Server and SQL Server being used as the Web server software and database server software, respectively. An unlimited SQL Server Web access license is also required. The FGAR application itself was written by a local developer per OPPAGA's specifications using Microsoft's Visual Studio. This application provides the necessary mechanisms for entering, editing, formatting, approving, storing, updating, retrieving, and presenting the FGAR data. Microsoft Word is used along with the FGAR application programs by analysts to enter the data originally. Other utility products are used to perform functions such as automatically checking FGAR Web pages for bad links to other Web sites and tracking Web usage. Ballpark costs are as follows.

3. What is the cost?

   Server Hardware $15,000 One time. UPS shared with another server T1 telephone line 1,500 Monthly. Includes line, router, and connection to the Internet Server software 1,200 One time. Operating system, database software, etc. SQL Internet connector 800 One time. Required to use SQL Server as a Web database FGAR Development Contract 40,000 One time. Programming and design. Included no maintenance MS Visual Studio 900 One time. Needed to perform in-house maintenance Utility packages 1,000 One time. Monitoring, etc. Actual costs of implementing a system similar to FGAR may vary widely from those shown. The existence of in-house staff to perform development and/or maintenance will have a large impact on the cost of setting up and maintaining an FGAR-type Web application. Some companies may charge much more than $40,000 for the development of an application system like FGAR. Also, maintenance arrangements with outside vendors may be relatively expensive. Conversely, if there is a Web server already available with sufficient extra capacity to host the new application, with existing Web applications which access database files, and with technical staff available to perform development and maintenance, the additional costs may be minimal. Consideration must also be given as to which product(s) will be used by those entering data. In our case, a large number of analysts enter the data using their normal word processing application. If an unfamiliar data entry tool is selected, there could be a substantial learning curve for those entering the Web content. If a small group of dedicated data entry personnel will be entering Web content, the cost of this learning curve may not be too great. However, if all members of the policy analysis staff are expected to perform their own Web data entry, the startup costs could be quite large.

4. What advice would you give a legislature considering a similar practice, program or change?

   To reduce development and design costs, use Florida's FGAR site as a concept model (http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/government) and read OPPAGA's FGAR Guide (http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/fgarguide.html). Designate a small staff team with authority to manage the project that includes a full-time team leader who will have permanent ownership of the product. Convene a representative focus group of legislators and staff who should be the primary users so that the product will meet customer expectations. Identify existing electronic information sources that can be readily linked to the profiles describing state programs. Understand that incorporating databases of numerical data (e.g. appropriations by funding sources) are complex and likely to contain bugs. Don't underestimate time required to research, abstract or compose, edit and convert any narratives that have to be written by staff into a format that is Internet-ready. Plan for testing and de-bugging before launching. Provide time and resources for training members and staff.

5. Please include the following contact information for a person who could respond to questions from other state legislatures about your practice, program or change:

Florida/Senate
Chamber Automation
Electronic Availability of Documents
PowerPoint
Motions and Procedures Guide
Survey Response

1. Briefly describe the innovative legislative management practice, program or change.

   CHAMBER AUTOMATION SYSTEM:	The Chamber Automation System (CAS) is a customized application operated by the Secretary of the Senate that provides timely, online access to legislative documents for legislators and staff. Documents include bills, amendments, staff analyses and votes for bills and amendments.
   ELECTRONIC DISTRIBUTION:	Electronic availability of documents. We have made more documents available online or electronically thru the use of e-mail, Internet and Chamber Automation System.
   POWER POINT:	Use of power point presentations. Senate committees and other staff use power point presentations.
   MOTIONS & PROCEDURES GUIDE:	Motions & Procedures Guide for Committees. A detailed guide of the committee process for committee chairmen and vice chairmen to assist them in committee.

2. What is the underlying problem that the practice, program or change addresses?

   CHAMBER AUTOMATION SYSTEM:	Eliminates waste of paper and reduces printing costs, while providing immediate access to amendments, votes, or any other action taken in the chamber.
   ELECTRONIC DISTRIBUTION:	This provides greater availability of the documents, allows staff and general public to view online which can eliminate the need to print -- faster distribution replaces slow hand delivery.
   POWER POINT:
   MOTIONS & PROCEDURES GUIDE:	Has common motions and procedures to assist new committee chairmen through the process.

3. What types of legislators and staff are involved?

   CHAMBER AUTOMATION SYSTEM:	All legislators use CAS while in session and staff can access it from their offices. Amendment packets can be printed the night before or the morning of session, or an individual amendment can be printed eliminating a trip to the Document Center.
   ELECTRONIC DISTRIBUTION:	All legislators and staff have e-mail.
   POWER POINT:
   MOTIONS & PROCEDURES:	The book was originally intended for chairmen only, but staff requested them as well.

4. What is the cost?

   Can't really give you a fixed cost. Some were in-house, some contract, multi-purpose software, hardware, etc.

5. What advice would you give a legislature considering a similar practice, program or change?

   Make a thorough well-thought-out plan of who needs what. Ask the opinion of computer literate members.

6. Please include the following contact information for a person who could respond to questions from other state legislatures about your practice, program or change:

1. Briefly describe the innovative legislative management practice, program or change.

   All committee meeting rooms were provided with stationary wide-angle cameras so that in-house closed circuit TV access to all committee meetings was available to staff.

2. What is the underlying problem the practice, program or change addresses?

   Prior to this session, only those meetings covered by Kentucky Educational Television were available to be monitored via closed circuit TV. The placement of stationary cameras in all meeting rooms gave staff the ability to monitor any meeting, while continuing to work in their offices. This was especially helpful to Budget Staff who could leave the long budget hearings to prepare reports and still monitor any changes in their budget areas.

3. What types of legislators and staff are involved?

   All legislators and staff.

4. What is the cost?

5. Contact:

[not in question response format]

1. Briefly describe the innovative legislative management practice, program or change.

   Installation of an information management system, which links in-house, library and other resources.

2. What is the underlying problem the practice, program or change addresses?

   Making the plethora of information generated and publications received of use to the office

3. What types of legislators and staff are involved?

   Members of caucus support office only

4. What is the cost?

   Only labor of salaried employees

5. What advice would you give a legislature considering a similar practice, program or change?

   Information is the currency of legislative business, and good policy makes good political sense as well.

6. Please include the following contact information for a person who could respond to questions from other state legislatures about your practice, program or change:

1. Survey Response

[Certain questions omitted.)

2. Please include the following contact information for a person who could respond to questions from other state legislatures about your practice, program or change:

1. Briefly describe the innovative legislative management practice, program or change.

   Developed and produced a CD-ROM used for teaching school students about Virginia's legislative process.

2. What is the underlying problem the practice, program or change addresses?

1. could be used by students within a broad range of ages.
2. could be used by an individual student or in a classroom setting.
3. contained information that was not time sensitive.

1. What types of legislators and staff are involved?

   The project used staff from the Senate Clerk's Office to develop the contents for the CD-ROM and staff from James Madison University Center to develop and produce the technical portion of the CD-ROM. Legislators were asked to review the project as it was developed and offer suggestions for improvement.

2. What is the cost?

   Actual costs were $38,000. There were additional costs in staff time, since both Senate Clerk's staff and James Madison University staff worked on the project as part of their regular duties.

3. What advice would you give a legislature considering a similar practice, program or change?

   Allow for accuracy to drive the project rather than any self-imposed deadlines. Be patient with the technical staff.

   It was our experience that when information had to be condensed to fit certain screens, important information was either omitted or misinterpreted by the technical staff. The Clerk's staff had to review all condensed material for accuracy.

4. Please include the following contact information for a person who could respond to questions from other state

1. Briefly describe the innovative legislative management practice, program or change?

   The Senate Clerk's office staff adapted an electronic pager system to expedite committee meetings and to allow legislators to make more efficient use of their time. At the beginning of committee meetings bill patrons sign in to let the committee chair know they are present. A pager is given to each patron. When the committee is ready to consider the patron's bill, the clerk enters a code into an electronic transmitter which "pages" the patron to come to the committee room. The transmitter sends a low-level radio frequency that can be detected by the pagers anywhere within the General Assembly Building. The pagers vibrate when the signal is detected, since it is in violation of the Senate Rules to have an audible electronic transmission device. Prior to receiving the "page", the legislator can return to his/her office to work on constituent matters or attend another committee meeting.

2. What is the underlying problem the practice, program or change addresses?

   The problem was that there were so many committee meetings being held simultaneously that bill patrons would leave a meeting rather than wait for his/her bill to be heard. The committee clerk would then have to track down the patron by telephone while still having to record the motions and votes of the committee.

3. What types of legislators and staff are involved?

   The Committee Operations staff from the Senate Clerk's Office did the research on the pager systems. The Committee Operations staff trained the committee clerks (session employees) on how the system works and the appropriate times to use the system. A pager is given to the bill patron by the committee clerk when he/she needs to leave the committee meeting to attend another meeting or to meet with constituents in their office. When the committee is ready to take up that patron's bill(s) then the committee clerk enters a code corresponding to the pager that the patron has and they are beeped to return to the committee meeting.

4. What is the cost?

   The initial cost of the system was $2,743.00 for a ServiceAlert XT24 Pager system with electronic transmitter and 16 Motorola pagers. The Senate purchased two of these systems in 1998.

5. What advice would you give a legislature considering a similar practice, program or change?

   The system must fit into the way that the particular legislature operates. The simpler it is to operate both for the operator (the clerk) and the user (the legislator) the better everyone will like the system. Tests need to be conducted in advance if there will be more than one system operating at the same time. These paging systems, similar to the ones used in restaurants, operate on radio frequencies so you don't want more than one system operating on the same frequency.

6. Please include the following contact information for a person who could respond to questions from other state legislatures about your practice, program or change:

1. Briefly describe the innovative legislative management practice, program or change?

   House leadership in 1995 established a House Office of Constituency Services to address two critical needs: to provide full-time services to meet growing demands on the part-time Legislature and to provide permanent staff for critical support services during sessions of the General Assembly.

2. What is the underlying problem the practice, program or change addresses?

   Establishment of the Office of Constituency Services addressed two needs: (1) Representatives had lacked staff support to assist them with constituency services. The new office delivered the support to meet growing demands in this area. (2) The House traditionally had relied on temporary employees to provide most of the staff support during legislative sessions. Many of these temporary employees did not hold other full-time jobs and, therefore, could work for three months or so during regular sessions every other years and would be available on short notice in case of special sessions. Many of these employees held the same positions for years running and became highly qualified to carry out their critical duties. In recent years, however, the pool from which to draw such temporary employees declined, making it difficult to attract qualified individuals for short-term employment and requiring additional training efforts. Creation of the Office of Constituency Services created a resource for providing staff support in critical positions during legislative sessions in addition to their constituency services duties during the interim as well as, to a degree, during sessions.

3. What types of legislators and staff are involved?

   All House members may utilize services available through the Office of Constituency Services. The Office of Constituency Services initially employed six staff members and since 1995 has grown to eight (with authorization for up to 13).

4. What is the cost?

   The budget for the Office of Constituency Services for the current fiscal year authorizes spending of up to $916,353 for salaries, maintenance and operations. That budget level will not be reached because all authorized positions for the office are not filled. Not reflected in the budget are the savings resulting from not having to hire and train temporary personnel to carry out the session duties now assigned to Constituency Services staff.

5. What advice would you give a legislature considering a similar practice, program or change?

   This approach offered an ideal solution to meeting the needs of the Arkansas House of Representatives, a part-time legislative body facing growing demands for full-time services. Creating the new office provided needed support for the membership while securing highly qualified and well trained staff support for critical duties during legislative sessions. Two important needs were met through a single administrative action.

6. For more information contact:

1. Briefly describe the innovative legislative management practice, program or change?

   Term limits became fully effective in the Arkansas House of Representatives with the convening of the 82^nd General Assembly in 1999. The 100-member House had a freshman class of 57 members. Anticipating the need to provide more training to the larger group of new members, House leadership expanded the orientation process so newcomers would be able to make significant contributions sooner in their legislative careers.

2. What is the underlying problem the practice, program or change addresses?

   Before term limits, representatives potentially had more time to learn legislative procedures necessary to contribute in their legislative careers. Under term limits, legislators needed to quickly learn about the process so they could contribute during their limited careers. Also, legislators needed to know not only how the process worked but how to lead it.

3. What types of legislators and staff are involved?

   All House members were invited to participate in the legislative orientation program, but heaviest participation was by newly elected members. Staff members delivered most of the orientation programming. Non-returning members also provided support by demonstrating legislative proceedings during a mock session.

4. What is the cost?

   Additional costs involve only additional mileage and per diem paid to new members who participate in the orientation program.

5. What advice would you give a legislature considering a similar practice, program or change?

   States wishing to expand orientation programs would be well served by surveying members who previously had gone through the program to identify the issues and procedures they believe should be covered most thoroughly during orientation.

6. For more information contact:

(Motions and procedures guide included in earlier Florida/Senate Survey Report)

1. Briefly describe the innovative legislative management practice, program or change.

   Program: Subscribing to career/recruiting days at colleges, job fairs.

2. What is the underlying problem the practice, program or change addresses?

   In the last few years, it has been difficult to recruit college graduates to public service. Springfield, Illinois' capital is in the center of the state, not close to major metro areas for a commute. Graduates with writing and language skills, and an interest in public service were not easy to reach.

3. What types of legislators and staff are involved?

   Prior to this, referrals were often by legislators, lobbyists etc, which did not always result in attracting the quality of referral necessary. Now, a staff person is assigned in an outreach program to colleges, job fairs etc.

4. What is the cost?

   Depends on the job fair, but this fiscal year, we will spend $1,000 to $1,500 in registration booth fees, and with travel less than $2,000, which doesn't include staff salary time.

5. What advice would you give a legislature considering a similar practice, program or change?

   The key is developing new contacts, a network of people who make referrals. Our staff began this search as a trial program and I believe the program will continue. As the network continues to develop, less staff effort may be necessary.

6. Please include the following contact information for a person who could respond to questions from other state legislatures about your practice, program or change:

1. Briefly describe the innovative legislative management practice, program or change.

   For a number of years, the House Appropriations & Revenue Committee has broken down into subcommittees by major cabinet areas to review the budget. These subcommittees meet independently to review the budgets of the specific cabinets that come under their jurisdiction. The members become very knowledgeable about the details of those budgets. They make recommendations to the full committee to consider. Liaison members from other related committees are appointed as voting members of the subcommittees.

2. What is the underlying problem the practice, program or change addresses?

   Use of Budget Review Subcommittees permits a greater number of legislators to be actively involved in the budget process. Since the subcommittees work simultaneously, a more in-depth review is possible in a given time period.

3. What types of legislators and staff are involved?

   Members of the Budget Committee and liaison members and budget staff.

4. What is the cost?

   None, assuming budget staff is already assigned specific areas of jurisdiction and no additional staff are necessary.

5. Contact:

1. Briefly describe the innovative legislative management practice, program or change.

   During the 2000 Session the Director of LRC met weekly with the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate together for 20-30 minutes prior to the joint 8:00 a.m. Friday Press Conference held by the Speaker and President.

2. What is the underlying problem the practice, program or change addresses?

   For the first time in Kentucky history, the chambers of the General Assembly were led during a session by different political parties. Even during past sessions, the opportunity for the leaders of each chamber to meet privately with each other has not often materialized on its own. Having a regularly scheduled meeting time worked very well. Chamber leaders had time to talk with each other about their expectations for issues, timelines, etc. prior to the weekly press conference. The Director could use the time to apprise the Chamber leaders of procedural matters and other items involving both chambers. It contributed to improving communications and coordination between the chambers and the agency.

3. What types of legislators and staff are involved?

   President, Speaker and LRC Director.

4. What is the cost?

   None

5. Contact:

1. Briefly describe the innovative legislative management practice, program or change.

   House staff furnishes a summary of Senate Amendments to House Bills to the bill author and to all House members when a bill is returned to the House for concurrence in Senate amendments.

2. What is the underlying problem the practice, program or change addresses?

   In the past, rapid floor action, particularly in the last days of the session, resulted in quick concurrence to Senate amendments without proper consideration of technical and substantive issues. This process requires that the amendments be analyzed and summarized and the House advised of any problems with the amendments before the vote on concurrence in the amendments. It also facilitates leadership planning and scheduling, because a count can be maintained by the desk of the bills that may go to a conference committee.

3. What types of legislators and staff are involved?

   Drafting/research staff who drafted the bill and staffed the House committee that heard the bill and who prepare other digests of the bill at each stage of the legislative process. Minimal secretarial help required. When filed appropriately on the computer network, the summary becomes available to members through their "legislative assistant" PC application. Desk staff keep a record of bills that may go to conference and those that will not.

4. What is the cost?

   Minimal-uses only staff and equipment otherwise in use for similar purposes.

5. What advice would you give a legislature considering a similar practice, program or change?

   If procedures and time constraints are similar to ours, it may be very useful.

6. Please include the following contact information for a person who could respond to questions from other state legislatures about your practice, program or change:

1. Briefly describe the innovative legislative management practice, program or change.

1. In 1999, the Nevada State Legislature was, by constitutional mandate, limited to a 120-day session. Not since 1973, had Nevada experienced a session of such short duration. The 120-day session required that there be deadlines for processing legislation that would need to be strictly adhered to by the legislative bodies. Some of the deadlines established final days for: submitting bill draft requests, both individual and committee; passage of house bills out of standing committees; passage of house bills to the other house; passage of other house's bills out of standing committees; passage of other house's bills back to the house of origin for either enrollment or consideration of amendments. The deadlines were adhered to and worked well. It did create, several times throughout the session, flurries of activity that lasted for several days. These were handled well by chairmen, leadership and legislative staff.
2. Also in 1999, Nevada implemented an entirely new computer processing program for legislation for the third, consecutive session. In 1995 and 1997, the computer system was contracted with two different private vendors. In 1999, the computer program, Session Manager, was programmed "in-house" in cooperation with the Senate, Assembly, Legislative Counsel Bureau's Information Systems Unit and contract employees. The newly designed system worked extremely well for us. It allowed the front desk staffs of both houses the opportunity to pre-organize and enter each floor session's actions and information before it actually happened. This marvelous functionality meant that the appropriate front desk clerk could follow along as session happened and check the work they had entered prior to the floor session convening. If actions changed or had not occurred at the time of early entry, e.g., roll call votes, the clerk simply edited or added the information as was necessary. Within one-half hour of session adjournment, the front desk was able to produce completed drafts of both the house's daily history, journal and file. Once the front desk staff proofed the work, they then released the information to the public, e.g. Internet site, State Printer, etc. This was much better than the "real time" system we had in 1997. "Real time" meant that as the legislative actions occurred they were then made immediately public. This caused major problems in three areas:

1. No early entry of information was allowed, thereby, losing valuable processing time prior to a floor session convening;
2. Since the system allowed all information to be made public once it was entered, entry errors were public information and stayed that way for many hours after a session's adjournment,
3. The front desk clerks spent many hours after each session's adjournment generating first drafts of daily histories, journals and files. The information in these documents, although public because of "real time," were not proofed for several hours.

1. What is the underlying problem the practice, program or change addresses?

1. Established deadlines for the 120-day legislative session enabled the Nevada State Legislature to conduct and conclude its business in the allotted amount of constitutionally-mandated time.
2. Implementation of our Session Manager computer program eliminated "real-time" entry of legislative processes and allowed "clerk-release" capabilities of said information. This reduced and/or eliminated erroneous information being made available to the public/Internet. We also gained an extremely efficient means to produce daily histories, journals and files by being able to work on these documents prior to the actual events happening. Since Session Manager was programmed in house, our programmers were always at hand whenever a problem developed or an immediate change was necessary in the program.

1. What types of legislators and staff are involved?

1. The Legislative Commission (12 legislators, six from each house) and the Administrative, Research, Legal and Fiscal divisions of the Legislative Counsel Bureau as well as the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Clerk of the Assembly had input in developing legislative deadlines for the 1999 Legislative Session. Once the Legislative Commission adopted the proposed deadlines, they were implemented by both houses at the beginning of session by adopting them in the form of Joint Standing Rules of both Houses.
2. Development of Session Manager included the staffs of both the Senate and Assembly front desks, Information Systems Unit of the Legislative Counsel Bureau as well as contract employees.

1. What is the cost?

1. There was a cost savings during the 1999 legislative session from the previous session since we were limited to a 120-day session. The previous session lasted 169 days.
2. The cost for implementing Session Manager was approximately $275,000.

1. What advice would you give a legislature considering a similar practice, program or change?

   Get all parties affected involved in the process from the beginning. Ask for input, listen to and carefully consider all suggestions.

2. Please include the following contact information for a person who could respond to questions from other state legislatures about your practice, program or change:

1. Briefly describe the innovative legislative management practice, program or change.

2. What is the underlying problem the practice, program or change addresses?

   Turnover is costly to the Bureau and to the employee. The mentoring program was established to address turnover by seeking to retain staff in both the financial audit and program evaluation divisions and help reinforce the purpose and ideals of our agency.

3. What types of legislators and staff are involved?

   Nonpartisan staff at the Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau, including new staff, and the more experienced senior persons who serve as mentors.

4. What is the cost?

   Negligible costs were incurred. Those that were incurred included the cost to bring in an expert on mentoring before the program began, and some small costs for the program's kick-off luncheon.

5. What advice would you give a legislature considering a similar practice, program or change?

   This program, developed and designed by staff, has been a strong and economical means to address turnover. It has worked as intended to develop a link between more senior and junior staff. It has had the strong support of management, which has been important to its success. It is our hope that the mentoring handbook that has been developed with be useful to others.

6. Please include the following contact information for a person who could respond to questions from other state legislatures about your practice, program or change: