• 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

NLPES News
National Legislative Program Evaluation Society

Inside the NEWS

Chair's Corner
"When I Grow Up, I Want to be a Legislative Program Evaluator"
Using Graphics
They Hear What We're Saying...Or, Do They?
Writing Reports in Plain English
Alabama Department of Examiners of Public Accounts
Mississippi's Experience in Conducting Background Checks
NCSL At a Glance
  NCSL's Reorganization Creates Opportunities for Staff
  NCSL Standing Committees
  Value of Participation in NCSL
American Statistical Association
Small Shop Talk...Take Two
LSMI
Office Happenings
2003 Calendar of Events
From the Editor

"Change is hard because people overestimate the value of what they have-and underestimate the value of what they may gain by giving that up."

- James Belasco and Ralph Stayer (Flight of the Buffalo, 1994)

Folks say that the one thing we can truly count on these days is that "change happens." We've all seen rather drastic changes in our organizations and work lives in recent months. Further, many of our states have a legislative session that is fast-approaching and will likely bring additional budget cuts, widening travel bans, and possibly, furloughs and/or layoffs. It is human nature to resist what we may perceive as a challenge to a perfectly fine status quo, or worse, what we believe to be a threat to the things we've come to value. As 2003 unfolds for you and your organizations, I'd urge you to remember that although there may be a negative impetus for the changes we are now experiencing, excellence is not borne from holding tight to the status quo. Most of us have spent the balance of our professional lives convincing others of the value of change, even though we know the change process is often painful. Because of its inevitability, however, embracing change and then making the best of the circumstances is the most intelligent management decision we can make. And if things still don't turn out like you hoped, remember the words of Washington Irving, "There is certain relief in change even though it be from bad to worse; as I have found in traveling in a stagecoach, that it is often a comfort to shift one's position and be bruised in a new place." (Tales of a Traveler, 1824)

Spring and early summer are busy times for the NLPES Executive Committee. The Executive Committee will conduct its annual election during March and April, with several positions to fill. Serving on the NLPES Executive Committee is demanding but highly rewarding. As such, I'd strongly encourage you to consider running for the Executive Committee in the upcoming election. During April and May, the Awards Committee will be soliciting and evaluating submissions for our three NLPES awards categories (i.e., Excellence in Evaluation, Excellence in Research Methods, and Certificates in Recognition of Impact). It is never too soon to start thinking about the reports and projects you've completed over the last year and deciding which ones would make worthy entries. Finally, the Executive Committee is always looking for suggestions for upcoming NLPES-sponsored training sessions. If you have ideas for either the 2003 NCSL Annual Meeting (to be held in late July in San Francisco, California) or the 2003 NLPES Fall Training Conference (hosted by the Michigan Office of the Auditor General in mid-October in Lansing, Michigan), please contact me or one of our able-bodied committee chairs. This year, Jane Thesing (jthesing@sclac.state.sc.us) is chairing the Annual Meeting Committee and Ken Levine (ken.levine@sunset.state.tx.us) is chairing the Training Committee.

Best wishes for a productive (and mostly bruise-free) new year!

Did any of you ever say that? Probably not. Yet here we are, students of finding attributes and guardians of the public's interest. Some of us oldsters wandered into the field when it was just beginning and few universities offered relevant courses. More recent employees come well-prepared from graduate school, having taken courses in subjects such as program evaluation or public policy.

But whether we're new to the field or are approaching retirement, what is it that draws us into legislative program evaluation? What excites us about dredging up obscure information about state agencies or testifying to legislative committees? And what are those ties that bind an office full of people from many different disciplines and backgrounds? What are the challenges that our offices face in retaining our "best and brightest?" Maybe if we can analyze the benefits of becoming a legislative performance auditor, it can help us retain our best employees.

State Legislatures magazine, in its July/August 2000 edition, published an article entitled "Getting and Keeping Legislative Staff." The article was based on a 1999 survey of legislative staff by NCSL's Legislative Staff Coordinating Committee Task Force on Staff Development. More than 1,000 legislative employees responded. The survey found that, regardless of generation or partisan status, respondents overwhelmingly chose to work for legislatures because the work is interesting and challenging. Many also cited a desire to serve the public. And no staff indicated "opportunities for advancement" as a significant reason for joining a legislative staff.

Although we don't have this same information for program evaluators as a subset, some of the NLPES "Questions of the Month" provide similar insights. When newer staff were asked, "Based on your experiences in legislative program evaluation, what are the most significant attractions and the most difficult challenges of your daily work?," they answered that they like the constant opportunity for learning about new subjects. As a representative of the 20+ years contingent, I would say that the rest of us like that too. I still think learning how a particular government program works, then analyzing and describing it for others is so interesting. I've also found that program evaluation/audit professionals have a strong desire to improve the public good. Few things are more gratifying than seeing government change because of issues identified in a report. Rather than finding motivation in making profits, we are motivated by saving tax dollars, or seeing them used more effectively.

And what about the satisfaction of "speaking truth to power?" What other profession offers the opportunity to speak candidly and provide facts to a state's leaders, (mostly) without fear of retribution. Of course, there are also the challenges-the constant attention to detail and accuracy, the sacrifices of working for the public sector, and the frustrations of working in a politically-charged environment, but for many of us the rewards have far outweighed those challenges.

So.....maybe you wanted to be a detective or a writer, a teacher or psychologist when you grew up. And so you are.

When writing program evaluation reports, team members are often confronted with the challenge of addressing underlying legal issues. Legal topics typically arise in the discussion of program criteria. For example, report writers may need to explain state or federal regulations underlying a program. Often viewed as complex, extensive, and daunting, legal issues need not be dreaded when drafting a report. Experience has shown that use of graphics to convey legal topics simplifies the report writing process and enhances the analysis.

You need not search out the latest and most innovative graphic software. Standard tables, timelines, or maps can serve as useful tools in a program evaluation's discussion of legal topics. The following benefits became apparent during the recent audit of Wisconsin's vehicle emissions testing program. Examples of the graphics used in the program evaluation of Wisconsin's vehicle emissions testing program can be viewed at http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lab/reports/02-6full.pdf.

• Graphics assist in the presentation of program requirements. When writing about an expansive federal program, such as the federal Clean Air Act and its requirements, a simple table allows the writer to communicate core program elements, providing a solid foundation for the analysis. Table 4 on page 19 of the Vehicle emissions report illustrates this advantage of using graphics in the presentation of complex legal issues.

• Graphics can be used to track fluctuations. Whether it be discussing changes in legal requirements or a program's compliance, graphics are beneficial. Appendix 1 of the Vehicle emissions report demonstrates this advantage. The timeline proved an effective method of illustrating nearly two decades of alterations in the federal guidelines and state requirements associated with Wisconsin's vehicle emissions testing program.

• Graphics facilitate comparisons. A map on page 22 of the vehicle emissions report was especially useful in illustrating the differences in federal requirements for different counties in Wisconsin, which were based on various air quality levels.

• Graphics focus the writer. The restricted space associated with graphics limits a writer, forcing presentation of only the most key issues. The table in Appendix 3 illustrates this point. The first column of the cited table regarding vehicle emissions allowed the writer to present the essential parameters of a vehicle emissions testing program. The second and third columns were used to list the federal guidelines for each parameter and the corresponding requirements Wisconsin had adopted. The fourth column allowed the writer to indicate where Wisconsin was more or less stringent than the federal guidelines. What otherwise would have required lengthy text is conveyed in a one-page table.

• Graphics are also beneficial tools to focus your reader. When it is essential for a reader to understand the importance of legal criteria, you may want to consider complementing the text with a graphic. The Vehicle emissions report stated that of the counties affected by the federal Clean Air Act, not all were subject to the same requirements. This central point was reinforced through Table 5 on page 21 and Figure 3 on page 22 of the vehicle emissions report.

At the California State Auditor's Office, we have a sobering reminder that keeps us exploring new and effective methods for marketing our services and products. Many of you may recall that our predecessor office-the Office of the Auditor General-was eliminated in 1992 after 37 years because of legislative budget cuts imposed by a voter-approved initiative measure. That initiative measure also established legislative term limits. Though I do not directly link our existence to our popularity - or lack thereof -with the Legislature, it serves as a wake-up call of how important it is to make sure our audience knows us. Valuing the services we provide, the Legislature took quick steps to reopen the office and within six months, the office reopened in July 1993 as the California State Auditor's Office, Bureau of State Audits-I am still trying to understand the reason for two names!

Employing an effective strategy to market our services and products is increasingly more important. In this era of legislative term limits, we offer experts with the institutional knowledge about state programs and operations whom our government leaders rely on to make informed decisions. With term limits, we see new members and their staff who are not familiar with the resources available to assist them in understanding how California's government works. Members and their staff must learn as much as they can as quickly as possible to be responsive to their constituents. It is therefore critical that our Legislature be aware of the services we can offer.

A longtime legislative staff member estimates that staff turnover after the November 2002 election neared 30 percent in one house of California's Legislature. While this does not represent the number of new staff entering the ranks, it certainly supports the need for us to keep exploring innovative methods to market our services and products effectively to new and returning members and their staff.

With the unprecedented fiscal challenges that some of our state governments face, it's even more critical that we ensure government leaders and decision makers are familiar with our services. We are positioning our resources to respond to requests from the Legislature to assist in some of the major decisions it will make during these challenging times. We therefore must also stay visible and ensure the legislators know that we are available to assist them.

Communication techniques and approaches

We employ a variety of techniques to introduce our office and services to new and returning members. For example, training materials for incoming members include a two-page document describing our authority, the types of audits we conduct, and how the members can request an audit. We are currently trying to get on the agenda for new-member training that the Legislature offers to members during the first two weeks of the new session. Participating in this training will provide us with the opportunity to introduce the new members to the office and highlight the valuable work that we perform. In addition, at the beginning of each two-year session, our executive management team visits new members for a meet-and-greet. This year, we are also planning to meet with the majority and minority leadership in both houses. This informal personal contact with members and their staff is very effective. We also have available for members and their staff a pocketsize brochure summarizing services we offer and how to request an audit via key contacts.

Recently, we issued our biennial report that we designed with the Legislature in mind. Our goal was a reader-friendly report layout for the Legislature, potential recruits, other audit shops, and the public. The report has a good balance and the color schemes and graphics are fabulous. It includes information about our mission, organizational structure, and subject area themes that highlight some of the high-profile work we have done during the past two years. Even though we are sending every member of the Legislature a copy, we are also planning to provide members a copy during our meet-and-greets. If your office did not receive a hard copy, I will be happy to send you one or you can access it on our Website at www.bsa.ca.gov.

California's legislative session generally starts in January. Each February we issue a report summarizing findings and recommendations we made during the previous two years and the progress auditees have made implementing our recommendations. By covering a two-year period, we include the most current audit response to our recommendations from the required series of 60-day, six-month, and one-year responses. This report, Implementation of State Auditor's Recommendations, is very popular with the Legislature and their staff in part because it is used during the budget process to determine the status of corrective actions auditees are making. This year our report will include a section that compiles the recommendations we specifically directed to the Legislature so that it can easily identify the recommendations and refer back to the body of this report for more information, if needed. We did this because of several recent requests from members to provide a summary of the recommendations we made to the Legislature during the last session.

We get our work from the Legislature, either by an audit request through our Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) or through state statute. Over the past couple of years, we issued approximately 37 audit reports each year. We believe the methods we use to package and present our audit results are effective. Each report includes a cover letter that describes our overall findings. The reports also include an executive summary with audit highlights in bullet format in the margin of the first page. We strive for clear and concise summaries, generally limiting the summary to three pages as legislative members have limited time. We typically provide recommendations at the end of each chapter. Included in each report is the agency response and, when necessary, our rebuttal to the agency response follows this. Several legislative staff have commented that the executive summary, agency response, and rebuttal give them a good feel for the content of the report. Our report layout seems to work well, and the graphics and color scheme add to the ease of reading. We sweat the details on graphics and color in our reports and it definitely pays off, as our readers often focus more on graphics than on text.

We communicate the audit results using a number of techniques and strategies designed to cover a wide distribution area. We distribute hard copies to the Legislature, the governor, our constitutional officers, control agencies, and the media. In addition, we provide our public reports to auditees, legislators, fiscal committees, and relevant policy committees.

Furthermore, we post every audit report on our website and offer an e-mail notification service with links to the reports. We also e-mail the highlights of each audit report to members of the National Legislative Program Evaluation Society's listserve. Our Website includes a list of the "audits in progress" with estimated completion dates that we update monthly. We are in the process of adding this listing to the subscription service so that it transmits after the monthly update to everyone who receives electronic copies of our audit reports. This provides legislative staff some advance notice regarding when a particular audit they are interested in will be completed.

Many of our reports receive significant attention from members of the Legislature and the media. However, we promote our work product by offering briefings to members and their staff on the audit results. Last session, we briefed members and their staff on nearly every performance audit released, and on several occasions we provided multiple briefings on the same report. High-profile audit reports we issued last year, such as those related to the energy crisis as well as the highly publicized contract between the State and Oracle Corporation for the purchase of software licenses, resulted in multiple briefings, and in the Oracle situation, numerous legislative hearings.

Other strategies we use to make the Legislature aware of our products include notifying staff of members of JLAC days in advance of the public release of audit reports. These announcements include an offer to brief members and their staff on the audit results. In addition, at the beginning of the budget cycle, we remind the staff of the budget committees via e-mail that we can brief them on completed audits and testify at budget hearings.

Though an effective strategy to communicate the results of our work is important, the most valuable marketing results from an audit report that provides accurate, timely, and objective information that helps its user. Our reliable audit reports have resulted in significant trust by the Legislature in our services and products. Legislators publicly acknowledged their confidence in our work during the Oracle hearings. However, we do not take this for granted and we continue to explore innovative ways to market our services, package and distribute our products, and position ourselves for timely response to the Legislature's requests. Sometimes legislators request that we "take a look at" the organization, operations, and management of some agency, without saying more specifically what should be examined. Consequently, our study mandate is very broad, leaving the study team to discern the key issues. In the absence of further guidance, the range of possible issues can seem daunting at first. Therefore, based on past studies, JLARC staff compiled a list of ten possible issue areas to consider examining when we get such a vague request for an organization, operations, and management study.

Government has recognized the need to write in "plain language" for decades. In 1978, Hawaii's State Constitution was amended to require all government writing meant for the public to be plainly worded. Two years later, a New York executive order was issued for all state agencies to write in plain language. In 1983, California mandated all state documents to be written in plain language. More recently, former President Clinton signed an executive memorandum requiring plain language in all new government documents by October 1, 1998.

What is plain language?

Plain language has been characterized as the presentation of information in a way that makes it easy for people to understand. Writing in plain language is important because: (1) plain language helps build trust in an organization, (2) improved comprehension saves regulators time and money, and (3) readers associate impersonal writing with an uncaring, bureaucratic organization.

For auditors, generally accepted government auditing standards require the preparation of written reports to communicate the results of each audit. The written word is effective in conveying messages that must be objective. Therefore, audit reports must be easy to read and understand; must be written in clear and simple language; and use must use straightforward, nontechnical language.

The values of writing in plain language are similar to the values of auditing:

• Efficiency: Good writing saves auditing and reporting time

• Economy: Fewer, but well-chosen, words mean a lower cost and a shorter reading time for busy readers

• Effectiveness: A clear message points out necessary action

• Logic: Structure is the foundation of clear writing and clear thinking

• Evidence: Concrete support ensures sound generalizations

• Objectivity: An accurate message is easier to evaluate

Making audit reports more readable presents a special challenge because these reports often contain highly technical and complex information. However, based on a number of concepts, researchers have developed formulas to enhance the effectiveness of a writer's style. For example, the shorter the average sentence length, the easier the passage is to read because shorter sentences break complex information up into easier-to-process units. Sentences should average 15 to 20 words and should never be longer than 40 words.

One way to improve readability is to use the active voice to make a report more immediate and less complicated to understand, adding informative headings to attract readers' attention to important information, writing short sections to make the passage visually appealing, including only one issue in each paragraph to give the report a cleaner appearance, and using vertical lists to introduce white space for easier reading.

Another readability concept to remember is that the more familiar the words are and the closer the words are to fundamental life experiences, the easier it is to grasp the meaning. For example, instead of using the ambiguous "shall," use "must" to convey an obligation. When was the last time you used the word "shall" in a conversation? According to the Plain Language Network, these are the 12 words or phrases that are most likely to weaken a writer's work:
 

Additional guidance on writing in plain language can be obtained from the Plain Language Network at www.plainlanguage.gov. The network is a government-wide group of volunteers working to improve communications from the federal government to the public.
 
 

Who We Are - The Department of Examiners of Public Accounts, a legislative audit agency, audits state agencies, county governments, and higher educational institutions in Alabama. Our audits include a statewide federal single audit, the state's comprehensive annual financial report, entity financial audits, legal compliance audits, sunset reviews, and miscellaneous special legislative projects.

Our Division - The Operational Division of the department (that's us) performs sunset reviews of state agencies, miscellaneous legislative projects, and legal compliance examinations of state agencies that receive sunset reviews. We are all merit system employees with accounting degrees. Some also have master's degrees, and some are CPAs. There are 14 of us, including a division director, 12 examiners, and one accounting clerk who supports all of us. She is trained in Tae Kwan Do karate and PMS, a potent combination. (By the way, PMS means Project Management System.)

Best Things About Alabama - The people, the weather, the band Alabama, Alabama football, Friday night high school football, grits (breakfast food) G.R.I.T.S. (Girls Rised In the South), geography (mountains to the north, beaches to the south), the Alabama Shakespeare Festival, and close proximity to Atlanta, Nashville, and New Orleans

Recent challenges - Creating, testing, and implementing fully electronic working papers in our division without using a dedicated audit software package. Utilization of the Internet during audits to communicate and to transfer electronic audiit files. Thinking of electronic files as original documents. Creating and presenting recurring day-long seminars to members and staff of state boards and commissions on how to conduct their affairs without generating audit findings.

Most Interesting Current Project - Identifying the sources and beneficiaries of $35 million-plus received from transactions involving 16th section and indemnity lands that were granted to individual townships for public education when the state was formed. Source documents are old and incomplete, and there are no accounting records showing to whom the funds belong. The money is of extreme interest to strapped school boards across the state. There will be a series of circuit court trials to determine how, when, and under what conditions to disburse the funds. We are providing information to the court.

Most Pervasive Staff Delusion - Once a project is completed, we won't have to deal with that issue again.

Questionable Kudos - The (insert auditee name here) appears to be poised on the brink of adequacy.

Adventures in Auditing (as reported by Operational Division staff)

"One morning when my co-worker booted her computer it began making a sound like "dud dud dud dud" signifying that someone had unsuccessfully tried to access her computer. An auditee staff member came running in to tell us that sometime after 5 PM the previous afternoon he had tried to operate one of our computers and it started making weird noises. He said he was just trying to see how the computer operated." (Sure he was.) - Chuck Davenport

"Reading the investigator's file at the Board of Massage Therapy and the fact that I had to serve a subpoena to a man in his underwear."-Robert Weaver

"My persistent questioning of one auditee provoked this response: "Now you've gone from auditing to meddling."-Calvin Cooper

"After one sunset hearing our assistant department head told me that the Sunset Committee was happy with our report and so was the auditee. He then asked, "Reckon what you missed?"-John Segrest

"A legislative project to assess the number of passengers riding Amtrak trains in Alabama without contacting Amtrak."-John Norris

" Department of Correction audits - on site - something about those doors clanging shut just doesn't feel right."-John Segrest

"One of our examiners stirred things up so much during one audit that he found the air let out of his tires and was told that if he came back, his safety could not be guaranteed."-Robin Stone

"Part of an assignment required retrieving old files from a nearby building and wheeling them to our offices in a file cart. In the process, my coworker pushed the cart over my foot and broke my pinky toe."-Sarah Hill

You contact us at (334) 242-9200 or john.norris@examiners.state.al.us

In Mississippi, state law requires Senate confirmation of many appointees to boards and commissions and of some agency executive directors. The Senate may use the specific investigative authority conferred under the state's constitution, as well as the investigative authority of the Legislature and its committees inherent in the legislative process, to obtain the information it deems necessary to make a confirmation decision.

The PEER Committee staff performs background checks on any appointee who must be confirmed by the Senate when the chairperson of the Senate committee to which the appointment is assigned requests such. These checks include a review of resumé information provided by the appointee and of state and federal court records, police and sheriff's office records, and records kept by the Bureau of Narcotics and the Department of Public Safety. These records will show whether an appointee has a criminal record or outstanding or satisfied civil judgments.

A completed background check report contains a summary of statutory qualifications for the appointment, a section detailing the appointee's compliance (or lack of) with statutory qualifications, adverse comments (if applicable), and a conclusion that states whether the appointment complies with state law and if not, why. Upon its transmittal to the committee chairperson, the background check report becomes the property of the chairperson, with accompanying discretion on dissemination. Although covered by PEER's confidentiality requirements for staff, the nature of background check fieldwork necessitates special care in this regard.

Problems with Appointments

In general, appointments may be deemed not in compliance for one or more of the following reasons: problems with qualifications of the appointee; derogatory information on the appointee; or other unusual situations. Following are examples of problems PEER staff has encountered in conducting background checks.

Experience. One appointee claimed to have sufficient full-time work experience in wildlife conservation or administration by including management of a retail hunting and fishing goods store.

Shifting of districts. Several MISSISSIPPI CODE sections concerning boards were adopted in 2001 in anticipation of the state's redistricting its congressional delegation from five districts to four. During the 2002 session, PEER had several cases in which the Governor inadvertently made appointments to districts that did not exist at that time due to the congressional redistricting timetable.

Geographic relationships to other appointees. PEER has had cases in which an individual is appointed to a board for a term that overlaps the term of another board member residing in the same county or district. State law often prohibits two appointees from the same county or district from serving concurrently.

Conclusion

The Senate may choose to confirm or not confirm appointments regardless of the information contained in PEER's background check reports. Although situations such as the above are common, unless the case is an obvious contradiction of state law, it often does not prevent the appointee from being confirmed.
 
 

For those not already familiar with NCSL, the National Conference of State Legislatures is a bipartisan organization dedicated to serving the lawmakers and staffs of the nation's fifty states and its commonwealths and territories. All of the nation's legislators and legislative staff are members of NCSL. NCSL's goals are:

• to improve the quality and effectiveness of state legislatures;
• to foster interstate communication and cooperation; and,
• to ensure legislatures a strong, cohesive voice in the federal system

A sixty-member Executive Committee, elected annually and composed of forty legislators and twenty legislative staff, governs NCSL under the leadership of seven officers. The Executive Committee directs the affairs of NCSL and supervises the disbursement of its funds. NCSL's governance and structure are prescribed by bylaws and rules that can only be changed by a 3/5 vote at the annual business meeting (held during each summer's annual meeting).

NCSL's fifteen standing committees, formerly structured as the Assembly on State Issues and the Assembly on Federal Issues, meet at the Fall Forum and the Spring Forum to develop lobbying positions for NCSL. Legislative staff participate in these committees, but only legislators vote on the policy resolutions. (See page 12 for a listing of the new committees.)

Staff members of the Executive Committee and representatives of each staff section comprise the Legislative Staff Coordinating Committee (LSCC). The purposes of LSCC are to oversee the legislative staff division of NCSL, to coordinate the work of the staff sections, to promote professional development of legislative staff and to review and evaluate NCSL services to legislative staff. NCSL currently recognizes the following ten staff sections:

• American Society of Legislative Clerks and Secretaries. Formed over thirty years prior to the formation of NCSL, ASLCS's membership includes both elected and appointed legislative clerks and secretaries.

• National Association of Legislative Fiscal Offices. NALFO's members are legislative staff involved in fiscal research and analysis.

• Legal Services Staff Section. LSSS is the only national legal professional organization dedicated to the needs of legislative attorneys and paralegal legislative staff.

• Legislative Information and Communications Staff Section. LINCS members' work involves dissemination of public information, communications, civic education, constituent relations, capitol tour and public use, and media relations.

• Legislative Research Librarians Staff Section. LRL's membership, composed primarily of librarians and information specialists in legislative agencies, focuses on information management, information technology, and legislative research.

• National Legislative Services and Security Association. NLSSA's members provide logistical services to legislators, staff and the public. These services include maintaining order; protecting the capitols and their occupants; dealing with visitors; providing supplies; caring for buildings and grounds; and providing accounting, administration, postal, and parking services.

• Leadership Staff Section. LSS members work for legislative leaders and party caucuses.

• Research and Committee Staff Section. RACSS members are involved in research, policy analysis, committee staffing, constituent services, or general services for research offices, chamber offices, caucuses, or individual legislators.

• National Association of Legislative Information Technology. NALIT's members are legislative information technology managers and staff.

• Last but certainly not least, our organization, theNational Legislative Program Evaluation Society, includes employees of legislative agencies engaged in program evaluation or performance auditing.

The recent restructuring of NCSL's committee organization will provide new opportunities for legislative staff participation. Last summer, the Conference merged the Assembly on State Issues (ASI) and Assembly on Federal Issues (AFI) into a single body known as the Standing Committees of NCSL. The fifteen standing committees address the major policy areas that legislatures face.

Formerly, the AFI developed policy for NCSL, underlying NCSL's Congressional lobbying agenda. The ASI served primarily as a mechanism for information exchange between states and for training. Both AFI and ASI were comprised of several committees and taskforces, with quite a bit of duplication in subject matter. Staff participated only in the former ASI, and not in the AFI. The merger breaks down this artificial separation between federal and state issues.

Typical work products of the committees will include books, web pages, sessions at the Annual Meeting, Power Point presentation files, and a variety of other outputs including recommendations for NCSL policy statements. Such policy statements, once adopted at the Annual Meeting, become the basis for NCSL's Congressional lobbying program. Under NCSL rules, staff may participate in every phase of committee work except voting on policy. The reorganization recognizes staff's important role in interpreting and implementing federal policy.

The new committee structure serves as a complement to the staff section structure. While staff sections are organized by professional discipline, such as fiscal analysis, legal services, clerks, and so forth, the standing committees address policy areas such as transportation, education, banking, or energy. Each of the 15 standing committees addresses matters of interest to some, but perhaps not all, staff.

The reorganization will strengthen NCSL in a number of ways. With fewer overall committees, NCSL's resources can focus on the primary issues facing legislatures. Under the new structure, legislative staff may contribute to the issues agenda. Also, in the simplified structure, there will be better coordination between NCSL's information exchange function and training activities with the policy agenda.

By time this issue goes to press, a series of letters will have been sent to new legislative leaders in every state, as well as to agency staff directors, soliciting appointments to the various committees. To get involved, you should review the jurisdiction of the various committees for subjects in your interest area. Let your legislative leaders or staff directors know of your interests. Travel is not required for participation. A great deal is accomplished by telephone conference and e-mail.

Of course, if you can travel, you should consider attending the next meeting of the Standing Committees in Boston, April 25-27. Some of the sessions planned for Boston include: privacy and e-mail; wetlands, watersheds, and mercury pollution; emergency preparedness and smallpox vaccinations; education of poll workers; and Internet voting. For a full description of the sessions in Boston, see NCSL's website, http://www.ncsl.org/. A web page fully describing the Boston meeting will be posted soon on that site.

Several years ago I was encouraged by the State Auditor of Texas, Lawrence F. Alwin, to become more involved in external organizations and activities. Given my role as part of the executive management team for the Texas State Auditor's Office (SAO), he believed that involvement in external activities would be good for my professional development and would help bring new ideas to the SAO. Therefore, I chose to become more active in the National Legislative Program Evaluation Society (NLPES). This in turn led to greater involvement in the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), the umbrella or parent organization for NLPES and nine other legislative staff associations.

As it turned out, the State Auditor was right again! My two terms on the NLPES executive committee and current membership on the NCSL executive committee have reaped benefits for the SAO and for myself.

NLPES seemed to be a logical choice for more active involvement. The SAO is a legislative agency with broad audit, evaluation, and investigative responsibilities. SAO staff had participated in NLPES activities in years past. A few of our staff attended NCSL annual meetings, and one of our staff served a term on the NLPES executive committee. We even hosted the NLPES fall training conference in 1991. However, all of the people who participated in these activities had long since moved on to other pursuits.

From a personal standpoint, NLPES was one of the few organizations that provided the opportunity to start at the top. I began my involvement by running for the executive committee. If timing isn't everything, it certainly helps! As luck would have it, the year I sought appointment there were an equal number of open seats and nominees. I was appointed to the executive committee without facing election (a major relief) and was soon off to attend my first NLPES executive committee meeting at the NCSL annual meeting in St. Louis in 1996.

Organizational Benefits of NLPES

The SAO benefited from my involvement in NLPES in several ways. We graciously accepted (i.e., borrowed) good ideas that worked for other offices, including ways to format reports, website ideas, and establishing clear objectives for performance audits by being clear about the questions we are trying to answer. These ideas helped improve our service in ways both large and small.

While many of the ideas we borrowed from other states were easily integrated into our processes, some were non-starters. For example, the idea for "100-hour audits" was met with little enthusiasm by our staff. We are still wondering how the state in question (you know who you are, Kansas) can complete its audits in this short amount of time.

We also used NLPES activities to connect with our own state legislators. Involvement in planning NLPES activities provided us with several opportunities to engage our own legislators to serve as panelists or moderators for various conference sessions. Through this approach we strengthened relationships with legislators and hope that we created goodwill towards our office as legislators see our staff take a leadership role on issues of national importance.

We used the listserve as a way to keep up with issues in other states and to see what problems others are facing. The listserve is useful to connect our staff with legislative staff from other states working on similar issue areas.

NLPES participation also created job enrichment opportunities for some of our staff. As an example, last year I served on a technology taskforce to provide feedback on the nationwide bill tracking system under development by NCSL. I asked our staff librarian, Laura Wisdom, to participate since she would likely be a primary user of the system. She became a key contributor to the taskforce, working exclusively through emails and the Internet. This turned out to be a win-win situation. Laura was excited about her opportunity to participate (at least she let me think so), and she provided much better input for improving the system than I would have ever been capable of providing.

Personal Benefits

One nugget of wisdom that has stuck with me for many years suggests that in order to grow, one must stand in deeper water. NLPES and NCSL provided me with "deeper water" and growth opportunities. In addition to the many benefits to our office, my involvement in these organizations afforded me many personal benefits as well.

During my activity in these organizations, I established many beneficial and rewarding relationships throughout the United States and beyond. Active participation put me in touch with colleagues from coast to coast, as well as in Hawaii and even Hong Kong. This wide network gives me a broader perspective for considering the issues I face at home. It is beneficial to have knowledge about how other states organize their legislative oversight functions and how other offices approach their work. It is helpful to be able to pick up the phone or write an email to get information, opinions or advice on a given topic. Occasionally, it gives me a greater sense of value to be able to share my knowledge with others or to connect members of our staff with legislative staff from other states that are looking for assistance. The opportunity to create this kind of network is personally rewarding. I believe it also increased my value to the SAO and to Texas.

Active involvement also gave me the opportunity to hone my leadership skills. As incoming chair for NLPES, I set certain goals I wanted to see achieved. One goal was to increase the sharing of information among legislative audit and evaluation offices. Another goal was to use the opportunities at annual NCSL meetings to market the value of program evaluations and audits to legislators. We made strides on both fronts during my tenure and it is rewarding to see these efforts continue.

When Texas took responsibility for hosting the NLPES Fall 2000 training conference, I had the opportunity to assist in the development of the program. I am still proud of the program we put together that built on the two-year NCSL study led by Dr. Max Arinder of Mississippi. The theme of the program was to explore the ramifications to legislative audit and evaluation offices given the likely challenges and changes facing legislatures of the future.

The opportunity to travel beyond our state's borders is another benefit of active involvement. I am blessed with a boss that understands the value of active participation and a budget that has afforded me the opportunity to attend out-of-state meetings. While the destinations and frequent travel have resulted in some good-natured ribbing from my state-bound colleagues, I have had the opportunity to see many parts of the country I might never have seen otherwise.

Through NCSL/NLPES travel I have seen the sun rise and set on the waters of the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico. I have traveled as far north as the Canadian border and to the deep south of the Florida coast. With the editor of this newsletter, I walked through the lobby of the World Trade Center in New York City about a year and a half before September 11th.

Being a small-time photography buff, I have shot sunrise photos in Montana, rainbows in Hawaii, fall color in Maine, and the night lights of Hong Kong glowing on the waters of Victoria Harbor. Every one of these opportunities came to me because I took an opportunity to get involved.

Perhaps the most significant personal benefit I have found as an active member in these organizations has come as a bit of a surprise to me. The word "united" in the phrase "the United States of America" took on a new and deeper meaning for me. Being involved with people from other states to address common problems increased my appreciation for our unity. While I am always proud to serve the Texas legislature and the people of this great state, my involvement in NCSL/NLPES helps me to realize that the value of our work goes beyond our state borders and even beyond our national borders. What happens in other states is of more interest to me because I have a better appreciation of our connectivity. Also, I often know people in these states that are either affected by or working through difficult issues.

Being an active member in these organizations increased my appreciation for the value of the work that we do for the society we all cherish. While it is easy to get tangled in the problems and issues we face from day to day, the experience of being involved in these national associations makes it easier to see the greater good that is accomplished.

As I near the mid-point of my term limit on the NCSL executive committee, it is not clear what my opportunities will be for future involvement in NCSL or NLPES, from a leadership perspective. What is clear is that, as with so many things in life, you get out what you put in. While active involvement means hard work and sacrifice, the rewards are worthwhile. Would I do it again? You bet!

NLPES currently has professional liaisons with eleven groups and organizations. The two newest professional liaison groups are the American Statistical Association and the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. ACFE will be profiled in an upcoming edition of the NLPES Newsletter.

The American Statistical Association is a scientific and educational society whose mission is "to promote excellence in the application of statistical science across the wealth of human endeavor." Founded in Boston in 1839, it is the second oldest professional association in the country and can claim such past members as Florence Nightingale, Andrew Carnegie, Alexander Graham Bell, and Martin Van Buren. ASA currently has 16,000 members in government, academia, and the private sector.

ASA is divided into 21 sections. Of particular interest to NLPES members is the Government Statistics Section, which focuses on statistical policy issues at the federal, state and local level. Members of this section are particularly interested in the quality and usefulness of governmental data products, special problems of state and local data, and the role of professional statisticians in public programs. Other sections of interest include Business and Economy Statistics, Health Policy Statistics, Social Statistics, and for you baseball fans, Statistics in Sports.

The ASA sponsors an annual Joint Statistical Meeting with several other national and international statistical associations. At the most recent JSM, the Government Statistics Section held seminars on such topics as the design of web-based surveys, incorporating non-English speaking populations in surveys, and cross-cultural questionnaire development. The next JSM is in August 2003 in San Francisco.

The Government Statistics and Social Statistics sections jointly publish a newsletter that can be accessed through the ASA's website at www.amstat.org. The website also lists the ASA's many local chapters. For additional information, you may contact John Czajka, the ASA's liaison to NLPES. John is the past chair of the ASA's Government Statistics Section and can be reached at JCzajka@Mathematica-Mpr.com

In the May 1998 issue of the NLPES News, Nancy Van Maren, former director of the Idaho Office of Performance Evaluations, introduced a new column focusing on issues that small evaluation and audit offices face. Nancy expressed a hope that the column would become a regularly appearing feature of NLPES News-at least until small shop issues or column authors were exhausted.

How Small is Small?

In her article, Nancy recapped 1997 survey results that showed that 10 of the 47 NLPES member organizations had 10 or fewer staff. These organizations had to deal with issues whose impact was magnified due to the small size of the office. Other evaluation and audit shops with more staff were perceived to be "small" in their states and faced many of the same issues.

Small Shop Issues

Nancy posed the question of what issues set small shops apart from big or medium-sized shops? She offered the following as a brief description of those issues.

Requirements of Staff. Evaluations are conducted with fewer total resources. With a small number, staff typically cannot specialize in a given policy area, increasing evaluation start-up time. Also, staff must fulfill a number of different responsibilities-from interviewing to legal research, quantitative analysis to writing-during the course of a single evaluation.

Relations with Outside Resources. Because fewer staff translate into fewer skills in-house, small shops may be more reliant on outside expertise, adding a unique element of instability. Assistance in methodological design, editing, legal analysis, as well as project-specific expertise, are all needed at times. Staff can expend an extraordinary amount of effort in recruiting, orienting and managing short-term resources.

Types and Levels of Pressure. Small evaluation offices may experience some forms of work pressure more acutely than larger offices, including the following:

Increased pressure to produce. With limited staff, small offices produce fewer evaluation products in any given period. If legislators do not understand the resource requirements of evaluative work, their quest to ensure staff productivity may be translated into more evaluations per staff member, in a given time frame, than in larger offices.

Staff turnover vulnerability. The loss of one trained staff member can put the entire office behind, literally, by months.

Less flexibility with resources. Fewer total staff are available to shift onto or off a project based on project needs.

Fewer resources for long-term development. With resources continuously stretched, small shops may find it impractical to devote sufficient resources to conducting their work in a manner acceptable to peer review.

Personnel Growth. How may a staff be structured to provide the opportunity for growth and promote teamwork in a small and flat organization? How do managers counter "inter-personal burnout" when staff must work with the same people on each project?

Expectations of the Legislature. In some ways, small shops face increased pressure to demonstrate the value of their work. The legislature is less likely to see a small evaluation or audit shop as a critical function of government. After all, wouldn't the office be larger if it were really necessary?

Your "Small Shop" Stories

Since Nancy's article was first published in 1998, the NLPES News has attempted to include a small shop article in each issue. Sometimes that has been accomplished after a good bit of arm-twisting and cajoling. After all, staff of small shops have their 'plates full' performing a myriad of tasks for their legislatures.

Because the interests and needs of small shops probably haven't changed since 1998, it is important that the small shop feature continue in the NLPES News. However, that can't happen without your stories---and your willingness to contribute as authors. So, put on your thinking caps, dust off that keyboard and write a small shop article. To volunteer, contact the newsletter editor at james.barber@peer.state.ms.us
 
 

As usual, I was up to my eyeballs in work with no end in sight when late last spring I found out that I was selected to go to a training session called "LSMI." Like many of you, I am skeptical when it comes to training "opportunities," since they usually sound so good in the brochures but fall so short of my expectations. Upon learning of my selection, my heart dropped, and I asked in an irritated tone, "What the heck is LSMI, and how is it going to help me deal with competing priorities, delegation, and stress management?" Now that I have attended LSMI, I'd have to say that it is one of the most useful training experiences I've ever had. Let me tell you why.

LSMI, or the Legislative Staff Management Institute, is training specifically directed at senior-level legislative staff and is designed to help us step back and take a look at where we are in our careers and to rejuvenate our commitment to and appreciation of the legislative process. Participants come from all over the country. In August 2002, LSMI included over 20 legislative staff from 12 states: Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and Virginia.

The training focuses on several areas to assist us in carrying out our responsibilities, including conflict management, management strategies for the legislative setting, leadership skills, strategic/long range planning, and emerging technologies. What makes LSMI interesting and more useful than other training is that it engages the participants by having them share their own real-life experiences and unique viewpoints using a combination of lectures, very stimulating group discussions, simulations, cases, and group exercises. The lectures provide a forum for participants to learn informally from one another as much as from the formal material presented. Learning is fun, cooperative, and directly related and applicable to what we do as upper level legislative staff members.

The Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota, located in the Twin Cities, conducts LSMI. The Humphrey Institute is one of the leading public policy and planning schools in the country, offering master's degrees in public policy, urban and regional planning, and science, technology, and environmental policy. LSMI faculty members are top notch and combine public policy theory with their own direct experiences as legislative staff, legislators, and managers in the public and private sectors.

And visiting the Twin Cities in the summer is a treat. Minneapolis, along with its twin city of St. Paul, is one of the most beautiful and comfortable places to spend time in the summer. The area is full of parks, lakes, theaters, eateries, and coffee shops that participants enjoy during their stay. To balance the day-long training sessions and evening studying, LSMI arranges several social events both on campus and around the region. For instance, in 2002, LSMI participants enjoyed a Twin Cities bus tour, a wine and cheese reception at the Humphrey Institute, a concert that included Bobby McFerrin and Voicestra, a reception at the program director's home in the farmland of eastern Minnesota, and the world premiere of Arthur Miller's play Resurrection Blues. In addition, during our free time some of us arranged evening walks through and around campus and trips to the Mall of America, a baseball game, and a preseason football game.

But what makes LSMI a truly special experience are the bonds that develop among program participants themselves. I must admit that the thought of living in the dorms, eating in a university cafeteria, and sharing my experiences with strangers was not something that I looked forward to when I set off for Minneapolis last summer. But by the end of the program, the combination of classroom discussions, university living, and socializing after hours brought us all together not just as colleagues but as friends who will stay in touch and learn from one another for a long time to come.

As legislative staff, we are all very busy trying to get reports out, write bills, do analyses, answer phones, attend meetings, and barely have the time to stop and take a breath. But if you have the opportunity to attend LSMI in the future, I would strongly recommend that you jump on it. It was one of the most rewarding training experiences I have had in my 14 years with the legislature.

Florida

New hires at Florida's Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability include: LeNèe Carroll, Dan Cohen-Vogel, Peter Graeve, Don Krug, Julie Thomas, Victor Williams, Robert Hall, Kerry Langston, and Jon Abbott.

Recent resignations from OPPAGA include: Louise Cobbe, Bernadette Howard, Ben Powell, Benny McKee, Cynthia Davis, and Robert Hall.

Marti Harkness and Tim Elwell were recently promoted to Chief Legislative Analyst. In addition, Kara Collins-Gomez, Sibylle Allendorff, Darwin Gamble, and John Hughes were promoted to Senior Legislative Analyst.

OPPAGA extends congratulations to the following staff for new arrivals: Claire Mazur, for the birth of a daughter, Leah Elizabeth; John Hughes, for the birth of a daughter, Melody; and Janice Foley, for the adoption of a daughter, Stephanie, from the Hubei Province in China.

Idaho

Rakesh Mohan has been appointed the new director of the Idaho Legislative Office of Performance Evaluations. Rakesh previously worked in the performance audit offices in Washington, Louisiana, and Kansas. He is also the NLPES liaison with the American Evaluation Association.

Michigan

As a result of the "Early Out" retirement program in the State of Michigan, several Office of the Auditor General employees have elected to retire.

Larry Quintel, Audit Supervisor, has retired after 27 years of service. He left his auditing duties and moved to sunny Florida on July 1, 2002.

Nancy Gifford, Audit Supervisor, has retired after 10 years of service. She retired on October 1 and took an extended vacation in the warmer climate of California.

Michael Mayhew, Deputy Auditor General for Audits, has retired after 33 years of service. He is enjoying his retirement with his wife, Kathleen, at their home in Northern Michigan, while taking advantage of all of the recreational opportunities in the Great Upper Peninsula.

Jon Wise, Director of Professional Practice, has retired after nearly 30 years of service. He is enjoying his free time with family and friends. He will get more involved in his church and community activities and is traveling more, while taking time to play golf and focus additional attention on Spartan athletics, sport cards and memorabilia, and other hobbies that he enjoys.

The following employees will retire in February or April. George Naylor, Brad Jarvis, Jane Laycock, Michael Laycock, James Maleski, Gerald Olson, John Thrush, Robert Uehlein, James Vogel, Gary Bacigal, James Bellinger, Raymond Vernellis, and Richard Weller. These employees represent more than 377 years of service to the Auditor General's office.

The Auditor General announces the appointments of Scott Strong to the position of Director of Audit Operations, succeeding Michael Mayhew, and Craig Murray to the position of Director of Professional Practice, succeeding Jon Wise. Scott has been working with the office for 23 years and Craig has been working with the office for 16 years. The office also announces the appointment of Kimberly Jacobs to the position of Chief Information Officer. Kimberly has been working with the office for 16 years.

Tennessee

The Tennessee Offices of Research and Education Accountability announces the hiring of a new Assistant Director of Education Accountability, Jason Walton. Other recent hires include Alisa Palmisano and Bintou Njie.

Texas Sunset Commission

After a stint in the private sector, John Hawkins has returned to the Texas Sunset Commission as a senior policy analyst.

Utah

The Utah Supreme Court recently ordered the state's Judicial Conduct Commission (JCC) to allow legislative auditors access to protected JCC information. For years, the JCC argued that legislators should not be allowed on the commission or be allowed access to the commission's judicial files due to the need for a separation of powers. This argument extended in the last few months to exclude legislative auditors' access to the files. The impasse ended when the Utah Supreme Court signed an order recognizing the constitutional authority and powers given to the audit office. The recently released limited-scope audit will now be followed up with a full review of confidential commission files.

I think it goes without saying that a national newsletter, such as the NLPES News, does not happen by itself. It takes a lot of "going above and beyond" by willing volunteers to produce an informative and useful publication.

This is my sixth issue of the NLPES News for which I have served as editor. My goal has been to include articles in our newsletter to help us do our jobs better, as well as those about emerging trends in our profession. Just for good measure, the newsletter also contains a little "news from home," as well as a touch of light-hearted humor. Based on your positive comments, I think the newsletter has accomplished that goal.

I want to take this opportunity to thank those of you who have volunteered (sometimes with a little arm-twisting and cajoling) to write articles for these six issues. They certainly have all been of high quality. I also need to thank Ava Welborn, PEER's Editor/Publications Coordinator, for keeping me on the 'straight and narrow' grammatically. In addition, I need to thank Larry Landrum, PEER's Systems Analyst, for refereeing fights between my computer and me when the desktop publishing software won't cooperate.

Having said all of that, it's time to think about future newsletter issues. That's where you come in. I would be interested in hearing your ideas for articles. I would be especially interested in having some of you volunteer (without any arm-twisting) to write some articles. The newsletter is our means to communicate and benefit each other. Please take advantage of this opportunity.