• 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 Site Map

2002 NLPES Surveys

Obtaining agency records:  What legal authority does your office have to review agency records for program evaluations?  Are there limits to this authority (or gray areas in the law) that could restrict your ability to do certain types of evaluations?  Does your office have subpoena power—and, if so, how often have you used it in recent years?  What sorts of problems have you encountered getting agency data, and how have you addressed these problems?

Wayne Welsh, Utah Office of the Legislative Auditor

Our state constitution provides that the legislative auditor "shall have authority to conduct audits of any funds, functions, and accounts in any branch, department, agency or political subdivision of" the state.  Our statutes allow for the sharing of confidential records with those authorized to conduct audits.  In the past, we have gained access to those confidential records (i.e., child welfare, mental health, disabilities, and student admissions) that we have needed to complete the audits assigned to us by the Legislature. We have had to issue subpoenas on two or three occasions.

The Sunset Act instructs agencies to cooperate with the Sunset Commission.  The Act also authorizes the Commission and its staff to inspect the records, documents, and files of any state agency.  The Commission also has subpoena authority for both records and witnesses.  We have never needed to use the authority (although we have come close a couple of times.)  Most of our problems in obtaining information come when an agency simply is unable to assemble and provide data we need.  We will work with the agency to identify alternate forms of information that could be sufficient.  In some cases, we just write up their inability to provide common and necessary data as the underlying problem.

In New Mexico, the legislative finance committee (LFC) has statutory authority to review records under Section 2-5-3 B. NMSA 1978.  We examine laws governing the finances and operations of department, agencies, and institutions of New Mexico and all of its political subdivisions, the effects of laws on the proper functioning of these governmental units, the policies and costs of governmental units.  The LFC has subpoena power under Section 2-5-5 NMSA 1978; however, it has not been exercised.  The committee shall have the power to conduct hearings and to administer oaths.  The committee or any subcommittee thereof consisting of three members or more shall have the power to subpoena, which may be enforced through any district court of the state.  Process of such committee shall be served by any sheriff or any member of the New Mexico state police, and shall be served without cost to the committee.  In addition, under Section 2-5-7 NMSA 1978 agencies are required to cooperate.  Each agency or institution of the state and its political subdivisions shall, upon request, furnish and make available to the legislative finance committee such documents, material or information as may be requested by members of the committee or its director or staff which are not made confidential by law.  Problems encountered in getting information concern confidentiality.  The issue has been raised in the Taxation and Revenue Department, Human Services Department and the State Department of Public Education.  We have addressed this issue by signing a confidentiality statement and agreeing to destroy specific identifying information once the audit is finalized and presented.  In some instances when a confidentiality statement was not used, internal auditors from the department have assisted in the audit.  In situations when confidentiality has been raised but clearly it is not an issue, it has taken a lot of discussions and compromises to get access to data.  This has delayed some audits.

West Virginia Code §4-10-9 states:  "To carry out the duties set forth in this article, the committee, any duly authorized employee of the committee, or any employee of the Office of the Legislative Auditor working at the direction of the committee, shall have access to any and all records of every agency in West Virginia....  By subpoena, issued over the signature of either cochairpersons of the committee and served in the manner provided by law, the committee may summon and compel the attendance of witnesses and their examination under oath and the production of all books, papers, documents and records necessary or convenient to be examined and used by the committee in the performance of its duties.  If any witness subpoenaed to appear at any hearing or meeting shall refuse or fail to appear or to answer questions put to him or her, or shall refuse or fail to produce books, papers, documents, or records within his or her control when the same are demanded, the committee, in its discretion, may enforce obedience to its subpoena by attachment, fine or imprisonment, as provided in section five, article one of this chapter; or it may report the facts to the circuit court of Kanawha County or any other court of competent jurisdiction and such court shall compel obedience to the subpoena as though such subpoena had been issued by such court in the first instance."

We have not encountered any problems with obtaining access to agency documents, with one exception.  We issued an unfavorable report on an agency.  We were to look at other areas of the agency to issue another report.  The agency wanted to review the accuracy of the first report and in the meantime it did not want us in the agency until its review of our report was completed.  Our cochairs went through the Governor's Office to have the agency allow us access to its records so that we could complete our review.  Overall, we have received great cooperation from state agencies.  Subpoena power has never been used.  Confidential data such as tax return information, etc. are provided to us once our staff signs confidentiality statements.

Statute provides our agency with access to the records of any agency or program receiving State funds.  An in-depth discussion of JLARC's experiences in obtaining agency records is contained in the article "Access to Information:  The Legislative Advantage" which is contained in Volume Number 81 of New Directions in Evaluation, published by Jossey-Bass Publishers in Spring 1999.

Our authorizing statute gives us broad authority to review agency records and get access to agency data and information.  Two sections of our statute are:

•  RCW 44.28.097

Agency documents furnished to joint committee.
All agency reports concerning program performance, including administrative review, quality control, and other internal audit or performance reports, as requested by the joint committee, shall be furnished by the agency requested to provide such report. [1996 c 288 § 18; 1973 1st ex.s. c 197 § 2. Formerly RCW 44.28.087.]

• RCW 44.28.110

Examinations -- Subpoenas -- Depositions.
In the discharge of any duty herein imposed, the committee or any personnel under its authority and its subcommittees shall have the authority to examine and inspect all properties, equipment, facilities, files, records and accounts of any state office, department, institution, board, committee, commission or agency, and to administer oaths, issue subpoenas, compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of any papers, books, accounts, documents and testimony, and to cause the deposition of witnesses, either residing within or without the state, to be taken in the manner prescribed by laws for taking depositions in civil actions in the superior courts. [1955 c 206 § 8; 1951 c 43 § 8.]


Our Committee has proposed to use its subpoena power on two occasions in recent years, but ultimately did not exercise it.  Agencies generally comply with our information requests.  Resistance sometimes comes from those state agencies under the control of a statewide elected official other than the Governor.  We have a total of nine statewide elected officials in Washington. For the most part, the major data and information difficulty is the absence of data in any reasonably retrievable form.  We also frequently we find ourselves having to develop creative approaches to collecting and analyzing data that is retrievable from agencies.  We have then found new paths of inquiry that are fruitful, even in the absence of that elusive "perfect data set."

Current law does not create any major problems for us in obtaining the data we need to perform our audits.  Section 2-3-107, Colorado Revised Statutes, outlines our authority with regard to accessing records and issuing subpoenas to witnesses through our Legislative Audit Committee (if need be).  Generally, statutes give us broad access to all types of agency records, confidential or otherwise.  The law includes penalties should an agency refuse to comply (i.e., misdemeanor with a fine ranging from $100 to $1,000 and the possibility of imprisonment for up to one year).  As far as I know, we've never used the subpoena power or brought legal action against anyone refusing to comply with a records access request.  Statutes (Section 2-3-103(3), Colorado Revised Statutes) also state that our workpapers are not open to public inspection unless the Legislative Audit Committee votes to provide such access (which it never has, to my knowledge).  This added protection usually eases agency fears about disclosing sensitive information to our audit staff.

The Legislative Audit Bureau has broad statutory access to state records.  The state auditor or designated employees, according to s.13.94, Wis. Stats., "shall at all times and with or without notice have access to all departments and to any books, records or other documents maintained by the departments and relating to their expenditures, revenues, operations and structure."  The Bureau has at least twice sought legal opinions from the Wisconsin Attorney General, based in part on challenges brought by executive branch agencies.  In a 1995 letter to the state auditor, the Attorney General quotes an opinion written in 1985:  "The nature of the state auditor's role is such that he or she must have access to all pertinent records including those that may otherwise be confidential.  It is my opinion that the Legislature intended the state auditor to have access to records even though they might not otherwise be available to the public under the public records law."  The state auditor is also granted subpoena power in s.13.94, Wis. Stats., and may take testimony and cause depositions of witnesses in the same manner as they are taken in civil actions in circuit court.

Yes, the Bureau's authority is limited.  For example, these limitations are included in s.13.94, Wis. Stats.:

Issues related to academic freedom within the University of Wisconsin System cannot be examined;

Access to documents of local units of government is limited to work performed under audits specifically directed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee; and

Audits of certain providers of medical assistance benefits are limited to those records which pertain to the receipt, disbursement or other handling of appropriations made by state law.

Periodically, we do encounter problems in accessing agency data.  These situations are handled on a case-by-case basis.  Agencies sometimes seek confirmation, for example, of our protection of sensitive, personally identifiable information.  The Bureau has adopted a "Protection of Information" statement that is reviewed and signed by all employees; the statement describes the steps to be taken at various points in the audit to preserve the confidentiality of certain records.  In other cases, an agency may question LAB authority to review certain records; this is fairly rare, however, and is usually resolved through discussion with the audit director or the state auditor.  Finally, we have had one recent experience that remains an "outlier" in terms of Bureau experience.  In our statutorily mandated review of the construction costs for Miller Park, the stadium for the Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club, the audit team encountered a number of difficulties in accessing necessary information.  Our strategy was straightforward—information was requested in writing.  When it became clear that the desired information would not be provided, audit work was halted and the audit report included specific language regarding the auditee's behavior in responding to our questions, as well as a statement of limitations on the analysis of expenditures and revenues.

We have subpoena power.  Have not used it for program evaluations.  Have reminded agencies that it exists.  That was sufficient.  Agency data sometimes incomplete or nonexistent.  If agency data not available, use alternative indicators, if available.  Sometimes necessary to ask agencies to gather and provide data to us.

The primary basis of our authority is Article IV, Section 53 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, which states "The auditor general shall conduct post audits of financial transactions and accounts of the state and of all branches, departments, offices, boards, commissions, agencies, authorities and institutions of the state established by this constitution or by law, and performance post audits thereof."  In addition, Section 21.46 of the Michigan Compiled Laws provides that it is the duty of all officers to produce for examination the books of account and papers of their respective departments, institutions and offices, and to truthfully answer all questions relating thereto.  Also, authority for certain non-state agencies (e.g., community colleges) is provided through specific sections of the annual appropriations acts.  State-funded programs carried out by non-state organizations are not addressed in this authority.  Section 21.46 of the Michigan Compiled Laws also provides subpoena power, although we have used it very rarely in the past three decades.  We periodically encounter problems obtaining agency data. We have obtained a series of Attorney General opinions supporting our access to records and data, and the Legislature has communicated its interest in our office having access to records and data.  We have had no court involvement.

We have subpoena power, but we've never used it.  Our law, technically, limits us to reviewing the expenditure of funds appropriated by the General Assembly.  But we've been doing quite a bit of policy-type work lately. The biggest problem we've had in getting agency data is that it takes some departments forever to respond to us.  In their defense, they are often busy and we can be pretty demanding.

The California Government Code (code) gives the State Auditor sufficient access to agency records to conduct all types of audits/investigations.  Specifically, it states that the State Auditor shall have access to and authority to examine and reproduce, any and all books, accounts, reports, vouchers, correspondence files, and other records, bank accounts and money or other property, of any agency of the state, whether created by the California Constitution or otherwise, and any public entity including any city, county, and school or special district for any audit or investigative audit.  Further it states, “Any officer or person who fails or refuses to permit access and examination and reproduction, as required by this section, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”  The Government Code also gives the State Auditor or his or her designee the authority to issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and the production of papers, books, accounts, or documents, or for the making of oral or written sworn statements, in any investigative interview conducted as part of an audit or investigative audit.  However, we rarely need to issue subpoenas because our statutes clearly establish a broad right of access to an auditee’s records.  For example during the past two years, the state auditor issued only one subpoena related to performance audits and that was at the request of an auditee who had reservations about releasing certain records involving private corporations without a subpoena.  Although some auditees have been slow to provide data, we have generally gotten what we have asked for in the end.  We always try to anticipate and alleviate any access issues as early as possible in the audit.  For example, in our job start letter we cite our legal authority to access the auditee’s records.  In addition we make it a point to discuss access and our legal authority at the entrance conference.  In that way if the auditee anticipates a problem area, the attorneys can start ironing it out immediately.  If during fieldwork we encounter problems obtaining access from lower level staff, we will explain our legal authority and elevate our requests as necessary.  If necessary we will remind the auditee that we have the authority to subpoena the information we seek.  Finally, when all else fails, we will issue a subpoena, but as explained earlier that is rarely necessary.  In some cases questions arise over our access to information that is deemed confidential or otherwise protected under law, or the auditee may claim attorney-client or executive privilege.  In such instances, we usually get the information we seek; however, we may not be able to divulge the information publicly.  If we rely on confidential data to support information in our public report, we take extra precautions to protect the confidentiality of that underlying data once the report becomes public.

A special legislative committee oversees our program evaluation process. One of the committee’s duties is to “administer oaths, issue subpoenas, compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of any papers, books, accounts, documents, and testimony, and cause the depositions of witnesses either residing within or without the state to be taken in the manner prescribed by law for taking depositions in civil actions in the district court.” (Neb. Rev. Stat. sec. 50-1205(7))  The committee has never needed to issue a subpoena or otherwise compel an agency to produce records although its authority to do so no doubt encourages agencies to work with us.  As a result, obtaining agency data has not generally been a problem for us.  Our most common problem with data access is that we want the data sooner than the agency wants to provide it.  We handle those situations on a case-by-case basis and are usually able to negotiate a reasonable compromise.

We have few problems getting data.  Our law says we have access to all books, records, and accounts, "confidential or otherwise."  We've had a few problems, some of which have had to be resolved by Attorney General opinions, but in the end we get what we want.  We have subpoena power, but have never in my tenure here (18 years) used it.  We also have the ability to cut off State funding to any agency that refuses us access to records, but again we've never had to use that power in recent years.

According to state law, "all state agencies shall aid and assist the legislative auditor in the auditing of, books, accounts and records.  The Legislative Auditor may examine at any time the books, accounts, and records, confidential or otherwise, of a state agency.  This shall not be construed as authorizing the publication of information which the law prohibits publishing."  The Audit Committee has subpoena power.  It has not been used in the last 25 years and maybe only once before then.  We have not had major problems getting to agency data.  We may need to discuss our authority and sign statements that make the agencies feel more comfortable that we will not release the information.  All state contracts contain language that allows us access to contractor records necessary to perform our work.

State law requires that any person who receives state money must supply information and otherwise cooperate with the Legislative Auditor.  To enforce this authority, the office also has subpoena power, which is rarely needed to obtain needed data.  Access to records in state agencies is virtually unlimited, and the office is obligated by law to protect non-public data from disclosure.  In a few instances, such as private medical records, the law does not permit the office access without special legislative permission.

In spite of its sweeping legal authority, the office still has difficulty in obtaining some kinds of data.  This difficulty often stems from 1) confusion about the office's authority, and 2) dependence on agency staff to assemble, extract, and/or deliver data on time.  Difficulty also arises when data are needed from federal agencies or private sources, where the office's right to obtain the data may be murky.  Strategies for dealing with these problems generally involve explaining the office's authority and obligation to protect non-public data.

Our enacting stature gives the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee the power to "...require the appearance of any person and the production of papers or records, including books, accounts, documents, computer records, and other materials..." (Idaho Code 67-460)  The same section authorizes the committee to issue subpoenas upon the signature of either of the cochairmen.  Subpoena power has not been exercised since the office began operation in 1994.  In practice we have not met with a great deal of resistance although some reluctance.  More often we find that the data we need is not available, produced by an incompatible system, or of poor quality.

We have clear statutory authority giving us access to records.  By law we have access to all state records except tax returns.  Section 2-15-61 of the S.C. Code states, "For the purposes of carrying out its audit duties . . .the Legislative Audit Council shall have access to the records and facilities of every state agency. . .with the exception of reports and returns of the Department of Revenue. . .."  We do not currently have subpoena power.  We had it previously under our Sunset Law, which was repealed in 1998.  We used it infrequently and have not generally had problems getting access to the records we need.  The law also requires us to keep confidential any agency records that are governed by confidentiality requirements, so this also helps defuse agency concerns about our access.  Our access to records is generally known and accepted; we work out problems on a case-by-case basis.

Florida statutes provide that we have access to all state records (with a few exceptions such as trade secrets).  The law also provides that it is a second degree misdemeanor to fail agencies to provide requested records (we have never had to enforce this law but it is handy at times to cite to agencies).  We have special procedures for requesting confidential records, as well as handling such records to ensure that they remain confidential.  We do not have subpoena power, but have never really needed it.  Occasionally, agencies will seek to control access to their information through a central control point (e.g., all information must be cleared by the Secretary's office before it will be released).  While this can delay getting information, we have always been able to deal with it.

We have statutory authority that allows us access to agency records, including confidential records.  The only limitation on this authority is confidential information maintained by the Department of Revenue Administration.  We do not have subpoena power.  At times we have signed affidavits attesting to our requirement to keep information confidential we requested by an auditee.

Our statutory authorization is quite broad:  "The Legislative Service Office shall have access to and authority to examine all books, records, accounts, files, correspondence and all other documents, confidential or otherwise, maintained by the agency or its employees during the course of agency business."  If that doesn't work, another section of statute allows us to pull the director of the Legislative Service Audit, and the Management Audit Committee, into making the request for information.  This authority has been directly, though quietly, challenged in only two cases in the past 18 years.  The most recent was a study having to do with the Attorney General's Office; at the entrance conference, the A.G. made it very clear that under no circumstances would his staff's work product be available to us.  He considers that work to fall under attorney/client privilege, and as such, is absolutely confidential and protected.  Fortunately, our study objectives don't lead us to need that material, so although he had thrown down a gauntlet, we stepped by it.  The other instance was 7 years ago, on a Dept. of Family Services project; the administrator of a state-run youth treatment facility balked when we asked to see patient files.  The administrator claimed that the case files contained sensitive, protected information that could only be viewed by a therapist.  Since the facility had virtually no other data on client outcomes (such as number of clients who were successful in completing their treatment plan and transitioning out; or the number of clients who went on to other parts of the juvenile justice system; or the number of runaways), individual files were often the only source of data for us.  In this case, the agency director intervened and ordered (over the objections of the deputy attorney general who was advising her) that we be given access to the files.  In these two instances, the professional ethics of other disciplines and our statutory authority were at odds, but we managed to get what was needed without taking precedent-setting actions.  I am not clear as to our subpoena power, but if that authority exists, it has not been invoked in more than 20 years.

All agencies required by law to comply with data, information, and access requests by LPR&IC.  Committee has subpoena power for data, documents and individuals, and the authority to compel testimony under oath.

The Bureau has the authority to go in and look at any documents at any state agency.  In most cases, however, we request documents from agencies and in general they are happy to comply.  The Committee has subpoena power, but we have not had to use it in 5 years, although we have threatened to use it on occasion.

For the purpose of more completely discharging the duties resting upon him or her and to discover the truth and to make his or her reports truthful in all matters handled by him or her, the state auditor is empowered to conduct hearings, to summon witnesses, to administer oaths, to take the testimony of such witnesses, and to compel the production, inspection, and copying of documentary evidence, including without limitation evidence in electronic form and documentary evidence that is confidential or not available to the general public, at such time and place as he or she may designate for the purpose of investigating and determining the conduct and record of the employees and officials of any department of the state government.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the state auditor shall have access to inspect, compel production of, and copy confidential information in any form unless the law making such information confidential expressly refers to this Code section and qualifies or supersedes it in that particular instance.  When the audit or special examination of the state auditor is concluded, the Department of Audits and Accounts shall redact, destroy, or return to the custodial agency all confidential information except that information which the state auditor determines is necessary to retain for audit purposes or to disclose for other public purposes.  For audit purposes, the state auditor may retain such confidential information in working papers as is minimally necessary to support findings and to comply with generally accepted governmental auditing standards.  The state auditor may also disclose confidential information to other officers independently entitled to its receipt, such as for law enforcement purposes.  Except as stated above in this Code section, confidential information in the hands of the state auditor shall have the same confidential status as it does in the hands of the custodial entity, and the state auditor shall protect its confidentiality with at least the care and procedures by which it is protected by the custodial agency or substantially equivalent care and procedures.  This wording became effective in May.  We generally have not encountered many problems in the past and do not anticipate any problems in the future.  When we have encountered problems in the past, e.g., the agency would claim the information was confidential, we have done various things:  altered the scope and explained why in the report, used unrelated agency staff to review confidential documents (we found the unrelated agency reviewers were tougher on the agency being reviewed than we probably would have been), had the agency redact the personal information (or did it ourselves), etc.  The State Auditor has always had subpoena power but has rarely, if ever, used it.

We have very strong language in our enabling legislation that gives us access to agency personnel and records.  There are penalties for not complying with the law.  We also have subpoena power but this is seldom used because we prefer to use other forms of subpoenas.  The primary problem we have with agency data is accuracy and reliability.

The Division of Legislative Audit has legislative authority to "...audit of all accounts, books, and other financial records of the state government of any state officer, department, board, bureau, institution, commission, or agency thereof..." (Ark. Code Ann. 10-4-106).  The Legislative Auditor is also given specific authority to obtain bank information for entities required to be audited (Ark. Code Ann. 10-4-112).  The Legislative Joint Auditing Committee does have subpoena power and it is mainly used to secure personal bank records during investigations.  Occasionally, a bank is slow or unresponsive to our requests and subpoena power has been used in those instances.  Agencies are accustomed to being audited and we have encountered very few problems in obtaining necessary documentation they maintain.

Section 60 of the Mississippi Constitution "empowers legislative committees to administer oaths, to send for persons and papers, and generally make legislative investigations effective."  This is PEER's general authority for obtaining records and conducting interviews.  MISS. CODE ANN. § 5-3-57 specifically provides that the PEER Committee shall have the authority to "examine or investigate the budget, files, financial statements, records, documents or other papers of the agency deemed necessary by the committee."  Despite PEER's broad authority to access records of state and local entities, such authority could be limited if records were deemed to be confidential by federal or state law.  However, even in those cases, PEER would attempt to access the records in some manner--i.e., blinded records.  MISS. CODE ANN. § 5-3-59 provides the PEER Committee with the authority to subpoena witnesses and compel the production of records.  PEER uses this power very judiciously--i.e., usually less than once each year or so.  Generally, PEER does not have any difficulties in obtaining records from state or local entities.

The Comptroller has subpoena power (TCA 8-4-202) but I'm not aware that it has been used in the last 20 years.  The law specifically grants the comptroller the authority to "audit" any books or records of any state entity.  However, since our office doesn't specifically do "audits" the authority isn't as clear and has been questioned on a few occasions.  The Office of Education Accountability has had some trouble accessing student test data.  This year the General Assembly passed legislation establishing a task force to develop guidelines for use of educational data for research purposes, both by state agencies and by external researchers.

The State Constitution in Article VII, Section 10, establishes the powers of the auditor.  The statutes, Chapter 23, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), give the auditor broad powers to examine all books, records, files, papers and documents, and financial affairs of every agency.  The auditor has the power to summon persons to produce records and answer questions under oath.  We have been restricted access to student records under FERPA.  Our counsel advises us that the FERPA language does not apply.  Nevertheless, in an attempt to remove any grounds for denying us access, we supported a bill that would clarify our ability to access student records, even under FERPA.  However, although the bill passed this session (2002), the governor vetoed it.  We have used subpoena power to access records.  We have used it approximately twice over the past two years.  We often don't have problems accessing agency data.  There's usually some resistance at first, but after ensuring the agency that Section 23-9.5, HRS, prevents the disclosure of any working papers, we normally gain access.  The only really strong, unrelenting resistance has come with our attempt to review student records of special education children with mental health needs.

State law gives us authority to conduct performance audits and requires cooperation from the audited agency.  Occasionally we have had problems getting confidential information from a department, but the problem was resolved by our staff attorney.  We have subpoena power but have not used it for a performance audit.

Unless the state attorney general has advised otherwise, agencies are require to provide any information that is not protected by law (e.g., private personnel records).  We do have subpoena power but it has been used only once, several years ago.

The SAO has the legal authority to review all state agency records through Texas government code chapter 321.  All information obtained through audits can be evaluated.  The SAO does not have the power of subpoena, but the Legislative Audit Committee, whom the SAO reports to, does have this power.  However, they use it only on very rare occasions.

The Legislative Office of Education Oversight was created 12 years ago to conduct program evaluations and policy analyses of education-related activities funded by the state of Ohio. The Office serves as staff to the Legislative Committee on Education Oversight (LCEO).  The Committee consists of five Senators and five members of the House of Representatives.

The Office receives its topics to study from the LCEO or in law.  The Office consists of a director, chief of research who oversees all aspects of evaluations, and 12 research staff positions.  All staff serve at the pleasure of the director, who in turn serves at the pleasure of the LCEO.

Although LOEO has no specific legislative authority to require agencies to provide information, this authority is implied in the legislative language that created the office to conduct evaluations mandated by its legislative committee or authorized in law.  As legislative staff, LOEO relies on the importance, credibility, and legitimacy of the legislature to obtain the necessary data for its evaluation.   LOEO also relies on the goodwill of respondents and each LOEO evaluator’s ability to stress the value and importance of the study to respondents.  There is no specific language regarding subpoena power in the legislative language that created the office.

LOEO was given the responsibility to evaluate community schools (Ohio’s charter schools) when the schools were created in law in 1997.   A subsequent community school law requires community schools to provide the information that LOEO deems necessary to conduct its evaluations.  Section 3314.03 (11) (g) of Am. Sub. H.B. 282 (June 1999) states:

The school will collect and provide any data that the Legislative Office of Education Oversight requests in furtherance of any study or research that the general assembly requires the office to conduct, including the studies required under section 50.39 of Am. Sub. H.B. 215 of the 122nd General Assembly and section 50.52.2 of Am. Sub. H.B. 215 of the 122nd General Assembly, as amended.