NLPES Site Map
Sunset - Still Effective After All These Years?
Talking Points of Ken Levine, Assistant Director
Texas Sunset Advisory Commission
Intro - When thinking about how effective, need to look at
Sunset in relation to what it was designed to do, which is two basic things:
-
make an informed decision on whether an agency's functions are still needed
-
to create an prescribed opportunity for the Legislature (and the public)
to look closely at each agency and offer fundamental improvements to an
agency's mission or operations. Basically a forced time to make government
more efficient and effective - and to combat the forces of bureaucratic
inertia (which we all know are incredibly powerful)
Is Sunset Still Effective? Here are the results:
Past biennium (2000-2001)
25 Agencies Evaluated. Commission made more than 230 recommendations
most of which were for changes in statute.
About 90 percent of these Sunset Commission recommendations (207) were
enacted by the Legislature - primary credit goes to the members who carried
the bills.
Two agencies abolished and five agencies given only a two-year probationary
continuation based on poor performance (energy coord council and interagency
council for homeless were abolished)
$56.7 million in savings and gains to state and federal funds over the
next two years (based on fiscal notes issued by the Legislative Budget
Board).
To give perspective, this is compared to Sunset's annual expenses of
about $1.4 million dollars
Results (or effectiveness) over time -
Since 1982, $720 million in estimated cumulative savings and
revenue generation compared to expenditures of about $17 million
Rate of return - $42 for every dollar spent on Sunset
Since 1977 - Total number of reviews - 317
Agencies abolished - 44
Agencies merged - 11 (though we don't see these as the key measure of
effectiveness)
Because if an agency IS needed, most of our work is aimed at the second
item mentioned at the beginning - using the Sunset opportunity to make
the agencies' functions more efficient (save money) and more effective
(serve the taxpayers better).
Examples of key policy improvements made through the Sunset process:
- the way our teachers retirement system was calculating benefit
increases for older retired teacher was way out of wack - As a result of
the Sunset recommendations, those older retirees received dramatic increases
to a more of a "living wage" retirement check (when come to visit afterward,
you know its effective)
- streamlining workers compensation processes - workers and employers
getting thru the process more quickly
- the Legislature, based on Sunset Commission recommendations created
a true health and human services umbrella agency under a single commissioner
to oversee the various agencies involved in human services
- Revamping the way Texas assesses the State's land holdings for conservation
and parks - to make better decisions on acquisition and divestiture.
- recommended that the Dept of Transportation be authorized to create
a state infrastructure bank to expand the ability of the state to work
with local government to help meet transportation needs
- consolidating the states highway and toll road functions Being separate
inhibited statewide planning and more importantly statewide action. This
and the previous item provided two methods for better meeting the state's
transportation needs
- Recently worked on the State's housing function. As a result the process
was changed for allocating housing resources to meet the most pressing
needs in each region of the state. (ex's - allowing use of one application
to cut across several programs, versus taking separate applications for
each different program or increasing flexibility to mix and match funds
to best meet the housing need. Changing the review and decision process
to make use of the keen competition for housing funds to obtain strong,
innovative housing proposals, compared to a process that had previously
encouraged bidding only to meet minimum standards.)
So, what makes the TX sunset process strong:
- Leg has wisdom to place virtually all agencies under Sunset
review (higher ed is only major exception) Over 150 agencies
- questions status quo - makes status quo have to prove it is best
- does not avoid major issues Examples: teacher retirement, major reorganization
of functions etc
- consistent appointment of strong, experienced legislators to the Commission
- set up the process to allow an open window for ideas and identification
of problems (often certain groups have limited access, few lobbyists, little
money. Process provides a temporary level playing field.) Everyone has
access to staff and public hearing opportunities
- independent staff. Little or no attempts by legislators/members to
influence staff review process. Staff does analytical research and generates
its own conclusions and recommendations. Commission then accepts, modifies
or rejects.
- to beat our own drum, few errors in staff analysis (confidence in
the work). Often agencies agree to disagree on interpretations of information
or on impact of recommendations, but info itself rarely challenged. Rigorous
review process and require proof that problems are real and solutions work.
- allows members a vehicle to get ideas into law (during session) that
have had difficulty as separate legislation ...some may consider this a
strength or a weakness. Interesting debate on House floor past session
- permission to introduce (after filing deadline) a bill limiting scope
of future sunset bills. In talking about the perceived weaknesses, I'll
paraphrase some of that discussion
What detractors say (weaknesses):
- opens up too much, should not be able to look at entire body
of law surrounding an agency. "Sunset's become a lobby feeding frenzy -
by not looking at just an agency's structure, but reevaluating all the
laws governed by an agency" (talking in particular about once a Sunset
bill is heard for debate on the House floor - rules allow anything that
is germane to be brought up)
- allows dredging up of issues recently decided, often with much angst
(for example issues like utility deregulation could again be raised in
a sunset bill on the Public Utility Commission.. In the debate, members
were asked "These are issues that have been debated and worked out in previous
sessions. Do you want to come back and put it all on the table again?)"
Others have said that Sunset:
- distracts agencies from their mission
- costs agencies in time and expense
- gravy train for lobbyists
Valid points, but all things come with a price and from my perspective
the advantages greatly outweigh the disadvantages. And some disadvantages
can be cured by changes within the process.
Finally, I was asked to provide advice for other states based on our
experiences:
Advice for other states:
(Remember this is a staff perspective....we have not been elected to
anything...as a result we sometimes can be a bit more utopian...)
- If going to have a Sunset process, go all the way. Deal with
issues that make government more effective, not just the continuation or
abolishment or structure of an agency
- include all or most state agencies and functions under Sunset reviews
(otherwise focus of Sunset could end up being on dealing with professional
licensing lobby groups battling with rival groups or consumers...)
- have a strong sunset clause that requires a bill to pass to continue
an agency (as opposed to just doing justification reviews)
- include a strong public hearing and public input process (staff gets
input from interested parties during the review and our commission hears
testimony on the reports after the staff has done its research and made
recommendations, as opposed to the traditional process of hearing testimony,
evaluating, then writing a report.)
- fund/employ a full-time professional staff to focus on Sunset evaluations
(quality professional work)
- consider using process to ensure "good government" concepts (such
as increasing citizen involvement, and increasing public input and openness
through open meetings, open records govt. access etc) make sure these concepts
are working in the agencies.
So to close...
In looking at whether sunset is still an effective tool:
If its making government work better, smarter and faster
If its saving money for taxpayers
If it continues to challenge the status quo and eliminate bureaucratic
inertia - Then yes, its still effective and still needed
|
