The Sunset Process: Still Effective After All These Years

Add to MyNCSL

NLPES Site Map

"The Sunset Process: Still Effective After All These Years?"

(Concurrent Session sponsored by NLPES and the ASI Legislative Effectiveness Committee)

Moderator:

Rob Krell, Principal Management Auditor, Washington Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee, Washington

Panelists:

Jane Thesing, Assistant Director, Legislative Audit Council, South Carolina

Ken Levine, Assistant Director, Sunset Advisory Commission, Texas

Representative Val Ogden, Democratic Co-Speaker Pro Tempore, Washington

Senator Randall Gnant, President of the Senate, Arizona

This session reviewed the current status of sunset processes across the nation. Rob Krell (Washington) provided an overview and introduced the panelists. The sunset process was one of the first government accountability tools, dating back to the mid-1970's. Although individual sunset processes differ from state to state, a key feature of most processes is the inclusion of an automatic termination clause in the authorizing legislation for a particular state agency or program. Colorado was the first state to implement a sunset review process (1976) and within five years, more than two-thirds of the states followed suit. Rob also presented the results of a recent survey he conducted regarding the status of sunset processes across the country. Forty-five states responded, and of these: 13 states reported never having a process; 16 reported having a process that has since been terminated or has become inactive; and 16 reported having processes that are still functional. Most of the functional processes conduct between 5 and 15 reviews a year; however, four states perform more than 15 sunset reviews a year.

Jane Thesing (South Carolina) then explained the history of South Carolina's sunset review process, which was terminated in 1998. The objective of South Carolina's sunset process was to identify and eliminate unnecessary licensing and regulatory agencies. At its peak, all state agencies were subject to sunset on a six-year cycle using statutory review criteria. In all, the Legislative Audit Council conducted 117 sunset reviews and recommended termination in 15 cases. Two minor agencies were eventually terminated as a result of the process. Jane noted that although South Carolina no longer has sunset review, the process did have several benefits including: increasing public access to licensing and regulatory matters, removing outdated or unnecessary restrictions on licensure within the state, and improving state-to-state mobility for licensees. Drawbacks of the process included the fact that the review process had a negligible effect on state funds and the high cost of the audits, considering the low return. Jane closed by suggesting that a successful sunset process needs to be flexible and goal-oriented.

Next, Representative Val Ogden (Washington) presented a history of Washington's sunset review process and outlined recent changes to it. In the past, Washington's sunset review process did not have a major presence and was focused on mostly minor or inactive state programs. As a result, most sunset studies did not have a major policy or fiscal impact. Washington's sunset review process underwent major changes in 2000 when the process itself was scheduled to expire. New legislation streamlined the process and placed greater responsibility on agencies to demonstrate performance results up front. A year later, the revised process does appear to be an improvement, although the review time frame is still quite short (i.e., two years).

Ken Levine (Texas) then provided an overview of his state's sunset review process, which is considered to be one of the most expansive within the United States. Overall, the sunset review process has been very successful in Texas, due to several factors including strong legislative support and the fact that all state agencies are subject to this type of review. The strength of the process can be evidenced by the fact that approximately 90 percent of the Sunset Advisory Commission's 2000-2001 recommendations were enacted by the Legislature. In addition, these recommendations resulted in two agencies being abolished and five additional agencies being placed on a two-year probationary continuation status because of poor performance. Ken also outlined some of the cost savings and policy-related recommendations that have resulted from Texas' process and provided some tips for keeping the process relevant and robust.

Senator Randall Gnant (Arizona) closed the panel discussion by explaining the origins of the sunset review process and outlining some common characteristics and goals of processes across the nation. Senator Gnant stressed that, above all, the process is more political than analytical. Overall, Arizona's experience with sunset review has been more good than bad. Senator Gnant also suggested that the process can be improved by clarifying goals, choosing topics carefully, and obtaining "buy-in" from the stakeholders.