Open Government

WPC's Center for Government Reform's mission is to partner with stakeholders and citizens to work toward a government focused on its core functions while improving its transparency, accountability, performance, and effectiveness for taxpayers.

What's New

Budget restraint or tax increases?

June 19, 2008 in Blog

The state's budget outlook took a turn for the worse today with news that the expected increase in the revenue forecast is $167 million smaller than anticipated. Even before this news the state was facing a self-inflicted $2.5 billion deficit caused by overspending.

It looks like some in the legislature are all ready planning to address this problem with tax increases. The Senate Majority Leader filed a lawsuit earlier this year to help make it easier to raise taxes.

Perhaps the question candidates should be asked before the election is: "Do you plan to use budget restraint or resort to tax increases to fix the state's fiscal health?"

The answer will have a big impact on our wallets next year.

Agencies told to focus on performance

June 6, 2008 in Blog

Last month the Office of Financial Management (OFM) sent state agencies instructions on how to make their budget submittals for the Governor's 2009-11 budget proposal. One of the new sections in the instructions is the requirement for agencies to define their performance expectations for the money received. From page 33 of the OFM budget instructions:

What specific performance outcomes does the agency expect?
Describe and quantify the specific performance outcomes the agency expects as a result of this funding change. As appropriate, describe:

- What desired results will be achieved?
- What undesired results will be reduced?
- Will efficiency increase? How?
- Will outputs change? How?
- What is the expected impact on clients? On services provided? On citizens? On other agenci!
es or governments?

Note: Proposals that do not make a compelling case for a quantifiable and positive performance impact on activity or statewide results will likely fare poorly in the budget competition.

Page 46 further explains:

OFM will ask some agencies to submit specific budget decision packages or additional information as part of their budget submittal. There are two key drivers for these requests:

  • The Priorities of Government result teams may recommend ideas for improving results, reducing costs, or gaining research to aid the evidence-based prioritization of activities. OFM may select some of these proposals and ask agencies to prepare proposals or information as part of their 2009-11 budget submittals.
  • HB 1242 was enacted in the 2005 legislative session, establishing new requirements for performance measure review and followup. Key requirements include:

    • Each agency must establish performance measures for each major activity in its budget that measure whether the agency is achieving or making progress toward the purpose of the activity and toward statewide priorities

    • OFM must regularly conduct reviews of selected activities to analyze whether measurements submitted by agencies demonstrate progress toward statewide results
    • When a review determines the agency's measurements demonstrate that the agency is making insufficient progress toward the goals of any particular program or is otherwise underachieving or inefficient, the agency's budget request shall contain proposals to remedy or improve the selected programs
    • The Governor's operating budget documents will identify activities that are not addressing the statewide priorities. [RCW 43.88.090, RCW 43.88.030(4)]

It is encouraging to see OFM focusing agency spending requests on their performance. This is especially important as state officials look for ways to close the projected $2.5 billion spending deficit.

Hello? Congress, are you there?

June 5, 2008 in Blog

Yet another federal audit has been released begging our elected leaders to address the country's fiscal situation. The following is from acting Comptroller General Gene L. Dodaro's testimony before Congress today:

"The nation’s long-term fiscal challenge is a matter of utmost concern. The federal government faces large and growing structural deficits due primarily to rising health care costs and known demographic trends. There is a need to engage in a fundamental review of what the federal government does, how it does it, and how it is financed. Understanding and addressing the federal government’s financial condition and the nation’s long-term fiscal challenge are critical to maintain fiscal flexibility so that policymakers can respond to current and emerging social, economic, and security challenges.

While some progress has been made in recent years in addressing the federal government’s short-term fiscal condition, the nation has not made progress on its long-term fiscal challenge. However, even this short-term deficit is understated: It masks the fact that the federal government has been using the Social Security surplus to offset spending in the rest of government for many years. If the Social Security surplus is excluded, the on-budget deficit in fiscal year 2007 was more than double the size of the unified deficit . . .

At some point, action will need to be taken to change the nation’s fiscal course. The sooner appropriate actions are taken, the sooner the miracle of compounding will begin to work for the federal budget rather than against it. Conversely, the longer that action to deal with the nation’s long-term fiscal outlook is delayed, the greater the risk that the eventual changes will be disruptive and destabilizing and future generations will have to bear a greater burden of the cost. Simply put, the federal government is on an imprudent and unsustainable long-term fiscal path that is getting worse with the passage of time."

With Congress and the President demonstrating an ongoing lack of self-discipline on spending, is it time to revive efforts to adopt a constitutional balanced budget amendment

Obama/McCain propose improvements to federal transparency website

June 4, 2008 in Blog

On the same day the general election campaign for the presidency officially began, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) co-sponsored legislation to enhance the federal spending transparency website they previously teamed up to create in 2006.

Along with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Tom Carper (D-DE), McCain and Obama introduced yesterday the Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008 (S.3077). According to Sen. Obama's press release:

This Act would expand information on USASpending.gov to include:

  • A copy of each Federal contract in both PDF and searchable text format.
  • Details about competitive bidding, the range of technically acceptable bids or proposals, and the profit incentives offered for each contract.
  • The complete amount of money awarded, including any options to expand or extend under a contract.
  • An indication if the Federal award is the result of an earmark.
  • Information about government lease agreements and assignments in the same manner that information is reported for contracts, grants, and other assistance.
  • An assessment of the quality of work performed on Federal awards.
  • Information about Federal audit disputes and resolutions, terminations of Federal awards, suspensions and debarments, and administrative agreements involving Federal award recipients.
  • Information about any civil, criminal, or administrative actions taken against Federal award recipients, including for violations related to the workplace, environmental protection, fraud, securities, and consumer protections.
  • Information about Federal tax compliance by Federal award recipients.
  • Information about parent company ownership that will be made accessible, along with other data on USASpending.GOV, through application programming interfaces.
  • Links to publicly available Government reports.

The Act would improve data quality on USASpending.gov through:

  • Improved searchability of data and use of unique award identifiers that prevent the release of sensitive personally identifiable information.
  • A simple method for the public to report errors and track the performance of agencies in confirming or correcting the records for which error reports have been filed.
  • Agency inspectors general review statistically representative samples of agency awards to verify accuracy and compliance with improved data standards.
  • General quality audit of website data every six months, including review and report of public error reporting system and recommendations for new quality standards and procedures.

On April 1, 2008, Governor Gregoire signed into law Washington's version of the 2006 federal reform, SB 6818. The new law is based on Washington Policy Center’s (WPC) recommendation for the state to adopt a searchable budget website. It passed the legislature unanimously.

Washington's new law already includes the requirement for performance information to be included on the searchable spending website. It's good to see this information may soon be available on the federal website.

Court strikes GA contracting rules

June 3, 2008 in Blog

On May 23, 2008, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Wickham invalidated three rules the Department of General Administration (GA) adopted to implement the competitive contracting provisions of the 2002 Civil Service Reform. The Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) sued to have the rules thrown out. A copy of the ruling was made available by the Attorney General last night.

At issue are WAC 236-51-006, 236-51-010(11) and 236-51-225. The main issue of contention is on what it means to be a "displaced employee" due to an agency competitively contracting work.

I had an opportunity to talk with the Director of GA, Linda Bremer, after today's GMAP session to ask what the ruling means and what the next steps are. She said that at this time GA was reviewing its options and would make a decision in the next few weeks on whether to appeal or adopt new rules.

Even before the ruling, the use of competitive contracting by state agencies under the 2002 reform has been less than stellar. A performance audit conducted by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) in January 2007 found:

“…few agencies have competitively contracted for services in the 16 months since receiving authorization to do so. Agency managers reported two main reasons for not competitively contracting. First, managers perceive the process itself to be complicated and confusing, providing a disincentive to pursue competitive contracting. Second, competitive contracting is a subject of collective bargaining, which creates additional challenges by requiring labor negotiations. Managers must bargain, at a minimum, the impacts of competitive contracting. Additionally, some agency collective bargaining agreements include provisions which proh!
ibit agencies from competitively contracting.”

Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the court ruling on the GA rules, Washington policymakers should simplify the bidding process to make it easier for agencies to use competition to improve services. Lawmakers should also shield contracting out from union and political influence by removing it from the collective bargaining process. Improving service to the public is too important to be a bargaining chip in government labor negotiations.

Special Evening Reception for Our Whatcom County Area Supporters

June 3, 2008 in Events
Date: 
Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008
Time: 
5:30 pm - 7:00 pm
Place: 
Bellingham, WA

This special reception and wrap-up of the 2008 Legislative Session was for our supporters and those interested in learning more about our work.  The recently completed Session was discussed, with a focus on how it will affect you and your business.  WPC’s president and research center directors gave reviews of their work during Session, including publications on the state budget, taxes, health care, transportation, the environment and ways to improve the business climate.  They also presented the top issues to look for during the remainder of this busy election year and previ

DSHS audit findings

June 2, 2008 in Blog

The State Auditor's Office released an audit of the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) today with 4 findings issued against the agency.

The findings are:

  • DSHS does not have adequate controls to ensure all payments made through its Social Services Payment System are supported and approved. This resulted in "$88,230.42 in inappropriate payments to 115 clients and providers. The Department had identified 28 of these through its review process and our audit identified the remaining 87. The Department has begun recovery proceedings for 110 of the overpayments identified. The overpayments were a combination of state and federal dollars." - Repeat Finding
  • DSHS does not adequately monitor contracts with Crisis Residential Centers to ensure compliance with state law and contract requirements. DSHS "is not in compliance with state law or its own contract. By paying a provider who has allowed clients to stay beyond five days, the Department is not receiving the services – open available space for at-risk youth – agreed on in the contract. These facilities are designed to be short-term residences for emergency situations."
  • DSHS Children’s Administration, did not perform adequate monitoring for background checks of foster care providers. DSHS "licensed and paid foster care providers without evidence showing a required criminal background check was completed and cleared. The lack of background checks for all required individuals increases the chance of people with disqualifying criminal backgrounds having access to children served by the Department." - Repeat Finding
  • Public funds were misappropriated at the Department of Social and Health Service’s Division of Child Support. "On March 27, 2007, a client notified the Division that a payment, that had been made, was not posted to their child-support account. The client contacted their bank and found the payment was deposited into a personal bank account, not the Department account. The Department recognized the name on the personal bank account as a temporary employee and terminated the individual on March 27, 2007. The Department immediately filed a police report with the Olympia Police Department, which referred it to the Washington State Patrol. The Patrol conducted an investigation and interviewed the former employee on June 6, 2007. During the interview, the individual stated she misappropriated the payment. After further investigation, the Patrol concluded the former employee had misappropriated at least $25,571.58 in public funds between December 1, 2!
    006 and March 27, 2007. As a result of this loss, the Division has made improvements in its internal controls regarding processing of child-support payments."

It's never good to receive an audit finding but it looks like DSHS is making progress with just a handful of problems identified. That said, there should never be a repeat audit finding. Hopefully the Governor and Legislature will make sure DSHS doesn't repeat this year's violations in next year's audit. 

How Incentives to Cheat Undermine Cap‐and‐Trade

June 2, 2008 in Publications

Imagine buying a car only to find it was a lemon. You would probably go back to the seller in an effort to get your money back. Contract and consumer protection laws are set up to mediate this relationship between buyer and seller. In most cases the power of one balances the other creating fair transactions that are mutually beneficial.

Business & Occupation Tax Reform, Part I

June 2, 2008 in Publications

The Oxford American Dictionary defines “tax” as, “a sum of money to be paid by people or business firms to a government, to be used for public purposes.”

Today, taxes are used to pay for public goods such as schools, roads, airports, utilities, museums, social work, sports, and more.

Congress looks at increasing user fees

May 30, 2008 in Blog

With a worsening federal budget outlook leading the Congressional Budget Office to project the possibility of massive income tax increases, Congress asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study how best to design user fees to fund federal programs. According to a GAO report issued yesterday:

"The federal government will need to make the most of its resources to meet the emerging challenges of the 21st century. As new priorities emerge, policymakers have demonstrated interest in user fees as a means of financing new and existing services. User fees can be designed to reduce the burden on taxpayers to finance the portions of activities that provide benefits to identifiable users above and beyond what is normally provided to the public. By charging the costs of those programs or activities to beneficiaries, user fees can !
also promote economic efficiency and equity. However, to achieve these goals, user fees must be well designed.

GAO was asked to study how user fee design characteristics may influence the effectiveness of user fees. Specifically, GAO examined how the four key design and implementation characteristics of user fees—how fees are set, collected, used, and reviewed—may affect the economic efficiency, equity, revenue adequacy, and administrative burden of cost-based fees. GAO reviewed economic and policy literature on federal and nonfederal user fees, including prior GAO work, and used relevant case examples to illustrate different types of design elements and the impacts they may have . . .

Total federal user fees are in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually and growing. According to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) data, total fee collections increased 69 percent from $138 billion in fiscal year 1999 to $233 billion in fiscal year 2007. Even after adjusting for inflation, fee collections grew 39 percent. During this time period, total user fee collections varied from 6.4 to 7.6 percent of total federal spending (gross outlays).

User fees can be designed to reduce the burden on taxpayers to finance the portions of activities that provide benefits to identifiable users above and beyond what is normally provided to the public. By charging the costs of programs or activities to identifiable beneficiaries, user fees can promote economic efficiency and equity just as prices for private goods and services can do in a free and competitive private market. However, to achieve these goals, user fees must be well designed."

To view the GAO findings and recommendations on federal user fees, click here.