Proceedings of the Conference on Legislative Oversight October 13-15, 1985 _ Tbe Joint Legislative ·re Audit and Review Commission Ill! of tbe Virginia General Assembly ) I The Honorable Members June 1, 1986 of the Virginia General Assembly State Capitol Richmond, Virginia My Dear Colleagues: When the Legislative Program Review and Evaluation Act was designed and enacted in 1978, its creators felt strongly that the Act itself should be subject to review after an appropriate period. A provision of the Act stipulated that "in 1985 a Conference on Legislative Oversight will be held by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission to assess and evaluate the accomplishments of this act." -- To comply with this requirement, JLARC sponsored the Conference in October 1985. The event was co-hosted by Speaker of the House A. L. Philpott, Delegate L. Cleaves Manning, and myself. The Conference provided a useful forum for surveying the last seven years of JLARC's work, placing that work in the larger context of legislative oversight across the country, and proposing improvements to the Evaluation Act based on actual experience with it in the legislature. Subsequent to the Conference, a number of significant changes occurred. The legislature approved most of the changes to the Evaluation Act that grew out of the Conference. JLARC's staff director of 12 years, Ray D. Pethtel, accepted the Governor's appointment as Virginia's new Commissioner of Highways and Trans­ portation. The former Deputy Director, Philip A. Leone, was appointed to the directorship and confirmed by the 1986 Session of the General Assembly. Two new members, Delegate Alson H. Smith, Jr., and Delegate William T. Wilson, were appointed to the Commission. I was elected Chairman and Delegate Theodore V. Morrison was elected Vice-Chairman for the biennium. The publication of these Conference proceedings, which was also required under the Evaluation Act, is an opportnnity for me to thank those who have contributed so much to the success of legislative oversight in the Commonwealth. My thanks go to all my legislative colleagues who sponsored and participated in the conference, served on the Commission and its many subcommittees over the years, and supported JLARC's work on the floor of the House and Senate. And to my predecessor as Chairman, Cleaves Manning, I know I speak for the entire Commission when I express our gratitude for his leadership and commitment. Respectfully, Edward E. Willey Chairman JLARC Members of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission Chairman Senator Edward E. Willey Vice Chairman Delegate Theodore V. Morrison, Jr. Senator Hunter B. Andrews Delegate Robert B. Ball, Sr. Senator Peter K. Babalas Senator John C. Buchanan Delegate Vincent F. Callahan, Jr. Delegate Lacey E. Putney Delegate Ford C. Quillen Delegate Alson H. Smith, Jr. Delegate William T. Wilson Mr. Walter S. Kucharski, Auditor of Public Accounts Preface On October 13-15, 1985, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) held a Conference on Legislative Oversight at the Hotel John Marshall in Richmond. The Conference was required under provisions of Chapter 388 of the 1978 Acts of Assembly, which established the Legislative Program Review and Evaluation Act. Speaker A. L. Philpott, Senator Edward E. Willey, and Delegate L. Cleaves Manning co-hosted the event. In addition to members of the General Assembly and the staff of JLARC, legislators and oversight staff from around the country were invited to the Conference. More than 125 persons, representing 32 states and Canada, took part in the forum. Panelists and speakers discussed a number of important issues and trends in legislative oversight. The third day was devoted to a regional meeting of the Legislative Program Evaluation Section of the National Conference of State Legislatures. Thus, the purpose of the conference was two-fold. First, it provided interested members of the General Assembly with an opportunity to examine the accomplishments of the Evaluation Act, as intended by provisions of the Act itself. Second, it provided a international forum for addressing oversight issues and sharing insights. This document serves as the proceedings of the Oversight Conference. As such, it provides a broad range of information that should appeal to the wide spectrum of participants in legislative oversight: oversight commission members, other legislators, management and research staff working for oversight groups, and others in the private and academic sectors who are interested in this aspect of government. It should be noted that the panel discussions and invited remarks that comprised much of the Conference varied not ouly in content, but also in format. Some of the presentations included in these proceedings are formal papers; others are transcripts of informal remarks. The specific Conference recommendations regarding Virginia's Evaluation Act are found in the section entitled "Directions for Oversight in Virginia." A more detailed discussion of these recommendations was presented in an earlier publication, JLARC's 1985 Report to the General Assembly. The amended form of the Act which was passed by the 1986 General Assembly is included as an appendix to the proceedings, along with the complete agenda of the Conference. Finally, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to all of the speakers and panel members for contributing to the success of the JLARC Conference on Legislative Oversight. Philip A. Leone Director Table of Contents Page Status of Oversight in the States Dr. Alan Rosenthal, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University 1 Status of Sunset in the States Richard Jones, Program Director, Legislative Management, National Conference of State Legislatures 5 Need for Legislative Oversight and Legislator Expectations of Evaluation Staff Wayne Fawbush, Representative, Oregon 9 Mordecai Lee, Senator, Wisconsin , ....•........13 Herbert F. Morlan, Representative, Florida ...............•............................................. l 7 Oversight in the Congress and the U.S. General Accounting Office Eleanor Chellmsky, Director, Program Evaluation and Methodology Division, U.s. General Accounting Office 23 Ingredients for an Effective Oversight Function Dale Cattanach, State Auditor, W isconsi n..................................................•......•.....•3 1 Georlle L. Schroeder, Executive Director, South Carolina Legislative Audit Council ...••.........•..34 WIlliam Thomson, Director, Performance Audit Division, Office of the Auditor General, Arizona 37 John W. Turcotte, Director, fOint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review, Mississippi ..., ......................•...•......•.....•41 Directions for Oversight in Virginia Ray D. Pethtel, Director, foint Legislative Audit and Review Commission, Virginia ...........•.•..44 L. Cleaves Manning, Delegate and Chairman of the foint Legislative Audit and Review Commission, Virginia•........•........•........•.......SO Professional and Ethical Concerns in Legislative Program Evaluation Jacques Goyer, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada 54 Dr. Lelllh Grosenlck, Virginia Commonwealth University 61 Dr. Jack Rabin, Rider College 65 Design and Methodology - How Do Organizations Do It? William Thomson, Director, Performance Audit Division, Office of the Auditor General, Arizona 71 Bernie Gelzer, I Director, Legislative Commission on Expenditure Review, New York .....•.•....075 Dr. Gary Henry, foint Legislative Audit and Review Commission, Virginia 78 Appendixes Legislative Program Review and Evaluation Act as amended by the 1986 General Assembly 83 Conference program, 8 5 Status of Legislative Oversight in the States As a student of state legislatures, I have watched legislative oversight take root in representative assemblies throughout the nation. Nowhere has it taken firmer, healthier root than here in Virginia. For me this "Conference on Legislative Oversight" is a celebration of JLARC's achievements. The function of performance auditing, program evaluation, Dr. Alan Rosenthal or program review -- it's called different things in different places -- is the major form of legislative oversight. It has been institutionalized in Virginia. By "insti­ Eagleton Institute of Politics tutionalized," I do not mean that those who Rutgers University engage in the enterprise are like inmates in a mental home! I mean rather that =~........-=""" oversight has become a regular and vital port of the legislative process. The Development of Oversight The struggle has not been an easy one, for legislatures do not take naturally to oversight. Legislators delight in the business of lawmaking. They like sponsoring bills, pushing them through, and claiming credit if they are enacted. They take to all this like ducks take to water. Legislators also have little trouble with their job of servicing constitutents. They appreciate the benefits from communicating to folks in the district, helping them with their problems, holding their hands, and intervening when they run afoul of the state's impersonal bureaucratic apparatus. At least a number of legislators are also attracted to budget review and appropriations, another major legislative function. In this arena there is the lure of real power, in having a say on how the stste's resources are allocated among competing needs and demands -- and also among districts. Not many legislators, however, make themselves available for the arduous tasks Ststus of Legislative Oversight in the Statss of