Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislative Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
NCSL presenter outlines legislative oversight tools, from sunset reviews to program audits
Summary
A National Conference of State Legislatures analyst reviewed legislative oversight mechanisms — standing committees, sunrise/sunset reviews, administrative rule review, and program evaluation/performance audit — and provided examples of practice in other states.
William Clark, a Center for Legislative Strengthening analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures, briefed the House Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee on Feb. 28 about common legislative oversight tools and state practice, detailing options for committees and auditors to evaluate agency performance and rulemaking.
Clark described the oversight toolkit used across states: standing policy and fiscal committees, interim and special accountability committees, studies and reports, sunrise and sunset reviews, administrative rule review processes, and program evaluation and performance audit offices. He said administrative‑rule review in many states focuses on constitutionality and legislative intent, while performance audits evaluate efficiency, outcomes and statutory compliance.
“Program evaluation and performance audit is really meant to ensure that public resources that are used to carry out public functions and provide public services are utilized effectively, efficiently, economically, and ethically,” Clark told committee members.
Clark provided examples from other states, noting that some legislatures retain the authority to approve or veto administrative rules, and that several states maintain legislatively directed audit offices that produce biennial or multiyear work plans and public dashboards of metrics. He also identified differences between financial audits (focused on statements and controls), compliance audits, and performance audits (focused on outcomes and efficiency), and described how offices vary by appointment method and reporting structure.
Committee members asked about measuring outcomes from stronger oversight and about resources to support audits; Clark suggested retrospective studies and pointed committee members to NCSL resources and peer state contacts to help design oversight frameworks.
Ending: Clark offered follow‑up help connecting members with other states and materials; the committee thanked him and said the materials and links would be useful as it considers accountability options.
