Senator Victoria Sullivan urges project-level review of state programs, bill would create committee to audit efficiency of funded projects

Sen. Victoria Sullivan, sponsor of Senate Bill 193, told the Senate Executive Departments and Administration Committee that the measure would create a project-focused oversight committee to examine how individual state and federally funded projects are administered and whether they are cost-effective for the state.

Sullivan (Senate District 18) said the bill stems from experiences in Manchester and on the state level, where she said she had seen grant and project spending that raised “a lot of room for tightening up budgets and working more efficiently.” She said the panel created by the bill would “look at specific projects, break them down, decide which ones they want to focus on, and then do reports on how the money is being spent and if there’s room for us to be more efficient.”

Why it matters: Sullivan framed the bill as a transparency and efficiency measure aimed at ensuring taxpayer dollars produce demonstrable results. She noted particular concerns around the long-term costs to municipalities of accepting federal grants that bring program requirements and compliance costs.

Committee members pressed Sullivan on scope and measurement. One committee member asked how the panel would evaluate programs that support crime victims or survivors of domestic violence and whether the bill’s “measurables” could fairly assess those outcomes. Sullivan replied that the committee would choose which projects to examine and that the committee could hire or consolidate personnel to carry out reviews, and could grant waivers while agencies implemented corrective steps.

Committee members also asked how this effort would relate to a separate efficiency effort described earlier by the governor’s office. Sullivan told the committee the governor’s commission looks at agency-level efficiency; she said her bill “delves a little bit deeper into the actual programs” and that the two efforts would be complementary.

Action taken: During later committee consideration in executive session, members discussed the measure and a motion to pass SB 193 was made and seconded. At roll call the committee recorded at least one dissenting vote and the committee chair asked whether the bill could be placed on consent; the chair recorded that the sponsor would “take this one out,” indicating the bill will be carried forward by a committee member for further work rather than placed on consent in this form.

The hearing record shows the bill prompted sustained committee questions about measurement, staffing and overlap with existing statewide efficiency work. Sullivan emphasized the bill’s project focus and the panel’s ability to delve into costs, outcomes and potential rules waivers while agencies remedied identified problems.

Quotes in context: “We’ve long been asking the question of what did federal funds actually cost us to use?” Sullivan said. “Are we losing money on these federal funds that come in with their projects?”

Next steps: The committee did not place the measure on consent; the sponsor or a committee member indicated they will carry the bill forward and continue work on its scope and language.