Senate committee reviews H.67 pilot to centralize legislative accountability; $300,000 appropriation discussed
Loading...
Summary
Senate Government Operations members reviewed H.67, a four-page bill to create a two-year pilot "government accountability project" led by the Joint Fiscal Office/Joint Fiscal Committee, including a $300,000 appropriation for staff or consultant support and debate over whether oversight should be limited to the legislature or include other branches.
The Senate Committee on Government Operations on April 8 reviewed H.67, a four-page bill that would create a two-year pilot “government accountability project” to examine how evidence informs policy and whether laws are implemented as intended. The bill charges the Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) to select projects in consultation with legislative leaders and refer them to the Joint Fiscal Committee (JFC), and it authorizes either contracting with a consultant or creating a limited-service exempt position to carry out the work.
Representative Shay Waters Evans, who sponsored the measure, said the idea is to start small rather than re-create the broader multi-branch Government Accountability Committee that was discussed in previous years. “Instead of forming a whole new government accountability committee, we’re just asking the Joint Fiscal Committee to do that work,” Waters Evans said, describing the pilot as a pragmatic, manageable step that could produce repeatable evaluation tools.
Legislative counsel Tim Devlin read the bill’s purpose into the record, saying the legislation aims “to advance the principle of government accountability by examining how evidence is used to inform policy, how state laws are implemented, and how legislation may be structured to achieve its intended outcomes.” The bill sets deadlines: JFO is to select issues on or before Aug. 1, 2026, and the committee must present written reports on or before Dec. 15, 2026, and Nov. 15, 2027.
The bill includes an appropriation of $300,000 over two years to fund either a contract with an outside consultant or a two-year limited-service position within JFO to carry out analysis and support. A committee member questioned that choice, saying, “I don’t know how this is saving us money if it’s costing us $300,000,” and expressing concern about outsourcing evaluation work rather than building capacity inside existing offices.
Several senators raised a structural question: whether placing this work wholly under legislative fiscal staff and the JFC limits oversight to the legislature and excludes meaningful review of executive-branch implementation or judicial functions. One member framed the tension plainly: “We create the laws. We don’t implement the laws,” and asked whether evaluating implementation would require additional executive-branch participation or rely on the auditor’s office or the chief performance officer.
Catherine Brown of the Joint Fiscal Office described a precedent for the model: JFO previously engaged a consultant to review IT projects and produced a repeatable template and visual dashboard for assessing project performance. Brown said JFO’s current staff are committed to other major work (including a 10-year tax study), and the bill’s flexibility to hire a consultant or create a limited-service position reflects practical capacity constraints.
Committee members suggested alternative institutional homes for the function — the state auditor’s office and the chief performance officer were both mentioned — and discussed whether some reports should be made permanent or delayed for future review instead of being placed on the pilot’s immediate list. Members also identified specific reports and agencies they want to hear from, including Department of Public Safety (drone usage), Agency of Digital Services (IT and cybersecurity reporting), DHR, and the judiciary on certain reporting and implementation matters.
The committee did not take a final vote on H.67 during the session. Members agreed to schedule additional witnesses (including the auditor and chief performance officer) and to resume consideration of the bill next week to resolve questions about scope, selection criteria and reporting responsibilities.
The bill’s major fiscal and procedural specifics: JFO/JFC to select pilot issues by Aug. 1, 2026; written reports due Dec. 15, 2026, and Nov. 15, 2027; and a $300,000 appropriation to fund either contracting or a limited-service position for a two-year pilot. The committee asked JFO to provide more detail on selection criteria and the relationship between the pilot and other oversight entities before advancing the measure.
