HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-81-0146t:. �:Cd w••;�,; . r..,w?... ...,.. ... ...... , . .. .. _ .. . � .. .. .ry„i.L:TCltl %r't' »�rrr .. _ -. ..
.1. ..r wSit.fN, s`., ,t1�..1;. r.yw. rdi� .'.+�<�i+� .s.. 't "i..:.• !+.•tr; 't'�' .A +, :ii. . ..
...: ..•.- .., :. .. .sin.
.:,..++.. r_^•{.rw�y-...�. te�iC.ty.ew '+-r=•z ..x.c e,r�s .ht�! sa 3'ti%rYa,r�•'f:�_. _ .., ..: _..: it >K'F x: �;•.v ., s.�;r.�x M: r'S.if ,�.k... ,.`lit#r�!�a'i'Ersiactui�M.�.wS.?�0�:#^�I2�',�N"L,•r
r
CITY OI' FLORIDA
INTER.OFFICE i MEMORANDUM
Richard Fosmoen A I i February 26, 1981 ray COt'N 10
City Manager
H- Hiring Freeze (As it
Affects Communications)
Kenneth I. Harms
Chief of Police
The City of Miami Police Department recognizes that Communications
technicians perform critical support for Police and Fire personnel
in the field. For this reason, I would ask that you consider .all
Communications Shop technical positions (Building and Vehicle
Maintenance) and Communications support technician positions
(Department of Computers and Communications), exempt fromr a 1
hiring and promotional freezes from which police and fire
positions are exempt.
Background On April 3, 1980, a special committee meeting of
telecommunications users was called. This committee, consisting
of members of the Departments of Police, Fire, Building and
Vehicle Maintenance and Computers and Communications, addressed
several issues relating to communications and the general status
of radio communications.
On June 9, 1980, a standing committee was formed to assume
responsibility for developing long and short range solutions
to the problems identified.
This committee identified a plan of action which required considerable
resource allocation by the Department of Building and Vehicle
Maintenance Communications shop.
Although funding has been identified and approved, and in one
instance, equipment has been purchased, no significant modification
has begun.
A shortage of technical personnel, resulting from budgetary
limitations and a hiring freeze, coupled with an abnormally high
call for radio support service, has virtually tabled all problem
resolution.
The recent retirement of the Communications Shop Superintendent,
Mr. Lewis Johnson, will have an attendant impact on an already
overworked, understaffed unit.
C
x
r::TY Q.;:
:,NTER-OFFIIZC
Richard L. rosmoen N F February 20, 1981
City Manager
Sunset Review
Manohar S. u Director
Department o ement and Budget
The Department of Management and Budget has received information on
Sunset legislation from the National Conference of State Legislatures,
Common Cause, and the States of Michigan, Florida, and Colorado. The
information received is summarized below. It is called to your atten-
tion that all the information presented is based upon the application
of Sunset legislation at the State level where it is primarily found.
I. ORIGIN OF SUNSET LEGISLATION
Sunset legislation, which was first introduced in Colorado in
1976, was conceived by Common Cause as an "action -forcing mecha-
nism to increase executive and legislative evaluation of programs
and agencies". According to the National Conference of State
Legislatures its implementation in 35 states over the past 5
years is a reaction to external pressures on the part of citizens
who express disillusionment, distrust and discontent with govern-
ment and internal pressures by legislators who are frustrated by
their inability to get a handle on government.
II. WHAT IS SUNSET
Sunset legislation establishes a schedule whereby programs,
agencies, functions, or laws are subject to termination on a
scheduled basis unless the legislature initiates action based
upon a program evaluation review to continue their existence.
The legislation serves to force a periodic evaluation of accom-
plishments by establishing a specific date for termination. It
ti is important to note that Sunset laws do not provide the legisla-
ture with any new powers but rather commits the legislature to
use power already established. Sunset laws also serve to streng-
then the traditional and sometimes neglected oversight role of
the legislature.
A. Elei-lents Of Sunset Legislation
A_J
Although Sunset legislation varies from state to state,
Common Cause has identified the following 10 critical ele-
ments as being essential to an effective Sunset review
nrnrPcc-
n
Termination should be periodic (e.g., every six or
eight years) in order to institutionalize the
process of reevaluation.
Introduction of the Sunset process should be
phased in gradually, beginning with those programs
to which it seems most applicable.
4. Programs and agencies in the same policy area
should be reviewed simultaneously in order to
encourage consolidation and responsible planning.
5. Consideration by the relevant committees must be
preceded by competent and thorough preliminary
studies.
6. Preliminary evaluation should be undertaken by
existing bodies (e.g., the executive agencies,
evaluation units), but evaluation capacities must
be strengthened.
i. Substantial committee reorganization, including -
at the Congressional level - adoption of a system
of rotation of committee members, is a prerequi-
site to effective Sunset oversight.
8. The Sunset proposal should establish general
criteria to guide the review and evaluation pro-
cess.
9. Safeguards must be established to prevent arbitra-
ry termination and to provide for outstanding
agency obligations and displaced personnel.
10. Public participation in the form of public access
to information and public hearings is an essential
part of the Sunset process.
6. What Sunset Covers
The extent of coverage provided by Sunset laws varies from
state to state. There are four general categories of
coverage:
1. Comprehensive coverage - This covers all forms of
government.
2. Regulatory coverage - This focuses attention upon
regulatory and occupational boards and agencies.
3. Selective coverage - As the term implies, this
coverage
crosses
category
lines
and
can
include
Sunset Review
Page 3
too ti _
specific agencies, functions, activities, laws -
and/or programs.
4. Discretionary coverage - This coverage is similar
„■■� to comprehensive in that it includes all programs
and agencies. However, rather than following a
predetemined schedule, a legislative committee
selects those areas that will be subject to review
at any given time.
The iTi05t type of cover aye is reyuiai,ury which ensures
that the statutory obligations of regulatory boards and
agencies are being met. It has been the general experience
of states with Sunset laws that although the focus is shar-
pened as coverage becomes less comprehensive, the opportuni-
ty for substantial impact is reduced.
It is also pointed out that some exemptions to Sunset laws
have been included in some proposed statutes. These
include:
1. Contractual obligations of the State i.e. _
� � Pen-
sion payments or payments to contractors for
construction projects already underway or couple-
ted)
2. Constitutionally mandated expenditures
3. Salaries of constitutionally elected officers
4. Debt service payments
5. Services required in order to protect certain
constitutional rights.
It is noted that while the above listed areas should be
reviewed the legislature may wish to exclude these areas
from Sunset legislation because it is unlikely that they
would be terminated.
C. Cost
Sunset Review
Page 4
k
_tros_t._Range Coverage New Cost
Low Discretionary $250,000 or less
tledium Scheduled Selections $250,000 - $500,000
High Comprehensive More than $500,000
While it is possible to control the cost by narrowing the
Scope of the review, this action may result in superficial
or unreliable reports which would defeat the purpose of the
process.
b. Frequency Of Review
A key component of Sunset legislation involves the time
cycle planned for the review and termination of governmental
elements covered by the Sunset law. There are four basic
schedules:
Frequent - 4-6 year schedule
Infrequent - 3-12 year schedule
Flexible - scheduling would vary depending upon
the areas covered.
One time - no recurring cycle.
As is expected, States vary with regard to scheduling
options and much discussion has been generated concerning
what the ideal frequency of review should be. The frequency
of review, however, will depend upon the legislative work-
load, the type of coverage desired, the thoroughness of the
review, and the cost involved.
111. WHO ADMINISTERS SU16ET LAVdS
Once a State implements a Sunset review process, a procedure is
needed for accepting the data, reviewing it, and determining
whether or not ten-,lination is desired. Traditionally, the States
have directed this responsibility to appropriations committee,
fiscal agencies, legislative program effectiveness review units,
Legislative Auditor General, a new staff agency, Substantive
Committee Staff, or Legislative Set -vice Bureau.
Once staff responsibility is designated, the following major
tasks will be required:
tCo'
Sunset Review
Page 5
Becoming familiar with valid measures of effec-
tiveness for programs scheduled for termination
Reviewing agency analyses.
As can be assumed - and has in fact been shown by the experience
of States with Sunset laws - the above tasks which are critical
to the success or failure of Sunset review involve considerable
staff time and are costly.
IV.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
There are several evaluation criteria established to determine
the standards utilized to judge agencies, boards or programs.
Basic criteria, however, deal with the following:
Justification of existence
. Performance in the public interest
. Efficiency and effectiveness
Compliance with legislative intent
Accomplishment of original objectives
Compliance with equal employment opportunity
guidelines
. Funding impact
-0
Restrictiveness of regulation
Attachment A provides a consolidated list of criteria that have
been used in several States.
V,
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF SUNSET LAWS
Below are some of the positive and negative aspects of Sunset
laws.
Positive Aspects of Sunset Laws
Compels the legislature to evaluate and exercise
its oversight responsibilities.
. Forces the legislature to take affirmative action
to recreate an agency facing termination.
Institutionalizes the evaluation process.
Increases the opportunity for agency improvement
and modification emphasizing effectiveness and
efficiency: not termination.
. Creates an
corrective
incentive for
administrative
agencies to
changes on
implement
their own.
Sunset Review
Page 6
ATT
F_
0
Negative Aspects of Sunset Laws
Requires significant amount of time on the part of
the legislature to conduct reviews.
The cost required to conduct effective reviews is
considerable and may not result in a comparable
savings. At'the State level costs may be incurred
between $250,000 and $500,000. Dade County
incurred a cost of $50,000 in the first year of
the process and $20,000 in the second.
Currently there are no quantitative measurements
to judge the effectiveness of the final results.
Sunset legislation can be viewed as being unneces-
sary since the legislatures are already empowered
to accomplish the same goals.
Sunset legislation may represent a duplication of
functions already occurring during the budget
cycle.
Functions that have been Sunset in several States
have been dysfunctional for substantial lengths of
time prior to the implementation of the Sunset
1 aw.
Since the Sunset legislation was conceived at the
State level, a serious question surrounds the
applicability of the legislation to a municipal
government. Inasmuch as the elected official in a
city would have the opportunity to receive a
comprehensive look at departmental operations, the
necessity for Sunset review may be negated.
As indicated by its repeal, the Dade County Sunset
legislation was not effective. In the first year
(1980) a major portion of the dollar savings that
were identified would have been reflected in the
budget process anyway. Also several recommenda-
tions were not accepted by the Commission which
reduced the recommended savings. Finally, in a
substantial number of areas no dollar savings were
identified. However, further study was suggested.
The attached Summary of Sunset Legislation for 1979 and 1980
(Attachment B) indicates that for the 14 states reviewed no
savings, in most instances, were indicated.
ATTACHMENT A
A LISP' OF SUNSET CRITERIA
1)
What are the problems, needs, or missions that the program
is intended to address? Why was the program created? What
Are its anticipated accomplishments?
(2)
What legislation authorized the program? To what extent
_
has the overall administration of the program, as expressed
in the rules, regulations, orders, standards, criteria, and
decisions of the department or agency executing the program,
met the objectives of the General Assembly in establishing
the program?
(3)
What amounts have been spent on the program in each of the
two previous biennia? What amounts are anticipated for
future program activities?
(4)
What are the number and types of beneficiaries or persons
served by the program?
($)
When will the objectives of the program be fulfilled?
(6)
What is the effect of the program on the economy including,
but not limited to, the effects on competition, employment,
unemployment, economic stability, attraction of new busi-
ness, productivity, and price inflation, including costs to
consumers and to business?
(7)
Would the absence of regulation significantly harm or endan-
ger the public health, safety or welfare?
(S)
Is there a reasonable relationship between the exercise of
the state's police power and the protection of the public
health, safety or welfare?
(9)
Is there another less restrictive method of regulation -
available which could adequately protect the public?
(10)
Is the increase in cost more harmful to the public than the
harm which could result from the absence of regulation? —
(11)
Are all facets of the regulatory process designed solely
for the purpose of, and have as their primary effect, the
protection of the public?
(12)
Have the objectives of the program been met in an efficient
and effective manner?
(13)
Is the ratio of the quality and quantity of results to the
resources invested to achieve them acceptable?
(14)
What have been the personnel costs over the past two biennia,
both direct and contracted? '
A- 1
-Does-the agency itself have productivity standards and cri-
teria? Are they -relevant to its objectives?
(16) What services could be provided and what level of perfor-
mance could be achieved if the program were continued at a
_level less -than, equal to, or greater than the existing
level?
(17) What alternate means of -achieving the purposes of the pro-
gram exist? Are alternate means likely to be more or less
productive?
(18) What other state programs have similar or potentially con-
flicting and duplicative objectives? In light of findings
to this question, can the need for the program still be
justified?
(19) What federal activities have similar or potentially con-
flicting and duplicative objectives? What specific federal
acts or -regulations authorize federal funds? What is the
impact of federal funding in this area? Under what condi-
tions would federal funding be lost?
(20) Has the agency recommended to the legislature statutory
changes calculated to be of benefit to the public rather
than to an occupation, business, or institution that the
agency regulates?
(21) Has the agency responded with promptness and effectiveness
to complaints concerning persons affected by the agency?
(22) To what extent has the agency encouraged participation by
the public in making -its rules and decisions as opposed to
participation solely by those it regulates, and to what
,extent has public participation resulted in rules compatible
with the objectives of the agency?
(23) To what extent has the agency complied with applicable
requirements of an agency of the United States or of this
state regarding equality of employment opportunity and the
rights and privacy of individuals?
(24) To what extent has the agency enforced rules relating to
potential conflict of interests of its employees?
(25) To what extent has the agency complied with the freedom of
information and open records acts?
(26) To what extent have the agency's operations been impeded or
enhanced by existing statutes, procedures and practices of
the Commonwealth of Virginia, or of other State acencies?
What other circumstances, including budgeting, resources,
and personnel matters may have adversely affected the
agency's operation?
A-2
t27) What is the logic in agencykassumptions linking expenditures
to outcome anticipated, outcome anticipated to objectives,
and objectives to impact on problems addressed in goals?
(In a•testable, data oriented format.)
s �
/r ATTACHMENT B
-~ ADDENDUM TO
SUMMARY OF SUNSET LEGISLATION - 1980
AGENCIES, OFFICES, ETC. AGENCIES, OFFICES, ETC.
own STATE TERMINATED AND DATE FUNCTIONS SHIFTED SA
Arkansas 1980: None. (79 agencies
scheduled for revie'a in 1981.)
1979: 15 agencies terminated,
effective date, July 1, 1980.
1) Stonewall Jackson Memorial
Commission, 2) State Economic
Develooment Commission, 3) Min-
eral Resources Commission,
4) Civil War Centennial Commis-
sion, 5) Vicksburg Confederate
Memorial Commission, 6) Battle-
field -Bicentennial Commission,
7) Professional Malpractice In-
surance Ccmmission, 8) Division
of Utilities and Transportation,
9) Judicial Reapportionment,
10) Division of Employment De-
velopment, 11) Tax Revision Com-
mission, 12) State Capitol Grounds
I Commission, 13) Governor's Mansion
Advisory Council, 14) Druo Abuse
Authority and advisory Council,
abd, 15) 'Ahite River Navigation
District Commission.
Colorado 1979: 1 agency terminated,
effective date, July 1, 1979--
Commission on Women.
1977: 3 agencies terminated,
effective date July 1, 1977--
1) Colorado State Athletic
Cooiaission, 2) Board of Pro-
fessional Sanitarians, and
3) Board of Shorthand Re-
porters.
Florida 1980: 2 chapters terminated,
effective date, July 1, 1980--
1) Private Employment Agencies
and 2) Trucking (!"otor Carriers)-
1979: 3 chapters terminated,
effective date July 1, 1979--
1) Psychologists, 2) Foresters
and 3) Electronic Repair.
1978: 4 cha-.tors terminated,
nrfcrtiva HAt-p ,.111v 1 . 1980--
1980: None.
1979: Mineral Resources
Ccmmission, Division of
Utilities and Transportation
Division of Employment Devel
opment, Drug .Abuse Authority
and Advisory Council, and th
White River Navigation
District Commission.
COST
VtNGS
1980: None.
1979: No savings
indicated by staff.
1979: Two agencies combined; 1979: No savings
effective July 1, 1979-- indicated by staff
Board of Nursing and Board of
Practical Nursing.
1977: Functions of the Boa
of Shorthand Reporters were
partially shifted.
1980: Trucking (motor
carriers).
1979: None.
1978: None.
1979: No savings
indicated by staff
1980• No savings
indicated by staf`
1979: No savinc-
indicated by stagy
1973: No savings
indicated by st---
2-
AGENCIES, OFFICES, ETC. `
STATE TERMINATED AND DATE
Kansas 1980: 1 aaencv terminated,
effective date July 1, 1980--
Council of Advisors on Con-
sumer Credit.
Montana
Nebraska
AGENCIES, OFFICES, ETC.
FUNCTIONS SHIFTED
1980: None.
COST
SAVINGS
1980: Approxi-
mately 52000.
1979: 2 agencies terminated, 1979: Partial shift of 1979: Approxi-
effective date July 1, 1979-- functions of Athletic mately $100,000,
1) Mobile Home and Recreationall Commission. Two agencies for terminated
Vehicle Commission, and 2) Ath- combined into new board: agencies.
i �. r_..._. I o .4 r n w i ,. a,. ,.,a
I CI. IC %'U1un l l Zj l V l I. LJoaru VI I jy`f IV log l J VJ uIfu
Board of Social Workers.
1980: None.
1979: 4 aaencies terminated,
effective dates unknown--
1) Board of Abstractors,
2) Board of t•,arm Air Heating,
3) Board of Institutions, and
4) Board of Peal Estate.
1980:
1979:
None.
1980: None.
Board of Real Estate.i 1979: No savings
indicated by sta"
1980: 1 agency terminated, 1960: Yes. 1980: Less than
effective date July 1, 1980-- 1000.
Commission on Firefighting,
Personnel Standards and
Education.
1979: 1 agency terminated, 1979: Yes. 1979: No savings
effective date unknown-- indicated by staf
State Office of Planning
and Programing.
New Mexico 1980: None. 1980: None. 1980: None.
1978: 5 aaencies terminated, 1978: Polygraph_v Board 1978: No signifi-
effective date July 1, 1973-- and Hearing Aid Dealers cant savings indi-
1) Dry Cleaning Board, 2) Pol- and Fitters Board. gated.
ygraphy Board, 3) Employment
Agencv Board, 4) Massage Board,
and 5) Hearing Aid Dealers and
Fitters Board.
North
Carolina
1930: None.
1979: 5 agencies terminated,
effective date June 1, 1979--
1) Board of Watch Making, 2)
Board of Water Well Contractors,
3) Board of Tile Contractors,
4) Mining Registration Status,
and 5) Private Detective Board.
1980: None.
1979: Private Detective
3�d .
1980: None.
1979: No savings
indicated by staf
I
AGENCIES, OFFICES, ETC. AGENCIES, OFFICES, ETC. COSH'
+� STATE TERMINATION AND DATE FUNCTIONS SHIFTED SAVINGS
Oklahoma 1980: 5 agencies terminated,
1980: Crime Commission.
1980: Negligible
effective date July 1, 1980--
savings indicated.
1) Board of Architects, 2)
Board of Surplus Facilities,
3) Carl Albert Memorial Com-
mission, 4) Bartlesville
Energy & Research Commission
and 5) Crime Commission.
1979: 4 agencies terminated,
1979i None,
1979: No savings
effective date June 1, 1980--
indicated by staff.
i 1) J. Thorpe Memorial Commis-
sion, 2) Oklahoma Historical
Day Commission, 3) Special
Armory Construction Board and
4) Awards & Decorations Board.
1978: 9 agencies terminated,
1978: None,
1978: No savings
effective date June 1, 1973--
indicated.
1) Wace & Hour Comission,
2) Oklahcma Energy Rescurce
I Planning Commission, 3) Water
Conservation Storaae Commis-
sion, 4) Eastern Trails Museum
Commission, 5) Pawnee Indians
Veterans Historical Commission,
6) Occupational Health & Safety
— Standards Commission, 7) Okla-
homa Unclaimed Property Board,
8) Advisory Council to the De-
partment of Labor, and 9) Board
of Health & Safety Compliance.
Oregon
1980: As of this writing,
1980: None to date.
1980: None to
Review Committee still meeting.
date.
1979: 3 agencies terminated,
1979: None.
1979: No savings
effective date July 1, 1980--
indicated.
1) Board of Watchmakers, 2)
Board of Auctioneers, and
3) Board of Landscape Con-
tractors.
South Dakota
1980: None.
1980: None.
1980: None.
1979: 4 agencies terminated,
1979: None.
1979: No savinc_s
effective date June 1, 1970.--
indicated.
1) Board of Massage Examiners,
2) Board of Psychologists Ex-
aminers, 3) Board of Basic
Science Examiners, and 4)
Board of Registered Sanitar-
ians.
- over -
s 4 -
0
STATE............
Texas
AGENCIES, OFFICES, ETc,.
TM IINATED AND DATE
1980: As of this writing,
review in progress.
1979: 9 agencies terminated,
effective date Auoust 3,1, 191.,,0.
1) Pink: Bollworm Commission,
2) Stonewall Jackson Memorial
Board, 3) Texas Navy Inc.,
4) Battleship Texas Commission,
9) Dnrai. -0.�. 11. ..� r`........:
V .,,. 1. I �. I CC . 1 d, J 0 I J liV I. �. 1I I J-
sion, 6) Office of Vehicle
Equipment Safety Compact Corn -
mission, 7) Board of County
& District Road Indebtedness,
8) Texas Private Employment
Agency Regulatory Board, and
9) Board of ianaaer of Texas
State Railroad.
Utah i 1930: None.
1979: 2 statutes terminated,
effective date June 30, 1979--
1) License & testing of whole-
sale & retail dealers in proph-
ylactics & testing of prophylac-
tics and 2) Recuirino health
professionals to pass basic
science examination.
Washington 1980: 1 statute terminated,
effective date June 1, 1980--
Basic Science Law.
1979: 3 agencies terminated,
effective June 30, 197E--
1) Water well Construction
Operators Examining Board,
2) Escro►v Commission, and
3) Driving Instructors Exam-
ining Board.
Are! tit Ir, oEEiCES, Eibr
1'11.11r; i ir)tIS �NIFTEb
I Tr) : Noro• .
I9/"- N.rj.1rd of Archi-
Cr r. t.ur'.i I I /Ire i nrar s and
TI•Yj', ',I.,jt.r• Itr,ard of
1_anri .r. ,p.. I.,rr.h i tr•ct:
u,rnh i nr ! , r! f f r.r t i ve
Jept_rr�f,r�r 1 1 97�.
Also,
r ♦ -. ♦ . rl tion of Puf)lic purveyors
and Board of Erarriners of
State Land Surveyors com-
bined, effective June 13,
1979.
COST
SAVINGS
1980: None.
1979: $7.1 mil-
lion savings frog
mergers and
modifications
of combined
boards.
1980: None. 1980: None.
1979: None. 1979: No savings
ind cated. V
1980: None.
1979: Driving Instructors
€xamining Board.
1980: No savings
indicated.
1979: From termi-
nation of Water
well Construction
Bd., app. $55,000
per year; f rorr
termination of the
Escrow Comm. ,
approx. S32,000/r-
& from terri nati or,
of Driving Inst.
Bd., approx.
$35,000/yr.
SUMMARY OF SUNSET LEGISLATION 1980
TERMINATION
PHASE OUT
LEGISLATIVE ACTION PERIOD
PRELIt'1It1ARY EVALUATION
SCOPE
SCHEDULE-
ALABAMA:
•
October 1
Department of
Occupational 8
10 in 1982
following
Examiners of Public
professional
10 in 1983
'
legislative
Accounts b Legislative
licensing
10 in 1984
session
Fiscal Office will
1U in 1985
succeeding
furnish upon request
review
prior audits or current
agency reviews
ALASKA:
1 year
Legislative Budget
Selective
13 in 1979
b Audit Committee
13 in 1980
l in 1981
Selective
:budget
categories may
be subject to
termination
from 1980-'84
OP ONA:
Primarily 14
in
1980
regulatory 14
in
1982
until 1984 16
in
1984
9
in
1986
6
in
1988
5.
in
1990
3
in
1992
1
in
1994
3 terminated and 6 months Auditor General
11 continued in 1980
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
Select Joint Sunset
Committee
Appropriate Standing
Committee of each
house
Appropriate Joint
Subconxni ttees make
recoiimendations to
Joint Legislative
=1
®I
Summary of Sunset Legislation 1980
Page two
TERMINATION PHASE OUT
SCOPE SCHEDULE LEGISLATIVE ACTION PERIOD
ARKANSAS: '
., x
Comprehensive 126 in 1979 1 terminated, 86 1 year
1
I
COLORADO:
Regulatory
CONNECTICUT:
Primarily
•egulatory
14 advisory
commissions
DELAWARE:
Regulatory
79 in 1981 modified & 39
60 in 1983 continued. 34
agencies have
already been con-
tinued from the
1981 schedule.
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
Division of Legislative Joint Interim
'Audit by request may Committees
provide performance
audits. Legislative
Joint Auditing Commit-
tee determines need
for audits.
13 in 1977
3 terminated
& 11 1 year
Legislative Audit
Convuittee of
12 in 1979
modified in
1977,
Committee evaluation
reference in each
16 in 1981
1 terminated
& 11
prepared by the State
house
6 in 1983
modified in
1979.
Auditor.
2 in 1984
8 in 1985
1 in 1987
21 in 1980
R year
Legislative Program
Joint Counnittee on
17 in 1981
Review & Investiga-
Government Admin-
16 in 1982
tions Committee
istration & Policy
20 in 1983
22 in 1984
1 in 1985
9 in 1981
V n►onths
Legislative Council
Joint Sunset
9 in 1982
and Controller
Comnitteg
9 in 1983
General
9 in 1984
l
3.. It'
ILIf
Sunnnary of Sunset
Legislation 1980
I ;
Page three
►
SCOPE
TERMINATION
SCHEDULE
LEGISLATIVE ACTION
PHASE OUT
PERIOD
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION
I
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
FLORIDA:
Regulatory Reform &
Regulatory
12 in 1978
4 terminated & 8
1 Year
Coimierce Conmittee
statutes
26 in 1979
modified in 1978.
in [louse Government
24 in 1980
3 terminated & 23
Operations Conmittee !
36 in 1982
modified in 1979.
& other substantive
1 in 1983
committees as
.
22 in 1985
assigned in Senate i
GEORGIA:
Regulatory
10 in 1978
10 continued in 1978
1 year
Performance Audit Sec-
tion of State Auditor
Appropriate Standing .t
Comnittees of each
17 in 1980
house E
17 in 1982
f
HAWAII:
Regulatory
6 in 1918
6
4 continued and 2
Legislative Auditor
Legislature may
in 1919
terminated in 1918;
hold public hearing `
8 in 1980
4 continued and 2
on each evaluation '
8 in 1981
terminated in 1979;
report
8 in 1982
none to nninated in
j
7 in 1983
1980
2 in 1984
2 in 1985
l
ILL_I_NOIS:
7 in 1981
1 year
Bureau of the Budget
Select Joint Conmit-
Regulatory
tee on Regulatory
6 in 1983
Agency Reform
9 in 1985
t
6 in 1987
7 in 1989
INDIANA:
Office of Fiscal
Joint Legislative
Comprehensive
p
350 between
Management & Analysis
Study Conmittee
k
1980 & 1987
'�Ili��lll�.lil�lll��lillili`d��IIIIIII�lill�liillllldit _._ I I— -" I• Y I I I III I � ��I III
Sumtimary of Sunset Legislation 1980
Page four
TERMINATION PHASE OUT
SCOPE SCHEDULE LEGISLATIVE ACTION PERIOD PRELIMINARY EVALUATIOft
KANSAS:
-
Primarily
6
in 1979
2 terminated, 2 1 year
Legislative Division
Regulatory
10
in 1980
modified in 1979, &
•of Post -audit
8
in 1981
2 still under study
.2
in 1982
by the 1980 legis-
7
in 1983
lature
•_,
2
in 1984
LOUISIANA:
Comprehensive
2
in 1981
1.year
Standing Committees
i
in 1982
may request the
3
in 1983
assistance of the
2
in 1984
Legislative Fiscal
1
in 1985
Office, Legislative
3
in 1986
Council & Legislative
1
in 1987
Auditor
3
in 1988
4
in 1989
MAINE:
13
in 1980
terminated some 1 year
3
in 1981
programs within
16
in 1982
agencies and modified
13
in 1984
4 programs in 1980
21
in 1986
15
in 1988
.
MARYLAND:
Regulatory
13
in 1980
3 terminated and 10
Legislative Depart-
of Fiscal Services
16
in 1981
continued in 1981
ment
18
in 1982
15
in 1983
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
Legislative.Post-
audit Committee
prepares final report.
Committee of Reference
in each house conducts
hearings.
Appropriate
Standing Committees
of each house
Joint Committee on
Audit & Program
Review
Standing Committees
designated in House
by Speaker and Senate
president
Summary of Sunset Legislation 1980
Page five
TERMINATION PHASE OUT
SCOPE SCHEDULE LEGISLATIVE ACTION PERIOD
MISSISSIPPI:
75 from 6 :months
1980 to
1987
MONTANA:
Regulatory
14 in 1979
4 terminated, 6
1 year
1p�
22' in 1981
modified & 4
10 in 1983
continued in 1979
11 in 1985
NEBRASKA:
Regulatory
6 in 1978
6 continued in 1978,
1 year
'
5 in 1979
1 terminated & 4
_
7 in 1980
continued in 1979
5 in 1981
'
5 in 1982
8 in 1983
NEVADA:
Limited Pilot
3 In 1981
1 year
*Wgram
NEW HAMPSHIRE:
Comprehensive
All program
9 months
appropriation
units subject
to review,
but not all
subject to
,automatic
termination
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION
Joint Committee
on Performance
Evaluation and
Expenditure Review
Legislative Audit
Conmittee
Legislative Council's
Office of Fiscal
Analyst prepare report
for Performance Review
& Audit Committee
Legislative Council
Bureau
Sunset Committee staff
may request assistance
from other legislative
staffs
Su;wiiary of Sunset Legislation 1980
Page six
SCOPE
NEW MEXICO:
Regulatory
ti i:1-lu 1 a tort'
Statutes
OKLAHOMA:
Comprehensive
y
Regulatory
A
t
TERMINATION
SCHEDULE
19 in 1978
9 in 1979
16 in 1980
LEGISLATIVE ACTION
5 terminated & 14
modified in 1978,
9 modified in 1979
PHASE OUT
PERIOD
1 year
1
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
33
in
1979
5 terminated, 9
1 year
Governmental Evalua-
33
in
1980
modified & 19
tion Commission
32
in
1983
continued in 1979
21
in
1978
9 terminated & 12
1 year
15
in
1979
modified in 1978, 4
18
in
1980
terminated (but
16
in
1981
legislation pending)
20
in
1982
& 11 modified in 1979
21
in
1983
9
in
1980
1 terminated & 6
None indicated
14
in
1982
continued in 1979
in law
10
in
1984
16
in
1986
5
in
1988
»
25
in
1980
1 year
Office of the
30
in
1981
Auditor General
Legislative Finance
Committee
Appropriate Standing
Committee in each
house
Appropriate Standing ;t
Committee meeting
Jointly during
session or appro-
priate interim
cound ttee of Legis-
lative Council I`
Appropriate Joint `4
Interim Committee
Legislative Over-
sight Comrission
I
I n .I II,1
Summary of Sunset Legislation 1980
Page seven
SCOPE
SOUTH CAROLINA:
Regulatory
snUTll DAKOTA:
Limited Pilot
Program
TENNESSEE:
F Comprehensive
TES:
Comprehensive
UTAII:
Regulatory
TERMINATION
SCHEDULE LEGISLATIVE ACTION
7 in 1980
6 in 1981
6 in 1982
7 in 1983
7 in 1985
5 in 1979
(boards), 9
from 1980 -
1988 (Rules
Regulations)
35 in 1980
12 in 1981
20 1n 1982
66 1n 1983
43 in 1984
46 1n 1985
26 1 n 1979
29 in 1981
28 in 1983
37 1n 1985
28 in 1987
24 in 1989
21 1n 1991
12 in 1979
25 in 1981
PHASE OUT
PERIOD
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
I year Legislative
Audit Council
4 terminated & 1 180 days Legislative Research
modified in 1979 Council
v
Division of State
Audit Program Evalua-
tion Group
9 terminated, 12 1 year Legislative Budget Sunset Advisory
modified, 4 combined Board Commission
& 1 created in 1979
.
2 terminated & 10 1 year Legislative Research Joint Business
continued in 1979 Office & Legislative Labor & Economic
Auditor General Development
Conn i t tee
f
6
t
t
I
Swanary of Sunset Legislation 1980
Page eight
6 in 1982 Committee
6 in 1983 s'
7 in 1984
5 in 1985 k
WASHINGTON:
9 in 1979
Selective 6 in 1980 4 terminated, 3 1 year Legislative Budget Appropriate standinq
22 in 1981 modified & 1 Committee and Office committees, one
23 in 1983 merged in 1979 of Financial Management joint meeting
1 in 1985 required
WEST VIRGINIA:*
LAMING: _
Comprehensive 12 in 1,981 ar Legislative Services Select Joint
• nrrt__ w_JJ&