Hearings on Separation of Powers and Legislative Oversight

Presentation:

Gary Ciminero, Rhode Island House Policy Office

Before the

House Committee on Separation of Powers

April 21, 2004

2

Today’s agenda

Separation of Powers and Legislative Oversight

• Reply to Requests for Information Posed at Earlier Committee Hearings—Gary Ciminero, Rhode Island House Policy Office

• Presentation on Legislative Oversight: Evaluation of Program Performance—Kate Wade, Program Evaluation Director, Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau

3

Legislative Oversight

Reply to Requests for Additional Information—

Posed at the 3/10/04 Hearing

Gary Ciminero

Rhode Island House Policy Office

4

Reply to Requests for Additional Information—Correction of RI Staff Count Data

• Recall that at the prior hearing of 3/10, rankings from NCSL were based on total full-time staff per legislator by state.– Rhode Island’s data was as-of 3/03, at 297 Legislative

Staffers

– This meant that Rhode Island Ranked 23rd at 2.63 total legislative staffers per legislator

5

Reply to Requests for Additional Information—Correction of RI Staff Count Data

• Updated/corrected data as of October 2003 for Rhode Island has the staff count at 278.4 FTEs.– Data as of October, compiled by the RI-DOA corrects for

staff reductions, at the request of GA leadership and a corrected number of part-timers

– These changes reduce the total by about 19 FTEs

• On this basis, Rhode Island has a Staff/Legislator ratio of 2.46—Lowering our relative staff size to 25th nationally. (See updated chart on next page.)

6

Legislative Oversight Capacity—2003 Full-Time Staff per Legislator

 Total Full- State Staff per Staff per Number of Full-time RANK

STATE Time Staff Legislators Legislator Legislator Total Full- State Staff per Staff per2003 Staff Count Survey Number of Full-time RANK STATE Time Staff Legislators Legislator LegislatorCalifornia 2334 120 19.45 1 Hawaii 170 76 2.24 26New York 3077 212 14.51 2 Connecticut 393 187 2.10 27Pennsylvania 2947 253 11.65 3 Colorado 209 100 2.09 28Florida 1650 160 10.31 4 Oklahoma 302 149 2.03 29New J ersey 1206 120 10.05 5 Indiana 304 150 2.03 30Texas 1745 181 9.64 6 Oregon 181 90 2.01 31Michigan 1153 148 7.79 7 Tennessee 253 132 1.92 32Arizona 631 90 7.01 8 North Carolina 290 170 1.71 33Wisconsin 756 132 5.73 9 Missouri 321 197 1.63 34Alaska 307 60 5.12 10 West Virginia 195 134 1.46 35Illinois 905 177 5.11 11 South Carolina 247 170 1.45 36Louisiana 688 144 4.78 12 Delaware 84 62 1.35 37Massachusetts 935 200 4.68 13 New Mexico 145 112 1.29 38Maryland 850 188 4.52 14 Iowa 172 150 1.15 39Nebraska 217 49 4.43 15 Utah 108 104 1.04 40Ohio 505 132 3.83 16 Mississippi 150 174 0.86 41Washington 561 147 3.82 17 Maine 156 186 0.84 42Nevada 230 63 3.65 18 Montana 122 150 0.81 43Alabama 422 140 3.01 19 Idaho 75 105 0.71 44Minnesota 602 201 3.00 20 Kansas 100 165 0.61 45Virginia 410 140 2.93 21 South Dakota 56 105 0.53 46Kentucky 386 138 2.80 22 New Hampshire 165 424 0.39 47Georgia 603 236 2.56 23 Wyoming 29 90 0.32 48Arkansas 339 135 2.51 24 Vermont 52 180 0.29 49Rhode Island 278 113 2.46 25 North Dakota 32 141 0.23 50

7

Reply to Requests for Additional Information—Representative Paul W. Crowley (continued)

INFORMATION on PROFESSIONAL STAFF COMPARISONS ACROSS STATES

• NCSL also has data on Professional Legislative Staff by State—see next slide

• On this fairer basis, Rhode Island ranks even better—with just 103.5 professional staffers it has– Just 1.01 Professional Staffer per Legislator

– Ranking us 30th among the states in relative staffing

8

Legislative Oversight Capacity—2003 Full-Time Professional Staff per Legislator

 2003 Staff Count Survey Data-FinalCats 1&2

Fulltime per Fulltime perSTATE professional Legislator Rank STATE professional Legislator RankAlabama 256 1.828571 22 Montana 108 0.72 38Alaska 223 3.716667 11 Nebraska 133 2.71 13Arizona 394 4.377778 7 Nevada 130 2.06 19Arkansas 294 2.177778 15 New Hampshire 140 0.33 47California 1541 12.84167 1 New Jersey 343 2.86 12Colorado 198 1.98 20 New Mexico 80 0.71 39Connecticut 234 1.251337 28 New York 1794 8.46 3Delaware 34 0.548387 43 North Carolina 149 0.88 33Florida 1420 8.875 2 North Dakota 21 0.15 50Georgia 488 2.067797 18 Ohio 286 2.17 16Hawaii 113 1.486842 26 Oklahoma 109 0.73 37Idaho 68 0.647619 41 Oregon 118 1.31 27Illinois 755 4.265537 8 Pennsylvania 1001 3.96 10Indiana 152 1.013333 29 Rhode Island 103.5 1.01 30Iowa 131 0.873333 34 South Carolina 137 0.81 36Kansas 84 0.509091 44 South Dakota 47 0.45 45Kentucky 213 1.543478 25 Tennessee 120 0.91 32Louisiana 323 2.243056 14 Texas 906 5.01 6Maine 80 0.430108 46 Utah 84 0.81 35Maryland 331 1.760638 24 Vermont 32 0.18 49Massachusetts 811 4.055 9 Virginia 250 1.79 23Michigan 830 5.608108 4 Washington 309 2.10 17Minnesota 385 1.915423 21 West Virginia 92 0.69 40Mississippi 102 0.586207 42 Wisconsin 699 5.30 5Missouri 183 0.928934 31 Wyoming 26 0.29 48

9

Reply to Requests for Additional Information—Representative Paul W. Crowley (continued)

INFORMATION on PROFESSIONAL STAFF COMPARISONS--continued

• Based on a better measure, Full-time professional staff per bill enacted—with 518 bills enacted in RI in 2002 (see next slide):– We had just 0.22 professional staffers per bill

– Ranking us 39th, one of the lowest relative staffing levels compared with other states.

10

Legislative Oversight Capacity—2003 Full-Time Professional Staff per Bill Passed

 2003 Staff Count Survey Data-FinalProfessional 2003 Staff Count Survey Data-FinalProfessional

Bills Staff per Bills Staff per

STATE Enactment rank STATE Enactment rankAla ba ma 269 0.95167286 16 Mis s o uri 214 0.86 17Ala s ka 143 1.55944056 10 Mo nta na 594 0.18 46Arizo na 344 1.14534884 12 Ne bra s ka 123 1.08 14Arka ns a s 1843 0.15952252 47 Ne v a da 604 0.22 41Ca lifo rnia 2118 0.72757318 23 Ne w Ha mps hire 281 0.50 30Co lo ra do 395 0.50126582 29 Ne w Je rs e y 134 2.56 7Co nne c tic ut 307 0.76221498 21 Ne w Me xic o 128 0.63 25De la wa re 175 0.19428571 42 Ne w Yo rk 693 2.59 6Flo rida 389 3.6503856 4 No rth Ca ro lina 19 7.84 2Ge o rg ia 611 0.79869067 20 No rth Da ko ta 584 0.04 50Ha wa ii 263 0.42965779 31 Ohio 167 1.71 9Ida ho 373 0.18230563 45 Okla ho ma 502 0.22 40Illino is 746 1.01206434 15 Ore g o n 1005 0.12 49India na 190 0.8 19 Pe nns ylv a nia 239 4.19 3Io wa 175 0.74857143 22 Rho de Is la nd 518 0.22 39Ka ns a s 206 0.40776699 32 S o uth Ca ro lina 253 0.54 28Ke ntuc ky 314 0.67834395 24 S o uth Da ko ta 242 0.19 43Lo uis ia na 89 3.62921348 5 Te nne s s e e 815 0.15 48Ma ine 330 0.24242424 38 Te xa s 1601 0.57 26Ma ryla nd 589 0.56196944 27 Uta h 338 0.25 37Ma s s a c hus e tts 525 1.5447619 11 Ve rmo nt 80 0.40 33Mic hig a n 767 1.0821382 13 Virg inia 897 0.28 35Minne s o ta 183 2.10382514 8 Wa s hing to n 368 0.84 18Mis s is s ippi 531 0.1920904 44 We s t Virg inia 329 0.28 34Mis s o uri 214 0.85514019 17 Wis c o ns in 42 16.64 1Mo nta na 594 0.18181818 46 Wyo ming 100 0.26 36

11

Reply to Requests for Additional Information—Representative Paul W. Crowley (concluded)

INFORMATION on PROFESSIONAL STAFF COMPARISONS--concluded

Based on another measure that gives better scope to the amount of work needing to be done by Legislative Professional Staff—we looked at the total number of bills introduced:

• With 2767 bills introduced in RI in 2002:– We have has just 0.04 professional staffers per introduced bill

– Ranking us 47th, for about the lowest relative staffing level compared with other states.

12

Reply to Requests for Additional Information—Representative Nicholas Gorham

INFORMATION on PROFESSIONAL STAFF COMPARISONS with State Populations

• BASED ON THE (FLAWED) METRIC OF FULL-TIME STAFF PER CAPITA, RI RANKS 2ND

• BASED ON A SOMEWHAT FAIRER (YET FLAWED) METRIC OF FULL-TIME PROFESSIONAL STAFF PER CAPITA, RI RANKS 7TH AMONG THE STATES—see next slide.

13

Legislative Oversight Capacity—2003 Full-Time Professional Staff per Capita

 

2003 Staff Count Survey Data-Finalper 100000 per 100000

STATE Rank capita STATE Rank capitaAlabama 22 5.75656 24 Montana 38 11.97 4Alaska 11 35.57005 1 Nebraska 13 7.77 14Arizona 7 7.679366 15 Nevada 19 6.51 18Arkansas 15 10.99723 6 New Hampshire 47 11.33 5California 1 4.549528 32 New J ersey 12 4.08 37Colorado 20 4.603301 31 New Mexico 39 4.40 34Connecticut 28 6.871107 17 New York 3 9.45 8Delaware 43 4.338948 36 North Carolina 33 1.85 50Florida 2 8.884785 10 North Dakota 50 3.27 44Georgia 18 5.961068 23 Ohio 16 2.52 47Hawaii 26 9.326995 9 Oklahoma 37 3.16 45Idaho 41 5.255214 28 Oregon 27 3.45 41Illinois 8 6.079251 22 Pennsylvania 10 8.15 12Indiana 29 2.499801 48 Rhode Island 30 10.87 7Iowa 34 4.476606 33 South Carolina 36 3.41 42Kansas 44 3.124514 46 South Dakota 45 6.23 21Kentucky 25 5.26997 25 Tennessee 32 2.11 49Louisiana 14 7.227607 16 Texas 6 4.34 35Maine 46 6.274889 19 Utah 35 3.76 38Maryland 24 6.249427 20 Vermont 49 5.26 27Massachusetts 9 12.77347 3 Virginia 23 3.53 40Michigan 4 8.351408 11 Washington 17 5.24 29Minnesota 21 7.826032 13 West Virginia 40 5.09 30Mississippi 42 3.585668 39 Wisconsin 5 13.03 2Missouri 31 3.270654 43 Wyoming 48 5.27 26

14

Reply to Requests for Additional Information—Representative Nicholas Gorham (continued)

HOWEVER, COMPARISONS WITH POPULATION SIZE DISTORT ANY CONCLUSION ABOUT STAFFING LEVELS

• SINCE POPULATION IS A POOR MEASURE OF THE AMOUNT OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS AND OVERSIGHT REQUIRED OF THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF.

• BETTER MEASURES ARE THOUSE ALREADY DISCUSSED IN THE EARLIER SLIDES.

15

Reply to Requests for Additional Information—Representative Nicholas Gorham (concluded)

HOWEVER, COMPARISONS WITH POPULATION SIZE DISTORT ANY CONCLUSION ABOUT STAFFING LEVELS

• FOLLOWING THE LOGIC OF PERCAPITA SIZE, WE WOULD ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDE THAT– MANY OF OUR EXECUTIVE BRANCH DEPARTMENTS

ALSO HAVE LARGE STAFFING LEVELS RELATIVE TO OTHER STATES

• RESEARCH FOR THESE COMPARISONS IS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY—AS SUGGESTED BY REPRESENTATIVE TIMOTHY A. WILLIAMSON