State Boards, Committees, Commissions and Councils a report by the Office of Program Evaluation & Government Accountability FINAL REPORT February 2008

State Boards, Committees, Commissions and Councils

a report by

the Office of Program Evaluation & Government Accountability

FINALREPORT

February

2008

FISCALOPPORTUNI

TYSTUDY

OPEGA Final Report: State Boards, Committees, Commissions and Councils Slide 2

Introduction -----――――――---――――――

• This study focused on potential costs savings and efficiencies rather than the effectiveness of boards and commissions.

• The study included 261 boards and commissions.

• In 2007, these entities consumed about 349,015 hours of State employee time (approx. 168 FTEs) and had costs of about $12 million.

• OPEGA presents four general recommendations and seven fiscal opportunities for legislative consideration.


• Focus was on boards and commissions listed in 5 MRSA Chapter 379 and the Maine State Government Annual Report.

• Analyses are based primarily on unverified data obtained from the Secretary of State and from boards’ responses to our survey.

• Time limitations impacted the study scope and, thus, the level of detail in our cost savings estimates.

Methods and Scope ―--―――――--―――


Background ――――――――――――――

• Boards have supported State government and provided avenue for citizen participation.

• In past few decades, states have taken interest in limiting boards to cut costs.

• 1976 Harvard report on Maine’s boards noted many issues that still persist.

• 1984 legislative study report noted need for inventory and standardization among boards and commissions.

History of Boards and Commissions in Maine


Background ―――――――――――――――

• Seeks to provide complete inventory of all boards to control proliferation, reduce duplication and promote efficiency.

• Requires boards to file annual activity reports with the Secretary of State (SOS).

• Requires SOS to maintain boards’ data, produce annual report for Legislature and suggest elimination of boards with minimal activity.

Impact of Title 5 Chapter 379


Background ―――――――――――――――

• Enacting statute for each board specifies number, terms, appointment, qualifications of members.

• Governor’s Office has two full-time staff for appointments. Legislature has two staff each spending about 1/6th time on appointments.

• SOS monitors board seat terms and reports annually on all expired terms. The 2007 report listed about 1,070 seats vacant or being filled by members whose terms had expired.

Membership of Boards and Commissions


Background ―――――――――――――――

• Boards have widely varied access to staffing resources.

• Most are staffed by Executive or Legislative Branch employees.

• Many also have full or part-time executive directors.

• Some operate like Executive Branch agencies with full compliments of employees.

Staffing of Boards and Commissions


Background ―――――――――――――――

• Funding sources range from privately raised funds to General Funds.

• Many boards, like licensing boards, are funded solely by dedicated revenue.

• Others may be federally funded and required as part of a federal grant.

Funding Sources for Boards and Commissions


Summary -----―――――――――――――――

• boards with little or no activity;

• boards with many seats that have expired terms;

• boards that appear to have similar areas of focus;

• a large number of advisory boards;

• licensing boards with largely, but not completely, consolidated administration;

• some boards paying for refreshments and facility rentals; and

• disparate rates of compensation and expense reimbursement for members.

There appear to be some opportunities for reducing administrative costs and streamlining government. Our analyses identified:


Summary -----―――――――――――――――

• OPEGA identified seven fiscal opportunities.

• Estimated savings for 3 of them total $190,000 and 4,012 hours in State employee time.

• Developing reasonable savings estimates for the others requires more detailed analysis.

• Not all savings are direct to the General Fund, but reducing expenses for other funds is also a worthwhile goal.

• Some savings are less tangible, but still help reduce overall administrative burden and free up staff resources.


Recommendations ―――――――――――

A. Exploring the fiscal opportunities presented in this report.

B. Reviewing list of boards in 5 MRSA Chapter 379 for possible additions and deletions; creating process to assure future boards are included.

C. Reviewing the adequacy of reporting requirements in 5 MRSA Chapter 379.

D. Implementing sunrise and sunset processes for all boards, commissions and similar entities.

The Legislature should consider:


Opportunity

Eliminating boards with little or no activity.

Estimated Savings

Eliminating 50% of these boards would potentially free up 12-60 hours for employees staffing the boards. Hours spent by SOS staff, as well as those involved with appointments would also be reduced.

(Estimates based on average resources used by each inactive board.)

Fiscal Opportunity #1 ―――――――――--

OPEGA identified 24 boards that had not met or had not produced substantive accomplishments in 2007.


Opportunity

Eliminating some boards with many expired terms or reducing the number of members for these boards.

Estimated Savings

Requires more detailed analysis to estimate $ and hours spent directly involved with board.

Reducing number of boards would reduce hours spent by SOS staff, as well as those involved with appointments.


OPEGA noted 40 boards with 3 or more seats with expired terms as of beginning of 2007. Sixteen of them had seats that have been expired since 2004 or before.


Opportunity

Reduce number of boards with similar areas of focus by merging or transferring responsibilities.

Estimated Savings


Reducing number of boards would reduce hours spent by SOS staff, as well as those involved with appointments.


OPEGA noted 5 areas of focus that each appeared to have multiple boards associated with them. A total of 18 boards involved.


Opportunity

Eliminate some advisory boards or make them ad-hoc instead. Add sunset provisions.

Estimated Savings

Eliminating 50% of these boards could produce up to $90,000 in savings and free up nearly 4,000 hours of State employee staff time.

Hours spent by SOS staff and those involved with appointments would also be reduced.

(Estimates based on average resources used by each advisory board.)


5 MRSA Chapter 379 includes 80 boards classified as advisory or independent advisory in nature.


Opportunity

Consolidate administration of occupational and professional licensing boards.

Estimated Savings



Only 12 such boards are not under the Office of Licensing and Regulation within the Dept. of Professional and Financial Regulation. These 12 reported $2.1 million in costs and over 55,000 hours in State employee staff time (approx. 25 FTEs).


Opportunity

Reduce costs for facilities and refreshments.

Estimated Savings

Reducing costs by just 25% would be an annual savings of $100,000.


Total 2007 facility and refreshment costs reported by all boards was $418,162.


Opportunity

Standardize and/or reduce compensation and expense reimbursement rates within board classifications.

Estimated Savings

Requires more detailed analysis to estimate $.


Compensation rates are wide ranging and there are disparities among boards as to which members are authorized to receive compensation.


Acknowledgements ―――――――――――-

• Secretary of State’s Office

• Department of Professional and Financial Regulations Office of Licensing and Registration

• 261 Individual Boards Surveyed

• State agencies with Ad Hoc boards


Questions?

Documents

State Boards, Committees, Commissions and Councils a report by the Office of Program Evaluation & Government Accountability FINAL REPORT February 2008