Committee considers two-year pilot for legislative accountability work under H.67

The Government Operations & Military Affairs committee heard testimony on H.67 on Feb. 26 as lawmakers considered how best to build legislative accountability capacity. Catherine Ben of the Joint Fiscal Office recommended a limited pilot—using established JFO review templates and the existing Joint Fiscal Committee—rather than implementing the full program contemplated in the current draft of the bill.

Ben told the committee the JFO’s earlier model of hiring a short-term consultant to analyze IT projects offers a practical template: start with a single, manageable study, use a repeatable eight-question review format, and test the structure for two years. She estimated the cost of a single limited-service position or consultant at about $150,000 a year including benefits, and said a two-year trial would total roughly $300,000. Ben also read a note from Brynn Hare of Legislative Council saying Legislative Counsel could provide administrative and legal drafting support but does not have the capacity to perform policy performance analysis.

The administration signaled support for the goals of H.67 while urging clearer definitions of responsibility. "Initiatives like this work best when there's really clearly defined roles for what each party is doing," said Nick Kramer, chief operating officer for the Agency of Administration, who cautioned about overlap with the auditor's office and the potential for duplicative work. Kramer also raised an operational concern about a $2,000 per-diem appropriation in the draft, calling it administratively inefficient and suggesting those costs be handled through JFO’s general appropriation if the office is to staff the work.

Katie Bockholt, director of performance improvement in the Agency of Administration, recommended keeping the pilot scope small and prioritizing depth over breadth. She suggested clarifying whether meeting limits in the draft apply per year or for the life of the committee and urged that the committee take a regular role in reviewing statewide performance indicators and annual outcomes reporting. She also pointed the committee to the state’s existing impact assessment tool, used in the budget process, as a resource for program evaluation.

Committee discussion did not produce a formal motion or vote. Members and witnesses broadly endorsed testing the approach on a limited basis, but they left several questions unresolved: where the pilot’s funding would come from, whether the Joint Fiscal Committee or JFO should be the formal host, and how to draw clear "swim lanes" among the legislature, the executive branch, and the auditor’s office.

The committee paused for a brief recess and then moved on to the next agenda item: continuation of a regional attorney governance study committee. No formal action on H.67 was recorded at this session.