Possible Reductions in State Boards and Commissions?
Article Date: Thursday, June 24, 2010
Written By: Reed Fountain
On Jan. 12, 2009 Executive Order No. 5 was issued by Governor Beverly Perdue. That Order created a Budget Reform and Accountability Commission (“BRAC”). BRAC is tasked with developing a review of the State’s budget, identifying inefficiencies and developing proposed solutions which may include proposed cuts and consolidation. Per Section 3 of Executive Order 5, the specific duties of the Commission are as follows:
“The Commission shall advise the Governor on statewide goals and indicators, tax policy, measures that improve efficiencies, cost-savings, and effectiveness of program function and delivery of services, and other matters related to government performance and efficiency as determined by the Governor.”
The Members of the Commission are to include individuals with backgrounds and experience in industry, academia and government. To date the Commission has met on five separate occasions. It has focused on perceived inefficiencies in information technology procurement, reforms to the ABC Commission, and reforms to the Department of Health and Human Services. In the area of information technology (“IT”) BRAC has proposed the creation of a centralized authority, a State Chief Information Officer, with control over IT spending and personnel across state agencies. Such a consolidation would likely have significant impacts upon issues such as freedom of information requests and electronic discovery. However, there is another area which may impact the practice of Administrative Law more dramatically.
The Governor’s prepared budget states in Section 6.2(a):
“At the direction of the Governor, the Governor’s Budget Reform Accountability Commission (BRAC), with assistance from the Office of State Budget and Management, is currently developing a proposed reorganization that would reconfigure or eliminate selected State agencies to achieve greater efficiency and improve accountability. The Governor shall review the proposed plan and make recommendations in the form of executive orders to the General Assembly for consideration at the 2011 legislative session as provided by Article III, Sec. 5(10) of the Constitution.”
According to press accounts WRAL News and The Wilmington Star released on April 25, 2010, the Governor indicated that she hoped to have a reorganization plan to present to lawmakers in a matter of weeks that would list 100 State commissions and boards that should be eliminated. According to the same press releases, there are approximately 400 boards and commissions to which the Governor appoints some or all of the members.
Since the press reports of April 25, 2010, there has been little mention of any proposed streamlining or reductions, and certainly no publication of a list of boards or commissions targeted for proposed elimination or merger. Nevertheless, as the legislative session and budget talks continue, this is a developing area of which practitioners may wish to remain apprised.
Practitioners may also be interested to know that consideration of ways to consolidate or eliminate boards and commission has been done previously in North Carolina and in other states.
A 618 page report was prepared in 1984 by Ran Coble as Executive Director of the Nonpartisan North Carolina Center for Public Policy Research which likewise ordered the abolition or merger of 98 boards. In 1987, based in part upon those recommendations, 78 boards or commissions were abolished.
Efforts in other states date back at least to 1915 when Connecticut established a nine member commission to investigate and report as to possible reorganization and consolidation of both state and county boards and commissions.
The State of Washington eliminated or consolidated the functions of 45 boards and commissions as of June 30, 2010 including, among others, the Oil Spill Advisory Council and the Mortgage Brokers Commission. Additional information can be found at:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills /Session%20Law%202010/2617-S2.SL.pdf
Similar efforts to analyze possible ways to consolidate services or eliminate boards or commissions have occurred or are underway in Connecticut, Maine, West Virginia, Michigan, New York, Oklahoma, Utah, and Iowa.
Perhaps the most sweeping consolidation proposals came from the State of California in 2005 when Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger submitted a reorganization plan that called for the elimination of 88 boards and commissions. Those proposals were the result of the efforts of the California Performance Review which evaluated 339 boards and proposed the elimination of 117 boards, thereby eliminating 1,153 appointees. Areas targeted for elimination included the Architects Board, Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, Contractors State Licensing Board, and the Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology Board. Those boards, along with others, were to be consolidated into a new Department of Commerce that would have a Division of Commercial Licensing. The California Performance Review can be found online at
http://cpr.ca.gov .
The elimination of boards which have outlived their purpose and any associated waste of funds is laudable. As to boards and commissions that serve an ongoing purpose, the analysis may be more complex. Will actual savings and efficiencies be gained by consolidating such boards? It can be argued the consolidation of diverse boards and commissions with specialized areas of knowledge will simply create a larger bureaucracy that is less responsive to the needs of the public and which lacks the expertise in its staffing and board members to effectively protect the public’s interests. Whatever your thoughts on the topic, this will be an area to monitor as the 2010 short session of the General Assembly concluded and the 2011 long session of the General Assembly approaches.
Reed Fountain is a partner in Young Moore & Henderson, is the counsel to a number of occupational and professional licensing boards, and practices administrative law and civil litigation.
Views and opinions expressed in articles published herein are the authors' only and are not to be attributed to this newsletter, the section, or the NCBA unless expressly stated. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of all citations and quotations.