Funding of Constitutional Officers - Virginia Joint Legislative Audit ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Members ofthe Joint LegislativeAudit and Review Commission Chairman Senator John C. Buchanan Vice Chairman Delegate Ford C. Quillen Senator Hunter B. Andrews Delegate Robert B. Ball, Sr. Delegate Vincent F. Callahan, Jr. Senator Clive L. DuVa12d Delegate Thomas W. Moss, Jr. Delegate William Tayloe Murphy, Jr. Delegate Lewis W. Parker, Jr. Delegate Lacey E. Putney Delegate Alson H. Smith, Jr. Senator William A. Truban Senator Stanley C. Walker Mr. Walter J. Kucharski, Auditor of Public Accounts Director Philip A. Leone
Preface State funding for constitutional officers has dramatically increased in recent years, now amounting to one halfbillion dollars each biennium. Yet the budgeting and reimbursement process used by the Compensation Board has changed little over the past 50 years. Item 13 ofthe 1988 and 1989 Appropriations Acts directed the Joint Legislative Audit and Review CommiL.3ion (JLARC) to review the funding of constitutional officers. The purpose of the study was to propose a more systematic and equitable funding process for the General Assembly to consider. The first phase of the JLARC review involved developing staffing standards using statistical models. These models, which are discussed in previous reports in this series, are based on actual staffing levels for all the constitutional offices in the State. The standards developed can be used to objectively determine personnel costs. This final report presents the General Assembly with a number of different choices for designing a new, systematic approach for funding over 600 constitutional offices. Among the most important ofthe choices are the share ofcosts to be borne by the State and the local governments, the use of ability to pay for determining the shares for the local governments, and adoption ofa pre-payment system for distributingState funds to the constitutional officers with a required local match. These choices can be used by the General Assembly to develop a more logical framework for funding of constitutional officers that would promote greater equity and accountability. It would be the responsibility ofthe State Compensation Board to implement the specifics ofthe framework adopted by the General Assembly. The issues involved in funding the constitutional officers are complex and controversial, as illustrated by the written response of the Compensation Board included in Appendix F ofthis report. It will be necessary for the General Assembly to review the proposed funding process in more detail with the State Compensation Board, the constitutional officers, and the local governments. To begin that process of review, Senate Bill 248 was introduced in the 1990 Session of the General Assembly. This legislation, which provides a blueprint for the proposed funding process, can be the starting point for discussions of the staffrecommendations. I would like to express our appreciation for the cooperation and assistance extended to us in the course ofthe study by the local constitutional officers, the various constitutional officer associations, and the staffofthe State Compensation Board. May 30,1990 h'~~~ Philip A. Leone Director
Page 3: REPORT OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDIT AND
Page 8 and 9: e local governments' relative abili
Page 10 and 11: the constitutional offispecific eva
Page 12 and 13: current process, some changes in sy
Page 15: Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION 1
Page 18 and 19: ROLES OF THE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERN
Page 20 and 21: missioner of revenue, treasurer, an
Page 22 and 23: STUDY APPROACH JLARC staff develope
Page 24 and 25: differences in the ability of local
Page 26 and 27: cost responsibility for each catego
Page 28 and 29: Exhibit 1 Workload Factors Used in
Page 30 and 31: account for regional differences in
Page 32 and 33: Recommendation (3). The General Ass
Page 34 and 35: Recommendation (5). The General Ass
Page 36 and 37: cost re~;ponsJlbiJjty State should
Page 38 and 39: Exhibit 3, a "yes" has been placed
Page 40 and 41: For some other service categories,
Page 42 and 43: A variety of other revenue sources
Page 44 and 45: ------------- Exhibit5-------------
Page 46 and 47: greater or equal to 1.0 can raise m
Page 48 and 49: are divided evenly between the Stat
Page 50: a COJmnlOIllW€:a!t;h ft..,Uy,,, .
Page 53 and 54: The reimbursement cycle begins when
Page 55 and 56:
process occurs prior to the assessm
Page 57:
Appendixes ~ Appendix A: Study Mand
Page 60 and 61:
AppendixB Mathematical Formulas Use
Page 62 and 63:
Appendix B (Continued) Personnel Co
Page 64 and 65:
Appendix B (Continued) Revenue Capa
Page 66 and 67:
Appendix B (Continued) Personnel Co
Page 68 and 69:
Appendix: C Cost ResponsibilityAssi
Page 70 and 71:
Appendix C (Continued) COST RESPONS
Page 72 and 73:
Appendix C (Continued) COST RESPONS
Page 74:
AppendixD Local Revenue Capacity fo
Page 77 and 78:
Examples J.i"U.nClLlng 'O.J'U'..u''
Page 79 and 80:
State and Support for Sheriffs Offi
Page 82 and 83:
~ ~ State and Local Support for Com
Page 84 and 85:
Ou,a~ll;;; and for Local J:l,;xBI.m
Page 86 and 87:
State and Local Support for Sheriff
Page 88 and 89:
Local for Court Clerks: Example 2
Page 90 and 91:
•••••••••••
Page 92 and 93:
AppendixF Agency Response As partof
Page 94 and 95:
Introduction The Compensation Board
Page 96 and 97:
- DISAGREES that any stan rd should
Page 98 and 99:
RECOMMENDATION 1. The General Assem
Page 100 and 101:
determining judicial needs. As a re
Page 102 and 103:
In the budget process currently use
Page 104 and 105:
It is a common misconception that t
Page 106 and 107:
The development of state/local perc
Page 108 and 109:
The Compensation Board AGREES with
Page 110 and 111:
AppendixG JLARC StaffComments on th
Page 112 and 113:
officers could maintain monthly rec
Page 114 and 115:
expertise, level of automation, nat
Page 116 and 117:
such as is available in education f
Page 118 and 119:
etween workload indicators and the
Page 120 and 121:
government operations. This is expl
Page 122:
Recent JLARC Reports Organization o
show all

Funding of Constitutional Officers - Virginia Joint Legislative Audit ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?