Research Memo 8/22/ RM 040R. Date: August 22, Alex N. Kean, Associate Research Analyst. Zero-Based Budgeting Practices

Transcription

1 8/22/2007 Research Memo 07 RM 040R Date: August 22, 2007 Author: Re: Alex N. Kean, Associate Research Analyst Zero-Based Budgeting Practices QUESTIONS: 1. Identify states that are subject to zero-based budgeting. (a) Identify successes and failures of zero-based budgeting. ANSWERS: 1. According to NCSL, as of June 2006, no states exclusively use a zero-based budgeting 1 (ZBB) approach to prepare a budget. (See Attachment A.) Although no states use ZBB as the exclusive approach to building a budget, multiple states require departments to use ZBB principles to examine and prioritize their budget. In fact, according to NCSL, at least seven states have modified ZBB requirements including the border states of Colorado and Nebraska. Five sample states' ZBB requirements and actions are discussed below: Colorado, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and Ohio. For example, Colorado Revised Statues Annotated (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann.) (2006) provides for the Colorado Joint Budget Committee to implement "an ongoing review procedure of existing programs based on zero-based budgeting, as a part of its existing review of executive, judicial, and legislative budget requests..." However, according to Office of State Planning and Budgeting (OSPB) staff the last review was done in Although not required, the Colorado Division of Wildlife continues to request appropriations using ZBB, according to Colorado Budget staff. (See Attachment B.) Revised Statutes of Nebraska (Neb. Rev. Stat.) grants the Budget Division of the Department of Administration the duty of preparing the executive budget. The current system allows agencies to build upon their historical baseline of expenditures instead of preparing the request from zero; however, it does provide the administrator the power to request "any additional information deemed appropriate." According to the Nebraska Department of Administration Budget Division staff, the Department is considering implementing a new system more in-line with ZBB principles starting with the biennium. (See Attachment C.) Since 2001, Wisconsin has used a variation of ZBB. According to the Wisconsin Legislative Council every state agency, including the Legislature and the Courts, is required to periodically once every third biennium - submit a base budget review report. The report must include a description of each programmatic activity of 1 Zero-Based Budgeting as defined by the National Association of State Budget Officers in 1979: "... a method which formally considers reduced levels of expenditure rather than merely increases above current expenditure levels. The distinctive purpose of ZBB is to determine whether an activity warrants continuation at its current level or at a different level, or should be terminated. The ZBB format provides for the submission of budget requests of alternative funding levels, and for the priority ranking of activities in successively increasing levels of funding, starting from a level significantly below the current level." For the purposes of this memo LSO has applied the same definition. WYOMING LEGISLATIVE SERVICE OFFICE 213 State Capitol Cheyenne, Wyoming TELEPHONE (307) FAX (307) lso@state.wy.us WEBSITE

2 PAGE 2 OF 3 the agency and provide for each activity an accounting, by fund source, of expenditures for the prior three fiscal years and for the last two quarters of each of the prior three fiscal years. The State of Oklahoma enacted legislation in 2003 requiring all governmental entities to report to the Director of State Finance and the Chair and Vice Chair of the Legislative Oversight Committee on State Budget Performance (established under Okla. Stat. tit (2007) an itemized request for the amount of funding needed for the next fiscal year. The information is reported on official forms which clearly designate the information needed resulting in uniform reports. The statute includes, but is not limited to, ten pieces of required information. The first of the ten required pieces of information is a budget analysis of existing and proposed programs utilizing "zero-based budgeting techniques." Another piece of required information is a description of the groups of people served by each program in the agency as well as a ranking of these programs by priority. Actual program expenditures for the current fiscal year and prior fiscal years and the number of personnel required to accomplish each program are also required. (Okla. Stat. tit (2007)) (See Attachment D.) The most recent state to approve modified ZBB requirements is Ohio. The Ohio legislation, enacted in June of 2006, requires agencies to clearly prioritize all programs and explain what funding will support within a particular program or activity. Additionally, the Ohio Office of Budget and Management requires each agency to discuss the impact of eliminating each program. Agencies are asked to describe, at a program level, what the State is buying with taxpayer resources. However, it should be noted that at the time of writing this memo no budgets have been approved using these requirements. 1(a). According to NCSL research, several states reported unsatisfactory results or limited success when using ZBB while others simply report mixed results. One state, Rhode Island, reported generally favorable results with ZBB. NCSL has collected experiences from several states that have implemented ZBB. In addition to the specific experiences provided below, a number of states have reported that their executive branch agencies had difficulties with zero-base budgeting. NCSL's summary states: Idaho used zero-base budgeting for approximately 75 percent of the budgets, with unsatisfactory results. State agencies had an inadequate understanding of the process and did not competently comply with the zero-base budgeting requirements, probably due to a lack of sufficient time for training in technical assistance on the part of the central budget staff. However, Idaho reported that 15 percent of the results were useful, primarily because of the internal priority setting at the program level, even though there was no substantial difference in the result in budget amount for the program. In 10 percent of the cases, zerobase review resulted in substantial and significantly different approaches to the operation of a program and reduced the required budget. New Jersey reported that its experience with zero-base budgeting was mixed. It encountered problems in the following areas: agency and staff resistance to the system, lack of understanding of the basic concepts, and quality of some of the information submitted. On the positive side, the process aided decision makers in evaluating competing demands. New Mexico abandoned zero-base budgeting. It first attempted the "start from scratch" approach on 10 agencies in They reported a number of lessons learned: It was not reasonable to expect an agency to routinely furnish information that might result in a lower appropriation, no matter what the justification might be. That as long as the state's fiscal outlook was optimistic, there was little impetus to cut budgets or eliminate marginal programs. A budgeting system designed to locate duplication and reduce budgets is out of phase in a period of increasing revenues. The best committee analyses by the Legislature were often of agencies making the least effort in their budget presentation. Agencies often failed to address the critical issues of the WYOMING LEGISLATIVE SERVICE OFFICE 213 State Capitol Cheyenne, Wyoming TELEPHONE (307) FAX (307) lso@state.wy.us WEBSITE

3 PAGE 3 OF 3 program, so the legislative finance committee and staff attempted to define and research the issues. An independent research staff is essential. Improvements to the New Mexico state government occasioned by zero-base budgeting were neither as great as originally anticipated nor as minimal as detractors claimed. The concept that a previous year's funding level does not in itself justify future funding was not totally accepted. And several years of accelerating increases in tax revenues did not encourage critical analysis of current spending levels. Rhode Island reported a generally favorable result from its efforts at zero-base budgeting, which was at least partially responsible for: the elimination of 1,300 positions from the state roster; maintaining a reduced unemployment level for 18 months; and a shifting of priorities within existing resources. In addition to these state specific experiences, NCSL has created a list of more general lessons learned from past ZBB experiences. They include: Agency preparation of two budget documents (one for the executive and one for the Legislature) should be avoided if possible. The part-time nature of most legislatures as well as turnover in finance committees can frustrate efforts at educating lawmakers in the need for budget reform. Even the most conscientious members of legislative committees have little time to understand the subtleties of a new budgeting system under the press of business. Competent budget presentation raises more issues than are answered. It is not reasonable to expect a set of forms to enable an agency to analyze itself to the satisfaction of a critical analyst. Significant time must be reserved for independent analysis. Zero-base budgeting will not deter agencies from including unjustified cost increases in decision package costing. The Legislature still has to scrutinize these decision packages in order to determine cost effectiveness. Historic cost and performance data are seldom available by the decision unit. The idea of a reduced level of funding (in New Mexico the 70 percent level) for the initial funding level is threatening to agency personnel. Agencies may attempt to manipulate priority rankings by ranking popular items lower than items that otherwise would have little chance of funding. This necessitates the alteration of priorities during legislative budget review and leads to agency complaints that their priorities are ignored. Budget preparation time needs to be substantially lengthened during the implementation of a new system. Legislators and legislative staff may have to spend many more hours than they have done in the past. Agencies operating on several sources of earmarked funds, usually federal grants, find it difficult to rank program priorities. Federal grants requiring little or no state participation are difficult to refuse, not matter what their purpose or justification. Zero-base budgeting makes the decision process more explicit and open to scrutiny. Some agencies see this openness as a threat to the manager's flexibility; others view it as a managerial tool. If you need anything further, please contact LSO Research at WYOMING LEGISLATIVE SERVICE OFFICE 213 State Capitol Cheyenne, Wyoming TELEPHONE (307) FAX (307) lso@state.wy.us WEBSITE

4 Predominant Budget Approach State or other Jurisdiction Traditional/ Incremental Performance- Based Program- Based Zero- Based Combination Alabama x Alaska x Arizona * Arkansas x California x* Colorado x* Connecticut x* Delaware x* Florida x* Georgia x Hawaii x Idaho x Illinois x* Indiana x* Iowa x* Kansas x* Kentucky x Louisiana --- x* Maine x* Maryland x* Massachusetts x* Michigan --- x* Minnesota x*

5 Mississippi x Missouri x Montana x Nebraska x* Nevada x* New Hampshire x New Jersey x* New Mexico x New York x North Carolina x* North Dakota x Ohio x* Oklahoma x* Oregon x* Pennsylvania x Rhode Island x South Carolina x* South Dakota x Tennessee x* Texas --- x Utah x Vermont x* Virginia x* Washington x West Virginia x* Wisconsin x

6 Wyoming x American Samoa (N/R) District of Columbia (N/R) Guam x Northern Mariana Islands x* --- Puerto Rico x U.S. Virgin Islands (N/R) Total: States Total: States and Territories Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, December Key: --- = Not applicable N/R = No response *Notes: Arizona--The state is required to convert all agencies to a program-based budget by FY California--Generally, traditional budgeting is used with program-based presentations, including allocations of funding and personnel by program area. Colorado--The General Assembly can require departments to submit zero-based budget requests. The General Assembly also has entered into performance-based memoranda of understanding with certain departments or agencies. Connecticut--Although the budget is program-based and program measures are displayed in both the governor's document and the Legislative Budget Report, much of the work on the budget is more traditional (major object, line item) than program-based. Delaware--Starts with a zero-based budget, but combines this with performance and traditional approaches. Florida--The state has enacted requirements for performance-based budgeting that are being phased-in. Current practice is more traditional. Illinois--The budget is traditional with some aspects of program-based. Indiana--Budget instructions require some productivity data. Iowa--The budget is a combination as required by code. Each budget is modified zero-based (75 percent) completed for each program level. Performance measures are to be included at each level. Kansas--Although still largely based on traditional methods, performance measures are requested of agencies and reviewed by the governor and Legislature in formulating the budget. Louisiana--Act 1465 of 1997 mandates performance budgeting. Maine--Current statutory language calls for state government to fully implement performance budgeting for the biennium. Maryland--The budget is organized into programs. Some attention is paid to performance measures, with a trend toward increased reliance on them. Massachusetts--The legislative budget incorporates program-based budgeting and traditional budgetary analysis methods. A comprehensive overview of each agency's count of full-time employees, programs and their spending levels, and administrative spending is prepared by the governor's Budget Bureau and the House and Senate Ways and Means Committee budget staff. Michigan--The budget is performance-based, although appropriation bills contain objects of expenditure in some instances.

7 Minnesota--The budget is mostly traditional, but partly program-based. The state is attempting to bring performance measures into consideration. Nebraska--The appropriation structure is program-based. Requests are built in a traditional and modified zero-based structure. Nevada--The traditional structure is moving toward a performance-based structure. New Jersey--The state has a program-based budget, but it is constructed and displayed by department. Although there are several summary pages showing program allocations across organizational lines, most of the budget is organizationally organized. Also, the budget still displays allocation by spending object (e.g., salaries, materials and supplies, etc.) as well as by program. North Carolina--In 1997, the governor submitted a performance-based budget that the General Assembly did not adopt. Oklahoma--The state uses incremental budgeting. However, during the last several years the state has begun to move toward program-based budgeting, with mixed results. Ohio---The budget and management office uses a modified zero-base budgeting approach. The legislature uses line items based on program series in the executive budget proposal. Oregon--Budgeting is predominantly traditional, but also has elements of performance-based (application of benchmarks), program-based (subagency level or program identification) and zerobased (includes discussion of 10 percent to 20 percent reduction packages). South Carolina--The House Ways and Means Committee is placing greater emphasis on agency accountability reports for FY in developing budget recommendations for FY Tennessee --Defined by statute, budgeting is zero-based. However, the state practices a continuation of required programs plus essential improvements. Vermont--A combination of traditional and performance-based budgeting is used. Virginia--Program budgets organize the Appropriation Act, and performance measures are coming into use as a way to examine agency activities. Most executive budgets, however, begin with some calculation of a base, i.e., the approximate amounts required to continue current activities and caseloads. West Virginia--The starting point in considering the request for the next fiscal year is the current level of funding and the additional money necessary to maintain the current level after factoring in inflation, etc. Performance measures are agency or department matters, and programs are ranked within agencies or departments in order of importance. There is little discussion in legislative hearings about these matters. The emphasis is on current levels and whether funds are available to enhance programs or add projects or programs. Northern Mariana Islands --Traditional budgeting is used when information on zero-based budgeting is not submitted by the departments.

8 Document 1 of 1 Source: Colorado Statutes/TITLE 2 LEGISLATIVE/LEGISLATIVE SERVICES/ARTICLE 3 LEGISLATIVE SERVICES/PART 2 JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE/ Implementation of a zero-base budgeting program Implementation of a zero-base budgeting program. (1) It is the intent of the general assembly that the joint budget committee, in cooperation with the legislative audit committee, implement an ongoing review procedure of existing programs based on zero-base budgeting, as a part of its existing review of executive, judicial, and legislative budget requests, so as to provide a means by which the continuation of existing programs may be justified, by which state agencies and institutions may establish priorities for their activities in implementing such programs, and by which funding of existing programs at a current, increased, or lower level is justified by the benefits to be realized or by the need for increased or reduced services by a particular level of funding. (2) Upon request of the joint budget committee, commencing with budget requests for the fiscal year, state agencies and institutions shall present to the joint budget committee a zero-base budgeting analysis of existing and proposed programs in conformance with the provisions of subsection (3) of this section. Such an analysis shall be included as a part of the budget request of the state agency or institution. (3) A zero-base budgeting analysis required by subsection (2) of this section shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (a) A statement listing any other state, federal, or local agencies which administer a similar or cooperating program and outlining the interaction among such agencies; (b) A statement of the statutory authority for and the history and quantified objectives of the program; (b.5) A quantification of the need for the program; (c) A description of the activities which are intended to accomplish each objective; (d) Indicators of quantified measures of effectiveness and efficiency of performance of these activities; (e) A ranking of these activities by priority; (f) The level of effort required to accomplish each activity in terms of funds and personnel; and (g) A statement detailing what could be accomplished by the funding of the activity at any levels specified by the joint budget committee and ranking priorities in increments as determined by the joint budget committee. (4) The joint budget committee shall hold meetings with representatives of state agencies and institutions and shall prepare forms and establish procedures to assist such agencies and institutions in complying with the provisions of this section.

9 (5) The director of the office of state planning and budgeting shall assist state agencies and institutions in complying with the provisions of this section. In addition, he shall cooperate fully with and provide any information requested to the joint budget committee to assist it in administering the provisions of this section. Source: L. 77: Entire section added, p. 257, 1, effective June 19. L. 79: (2), (3)(b), (3)(d), and (3)(g) amended and (3)(b.5) added, p. 297, 1, effective July 3. L. 83: (5) amended, p. 969, 18, effective July 1, by The Committee on Legal Services for the State of Colorado and Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. Use of this product is subject to the restrictions and terms and conditions of the Matthew Bender Master Agreement.

10 Section Budget division; powers; duties. The budget division shall prepare the executive budget in accordance with the wishes and policies of the Governor. The budget division shall have the following duties, powers, and responsibilities: (1) Shall prescribe the forms and procedures to be employed by all departments and agencies of the state in compiling and submitting their individual budget requests and shall set up a budget calendar which shall provide for (a) the date, not later than July 15 of each even-numbered year, for distribution of instructions, (b) the date by which time requests for appropriations by each agency shall be submitted, and (c) the period during which such public hearings as the Governor may elect shall be held for each department and agency. The budget request shall be submitted each even-numbered year no later than the date provided in section , shall include the intended receipts and expenditures by programs, subprograms, and activities and such additional information as the administrator may deem appropriate for each fiscal year, shall be made upon a biennial basis, and shall include actual receipts and actual expenditures for each fiscal year of the most recently completed biennium and the first year of the current biennium and estimates for the second year of the current biennium and each year of the next ensuing biennium; (2) Shall work with each governmental department and agency in developing performance standards for each program, subprogram, and activity to measure and evaluate present as well as projected levels of expenditures; (3) Shall, following passage of legislative appropriations, be responsible for the administration of the approved budget through budgetary allotments; (4) Shall be responsible for a monthly budgetary report for each department and agency showing comparisons between actual expenditures and allotments which report shall be subject to review by the director and budget administrator; and (5) Shall be responsible for the authorization of employee positions. Such authorizations shall be based on the following: (a) A requirement that a sufficient budget program appropriation and salary limitation exist to fully fund all authorized positions; (b) A requirement that permanent full-time positions which have been vacant for ninety days or more be reviewed and reauthorized prior to being filled. If requested by the budget division, the personnel division of the Department of Administrative Services shall review such vacant position to determine the proper classification for the position; (c) A requirement that authorized positions accurately reflect legislative intent contained in legislative appropriation and intent bills; and (d) Other relevant criteria as determined by the budget administrator. Source: Laws 1965, c. 538, 13, p Laws 1967, c. 594, 1, p Laws 1969, c. 804, 7, p Laws 1981, LB 381, 24 Laws 1986, LB 258, 37 Laws 1992, Third Spec. Sess., LB 14, 9 Laws 1997, LB 269, 65

11 Laws 2002, Second Spec. Sess., LB 12, 3 Laws 2003, LB 8, 2 ~Revised Statutes Cumulative Supplement, 2006

12 Estimate of funds needed. A. Except as provided for in subsection B of this section, on the first day of October preceding each regular session of the Legislature, each of the several state departments, bureaus, divisions, officers, commissions, and institutions, including those created or established pursuant to constitutional provisions, and other spending agencies shall report to the Director of State Finance and the Chair and Vice Chair of the Legislative Oversight Committee on State Budget Performance, on official forms furnished for such purpose an itemized request showing the amount needed for the ensuing fiscal year beginning with the first day of July. The official forms which must be used in making these reports shall be approved and furnished by the Director of State Finance and the Legislative Oversight Committee on State Budget Performance, shall be uniform, and shall clearly designate the kind of information to be given on the reports. Information provided shall include, but not be limited to: 1. A budget analysis of existing and proposed programs utilizing zero-based budgeting techniques. Such analysis shall be included as a part of the estimate of funds needed; 2. A statement listing any other state, federal or local agencies which administer a similar or cooperating program and an outline of the interaction among such agencies; 3. A statement of the statutory authority for the missions and quantified objectives of each program; 4. A description of the groups of people served by each program in the agency; 5. A quantification of the need for the program; 6. A description of the tactics which are intended to accomplish each objective; 7. A list of quantifiable program outcomes which measure the efficiency and effectiveness of each program; 8. A ranking of these programs by priority; 9. Actual program expenditures for the current fiscal year and prior fiscal years and the number of personnel required to accomplish each program; and 10. Revenues expected to be generated by each program, if any. Spending agencies shall make an itemized estimate of needs and request for funds for the ensuing fiscal year and an estimate of the revenues from all sources to be received by the agency during the ensuing fiscal year. The Director of State Finance shall submit to the Governor and the Legislative Oversight Committee on State Budget Performance no later than the fifth day of October a complete list of all spending agencies which fail to submit budgets by October 1, pursuant to the provisions of this section. B. 1. The reports required by this section shall include an itemized listing of outstanding capital lease debt and estimated capital lease needs for the ensuing fiscal year, and shall be provided on official forms furnished by the Director of State Finance for this purpose. 2. For the purposes of this section "capital lease" means a lease-purchase agreement which provides an option for the State of Oklahoma or its agencies to purchase property, including personal and real property, which is the subject thereof and/or a lease agreement that provides an option for the State of Oklahoma or its agencies to lease such property, which is the subject thereof, at a nominal annual amount, after a period in which leased property is rented at fair market value. Added by Laws 1947, p. 381, 29, emerg. eff. Feb. 25, Amended by Laws 1981, c. 255, 4; Laws 1983, c. 334, 6, emerg. eff. June 30, 1983; Laws 1985, c. 319, 16, operative Oct. 1, 1985; Laws 1986, c. 105, 3, emerg. eff. April 5, 1986; Laws 1987, c. 203, 112, operative July 1, 1987; Laws 1989, c. 300, 15, operative July 1, 1989; Laws 1994, c. 279, 8, eff. July 1, 1994; Laws 2003, c. 301, 1, eff. July 1, 2003.

13 Utilization of information collected by Office of State Finance Evaluation reports by House appropriations and budget and Senate appropriations committees. A. The Appropriations and Budget Committee of the Oklahoma House of Representatives and the Appropriations Committee of the State Senate shall: 1. Utilize information collected by the Office of State Finance pursuant to Section of Title 62 of the Oklahoma Statutes and any reports issued by the Legislative Oversight Committee on State Budget Performance to evaluate management programs, operations and fiscal needs of state agencies, boards, commissions, departments, divisions, offices, bureaus, institutions and other spending agencies, including those created or established pursuant to constitutional provisions; and 2. File an evaluation report no later than March 1 of each fiscal year with the Chief Clerk of the Oklahoma House of Representatives and the Clerk of the State Senate which shall include, but not be limited to, the following information: a. a review of the agency s programs, performance and management, b. whether the agency has demonstrated a public need for the services and programs justifying the agency s continued existence, and c. whether the agency is the most appropriate provider of the programs and services furnished by the agency. B. The Appropriations and Budget Committee of the Oklahoma House of Representatives and the Appropriations Committee of the State Senate shall utilize information contained in the evaluation report in determining final appropriations for state agencies and in any future adjustments in funding levels. C. No action shall be taken on a measure making an appropriation unless the evaluation report described by paragraph 2 of subsection A of this section with respect to the entity to which the appropriation is made has first been filed with the applicable clerk. Added by Laws 2003, c. 301, 2, eff. July 1, Legislative Oversight Committee on State Budget Performance. A. There is hereby established the Legislative Oversight Committee on State Budget Performance. The purposes of this committee shall include oversight of the implementation of a system of program performance-based budgeting for implementation by state agencies. B. The Committee's duties shall also include: 1. Development of agency budget request forms and instructions in conjunction with the Office of State Finance; 2. Directing studies to aid in the development of legislative and procedural changes to further improve the budgetary, financial, accounting, reporting, personnel, and purchasing processes and systems of the state; 3. Direction of program evaluation and management studies; 4. Oversight and reporting on executive branch compliance with the legislative intent of appropriation measures. Such oversight and reporting duties may include: a. agency reorganization actions, b. executive orders calling for reduction of full-time-equivalents or hiring freezes, and c. transfer of funds by the executive branch; 5. The development of revenue and expenditure estimates and analyses; 6. Study of the management, operations, programs and fiscal needs of the agencies and institutions of Oklahoma state government pursuant to the Oklahoma Program Performance Budgeting and Accountability Act;

14 7. Review of the executive budget, agency strategic plans and the estimate of needs of each state agency and institution. Reports may be issued by the Committee as it deems appropriate; and 8. Implementation of an ongoing evaluation review procedure of existing programs based on zero-base budgeting techniques pursuant to the Oklahoma Program Performance Budgeting and Accountability Act. The committee in cooperation with the Office of State Finance shall establish a schedule to review strategic plans and existing programs for each agency a minimum of once every four (4) years. The committee shall issue an evaluation report for each agency once every four (4) years which will include but not be limited to the following information: a. a review of the agency s programs, performance and management, b. whether the agency has demonstrated that there is a need for the services and programs which justifies the agency s continued existence, c. whether the agency is the most appropriate provider of the programs and services furnished by the agency. C. Any reference in the Oklahoma Statutes to the Joint Legislative Committee on Budget and Program Oversight shall be a reference to the Legislative Oversight Committee on State Budget Performance. D. The Committee shall be composed of three members appointed by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, three members appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, two members by the minority leader of the Senate and two members appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives. The Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee shall rotate every two (2) years between the Senate and the House of Representatives beginning with a Senate member serving as Chair in The Committee shall meet at least four (4) times per year and at other times as called by the Chair. The Legislative Oversight Committee on State Budget Performance shall function as a committee of the Legislature when the Legislature is in session and is not in session. Each member of the Committee shall serve until a successor is appointed. E. The Committee shall be staffed jointly by the staff of the fiscal divisions of the Senate and the House of Representatives. F. The Committee may make use of all available teleconferencing technology to facilitate meetings of the Committee when the Legislature is not in session. The Committee shall take any appropriate action to make such teleconferenced meetings comply with the provisions of the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, Section 301 et seq. of Title 25 of the Oklahoma Statutes. G. The Committee shall periodically meet in different geographical regions of the state to enhance the Committee's understanding of local conditions and to help educate the public as to the fiscal condition of the state. Added by Laws 1994, c. 279, 4, emerg. eff. May 26, Amended by Laws 1995, c. 292, 4, eff. July 1, 1995; Laws 1999, c. 358, 10, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 2003, c. 301, 3, eff. July 1, 2003.