Since the 2011 legislative session, the number of those calling for improvement to the state budget process has grown. According to reports by The Oklahoman, House Speaker Kris Steele has said, “There is room for improvement as far as the budget process is concerned,” and Senate President Pro Tem Brian Bingman has said, “We can always be more open in the process. … We’re certainly open to suggestions and always looking at better ways to ... do business.” According to reports by the Tulsa World, Senate Appropriations Chairman Clark Jolley has said he has concerns about how to make legislative spending bills more specific. Regarding the current process, Sen. Jolley said, “I actually had this conversation with our fiscal staff the other day. ... How are we going to do this stuff in the future because I don’t like how we are doing it currently. … I don’t think we’re putting nearly enough legislative direction as to where these monies will be spent.” An improved budget process will benefit taxpayers and recipients of state services by allowing lawmakers more time to focus on core areas of government, thus utilizing resources in a more effective and efficient way. An improved and transparent budget process will afford the state the best opportunity to be prepared for cuts in federal spending and better manage the state’s use of federal grants.

The problems with the budget process are not new and existed before current lawmakers. Recent legislative reforms and the potential for further reforms are a result of leadership by current lawmakers. We are grateful to see current leaders are willing to take on these very difficult problems that have been ignored in years past.

Below are 10 steps for improving the state budget process and see our full memo on improving the state budget process here.

1. Statutorily prohibit budget/spending bills in the last five days of session, just like the constitutional prohibition against passage of revenue-raising measures.

2. Statutorily require all budget/spending bills to be available for public review for five legislative days before passage of a budget bill.

3. Statutorily require all budget/spending bills to have a public hearing with recorded votes for approval in the subcommittee and committee with jurisdiction over that particular spending area.

4. Lawmakers should make the commitment to vote on budget and spending bills individually (by agency).

5. Lawmakers should amend statutes to require that any funds specifically directed (in a lump sum without a clear statement for reimbursement of direct and performance-measured services to the state) toward any non-state entity be specifically and plainly written or “earmarked” in the bill providing the funding. Bills containing spending provisions should also include an intent statement, clearly stating that the (or a) purpose of a bill is to provide funding for all intended recipients of the funding.

6. Lawmakers should create an oversight committee specifically to review and make recommendation for all state programs utilizing federal funds.

7. Lawmakers should begin work on the budget at the beginning of session and pass funding bills for the core functions of government before non-core functions, and weeks prior to the end of session.

8. Lawmakers should focus on core functions, reducing non-core efforts and limiting time spent on non-core issues.

9. Lawmakers should remove unproductive deadlines.

10. Better coordination and reporting of financial data between the House fiscal staff, the Senate fiscal staff and executive budget staff.

An improved budget process will benefit taxpayers and recipients of state services by allowing lawmakers more time to focus on core areas of government, thus utilizing resources in a more effective and efficient way. An improved and transparent budget process will also afford the state the best opportunity to be prepared for cuts in federal spending and better manage the state’s use of federal grants. If these and other reforms are adopted, we will see a significantly improved and transparent legislative budget process.

Jonathan Small is a certified public accountant and OCPA fiscal policy director. He has more than nine years’ experience in state-government-related assignments. He has served as a budget analyst for the Oklahoma Office of State Finance, a fiscal analyst for the Oklahoma House of Representatives, a research analyst for the Oklahoma House of Representatives and the director of government affairs for the Oklahoma Insurance Department. During these assignments, he drafted and analyzed legislation, presented legislation and policy ideas to lawmakers, and participated in budget negotiations.