This topic contains 1 reply, has 2 voices, and was last updated by Sharon Laffs 11 years, 5 months ago.
-
Statutorily refocus mission of Sunset Commission
Started by Greg Abbott
Statutorily refocus the mission of the Sunset Commission on the abolition, consolidation, and cost reduction of state agencies.
In 1976, when the Sunset Commission was first proposed, the Dallas Times Herald speculated that the Sunset process would “tear the hide off the bureaucracy, cut into its guts and see if surgery is indicated… and then, if necessary, restructure governmental agencies and programs—or, if the bodily organs are beyond use, let them die.” That clearly has not occurred.
A statutory mission or purpose statement should be added to Chapter 325 of the Government Code narrowing and refocusing the work of the Sunset Commission. Sample language could read:
Sec. 325.0011. MISSION & PURPOSE. The purpose of the Sunset Advisory Commission is to review state agencies in an effort to evaluate the justification for the agency’s existence. The commission’s primary objective is to consolidate agencies, reduce costs, or abolish agencies.
It is also necessary to amend Government Code sections 325.010, 325.011, 325.012 to better reflect this mission and purpose statement. Current criteria for review should focus on improving agency operations. While perhaps a laudable goal, the primary objective of the Sunset Advisory Commission and any review it conducts should be abolition, or consolidation, of a state agency resulting in an overall state appropriations reduction.
You will need to login to join the discussion.1RepliesSharon Laffs, 11 years ago
I agree the focus needs to be sharpened in order to surgically remove the systems which are weak and ineffective. My concern, however, is that care must be taken not to entrench, too many areas under a too large system that has too many tentacles to have the oversight needed to keep it in check. For one example, DHHS has so many fingers in such a wide variety of areas, that when you try to research or ask questions, it is too easy to keep getting passed off to another source. Eventually, even if your concern was valid, a person gives up without obtaining the answers to valid questions. One claims there is no policy regarding electronic cigarettes, for example, then the next says this is not their policy either. However, clearly it is someone’s policy, as a ban is in place, yet no legal basis for the ban has yet been found nor claimed. So how then does a private citizen demand answers from TX DADs, if the local State Supported Living Center refuses to discuss it? This is confusing and difficult for the average citizen to navigate!
