NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used in any other situation.

The LFC is only preparing FIRs on bills referred to the Senate Finance Committee, the Senate Ways and Means Committee, the House Appropriations and Finance Committee and the House Taxation and Revenue Committee. The chief clerks are responsible for preparing and issuing all other bill analyses.

Only the most recent FIR version, excluding attachments, is available on the Intranet. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC office in Room 416 of the State Capitol Building.

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

Conflicts with SB 2 and HB 2

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Administrative Office of the District Attorney (AODA)

Public Defender Department (PDD)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

SB 378 proposes the creation of a minimum funding level for the PDD which shall not be less than 75 percent of the sum of general fund appropriations to all District Attorney (DA) offices and the criminal appeals division of the Attorney General's (AG) office.

State and federal grants awarded during the previous fiscal year to the DA offices and the criminal appeals division of the AG's office would be included in calculating the annual 75 percent allocation to the PDD. The bill also administratively attaches the PDD to the Corrections Department.

Significant Issues

The main issue is the feasibility of implementing SB 378 given its proposed funding mechanism and the current designation of the PDD as an executive branch agency. Also, the administrative and budgetary structure of the PDD presents another issue regarding whether the bill can achieve its objective.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

Both the AODA and PDD agree that SB 378 would have significant impact upon the latter of the two agencies. According to AODA, the bill would give the PDD a 14 percent increase in its FY 2000 budget which could adversely affect the budgets of the DAs if the offices receive reduced funding to balance the PDD increase. The PDD believes SB 378 would bring its department approximately $5,000.0 in additional general fund monies for FY 2000.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

According to the PDD, the agency would need to develop infrastructure to absorb its estimated $5,000.0 increase by hiring five additional FTE to manage the proposed formula and new fund levels. The PDD estimates a cost of $117.5 for the necessary staff.

CONFLICT/DUPLICATION/COMPANIONSHIP/RELATIONSHIP

In the opinion of the AODA, SB 378 conflicts with both SB 2 and HB 2 since the funding for these two bills is not based on a 75 percent formula ratio. Additionally, AODA believes SB 378 conflicts with any other bills which propose performance-based budgeting (PBB) for all state agencies.

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

According to the AODA, it is not clear why the bill attaches the PDD to the Corrections Department. Furthermore, the agency feels the proposed attachment creates a conflict of interest since some contract defense attorneys may be involved in the Duran and other lawsuits against the Corrections Department.

The PDD views SB 378 as a means to rectify the agency's history of chronic under funding. The department believes the bill recognizes its constitutional mandate of providing quality representation for indigent defendants. However, the PDD stated that given its current administrative classification and structure, it would be virtually impossible for the department to utilize the 75 percent funding ratio proposed in the bill.

In addition, the PDD is attached to the executive and currently relates in no administrative/budgetary manner to the Corrections Department. Also, the PDD is an executive agency whose employees fall under the state classified system administered by the State Personnel Office (SPO). The DA and AG offices are exempt agencies whose employees do not fall under the state classified system administered by SPO. Due to this fact, exempt agencies traditionally have had greater flexibility with their budgets and personnel since they are exempt from Procurement Code Compliance. As such, it would be difficult to translate the funding mechanism of SB 378 to an executive agency.

RP/njw