Source: Based on Calvin W. Clark, A Survey of Legislative Ser vices in the Fifty States (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures, April 1967), Table 13, pp. 53-54. TABLE 45.--FISCAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY STATE LEGISLATIVE SERVICE AGENCIES, 1967 *The New York Legislature's fiscal committees are served by fiscal staffs of their own. Source: Based on Clark, op. cit., Table 9, pp. 40-41. Staff.--One of the most critical factors conditioning the capacity of legislative leaders, committees, and individual members to respond to their growing responsibilities is staff. As one authority put it:134/ "... Legislators probably feel more strongly about being provided inadequate staff and assistance than about low salaries and inadequate allowances for direct, out-ofpocket expenses of their daily work. For most legislators no experience is more frustrating than the enormous gap between what constituents and public seem to expect and what they see as possible to do with the facilities available. A major attempt to fill the gap in professional staff has been the development of permanent legislative service agencies, most notably the growth of legislative councils. By the close of 1966, 44 States had established legislative councils and most of the others had alternative arrangements. California and New York use well-staffed interim committees, while Hawaii and Oregon use special interim committees, sometimes drawing for staff assistance on permanent service agencies. The West Virginia Joint Committee on Government Finance undertakes some substantive studies on its own initiative and conducts studies requested by the legislature, and the Mississippi legislature has established special interim study committees from time to time. In 40 States, according to a recent study of the Council of State Gove ernments, secretarial assistance is given to all standing committees, but in the remaining, such assistance is limited to committees on finance, appropriation, ways and means and judiciary. Fiscal committees in all States have clerical assistance.135/ The Citizens Conference on State Legislatures reports that only seven legislatures provide most standing committees with funds for some technical 1367 staffing: California, Hawaii, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Texas and New York. As shown in Table 44, in at least ten States, some research assistance is provided to the general membership. Clerical assistance is provided to legislative leaders in 29 States, and some technical assistance is provided in 19. The staff question--especially as it concerns standing committees--is closely related to the continuity problem discussed earlier. If committee staff disappears when the session adjourns and all that remains in the interim is the legislative council, the legislature as a whole and certainly its major standing committees are relatively impotent to deal effectively with grant-related probAt present, only California and New York have major standing committees staffed on a year-round basis. The noncontinuous character of most State legislatures also prevents greater attention by legislators and staffs to the initial development of grant programs in the Congress. Rarely do State legislators testify at committee hearings and otherwise participate in the early stages of Federal legislation in a manner similar to the present active role of many local officials and some Gov ernors. Budget review and fiscal services.--Since the appropriation of funds is the most important and complicated legislative function, several legislatures have built up additional staff services for budget review and study of revenues and expenditures. A 1967 survey by the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures reports three basic categories of legislative fiscal services: (1) budget review and analysis; (2) continuous study of revenues and expenditures; and (3) legislative post-audit.137/ Table 45 groups those State legislative service agencies which provide these services either singly or in combination. Twenty-two provide all three services; 15 have two of the three services; and six provide only one service. In seven States no direct fiscal service is provided by the legislative service agency. In terms of personnel, 15 States have five or more staff performing budget and fiscal review--in addition to the post-audit function. The fiscal cycle.--A principal task of State executives and legislatures nowadays is to take into account the availability of Federal grants when preparing their budgets. This is sometimes difficult because of uncertainty as to the amount of Federal funds that might be allocated to a State for a particular program--not to mention when they will be available. The State and Federal budget cycles further complicate this task. Since most of the major grant programs require some matching on the part of the State, this portion can represent a significant element in a State budget. Ideally, the legislature would be able to make a sound estimate of available Federal funds for the succeeding fiscal, or in case of biennial sessions, for the two succeeding fiscal years. Obviously, a reasonable estimate is unlikely if, by the time the legislature must adopt a budget, Congress or the appropriate Federal agency has not determined the various amounts to be allocated among the States. Legislatures which have annual regular sessions have an obvious advantage in this regard over those which meet biennially, although the use of special sessions can overcome some of the disadvantages of the biennial session. Frequently, Congress does not take final action on appropriations and new programs until late fall, well after individual State agencies have submitted their requests to the budget-making authority. Furthermore, where the final allocation of appropriations depends upon the action of a Federal agency, even more time has elapsed before the State can take account of the allocation in its budget proposals. Figs. 22 and 23 show the State budget cycle patterns as they relate to the legislature's role. Generally, the executive budget-making authority reviews budget requests during the fall and submits the proposed budget to the legislature when it convenes in the following January--or shortly thereafter. In 1967, for example, all but six of the regular session legislatures convened in January. North Carolina, Hawaii and Tennessee assembled in February, Florida in April, and Alabama and Louisiana in May. In two States (Mississippi and Oregon) the budget was submitted to members of the legislature on December 1 before the session. In Kentucky, the budget is submitted to the legislature as the Governor desires. Do the States have sufficient time to work on their budgets after congressional and Federal administrative decisions on allocations and programs are made? The most time-consuming phase of the process is the executive preparation of the budget which begins in some States as early as August and must be finished by the next January or February. With late congressional action in the fall not uncommon, and with Federal agency decisions, where required, coming even later, the State budget-making authority may be forced to submit to the legislature a budget that is incomplete or inadequate in certain program areas dependent upon Federal aid. Presumably, the necessary information on Federal allocations would be available to most legislative sessions by the time final action on the budget is necessary. But even so, this time lag may force hurried guesses and perhaps failure to budget for some programs at all, especially new ones. State executives have raised questions with the Office of Emergency Planning's field trip staff concerning the Federal fiscal cycle and grant timing practices. Moreover, this problem has bothered State budget officers enough to |