Bill Description: House Bill 836 would require agencies to annually identify positions vacant for at least 180 days and to reduce their budget requests accordingly or fill the position with existing funds.
Rating: -1
Does it create, expand, or enlarge any agency, board, program, function, or activity of government? Conversely, does it eliminate or curtail the size or scope of government?
This bill could reduce overall headcount at dozens of agencies, curtailing the size of government and making it more efficient. According to a recent DOGE taskforce report, there are about 380 vacant positions that have existed for a period longer than six months. However the way the bill is currently written the positions have to be vacant for up to a year before the positions get eliminated. Agencies will know this going forward and may manage their headcount to minimize reductions. It is likely that this bill would put downward pressure on headcount. Agencies would not be prevented from adding headcount so the net reduction of overall FTP would be reduced by those agencies adding headcount on top of the transfers to the legislative account.
(+1)
However, this bill would also transfer one-third of the positions eliminated in FY26 and FY27 from the executive agencies to the legislative branch for “district support personnel for individual legislators and associated administrative staff. While the impact beyond FY27 is not known, the impact for FY27 would be about 37 new positions that had been eliminated as part of the 110 staff reductions with S1331.
This means that the savings in the S1331 SOP would be offset with over a $3 million personnel cost increase in FY27.
(-1)
Does it increase government spending (for objectionable purposes) or debt? Conversely, does it decrease government spending or debt?
This bill would reduce overall spending by terminating vacant positions that have existed for over 180 days, while agencies may request extensions until vacancies have reached one year. After this threshold, they must be eliminated.
The estimated savings could amount to several million dollars, with the number of vacant positions currently outstanding. It is not clear how agencies would react to this law, as some may be keeping positions open out of simple convenience rather than inability to fill.
(+1)
However, this bill would also increase spending significantly for the new staff in the legislative branch. The addition of 37 new employees would represent an ongoing expense, based on the average cost of an FTP identified by DOGE, of approximately $3,774,000. Another problem is that staff positions are filled with a combination of general, dedicated and federal funds. Positions that are federally funded and eliminated can’t get funds transferred to the general fund. Therefore these positions that are fully or partially federally funded and eliminated could represent a net cost increase to the general fund.
(-1)
Does it in any way restrict public access to information related to government activity or otherwise compromise government transparency, accountability, or election integrity? Conversely, does it increase public access to information related to government activity or increase government transparency, accountability, or election integrity?
These new funds for staff would be deposited into the legislative account on an ongoing basis, a continuously appropriated fund. This obscures spending and decreases transparency.
(-1)
