|
|
Budget Analyst -- Federal Agency Money Matters
|
|
|
|
A-11 for FY 2002 Budget: Highlights of New RequirementsOn this page:
AvailabilityOMB Circular A-11 for FY 2001 was issued by Transmittal Memo No. 73 dated July 19, 2000. Available on the Internet at the OMB web site's circulars section, accessible from my links, or go directly to the OMB page for A-11. Process ChangeThe most significant element in Circular A-11 is the instructions for the "transition budget" for FY 2002. President Clinton will not submit a standard budget request; his successor will. OMB will not go through its traditional budget review and preparation process this fall. As OMB states:
The process is outlined in OMB Director's memo of June 2, 2000, on "Requirements for Development of the FY 2002 Transition Budget." (Click for the OMB Director's memo at the OMB web site.) Significant process changes are: No formal budget request submission in September - but A-11 requires a basic submission on September 11, 2000. No formal OMB hearings. No formal OMB Director's Review. Most policy related materials normally submitted in September (i.e., the substance of the programs as requested in the budget) will be required only "after the new Administration (or a transition team) is in place." Additional process changes are summarized by the proposed schedule:
The material that follows is the same as in June 22, 2000 Opinion Rehearsal for biennial budgeting?There is a puzzle and an opportunity in this process change. Doing away with a last opportunity for the current Administration to set forth its message on policy through a budget submission seems to be wasting a political opportunity, especially in this environment of continuous bickering and disagreement. There is no reason why the current President could not submit his budget, leaving a headache for his successor if of the opposition party, and setting the stage for his successor if of the same party - this is especially so when the same party potential successor is the current Vice President. This is the puzzle. Regardless of what the motivations and rationale may be, this change is also an opportunity for a rehearsal for biennial budgeting. Budget professionals can use this as a way to test out what could happen without an annual opportunity to reflect policy and programmatic changes through the budget process. One of the reasons for biennial budgeting is that there will be more time for oversight and overview of operations. The way this time becomes available is by foregoing an annual opportunity to set policy or change policy through the budget submission and its processing by the political system - a year is skipped. Skipping a year in the setting of major policy directions is exactly what will happen with the "transition" budget and its development this summer and fall. This "skipping" will only affect the Executive Branch budget process since eventually Congress will get a budget on time, based on an annual budgeting process. But all should observe what happens during a period in which only current services are addressed and no policy initiatives are included in the process. There is no need to develop, justify, and review policy initiatives yet the staff and time available in the budget shops, including OMB, is the same as would be available to process policy initiatives. There is some slack time and resources available to concentrate on other things. Presumably a similar situation would occur under a biennial budgeting system. Much could be assessed, including:
Are the various specialized analyses required by OMB, such as for information technology, improved? Do the resulting budget justifications sent to Congress in February 2001 better explain what the agency is doing with the bulk of its resources, i.e., the current services, which are generally not affected by policy initiatives? I am sure that there are many other aspects of budgeting that are independent of policy initiatives in the budget process that could benefit from more work and attention. It will be interesting to see if there is any change given this windfall in time for those who work the budget process. If there is no improvement resulting from the additional focus on more mundane budget work associated with the transition budget, questions should be raised as to some of the benefits of biennial budgeting.
Copyright © 1998, 1999 by Laszlo Bockh and Mary Blakeslee. All rights reserved. Last revised: 07/28/00 01:31 PM. All trademarks or product names mentioned herein are the property of their respective owners. The logo images used herein were obtained from IMSI's MasterClips/MasterPhotos© Collection, 1895 Francisco Blvd. East, San Rafael, CA 94901-5506, USA |
