© December, 2000
Carole Keeton Rylander
Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
Report of the e-Texas Commission

e-Texas Chapter 5 | Endnotes


[1] Public Law No: 103-62, US Congress.

[2] Rep. Dick Armey, Sen. Larry Craig, Rep. Dan Burton, Results Act: It Matters Now, US Congress, Washington, DC, 1997, p. 6.

[3] Managing for Results: Prospects for Effective Implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act (Washington, DC, June 3, 1997).

[4] Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene, “Beyond Performance,” Governing (November 1999), p. 26.

[5] A survey of management practices done by Bain and Company in 2000 indicated that The Balanced Scorecard is used in over 50 percent of the Fortune 500. Anecdotal evidence suggests that over 50 percent of the Fortune 1000 use it as well. E-mail from Dylan Miyake, Director, BSC online to Richard English, CPA, October 16, 2000.

[6] Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton, The Balanced Scorecard (Boston: Harvard Business School Press 1996), pp. 7-8, 47-146.

[7] Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton, The Balanced Scorecard (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1996), p. 2.

[8] The internal business process and innovation, learning, and growth perspectives supported the customer and financial perspectives. The internal business process perspective encouraged the city to improve its service delivery. The innovation, learning, and growth perspective showed whether the city was effectively utilizing its technology, and whether its employee training and skills were adequate to support the other processes. See Robert S. Kaplan, “City of Charlotte (A),” No. 9-199-036 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press, February 5, 1999), p. 4.

[9] Robert S. Kaplan, “City of Charlotte (A),” No. 9-199-036 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press, February 5, 1999), p. 9.

[10] Robert S. Kaplan, “City of Charlotte (A),” No. 9-199-036 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press, February 5, 1999), p. 6.

[11] Robert S. Kaplan, “City of Charlotte (B),” No. 9-199-043 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press, March 28, 1999), pp. 4-5.

[12] US General Accounting Office, Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders (Washington, DC, September 1999), pp. 1-4.

[13] Susannah Zak Figura, “The Human Touch,” GovExec.Com, September 2000 (http://www.govexec.com/features/0900/0900s1.htm). (Internet document.)

[14] Stephen Barr, “Retirement Wave Creates Vacuum,” Washington Post (May 7, 2000), p. A-01.

[15] This turnover rate is significantly higher than: the average rate of state governments bordering Texas (15 percent); the rate for Texas local governments (12 percent); and the national private-sector rate (14.9 percent). SAO estimates that turnover in fiscal 1999 cost the state between $127 and $254 million. See State Auditor’s office, An Annual Report on Full-Time Classified State Employee Turnover for Fiscal Year 1999 (Austin, Texas, March 2000) (http://www.sao.state.tx.us/reportsmn/reports/00-707.html). (Internet document.)

[16] E-mail from Kelli Dan, State Classification Officer, State Auditor’s office, Austin, Texas, June 16, 2000.

[17] Benchmarks are recognized standards, or, in some cases, numerical targets or reference points against which government operations can be compared, measured or judged. According to the Legislative Budget Board, a benchmark “...is a tool for gauging ‘added value’ performance that benefits the customer/stakeholder or progress toward achieving increased productivity and strategic efficiency.”

[18] Another example can be found in the General Land Office (GLO). While it might be relatively easy for taxpayers to see how the dollar value of total statewide mineral production and the annual mineral lease revenue is tied to how successfully the agency is meeting its objective to generate revenue from the sale and lease of state-owned lands, it may be more difficult for them to understand their linkage to the statewide benchmark, “renewable energy as a percentage of total energy used.”

[19] State fiscal data continues to focus on individual agencies’ level of spending and their performance. While this is important, it is equally important to evaluate statewide service and the dollars required to provide that level of service. The existence of state-level benchmarks provides an opportunity to not only identify possible areas of duplication and overlap in service categories, but more importantly, provides an opportunity for Texas to be able to answer the question, “How are we doing as a state?”

[20] Occupational Safety and Health Administration, “Saving Lives, Helping Business,” OSHA Online—Rego Magazine, October 6, 1999 (http://www.rego.gov/safety/oshaon.htm). (Internet document.)

[21] Remarks at e-Texas Environment and Natural Resources meeting, Weslaco, Texas, April 7, 2000.

[22] Robert Kaplan, "The Balanced Scorecard Approach to Managing for Results: Its Use in the Public Sector," Managing for Results: A Culture for the New Millenium Conference, Austin, Texas, April 26, 2000. (Audio-visual presentation.)

[23] See Jerry Ellig, Ph.D, “Performance Report Scorecard: Which Federal Agencies Inform the Public?” Mercatus Center, George Mason University, (www.mercatus.org), p. 4.

[24] Interview with Donna Ardoin, Florida Budget Director, August 18, 2000 (www.state.fl.us/budget).

[25] Remarks at e-Texas Commission meeting, Austin, Texas, June 28, 2000.

[26] In New Zealand, the responsibility for policy belongs to the minister of each department, a member of the parliament who represents the ruling party or coalition. A professional public administrator, or anyone else believed to be the best-qualified person to run the ministry, provides day-to-day executive leadership. The minister signs a contract with the person chosen to be the chief executive officer for the ministry. In return for providing the necessary resources and significant freedom concerning the methods and means of accomplishing the planned results, the chief executive must deliver the results that the contract specifies. A successful performance can result in a bonus of as much as 20 percent of salary. One year’s outstanding performance will not mean a permanent salary increase; after all, the next year’s performance might not be so impressive.

[27]"Performance-Based Organizations: A Conversion Guide," pp.3-4 (http://www.npr.gov/library/pbo/guide1.html). (Internet document.)

[28] The agencies were: National Technical Information Service; the Patent and Trademark Office, seafood inspection at the Department of Commerce; the Defense Commissary Agency at the US Department of Defense; mortgage insurance services at the Government National Mortgage Association; the Federal Housing Administration in the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation at the US Department of Transportation; the United States Mint at the US Treasury; and retirement benefit services in the Office of Personnel Management. The Administration followed this proposal with legislation to transform four functions into PBO’s: the Patent and Trademark Office, the Defense Commissary Agency, the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, and air traffic services at the Federal Aviation Agency.

[29] Brian Friel, “Congress creates performance-based organization,” Government Executive Daily Briefing, July 14, 1998 at (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0798/071498b1.htm). (Internet document.)

[30] Positive Incentives and Rewards for Performance-Based Budgeting, (Austin: A Governor’s Executive Development Program Subcommittee Report, Class XVI, January 1998), p. 1.

[31] Information provided by the State Office of Risk Management.

[32] Information from Ed Bloom, Executive Director, Texas Incentive and Productivity Commission (TIPC), October 2000. Savings were from the period 1989 to 2000.

[33] David Osborne and Peter Plastrick, The Reinventor’s Fieldbook: Tools for Transforming Your Government (Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 2000), p. 415.

[34] General Appropriations Act for the 2000-01 Biennium, Section 9-3.05, p. ix-26.

[35] See for instance Jennifer Laabs, “Pick the Right People,” Workforce magazine (November 1998), pp. 50-52.

[36] Peter Cappelli, “A Market-Driven Approach to Retaining Talent,” Harvard Business Review (January-February 2000), p. 104.

[37] Peter Coy, “The Creative Economy,” Business Week, August 28, 2000 (http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_35/b3696002.htm). (Internet document.)

[38] Jennifer Laabs, “The New Loyalty: Grasp it. Earn it. Keep it.” Workforce Magazine (November 1998), pp. 34–39.

[39] Local Government Code §391.0095 and rules of the Governor’s Office require the regional planning commissions to file annual audited reports, salary schedules, indirect cost certifications, reports of productivity and performance for the current year and a report of projections for the coming year, a report of asset deletions, and a report of major programs and activities for the upcoming year to the Governor, Comptroller, State Auditor, and the Legislative Budget Board.

[40] The Criminal History Reporting Form is a multi-part form that must be initiated by the arresting officer. A separate form must be used for each offense. Therefore, four separate forms must be used if one individual is charged with four offenses. The arresting agency forwards a copy to DPS, and sends the remaining copies to the prosecutor. The prosecutor fills out the form when the case is prosecuted or dismissed, sends one copy to DPS, and the remaining copies to the clerk of the court. The clerk fills out the court actions, sends a copy to DPS and the remaining copies to the Community Supervision department, and so on. To its credit, DPS has automated this form for those counties that have the automation; however, many counties do not. The volume of paper is overwhelming for local officials, and it is doubtful that the DPS can process all the paper that it collects. Once the data is reentered, it must be reconciled with the initial arrest report. It is not uncommon for the final court disposition to show only two of the initial four offenses, and then a search begins to determine where along the trail the other two were lost.

The monthly Report of Court Activity is another time-consuming report. A pilot project is underway by the Office of Court Administration to automate this report. Currently, court clerks must fill out very detailed reports on each case. This data is then compiled and reported in the Texas Judicial System Annual Report. There are nine different classifications of dismissals. This level of detail is under the discretion of the Council.

e-Texas is an initiative of Carole Keeton Rylander, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
Post Office Box 13528, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas

Privacy Policy