Last week’s legislative interim meetings were a bit of a let down for the press and the general public, and perhaps lawmakers themselves, though that is unclear.

It was a traveling interims, set among the mountains of Tucker County at Canaan Valley Resort State Park. Sunday and Tuesday consisted of local tours and hikes. But last Monday was dedicated to normal interim meetings.

To show my age, I have to ask the same question those three seasoned ladies asked in that old Wendy’s commercial: Where’s the beef? Sure, the topics for the interim meetings were of importance, but the substance was lacking.

For example, the Joint Finance Committee had an update on tax revenue collections and the general revenue fund and updates on the BDO performance audits of the Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of Transportation and the Department of Human Services.

First, a pet peeve I’ve had for a while. I get having Department of Revenue officials on hand to answer questions about tax collections. But do we need a full explanation given that lawmakers (and the press) receive a monthly report on tax collections from the Senate Finance Committee?

And in regard to the audit presentations, the details of the audits were released by Gov. Patrick Morrisey last month during meetings of the House of Delegates, along with the audit reports themselves. Again, why were the department and agency heads allowed to filibuster with information that was already out in the public sphere?

I’m sure DOT Secretary Todd Rumbaugh was very excited to share things his department was doing, but why was he allowed to go on and into topics that had nothing to do with the audit of his department? At one point, he went into the idea of creating a mobile Division of Motor Vehicles that can be dispatched to areas of the state with high DMV wait times. Not saying it is a bad idea, but share that during your next agency presentation in the next legislative session.

The one person that lawmakers wanted to question, Christina Mullins with the Department of Human Services, didn’t get to be asked more than a question or two because she barely had 20 minutes to present her audit report. And honestly, lawmakers wanted to ask more about this alleged $40 million “structural deficit” for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

Morrisey dropped the news of this alleged deficit last month at the same time he was announcing the results of the agency audits. But he provided no documentation and the administration has not been forthcoming about additional details beyond what Morrisey said. And when asked by West Virginia Watch reporter Amelia Knisely about how he would address the alleged structural deficit, he said he might have to move TANF dollars around out of other programs, including state subsidies for childcare, clothing allowances and family support centers.

That response from Morrisey didn’t sit well with lawmakers, who heard it in real time with no heads up during the 60-day legislative session or since the session ended on March 14. There was bipartisan opposition to reducing funding for childcare, clothing allowances or FSCs. And while Morrisey officials have said they want to work with the Legislature on this issue, it’s not clear they have had any meetings or conversations since the May announcement.

The point being is that lawmakers had the acting DoHS secretary in front of them Monday, someone who could have answered questions under oath and let her go scot-free. And now the next time lawmakers will get to ask direct questions will be August at the earliest.

I don’t know if this was bad time management by committee leadership or staff, or an effort by administration officials to filibuster and run out the clock. But the public needs answers on whether this TANF structural deficit is real and the Morrisey administration’s plan to deal with it. Because it appears the only way that might happen is through the interim process.

—

I have a similar complaint with the Joint Education Committee meeting. Again, an hour-and-a-half meeting where there was no time for any lawmaker to ask the four county school system financial officials any questions regarding the topic of the meeting: reforming the state school aid formula.

This was definitely more of an issue of time management versus a filibuster. Lawmakers were presented with yet another lengthy explainer about the archaic and complicated seven-step school aid formula. I can understand a quick summary, especially for new lawmakers. But lawmakers just got a full review of the school aid formula last year, along with a RAND Corp. study with recommended changes.

The county school financial officials otherwise had important information to share regarding their budget issues, how they receive local and state funding and the different challenges that small rural counties and counties with large urban cores have as all counties face decreasing enrollment and fight for students as school choice continues to lure families away from public schools.

Yet, no lawmaker was able to ask questions again. To his credit, Joint Education Committee Co-Chair Joe Statler, R-Monongalia, apologized. And I definitely believe he is serious about fixing the school aid formula during next year’s regular legislative session. But there are only three interim meetings scheduled between now and the next session.