The least-effective government agency in Maine is the Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability. This is unavoidable: Though it was created two years ago and funded at least minimally, the legislative office designed to oversee the work of other agencies does not itself work because its board has not been fully appointed. That means it cannot make such basic decisions as hiring staff. Why the board has not been fully appointed is a perfect example of politics getting in the way of government service and why oversight agencies are necessary.

OPEGA, as the office is called, is not an idea invented by Maine. In fact, this state is among the last to notice that its Legislature should have an independent source of information about government performance, just as Congress has through its Government Accounting Office. States began relying on these offices in the 1970s; 44 other states now use them to save millions of tax dollars annually by reviewing the operations of government, proposing efficiencies and identifying programs that should be strengthened as well as those that might no longer be needed at all. The importance of this information is obvious, but it makes these agencies targets for political mischief.

The mischief in Maine began even before the agency was approved. Perhaps because some state officials felt threatened by an office with oversight authority, they resisted its creation in numerous ways, finally giving way to a weakened version of the law. Once lawmakers approved it – they did so strongly in both parties – the agency’s funding was cut, then partly restored, then reduced. And then last year there was – perhaps – an agreement between its strongest supporters, including Rep. David Trahan of Waldoboro and Sen. Ed Youngblood of Brewer, both Republicans, and one of its least-enthusiastic supporters, Senate President Beverly Daggett, a Democrat. Sen. Daggett, who is directed to appoint six Senate members to the OPEGA Oversight Committee – the House Speaker also appoints six from that body – would do so only if no changes were made to the weakened legislation, according to an agreement that Sen. Daggett recalls but Rep. Trahan and Sen. Youngblood deny having made.

Meanwhile, the House invited a national expert on oversight committees, John Turcotte, to Maine to review its new law. He did so in November and filed a detailed report on what he found, including five suggestions for improving the current law, which mostly remove the weaknesses that were compromised into the approved version. The report reflects Mr. Turcotte’s three decades of work in this field: His suggestions consistently anticipate potential areas of conflict and try to clarify the law to avoid trouble in the future. This was especially true of his reasoning for clarifying the use and protection of confidential information and for emphasizing the need for a nonpartisan OPEGA director. Rep. Trahan says those amendments are important for the success of the program and wants them passed; Senate President Daggett said she won’t appoint the committee members while Mr. Trahan is trying to find a way to pass them. Thus, gridlock over an agency that is supposed to promote efficient government.

This situation had one Democratic observer in Augusta marveling, “As it stands now,” he said, “an agency that was created in 2001, defunded in 2002 … and re-funded in 2003, will not be able to achieve a quorum solely because one presiding officer declines to appoint the members of the committee. I know of no precedent for this situation, and it would seem to rank with the ‘nullification’ debates of the 19th century.”

The argument in the Legislature may not rise to the level of whether states can nullify federal law, but the point is similar: Maine lawmakers, Republican and Democrat, strongly supported the law that has passed; it cannot be carried out while the Senate president refuses to make her appointments. But whatever informal deal there may have been is not nearly as important as getting this office running. When I spoke to Sen. Daggett about her reasons for not liking the changes, she had various concerns about where they might lead, suggesting the reach of the agency would be over-broad. If that is the case, she should review Mr. Turcotte’s careful instructions.

Throughout his work are admonitions that OPEGA staff adhere to national standards, treat confidential information carefully, work in partnership with the Legislature, understand that agencies being reviewed might find the oversight intrusive. In addition to the report’s suggestions on the use of confidential information and the nonpartisan director, Mr. Turcotte observes the need to be clear about the line between OPEGA and the state auditor, to allow the office to follow state funding to the local level and examine how state officials are spending private funds given to state institutions, such as universities.

Maine’s budget is short something like $900 million for the next biennium. There are no more likely gimmicks to hide behind, no rainy-day funds to tap, no chance of help from the federal government. Three options remain: Raise taxes, cut programs heavily or combine smaller cuts with savings by re-examining how state government offers services. Unlike board appointments, the budget shortfall won’t be delayed by politics. The fewer ways Maine has to address it, the harder it will hit state employees and state taxpayers.

OPEGA should have been operating for a least a year by now, evaluating state services, maybe even helping out with untangling the difficulties at the Department of Human Services. Instead, it remains a good idea in 44 states that has yet to be tried here. Some state agency should look into that.

Todd Benoit is the BDN editorial page editor.