Didn't we cancel that project?

Adam Wilson of The Olympian wrote an interesting article this weekend about a state computer project that some legislators thought they eliminated this year. According to the article:

"The state Health Care Authority plans to spend an additional $9 million on a computer project that the Legislature tried to cancel this year.

State officials say the move will preserve work done so far and buy another chance at continuing the project. But a key lawmaker said it contradicts what the Legislature intended.

After $5 million had been spent on early development of the computer project, lawmakers approved spending $25 million more on the BAIAS system in 2007. The computer would replace the 30-year-old system that handles public employee health insurance.

The state spent $2 million last year on the project, but Democratic lawmakers, looking to save money, pulled $14 million from the project in March.

The cut effectively ended the effort to develop the system after $7 million in taxpayer money had been spent because there wasn't enough money left to finish it. But $9 million from the original budget was still available. The agency plans to spend that money on the system in the next year . . . A lawmaker on the board, Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Bellevue, warned against the proposal. He said he opposed canceling the project, but had no doubt that is what the Legislature wanted to do.

State spending is expected to outstrip revenue by $2.4 billion in the next two-year budget. Hunter said it's unlikely more funding will be given to the project next year, making spending more now questionable . . . As for concerns about reversing the decision of the Legislature, run by the Democratic majority, Swecker said it was fair play.

'My theory is if they were trying to terminate the project, they should have cut all the money,' he said."

So is the Health Care Authority an agency run amok blatantly disregarding the law and the intent of lawmakers?

Well, not exactly. Perhaps in their haste to rush through the $306 million 2008 supplemental budget increase, lawmakers left the original language in the budget concerning the project even though they reduced the funds:

"Sec. 214(7) $784,000 of the health services account--state appropriation for fiscal year 2008, $1,676,000 of the health service account—state appropriation for fiscal year 2009, $540,000 of the general fund--federal appropriation, and (($22,480,000)) $8,200,000 of the state health care authority administrative account--state appropriation are provided for the development of a new benefits administration and insurance accounting system"

We're all for reducing unnecessary spending and saving money, but lawmakers need to be more diligent in how they write the budget so they can clearly convey their intent. Perhaps if they had adopted a 72-hour budget review reform, this oversight would have been caught.