Statement of Principles on Legislative Oversight

Prior to task force meetings, ALEC posts these legislative member-submitted draft model policies to our website. The draft model policies are then discussed, debated, and voted on by ALEC task force members. Policies that receive final approval by legislators on the ALEC Board of Directors become official ALEC model policy. Draft model policies that fail to become official ALEC model policy are removed from the website.

Policy Status

  • Type: Statement of Principle
  • Status: Draft
  • Date Introduced: March 31, 2026

Task Forces

  • Process and Procedures

    • Summary

    The federalist principles outlined by the authors of the United States Constitution divided power among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Their intent was to provide checks and balances against one branch becoming tyrannical. The States followed this structure as they drafted and ratified their own state constitutions. Powers and authority are clearly outlined to constrain government officials and protect the people’s freedom and liberty. Legislative oversight is a fundamental pillar of the American system of government. As such, the principles of oversight should be clearly understood. 
    Draft

    Statement of Principles on Legislative Oversight

    Guiding Principles of Legislative Oversight 

    Seeking Information – The state legislature must have the information necessary to conduct oversight activities. Therefore, the legislature must have the ability to hold hearings, compel the appearance of government officials, and compel the production of documents. Legislative committees must have the authority to compel the production of information from the agencies, commissions, and other government bodies within their jurisdiction. Individual members of the legislature must, at a minimum, have the ability to request any document or information that would be available under Freedom of Information Act provisions in their state. Any request from a legislator should be treated as a priority by the relevant parties. Individual legislators should be subject to internal procedures to ensure the record requests are legitimate and not intended to flood the system for political gain. 

    Oversight Committees – State Legislatures should form and empower oversight committees to conduct regular oversight activities, including, but not limited to, tracking how all taxpayer dollars are spent and the effectiveness of what the money was spent on. The oversight committee should not infringe on or limit the ability of other committees to gather information for their own subject areas.  

    Transparency – The processes and procedures of oversight should aim to maximize transparency of the decision-making. All government agencies, commissions, boards, bodies, or contracted organizations must keep all records necessary for the legislature to do this work. All tax dollars should be traceable from collection to destination. All contracts or agreements between a governmental body and outside organizations or individuals should have records retained that clearly show what funds were exchanged and proof of services performed or products delivered. Documents should be retained showing the decision-making process that led to entering into an agreement or contract with such a vendor.  

    Limitations on Legislative Authority – It is important to distinguish between oversight and criminal and civil investigations undertaken by prosecutors. The legislative branch’s authority is based on the need for information to make better decisions. Any time there is a belief that there has been a criminal act or civil breach, the legislature should inform the appropriate authorities.  

    State Auditor – The legislature should empower a state auditor or other appropriate independent office with authority to conduct regular, financial, procedural, and performance audits of all government agencies, commissions, boards, or bodies, as well as those who are receiving government funding, to ensure that they are acting within their authority to fulfill their individual duties efficiently and without fraud. States without an existing state auditor would be well served by instituting such a position.