OXFORD — Pity PEER.
Every time a report comes out, the Joint Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review gets pushback from folks who don’t understand what PEER is or what it does.
Three things to remember:
• PEER is a function of the Legislature.
• To report findings is to inform. Scandal is not inherent in PEER reports.
• PEER is powerless. Only if the Legislature or citizens react to PEER reports does anything happen. No reaction, and the reports go on a shelf to collect dust.
Now, to expand.
As its full name indicates, PEER is actually a legislative committee, akin to Public Health or Appropriations. One difference is that while most committees operate only in the House or only in the Senate, PEER has 14 members, seven from each chamber, who serve four-year terms.
Another difference is that PEER has a staff of researchers who gather data on state operations and prepare written reports with graphs, tables and charts.
The committee itself was formed 27 years ago. In the 1960s, governments at all levels were pioneering into new areas, including social programs. The idea was to have a standing committee that would reflect back on legislative initiatives to see if laws were having the effects they were designed to have.
Pretty smart, huh?
Yet these days, the reaction to a PEER report is sometimes, “Wow, I wonder why they’re going after them?”
The truth, most often, is that PEER is not going after anyone. Staffers are conducting an administrative review — as instructed by the Legislature — and reporting findings and sometimes offering recommendations or alternatives.
Another reaction is, “Why doesn’t PEER go after the Legislature on that?”
The answer is that PEER staff can only evaluate agencies and programs as ordered by the Legislature. Suffice it to say the Legislature is not really keen on holding its own operations up to scrutiny.
So when PEER tallies mileage reimbursement and fleet information about cars and trucks used by the executive branch of government, but doesn’t include amounts paid to members of the House and Senate, that’s not an exclusion PEER staffers chose. They study and report precisely as directed by members of the committee.
These days most studies are done with an eye toward gaining efficiency, which is a 50-cent way of saying saving money.
For instance, if PEER gathers information on existing state cell-phone policy and expenses, that can be — and has been — the starting point for consolidating plans and reducing costs.
Members of the Legislature often engage in posturing over turf with the executive branch and even the judicial branch, but very rarely are PEER reports used for that specific purpose.
Also, PEER staffers are not police officers or investigative auditors. Members can and on rare occasions have assisted the Attorney General’s Office in trying to recover misspent money or otherwise punish folks caught with their hand in the public till, but the vast majority of the time they are data-gatherers.
It’s boring, most likely, gathering all these records, but what matters, as should now be evident, is whether anything is done with the information.
For instance, once PEER gathers data showing, say, the state is spending $25 million to administer a housing program providing $5 million worth of benefits to homebuyers, the staff’s job is done.
The next step is for lawmakers, perhaps pressured by citizens alerted by media reports. If no changes are made, the program will keep rocking along as is. If there’s sufficient alarm, some tightening up should occur.
The state was well-served back in 1973 when PEER was created. It has been well-served by lawmakers through the decades who have assigned PEER staff to go back and review state programs.
It is only when PEER reports point out problems and no action is taken that the state is not well-served. Sadly, that happens a lot.
• Charlie Mitchell, formerly executive editor of the Vicksburg Post, is assistant dean in journalism at the University of Mississippi.
