State agencies; requiring the establishment or enhancement of an internal employee suggestion program; stating potential award for approved suggestions; creating the Statewide Cost Savings Incentive Fund Effective date. Emergency.
SB1714 would require Oklahoma state agencies to establish or strengthen internal employee suggestion programs aimed at improving efficiency and generating direct cost savings. Under the bill, agencies would be expected to prioritize viable cost-saving ideas, explain in writing when they reject them, and forward rejected suggestions to the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) for possible statewide review and cross-agency adoption.
The bill also expands employee incentives. Agencies could award cash bonuses when a suggestion produces at least $5,000 in direct savings, with awards generally set between 10% and 25% of the savings, subject to caps of $20,000 for an individual and $50,000 for a team. It also requires non-cash recognition for useful ideas that do not produce measurable dollar savings, such as certificates, leave, or professional development, and extends whistleblower-style protections to participating employees. Suggestions involving grievances, pay/classification issues, already-studied matters, audit-driven work, or proposals requiring legislation would not qualify for awards.
The bill would amend 74 O.S. 2021, Section 1604, and add new Sections 1605 through 1607 to Title 74. It would create a statewide framework for agency suggestion programs, require annual reporting of savings and efficiency plans, establish a revolving Statewide Cost Savings Incentive Fund in the State Treasury, and create the Incentive Awards for State Employees Committee to recognize top performers and publicly report statewide savings. OMES would be given rulemaking authority and would administer the fund and related policies. The measure would affect state agencies, state employees, and OMES by tying employee ideas to budget savings, awards, and agency efficiency targets.
The available committee discussion and vote suggest generally favorable sentiment toward the bill’s taxpayer-savings goal. The Senate Retirement and Government Resources Committee advanced the measure on a 5-2 vote with a do pass amended recommendation, indicating support with some reservations or requested changes. The brief committee comment emphasized that the bill was intended to benefit taxpayers, and the bill was then referred onward to Appropriations.
The main points of contention appear to involve the scope and administration of the incentive system rather than the underlying goal of saving money. Potential concerns include the size and structure of cash awards, the creation and use of the new revolving fund, the requirement that agencies justify rejected suggestions in writing, and the possibility of additional administrative burden on agencies and OMES. The bill also limits eligible suggestions and excludes matters already covered by audits, studies, grievances, pay issues, and proposals requiring legislation, which may narrow the program and could be a point of debate for employees seeking broader recognition or rewards.