The Chairman’s View

The ACIR, now celebrating its30th birthday, bas reached a milestone.Aa with any small, independent federalagency, ACIR has had its ups anddowns in the policymaking community.Atone level, the Commission has beenthrough a few tough years, but all indi-cations are that we are back on a strongtrack. This year, tbe House and Senatereversed a long slide in our budget byvoting to increase our appropriation toa level that makes it possible for us tooperate effectively. State financialcontributions are at an all-time high,and 1989 will be one of the most pro-ductive in terms of the number andquality of studies issued by the Com-mission. Not a bad record.

Yet, we must ask ourselveswhether we are frdfilling our mission,and we must identify the critical issuesfacing tbe Commission in the next fiveyears.

A look at our history allows us toanswer this question. The ACIR wasfocnred to foster greater intergover-nmental cooperation between partnersin the fede;al system. Its membershipwas consciously designed to fosterdiscussion and debate between keymembers of the intergovernmentalcommunity. In 1959, state and localgovernments enjoyed considerablymore autonomy than they do today,and establishing a foc’crmwhere part-ners could build a cmrsensus on theirroles and functions in tbe federal sya.tern was appropriate. During the 1~and into the 1970s, the Commissionwas quite successful in building thisconsensus. ACIR has always beenproud, for example, of its role in help-ing to develop general revenue shar-ing.

This past summer, I traveled ex-tensively to state and local governmentmeetings. I talked about ACIR andwhat I saw as the most pressing inter-governmental problems today. I alsoattended numerous panels and lis-tened to what elected officials weretalkirrg about. While I am happy tore-port that there is life and vitality west

nities. I am convicrced that state andfederal policyrnakers have to start de-signtig ~licies that reward local im-munities for making the hard dec~lonsto inrplement programs that they see asbeneficial to the larger communities.We hope that ACIR can take the leadin makmg remmmendations to federaland state officials in this area.

AS it bas for the last three decades,clearly, the ACIR has a number of im-portant roles to play in the comingyeara. The federal system has neverbeen static. The great genius of thefounding fathers was that they put inplace a system that allows for changeand flexibility. What we must do in tbecoming years is make sure that we havereal partners h the federal system todeal with the increastig mmplexity ofsolving problems.

Robert B. Hawkins, Jr.

In This Issue

~ celebrate ACIRS 30th anni-versary, this issue looks at the lastthree decades from the perapcc-tives of the aamplishments ofthe Commission and of the majorissues in the federal system.Bruce McDowell and RobectEbel trace ACIRS ~licy recom-mendations and their impact onthe system. Former Executive Di-rectors William Colman, WilliamMacDougaO, Wayne Anderson,and John Shannon, and cumentExecutive Director John Kincaideach give a brief l~k at the mostimportant intergovernmental is-sues of their years at ACIR. Aview of the federal system in thenext few years is given by the pres-idents of the National Governors’Aasnciation, the Council of StateGovernments, National Leagueof Cities, National Association ofCount ies, and National Associ-ation of Towns and Townships.

of the Potomac, I also found a numberof pressing problems facing the federalsystem. Three sets of problems seemparticularly woc’thy of ACIRS atten-tion in the coming yeara.

First, it seems to me that the foun-dations of the partnership that drivesour federal system are in need of re-pair. Increasingly, state and Incal offi-cials are unsure of what their ~wersare, whether they are partners to fed-eral policymaking, and whether theirmncems are taken seriously irr Wash-icrgton. It is my judgment that ACIRbas a key role to play in facilitating anongoing discussion between all levelsof the federal system on emerging is-sues and the division of powers.

Second, I found a similar set ofproblems facing state and local gover-nments. These include such intergov-ernmental issues as the criminal justicesystem, unfunded mandates, and theWlitical organization of metropolitanareas. Clearly, these are not admirds-trative problems, nor are they prob-lems that can be .soIvedby federal regu-lations. They are basic politicalproblems that require political solu-tions. Again, the ACIR can play a keyrole in undertaking studies that outlineways of solving these problems, andthen hope that the expanding networkof state ACIRS mn tailor approaches tothe needs of their specific states.

Third, 1 am bewming more awareof growing problems irrprogram imple-mentation. Federal and state pulicy in-creasingly mandates that problemssuch as solid waste be solved by lucalgovernments. But mandating and solv-ing are two quite different tasks. Tosolve these problems, lw1 gover-nmentsmust build the consensus that al-lows solutions to be developed and inr-plemented. Gond administration onlyfollows gti political decisionmaking.Yet, issues like solid waste manage-ment, siting facilities, or building low-income housing are politically riskyventures for Iucal officials. In manycases, a single community is taking onrisks that benefit neighboring commu-

2 lntergovemmen~ Paraptive/Fall 19S9

ln~tnenbl Fall 1989, Vol. 15, No. 4

StaffJohn KincaidExecutive Director

Joan A Cmey

Hstor

InteWvemmentaJ Penpeclive@SSN036N5~ is publishedfour tim~ a year by theU.S. Ad&ry COmIIIiSiOno“I”tergovemmental Relations,Wa.shington,DC ~5752412-653-5540

24

67

10

13

14

15

17

19

23

25

27

29

30

32

34

The Cheirman’s View

ACIR News

ACIR–The Baginning

Thraa Dacades of Policy Pioneering at ACIRBmce D. McDowell

Three Decedeaof Fiscel Fedaralismat ACIRRobeti D. Ebel

Refitting the SystemWiIliam G. Colmm

Recognizing Our IntardepandenceWillium R. MacDougaJl

Raavalusting the Syatamand “Sorting Out” RasponsibiOtiasWVne F Aderson

Competitive Federelism–Thraa Driving ForcasJohn Shannon

Currents of Change in tha Faderel SystemJohn Rincaid

Consensus for Changein tha Faderel Systam–Educstion and the EnvironmentTsny Branstad

Tha Future of tha Constitutional Systemhold Christensen

Raaponsibility, Resources, AccountabilityMaintaining the Creative PertnarahipBob Bolen

The Federal-Locel Pertnerehip:The Rebuilding Is Beginningh Minger

Resourcas, Regulation, end Realism:Small Governments in the Federal SystemB. Kenneth Greider

ACIR Membership 1959-1989

Publication of ACIR 1961-1989

YheChaim7anof the AdvisoryCommission on Inter-gavemmentalRelatiom ha de(ennined that thep[iblicatio!lof thispen”odicalis necessa~in the tmnsactionof lhepub-lic businessrequi~d by law of this Commission.Useoffinds forptinting this document has beenapprovedby theDirectorof the Ofice of Mmqqement and Budger.

~CIR News

The Research Agenda–1 990-1993

Following extensive work by theResearch Review Committee, theCommission approved the followingresearch program for the next threeyears. me projects are listed irr orderof priority within each of three catego-ries: monitoring the federal system,topical research, and projects forwhich outside funding wifl be smrght.

Monitoring the Federal System

Intewovernmental Psrs~ctivs (Quar-tefiy Magazine) - ‘

Si~~fi~;)Features of fiscal Federalism

M’icrocombuter Data Secvices (A.nual) -

Measuring State Fiscal Capaci~ rrndEf-foti @iennial)

Ciarr&ng Publi; Attitudes on Govsro-ments arrd Tus (Annual PublicOpinion Poll)

Catalog of Federal Grant-in-Aid Pm-grarn.rto State and Local Goverrrmerrts(Biennial)

Topicel Reeeerch

A Decade of Change in AmericanFederalism A Passing Phase or En-during Era?A. State Coufis and ml Autonomy

Immigration and Federalism: Costs,Civif Libefiies, Foreign Policy, andIntergovernmental Tensions

Federal, State, and Local Compliancewith Mandates The Case of Envi-ronmental Protection

Federalism Impact Analysex meFederalism Executive Qrder, FiscalNotes, RegulatoT Relief, and Waiv-ers for SmalI Governments

Siting Locally Unwnted Land UsesPublic Works PerspectivesThe Role of the National Guard in

Protectisrg the Nation and the StatesMonitoring Developments in State

Wtion and Regulation of BankingMedicaid: Intergovernmental “Pat

Man”?Home Rule: A Survey of Local UsageState Assumption of bl Functions

Financing Streets and Highways WhoPays for Potholes and InterStates?

Shiftirrg Functions in the ArrrericarrFederal System

Strengthening State and hl Reve-nue Systems for Equity and Effi-ciency

The ProDerty M Flaile or Qbso-lete?, - -

State--l Relations A Reconnais-sance of Salient Issues (Conference)

State tition of InsumnceWI F-1 Capacity and Fw1

EqualizationBenefit FinancingWorld Competitiveness isr Telecom-

munications The Critical Role ofthe States and Localities

The Intecplay of Federal and State--1 % Reform: Implications forLuw-Inmme Famifies

Intergovernmental Personnel POli~Portable Public Service Careers andPensions

Presidential Management of Intergov-ernmental Relations

Statewide Information and Data Net-works

State-State and State-Federal --tion and Regulation Compacts

Arrtitmst Policy in the Federal System

Outeide Funding

me Role of General Pupse Gover-nments in the Administration of Jus-tice

Improving Educational Qutcomes(Conference)

Coordinating Governments in theFederal System for Effective DmgAbuse bw Enforcement

Solid and Hazardous Waste Manage-ment (Conference)

Housing Assistance in the AmericanSystem

Welfare Refom in the Intergover-nmental System: How Well Is ItWorking?-

Child CareInterjrrrisdictional ~ and Policy

Competition and Cooperation Met-ropolitan Area Case Studies

State Suppoti for ACIR

The Commission would liketo thank the following states fortheir recent financial support ofACIR irr 1989 Alaska, Arkansas,Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Mis-souri, New Jersey, New York,North Carolina, Pen~lvania,Rhode Island, and Washington.

lnter~ovemmental Auuroaches toWo;k Force Preum-fion (Confer-ence)

Federal Grant Fomrula~ MatchingVariables and Structures to Objec-tives (Conference)

Enterprise Zones in the AmericanFederal System

~bal Guvemments in the AmericanFederal System

President AppointsNew Commissioners

President George Bush appointedfour new membem of ACIR in Se~-tember.

Lkbra RaeArsdersorr is Deputy As-sistant to the President and Directorof Intereovemmental Affairs. She is afocrner hember of the South DakotaHouse of Representatives.

ArthurJ Hoffond is Mayor of Tren-ton, New Jersey. He is the past presi-dent of the United States Conferenceof Mayors.

Mary men Joyce is the State Gov.emment Relations Representative forthe American Petroleum Institute.She is fomrer Executive Assistant toGovernor John H. Sununu.

Samuel K Skinner is U.S. Secre-taty of Transportation. He served aschairman of the Regional Transporta-tion Authority of Northeastern IIli-nois, and is a former U.S. Attorney forthe Northern District of Illinois.

4 IntereovamHtal Wrapactiva/Fall1eS9

September 14, 1989

1 am pleased to send my warmest greetings andcon granulations to everyone eelebrattig the30th anniversary of the Advieory Commission onIntergovernmental Relations.

State and local governments ara indispensable elementsOf Amefican dem~.acy. BY Promoting federalism .ndcauperation among cdl levels of government, the ACIRhelps to keep the- institutions strong and effective,while preventing excessive concentration of power bIWashington. The Commissionqs reeearch and polfcymcommendtions have enabled public offtcials at alllevels to better serve the American people. [n fact,your efforts have helped make our ayotem of govern-ment e model for freedom-loving peoples around theworld.

I congratulate the membsrs of the Advisory Commissionof Intergovernmental Relatione on three decades ofachievement. You have my best wfshes for conthuedsuccess in the years to come. God bless yo” all, a“dOad bless Ametica.

Partnership Task ForceMeets at White House

ACIR Chairman Robert B.Hawkins, Jr., and Executive Direc-tor John Wncsid were among thosewho attended the Intergovernme-ntalPartnership Wsk Force meetingwith Governor John Sununu at theWhite House on August 15.

The elected officials participat-ing in the session were: TennesseeSenator Douglas Henty, New YorkState Senator John Marchi, Louisi-ana Senator Samuel Nunez, OhioSenator Stanley Amnoff, DelawareRepresentative Jane Maroney, NewHampshire Representatives JoanneO’Rourke and Paul LaMott, SaltLske County Commissioner Mi-chael Stewart, and North DakotaSenator David Nething. The otherparticipants were: Carl Stenbergand Norman Beckman, Council ofState Govemment$ Lance Sim-mons, U.S. Conference of MayorsJon Felde, National Conference ofState Legislature Ralph Tabor,National Association of Countie&Rich Bartholomew, New York StateLegislature Maw McClure, SpecialAssistant to the President, and De-bra Andersun, Special Assistant tothe President.

Pictured here (left to right) are John Kincaid, David Nething, Jane Maroney, John Marchi, Douglas Henry, Robert Hawkins, JohnSununu. and Joanne O’Rourke.

Intergovernmental Perspecflve/Fal\ ?989 5

ACIR–The Beginning

In the early pact of his first term, president Dwight D. Eisenhower became con-cerned that the federal government was reaching tm deeply into the affairs of thestates and their political suMivisions. On March 30, 1953, the President sent a messageto the Congress propusing a special tempm’my study mmmission to make the first offi-cial study of “National-State-l-l relationships” since the Constitutional Conventionin 1787. Legislation to establish that commission was approved within a few months.

The chief concern was that federal aid to state and Iucal governments, though onlyabout 7 percent of the national budget at that time, had been growing rapidly, encom-passing many new functions of government traditionally reserved to the state and localgovernments, and carrying with it ticreasingly intrusive national requirements.

Sixteen volumes and two yeara later, this study commission concluded in its finalrepmt to the President that its work was “just the beginning rather than the end of amntempnra~ study of the subject of intergovernmental relations.” Remgnizing theimpossl%ility of “providing universally satisfactory answers to all uf the difficult ques-tions that are under discussion at any particular moment,” the commission remm-mended permanent mechanisms within the national government to give continuing 4t-

rention to “interlevel relations.” Those mechanisms were to be in the Congress, theWhite House, the Office of Management and Budget, many federal agencies, and aapecisl “advismy bnard.” Four years later, on September 14, 1959, the Adviso~ Com-mission on Intergovernmental Relations was established by Public Law M-3S0.

Declaration of Purpose

Because the complexity of modem life intensifies the need in a federal form ofgovernment for the fullest cooperation and cwrdination of activities between thelevels of government, and because population growth and scientific developmentspretend an increasingly complex society in future yeara, it is essential that an appro-priate agency be established to give mntinuing attention to intergovernmental prob-lems.

It is intended that the Commission, in the performance of its duties, will—

(1) bring together representatives of the Federal, State, and local governments forconsideration of @mmon problems

(2) provide a forum for discussing the admtilstration and coordination of Federalgrant and other programs requiring intergovernmental cooperatio~

(3) give critical attention to the conditions and controls involved in the administra-tion of Federal grant programs

(4) make available technical assistance to the executive and legislative branches ofthe Federal Government in the review of proposed legislation to determine itsoverall effect on the Federal system;

(5) encourage discussion and study at an early stage of emerging public problemsthat are likely to require intergovernmental cooperation;

(6) recommend, within the framework of the Constitution, the most desirable allo-cation of governmental functions, responsibilities, and revenues among the sev-eral levels of governments; and

(7) recommend methods of cmrdinating and simplifying tax laws and administra-tive practices to achieve a more orderly and less competitive fiscal relationshipbetween levels of government and to reduce the burden of compliance for tax-payers.

6 IntergovemmentiPersFtive/Fall 19@9

Three Decades of Policy Pioneering at ACIRBruce D. Mc&weff

The legislation that created theACIR in the fall of 1959 assigned to theCommission the task of encouraging“discussion and study at an early stageof emerging public problems that arelikely to require intergovernmental m-moderation.”ACIR has been pioneetigintergovernmental ~licies ever since.Some of the issues engaged by theACIR have affected the federal gov-ernment directly, while others havehad an impact prirnarify on state andlucal governments.

A rundown, decade by decade, ofsome of the contributions that ACIRhas made to resolving and clarifyingissues facing the American federal sys-tem during the past 30 years reveals asmuch about the recent history of inter-governmental relations as it does shutthe history of the Commission.

The 1960s

Aa the 1960s opened, ACIR wasgetting organized, and the nation wasboth embracing and struggling withthe unleashed forces of subufianiza-tion that had buift up during theGreat Depression and World War II.Metropolitan problems were in the air,and many state legislatures, with theirrural dominated leadership, routinelyturned away urban elected officialswhen they came for help.

ACIR tuuk up the challenge ofthese urban problems, recommendingfederal assistance for comprehensivelncal and metropolitan planning, fed-eral ordination of federal aid in met-ropolitan areas, advance federal ap-proval of interstate compacts for the30-some metropolitan areas that crossstate lines, and an intergovernmentalreview and mmment process to ensurethat all affected state and local gover-nmentswould have an opportunity forinput before fedemf aid could beauthorized.

me most influential of these rec-ommendations was the one for thereview and comment prucess. ~is pro-cess was enacted twice by the Con-gress, using language suggested byACIR—in 1%5 for physical develop-ment programs in metropolitan areasand in the Intergovernmental Coopera-

tion Act of 1968 for a broader range ofprograms hth inside and outside ofthese aras. Widely known as the A-95prmess for many years, it now operatesunder Executive Order 12372, signedby the President on July 14, 1982. Thereviews are carried out through stateagencies and areawide clearinghousesdesignated by the states, such as re-gional planning organizations andcouncifs of governments. ACIR re-viewed this process and recommendedimprovements several times throughthe 1970s and 1980s.

For a number of years dining the1960sand 1970s,ACIR, with OMB, OPecsted another review and commentprucess that was designed to providestate and local governments with earlyaccess to proposed federal regulationsaffecting them. Known as the A-85process, it was superseded by formalpublic notices of ndemaking and op-prntunities for comment published inthe Federal Register.

During the lWS, ACIR also wasinfluential in the enactment of

Q Amendments to give local gover-nment officials a role in decision-making tithm the anti-povertyprogram;

0 The Uniform Relocation and RealProperty”Acquisition Act of 1970,which provided for equal treat-ment of persons and businessesdisplaced by federal and federallysup~rted programs regardless ofwhich agency was involved; and

Q The Inte~ovsmmental PersormelAct of 1970, which provided foruniform merit principles through-out the federal- aid system (ratherthan different ones for the pro-grams of dtferent agencies), fortraining state and lwI perwnnelin federal programs, and for inter-governmental personnel mobifityassignments to facilitate the in-terchange of personnel amonggovernments that could improvemperation and operat ional capa-bilities.

Whh regard to broad national is-sues, ACIR initiated a proposal for en-

The ACIR over the years has pm-vidcd the intellectual leademhip to helpthe unique American federal system~rform its magic. Federalism is a ron-cept that all Americans cherish and thatfewunderatand in the same my. In fact,must Americam don’t think muchabout it at all; they just assume it will al-~Ys ~ the,m. But: as is tme with otherimportant mstltutlons, unless WCcon-stantlystrivc toundemtand it, nourish it,and keep it up to date, w stand in dan-ger of Iusing it The role that ACIR hasplayed sow]! is to foa the attention ofAmerica’s opinion Ieadem to the prob-lems and the potential of the federal sP-tem.

R. Scott FosterCommittee fir Economic Development

Happy Birthdsy ACIR ! All whohave been affiliated with the Commis-sion can & proud of its contribution tointersovcmmental relstions in the last30 yearn. Over that time, the Commis-sion haa accomplished one of the greatbalancing acts of mudem government.It has addrcti the cutting-edge issuesas WO as the long-term conccms of oursptem. It bas appealed to sn audienceranging from scademicimrs to the arrayof elected off]cials. It has striven might-ily to be political without becomingpoliticized. And it haa accomplished allof these goafs tith a remarkable degreeof SUWSS. The current budget mn-stmintr and increasing acrvim demandsare creating new tensions and stre%eson intergovernmental relations in ournation. These challenges make the mis-sion and role of the Commission evewbit as relevant now aa they wre in 1959.All who know and care about ACIRawait its mlutiom to these problems.

Michael C. MitchellGovemmentd Affai?rCommitiee

U.S. Senate

Intergovernmental Psrswtive/Fall 19a9 7

h former Vice Chairman ofACIR, I mmmend the Commision forthe ~itive influence it har had over theIaat 30 yearn in promoting mperationand undemanding bet=en all levels ofgovernment. YoursupPrt of traditionalwncepts of federalism and your takingthe lead in restoring balanw to the swtern has been a major and wv imwr-tant contribution to the strength of thisgreat muntry.

John H. SununuChiefof Stafl 7’heWhileHou.re

In the mti of federal, state, and lc-cal offims in which I have ben privi-leged to serve over ~veral derades,none has been of more value and inter-est to me than my service aa a memkrof the Advisov Commission on Inter-governmental Relations. Among manyother projects, I think particularlyof theunique contribution made during mytime a?,Counselor to the President whenw appraised and then implementedrevenue sharing and brought it to real-ity, with its attendant strengths andfrailties.Certainly, it w a most usefulexercis in the viability of our federalsystem,and, as we continue to stmgglefor resources at every level of gOvem-ment, the im~rtanm and need for theCommission must k increasingly un-derscored.

Robert H. FinchFanner Counselorto the President,

and FormerSecmtq of Hml(h,Education, and Welfarr

“Can ACIR help?” This is a keyquestion w aak when GAO is examin-ing federal programs with an intergov-ernmental dimension. Invariably, theanswr is “yes.” ACIRS reports, histori-cal data baxs, and staff have been an in-valuable resourw in GAOS wrk. Aprime example is the Commision’s ex-tensive wrk in the mid-1970aon blcckgrants. This w a valuable resourw forour msessment of the Reagan admini-stration blink grants in the 1980a. Be-yond data, ACIR serves an imwrtantrole as a forum for clarifying intergOv-emmental issues facing the federal sN-tem. Becauae ACIR insistently in-cludes all levelsof government in carry-ing out this role, it probably could not bedone aa well by anyone else.

John KamenskyUS. Genend Accounting Ofice

actment of a requirement that thePresident submit to the Congress a bi-ennial national growth pulicy. Thatdocument, prepared in every even-numbered year beginning in 1972, waarefwused on “urban fmliq” during the1970a. A separate requirement for anannual rural development plicy wasenacted in 19S0.

ACIR recommendation to stateand local governments in the lWSconcentrated on “an arsenal of reme-dial wea~ns” for local governments todraw on in their quest to solve metro-politan problems and for states to usein strengthening their governments.

The lucal government araenal in-cluded home rule, annemtion, muntymtiemization, conardidation and dis-aulution powers, neighkrhti sub-units, supervision of special districts,intermural agreements, transfers offunctions, mtdtijuriadictional Organti-tions, and other measures. Remgniz-ing that no single solution would beright for every situation, the Commis-sion prepared and vigorously promotedsuggested state legislation to authorizethese various approaches.

On the state strengthening issue,ACIR recommended reapportionmentof the state Iegialatures (its reprt wascited in the Supreme Court’s 1%Reynolds v. Sim decision), year-roundstaffing and annual sessions uf legisla-tures, mndemization of committeestructures, executive budgets, appoint-ment of cabinet members by the gover-nor, and four-year terms for governorswith the opportunity to sumeed them-selves in office. ACIR prepared andpromoted suggested state legislationon these matters.

ACIR was alau influential in carv-ing out a state role in establishingbuilding cudes where lucal gover-nments do not provide them and whenmanufactured housing is involved, andhelped to establish a national associa-tion of state building cede officials. Fi-nally, ACIR set forth one of the earli-est blueprints for state and localgrowth management programs.

The 1970s

The decade of the 1970s was spentdetailing many aspects of the issuesbroached during the Commission’sfirst decade. On the federal side, mostof ACIR’S energy went into federal en-

couragement of regional organizationand improved management of the ex-panding federal grant-in-aid system.

ACIRS supprt for regionalismhelped to e~nd the mverage of aub-state regional organizations in metro-politan and nonmetropolitan areas toabout W percent of the muntry’s landarea. Similar wverage was also at-tained by two sets of larger multistateOIganfitiOns, one for economic devel.opment purposes and one for river-basin planning and coordination.

ACIR’S pioneering role in the fed-eral grant system mntributed signifi-cantly to enactment of general revenuesharing and the establishment of sev-eral bluck grants. Both fores of aidwere seen as being substantially lessburdenwme for state and lural gover-nmentsto administer than the ra.tegori-ral grmrta that had monopolized thesystem. ACIR was alau very active insupporting the development of stan-dard grant administration procedures(under OMB Circular A-102) for re-pufiing, prmtrrement, matching, prop-erty management, and auditing. Theseprocedures, applicable throughout thegrant system, mean less red tape andfewer differing rules for state and loralgovernments.

It was in the 1970s that ACIR be-gan to study the minrinal justice sys-tem. This work began with a 1970 studyof state and lucal roles in criminal jus-tice. The federal government wasbrought into the picture with a 1977study of the Safe Streets bhxk grantand a study of jails in 19S4.~is issue isstill on the front burner, with ACIRlikely to study it again in the near fu-ture.

ACIRS state and lucal contribu-tions in the 1970s fucused on the estab-lishment and operation of regionalO1gantitiOns under state law, the useof interstate mmpacts in regional af-fairs, the growing burden of state man-dates on the limited resources of lwalgovernments, the need for stateACIRS, and a recommendation thatstates replace their separate single-mode transpoflation agencies with acomprehensive, multimodal transpor-tation department. Most states nowhave DOTS. ACIRS influence wasgreatest, perhaps, in raising the na-tion’s COflaCiOUSneSaabut mandatesand encouraging more restraints by the

8 Intergovernmental Psrswtive/Fall 1989

federal government as well as thestates, and in providing assistance forthe establishment of state ACIR coun-tecpacts. Four state groups were cre-ated before the 1970s, and nine duringthe 1970$ in the 1980s, 16 were cre-ated, more than doubling the numberto 29 at present.

me 1980s

me 19WShave seen a substantialshift in intergovernmental relations.As the federal budget tightened,squeezing federal aid to state and Iucalgovernments from a high of more than17 percent of all federal expendituresdom to about 10 percent today, ACIRrecommended (and provided technicalassistance for) a systematic aufiingout of reapunsibilities and revenuesources. In 1982 and 1983, the WhiteHouse and the governors, led by ACIRmember Gnvemor Richard A. Snellingof Vemont, negotiated long and hardfor a major “swap” of program reapnn-sibilities. More than 60 different mm-binations of programs were consid-ered, with ACIR providing the analysisof state-by-state fiscal effects. In theend, no agreement was reached, butmany intergovernmental issues werethoroughly aired.

In 1985, ACIR recommended are-newed am’ting-out effofi and offeredfive additional illustrative packages ofpotential programs for consideration.Then, in 1987, tbe Commission recom-mended asa long-tercn goal the turningback to the states of all non-Interstatehighway programs and an equivalentpuc’tionof the federal gaaoltie tax, withimmediate and intermediate guals toease the transition.

Meanwhile, the Commission pio-neered the study of a new field of“regulatory federalism.” The issue offederal preemption of state and localauthority had lain dormant since theKestnbaum Commission on lntergov-emmental Relations had studied it inthe mid-1950s. This issue, and the re-lated issue of federal reimbursementof mandated custs to state and Iumlgovernments, were brought back ontothe intergovernmental agenda in awide-ranging ACIR re~rt publishedin 19M. Now, in a forthcoming repct,ACIR documents for the first time thefederal government’s use of statuto~preemption powers decade by decade.The conclusion is that this activity hasaccelerated greatly in the 1970s and1980s.

On the strength of its 1984study ofregulatory federalism, the Commissionsup~rted recent effofis to providegrc!ater flexibility in the means of com-plying with federal regulation fudhersimplflcation of such regulations, andwaivem of wme regulations for smallgovernments under the RegulatoryFleribili~Ac/ of 1980. The Commissionalsu initiated, and the Congress en-acted, a “fiscal notes” prncess requir-ing the Congressional Budget Office toesticnate the financial rests to state andIucal governments of bills repucted outof congressional committees before afluor vote mn be held. Following itsinitial five-year trial pecicd, this pruce-dure was reenacted.

Finally, the Commission has beenplaying a major role over the past sev-eral years in attempdng to restore con-stitutional balance to tbe federal sys-tem. Following recent U.S. SupremeCouc’t decisions that appear to leaveprotection of statea’ rights under theTenth Amendment up to the Congress,the Commission has recommendedstrengthening that provision of theU.S. Constitution and giving the statesgreater access to the process foramending the Constitution.

The Commission chronicled theresurgence of state governments in its1985 repct The Question of State Gov-ernment Capabi/i~. In 1989, the Com-mission prcrcfuced a study nf issues andinnovations in state institutional law,recommended that this new field ofstudy be fcccther developed and recog-nized as a foundation of American fed-eralism, and published tbe first wide-mnging Wk of law cases and othermatecials for use in teaching this long-neglected tnpic.

Conclusion

The Commission, of murse, hasdone much more than can be high-lighted in a shofi afiicle. But the pactiallisting abuve illustrates the seriousnesswith which the Commission takes itsstatutory mandate to engage emergingissues that call for intergovernmentalcuuperat ion. There is no lack of suchissues on the horizon. The nefi decadewill hold its own unique challenges forthe American federal system. TheCommission is eager to play its role intaking up those challenges.

Bruce D. McDowell is ciirectoc Govern-ment Policy Research, ACIR.

1consider m~lf fortunate to havee~nenccd the wrk of the CMCImiS-s]on from wvcral Pcmpcctiws-as a re-searcher in state and IHl public fi-nance who has found tbe repm’ta andanal~ to bc inmriably infocmativcand insighttit sa a Commission em-plnycc who gained a ma] appreciation ofthe dedication of the staff and the fa.nating delibcraiions of the Commissionitself; and as a state and lncal govern.mcnt com.ultant who has mme to real-ize the high t’cgard in the field for theCommission’s wrk. ACIR har mademajor wntributions not only in public~licy but also in broader public under-standing of the meaning of our systemof federalism.

Harvey Galperfiat Mwwick

Congratulations on the 30th anni-vccaary of the ACIR. Govcmment mnson information, and in Montana w relyon the ACIR to develop new pliciesand to ansmr cdd questions for the cit-ies and tows in our state. We oprateon the philmophy that it isn’t ncccssaryto reinmnt the wheel evev time a prnb-Iem comes along, and the ACIR gives usthe ability to review similar situations inother partr of the country and to comeup with a su!ution that has ken prnvcnin practice. The ACIR stands for theidea that government, from Congress tothe smallesttowns in Montana, is a wm.munlty of common interests, and arlong as it stee~ by this star, the organi-zation will wlebrate many sumssful an-niversaries.

Alec HansenMontma Leagueof Cilia and Towns

For 30 years, the ACIR has mn-tributed a acrviccof great value tn the=United States of America, and to the cit-ies, tows, counties, and other units ofgovcmment in which the people liwand practice democraq. It is notenough to talk abut federal systems orabut shared responsibilities An nngu-ing effort is needed to study tbe effec-tivcnes of tbe my?iad mmbinations ofresponsibilities that arc pmsible if ware to qlore the full putential of oursystem. The ACIR helps us reach to.=rd national standards nf decency andpublic expectation, while striring tokeep as much democracy and decision-making as pmsible aa CIOSCto the votersas psible.

Richard A. SnellingFomer Governor,Vemzont

Intergovemmental Perswtive/Fall 1989 9

Three Decades of Fiscal

The Advisory Commi%ion on In.tergovemmental Reladons has a 3&year reard of success. Where therecould k acrimony, instead there is am.ity. Where there is ptential for contro-vemy, instead common ~und is found.That’s an impressive achievement, inwhich the ACIR can take great pride,The Commi%ion has fmtered an enti.ronment of res~t and conpemtion be.twen federal, state, and IwI officialsthat hm enhanced governing in Amer.ica. Federalism has flourished becauseof the wnrk of the Commission. ~meof us who have servedo” the Commas.sion have gained individuallyand gov-ernments have gained wllectively fromthe Commission’s steadfast cnmmit.ment to America’s unique s~tem ofgovernment.

Gwendolyn S. KingCommissionerof Social Secun”ty

In 1959,the Congress had the fore-sight to create a bndy that wuld serve asi link between the various levels of gov-:mment and private citizens. Now, u;he AdtisoIY Commission on Intergov-?mmental Relations prepares to cele.)rate its 30th annivemary, Iwuld like tommmend it for its dedication to the pur.;uit of excellencein government, ACIRIa.r brought together successfully pi-i.rate citizens and reprewntatives from

federal, state, and 10CSIgovemmentr todiscuw and exchange ideas. Tbe Corn.mirsion recognims that only throughthe awsreness of the problems facingour snciety are govemmenb able to im-prove the quality of life for our citi~ns.

Mark M. RogacfdWisconsinCountiesAOcialiOn

Issues of fiscal federalism are, fun-damentally, those ofintergovemmen-tal relations and their effects on theachievement of the goals of fairness,equity, efficien~, liberty, and seff-govemment in our demnccstic society.~ put it in more genersl terms, the in-tergovernmental fiscal system is morethan a mmpendium of tax law and ar-cane ecnnomic dat~ it is an expressionof relationships among individuals,among governments, and between thepeople and their governments.

Fiscal analysis is, therefore, a keytonl itr understanding and strengthen-ing the American federal system,which, in turn, is one of the most im-pmtant contributions of this nation tothe workings of demucra~.

The Role of ACIR

Within the bruad frsmework offederalism and democrs~, tbe ACIRhas been charged with a unique role.As a permanent bipartisan agenq thatis not “dominated or wntrolled by anyone level of govemrrrent,” the Com-mission has made major wntributionswith respect to

Q Monitoring the federal system;

Q Strengthening the fiscal positionof state and local governments;

() Momoting balance in the federalsystem;

o Maintaining the vitality of the fed.ersl system by suggesting policiesfor improving fiscal performanceand

Q Advocating acmuntability.

Monitoring the Federal Syetem

For30 years, the ACIRbas beencollecting and organizing fiscal data tohelp policymakers and practitionersalike to identify trends, turning points,and periods of federal or state-localactivism in intergovernmental rela-tions.

Since its inception in 1%1 as TuOvsr[apping in the United States, andnow as tbe annual .Si&ificmt Features

Federalism at ACIRRobeti ~ Ebel

of fiscal Federalism, ACIR’S survey ofthe fiwl character of the federsl, 10.ml, and state governments has been anessential tnnl for tracing longtetmtrends and other changes in the inter-governmental system. Since 19%,much of the information has beenmade available in mmputer format, in-creasing its reach and usefulness.

In 1%2, the ACIR pioneered anew method for measuring the fiscalcapacities of state and local gover-nments-the Representative W Sys.tern (WS). After several refinements,the ~S and, since 1985, the somewhatbroader measure of the Representa-tive Revenue System, have be~mewidely (though not universally) ac-cepted, and are used to facilitate fiscalcomparisons among the states and toprovide benchmarks for the design offederal grsnt programs. RTS bas beenincorporated into several mngres-sional proposals for grant legislationand also has been reedified for USeindistributing federal-provincial grsntfunda in Canada. Now, ACIR has takenanother step towsrd improving themeasure of fiswl rapacity with a Rep-resentative Expenditure System, whichestimates ~ending “needs” among thestat es.

An impmtant development, par.tictdarly in the last few years, has beenthe adaptation of the RTS and RRS foruse by ;tate legislat ures as they lmk atstate progcsms of aid to l-l govern.ments. State-lml fiscal relations arebecoming increasingly important inpart because state pnlicymakers facerising demands on limited financisl re.sources in an era of declining directfedersl involvement in state and localfiscal affairs.

The Commission alsn prcduces aCatalog of Federal Grant-in-Aid Pro-grams to State and Local Governments,which lists and brieflv describes eachprogram of federal gr~nts that is actu-ally funded. The catalog, an outgrowthof a multivolume ACIR study on theintergovernmental grant system in

10 lntergovemmen~ Pefswtiva/Fsil 19S9

1975, is the only volume of its kind,makirrg it a document widely used byintergovernmental firrance practitio-ners.

Finally, since 1972, ACIR has beenasking the public for its opinions on the‘<worst”or least fair tax and which gov-ernment gives the t~ayers the mostor the least for their money. Thiswidely cited annual Pll (several topi-cal questions alsn are asked each year)provides 18years of trend data on pub-lic attitudes toward taxes in the federalsystem.

Strengthening Steteand Locel Governments

The Commission’s record of iden-tifying and researching issues of bnthemerging and long-terrrr importancehas helped to establish it as a forumand anurce of ideas for developing Pli-cies intended to strengthen all the ele-ments of the federal system. me Com-mission has demonstrated an ability toidentify issues for analysis that, whilethey may be largely unnoticed at thetime, anon rise to the top of the na-tion’s intergovernmental agenda. Dur-ing the last 30 years, ACIR’S remm-mendations for strengthening stateand lucal governments have rangedfrom emphasizing techniques and poli-cies for improving the administrationof state income and sales taxes to pro-viding guidelines for lucal fiscal pnli-cies, such as targeted property tas re-lief and lucal revenue divers~lcation.In addition, the Commission was themajor promoter of the idea that theadoption of broad-based taxes is pactand parcel of strengthening the fiscalposition of state and local governmentsand harmonizing-and thereby en-hancing—the federal-state-local sys-tem as a whole.

Since the mid-1960s, the inwrpo-ration irrto tax law of many key ele-ments of fiscally strong state and Iucalrevenue systems is in g~ measuredue to ACIR efforts-property tax“circuit breakers,” troth-in-taxationprotilons, federally conforming stateticome taxes, user fee financing, andtax credits for targeting tax relief tolow-income families.

Promoting Balencs

When the ACIR was established irr1959, even marry ardent advocates of

the merits of a unitary system of gov-ernment recognized the need for de-centralizing some of the pwer that thefederal government had accrued dur-ing the 1940s and 19WS.

One of the first irrrpmtant ques-tions to arise was how to promote andachieve decentralization itr a mannerthat would have real pulitiml effective-ness and permanence.

Strengthening the state and Inca]revenue system while at the mme timepromoting federal/state-local fiscal co.ordination was, and remains, critial,but it was only part of the answer. Justas im~rtant at the time was the needto redirect snme of the federal gover-nment’s ovemhelming fiscal resourcesto what were then viewed as the lowerlevels of government.

On the fiscal side, the Commissioncame up with a bld strate~ a tripar-tite restructuring of the federal grantsystem. In 1%7, the Commission’s Hs-cal Balance in the Americun Federal Sys-tem calIed on the Congress to enact acombination of federal categoricalgrants-in-aid, general functional blnckgrants, and general suppnrt payments.Other recommendations followed, in-cluding a call for general revenue shar-ing. ‘f’he Commission’s work on thestructure of intergovernmental grantshas had an enduring impact, from theintroduction in Congress of WecflcACIR suggested legislation to a broadrestmcturing of federal aid programsaIong the lines adv~ted by the Com-mission.

ImprovingFiscal Performance

A close companion to strengthen-irrg the fiscal pnsitinn of specific gov-ernments and ensuring balance amonggovernments irr the federal system as awhole is improving the operation of thefiscal system. There are several areaswhere the ACIR has, and will cuntbrueto have, an impact on the practical op-eration of intergovernmental fiscal af-fairs.

A notable mntribution was theCommission’s work on city fbranctilemergencies. Questions were just be-ginning to be raised regarding the fi-nancial stability of large cities when, in1973, ACIR released a policy repurtsetting out warning signals of an im-pending crisis and suggesting appropri-

My e~rience with ACIR spansthe better pmt of its history. In the1960s, as a legislati= campaign vulun-teer, the mnat useful things I did re-sulted from trsrrslating ACIR data to fitour state and situation. Later, as a re-searcher in ewnomics and go=mment,Commiaion materials provided usefulinputs, particularly on trends. As a statefinance director in tbe 19705, an ACIRCOnCCptand ACIR data on businesstaxes %re a key part of revising thestate’s tax plicies. Working as a tax pol-icy comultant for another state, ACIR’Sreprewntadvc taxs~tem wasextremelyuseful in relating individual state SFterns and options to nationwide patternsand policies. Now, as editor of publica-tions used hy state ~licymakem, themmt usefil ACIR mntributions arc theSo-stateplicy comparisons that nearlyevcVone likes tu use but no one elcs hasthe combination of resources and credi-bility to do.

Hal HoveyState filicy Ifeputis

I applauded when Congress en-acted the ACIR legislation and cheeredat the appointment nf a mawlous teamto launch the new enterprise. Them anyACIR studies they and later Ieadem in-itiated provided assessments, goals, andimplementation guidanm fur makingthe federal system highly coordinatedand productive. Federal, state, and lncalofficials wre fortified with compellingrecommendations. Univsmity instmc-toi-s gained authoritatiw reference ma.terials. Effective u% of ACIR and ibmaterials wuld assure the advan= nfintergovernmental mpcration and afar better sharing of responsibilityamong governments in roping with dc-mestic functions.

Donald C. StoneCualitionto Impmve Management

in Slate and Local Government

Intergovernmental brsF8ctive/Fall 1989 11

1 would like to express my congranulations to ACIR on ita 30th anniversa~. 1pay my total respect to the impressive fact that, with three decades oremarkable achievement t, the Com mission haa been seeking an effective fed.eral s~iem and roo~ration among Iev.els of govcmment. Japan, sinw the~t-war period, has bad a federal.ltisystem of government like that of thtUnited States. We now are facing theneed for itr reform aa the needs of soci.ety change. The Commiaaion mntinuesto bc important and reaaurceful, notonly to thegovcmments here but also toour govcmmenta in Japan. In fact, e%nbefors our organization w established, ACIR provided Stale md LocalRolesin the FedendSystem for Japaneartranslation. I wrtainly hope to develop acloser relationship with ACIR in the fu-ture.

Yostdmi Minamif~m Lord GovernmentCenter,

NW Yok

1wuld like to take the -ion ofthe 30th anniveraa~ of the ACIR tocongratulate the Commission for itsoutstanding work. I am especially im.preswd by what the Commission haabeen able to do during these more aus-tere yeara of the 1980r. Having beenpresent at the creation of the ACIR, andhaving acmed on the Commission from1959 to 1977, I have a strong wmmit-ment to the principles of federalism andintergovernmental ti~ration that un-derlie the mrk of the Commission. Iwish the Commision every sum,therefore, in helping all of w to wn-front the new and grave challenges tothe viability of our federal system today,

Edmund S. MuskieFanner US. Senator,Maine

When President Reagan twk of.fire, he knew from his experien~ asZalifomia Governor that the states,vere wII equipped to handle manynattem better than the federal govern.nent. He wnted to dercntralize gov-?mment. And it w the outstanding>lOfeSSiOnalmrk of the ACIR that]elpcd us fashion blink grants, regula-:oiy relief, and other programs totchieve some real devolution. ACIR,tith its bipartisan membemhip from allevels of government and its highly PI*essional staff, bar been an invaluablelrena for research, public ~licy debate,Lndpractical propuaals to keep our fed-:ral system strong.

Richard S. WilliamsonChicago

ate state, local, and federal roles in theevent of an actual emergen~. Threeyears later, the default on billions ofdollars of New York City notes, plus arash of fiscal crises in other pact of themuntry, became front page news and atop agenda item in Washington as wellas in state capitals. mat repmt and its1985 update-along with complemen-tary repmts on local cssh managementand state and local debt—remain im-pofiant reference works.

ACIR’S re~mmendstions on thestructure of state school aid systemsmerit special attention. School financewas a hot topic when the Commissionficat studied it in the late IWS (.YfafeAid 10Local Governments, 1%9), againin the mid- 1970s (Finoncing Schools andfiops~ Ta Relief—A State Rm-ponsi-bility, 1974), and in the mid-19Ws(Strengthening the Federal Revsnue Sys-tem, 1984). Now, school finance isabout to become a hot topic again aspolicymakem strive to address the criti-cal issue of educational change andperformance, Several states presentlyare examining ACIR’S recommenda-tions regarding the extent of the staterule and the stmcture of school fi.nance.

ACIR reWrts also have high-lighted problems for state tax adminis-trators resulting from organized crimetaking advantage of large-srale differ-entials in state-levied incise tsxes. TheCommission’s initial resesrch on ciga-rette ktlegging played an impmtsntrole in 1978when, for the first time, theCongress specifically made interstatetax evasiun a crime. Aa a result, in afollow-up repmi (1985), the Commis-sion was able to repm’t that cigsrettetax evasion, particularly Iarge-=leorganized smuggling, had decIined dm-mat irally since the 1970a.

Advocating Accountabllify

There have been some irnpu~ntACIR legislative “victories” in terms of“fisral fair play” or governmental ac-countability. For emmple, the ACIRmade important contributions to thecongressional adoption of the fisralnotes process and indexation of thepersonal income tax. And Ihe Congressmay yet act on an ACIR recommenda-tion to permit states that have a sales

On the other side of the ledger,Commission recommendations thatthe federal government pay 1-1 prop-erty taxes (either directly or on an irr-Iieu basis) and that states begin at leastpartial reirnburaement of certain typesof state mandates of I@l expenditureshave been ignored or nnt widely inrple-mented to date. However, given thewidespread recognition of the tipr-tance of the issues raked by intergov-ernmental tax immunities and unreim-bursed mandates, these ACIR reportsand recommendations remain impor.tant.

The Challenge for ACIR

The credlbiity of the Commissionas a fomm for strengthening the abifityof the federsl system to meet the prob-lems of an increasingly mmplm societyis grounded in its unique atrvcture as abroadly representative and genuine in-tergovernmental body, and in the qual-ity of its research prducts.

Fiscal research is a powerful toolfor analyzing the nature of the complexrelationships in our federal system, andACIRS contributions to that researchand puliey process over the past 30years have been signflcant. The chal.lenge for ACIR in the years ahead ia tomaintain that record of pefiormance.

Robert D. Ebe[ is directot GovernmentFinance Researeh, ACIR.

and use tax to enforce use tax collec-tion on out-of-state maif order wles.

12 lntergovemmenM Perawve/Fsll 19s9

Refitting the Federal SystemWilliam G. Colman

I was appninted executive directorOfthe Commission at its second meet-mg, On~ebma~ 10,1960. At the end ofmy semce, the ACIR annual report inJannary 1970 described the federalismtrends of the 1%0s as having begun“with a continuing disenchantmentwith ‘layer cake’ federalism and thelaggard res~nse of state governmentto escalating urban needs. . . . At mid-point in the decade, public sentimentfor the ‘Great Society’ programs was ata peak, accompanied by a... belief thatonly national action was sufficient oraPPrOPfi\e,tO ,meet the challenges ofpoverty, clti rights, and urban decay.However, the Sixties are ending with astrong flow of power back to the statesand localities, a growing disillusion-ment [with national action] and sub-stantial sentiment in snpport of a ‘NewFederalism.’” With benefit of 20 years’hindsight, I would cmrcur with thisoverall assessment.

At the beginning of and throughthe Sixties, four conditions—one longstanding and three emerging— wereundermining the strength and inrpair-ing the effectiveness of the Americanfederal system. They were:

1.

2.

3.

4.

The structural weakness, poliq ti-midity, and narrow perspective ofstate governments (with a few ex-ceptions), causing them to fail thetest of public cofildence and credi-bility through their wntinuing fail-nre to discharge state responsibil-ities,and thereby rendeting ratherhollow their strident clamoring for“states rights.”A rapid expansion of tbe nationalgovernment’s activity and role indomestic governance, ammpa-nied by a growing disdain for state-lncal roles, with consequent confu-sion, inefficiency, inequity, andtension in national-state-lml re-lationships.

Growing interlocal economic, fis-cal, and social disparities in the na-tion’s metro~litan areas, withconcument shifts in population,wealth, and economic opportunityfrom central city to suburban juris-dictions and residents.

A continuing decline in the aca-demic rigor, ~ttality of governance,and adequacy of state.lml gov-

emment-schwl district intergov-ernmental stmctures and prw-esses for elementary andseconda~ education, especially inlarge cities.

Today, the fmt of the foregoing,with few exceptions, has essentially dis-aPPeare~, the seand has improvedand stabirzed on the service side, butnot the regulatory sidq the seriousnessof the thud continues; and the fomthhas reached disaster propctions inmany cities. In 1%0-70, ACIR gener-ally respnded quite well to the firstand third of these problems. To the sec-ond, its response stressed issues ofstructure and process, with, mnse-quently, relatively less attention to ma-jor functional programs and state-lncalregulatory activities. ACIR respondedfirrrdy to the third problem, with meas-urable results. However, the ACIRfailed to delve into the public educa-tion area, except fiscally (this disincli-nation has continued to the present).

Structural and plicy deficienciesof state government were well recog-nized by 1960, and the worth of certainrefomrs was demonstrated in a fewstates. A “long ballot,” restrictions onthe number and length of gubemato-cial terns, brief biennial legislative ses-sions, and overlapping state coufl sys-tems with little attention to courtadministration was the general pat-tern. On the pnlicy side, callous state-local relations, particularly for urbanareas, and inadequate revenue systemswere characteristic.

Drawing on earlier studies andsuccessful state experiences, ACIRrecommended:

1.

2.

3.

4.

State legislative reapportionmenton a population basiv

Shofi ballot, gubernatorial reor-gantition authority, annual legis-lative sessions, and year-roundprofessional staffing of key com-mittees

EWanded use of the income tax bystate governments and authoriza-tion for pigg back use by larger lo-cal units;

State authorization for city-countyfunctional transfers by governingmy action; and

(conrinuedonpage 16)

The value of ACIR goes far beyondik hallmark research and anal~is. TheCommission played a large role in the:nactment of federal block grants andgeneral rewnue sharing. The ACIRSwrk in identi&ng mts imwed bystate and fcdersl mandates led to the in-:Iusion of fiscal notes in legislation af-fecting local govcmments. And the suc-xs of the Commission as a forumwhereby federal, state, and Iccal electedDfficials meet to di.scu= intergo=m-mental issues also har had a significantimpact on state-local relations.

Kathryn FeidelsonConnecticutConfe=nce

of Municipafitie.s

On the occasion of tbe 30th anni-vcm~ of the ACIR, 1 am pleased to ex-press my wngratulations to the Com-mission for a history of leademhip andsuccessin championing the Americanfederal s~tem. The research mnductedby the Comm ision is highly regarded,and its reports have reflected a reasonedview of some of the m-t imprtant is-sues pertaining to intergovernmentalrelations in the United States. In addi-tion, the Virginia Local GovernmentAdvisory Council, a state ACIR, has en-joyed a long and mrdial relationshipwith tbe Commkion and its staff. AsAmerica moves into the 21st Century, 1am confident that the Commission willbc in the forefront in addressing thosepublic issues that will shape the govem-ancc of this nation in the future.

Robeti H. Kirby~~tiia LocalAdvisoy Co[lncil

We are particularly pleased to joinin the celebration of ACIRS 30th anni-versary. The excellence of ACIRS re-search is wI] known and respectedamens the municipal Sovemmenti offlorida. The Commission’s outstanding:fforts prompted the establishment of aFtorida ACIR, and w are proud to havempportcd that legislation.

Raymond G. SittigFloridaLeagueof Mt:nicipu/iIies

lntsrgovemmen~ Perspactivs/Fall 19S9 13

Recognizing Our Interdependence

Over the past 30 yearn, the ACIRhas served as the major &amn of bipar-dsan ~rdse on intergovernmentalrelations, Throughout its history, theACIR has brought together the bestminds in government to put foflh poliqrecommendations on the “sptem” is-sues of federalist ate-lccal relations ips,creating a professional context fOr tit-ter-informed ~licymaking at all levels.Rewntly, ACIR has ken in the van-guard of the movement to create ACIRSat the state level and, through its suc-cess, has contributed strongly to a muld-plication of its most valuable traits.

David W. RussellConnecticut Advi.eoVCommission

on IntefgovemmentafRrlatiom

From 1965t01980,1had theprivi-Iege of listening to the plitiml leaderswho served on the Com mission set out aseries of recommendations that sug.gested how to achieve fiscal balanceamong nation, state, and Iccal gover-nment. The Commision reprts re-flected a respect for the task of govem-inginammplex society, and an aware.ness of the role of al! governments toprovide political, economic, and socialiusticc for the citizenV. Commissionrecommendations stand as the founda-tion on which states to this day retaintheir capacity to serve as laboratories fortesting effective governmental practice.[ was and am proud to have ken a par-ticipant in the effort.

Will S. MyersNational EducationAsmciation

Congratulations on ACIRS 30thanniversary. ACIR fills a role that he-mmes more essential in each decade,Missouri hm benefited from ACIRSwrk in several areas, both in research]mjects and, m-t impmtantly, msis-:ance in establishing the Missouri Corn.nission on Intergovernmental CcOp-:ration. ACIRsadtice andenmurage-nent is vital to our ongoing success. Be-xuse of its unique role, ACIR is in a P-;ition to improve federal, state, and lo-:al government relations and practices.rhis is an extremely imprtant job,vhicb ACIR does ve~ wO.

his PoblMtisoun’ Commission

on In(ergovemmentolCoopemtion

The major intergovernmental is-sues facing the United States in theearIy 1970s were not new. Some hadtheir rnuts in the beginning of our re-public, whife others were a more recentheritage stemming from the turbu-lence of the 19WSand lHs.

ne first half of the 1970s wereyears that were neither the best nor theworst for the great intergovernmentalissues that pervade the fiscal and stmc-tural framework of federalism. Theywere (and are) issues that fuel the de-bate over the nation’s goals. Foremostin those days were the issues of attain-ing governmental fisral balance whileat the same time striving valiantly, andoccasionally desperately, to mudemizethe nation’s Iwl, state, and nationalstructural framework.

Specifically, issues such as welfarereform, criminal justice, tra.nsprta-tion, the environment, and balancedgrowth commanded the attention ofthose concerned with the intergover-nmental future of America. ~ese is-sues willbe intheforefront still as thedecade of the 1990s begins.

The one issue that overwhelmedall others was the struggle for and theattainment of general revenue sharing.At the beginning of the 1970s, generalrevenue sharing by the federal gover-nmentappeared to be a tital, but slightlyimprobable, objective. To the amaze-ment of some, in less than five years,general revenue sharing not only hadbeen achieved but also was the subjectof much activity related to its extensionand renewal. Only history not yet tit-ten will reveal whether or not thestates and local ities can survive perma-nently without such a program.

Suffice it to say that the generaljubilation over the achievement offedecsl revenue sharing produced aeuphoric atmosphere in which prog-ress was able to be made on otherpressing intergovernmental issues.

Federalization of the public assis-tance categories was partially attained,even though what had been heraldedas “total welfare reform” did not wcur.Block grants and grant consolidationprograms were much discussed, andsome progress toward them was made.

The support of the public schoolscontinues to be the subject of much de-bate. Its intergovernmental aspects in

Williom R MacDougoll

the early 1970s included both discus.sion of the need to protect lucal ad.mtiistration of school systems and aneed to provide relief from the cmsh.ing burden of lml property taxes asthe principal source of school suppurt.

There was thus emerging therough outline of a new fiscal frame witha hea~ intergovernmental emphasis.Fortunately, it was realized that gov-ernmental forms to match the progressin fiwl fedecslism were much needed.Consequently, the mudemization ofstate government became a populartopic, and progress was recorded thereand in the fields of criminal justice andurban tcsnsportation.

By 1974, the Commission recog-nized the need fora national discussionof all of these issues. It therefore or-dered the holding of a “National Con.ference on American Federalism in&tion,” which was eunvened in Wash.mgton in FebmaV 1975. For threedays, federal, state, county, and citygovernmental Ieadera and eminent ob-setvera of the governmental scene dis-cussed the state of federalism, ex-pressed their cutildence in it, andoutlined future solutions to problems.

The issues ident~led above re-ceived proper attention. However, anew emphasis was apparent, catego-fied at this conference as “decentrali-zation: federalism’s recurring chal-lenge.” Thus there was recognized theemerging importance of possible re-alignment and reassignment of the lev-els at which various governmentalfunctions and services may best beIudged. At the least, there was recogni.[ion that the monumental fiscalchanges murring merited a reexami-nation of “who does what.” At themost, there was an awakening to theprobable truth of the concept that thenation could not forever afford thecosts of duplication, fragmentation,and lack of responsiveness among itsseveral thousand governments.

In the mid-1970s, it became evi-dent that the time had passed whenmajor decisions at any level of gover-nmentcould be made in a vacuum. Thepemading interdependence seemedgenerally recognized.

William R. McDougall was ACIR a-ecutive director from 1970 to 1974.

14 intergovernmentalPsrswtive/Frdl 19S9

Reevaluating the Systemand “Sorting Out” ResponsibilitiesWayne J?Anderson

My service at ACIR, from 1974 to1982, apanned the last ten days of theNixon Administration, all of the Fordand Carter Administrations, and thefirst year of the Reagan Administra-tion. me intergovernmental scene wasbustling and marked by excesses thatinevitably gave way to the mling ofthe 1980s.

From the vantage pint of 1989,many intergovernmental “stories” thatwere prominent in the newspapers andjournals in the mid-197@ have sincebeen ovemrn by events, or would nowbe seen as fuzles or not very imWrtant.That list might include

Q me New York City fiscal emer-gency (1975)

Q The National League of Cities v.UseW decision (1976);

Q The general revenue sharing re-enactments (1976 and 1980]

Q The Sunbelt-Frostbelt and otherregional tensions that were inten-stled by the ener~ crisis of 1974;

Q President Caner’s “ucban policy”initiative; and

Q President Reagan’s “New Federal-ism” effort to reasaign functionsand turn back revenues to states.

Which developments were of first-rank impoflance? Five went on toshape intergovernmental relations inthe 19WSand are still with ux

Federsl Aid Growth and Peaking.The federal aid system, which has longbeen the central focus of intergover-nmental relations, continued to growrapidly untif 1978, when its real pur-chasing power peaked. Some W pro-grams were added between 1974 and1978, and aid doubled from $43 billionto $85 biflion.

Federal Regulation of State andLocal Governments. Regulation ex-panded at least as rapidly as federal aid.ACIR counted 13 crosscutting regula-tion stat utes enacted between 1974 and1978, and there also was notablegrowth in program regulations, directorders, and preemptive actions byWashington.

Deterioration of the Federal Guv.emment’s Finances. The deterioration

proceeded unabated as the inmme taxwas shot full of loopholes and as rela-tively high inflation set the stage forindexation, as the Sncial Security taxwas mhausted by pushing the rates tothe limits of tqayer tolecnnce, and asannual deficits doubled the nationaldebt. This detesiorstion plus the 1981Reagan tax cuts conditioned intergov-ernmental relations in the 19S0smorethan any other development.

Proposition 13 and the Tax Revolt.By the time the tqayera’ revolt hadsubsided, there were new or tightenedtax or spending lids on thousands of lo-cal governments. mere also were wn-strmnts on the budgets of 19 states, anew development in American publicfinance. ‘f’he interguvemmental andservice effects in states such as Califor-nia and Massachusetts have been pro-nounced.

Strengthening and Modernimtionof the States. Continued signflcantchanges in state constitutions, legisla-tures, governors’ offices and executivebranches, comts, and tax systems dur-ing this pesind ~sitioned the states forthe somewhat larger and more aggres-sive roles they have been called on toplay in the 19WS.

Intergovernmental developmentsthat do not qualify for my “Big Five”list, but that should be recalled? includethe 1974 and 1979 energy cnscs, theNixon and Reagan blnck grants and allthe questions and expectations theycaiaed, the awakening of local gover-nments to their state mandate burdens,and the unsuccessful push by state Leg-islatures to secure a constitutionalamendment requiring federal budgetsto be balanced. And always present asincalculable intergovernmental prob-lems are the cities and the underclass,mrsl as well as urban. These problemsare so constant, so multifaceted, and sodaily in their manifestations that wetend not to think of them as events,trends, or developments.

There are at least two ways of iden-tifying the major intergovemmen?al is-sues from 1974 to 1982. We can first askwhich issues were the most hotly con-tested by the intergovernmental play-

The ACIRS three decades havewitnessed vast ebbs and flow in therelative health and strength of the fed-eral partnem, and every such change hasundemmred the Commision’s value asthe partnera’ unique meeting ground.The third mntury of federalism may re-semble the first = much as the semnd,aa technology and economic change pulldecisinnmaking do~wd and outwardfmm Washington. These should bsgreat years fnr the ACIR and three for-tunate enough to scrvr it.

Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.Hudron Institute,Indianapolis

& amemkrof the AdvisoVCom-mi=ion on Intergovernmental Rela-tions while seting aa mayor of SaltLake City, I found ACIR to be a valu-able and important fomm for discussionof significant issues spanning all levelsof go%mment. Such an op~rmnity forIccal officials to share information andideas is rdso essential for the efficientoperation of our system of government.The constiNtiOna]ly provided scpara-tinn of pnwra and division of public re-spnnsihilitics in an incre=ingly wmplexwrld make this dialowe even more es-sential. I appl sud the mrk of the Com-mission and am proud to have ken apart of its 3&year histnry.

Jake GarnUniledSfates.s’enufo~Ufti

On the nccasion of the nationalCommission’s 30th anniveraay, theSouth Carotina ACIR sends ita sinmrecongratulations and appreciation. TheU.S. ACIR represents the finest mmbi-nation of blue chip national Ieaderr anda renowned staff producins tbe highestquality research. The contribution theagency baa made in shaping public Pl-icy is a benefit to us all. The creatiun ufcounterpart groups hy 29 states is finetestimony tn tbe validity of ACIR.

Dan B. MackeySouth CarolinaAdvtiory Commission

on tnfetgovemmentalRelations

Iniergovemmeti PersFtive/Fall 19S9 15

Following the lead of the nationalACIR and other states, the LuuisianaMunicipal Association and other inter-ested groups banded together to suc-wssfully legislate and implement theLouisiana ACIR. In only one year, thebuisiana ACIR has made quite an im-pact the legislature has become increas-ingly amre of the need for more localfiscal autborhy and true fisml reform,and has ordered a comprehensive studyon state-im~d mandates and their ef-fects on INI jurisdictions. These ac-tions clearly show the value of the ACIRcnnwpt in prumoting dialogue amongstate and Iucalofficials.

Charles J. PasquaLouisianaMunici@ &aialion

On khalf of the counties repre-sented by the Pennsylvania State As-ciation of County Commissioned, WCongratulate the ACIR on its 30th anni-versary.Youhave wathered tbe chang-ing tides of federalism (and statism andIwlism) admirably. particularly at thecounty level, where w face service de-livery pressures from fiscally strappedstates and organizationally strapped lo-cdl governments, the infOI’MatiOnandassistanw provided by ACIR has keninvaluable. Annual publications such mSignificantFeature of Fbcaf Fedendismand other rewrts and projects havegiven us tuols w need to make sounddecisions on policies that will carry usinto the next era.

Douglas E. HIIIPenWlvmia StateAssociation

of County Commusionem

ers —presidents, the Congress, gover-nors, state legislatures, mayors, countyofficials, interest groups, and others.For which pupses were the strongestcampaigns mounted, msximum ener-gies expended, or peak decibel levelsreached? On this bssis, the Everest ofintergovernmental issues was clearlythe reenactment of genecsl revenuesharing each time it came up. But, in amore genecal sense., expansion of thefedersl aid system was the ovemhelm-~g, consuming preoccupation of mostof these players w long as it was rela-tively unchecked by fiscal exhaustionor ~litical philosophy. State and lucalgovernments and interest groupswanted the mnney, and they put theirenergies there, not into hard bargain-ing on the regulatory front. Finally,Proposition 13andthe allthetaxre-volts that preceded or followed it wereissues of high intensity in the stateswhere these battles ensued.

The other vantage pint fromwhich I can address these issues is thatof the ACIR. ACIR is an active partici-pant in some of the issue arenas, but ithas the lwucy of observing and study-ing the intergovernmental system in amore objective, balanced, and less self-interested way than does a competinggovernment or interest group. ACIRthere fore can think more in terms ofhistoric perspective and the Iong-tenuhealth and balance of the Americanfederal system. ACIR, in a way, ob-setves current issue wrsngles and con-siders some of them appropriate andconstructive, but would like to changethe agenda and works to do so.

It follows that ACIR’S major wn-cems during the 1974-to-1982 pericdwere the overcentraIization of decis-ionmaking and finance in Washington,the related system overload there, theserious need to improve the design offederal grants to upgrade their effec-tiveness, the need to reevaluate thefederal role in our Vstem and to “sortout” res~nsibilities, the regulation ex-cesses by both tbe federal and state lev-els, the famiIyof fiscal balance issuesand tenable limits on tsxing and spend-ing, and, finally, the growing role of thecomts and their impact on the place ofthe statesin the system. ACIRs workprogram for these yeaca reflected thesepriorities and its continuing res~nsi-bility to improve unity, equity, diver-sity, responsiveness, effectiveness, andaccountability nf the federal system.

Wayne E Anderson was ACIR e.r’ecutivsdirector from 1974 to 1982.

Cnlman (continuedfiurn page 13)

5, Creating state Iwl affairs offices.

Several ACIR repmts addressedproblems of the federal grant ~tem,with resulting propusals for consolidat-ing related categorical grants intobroad block grants, modifying adminis-trative-type requirements attached tofedersl grants, federal revenue sharingwith state-lml governments, federalconsultation with lucal officials on fed-eral projects having an impact on landuse considerations, and review of 1-1grsnt applications by an areawide bodyprior to submission to a federal agency.Several of these propussls were con-tained in the Inte@ovemmental Coop-eration Act of 1968 and in revenue shar.Ing and block grsnt legislation in theearly 1970s.

Respunses to metropolitan dis-parities included substantive proposalsfor inmpration of intensified equali-zation emphasis in state aid fonrrulas,building cude uniformity and increasedstate activity in this field, state wntrolof new incoqrumtions and lucal bound-ary adjustments and confinement ofzoning authority to larger lucal govern-ments in order to curb exclusionaryzoning, a uniform federal relocationassistance Wlicy for persons and busi-nesses displaced by federally aidedcunstmction (enacted in 1972), m.panded use of rent supplements inhousing programs, and stronger urbancuunty governments authorized to de-liver ufian services.

In school finance, ACIR suggestedincreased aid to puur city schuul dis-tricts. A propusal was adupted in 1969for state assumption of all financial re-scrunsibili@for ~ublic K-12 education,&ncucren~ with”federal assumption ofall welfare and Medicaid rests. (ACIRrescinded hth of these recommenda-tions in the earlv 19S0s. and. I believe.wisely so.) “

In 1960-70. the most far-reachingintergovernmental change was th:reemergence of state governments askey players in the federal system andtheir becoming, once again, the na-tion’s “lahratories of democmq,” Re-fitting those governments in terms ofstmcture, revenue ~stems, and policypriorities was the general focus ofmuch of ACIR’S attention during tbeSixties. The enlarging Iaboratoty rolefor state governments continues tuday,as all governments face new and awe-some challenges.

William G. Colman was executive direc-tor of ACIR from 1960 to 1970.

16 Intergovernmental *mtiva/Fsll 19K9

Competitive Federalism–Three DrivingJohn Shannon

If students of American federal-ism were asked to make a list of themost sign~lcant intergovernmental de-velopments of the last three decades,three actions of the 1985-87 periudprobably would stuvive the final cut:

Q The U.S. Supreme Court decisionin Garcia v. San Antonio Metropoli-tan Transit Authority (1985)

Q The refomr of the federal incometax (19s6)

Q The demise of the federal revenuesharing program (19%)

The Garc/a Declelon

In a 5-4 vote, Garcia overturnedNational League of Cities v. UseV (1976)by holding that the commerce clause ofthe Constitution granted the Congressthe authority to regulate the wages oflocal government transit workers. Inthis case, it required the lucal authorityto adhere to national minimum wagestandards.

Garcia alm ccmveyed a far broadermessage-the announcement that theU.S. Supreme Court was abandoningits historic role of refereeing com-merce power disputes between theCongress and the states. ~ese contro-versies arise from the eungressional ex-ercise of its constitutionally delegatedcommerce power and stat e demandsfor protection from congressional en-croachment into areas of authority thatthey claim are reserved to the states bythe Tenth Amendment. As long asGwcia stands, these conflicts will beviewed by the Supreme Couc’t as politi-cal issues to be fought out in the con-gressional arena–not, as in the past,constitutional issues to be adjudimtedby an impartial third party, the Su-preme Court. Tfms, instead of havingtheir claims of unmnstitutional en-croachment heard by the federal court,the states will have to fend for them-selves in the rough and tumble of themngressional pnlitical process.

From an historical perspective,Garcia can be viewed as putting one ofthe finishing judicial touches on a con-gressional deregulation process that

began in earnest during the Depres-sion. ‘fbat searing national crisis forcedthe Congress and a reluctant SupremeCourt to accede to the Roosevelt Ad-ministration’s call for a New Deal—theunprecedented use of nationfil gover-nment~wer to overhaul and jump-starta badly stalled economy. By 1942.,thenation bad witnessed the collapse ofmost of the constitutional baniers tofederal entry into areas once consid-ered the exclusive presemes of thestates.

Federal Tax Reform

The far-reaching overhaul of thefederal income tax de irr 19S6 pro-duced aume pluses and minuses for thestate-l-l sector. On the plus side,there emerged the revenue windfallOPWfiunitY. By broadening the federalindividual income tax base, the Con-gress automatically created a revenuewindfall op~ctttnity for those timmetax states that conform their tax basedefinitions to those in the federal taxcode. Not wandng to be viewed as tak-ing advantage of this situation, most ofthe income tax states returned the“windfalY’ to their taxpayers by lower-ing tax rates and raising personal ex-emptions and standard deductions. Onthe minus side, federal inmme taxpay-ers can no longer claim the payment ofstate and local sales trees as itemizedpersonal deductions on tbe federal1040. Congress also substantially re-duced the range of permissible uses forwhich state and local bunds can qualifyfor the all-im~rtant federal tax ex-emption.

The sharp reduction in the top fed-eral corporate and individual incometax rates also puts a keener edge onstate and lucal tax competition. Be-cause the cut in federal tax rates re-duced the amount of state and localtaxes that can be “written crf~ on thefederal t= returns, upper income tax-payers and business firms are nowmore sensitive to interjurisdictional taxdifferentials. To stay competitive, vir-tually all of the income tm states withhigh nominal rates (ranging from 10

Forces

ACIR is ~rhapa the mmt effectiveorganization in the United States in re-solving disputes among all levels of gov-ernment. Its yearn of research and itsobjectivity have established the Com-mission as a viable wmmon.smseproferaional organization. The value ofits cuntrihutions over the past 30 yearsto the quality of the intergovernmentalsystem is unmatched in thB country. Ijoin with all former ACIR Commissionmemkm in extending my congratula-tions on ita 30th annivcrsmy, and tish itongoing sumas.

Scott M. MathesonFomer Govemoc Utd7

Fundamental chanses occurring inour federal system are forcing state andIul governments to reexamine theservices they provide and the means offinancing them. The U.S. ACIR is play-ing a pivotal mle in that vital prtiss.Already, for example, ACIR has facili-tated the “rebirth” of state-level com-terpart organizations *eking to im.prove intergovernmental relations, andaa that counterpart agency in New YorkState, w have drawn heavily fromACIR research and infomration ex-changes.

Melvin N. ZimmerNW Yofi State Lejs/afive

Commtiion on State-LocalRshrtions

Few governmental agencies haveas im~rtant and as challenging a role asdees the ACIR. It haaa criticalreswnsi-bility in guiding our nation’s effort tostrengthen our government’s capabilityfor dealing with our pressing problems,many of which will not yield to construc-tive remedies until we have impro”edthe relations among the different levelsand branches of our federal system.Such improvement requires a sustained,nonideological, and nonpartisan effortthat the ACIR is best suited to provide.Thus it Frfonns a function of tital im-prtanm to our future, 1 join in com-mending the ACIR for its 30 years ofconstructive scrvim and wish it evengreater sumss in its future endeavon.

Arthur NaftalinPmfe$$orEmerirt/s,U,liuemiO

of Mi,lnesotaand formerMavorof Mit?nmuoli.

Intergovemmenti Perspective/Fall 1989 17

There can & no doubt that thU.S.ACIR has made a valuable contr]bution over the last 30 yean in the p“,suit of an effective federal system ofgo~emment. The ACIR har sensiti~d pubIic and private leaders to the critical issues and trends involving the effectiwand efficient “mix” of governmentspowers, roles, capacities, and relationships. Moreover, the ACIR has semecto challenge Wlitical leaden mntinuallyto wrk toward a pm~rly balanmtand supported system of intcrgovemmental relationships. Best wishes t{ACIR on its 30th anniversary.

Charles D. Griffith!Penmylvania

InrefgOvemmenta/Council

The last 30 yearn have been marketby dramatic changes in federal, stateand local governments. The reasonableiemands of a growing society and theadditional complexities of a nation k.:oming increasingly urban have forcedgovernments at al I levels into new pur.;uits and into increasingly mmplex, SG]histicsted, and necessary duties. Anest imprtant twl for governments at10levels during this time of change has)een the Advisory Commission o“ 1“.ergovemmental Relations, Its nonpar.isanship, the fact that it ~ not drivenIy any particular ideology, its fairness,ind its expertise made it the most reli-lble and credible resource. Good gov-ernment at all levels in the United;tates has benefited from the splendidvorkof the ACIR, One of my gre~test)lemures in the public serviw hs.rkeno serve as a memkr of the Commis-ion.

Joseph f’.Riley, Jr.Mayor Chadsston, South Carolina

The Alabama kague of Munici-palitiesand its member cities and townsre ve~ appreciative of the wrk of the\CIR, Research reWrts produmd by\CIR over tbe part 30 yearn have,roven to k most valuable to our state.Vewish the ACIR much suwsr in fu-ure projects for the mutual be”etit ofOlevels of government,

Per~ C. RoquemoreAlabama League of Municipalities

percent up to 16 percent) pulled theirrates down into the high single-digitrange.

Ttte Death of Revenue Sharing

The federal revenue sharing pro-gram passed away slowly. By freezingthe outlays year after year, a fairly hos-tile Congress made sure that this aidprogram would twist slowly in the intla-tiona~ winds. Pushed by the ReaganAdministration, the Congress finallyput an end to its revenue sharing withlMI governments in 198b-six yearsafter lopping off the state portion.

A brief epitaph for the federalrevenue sharing program might read asfollows

Q lN–first propused to reduce anexpected federal budget SUWIUS

Q 1972–finallypushed through a re.luctant Congress

Q 19W–sacfilced on the Grsmm-Rudman-HoOings altar of fiscaIdiscipline

The rise and fall of federal reve-nue sharing seine as sharp remindemof the remarkable turnabout in the fis-cal fortunes of Washington and thestate-lml sector over the last two dec-ades. In the mid-bos, the massive fisraladvantage enjoyed by the national gov-ernment triggered the demand forrevenue sharing to redress this inter-governmental fiscal imbalance. By themid-80s, towering federal budget defi-cits prompted the Congress to zero itout.

me fall-off in federal aid ftowsand the wipeout of revenue sharinghave caused a sea change in the eWec-tations of state and IM1 officials—when forced to search for “newmoney,” they look to their ocm re-sources.

A Summing Up -Competitive Federallem

Three disparate developments—the Garcia decision, federal tnx reform,and the revenue sharing wipeout-allhave one thing in common. In each in-stance, the action gave mmpetitive(fend-for-yourself) federalism a vigor-ous push forward.

Several considerations suggestthat the adjective “competitive” bestdescribes the current state of Ameri-

can federalism. Unlike the situationthat prevaifed over the first 150years,the national government is no longerconstitutional Iy restricted to a narrowarea of governance. Now, a “deregu-lated” federaI government can moveinto virtually any domestic area andcompete for policy leadership. Unlikethe more recent past (the 1950s and1960s), however, Washington no longerpossesses a towering fiscal advantageover the state and lG1 governments.Thus, federal, state, and local govern.ments must now compete head on forthe political and fisml support of feder.alism’s ultimate arbiters-the voters/tsxpayers. Over the last decade, statesand localities have fared better in thiscompetitive struggle than most stu-dents of federalism would have pre-dicted a couple of decades ago.

The current state of competitivefederalism is not without its sharp crit-ics. Those critics with a libersl pint ofview emphasize the equity prnblem—that fend-for-yourself federalism doespoorly by those who are least able tofend for themselves—poor people andpoor governments. Many federalistsfjoined by many state and 1~1 offi-cials) paint a grim scenario of thingsto cume-a institutionally uncon.strained but financially strapped Con-gress is likely to be pushed by special in-terests to make ever-increasing use ofunfunded mandates and in this processtransform elected state and lmal offi.cials into Washington’s hired hands.

Neither concerns about inequitiesnor fears of power grabs can obliteratea striking reality A deregulated Con-gress bas not created a highly central-ized national state—the Orwellianoutcome that many had predicted. Onthe contra~, 50 years after the collapseof most of the constitutional and politi-cal constraints on the Congress, there-silient states and Iwlities are verymuch alive, and most of them are doingquite well. It is the national govern-ment that is experiencing a consider-able degree of fiscal distress—achronic budgetary ailment caused byWashington’s hahit of biting off moreeqenditure commitments than itsrevenue dentures can chew,

John Shannon was ACIR execurivedirec-torfiom 1985 to 1988.

18 IntergovernmentiPers~tive/Ffdl 19S9

Currents of Change in the Federal SystemJohn Kincaid

Having served as Executive Direc-tor of ACIR for less than two years—one spanning the last year of theReagan administration and one reve-ringthe first year of the Bush adminis-tration—my feet are planted fimly irrquickwnd when it mmes to speakingabout major trends and issues in feder-alism today.

The full effects of the Reagan ad-ministration have not yet been feltthroughout the federal system (e.g.,will Executive Order 12612 make anydifference?). The Bush administrationhas not yet set a clear federalismcourse, although by all accounts theWhite House has an excellent inter-governmental affairs staff, the Pcesi-dent has shown a willingness to workwith the stat es, and Governor John H.Sununu, former V]ce Chainuan ofACIR, continues to snpport federalismreform.

It remains to be seen, then,whether ctrment trends will contbrttethrough the 1990s or whether a sub-stantial change in mtrrse wifl mtrrduring the next decade. I suspect thatcm’rent trends will pretty much domi-nate tbe first half of the l~s, but thatissues wifl begin to break open suffi-ciently to set new directions for feder-alism in the latter half of the decade.

A cutting-edge issue today is thequestion of restoring cmrstitutionalbalance in the federal system, either bya change in the U.S. Supreme Courtpolicies on federalism or by some formof Umstitutional revision undertakenby the states and the Congress. TheCourt’s holding in South Carolina v.Baker (1988) did not break new duc-trinal ground, but it did dig deeper thegrave into which the Com’t has beenpushing the Tenth Amendment for tbepast 50 years.

A secund cutting-edge issue irr-volves the ptential effects of WesternEuropean integration on Americanfederalism. The buzz word is “reciprw-ity.” Already, cuncem about a unitedEuropean Communities having uni-form ecunomic rules and standards hasprompted suggestions that we increase

federal preemption of state and localecmromic authority and otherwise re-duce state puwers so as to create aneven more unifomr national market-place than we have now–a mirror im-age of the new European marketplace.

However, whether there will be asufficient lowering of internationalbarriers in Europe to create an eco-nomic dynamo capable of surpassingNorth Amexira and Japan by the latel~s remains to be seen, and whethera further across-the-buard lowering ofinterstate barriers in the U.S. will beecmromically efficient is an rrnan-swered question. The decline of theU.S. economy relative to the devel-oped world is due to many factors, ofwhich state-centered federalism maybe only a minor one compared to theproblems that have arisen under na-tion-centered federalism, such as thefederal deficit, the rovings and loan cri-sis, $600 toilet seats, and the HUDscandal.

A third and related issue is the ap-parent rise in interjmisdictional com-petition, especially for economic devel-opment. Certainly the most publicizedcases of competition suggest ill-cunsidered bebavior on the part ofmore than a few states and localities.At the same time, though, research byACIR and others indicates that certainkinds of interjurisdictional competitioncan be beneficial. Can it be all that bad,for example, if competition improvespublic-sector efficiency, or if statescompete to be number one in literatehigh school graduates? The trick is toget states and Iucalities to compete inmnstnrctive rather than destructivegames, and without the fiscal equiva-lents of steroids and growth hormones.

Surely a big question for the end ofthe 1980s k whatever happened to co-operative federalism? Cooperativefederalism went from being a two-waystreet to being a one-way street inwhich cooperation was defined as thewillingness of state and Iaal gover-nments to implement policy set by thenational government in the 1970s andthen to implement and also pay for pol-

(continuedon page 22)

The quality and integrity of ACIRresmrch and refmrts, and the involve-ment of ACIR leaders, have been mortinstrumental in fostering intergover-nmentalimprovements in Indiana. Mostnotably, ACIR resources uere helpfulin the legislature’s establishing a LccalGommment Study Commission, whichresulted in numerous administrativehome mle previsions, and in the format-ion in July nf the Governor’s LccalGo%mment AdvisnT Council–thefirst intergovernmental affaim bcdy inthe state’s histury. We will continue torely on ACIRS resources for SUPPII inthe decades to come.

Michael J. QuinnIndiaa Associationof Ci/iesand

Towns

I have been an admirer of the Advi-sory Commission on IntergovernmentalRelations since its earliest days. The re-search and recommendations thisunique organization protides have kenparticularly helpful tu state, municipal,and federal governments 8.s relation-ships have become more complex. I sa-lute the Commission for three decadesof prtiuctive wrk.

Terry SanfordU.S. Senate?Norlh Camlina

The New Mexico Municipal>ague is gratefil fur the work of the4CIR. In municipal govemmcnt, Xmmtantly feel the effects, gccd nr bad,>fdecisions made at other levels of gov-:mmcnt. We strive toinfluence thuseIecisions, but, nften, w are so en-neshed in immediate problems that x:annot stop to examine their broaderreplications. We rely strongly on4CIRS excellent reprts and predic-tions ofshiftingphilmophies and trendsn relations among lccal, state, and fed-:ral governments. ACIR fills a real needhat wuld not ntherwise be met.

William F. FulginitiNm Maico M[inicipalLeasue

lntergovemmenW ParsWtive/Fall 1989 19

Please ampt my congratulationsfor 30 years of outstanding service inpromoting abetter mrking relationshipbetween federal,state, and local govern-ments. Tbe ACIR haa made a substan-tial contribution, and the developmentof similar organizations among stategovemmenta indicates the growing rec-ognition of the value of your mrk. Abuisiana ACIRworganimd a yearago, and w are hoping that it will helpto shape a &tter future for our citizens.

James T. HaysPolice.fuv A.rsociationof Louisiana

The Arkansaa Municipal hagueappreciates greatly the indepth rc.searchdone on ~rtinent municipal topica. It isvery helpful to us in determiningour Wlicy pitions. Wetind the state-bystate compariauns particularly helpful. Congratulations on ACIRS anni-vemary.

Don A. ZimmemranAfkansas Municipaf League

I want to join in extending my con-gratulations to the Commission on tbe-ion of itr 30th annivenary. ACIRhaa Iongsinw established itself aa theleading and most authoritative organi-zation in the nation in the tield of inter-governmental affaim. The Commissionhas served as the focal point for msearcband plicy analysis on isues involvingfederal, state, and local interaction. Itscontributions have been suhatantial.

John E. ~affordNewJeney Stale League

of Munici#ilies

Over the paat three decades, theAdvisory Commission on Intergover-nmentalRelations haa contributed to thevitality of the U.S. federal system. It hasgenerated ideaa that have hel@ har-monize tbe relationships among thefederal, state, and local government. Ithar prcduced quality information onnumerous topics, especially concerninggovernmental finance, that have served~ the mmeratone for countlesr otherstudies in the field. Importantly, theACIR haa reminded national audicnwsof the significant roles played by stateand Iucal governments in serving theneeds of the nation.

Dan BucksMultistate Tm Cornnlission

Kincaid (cotr[in{tcdfmn! page lY)

icy set by the national government inthe 1980s. In our 200-year-old republic,more than 50 percent of all federalpreemption statutes have been en-acted within the last 20 years. It will bea healthy development, therefore, ifthe presidential-gubernatorial “educa-tion summit” turns out to be a ha&ln-ger of future intergovernmental rela-tions.

One exception to this potentiallybright hafiinger, bowever, is local gov-ernments, which were not invited tothe summit, although Ioral elected of-ficials and state legislators did meetwith the Resident prior to the summit.The avowed policy of the Reagan ad-ministration was to cut local gOvem-ments out of the post-New Dealfederal-state-local intergovernmentalImp. One indicator of the near successof this policy is that federal revenue asa percentage of local government reve-nue dropped from 9.0 percent in 1978to 4.2 percent in 1987, compared to adrop from 22.3 percent for states in1978to 18.5percent in 1987.What Ioralgovernments are lnoking for in the19WS, therefore, is a “new pat’tner-ship.”

The newest “new partnership”that needs to be developed, however, isthe state-l-l partnership. The at-tenuation of direct national-l-l tieshas given a new urgenq to state-localrelations. One indicator of this urgencyis that the number of state ACIR-coun-terpart bodies doubled during the1980s. More states are likely to estab-lish such bodies in tbe early 1990s. Inmany respects, lucal governments havevirtually the same complaints aboutstate government policies that stateshave about national government poli-cies (e.g., unfunded mandates, exces-sive regulation, bureaucratic red tape).

Indeed, in an ironic twist of fate,after decades of policy enactments in-tended to make local govemmentsbet-ter governments and more effective indelivering public scwices, most localgovernments are better governments,but they often find themselves con-strained by state and federal rules andregulations that make it difficult forthem to be fully effective. Even so,when asked in ACIR’S 1989 nationalpoll which government spends moneymost wisely, responds best to needs,

has the most honest officials, andneeds more power today, more resfmn-dents picked Iural governments fust,followed usuaIly by state governmentsand then by the federal government.

For too long, we have tried to re-form the intergovernmental system ac-cording to a UPS model of federalkm.UPS, which says that it runs “the tight-est ship in the shipping business,” hasexhaustive rules governing eve~ facetof its operations, dom to the hand thatdelivery-truck drivers should use tofasten their seat belts (the left hand).~ese detailed roles may work well fora shipping company, which does nothave to engage in democratic debatesabout whether an addressee has a rightto receive his or her package, but suchroles cannot work in the intergover-nmentalarena if we are to have an effi-cient federal demuccacy in which stateand Iural elected officials make manydecisions about who gets what, when,and how.

The problem ia that we have com-pletely reversed the order of our think-ing about the federal ~stem. The na-tional government was establishedoriginally as a kind of special districtgovernment, a jurisdiction assignedfunctions appropciste to its servicearea, such as foreign affairs, defense,and interstate commerce. Today, how-ever, the national government iswidelyregarded as having virtually plena~powers. Meanwhile, the states, whichwere originally our plenary gOvem-ments, are now widely viewed as ad-ministrative subdivisions of the nation-al government, with lucal governmentsbeing the primary service deliverers.

It is worth noting that, despite, orperhaps berause of, its fine attentionto detaif, UPS stifl missed the big pic-ture, namely, the internationalizationof the economy. Brussels-based DHL,founded in 1%9, has the largest inter-national delive~ network, and FederalExpress jumped the gun by purchasingFlying Tigers. UPS is now playing catchuP. Likewise, the more we view lMIofficials as pubbc-service delive~-tnrck drivers, state officials as regionalwarehouse clerks and managers, andnational officials as headquarters offi-cers, the more we, too, are likeIy tomiss the big picture, indeed the wholepoint of having federalism in a diverse,dynamic, democratic society.

John Zncaid has been ACIR executivedirector since 1988.

22 lntsrgovernmenMPars@ve/FaO 19S9

I

Consensus for Changein the Federal System:Education and the EnvironmentTerryE, Brarrstad

What wifl the world be like for ourchildren in the 21st centu~? Will theworld we have prepared for them offerhope and oppmtunity? Wfll the schwlswe have supported have given them thetools they need to live productive andhappy lives? WIII the environment wehave left for them provide clean air tobreathe, enough rain to make cropsgrow, enough trees to offer shelterfrom the sun?

~ese are important questions forcritical times. The decisions we make inthe 19SiIs will determine how thesequestions are answered in the nextcen-tury. Our task as governors must be toforge a mnsensus to take action on twoof the most important wncems thataffect the quality of life in America inthe 21st centu~ education and the en-vironment.

A healthy environment and well-educated people will be the key factorsin determining our quality of life andstandard of Iiving. Evidence abmtndsthat urgent action is needed. Our natu-ral and human resources have been thesources of our success as a nation formore than 2~ years. Tbday, that edgehas dulled, and the key in the year 2~will be the plan we design during theIws.

The governors have respnnded topast challenges with practical solu-tions, common sense, and a bnld Wlonof the future. We now must face ourenvironmental and education prob-lems in the same tradition.

We Must Look to the Futureand Set Clear Goalsfor fhe 21st Century

We must define several goals thatspell out clearly where we need to goand what we need to achieve for uurenvironment and our educational sys-tem. And we must be able to measureour progress object ively in the yearsahead.

We Must Build a Broad Coneensus

We want to develop an action planthat is suppm’ted by business, environ-

mental, and educational Ieadera, andother concerned citizens. We need towork cooperatively toward creative so-lutions. Without a consensus, we willbe styuried. We share a common fu-ture, and we require common sulu-tions.

We Muet Developan Action Agenda for Each Goal

Each action agenda should bethorough, measured, and deliberate.This race is a marathon, not a sprint.The agenda alsu must acknowledge theemnomic tradeoffs involved. Thereare few, if any, free solutions. How-ever, we must make progress if we areto ensure a clean environment anda healthy economy driven by a well-educated workforce.

We Need Leadership

For each of these challenges thereis a proper local and federal role, butthe states, working together with busi-ness, education, and citizen groups,can be the principal architects of thescdutions:

o The response to global climatechange may require changes in en-er~ use, greater efficiency in theuse of our natural resources, bet-ter protection of open spaces, andother steps that will be carried outpfiruafily by states or entities regu-lated by states.

Q Solid waste has always been the re-sponsibility of state and local gov-ernments and will remain so. Thedisappearance of landfill capacityand the need for new solutions wiflbe felt at the state and lml level.

Q Education is primarily a state andIncal res~nsihility as well. In thelast seven years, the governorshave been active leaders in educa-tion reform and have led efforts tOfocus the education system on re-sults. That role must increase inthe years ahead.

ACIRS activities have fmscd theattention of public ofticiats and othenover the put three decades on the apprupriate role of each level of gover-nmentin providing effxcient and resWn.sive government. Its excellent researchpublications have prnvided valuabledata and resource materials for publicofticiats at all levels. The Mvismy Com-miasiun on Intergovernmental Rela.tiom provides one of the strongest con-tinuing muranm that the proper roleand interrelationships of federal, state,and Iucal govemme”ts till not be OVer.

Iuuked,

Kenneth G. BuecheCo[omdoMunic@alLeagie

Across three decades, the Commis.sion’s wrk har addresd relationshipsamong the levels and divisions ofp”blicauthority thrnugh which the Americanpeople address their common affairs.During that time, thuse relationshipshave evolved relentlessly and wdh un.zasing importance. The Commission’s;ffcn’tsto understand and prescrib for:hesc technically mmplex and Wliti-xlly demanding connections have been:enacious and of singuku im~rfa”cc.

Alexander HeardChmce/lor Emerifto,V3derbi[t Univemity

The New Hampshire Municipal4swiation, in advising its membersind reprexnting them before the stateegislature, very often uses ACIR nlate-ials. Of particular use has been the se-ies ofdiscussinn paprs and model leg.slationon taxation.I Iwk fowrd everyrearto SignificantFeaiumsof FixcatFed-!tiism asa reference tml and for use inhe prepamticm of legislation and testi-nony. We are vecy appreciative of thewrk ACIR dces.

John B. AndrewsNrw Hampshim Munic@afAumiation

I

I Intergovernmental hrspEctivB/Fall 19a9 23

h a respected sour= of analyticaldata on federsl, state, and IMl gover-nments,ACIR publications are a center-pierc in my office library and have beenfor yearn. In preparing legislative testi-mony on various i~ues, ACIR providesa credible sour= of information. Theobjective and bipartisan nature of theCommission is enviable. Tbe nationalACIR sems to stimulate a climate ofpartnership and also of enwuragementin efforts to build state ACIRS. Con-gratulations on your 30th annivemary.

Gordon MorrisMontma Assmtition of Counties

The Adtiso~ Commission on In-tergovernmental Relations deals withan extremely broad range of subjects,many of which demonstrate an amazingawareness of impending state isues. Itsstaff reports are of the highest caliberand are greatly appreciated by state le&islatom and their staf&. Mywrvicconthe Commission was one of tbe mmt re-warding e~rienrss of my 40 yearn ofpublic setiw.

William F. PassannanteNcw Yo&StateAssembly

It is especially gratifying for us atthe Ohio Municipal L.cague to extend tothe Adriso~ Commission on Intergov-ernmental Relations our heartfelt con-gratulations on tbe organization’s 30thannivema~. Tbrougb ACIRS researchand other efforts, the wrk, the success,and tbe knowledge of lwal gover-nmentsbm been greatly enbanwd dur-ing one of the most challenging periodsin our nation’s history for urban govcm-ment. We can tbinkof no finerb.sx for agreat titure than that built by your or-ganization’s efforts during tbe last threedecades.

John F. ColemanOhio Munic@alLeague

We Must Act Now

The problems are urgent, and wecannot afford to delay.

Global climate change till be diffi-cult or impussiblc to reverse, so pre-vention is all the n]ore critical. Wemust act now, before further damage isdone.

The solid waste crisis is alreadyacute in some areas, and no region willbe spared. Even areas with plenty ofspace for new facilities may soon haveto decide whether to accept waste fromother regions.

Our standard of living depends ona highly skilled workforce, yet our stu-dents lag far behind students in othercountries in important academic areas.Arrd far too many of our youth faifto complete their education or ac-quire even the mdimenta~ skifls thatwill equip them for the workplace. Theeducation xystem is our best hopethat our children will have the skdlathey need for productive employnrent,responsible citizenship, and wise stew-ardship of the planet. We must act nowto ensure that our children and oursociety ran meet the challenges of thefuture.

me Strategy

As chairman of tbe National Gov-emora’ Association, I am creatingthree special task forces

A ~sk Force on Eduration

A ~sk Force on GIobal Cli-mate Change

A ~sk Force on Waste Man-agement

These issues present both theneed and the opportunity for action.Each of these task forces will developan action agenda for the governors andfor the American people. The processwifl involve advisory groups of busi-ness, environmental, and edurationIeadem, and local, state, and federsl of-ficials. Each action agenda wifl include:

A description of the problems andthe issues facing state decis-ionmakers.

A consensus on reasonable andachievable gmls for America inthe 21st century.

Practical ways to achieve thesegoals, which csn be implementednationally or selected by governorsto fit the circumstances of individ-ual states.

These action agendas an make amajor contribution to the quality of ourIivea in the future. But the process it-self is important as well. Bringing to-gether differing views to develop a con-sensus can provide a model forindividual states, governors, and otherswho want to tackle difficult issues.

We Can Makes Dlfferenca

We must look for better ways ofdoing things-in the environment en-couraging recycling, using energy re-covery techniques to rerapture energyeven as we dispose of waste, findingways to use fewer diapusable materisls,limiting the pollutants that go into ourair, walklng more and driving less; andin education teaching our children theskills they need to be pmrfuctive citi-zens in tbe next century.

We Can Mske a Difference

We can develop well-educated,environmentally conscious citizenswho impart the same attitudes to theirchildren.

Wa Can Mskes Difference

All of us, working together, can bepart of the solution. We will find thethings we can do as individuals, worktogether on the things that require co-operation, and build a strong consen-sus for change.

Teny E. Bmn.stad isgovemor of Iowa andchairman of the National Govemors’h-soriation.

24 Intergovemmenti Wrs@velFdl 19s9

The Future of the Constitutional SystemArnold Chn>tensen

1am pleased to comment in my ca-pacity as chairman of the Council ofState Governments on cuffent and fu-ture prospects for our federal system.

As a citizen, state senator, andchairman of a national organizationmmprised of elected and appointed of-ficials from all three brsnches of stategovernment, I am most concerned withthe preemptive actions taken by allthree branches of the federal gover-nment in matters properly within theconstitutional puwera reserved to thestates.

‘fire most important issue facingthe intergovernmental system in thenext five years is to seek and achieveconstitutional reform permit ting thestates to redress the creeping imbal-ance that is taking place in our federalsystem. Two constitutional amendmentpmpoasls to face up to and deal withthis issue are as follows

Tenth Amendment Reform:Making U.S. Supreme CourtJurisdiction over Federallam

Questlona Expllcft

Whether a power is one resemedto the states, or to the people,

shall be a matter to be decidedby the Courts

This addition to the Tenth Anrend-ment would incofpofste the conclusionof the dissenters in the SupremeCom’t’s decision in Garcia v. San Ato-nio Metropolitan Trmit Authority(1985) that “judicial enforcement ofthe Tenth Amendment is essential tomaintaining the federal system w care-fully designed by the framers andadopted in the Constitution.” It wouldcall for the judicial branch to adjudi-cate constitutional questions of feder-alism and, thereby, return the Su-preme Couft to its pusition as umpireof the federal system. This proposalwould preserve the supremacy of thefederal government within its realm ofdelegated powers under the Constitu-tion. It would not alter the Supreme

Coufi’s jurisdiction, ~wer, or author-ity. Nor would this propuaal bringabuut a radical change in the constitu-tional system, In short, such languagewould serve as a contempora~ instruc-tion tu the Court that the RnthAmendment is not merely a truism tobe ignored by the federal courts.

Artlcla V Raform:Authorizing Stata-lnftiatad

Amendmant Proposalawfth Congrasalonal Power

to Veto Such Proposala

Whenever three-fourthsof the Le@”slaturesof the several statesdeem it necessq, they shall propose

amendments to this Con.ctitution that,afier two years, shall be valid

to all intents andpu~oses as paflof this Constitution, unless disapprovedby two-thirds of both House of Congress

within two years of the date theamendments are submitted to Congress,

The current mode for states to in-itiate a constitutional amendment re-sponse to weaknesses irr the Constitu-tion has proven unworkable. Thepeople should retain an option to speakthrough their state legislatures for spe-cific amendments to the Constitution.TIIia reform elevates the role of thestate legislatures without diminishingthat of the federal government. Itwould eliminate the need for a consti-tutional convention and for an ex-tended ratification prucess by permit-ting three-quarters of the statelegislatures to propose amendmentsFor diwpproval by the Congress. Astreamlined and orderly process wouldallow states to initiate amendment pro-posals to protect their powers in thefederal system while still giving theCongress the pnwer to protect the na-tional government against state en-croachment.

Let me illustrate with some speci-ficity what is happening, and why theseamendments, among other reforms,are needed. I can do that best by citingthe actual experiences and conclusions

Congratulations on 30 yea~ ofservice. That is an enviable record. TheAdvisory Commission on lntergo~m-mental Relations has made a valuablewntribution to efficient governmentthrough its constant dedication to excel.Iencc in reacarch and publications

Datid L. ChambersLeague of NebrarkaMunicipafitic.r

During the period I served m a“ACIR Commissioner,I found itscombi-nation of shared infocmation, delibera.tive proses, and in-depth rcacarchmade an impuctant contribution toAmerican federalism. The coming to-gether of lccal, state, and federal offi-cials in a forum where the exchange ofidear and mncems is encouraged buildsunderstanding. The deliberative pro.ccss of deciding priorities for ACIR at-tention helps build wnscnsus abutthose priorities. The indepth reacarchdone by the ACIR professionals repre.sents some uf the best thinking abouttbnae national problems that transwndall levels of government. On its 30th an-niversary, ACIR deserves America’s~ngratulations.

Robert S. WalkerUS. Represenlalive,PennV/vania

1wuld like to mmmend the uvrkof the ACIR and offer my cnngratula-timrs on the Commission’s 30th anni-versary. The quality rcscarcb and infor-mation prnduccd by the Commissionstaff is ve~ helpful and useful to thoseof us who wrk with city officials eachday.

J. McDonald WrayMunicipalAssociation

of Sotlth Carolina

Congratulations to ACIR on its30th birthday. The organization hasmade significant contributions throughits research and publications, providing>bjective, accurate, basic data on statesnd Iccal government and intergovern-mental relations. I use ACIR repmts sr:eadin@for students and as sources formyown research. The ACIRS unrk asa~atchdog of the federal system, supply.ng information and promoting mp-:ration, must merit appreciation from]ffici~ls at all Ievets of government.

Mavis Mann ReevesUnivemifyof MaT/a/Id

Intergovemmenti Pers~ve/Fall 1%9 25

Congratulations to ACIR on its30th annivemaiy. Over the past threedecades, the Commission has been inthe forefront of exploring a more ra-tional and efficient way to deliver basicpublic services. A the Commision en.ters its fourth decade, the challenge tofulfill its mission is probably greaterthan it bas keen in re=nt memory, Al.though the challenge is great, so, too, isthe opportunity. I’m sure the Commi*sion will meet the challenge head on,and w look fomrd to working withyou “for a more ~rfect union.”

Edward C. FarrellNew Yoti State Conferenceof Mayon

and OtlterMttnicipd Oficids

It has been a pleasure for tbeCounty Suwrvisors AsscciatiOn of Cali.fornia to uvrk with tbe ACIR over thelmt three decades, from its historicstudy and effort on general revenuesharing to many current excellent re.wrts and surveys. Keep up the goodwork.

tarry E. NaakeCounfy SupeIVixOrsAssociation

of California

In my 21 yearn of public service, 1have bad numerous opportunities to usethe research done by ACIR. WithoutACIR, I don’t know where 1muld havegone for the help. ACIR bas proven tobe invaluable.

Robert H. Millersouth Ddola Munici@ LeagrIe

Since the formative years of theCommission, county government inNorth Carolina and this ~ociationhave found invaluable the research, in-formation, and leadership provided bythe ACIR. On several =asions, whave utilized in our wrk the model leg-islation prepared by the ACIR. Wehavealso found the statistical abstracts par-ticularlyvaluable as we analym the in-tergovernmental fiscal system in North2arolina compared to other states.

C. Ronald AycockNotih C#vlina Association

of County Commisxiont%

of several representative constituentsOf the Council of State Govern.ments—tbe Clearinghouse on Llcen-sure Enforcement and Regulation, theNationaI Association of State Person-nel Executives, and the National Assoc-iation of State ‘fteasurers.

Cleerlnghouseon Llceneure Enforcementand Regulation (CLEAR)

Stateagenciesare improving theirregulato~ efforts, to ensure that onlyprofessions and occupations that reallyrequire licensure are licensed. Thestates are working more closely witheach other to reduce interstate mobil-ity of incompetent and unethical licen-sees. Still, the federal government ap-parently has decided to make decisionsfor us and impose more requirementson states that are already faced withstaff and financial restrictions. Stateregulato~ agencies should not beforced by the federal government, us-ing unreasonable grant-in-aid mandaterequirements, to implement regula-t ions that are not directly related totheir statuto~ responsibilities. Shouldthis trend continue, states and stateregrdatoq agencies will indeed be re-duced to W administrative units of thefederal government.

National Aaaoclatlonof State Personnel Execuflvea

In the past several years, four ma-jor pieces of legislation have had an ad-verse impact on state peraunnel man-agement, both administratively andfinancially. The Drug-Free Wor/cp/aceAct, Section 89 of the Inremal RevenueCode, tbe Consolidated OmnibusBudget Reconciliation Act (COBRA),and the Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA) rulings have all impused in-creased administrative burdens on the

eluded from the minimum wage andovertime requirements individuals em-ployed in hna fide “executive, profes-sional, and administrative” positions.

The immediate problem was cre-ated on April 12, 1988, when thewage-hour administrator, the LaborDepartment official charged with theadministration of the FNA, issued anopinion letter taking the position that a“probation officer” did not qualify forthe administrative exemption becausethe duties of the position amounted tothe “prediction work” of the depart-ment.

The Department of bbor’s nar-row interpretation of the “admti]stra-tive” exemption, based on standardsestablished in private industry, poses aserious and costly threat to state andlocal governments. It appears that theimpact of this decision on other statemutational positions could be sub-stantial. Nine southeastern states haveestimated that the loss of the exemp-tion for probation officers and similarjob categories would affect more than35,~ employees and add costs of be-tween $~,~ and $15 million to theirpayrolls.

National Aaaociatlonof State Treaeurera

The association’s Wsition echoesthat of Justice Sandra Day O’Connorregarding the impact that the SouthCuo/ina v. Baker (1988) case has onstate and Iml governments’ ability torepair the nation’s transportation net-work, rebuild achords and colleges, andenhance our deteriorating infrastmc-ture. The states’ chief financial officershave resolved to:

Create and participate in a coali-tion to fight for intergovernmentalt= immunity and lead an effort towork with members of Congress toinform their mnstituents and their

. . . .states, in addition to an enormousmoneta~ burden.

The last case cited highlights howWashington is taking an increased rolein state governance. One subject notaddressed by the Congress in the 1985amendments to the Fair Labor Stan-dards Act was the inte~retation of so-called “white-collar” exemptions asthey apply to state and l-l govem-mentpOsitiOns. TbOse exemptiOnsex-

states OltnelOss OIrecLpruml t=immunity, and

SupPct an amendment to theU.S. Constitution to restore inter-governmental tm immunity in Or-der to protect the continued sover-eign status of state and 1~1governments.

If we expect to make progress, itwill be impoflant for the state and Iml

(con[intdedon page28)

26 Intergovernmental Perswtive/Fall 1%9

.

Responsibility, Resources, Accountability:Maintaining the Creative PartnershipBob Bolen

Thirty years ago, ram were spOfi-ing tail fins, Washington had a baseballteam, and Mas=chusetts had a juniorsenator named John F. Kennedy. TheAmeriean people liked Ike and lovedLucy. In the international arena, wewere engaged in a erdd war and a spacerace with the SoMet Union. On the do-mestic front, a new Advisory Commis-sion on Intergovernmental Relationshad come into existence to help build acuuperative process for improving theway our system of government works.

The fins are gone, and so are theSenators. The memory of PresidentJohn F. Kennedy bums as an eternalflame at his memorial overlooking thenation’s capital. Time hasn’t changedhow we think abmrt Lucy, but our atti-tudes and ~licies regarding the SovietUnion have gone through a stunningtransformation that may herald a piv-otal epnch in global relations.

Yet, here in hometown Arnerira,while much has changed in terms ofwhat our different branches, agencies,and levels of government do, many ofthe same issues that spurred the crea-tion of ACIR are still very much withus. Not dusty from neglect or indiffer-ence, they are issues and obstacles thathave proven much more formidablethan expeeted, even after three dec-ades of discussion, debate, experinren-tation, and analysis.

Two landmark events in the evolu.tion of intergovernmental relations inthe United States have come and goneduring this periud: the general revenuesharing program (1972-S6) and the Srr-preme Court’s ruling in NationalLea&e of Cities v. Usery (1976). Thebirth, life, and demise of the conceptsembcdied in these two recent episudesof creative federalism carty a strongmessage abut the most irnpmtant is-sues facing our intergovernmental ~s-tem.

First is the matter of assigning re-sources along with responsibilities inthe process of carrying out national pri-orities. When cities work, our nationworks. When cities fail, our nationfails. This linkage is inescapable, and itunderscores the importance of build-

ing and maintaining a creative partner-ship, not a “go it alone” federalism.

‘f’be cities and towns of Anreriraare where we are fighting the waragainst drugs, trying to keep our kids inschool and out of trouble, helping thehungry and homeless find fncd andshelter, and using all the resources atour disposal to help keep alive theAmeriran dream of a good job, a goodhome, a gnod life, and an even betterfuture for our children.

General revenue sharing was not afiscal pnlicy tail fin; it was not a passingfad or disposable frill bnlted onto theframework of our nationaI budget pri-orities. Its underlying premise is a fun-damental and essential one nationalresources should be made avaifable tohelp local governments shoulder therespunsibiIities imposed on them bynational Wlicies. That concept is justas sound and valid now as in 1972, and Ibelieve we will have to revisit this vitalissue as the pressure of constraints onIw1 revenue systems becumes moresevere in the very near future.

Second is the message of theGmcia decision, through which theSupreme Court gutted the TenthAmendment concepts it proclaimed inNational League of Cities v. Usery. Bychoosing to substitute a politiml pro-cess for its role in upholding the smrndprinciples and common sense of theTenth Amendment, the SupremeCoufl assigned cities and states to be-come pleaders competing for the ear ofthe Congress rather than partners indefining tbe public agenda.

This kind of tone-deaf demmracyis the wme kind of folly that rausedWashington to lose the Senators. Thevalue of the team’s presence in thelarger scheme of things was either un-recognized or scoffed at by those wholet the franchise falter. Its mntribu-tions to the community were not un-derstock or appreciated. When a bet-ter offer came, the team twk it andtook off.

In the Garcia decision, the Su-preme Court told cities and states thatdespite the Tenth Amendment they re-ally don ‘t have a special place in the

The Advisory Commission on ln-tcrgovcmmental Relations was burn i“the grnting domestic turmoil of thepnst-Wodd War 11 federal system. Itswntributions to our knowledge of fed-eIdliSm and to the wlution of federal.state-lccal problems has ken immeaa-urable. ACIR is one of three vital or-ganizations that make the public sectorwrk more effectively.

Harry A. GreenTennrsseeAdvtio~ Commissionon Inte,-govemmentafWatiom

The Advismy Commission on In-tergovcmmental Relations has pro-vided valuable insight into tbe uniqueproblems faced by our changing corn.munitics, state, and nation. Now, morethan ever before, w nred the researchand leadership provided by tbe Com-mission to meet this challenge.

Robem S. HadfieldNevada Ar.coriulionof Counlies

The Advisory Commission on In-tergovernmental Relations has had amajor substantive impact on state-localand Iocal-lml relations, ESWeII ESontbe federal-state-lccal sptem. Its 1963landmark reprt on the PefloIManceofUrban Ftlnctions: Local and Azmidehar had an incredible impact on ageneration of state and IwI dccis-ionmakem. Tbe Commision’s currentchallenge is to integrate itr advocacy forvery small Itil governments with thele~ons learned from its earlier studies.

David C. MattekNW Jemty Coun@

and Municipal Govemmrntstudy co~

Intergovemmentil Pers~tive/Fall 1989 27

During the timt two decades of itsexistence, the ACIR w an extremelyvaluableresource tith an enviable repu-tation, doing great and important wrk.During the1980a, howver, ACIR hasgone down in every uay. It WS obviousthat no one in the Reagan Administra-tion cared about monitoring or analyz-ing the federal sptem. At preacnt,ACIR is a pale shadowof itaformeraslf.This is a real tragedy. Tnday, our for-merlyrital and dynamic s~tem of inter-governmental relations is extremely, ifnot terminally, ill.

Rd YoungTennaee Mttnici& League

ACIR, to me, meana coordination,efficiency, and performance in gover-nmentat the highest Ievcl. The Commi*sion’s approach to Incal government isstraightfomrd and honest, and sharingyour insights on IwI govcmment’s rnleand whether there is a partnemhip inthe federal system demands another 30yearn of ACIR. Congratulations.

James N. CallahanMichigan4ocialion of Counties

The U.S. ACIR is an invaluable re-source to the academic communitywrking in public tinancc, economic de-velopment, community development,and city and regional planning. The an-nual publication of Significant Featureand Slate Fiscul Capaciryalone wuldjustify ACIRS existence, but it dacs somuch more. During myyean ar a seniorresident (1984-SS)academic colleagueswsre shncked to find how small a staffhad for the amount of quality wrk itturned out. The accrst w no bureauc-racy! My continued ~sociation tithACIR has been an enjoyable and pmductive one. Happy 30th birthday.

HoOey UlbrichClemson University

larger scheme of things. In the arcaneprwess of deciding what to regulateand what to mandate as national policy,our protests abnut preemption and in-t msion tmk a back seat to the broadprerogatives of the federsl gover-nment to do whatever it thought best.

Basebsll isn’t the only activity thatleft town and isnow flourishing outsideof Washington. The creative talent andener~ of public officials, businessleaders, community and nonprofitgroups, volunteers, and mncemed in-dividuals are prnducing an explosion ofnew ideas and crwting a new geners-t ion of leaders not unlike those pro-claimed in John F. Kennedy’s inaugu-ral addreaa.

And a torch passing may alao be inthe works as a result of the challengewnveyed by the Gamia decision. Twoyears ago, the National League of Cit-ies established an Election ’88 ~skForce to prepare and carry out a ~liti-CS1education program that would irt-ject a set of im~rtant hometown issuesinto the national elections. Its suc-cesses and invigorating effects assurethat there will be more such activity inthe future to bring our issues into na-t ional fncus.

Some of the Election ’88 iasues–such as drugs, education, and childcare-have risen to the top of our na-tional ~licy agenda. Even before thathappened, however, cities and stateshad taken the lead and moved the realfield of action into our own jurisdic-tions, where we are putting our ideas towork. Sound national plicy shouldsupport and extend these programs,not overlay them with bnilecplate stan-dards and inflexible rules.

With these and a host of other is-sues involving hometown America and

Christensen (conrinued@m me 26)

governments to avoid fragmentation ofeffort. We need to compare notes,strategies, and priorities across allthree branches of state governments,and with our cnunty and city counter-parts. We, therefore, are cooperatingwith the National Governors’ Aaancis-tion, the National Conference of StateLegislatures, and the organfitiona oflocal elected officials in this commonendeavor.

The two mnstitrdional propnmlsprovide an effective step towsrd restor-ing balance in the federsl system. Inthemselves, the proposals do not alterthe balance of pnwer; issstead, they re-store to the Constitution provisionsthat assist the states in addressing theimbalances of pwer. The pro~aslsare prnceduml, and, therefore, neutralwith respect to future debates overpublic policy and the appropriate re-sponsibilities of the governments thatmake up our federal union.

Enactment of these two pro~mlsfor constitutional reform is essentislfor the future vhslity of our nation be-cause our federal union, now in itsthird century, needs to enter a newphase. During the early perinds of ourhistory, the states generslly dominatedthe federsl union, often creating im-balances that worked to the disadvan-tage of the national government. To-day, however, the national governmentgenerally dominates the federal union,creating imbalances that work to thedisadvantage of state and lM1 gover-nments. The pr~aals for institu-tional change are meant to be com-plemental to a range of needed

intergovemm-ental relations, I believethat official Washington trails well be-hind the American people and thelocal officials who are the closestto them. Our people want responsibleaction to address the needs and prob-lems that create anguish and despairthroughout our society. How well werespond through our system of gover-nmentwill depend heavly on how thesequestions of reauurces, accountability,and coequal partnership are resolvedin the years ahead.

Bob Bolen is mayor of For?Wotih, TGas,and first vice president of the NationalLeague of Cities. He will become presi-dent of NLC on November 30.

legislative and public education initia-tives to be undertaken with the Con-gress, the Chief Executive, and thepublic generally to maintain the vitalityof state and local governments withinthe federal system.

Arnold Christensen is president of theUtah Senate andchaiman of the Councilof State Governments.

28 Intergovernmental Patswve/Fatl 19S9

The Federal-Local Partnership:The Rebuilding Is BeginningArm Hinger

One of the major national issuesfacing county government teday is re-

storing the federal.lucal partnership.This follows eight years of erosion,when Iucal government seemed to beviewed as just another private interestgroup instead of an intergovernmental

partner. The Bush administration andthe 10lst Congress seem to have abet-ter understanding of the implicationsof federal government actions and howthey sffect lucal governments. In myview, the rebuilding is beginning.

Dmiug the 1988 election year, thefour national organizations represent-ing local government in Washiugton—counties, cities, mayors, and regionalmuncils—in an historic joint effort,called for the restoration of the part-nership between the federal govern-ment and its Iucal governments. Bysummer 1989, a long-time Washingtonobserver calIed the respmrse equiva-lent “to throwing a pebble in thePotomac.” This may now be changing.

Adding to the cumplexhy in recentdecisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has,in effect, told local governments tolook to the ~litical prucess, not to thecourts, for relief—thus declaring fed-ecslism to be a pulitical issue ratherthan a constitutional guarantee. Ad-mittedly, prospects for action endingunfunded mandates in the current con-gressional session appear slim. Realis-tically, future prospects for adopting a“Mandate patiicipation Act” in view ofthe federal deficit are not muchbrighter. There are, however, otherhopeful signs of restoring local gover-nmentsas full and equal partners in thefederal system.

President George Bush has dem-onstrated gucd faith by appointing for-mer Iucal government officials to hisOffice of Intergovernmental Affairsand by maintaining a nonpartisan pol-

icy. Federal action and leadership ontwo major issues-the war on drugsand needed changes in the educational~stem–could help determine themeasure of success in restoring the fed-eral-state-lml partnership. In ‘keep-ing with his commitment for a voice indecisionmaking, President Bush mettwice in September with state and localgovernment representatives in smallgroups to diwuss these issues.

There is now more cause to hopefor a new vision. First, there is the pus-sl%ility that the Congress may repeal“Section 89,” a step in the right direc.tion to restore lucal powers in em-ployee matters. Further, the Congressmay respond positively to “fine tuning”cument tax-exempt bond law, whichcould improve the feasibility of fundingneeded by lucal projects using tm-exempt bonds. Both of these are veryimportant issues facing the intergov.emmental system in the next fiveyears. Another is the authority to de-velop new auurces of revenue for cOun-ties.

The Council of State Gover-nmentsand ACIR are providing excep-tional leadership in bringing abut apublic sector consensus on the need toaddress the Supreme Comt’s erosionof the Tenth Amendment.

As county officials work to sput-light caunty government in order togain a greater understanding of whatwe do and the challenges we face, I be-lieve additional oppmtunities for cuor-disration and couperstion will be there.It’s up to us to tell the county story in aWy that counts.

.4tm Minger is a county supervisorMerced CounV, California, andpresidenrof the Nut[onal Association of Counties.

In establishing the AdvismyCom-mission on Intergovcmmental Rela-tions, the Congressprovideda fmum fordiwssion and research on the dy”mnicnatuw of the relationship ktien thefederal and state governments and therelationship of lucal guvemment toeach of the others. ACIR has fulfilled itsmission with commitment and vision.During the pat 30 yean, it has ken in.valuablein fucusingun the changing di-mensionsof federalism.ACIR recearchhas been of great use to the municipal.ties and staff of the Municipal hague.Michigan has Iwked to ACIR m ~mudel in establishing the MichiganCommissionon Intergovernmental Re-lations, and wc lwk fu~rd to joiningwith ACIR in the dialogue on federal.ism.

George D. GoodmanMichiganM1/nic~alLeogue

ACIR has provided consistentlyhigh quality rewarch and @licy Wid.ancc throughout its 30 yearn, a difficultfeat for any organization and certainlyastandard to which all similar organiza.lions aspire.ACIR has ken able topru-tide pulicymakem and practitionerswith data, opt ions, and background i“-fomation that reflect the real emiron.ment within which the issues surfaceand the solutions are hammered out.with its memben selected from and)peaking for the various levels of gov-:mment, ACIR has been able to ad-iresr, isrues that emerge at the grosswts as wll as those that are prccivedrs imprtant by tbosc in Washington,

Blaine Linernle Uhan Institute

The bague hm been involved inmd with the ACIR for 30 years, and]ighly respects and commends the;ommission.

G.R EtcheverryNevadaLeogf[eof Ciria

Intergovemmenta Parswtive/Fait 19a9 29.

.-.---. —. .--- —..- . .

Resources, Regulation. and Realism:Small Governments in

The National Association ofTowns and Townships (NA~T) repre-sents more than 13,~ units of generalpurpose lucal governments across theUnited States. These mostly small,mostly rural communities are typical ofthe majority of the nation’s 39,~ localgovemmentx in fact, 72 percent ofgeneral pu~ose governments in theUnited States have populations of lessthan 3,~, and half are under 1,~.

~ese Iucalities are significantlydifferent from their urban and subur-ban counterparts in temrs of staff andresourcey for the most part, they havefew paid staff accountants, lawyers, orprofessional managers. There are noenvironmental engineers on the pay-roll (there may not even be a payroll),and in many cases there is not even acomputer. And these places are theoverwhelming majority of the I-litiesin the federsl-state-local partnership.

The Need for Reallamin Federal Regulatlona

Since most of America’s gOvem-ments are small and have limited re-sources, it stands to reason that federslpolicy developed for “state and localgovernments” should be designed tiththis reality in mind. Instead, legislationand regulations are written with tbe as-sumption that there basically is no dif-ference between a community of ~and a municipality of 500,~, that theirresources are the same. Aa a result, re-sponsibility for program implementa-tion and funding is given to units of lo-cal government without a realisticassessment of whether they are able tocomply. Thus, current policy createsproblems rather than solving them.For exnmple, l-l officisls are atiousto address environmental concernsthrough regulations that will work.However, as cumently structured,many regulations give us communitiesthat remain unprotected—becausetheir governments cannot bear the fi-nancial, technological, or administra-tive burden for accomplishing what ismandated. Risk is higher—because theperception of risk is gone. Arrd local of-ficials, who are mostly volunteers tobegin with, are directed by federal lawto do what is impassible or suffer theconsequences.

The irony is that the conse-quences–from an environmental andliability standpoint-increase, and thefederal government loses credibility inthe process.

This situation is not limited to theEnvironmental Protection Agency. Itis true that environmental laws andregulations, because of their mpe andcost, have the highest visibility rightnow, but the same problem is evidentirr Department of Labor regulations,Justice Department rules, revenue nd-ings from the Internal Revenue Serv-ice, and most federal loan and grantformulas, which ignore the reality oflocal government resources.

The Promise of Reg Flex

The Regulatory Fl&biliy Act of1980 (Reg Flex) continues to be a veryvaluable, @st-effective tml that con beused throughout the federal gover-nment.At the moment, however, it is es-sentially being ignored, eapecislly withregard to small governments. Westrongly recommend that Reg Flex beenforced and strengthened.

There are several reasons for thisremmmendation: First, it is irrrpnssiblefor an organization such as NA~T toput out all the separate regulatory“fires’’-to address each propssl indi-vidually, generate data, research, andpresent appropriate alternatives. Buteven more importantly, the Congresshas instructed the regulatory agenciesto do that job through Reg Flex, whichplaces the Congress clearly on recordas supporting flexiblli~ and crest iveapproaches in rulemaklng for smallgovernments.

The act establishes as a principle ofregulato~ issuance that agenciesshould “endeavor to fit regulato~ re-quirements to the wle of the gover-nmental jurisdiction,” and to that endrequires them, when publishing anypro~sed rule, to do bth an initial anda final Reg Flex analysis. Without goinginto detail on spec~lc requirements ofthe legislation, there is clear directionthat the analysis must discuss:

Q Significant alternatives to the rulethat would minimize economic im-pact;

the Federal SystemB. Rsrrneth Greider

Q Different mmpliance or reportingrequirements or timetables thattake into account the resnurcesavailable to small entitie$

o Tiering of regulations according topopulation size; and

Q An exemption from covernge ofthe rule, or any part thereof, forsmall entities.

Publication of the actual Reg Flexstatement itself may be less imprtantthan the pmeess by which the analysisis conducted by federal agencies—which requires agencies to take a hardlwk at the implications of their pro-poasls. This process is vital. It requiresndemakers to think ideas throughfrom the point of view of a small gov-emmenc Would this approach work?Could they afford to do it? Could theydo something else and accomplish thesame-or nearly the mme—regulatoryobjective?.

In effect, Reg Flex shifts the bur-den from localities to the federal gov-ernment-a refreshing innovation andone that recognizes the vastly superiorresources of the national governmentwhen contrasted to 1-1 governments.If one measures this prncess againstthe alternative-that small gover-nmentsdon’t do anything at all becausethey can’t comply—then the require-ments of the Regulatory Flm”bi[ityActbecome particularly significant.

NATaT’s SuggestIons for Reg Flex

We have several suggestions forimproving the Reg Flex process andmaking it more realistic. First, a majorloophole in the law should be closed,that in Sec. d05(h), which provides thatan agency head may stipulate, withoutproviding any evidence, that the pro-~sed rule would have no “substantialimpact on a significant number of smallentities.” This option is exercised al-most as a matter of course, often be-cause small governments are not evenconsidered by the agency. It is our be-lief that, given the number of smallgovernments, the “significant number”criterion is almost always satisfied andthat the “substantial impact” wouldemerge if cost impact analyses weredone for small government budgets.

30 lntergovemmen~ P6fswtiva/FsO 19e9

Second, there should be a proti-sion iu Reg Flex for judicial review.Small governments currently have norecourse to the most blatant abuse ofthe Reg Flex provisions. In the absenceof judicial review, or perhaps in addi.tion to it, the Office of Managementand Budget should be re uired to de-

iveIOp a Sec. W5(b) cert Icatlon prO-cess–a standard, govemmentwideprocess that would assure Reg Flexcompliance by establishing criteria tobe met before OMB approval is givento publication of regulato~ pro~sals.

Such an approach would also en-sure that the resources of the federalgovernment would be brought to bearon behaIf of America’s small immu-nities. It would stimulate creativethinking abut new, appropriate tech-nologies, alternative regulatory prO-cesses, and innovative techniques toaccomplish statutory requirements.And that, we believe, is what the Rew-latory Flm”bility Act was meant to do.

In addition, we would recommendthat regular, cumulative cost estimates

be developed by each agenq to deter-mine the total regulatory burdens ofcurrent and proposed regulations thatare being placed on small governmentsunder their jurisdictions. We wouldrecommend that the results of such es-timates be published by each agency inits twice-yearly regulatory calendar,and that they be provided to tbe legisla-tive committees of jurisdiction in boththe House and Senate.

The Congress should use those es-timates when designing new legisla-tion. Cost estimates of proposed legis-lation should be provided as part ofrequested comments. Cumulative costburdens must be considered whenevernew legislation is designed.

Senator John Glenn is introducinglegislation to strengthen the R~laforyFla”bility Act and to make inrprove-ments in the way the federal gover-nment develops data on small gover-nments. The bill also would instaO asystem for gathering input from smallcommunities-the majority of local

governments-as the federal gover-nmentcrafts intergovernmental plicy,

NAWT strongly endorses SenatorGlenn’s initiative and is gratfled tohave been a part of its development,We believe that such legislation willhelp to restore realism to the federal-state-lml partnemhip, allow smallimmunities to assume the re~nsi-bilities which the federal governmentdevises for them, and afford protectionto the millions of Americans who donot live in metropolitan areas,

Success of this approach wouldaddress, we believe, a crucial issue incument intergovernmental relations,Without systematic relief of this kind,many of the nation’s intergovernme-ntalpanners will face collapse from un-necessa~, overly burdensome, unreal.istic federal plicy.

B, K?nneth Greider is &recutivedirector ofthe Pennsylvania State Association ofTownship Supervisors andpresident of theNational A.rsociation of Towm andTowmhips.

Plan to Attend

State Taxation and Regulation of Banking Time for Reform?December 13, 1989 Grand Hyati Hotel Washington, DC

Few sectors of our economy are changing as rapidly as banking and financial services. Interstate banking and innovationssuch as “branchless banking” are undermining the traditional approaches that states have used to tax and regulate finan-cial institutions. Traditionally, states have taxed banks where they are physically located, but this approach is becomingoutmoded in an era when bank activities increasin ly cross state lines. Several states have reformed their approach to

Jtaxing this indust~, but most states have yet to co rent the challenge. Similarly, traditional approaches to bank regula-tion are coming under scnrtiny as the distinctions between banks and other financial institutions becomes blm’red andthe range of banking services widens.

Thkisthefirst natiorrrdrrreetingtobe devoted exclusively to tbe accay of state tax and regulatory issues raised by the recentand impending developments.

Sponsored by the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, the Multistate Tax Commission, the Na.tional Center for Policy Alternatives, and the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Plrmtoattend if you area state legislator or legislative staff member, tax administrator, banker or bank regulator, or othercitizen concerned about state bank policies.

Registration Form

Name: Title

Organimtion:

Address

City & State: ZIP Cede:

RegiktratiorrFees: Legislative and Other Government PersonnelIf Mailed prior to November 27 $150On-Site Registration $175

All Other Attendees $215 Arrromrt Enclosed:

Mail registration form with check to:

National Conference of State LegislaturesAttn: Seminars Depm’tment10S0 17th Street, Suite 2100

Denver, Colnrado 80265

Intergovemmenti PerspctivelFall 19S9 31

ACIR Membership 1959-1989

Privste Citizens

Frank Bane, Chairman(Virginia, D)John E. Burton (New York, R)James K. Pollmk (Michigan, R)Homrd K. Wwn (Jow, D)Don Hummel (Arizona, D)Thomas H. Eliot (Misouri, D)Adelaide Waltem @orth Carolina, D)Farns Bryant, Chaiman (Florida, D)Dorothy I. Cline @ew Mexico, D)Prim Daniel (Texas, D)Alexander Heard ~ennessee, D)Howrd @) CaOaway (Georgia, R)Robert E. Merriam, Chaim]an~Oinois, R)Edwrd C. Banfield (Massachusetts, D)Robert H. Finch (California, R)John H. Altorfer (JOinois, R)E Clifton White (Connecticut, R)Richard W. Riley (South Carolina, D)Bill G. King (Alabama, D)Abraham D. Jfeame, Chaimun New York, D)Mary Eleanor Wall (Illinois, D)Eugene E]denberg (Washington, DC, D)Rokrt B. Hawkins, Jr., Chairman(California, RJames S Dwight, Jr. (Virginia, R)Mary Kathleen Teague (Washington, DC, R)Daniel J. Elazar (Pennsylvania, R)Mary Ellen Joyw ~irginia, R)

United States Senators

Sam J. Ervin @orth Carolina, D)Karl E. Mundt (South Dakota, R)Edmund S. Muskie (Maine, D)Charles H. Percy (Illinois, R)Ernest E HoOings (South Carolina, D)WOliam V. Roth (Delamre, R)William Hathaway (Maine, D)Lawton Chiles (Florida, D)James R. Sasser (Tennese, D)Dave Durenberger (Minnesota, R)Carl Levin (Michigan, D)Charles S. Robb Nirginia, D)

U.S. Representatives

Florence f? Dwyer mew Jersey, R)LB, Fountain @onh Carolina, D)Wilbur D. Mills (Arkamas, D)Frank Ikard (Texas, D)Eugene J. Keogh mew York, D)Al Unman (Oregon, D)Clarence J. Brown, Jr. (Ohio, R)fames C. Corman (California, D)Richard Vander Veen (Michigan, D)Charles B. Range] mew York, D)Barney Frank (Massachusetts, D)Robert S. Walker (Pennsylvania, R)Ted Weiss New York, D)Sander Levin (Michigan, D)Jim Ross Lightfoot (Iowa, R)hrkin Smith (Mississippi, R)

Members of the Federal Executivs Branch

Robert B. Anderson (SecretaV, Treasury, R)Arthur S. Fleming (Secretary,

Health, Education and Welfare, R)James F!Mitchell (Secretary, Labr, R)C. Douglas Ddlon (Secretary, TreasuV, R)

Appointed

1959195919591%2lW196419641%71%71%71%71%91%919711973197519761977197819781980198119811983198319861989

195919591959197219731975197719771979198119881989

Appointed

1959195919591%1196219671973197519761977198219831983198519871989

Appointed

1959

195919591961

Abraham A. Ribimff(Secretary, Health, ~ucation and Welfare)

Arthur J. Goldberg (Secretary, Labor, D)Anthony J. Celebrezze (SecretaIy,

Health, Education and Welfare, D)Robert C. Weaver (Secretary,

Housing and Urban Development, D)Orville L F~emnn (Secretary, Agriculture, D)Henry H. Fowler (Secretary, Treasury, D)Farris Bryant @irector,

Offim of Emergen~ Planning, D)Ramwy Clark (Attorney General, D)Price Daniel (Director,

Offim of Emergenq Planning, D)Robert E Mayo (Director,

Bureau of the Budget, R)George H. Romney (Secreta~,

Housing and Urban Development, R)Robert H. Finch (Secretary,

Health, ~ucation and Welfare, R)George R Sbultz (Director,

Offi@ of Management and Budget, R)Kenneth R. Cole, Jr., (Assistant to the President

for Domestic Affairs, R)Caspar W. Weinberger (Secretary,

Health Education and Welfare, R)James T Lynn (Director,

Oftiw of Management and Budget, R)James M. Cannon (Assistant to tbe President

for Domestic Affai~, R)Carla A. Hilk (Secretary,

Housing and Urban Development, R)Thomas B. Lance (Director,

Ofti& of Management and Budget, D)W. Michael Blumenthal (Secretay, Treasury, D)Juanita M. Kreps (Secretary, Commerw, D)James T McIntyre @imtor,

Oftiw of Management and Budget, D)Moon Landrieu (Secretary,

Housing and Urban Development, D)G. William Miller, Secretary, Treasury, D)Samuel R. Pierce (Secretay,

Housing and Urban Development, R)James G. Watt, Chairman(Secreta~, Interior, R)Richard S. Williamson (Assistant to the Pr=ident

for Intergovernmental Affaim, R)Lee L Verstandig (Assistant to the President

for Intergovernmental Affaim, R)Wiliiam E Clark (Secretary, Interior, R)Raymond J. Donovan (Secretary, Labr, R)William E. Brock, IJI (SecretaV, Labor, R)Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.

(Deputy Asistant to the President;Director, Offim of Intergovernmental Affaim, R)

Fdwin Meese, HI (Attorney General, R)G%ndolyn S King (Deputy Assistant to the President

Director, Office of Jntergovemmental Affairs, R)Andrew H. Card (Special ~istant to the President

for Intcrgovemmental Affairs, R)Ann McLaughlin (Secretary, Labor, R)Richard L Tbomburgh (Attorney General, R)Debra Rae Anderson

(Deputy Assistant to the president;Director, Offi= of Intergovernmental Affairs, R)

Samuel K. Skinner (Secretary, Trans~rtation, R)Karen Spenmr, S~cial Assistant to the President

for Intergovernmental Affaim, R)

1%11%1

1962

1%219651%5

1%71%7

1%7

1%9

1%9

1%9

1970

1972

1973

1975

1975

1975

197719771977

1978

19791981J

19811981

1981

1983198419841985

19851985

1987198819M

19891989

1989

32 lntergovsfnmen~ Pers@ve/Fdl 1989

Governors Appointed

Ernest E HoOings (South Carolina, D) 1959Abraham A. Ribicoff (Connecticut, D) 1959Ro&rt E. Smylie (Idaho, R) 1959WilliamG. Stratton (JOinois,R) 1959John Ander$on, Jr. (Kansas, R) 1961MichaelV. DiSalle (Ohio. D) 1961Carl E. Sandem (G~orgia: DjTerry Sanford ~orth Carolina, D)John N. Dempsey (Connecticut, D)Nelson A. RmkefeOer tNew York. R)John A. VOIW (M~a;husetts, R) ‘Buford Ellington @ennessee, D)James A. Rhodes (Ohio, R)Spiro X Agnew (Maryland, R)Raymond P Shafer (Pennsylvania, R)Wamn E Heames @huri, D)Ronald Reagan (California, R)Dale Bumpers (Arkansas, D)Richard B. Ogilvie (fOinois, R)Richard F Kneip (South Dakota, D)Daniel J. Evans (Washington, R)Ro&rt D. Ray (Jowa, R)Philip W. Ncel (Rhcde Island, D)Otis R. Boron (Indiana, R)Reubin OD. Askew (Florida, D)Richard A. Snelling (Vermont, R)Bmw Babbitt (Arizona, D)John N. Dalton ~irginia, R)Richard W. Riley (South Carolina, D)Lamar Alexander, Hce Chairman~ennessee, R)Forrest H. James, Jr. (Alabama, D)Smtt M. Malheson (Utah, D) 1983Richard L Tbomburgh (Pennsylvania, R) 1983John H. Sununu, tic. Chaimun New Hampshire, R) 1984John Carlin (Kansas, D) 1985Ted Schwinden (Montana, D) 1985John Asbmoft (Miwuii, R) 1986George A. Sinner (North Dakota, D) 1989

State Legislators

Elisha Barrett New York Senate, R)Leslie Cutter (Mmacbut@ Senate, R)John W. Noble (Missouri Senate, D)Hal Bridenbaugh @ebraska Senate, R)Robert A. Ainswrth, Jr. @uisiana Senate, D)Robert B. Duncan (Oregon House, D)John E. POWIS (Mmachusctts Senate, D)Graham S. Newell ~ermont Senate, R)Harry King hman (Kentucky House, D)Marion H. Crank (Arkansm House, D)Charles R. Weiner (Pennsylvania Senate, D)C. George DeStefano (Rhode Island Senate, R)Ben Barnes flexas House, D)Jesse M. Unruh (California House, D)W. Russell An’ington (Illinois Senate, R)Robert E Knowles (Wimnsin Senate, R)B. Mahlon Brow (Nevada Senate, D)Charles E Kurfess (Ohio House, R)John H. BrisL% (Maryland House, D)Martin O. Sab (Minnesota House, D)Fred E. Anderson (Colorado Senate, D)Jason f30e (Oregon Senate, D)Leo T McCarthy (California House, D)Ross 0. Doyen Kansas %nate, R)Richard Hcdes (Florida Houw, D)David E. Nething (North Dakota Senate, R)William F Pa.ssannante (New York Assembly, D)Miles Ferry (Utah Senate, R)

19631963196419651%71%71%7196819691969197019711971197219731973197519761977197719781979197919811981

Appobded

19591959195919601%11%21%219621%3196419641%51967196719691969196919731974197719781979197919811981198219831984

John T Bra= ~enne~e House, D)Ted L Strickland (Colorado Senate, R)

Mayors

Antbony J. Celebrezm (Cleveland, D)Gordon S. Clinton (Seattle, R)Don Hummel (Tucson, D)Norris Poul?,on @ Angeles, R)Richard Y. Batterton @enver)ho T. Murphy (Santa Fe, D)Neal S. BlaisdeO (Honolulu, R)Arthur Naftalin ~inneapolis, D)Raymond R. Tucker (St. hu]s, D)Arthur L, SeOand (Fresno, R)Herman W, Goldner (St. Petersburg, R)Richard C. ~ @ew Haven, D)Theodore R. McKeldin @altimore, R)Jack D. Maltester (San Leandm, D)William E Wakb (Syracuse, R)Richard G. Lugs (Indiana~lis, R)C. &verly Briley (Nashville, D)Lawrenm E Kramer, Jr. (Patewn, NJ, R)Harry G. HaskeO, Jr. (Wilmington, R)John D. Driggs (phoenix, R)Fdtin J. Gam (Salt Lake City, R)John H. Poelker (St. huis, D)Harry E. Kinney (Albuquerque, R)Tom Mdy (Columbus, Ohio, R)Thomas Bradley ~ Angeles, D)Richard E. Carver (Peoria, R)John J? Rousakis (Savannah, D)Margaret T Hanw (Phoenk, R)Richard Hatcher (Gary, D)James Inhofe (Tulsa, R)Joseph F!Riley, Jr. (Charleston, SC, D)Feral Harrison (Smtland Neck, NC, D)William H. Hudnut, III (Indianapolis, R)Rokert Mtiinez (Tampa, R)Henry W Maier (Milwukee, D)Robert M. Isaac (Colorado Springs, R)Donald M. Fraser @inneaplis, D)Arthur J. Holland @renton, D)

county Oftlclsls

19851988

Appointed

195919591959195919621962196219621962196319a196519671967196719691969197019721973197419741975197619781978197819811981198119811983198419841987198719871989

Appointed

=ward OConnor (Wayne Co., Michigan, D)!nwirtb @lumss Co., California, D)Clair Donne]

Edwin G. Michaeliin (Westchester Co., New York, R)Barbara A. Wilm (Washington Co., Oregon, R)Angus McDonald (Yakima Co., Washington, R)William O. Reach (Montgomev Co., Tennes=e, D)Gladys N. SpeOman

iPrinw Georee’s Co.. Mawland. D)John F Dever (Middlesex Co:, M&a;husetts, D)Edwin G. Michaelian Westchester Co., New York, R)Lawenw K. Roos (St. huis Co., Missouri, R)Conrad M. Fowler (Shelby Co:, Alabama, D)John H. Brewr @ent Co., Michigan, R)WIOiam E. Dunn (Salt Lake Co., Utah, R)Doris W Dealaman (Somewt Co., New Jersey, R)Lynn G. Cutler (Black Hawk Co., Iowa, D)William O. Reach (Montgome~ Co., Tennessee, D)Rov On (Dallas CO.. Texas. D)Pe(er F S~habamm (hs Ang~les Co., California, R)Gilkrt Barrett (Dougherty Co., Georgia, D)William J. Murphy (Renselaer Co., New York, R)Sandra R. Smoley (Sacramento Co.. California, R)Philip B. Elfstrom (Kane Co., Illinois, R)Harvey Ruvin (Dade Co., Florida, D)Sandra R. Smoley (Sacramento Co., California. R)James J. Snyder (Cattaraugus Co.. New York, R)

195919591959196219621966

1967196s19691969197019741975197619771978198119811982198319831985198819891989

Intergovernmental Perspective/Fall <989 33

-—--- .. .

PUb!iGatiOnS of ACIR 1961-1989

POLICY REPORTS

1960s

Coordination of State and Federal Inheritance, Estate andGifi Trees (A-1, 1%1).

Modification of Federal Grhts-in-AidforPublic Health Sem-ite (A-2. 1%1). .

Investment of Idle Cash Batances by State and Local Gover-nments(A-3, 1%1)

Intergovernmental Responsibilities for Mass TramportcctionFacilities and Services (A-4, 1%1)

Governmental Structure, OWanization, and Phuming in Met-ropolitan Areas (A-5, 1%1)

State and Local Tmtion of privately Owned Propc+ Lo-cated on FederalAreas: Proposedhendment to theBuckACI (A-6, 1961)

Intergovernmental Cooperation in Ta Administration (A-7,1%1)

Periodic Congressional Reassessment of Federal Grants-in-Aid to State and Local Governments (A-8, 1%1)

Local Nonprope~ Tws and the Coordinating Role of theState (A-9, 1%1)

State Constitutional und Statutoty Restrictions on Local Gov-ernment Debt (A- 10, 1%1)

Alternative Approaches to Governmental O~aniution inMetropolitan Areas (A-11, 1%2)

State Constitutional md Statuto~ Rssttictions upon theStructural, Functional, and Personnel Powers of LocalGovernments (A-12, 1%2)

Intergovernmental Responsibilities for Water Supply and Sew-age Disposal in Metropolitan Areas (A-13, 1%2)

State Con.ctitutional and Statuto~ Restriction on Local Tm-ing Powers (A-14, 1%2)

Apportionment of State Legislatures (A-15, 1%2)

Pansferability of Public Employee Retirement Credits amongUnits of Govement (A-16, 1%3)

The Role of the States in StrcngtheningthePropcrty Tm (A-17,1963)

Industrial Development Bond Finuncing (A-18, 1%3)

The RoleofEqualization in Federal Grants, and Grant-in-AidPrograms Enacted by the Second Session of the 88th Con-gTeSS (A-19, 1964)

Impact of Federal Urban Development Programs on LocalGovernment O~anization and Planning (A-20, 1964)

Statutory and Administrative Controls Associated ~’th Fed-eral Grants for Public Assistance (A-21, 19M)

The Problem of Special Districts in American Government(A-22, 1%4)

The Intergovernmental Aspects of Documentary Trees (A-23,1964)

State-Federal Overlapping in Cigurette Tus (A-24, 1964)Metropolitan Social and Economic Disparities: Implication

for Intergovernmental Re/atiom in Central Cities andSuburbs (A-25, 1965)

Relocation: Unequal Treatment of People and Businesses Dis-placed by Governments (A-26, 1%5)

Federal-State Coordination of Personal Income Tws (A-27,1%5)

Building Codes: A Program for Intergovernmental Reform(A-28, 1966)

Intergovenanental Relations in the Poverty program (A-29,1966)

State-tial Tmtion and Industrial Location (A-30, 1%7)Fiscal Balance in the American Federal System (A-31, 1%7)

Urban and Rural America-Policies for Future Growth(A-32, 1968)

Inte~ovemmenta[ Problems in Medicaid, and Hearings beforeACIR (A-33. 1%8)

State Aid to Local GoLent (A-34, 1%9)Labor-Management Policiesfor State and Local Government

(A-35, 1%9)

1970s

Making the Safe Streets Act Work: An IntergovernmentalChallenec (A-36, 1970). . . .

FederalApproaches to Aid State and Local Capital finmcing(A-37, 1970)

State-Local Relations in the Criminal Justice System (A-38,1971)

Multi-State Rw”onalism (A-39, 1972)Financing Schools and Propcw TaxRelief-A State Respomi-

bilitv (A-40. 1973)Regions; Governance: ~omise andPerfomance (A-41, 1973)City Financial Emergencies: The Intergovernmental Dimen-

sion (A-42, 1973)Regional Decision Making: New Strategies for Substate Dis-

tricts (A-43, 1973)Hearings on Substate Regionalism (A-43a, 1973)The Challenge of kal Governmental Reorganization (A-44,

1974)Governmental Functions and Processes: Local and Areawide

(A-45, 1974)A Look to the North: Canadian Regional Everience (A-46,

1974)Local Revenue Diversification: Income, Sales Tws & User

ChaWes (A-47, 1974)General Revenue Sharing: An ACIR Reevaluation (A-48,

1974)Toward More Balanced Transportation: Ncw Intergovernmen-

tal proposals (A-49, 1975)State Taxation of Military Income and Store Sales (A-50,

1976)The Intergovernmental Grant System: An Assessment andPro-

posed Po/icies (14 volumes)Block Grants: A Roundtable Discussion (A-51, 1976)Categorical Grants: Their Role and Design (A-52, 1978)A CatalogofFederal Grant-in-Aid Proflams to State and

Local Gowmments (A-52-a, 1977)

34 lntergovemmanM PersFscdve/Fall 19a9

Improving Federal Grants Management (A-53, 1977)The Intergovernmental Grunt System as Seen by State,

Local, and Federal Oflcials (A-54, 1977)Safe Streets Recomidered: The Block Grant @erience,

1968-1975 (A-55, 1977)Safe Streets Reconsidered: The Block Grant Experience,

1968-1975, Case Studies (A-55a, 1977)The Pannershipfor Health Act: Lessonsfrom a Pioneering

Block Grant (A-56, 1977)

Communiw Development: The Workings of a Federal-Local Block Grant (A-57, 1977)

The Comprehensive Emp[~ment and TrainingAct: EarlyReadings porn a Hybrid Black Grant (A-58, 1977)

The States and Intergovernmental Aids (A-59, 1977)Block Grants: A Comparative Ana~sis (A-60, 1977)

Federd Grants: Their Effects on State-Local ~endi-tures, Employment Levels, and Wage Rates (A-61,1977)

Su~’ and Concluding Obsewatiom (A-62, 1978)Inflation and Federal and State Income Tus (A-63, 1976)

State Limitations on Local Tas and ~nditures (A-64,1977)

Cigarette Bootle@”ng: A State and Federal Responsibility(A-65, 1977)

Regionalism Revisited: Recent Areawide and Local Responses(A-66. 1978)

Stat; Mandating’of Lacal ~enditures (A-67, 1978)

The Adequacy of Federal Compensation to Local Gover-nmentsfor Tm Exempt Federal Lands (A-68, 1978)

CounterqclicalAid and Economic Stabilization (A-69, 1978)

State-Local finances in Recession and Inflation: An Eco-nomic Analysis (A-70, 1979)

A Catalog ofFederal Grant-in-Aid Programs to State and Lo-cal Governments: Grants Funded FY 1978 (A-72, 1979)

1980s

State and Laced Pension System. -Federal Regulatory Issues(A-71. 1980). . .

Citizen Participation in the American Federal System (A-73,1980)

Regional Growth: Historic Perspective (A-74, 1980)Regional Growth: Flows of Federal Funds, 1952-76 (A-75,

1980)Regional Growth: Interstate Ta Competition (A-76, 1981)

The Federal Role in the Federal System: The Dynamics ofGrowth (10 volumes)A Crisis of Conjdence and Competence (A-77, 1980)

The Condition of Contempora~ Federalism: ConflictingTheories and Collapsing Constraints (A-78, 1981)

Public Assistance: The Growth of a Federal Function(A-79, 1980)

Reducing Unemployment: Intergovernmental Dimensionsofa National Problem (A-~, 1982)

Intergovemmentolizing the Classroom: Federal Involve-ment in Elementary and Secondary Education(A-81, 1981)

TheEvolution of a Problematic Pannership: The FedsandHigher Ed (A-82, 1981)

Protecting the Environment: Politics, Pollution, and Fed-eral Policy (A-83, 1981)

Federal Involvement in Librm”es (A-84, 1980)The Federal Role in Local Fire Protection (A-85, 19811)

An Agenda for American Federalism: Restoring Confi-dence and Competence (A-86, 1981)

Heurings on the Federal Role (A-87, 19W)State and Local Roles in the Federal System (A-88, 1982)

The FederalInfluence on State and Local Roles in the FederalSystem (A-89, 1981)

Payments in Lieu of Tues on Federal Real Propeny (A-90,1981)

Puyments in Lieu of Tus on Federal Real Prope~: Appendi-CI?S(A-91, 1982)

State Twtion of Multinational Corporations (A-92, 1983)1981 Tm Capacity of the fiti States (A-93, 1983)Jails: Intergovernmental D;rnensiom “of a Locul Problem

(A-94. 1984)Regulatory Federalism: Poli~, Process, Impact and Reform

(A-95, 1984)Financing Public Physical Infrastructure (A-96, 1984)

Strengthening the Federal Revenue System: Implications forState and Local Tting and Borrowing (A-97, 1984)

The Question of State Government Capability (A-98, 1985)Bankmptcies, Defauits and Other Local Government Finan-

cial Eme~encies (A-99, 1985)

Cigurette Ta Evmion: A Second Look (A-1CH3,1985)The States and Distressed Communities: Final Repoti (A-101,

1985)Fiscal Management of Federal Pass-Through Grants: The

Need for More Uniform Requirements and Procedures(A-102, 1981)

InteWovsnunental Service ~eements for Delivering LocalPublic Semice$: Update 1983 (A-103, 1985)

Devolving Federal Program Re~omibilities and RevenueSources to State and Local Governments (A-lW, 1986)

State and tial Tmtion of Out-of-State Mail Order Sales(A-105. 1986)

The Trmfonnation in American Politics: Implications forFederalism (A-106, 1986)

Fiscal Discipline in the Federal System: National Reform andthe Eperience of the States (A-107, 1987)

Devolving Selected Federal-Aid Highway Programs and Reve-nue Bases: A Ctitical Appraisal (A-108, 1987)

The Organimtion of Lacal Public Economies (A-lW, 1987)

State Regulation of Banks in an Era of Deregulation (A-1 10,1988)

Disabili~ Rights Mandates: Federal and State Compliancewith Employment Protections and Architectural BarrierRemoval (A-ill, 1989)

Residential Community Associations: Private Governments inthe Intergovernmental System? (A-1 12, 1989)

State Constitutions in the Federal System: Selected Issues andOpportunities for State Initiatives (A-1 13, 1989)

I Intergovemmontal Perswtive/Fall 1989 35

INFORMATION REPORTS

1960sFirst hnual Repofl (M-1, 1960)Second Annual Repoti (M-2, 1%1)Comparative Summary of Recommendation on lnte~ovem-

mental Relations by Previous Commissions and StateGrOUpS(M-3, 19W)

Briefing Paper: On Twtion and Revenue (M-4, 1960)Briejing Paper:Local Non-Propeny Tm Sources (M-5, 1%1)Briefing Paper: Acquisition Features of Federal Grant Pro-

gT~ (M-6, 1%1)Summary of Government finances by Levels of Government:

1948 and 1959 (M-7, 1%1)1961 State TU Legislation (M-8, 1%1)

County Areas of Declining Population, 1950-1960 (M-9,1%1)

Letter fiorn Frank Bane, Chairman, ACIR, to John L. McClel-lan, Chairman, Committee on Govement Operations(M-1O, 1%1)

Tm OverlaDpinr in the United States (M-11, 1%1)Information; P;per: Municipal Annmtiom, 1950-1960

(M-12, 1961)Information Paper:Major State Tu Changes Enacted in 1961

(M-13, 1962)Third Annual Repoti ~-14, 1%2)Factors Affecting VoterReactions to Governmental Reorgani-

zation in MetroDo[itan Areas (M-15, 1%2)Measures of State a;d Local Rscal Capacity and TaxEffor?

(M-16, 1%2)The Advisory Commission on lnte~overnmental Relations

(M-17, 1%2)

A Directory of Federal Statistics for Metropolitan Areas(M-18, 1%2)

Fourth Annual Reporl (M-19, 1%3)

State Legislative Program (M-20, 1%3)Performance of Urban Functiom: Local and Areawide (M-21,

1%3)

Fifth Anriual Repon (M-22, 1964)Tm Overlapping in the United States (M-23, 1964)196S State Legislative Progam of ACIR (M-24, 1%5)Siaih Annual Repoti (M-25, lN)State ZchnicalAssistance to Local Debt Management (M-26,

1%5)

1966 State Legislative Progrm (M-27, 1%5)Seventh hnual Report (M-28, 1966)A Handbook for Interlmal Agreemetis and Contracts (M-29,

1967)

Catalogs and Other information Sources on Federal and StateAid Programs: A Selected Bibliography (M-30, 1967)

Metropolitan America: Challenge to Federalism @-31, lW)Metropolitan Councils of Governments ~-32, 19W)1967 State Legislative Program (M-33, 1966)Eighth Annual Repart (M-34, 1%7)1968 State Legislative Progrum W-35, 1%7)

Ninth hual Report W-36, 1%8)

State and Local Trees, Significant Features, 1968 ~-37,1%8)

State Legislative and Constitutional Action on Urban Prob-lems in 1967 (M-38, 1%8)

New Proposals for 1969: ACIR State Legislative Program(M-39, 1%8)

Sources of Increased State Tu Collection: Economic GrowthK Political Choice (M-41, 1%8)

Tenth Annual Repofl (M-42, 1%9)State and Local Finances, Significant Features, 1966-1969

(M-43, 1%8)Federalism and the Academic Communi~ (M-44, 1%9)New Proposals for 1970: ACIR State Legislative Program

(M-45, 1%9)The AdvisoV Commission on Intergovernmental Relations

(M-46, 1%9)Urban America and the Federal System W-47, 1969)1970 Cumulative ACIR State Legislative Program (M-48,

1%9)

1970s

Eleventh Annual Report (M-49, 1970)State and LDcal Finances, Significant Features, 1967-1970

(M-50, 1%9)The Commuter and the Municipal Income Tux (M-51, 1970)The Gap between Federal AidAuthorizatiom and Appropria-

tions, fiscal Years 1966-1970 (M-52, 1970)New Proposals for 1971: ACIR State Legisia;ive Program

(M-53. 1970)Reve;ue Sharing; An Idea Whose Time Has Came (M-54,

1970)State Involvement in Federal-LDcal Grant Programs-A Case

Study in the “Buying-In Approach” (M-55, 1970)A State Response to Urban Problem: Recent Experience under

the “Buying-In“Approach (M-56, 1970)State-Lmal Finances and Su@estedfigislation W-57, 1970)Measuring the Fiscal Capacity and Effort of State and Local

Areas ~-58, 1971)Twe[fihAnnual Repoti ~-59, 1971)State Actian on Lacal Problems-1970 (M-@, 1971)County Reform (M-61, 1971)The Quest for Environmental QualiQ: Federal and State Ac-

tion, 1969-70 @-62, 1971)Court Reform (M-63, 1971)Correctional Reform W-64, 1971)Police Reform (M-65, 1971)Prosecution Reform (M-66, 1971)New Proposals for 1972: ACIR State Legislative Program

(M-67, 1971)In Semch of Balance– Canada k Intergovernmental Experi-

ence (M-68, 1971)Who Should Pay for Public Schools? (M-69, 1971)Special Revenue Sharing: An Analysis of the Administration b

Grant Consolidation Proposals (M-70, 1971)The New Grass Roots Government-Decentralization and

Citizen Putiicipution in Urban Areas (M-71, 1972)Profile of County Government ~-72, 1972)

36 lntergovernmenWPefs@ve/Fall 1969

Thirteenth tiual Repofl @-73, 1972)

State-LocalFinances: Significant Featuresand Su~stedLcg.islation ~-74, 1972)

State Action on Lacd Problems-1971 ~-75, 1972)

Fourteenth Annual Repart: Striking a Better Balmce @-76,1973)

State Action on bcal Problems-1972 @-77, 1973)

The @lue-Added Tm and Altematiw Sources of FederdRevenue @-78, 1973)

Federal-State-Locd Finances: Significant Featarcs of EscdFederalism ~-79, 1974)

Fifieenth tial Report-ACIR: The NW in Rm’cw ~-80,1974)

Federolisrnin 1983: The System under Stress (M-81, 1974)

State Actions 1973: Toward Full Partnership (M-82, 1974)

The Propcv Tu in a Changing Environment: Selected StateStudies ~-83, 1974)

The ~nditure Ta: Concept, Administration and PossibleApplications (M-84) 1974

American Federalism: Into the Third CentuV (M-85, 1975)

Fends in Fiscal Federalism, 1954-74 (M-86, 1975)Property Tm Circuit Breakers: Cumnt Status and Policy Is-

sues @-87, 1975)

Sticenth Annual Report-ACIR: The EW in Review (M-88,1975)

Federalism in 1974: The Temion of Interdependence @-89,1975)

State Actiom 1974: Building on Innovation (M-90, 1975)

ACIR State Legislative Program (M-91-101, 1975)

ACIR State Legishuive Program: A Guide

State Government Structure and Processes

Local Government Modernization

State andLocal RevenuesFiscal and Personnel Management

Environment, Land Use, and Growth Policy

Housing and Community Development

Tr~otiation

Health

Education

Criminal Justice

State Actions in 1975 @-102, July 1976)

In Respect to Realities–A Report on Federalism in 1975(M-103, 1976)

Understanding the Mwket for State and LcJcd Debt (M-104,1976)

Pragnuztic Federdism The Remsi~ent of Fuxtional Rc-spon.sibiiities@-105, 1976)

Signi$cunt Features of Fiscal “Federalism,1976–Pan I–Trends ~-106, 1976)

Improving Urban America: A Challenge to Federalism(M-107, 1976)

Trends in Metropolitan herica (M-108, 1977)

State Actions in 1976 (M-109, 2977)

Significant Features of Escal Federalism, 1976-77 Edition,Part II–Revenue and Debt (M.I1O. 1977). . .

Measuring the Fiscal Blaad Pressure of the States—1964-1975 (M-111, 1977)

Understanding State and Lacal Cash Management (M. I IL1977)

Significant Features ofFucdFederdisn 1976 (M-113, 1977)Michigm SingIe Business TU A Different Approach to State

Business Tation ~-l 14, 1978)Significant Features of Fiscal Federalim: 1978-79 Edition

(M-115, 1979)State Communi~ Assistance Initiatives: Innovations of the

h;e ’70s (M-116, 1979)

1980s

The Inflation TU The Caseforlndm”ng Federal and State In-come Trees ~-l 17, 1980)

Recent Trendsin Federal andState Aid ta Lacal GovernmentsN-118, 1980)

Central City-Suburban Fiscal Disparity and City Distress(M-119, 1980)

State Adminitirators’ Opinions on Administrative Change,Federal Aid, Federal Relatiomhips @-120, 1980)

The State of State-tial Revenue Sharing W-121, 19W)Awakening the Slumbering Giant: Intergovernmental Re[a-

tions and Federal Grant Law (M-122, 1980)Significant Features of Fucal Fedwlism: 1979-80 Edition

(M-123, 1980)

State-Local Relatiom Bodies: State ACIRS and Other Ap-proaches (M-124, 1981)

The States and’Distressed Communities: me 1980tia1Re-nort (M-125. 1981)

The Futu;e of Federalism in the 1980s ~-126, 1981)Studies in Comparative Federalism ~-127-130, 1981)

CanadaWest Germany

Au.ctraliaAustralia, Canada, The United Stat~,

and West GermanyMewring Lacal Discretion~ Authoriy @-131, 1981)

Significant Features of Fiscal Fede~alism (M-132, 1981)A Catalag of Federal Grant-in-Aid Progrm to State and Lo-

cal Governments: Grants Funded FY1981 (M- 133, 1982)The States and Distressed Communities: The 1981 AnnualRe~

POti (M-133-HUD, 1982)Tu Capacity of the Fifty States: Methodology and Estimates

(M-134, 1982)Significant Features of Fiscal Federa[im: 1981-82 (M-135,

1983)The Stai~ and Distressed Commum”ties:The 1982 Annual Re-

port (M-136, 1983)Signi$cant Features of Fiscal Federalism: 1982-83 (M-137,

1984)Rscal Dispurhies: Central Cities and Suburbs, 1981 (M-138,

1984)A Cotalogof Federal Grant-in-Aid Programs to State and Lo-

cal Governments: Grants Funded FY1984 ~-139, 1984)

Intergoveminenial Perspective/Fail 1989 37

The States and Distressed Communities: State Programs toAid Distressed Communities. Catalog of State Program(M-140, 1985)

Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism: 1984 (M-141, 1985)1982 TU Capacity of the Fifi States (M-142, 1985)EmeW”ngIssues in American Federalism. Papers Preparedfor

ACIR k 25th Ativers~ (M-143, 1985)The Condition of American Federalism: Hem’ngs Held in

ACIR k 25th Anniversa~ Year (M-144, 1986)Significant Features of fiscal Federalism: 1985-86 (M-146,

1986)Reflections on Garcia and Its Implications for Federalism

(M-147. 19%)1983 Tu C~aci~ of the States (M-148, 1986)

A Framework for Studying the Controversy Concerning theFederal Courts and Federalism (M-149, 1986)

Measuring State Fiscal Capacity: Alternative Methods andTheir Uses (M-1%, 19S6)

Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism: 1987 Edition(M-151, 1987)

Federalism and the Constitution: A Symposium on Garcia(M-152, 1987)

A Catalog ofFedera[ Grant-in-AidPrograms to State and Lo-cal Governments: Grants Funded in FY 1987 ~-153,1987)

Is Constitutional Reform Necessa~ to Reinvigorate Federal-ism? A Roundtable Discussion (M-154, 1987)

Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism, 1988 Edition, Vol-umes I and II (M-155, 155-11, 1988)

Measuring State Fiscal CWaciV, 1987 Edition (M-1%, 1987)Interjuiisdictional Competition in the Federal System: A

Roundtable Discussion (M-157, 1988)Metropolitan Organization: The St. Louis Case (M-158, 1988)State ConstitutionalLaw: Cases and Materials (M-159, 1988)Devolution of Federal Aid Highway Programs: Cases in State-

Local Relations and Issues in State Law (M-160, 1988)

AssistingtheHomeless: State andLocaIRespon.ses in an Era ofLimited Resources, Papers from a Policy Conference(M-161, 1988)

Federal Preemption of State Banking Authority: Good or Badfor the Nation b Dual Banking System? A RoundtableDiscussion (M-162, 1988)

Significant Features of Fiscul Federdism, 1989 Edition, Vol-umes I and II (M-163, 163-11, 1989)

Hearings on Constitutional Reform of Federalism: Statementsby State and Local Government Association Representa-tives (M-164, 1989)

1986 State Rscal Capacity and Effort (M-165, 1989)Residential Communi~ Associations: Questions and Answers

for Public Oficials (M-lM, 1989)A Catalog of Federal Grant-in-Aid Programs to State and Lo-

cal Governments: Grants Funded in FY 1989 (M-167,1989)

STAFF REPORTS

The Agricultural Recession: Its Impact on the Finances of Stateand Local Governments (SR- 1, 1986)

Pre{imina~ Estimates of the Effect of the 1986 Federal TaRe-form Act on State Personal Income TaxLiabilities (SR-2,19X6)

Summq’of We~are Reform Hem”ngs (SR-3, 1987)Local Perspectiveson State-Local Highway Comultation and

Cooperation (SR-4, 1987)Estimat;s of Reveriue Potentiaifrom State Ttition of Out-of-

State Mail Order Sales (SR-5, 1987)Lacal Revenue Diversijicatiofl: User CG (SR-6, 1987)

Governments at Risk: Liability Imurance and Tort Reform(SR-7, 1987)

The Ta Reform Act of 1986–Its Effect on Both Federal andState Personal Income Tu Liabilities (SR-8, 1988)

State-LocalHighway Consultation and Cooperation: The Per-spective of State Legislators (SR-9, 1988)

Local Revenue Diversification: Local Income Tuxes (SR-1O,1988)

Readings’in Federalism: Perspectives on a Decade of Change(SR-11, 1989)

Local Revenue Diversification: Lxal Sales T?xes (SR-12,1989)

PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS

Public Opinion and Ttis (S-1, 1972)Revenue Shuring and Taes: A Survey ofpublic Attitudes (S-2,

1973)Changing Public Attitudes on Gov~ents and Trees

(S-3–S-18, 1974-1989)

38 Intwrgovemmenti Pemwctive/Fdl 1909

Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism 1989 Edition Volume IIThe 1989 volume is organized to allow the Wr to start with the “big picture” of the nation’s ecnnomy and trends in the nationalinmme accounts and then to look at fderal, state, and local finanes in more detail.

New in the 1989 edition arti

State Profiles, which give a snapshot of state-l-l, state, and Iml revenues and ~nditures

Revenue and expenditure tables for state-bxal, state, and INI governments, by source or function, percentage distribution, percapita, andasaperccntage of Wmnal income

Other data include historical federal, state, and Iccal tiscal trends; aggregate government ftscal trends; intergovernmental revenu=and expenditures; ACIR measures of state fiscalcapacity and effort; budget proccws and tax and ~ndimre limitations; and staterankings of state-lwl revenue and ~nditure items.

M-163-II 1989 224 pages $15

State Constitutions inthe Federal System: Selected lssuesand Opportunities for State initiativesThis study examines recent developments in state constitutional law, f~sing on issues that highlight the impmanm, variety, andinnovativeness of state developments. The reprt lwks at state government stmctrue, eqlialiw,economicundpmpefiy tights,edltcation,civillibertim,defmdants’n’dti, mdwofien’compensation.The American federal sytem rests on tvm constitutional pillm—the 50 state constitutions and the United States constitution-butfor many citizens state constitutions are out of sight and out of mind.

State constitutions xc imprtant democratic govemin8 documen~-and they can be all the more important if their role in the fed-erals~tem isunderstocd properly

A rene%d appreciation and strengthening of state wnstitutiom is e~ential for restoring a &tter balance of national —stateauthority and protwting the constitutional integrity of the federal system.

Rene%d vitality of state constitutional law is the foundation for strengthening state =pabilities.

The development of state constiNtiOnal law is relemnt to the wrting out of responsibilities in the federal system,asseen in the“new judicial federalism” whereby tbe U.S. Supreme Court bas shown greater solicitude for inde~ndent state courtprotections of individual rights and Iibtiies.

Many emerging public issues me not encomp=d easily by the US. Constitution, but are, or can be, by state constitutions.

A-113 1989 136 pages $15

Changing Public Attitudes on Governments and Tases: 1989This is the 18th annual survey conducted for AC fR. Inths year's pll, lmalgovemmenB top~dthe list forhonest officials, tisespnding oftaxdollm, ond responsiveness tociti%m. The federal government =chosen by most respondents asthe one theytrusted and had mmt confidence in to tight drugs (five other major issues also were tested). And, for the timt time since 1978, the Iccalpro~rty tw–not the federal income tu–uas rated as wrst or least fair. The reprt presents the results and analysis for the 15questions asked this year, and an index of thm asked sinw the surveys were &gun.

S-18 1989 40 pages $10

Local Revenue Diversification: Local Sales Taxeshal sales taxes are the -nd largest sourw of lml t= revenue in the United States, used in approximately 7,~ jurisdictions in 30states. The tax is particularly im~rtant to cities, where in 1987it aaunted for 10percent of own-source revenua and 17percent oflocal tax mllections. This report updates - earlier ACIR reports on the sales tax (1961 and 1974), including data on its wntinuedgrowth and the results of recent r=arch. It decribes the development and use of the local sales tax, discuss its rationales andeffects, identities design ccInsidemtions, andoutlines ctIrrent issues.

SR-12 1989 56 pages $8

Mail order form, with payment, t%ACIR Publications-Attention Retty Smith

1111 20th Street, W, Washington, DC 20575Phone (202) 653-5640

Quantity _ Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism, 1989 Edition, Vol. II $15ea. _State Constitutions in the Federal System $15 ea.Changing Public Attitudes on Governments and Taex 1989 $10 ea.Local Revenue Diversification: Local SalesTaxes $8ea. _

Name

Company

—

lntergovemmental Pers~tive/Fall 1989 39

Members of theAdvisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relatione

October1989

Privste Citizens GovernorsDaniel J. Elazar, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania John Ashcreft, Missouri

Robert B. Hawkins, Jr., Uaiimun, San Fmnti, California GeorgeA. Sinner, North DakotaMary Ellen Joyce, Arlington, Virginia Vacancy

Vacancy

Members of theU.S. Senate Mayors

Dave Durenberger, Minneseta Donald M. Fraser, Minneapolis, MinnesetaCarl Gvin, Michigan Arthur J. Holland, Trenton, New Jewy

Charles S. Robb, Virginia Wlliam H. Hudnut, HI, Indianapolis, IndianaRobert M. Iseac, Colorado Sprin&, Colorado

Members of theU.S. House of Repreeerttativee

Sander Levin, MichiganW Weiss, New York

Vacancy

Membere of State LegieleturesJohn T. Bm~, Deputy Swaker,

Tenne=e House of RepresentatiwsDavid E. Netbing, North Dakota Senate

Ted Strickland, Colorado Senate

Officers of the Executive Branch,U.S. Government Elected County Officials

Debra We Anderson, Deputy Assistant to the hsident, Harvey Ruvfn, Dade County, Florida, County Commission

Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Sandra Smoley, Sacramento County, California,

Samuel K. Skinner, titary of Tmmportation sod of Supervisor

Kicbard L Thomburgb, Attorney General James J. Snyder, Cattaraugus County, New York,County Legislature

ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS BULK RATE

WASHINGTON, DC ~75 U.S. POSTAGEPAID

OFFICIAL BUSINESSPENAL~ FOR PRIVATE USE, .53CNJ