|
Society for Public Administration The Honorable Farris Br
cisco, California Director. Office of Emerge
March 29. 1967 Planning
Executive Office of the Pres
Washington. D. C.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
AS A PARTNER OF THE STATES
It is axiomatic that societies evolve governmental structures; they do not creat
them overnight. We marvel at the genius of our founding fathers who designed a
federal system of government, without forgetting that the roots of the tree of demo-
cracy are set deep in Western history.
4 The task was not solely the product of that long, hot session in Philadelphia in
1787. We look back with astonishment at the accomplishment of those tumultuous
months in which the delegates struggled to find agreement on the fundamentals of ou
free system. But those sessions were not the beginning; they were the end of a long
process of debate and evolution which began in the Middle East, migrated to England
and was transported to our shores. Here it was adapted to the New World and here
it owered into the thinking that shaped the end-product that was, and is. the Con-
stitution of the United States.
~> Whenever Americans become impatient with newly-developing nations groping
for a democratic process consistent with their own culture. economy and ecology,
they should take a journey through our history. The Constitutional Convention was
the distillation of a long process of experience and experiments. And this Nation of
ours is still a laboratory of liberty.
That is something to remember as we approach the manifold problems of
making Federalism creative in this last third of the twentieth century. The Federal
system has been remarkably successful in adapting to change in the past. Perhaps
the major difference between our era and the years gone by is the rate at which
change is required.
+ This is so because change is governed by the tempo of the hour. We move
so fast today. with such vast resources. to do so much for so many.
._) For the last three months I have been on an Odyssey to twenty of our sovereign
states, meeting with Governors and other state officials to bring them into contact
with a group of Federal officials -- top experts in all the areas where Federal grant
programs are operated with the States.
This is a step in a process of creative Federalism. We are trying to develop
new initiatives in dealing with two basic governmental problems arising out of the
federal relationship.
One -- the obvious problem -- is budgetary. There is just not enough money
available at any level of government to do all the things we would like to do at
once -- to hasten the conquest of those diseaes which still defy medical science;
to reduce poverty and ignoranCe to practical minimums; to eliminate pollution
from the air we breathe, and from our streams and waterways; to remove the public
causes of slums; to relieve the traffic congestion and the transportation bottlenecks
which are really a consequence of an overwhelming American success story. All
these things, and many more. are laudable objectives. but with limited resources
they require the establishment of priorities.
Both State and federal budgets are instruments for the establishment of prior-
ities, and since they each have significant impact on the other, and deal with a
common citizenship in areas of joint concern. concert must be achieved among the
decision-makers who establish the priorities.
This brings me to the less obvious, but important and difficult problem -
the complex administrative problem which has crept upon us.
It is not "political. for it is common for Republicans and Democrats.
It is not "deliberate." for it is the unintended results of many separate
actions by the Congress in the pursuit of diverse but good goals.
But it is there. It cannot be ignored or diminished, for the success of our
efforts at every level of government depends upon its solution.
We must find a method which will at one and the same time permit the achiev
ment of national goals and the maintenance of local initiative and diversity.
The first step is to open up and retain adequate communications. There
are technological developments -- telecommunications. data processing, and
transportation -- which create highly effective machinery for our use; but unplanne
uncoordinated use of public facilities in these fields can result in our being drowned
in a mass of unusable information.
Within a short time the President and the Governors of all the States should
be able to sit in their offices and communicate face to face -- simultaneously. if
desired; the economic and other vital data compiled by the federal or any state
government could be almost instantly available to all u if their systems are com
patible; federal audits of federal funds handled by the states could be made by
computer inquiry from Washington with only occasional visits for spot checks of
original data.
The second step is to ensure coordination in process and purpose. This
requires dialogue at all critical times in the development of programs. It requires
involving the Governor and other appropriate officials in the development of criter'
and regulations. It requires that state officials, including the Governor, make
l|."s '3'
-. '
the substantial effort required to understand national goals. procedures and
conditions so that they can effectively participate in the federal process.
Let me sound a caveat: Governors are not a substitute for Congress. The
place in the federal system provided by the Constitution for Congress cannot be
redelegated by the President to Governors. Consultation with the States must be
within the limitations allowed by Congressional action or inaction; it cannot
supersede the Congressional process. It is neither realistic, helpfulior fair for
the states to demand of the President the participation in legislation which only
Congress has tin power to accord.
Out of our visits to the states has come a new dialogue among this Union,
between the President and the Governors. First. we are coming to grips with
specific problems in specific areas -- a Federal regulation that cannot be
satisfied under existing state law; an intolerable delay in the funding of state
pragrams previously authorized; a. constructive suggestion for an auditing approach
which would permit a state to take advantage of a federal grant they would otherwise
lose. In addition, we have identified broad categories which most bother the
States in the administration of Federal grant pragrams. Broadly speaking, they
are:
l. The Governor is informed inadequately about Federal operations
in his own State and too little effort is expended to involve him in early
planning.
2. There are too many specific, categorical grant programs for most
states to handle. financially or administratively.
3. Too little authority is reposed in the regional offices of most
federal agencies.
4. Federal administrative regions are uncoordinated either with
State or other federal regions.
5. Federal grants are frequently funded only one year at a time.
making State planning almost impossible.
6. Federal criteria frequently do not take into account diverse
local conditions. and are inexible in application.
7. The large amount of federal grants requiring matching reduces the
funds available to the State to satisfy its own priorities.
As I indicated, however. the deficiencies are not all Federal. State g
ments have actions that they must take if they are to effectively serve:
l. Governors must request. and Legislatures must provide,
adequate staff rescurces. Some Governors have as few
as three persons on their staffs, and even in a. small State
no amount of dedication or intelligence can furnish the
expertise to cover the broad range of Federal-State rela
tions.
2. The salaries of tap State administrative personnel must be
made comparable with their Federal counterparts. Failure
to do so results in a constant drain of the best qualified
into the Federal service and further deterioration of State
capability.
3. Anachronistic Constitutional restrictions, particularly upOn
the power of the Governor. must be removed. Too often
the Federal Government assumes responsibility in an area
which should be reserved to the States for the simple reason
that State administrations do not have the capability of meeting
evident needs.
4. Capability must be established within the Governor's office
to exercise surveillance over hundreds of Federal-State pro-
grams and Federal-local government programs. The first
step in securing State coordination is a knowledge of the separate
actions which require coordination.
5. Governors must make greater use of their Congressional dele-
gations and other representatives in Washington to keep them
abreast of proposed changes in legislation and regulation.
6. State Legislatures, or at least their leadership, must inform
themselves about Federal programs and prospects so that
legislation responsive to them can be timely enacted.
The 88th and 89th Congresses enacted more social and economic legislation
than any other two congresses in our history. That legislation will impact upon
fifty states, 18, 000 municipalities, more than 17. 000 townships, almost 25.000
school districts and more than 18.000 special districts. Whether the impact will
achieve the full benefits envisioned by the Congress is now a question that will be
answered by the managers in all those jurisdictions. Federal grants were once a
small fraction of the management problem. This is no longer the case. They
have moved from $30 million in 192.0 to $15 billion today. Only recently, at a
White House meeting with the Governors. President Johnson projected increases
-6-
l in Federal grants to no high as $60 billion by 1972. {our times the current "
expenditure. Either we throw up our hands and cnpitnlnte to the burden: '_ ..
in these new mandates. or we eet ourselvee to the task of finding conetrncti ( _. .
solution- within the framework of our system. and with the help of the most A
modern management practices and the ingenious new tech that our nweoome. A
has brought forth.
I have no question we will take the letter path. an we nlwnye have. We
only remember that the states and localities. even with the growth of Peder
grants. expend five times as much no the Federal government contributes. a"
about $75 billion n yenr.
The problems are manifold, but the inventiveness and reeourcefulneu
free eociety will be equal to them.
9"
PAGE 1
T. .E. ER. G .ENMEN
PAGE 2
vne major aarrerence oetween our era ana rne years gone ey is me rate as wrtica change is required. .This is so because change is governed by the tempo of the hour. We move so fast today, with such vast resources, to do so much for so many. For the last three months I have been on an Odyssey to twenty of our sovereign states, meeting with Governors and other state officials to bring them into contact with a group af Federal officials -top experts in all the areas where Federal grant programs are operated with the States. This is a step in a process of creative Federalism. We are trying to develop new initiatives in dealing with two basic governmental problems arising out of the federal relationship. One -the obvious problem -is budgetary. There is just not enough money available at any level of governrnent to do all the things we would like to do at once -to hasten the conquest of those diseases which still defy wiedical science; to reduce poverty and ignorance la practical mintmums; to eliminate pollution from the air we breathe, and fram our streams and waterways; to remove the public causes of slums; to relicyc the traffic congestion and the transportation bottlenecks which are really a consequence of an overwhelming American success story. A]1 these things, and many more, are laudable objectives, but with limited resources they require the establishment of priorities. Both State and federal budgets are instruments for the establishment of priorities, and since they each have significarat impact on the other, and deal with a common citizenship in areas of joint concern, concert must be achieved among the decision-makers who establish the priorities.
PAGE 3
the complex administrative problem which has crept upon us. It is not "political, for it is common for Republicans and Democrats. It is not "deliberate, for it is the unintended results of many separate actions by the Congress in the pursuit of diverse but good goals. But it is there. It cannot be ignored or diminished, for the success of our efforts at every level of government deperids upon its solution. We must find a method which will at one and the same time permit the achieve rnent of national goals and the maintenance of local initiative and diversity. The first step is ta open up and retain adequate communications. There are technological developments --. telecommunications, data processing, and transportation -which create highly effective machinery for our uset but unplannedi uncoordinated use of public facilities in these fields can result in our being drowned in a rnass of unusable information. Within a short time the President and the Covemors of all the States should be able to sit in their offices and communicate face to face --simultaneously, if desired; the economic and other vital data compiled by the federal or any state government could be almost instantly available to all -if their systems are compatible; federal audits of federal funde handled by the states could be made by computer inquiry from Washington with anly occasional visits for spot checks of original data. Ta eod tpi ensure coordinadon in process and purpose. This tical times in the development of programs. It requires other appropriate officials in the development of criteria as that state officials, including the Governor, make
PAGE 4
the substantial effort required to conditions so that they can effect Let me sound a caveat: Gov place in the federal system proved redelegated by the INesident to G within the liraitations allowed by supersede the Congressional proc the states ta demand of the Presid Congress has tle power to accord Out of our visits to the state between the President a.nd the Gov specific problems in specific area satisfied under existing state law; prograrna previously authorized; which would permit a state to take lose, In addition, we have identify States in the administration of Fe are; 1. The Governor is inform in his own State and too littl planning, 2. There are too many spe states to handle .financially 3, Too little authority is re federal agencies. .n.stn n .t..a g .ls prc .ur. U
PAGE 5
4. F ...a .dmn .t..iv r ..nsa. u ordnt I
PAGE 6
.dG r a m r r..r wh........d...r..............................ereaso
PAGE 7
in Federal grants to as high as $60 billion by 1972, four times the current annual expenditure. Either we throw up our hands and capitulate to the burdens irnplicit in these new mandates, or we set ourselves ta the task of finding constructive solutions within the framework of our system, and with the help of the most modern management practices and the ingenious new tools that our awesome age has brought forth. I have no question we will take the latter path, as we always have. We need only remember that the states and localities, even with the growth of Federal grants, expend five times as much as the Federal government contributes, or about $75 bulion a year. The problems are manifold. but the inventiveness and resourcefulness of a free society will be equal to them.
|
