Members of the

U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations

(February 1991)

Private Citizens

Daniel J. Elazar, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Robert B. Hawkins, Jr., Chnirman, San Francisco, California

Mary Ellen Joyce, Arlington, Virginia

Members of the U.S. Senate

Dave Durenberger, Minnesota

Carl Levin, Michigan

Charles S. Robb, Virginia

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives

Richard K. Armey, Texas

Sander M. Lcvin, Michigan

Ted Weiss, New York

Offkers of the Executive Branch, U.S. Government

Debra Rae Anderson, Deputy Assistant to the President,

Director of Intergovernmental Affairs

Samuel K. Skinner, Secretary of Transportation

Richard L. Thornburgh, Attorney General

Governors

John Ashcroft, Missouri

Booth Gardner, Washington

George A. Sinner, North Dakota

Stan Stephens, Montana

Mayors

Victor H. Ashe, Knoxville, Tennessee

Donald M. Fraser, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Robert M. Isaac, Colorado Springs, Colorado

Joseph A. Leafe, Norfolk, Virginia

Members of State Legislatures

David E. Nething, North Dakota Senate

Samuel B. Nunez, Jr., President, Louisiana Senate

Ted L. Strickland, Colorado Senate

Elected County Officials

Harvey Ruvin, Dade County, Florida, County Commission

Sandra R. Smoley, Sacramento County, California, Board of Supervisors

James J. Snyder, Cattaraugus County, New York, County Legislature
State-Local

Relations Organizations:

The ACIR

Counterparts

U.S. Advisory Commission

on Intergovernmental Relations

A-117 February1991

A Commission Report
U.S. Advisory Commission on

Intergovernmental Relations

1111 20th Street, NW

Suite 2000

Washington, DC 20575

(202) 653-5640

FAX (202) 653-5429

ii
PREFACE

This report presents the Advisory Commission

on Intergovernmental Relations’ (ACIR) latest survey of its counterpart organizations in the states. The

Commission has recommended the creation of state

ACIRs since it first studied them in 1974. Only four

were recognized at that time. Today, there are 26

operating state organizations. In 1983, ACIR sponsored the first national meeting of these organizations. Since then, they have met regularly and have

continued to gather strength.

Because the federal government’s role in domestic

affairs has changed in many ways since the mid-1970s

greater attention needs to be given to state-local relations in the 1990s. Federal financial aid to state and local

governments is proportionately less than in recent decades. Federal research and technical assistance programs also have receded. Furthermore, a larger proportion of federal aid is passed through the states, tying

federal dollars for local governments more closely to

state decisionmaking processes. At the same time, federal preemptions and mandates have become more

numerous-and more demanding. Increasingly, state

and local governments need to rely on their own revenues to finance public senices, and they need to work

together more closely to meet this challenge.

ACIR’s 1990 survey of the state organizations

shows that most of them are rising to the challenge. In

this report, the Commission renews its call for each

state to create and sustain an ACIR and recommends

that the national associations representing state and

local governments, as well as the state chapters of local

government associations, encourage their constituents

to support the state ACIR concept. The dialogues that a

state ACIR can initiate and maintain among state executive and legislative agencies and local governments

are important to the health and vitality of American

federalism. The Commission is committed to cooperating with state ACIRs throughout the nation.

This report contains suggested state legislation

that can be used as a basis for establishing an ACIR

and a directory of state ACIRs, including their organization, functions, staff, budgets, and work programs.

Robert B. Hawkins, Jr.

Chairman

111
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report was researched and written by ACIR

staff members Phillip E. Riggins and Andree E.

Reeves.

The Commission gratefully acknowledges the contributions and comments of the state ACIR directors

and other staff members who provided much of the

information for this report. Special appreciation goes to

those who participated in the 1990 state ACIRs meeting

in Newport, Rhode Island. Their enthusiasm, suggestions, and comments on earlier drafts of this report

made it more complete. Craig Zimmers of the Ohio

State and Local Government Commission deserves

particular thanks for maintaining the connections and

expediting the data-gathering process.

The Commission also appreciates the assistance

of the following individuals who helped with information about formerly active state ACIRs: John DeBolske of the League of Arizona Cities and ‘lbwns,

Scott Sailors of the Nebraska Association of County

Officials, Diane Lange of the New Mexico Municipal

League, and Fred Silva in the office of the President

Pro Tern of the California Senate.

At ACIR, Lori Coffel provided secretarial nssistance, and Joan A. Casey did the final editing and

preparation of the report for publication.

As always, full responsibility for the content and

accuracy of this report rests with the staff of the

Commission.

John Kincaid

Executive Director

Bruce D. McDowell

Director, Government Policy Research

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Findings .................................................................................... 1

Recommendation ............................................................................. 3

Introduction............................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1. State-Local Relations Bodies: Origins, Growth, Types, and Characteristics ........................ 7

Types ................................................................................... 7

Creation and Functions ................................................................... 10

BudgetandStaff ......................................................................... 11

Inactive and Emerging State ACIRs ........................................................ 12

2. The Accomplishments of State-Local Relations Bodies ......................................... 1 7

FiscalIssues .............................................................................. 17

StateMandates .......................................................................... 18

Solid Waste .............................................................................. 18

SpecialDistricts.. ........................................................................ 18

HumanServices .......................................................................... 18

EmergencyPreparedness .................................................................. 19

Information Services ...................................................................... 19

Infrastructure ............................................................................ 19

Functional Responsibility ..................................................................

Statutory and Constitutional Revisions ......................................................

ti

Conclusion .............................................................................. 19

3. A Network of State-Local Relations Bodies .................................................... 2 1

Appendix A-State Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations .......................... 2 3

Appendix B-Establishing a State Intergovernmental Relations Commission: Model Legislation ....... 27

Appendix C-A Directory of State-Local Relations Organizations .................................. 3 3

State-Local Relations Bodies in the States: 1990 ................................................ 34

Colorado-Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations ............................... 35

Connecticut-Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations ............................ 36

FIorida-Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations .................................... 37

nlinois-Commission on Intergovernmental Cooperation ..................................... 38

Indiana -Governor’s Local Government Advisory Council .................................... 39

Louisiana-Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations ............................. 40

Maine-Governor’s Municipal Advisory Council ............................................. 41

Maryland-Joint Committee on Federal Relations ............................................ 42

Massachusetts-Local Government Advisory Committee ...................................... 43

Michigan-Michigan Commission on Intergovernmental Relations ............................. 44

Minnesota-Governor’s Advisory Council on State-Local Reiations ............................. 45

V
TABLE OF CONTENTS - (cont.)

Missouri-Commission on Intergovernmental Cooperation .................................... 46

New Jersey- County and Municipal Government Study Commission ............................ 47

New York-Legislative Commission on State-Local Relations .................................. 48

North Carolina -Local Government Advocacy Council ........................................ 49

North Dakota-Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations .......................... 50

Ohio-State and Local Government Commission ............................................. 51

Oklahoma-Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations .............................. 52

Pennsylvania-Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Council ....................................... 53

Rhode Island-State-Local Relations Commission ............. ............................... 54

South Carolina-Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations ......................... 55

South Dakota-Local Government Study Commission ......................................... 56

Tennessee-Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations .............................. 57

Utah-Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations ...................................... 58

Virginia-Local Government Advisory Council ...... ........................................ 5 9

Washington-Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations ............................ 60

Additional State-Local Relations Contacts ..................................................... 61

The US. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations ................................... 62

Federal Departmental Directors of Intergovernmental A$airs ...................................... 64

Figures and Tables

Figure 1 -Structural Changes in State-Local Relations Bodies, 1981-1990 ........................... 7

figure 2-State ACIR Counterpart Organizations, 1990 ........................................... 8

Figure 3-Composition of State-Local Relations Bodies ........................................... 9

I;igureI-RolesofStateACIRs................................................................ 12

Table I-Membership Characteristics of State Organizations, 1990 ................................. 10

Table 2- 1990 Legal Basis and Year Established ................................................. 11

Table 3-Functions Performed by State Organizations, 1990 ....................................... 13

Table B-Funding Levels for State Organizations, 1990 ............................................ 13

Table5-SourcesofFundq1990 ............................................................... 14

Table 6-Professional Staff of State Organizations, 1990 .......................................... 15

Table 7-Activities and Accomplishments of State ACIRs, 1990 .................................... 16

vi
FINDINGS

1. In 1990,26 states have state-local relations bodies operating as counterparts of the US. ACIR.

The present number of state counterparts is a

substantial increase over the four that existed in 1974

when ACIR first recommended that each state establish an ACIR to help improve state-local relations.

2. The present state-local relations bodies are of three

types: ACIRs based on the U.S. ACIR model, joint legislative commissions, and local advisorypanels serving

the governor.

Twenty of the 26 bodies are ACIRs, and the

proportion in this category has been growing. The

advantage of this model is that it provides a neutral

meeting ground for representatives of the executiveand legislative branches of both state and local

governments. Generally, ACIR staffs and budgets

are independent of any other unit of government.

In contrast, the other two forms of state-local relations bodies are identified with a single branch of

state government and lack balanced representation

and independence.

3. State-local relations bodies have been established by

statute, executive order, nonprojit incorporation, and informal agreement.

Twenty of the organizations have been established by statute-the preferred method. Statutory

establishment tends to be more permanent and to

give the organization greater stature. Four of the

organizations have been established by executive order, and one each by the other two methods. If statutory establishment is not possible, there are other

alternatives for creating a state-local relations body.

4. State-local relations bodies perform one or more

functions, such as: forum for discussing intergovernmental issues, research, policy recommendations, information clearinghouse, constituent services, newsletters. and published reports.

The scope and depth of these activities depend

on the size of staff and budget available. or on the

availability of loaned staff and resources from other

sources. The essential core activity is the forum for

discussing intergovernmental issues.

5. The resources available to state-local relations bodies

range porn no staff to 19, and from no independent budget to over $1 million.

Seventeen of these organizations receive a direct

state appropriation. One also receives regular funding from local governments in the state. The organizations without direct appropriations use a variety of

other sources of funding. One has relied on a grant

from the state municipal league. Another relies primarily on contracts from state agencies and the sale

of its services.

6. Recent accomplishments of the state-local relutions bodies have been in such jields as local fiscal stress, state man -

dates, so/id waste, special districts, human service delivery,

emergency preparedness, and statewide data banks.

The scope of issues and services continues to

expand along with the effectiveness of many statelocal relations bodies. Although some previously active state-local relations organizations have fallen

into disuse or been abolished, the 26 surveyed for this

report are active. In addition, others may be starting

up or restarting.
2
RECOMMENDATION

The Commission finds that the need for statelocal relations bodies in the states continues to grow

in the 1990s. Changes in the federal system are shifting fiscal and policy responsibilities back to state and

local governments following a period of greater fiscal

reliance on the federal government. This shift is

creating new tensions between state and local governments, some of which are unique to each state.

The accumulating recoid of state ACIRs shows these

organizations to be creative and effective mechanisms for addressing state-local relations issues within the context of the legal framework and political

traditions of individual states.

The Commission therefore reaffirms its long-standing recommendation that each state establish an

ACIR on a permanent basis and support it with inde-

“pendent staff and funding. The Commission also recommends that the national associations representing

state and local governments, as well as their state

chapters, endorse the creation of state ACIRs and

support their continuing activities.

INTRODUCTION

Recognizing the need for intergovernmental responses by states to the problems created by urbanization, technological change, and economic uncertainty,

the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental

Relations (ACIR) recommended in 1974 that states act

“to ensure that coordination rather than conflict will

characterize state-local relationships.“’ As one way to

accomplish this goal, ACIR recommended that each

state create a permanent, bipartisan advisory commission on intergovernmental relations to serve as a neutral forum for discussing mutual interests and problems.

ACIR suggested that such commissions consist of four

elected county officials, four elected city officials, two

executive branch officials, three state senators, three

state representatives, and four private citizens.

The purpose of these organizations is to provide

the states, their political subdivisions, and their citizens with an institutional mechanism that can probe

and propose solutions to intergovernmental problems within-and in some cases between-the states.

These commissions also can help bridge the communications gaps between and among governments and

their constituents.2

As noted in the Commission’s call for the creation of these panels:

The States and their localities after all are

linked fiscally, functionally, jurisdictionally,

constitutionally, and politically. But these

linkages, derived from the prime legal position accorded to the states by the U.S. Constitution, have produced as much conflict as

collaboration.

At this point, the need to treat systematically

the tension points in state-local relations is

more urgent than ever before. The shifting

pattern of servicing assignments, the greater

discretion accorded to states and their localities by General Revenue Sharing and block

grants, the stronger fiscal position of most

states, the growing state initiatives in a number of current and controversial program areas-as well as the challenge that both of

these traditional governments confront at

the substate level-are but a few of the more

recent developments that argue strongly for

establishing state advisory commissions on

intergovernmental relations3

Since that recommendation was made in 1974,

the .state of intergovernmental relations has changed

considerably and accentuated the need for state

ACIRs. The need for more cooperative state-local

relations has increased noticeably since 1978 as federal aid has declined as a proportion of state and local

revenues and as many direct federal-local fiscal r&ationships have been terminated or reduced in various

ways. At the same time, the rise of regulatory federalism,4 the increase in state mandates on local govemmentq5 and the need for state and local governments

to rely more on their own revenues to finance public

services have contributed to tensions in state-local

relations. The National Conference of State Legislatures recently cited the reduction in federal assistance to local governments, state and local stakes in

increasing economic development and providing human services effectively, and the need for economic

efficiency by all governments as reasons for supporting state ACIRS.~

When the Commission offered its recommendation on state ACIRs in 1974, there were four

full-fledged functioning commissions that met the

membership or research capability criteria-Arizona,

California, Kansas, and Texas. By early 1975, the Kansas body had been terminated and the California and

Arizona ACIRs existed in name only. That trend has

been reversed in recent years, however, as state and

local officials have become more sensitive to intergovernmental relationships, issues, and problems. By

1980, there were 18 functioning state-local commissions; today, there are 26.’

ACIRs, of course, are not the only types of organizations that states can use to improve their capacity

to recognize, discuss, and assess intergovernmental

issues. In fact, the states have experimented with

several mechanisms to achieve these objectives.

When the U.S. ACIR offered its rccommendation, most states had at least one organization that

performed some of the functions included in the proposal. Yet, absence of local representation, a relatively narrow focus, or a predominantly operational

5
thrust made most of these units unsuitable for the

broad-gauged role contemplated for a state ACIR.

ACIR reviewed the variety of approaches being

used in 1980 and found that:

At least 11 states had created statutorily

based advisory panels, the majority of which

were patterned after ACIR. For the most

part, these organizations had state legislative

and executive representatives, local govemment officials, and private citizens, and provided a truly intergovernmental forum.

Governors in about a half dozen other states,

by executive order, had created an ACIR or

other advisory body.

Municipal and county government associations in at least two states had joined together to create their own advisory body on

intergovernmental relations.

A number of states had strengthened or

created permanent legislative commissions

or committees on local government to serve

as interim research agencies for the legislature. These panels sometimes included and

sometimes excluded local officials and/or

representatives of the executive branch of

state government.

Nearly every state had authorized legislative

interim studies on some aspect of state-local

relations during the 1970s.

Every state had a state department of community affairs (DCA) or an office designated

to perform DCA functions. Nearly half of

these agencies had an advisory or administrative board of local government officials.

A handful of states had transformed their

dormant interstate cooperation commissions

(initially created as state affiliates of the

Council of State Governments) into active,

well financed and staffed agencies.

During the preceding 15 years, the vast majority of states had created temporary commissions or committees to study state-local

relations and to make recommendations to

the governor and the legislature.

Thirty governors, various state departments,

and several state legislatures had established

an office in Washington, DC, to participate

more effectively in intergovernmental

decisionmaking in the federal government.

The emergence of intergovernmental issues, such

as state and federal aid, mandates, home rule, regionalism, jurisdictional or annexation controversies, and the

need to develop or implement new constitutional provisions affecting local governments have been principal

factors in the creation of most of these organizations.

Other factors have included efforts of new governors to

improve communications with local officials, recognition by a department of community affairs or a state

legislature that its work would be facilitated by closer

consultation with local officials, or efforts by organizations of local officials to increase or coordinate their

own influence on intergovernmental policies.

ACIR has recommended that the states create

broadly representative intergovernmental commissions

by statute, and has drafted suggested legislation to facilitate such efforts (see Appendix A). Similar legislation

has been drafted and promoted by the National Conference of State Legislatures (see Appendix R). These

draft bills are designed to be tailored to the needs of

individual states. The state ACIR concept also has been

supported by the National Association of Counties and

the Committee for Economic Development.

ACIR believes that a statutory base provides the

permanence and independence that an intergovemmental body needs to work effectively for improvements in relationships. State experiences have revealed,

however, that other, more informal approaches may be

used-particularly (1) where a legislature cannot be

persuaded to create an ACIR by statute or (2) where

some experience is seen as desirable before creating a

permanent intergovernmental advisory unit.

This report summarizes the findings of a 1990 survey of the 26 state-local relations bodies currently recognized as counterparts of the U.S. ACIR. There has

been no attempt to update the information about local

government study commissions, interstate cooperation

commissions, local advisory boards attached to state

departments of community affairs, or other mechanisms used by states to address issues of state-local

relations.

Notes

1 US. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Challenge of Local Governmental Reorganization, Vol. III of Substare Regionalism arid the Feden System

(Washington, DC, 1974).

2 See Deborah D. Roberts, “Carving Out Their Niche: State

Advisory Commissions on Intergovernmental Relations,”

Public Adniinistration Review (November/December

1989): 576-80.

3 Ibid., pp. 170-71.

4 U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Regulatory Federalism: Policy, Pmcess, Impact alld

Reform (Washington, DC, 1984).

5 , Mandates: Cases in State-Local Relations (Washington, DC, 1990).

&‘Steven D. Gold. Reforming State-Local Relations: A Practical Guide (Denver: National Conference of State Legislatures, 1989).

7 U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, State-Local Relations Bodies: State ACIRs and Other

Approaches (Washington, DC, 1981).

6
1. STATE-LOCAL RELATIONS BODIES:

ORIGINS, GROWTH, TYPES, AND CHARACTERISTICS

Since 1974, when ACIR fit recommended that

states establish permanent, broad-based advisory commissions on intergovernmental relations, the number of

states having such organizations has increased from

four to 26. Twenty of these units are patterned after the

national ACIR model (see Figure 1). Over the same

time period, six states have discontinued their ACIRs.

Types

Twenty states have created broad-based

ACIRs-Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New

Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,

Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. Four

states have legislative committees (Illinois, Maryland,

New York, and South Dakota), and two states have local

advisory panels attached to the governor’s office (Indiana and Maine), see Figure 2. Figure 1 shows that the

number of legislative organizations has remained constant, while the general trend has been in the direction

of fewer local advisory panels and more state ACIRs.

The main structural difference among the three

categories lies in the composition of the membership.

State ACIRs include representatives from the legislative and executive branches of state government,

elected officials from a wide variety of local governments, and members of the public. Legislative committees consist mostly of legislators. Local advisory

panels usually include mostly local officials plus some

state executives, and they advise only the governor

(see Table 1).

Figure 3 depicts the variation in composition.

While local officials (municipal, county, towns or

townships, regional, and special districts) make up

87.5 percent of the two advisory panels, and state legislators comprise 84.5 percent of the legislative organizations, the 20 state ACIRs have a more balanced mixture

of local officials (44.7 percent), legislators (30.3 percent), and state executives (14.0 percent).

Although legislative and gubernatorial bodies

are well positioned to give advice to their respective

branches of state government, they lack independence in setting their own agenda and budget and

directing an impartial staff, and cannot provide a neutralforum where state and local executive and legislative parties can come together on an equal footing.

These factors may inhibit full and impartial exploration of many issues. State-local relations bodies modeled on the U.S. ACIR avoid these limitations.

The type of intergovernmental body that a state

creates depends on many factors. States may opt to

create a governor’s advisory panel or a legislative

committee when a legislature cannot be persuaded to

Figure 1

Structural Changes

In State-Local Relations Bodies

1981-1990

3 0 I

0

20

1 0

1981 1987 1990

State ACIRs

Advisory Panels

ISI Legislative Organizations

J

7
Figure 2

State ACIR Counterpart Organizations, 1990

State ACIRs: Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts,

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, North w

@$ Local Advisory Panels:

.:

Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, tsl Legislative (‘ommittws:

Rhode Island, South Carolina, ‘Iiznnessee, Utah, Virginia,

Washington. (20)

cm

Inactive State ACIRs:

Indiana, Maine. (2)

Illinois, Maryland, New York, South Dakota. (4)

Iowa, l&is, Vermont. (3)
Figure 3

Composition of State-Local Relations Bodies

n State AC :IRs

3)

4.2

u State Legislators

R

State Executives

County/Township Officials

Regional Council/Special District

lia School District

Municipal/Town Officials

R

Private Citizens

Governor’s Advisory Panel

(N=2)

Legislative Committee

(N=4)

9
Table 1

Membership Characteristics of State Organizations, 1990

Commission

Regional

County/ Council/ School

State

Muncipal/

State Township Special District Town Private

Legislators Executives Officials District ONicials Offkials Citkens Other Total

Colorado 14 5 3 1

Connecticut 6 3 1

Florida 8 1’

Illinois 12

Indiana 21

Louisiana 4 4 3

Maine 1

Maryland 16

Massachusetts 6 1

Michigan 14

Minnesota 4 6 1

Missouri 4 5 3 1

New Jersey 6 3

New York 10

North Carolina 4 6

North Dakota 4 2 5 2

Ohio 4 1 4

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania !

36 4

5 4

Rhode Island S 4

South Carolina 8 3 2

South Dakota 11 1

Tennessee 10 5 5

Utah 6 4 4 1

Virginia 6 2 4 1

Washington 4 66 6

Totals 179 56 7 7 9

’ Ex officio Members

‘Appointed by the Governor (includes city and count officials, state department heads, and private citizens)

3 Appointed by the Governor

4 5 Members App ointed b y the Governor, 2 Appointed b y

the Supreme Court

3

2

21

3

4

2

1

2

1

20

4

8 5

1’

2 4

3

5

29

7

7 10

3 3

6 3

3

2 2

5

4

6

1 1

1 3

1’ 2 2

1 8

17

3 4 21

1 28 15

4 5- 29

4 1 20

4 1 1 8

6 2 2

139 3 4 3 0 544

3 0

25

92 21

1 2

45

‘The Governor and One Member of the Parks and Recreation Association Are on the Commission

‘The Governor Is on the Committee

’ 1 Member of Congress Is on the Committee

* 2 Additional Local Government Officials Appointed by

the Executive Board of the Local Government Commission

create an ACIR or where some experience with an alternative form is seen as desirable before creating a

broad-based commission.

Creation and Functions

Beyond differences in membership, state intergovernmental relations organizations vary in method

of creation and in function. Twenty bodies have been

created by statute, and four by executive order. One is

a private nonprofit corporation established outside of

state government to serve the state, while another

operates informally (see Table 2).

The organizations perform varying functions, depending on financial support and the guidelines in the

enabling legislation, executive order, or charter.

These functions can be classified into seven basic

categories: (1) a forum for the discussion of intergovernmental issues: (2) research on state-local issues

and policies; (3) a data center and information clearinghouse; (4) constituent services, technical assistance, and case work; (5) policy recommendations

designed to improve state-local relations; (6) confcr10
Table 2

1990 Legal Basis and Year Established

Legal Basis

Executive Incor- Year

State Statute Order porated Infomal Created

Colorado X 1987

Connecticut 1985

Florida :: 1977

Illinois X 19371

Indiana X 1989

Louisiana X 1986

Maine X 19792

Maryland X 19373

Massachusetts X 19764

Michigan X 19755

Minnesota 1985’

Missouri Ti 1985

New Jersey X 19667

New York X 1981s

l Amended 1984

*Amended 1987

3Amended 1983, 1987,1988, 1990

4 Executive Order (1976), Statute (1981)

5 Contractual Agreement (1975) Statute (1988)

b Executive Order (1985), Amended (1985)

‘Statute (1966), Amended (1966)

*Statute (1981) Reauthorized (1990)

state

Leed Basis

Executive Incor- Year

Statute Order porated Informal Created

North Carolina X

North Dakota X

Ohio X

Oklahoma X

Pennsylvania X

Rhode Island X

South Carolina X

South Dakota

Tennessee ::

Utah

Virginia ::

Washington X

Totals 20 4 1

1978g

19761°

1978

1987

197511

1978’*

1979’3

1968

1978‘j

1987

1

gkrecutive Order (1978) Statute (1979)

lOExecutive Order (1976) Statute (1989)

l1 Agreement (1975), Incorporated (1978)

‘*Statute (1978), Amended (1988)

13Executive Order (1979), Statute (1984)

14Statute (1978), Amended (1981)

*5Executive Order (1977) Statute (1978), Restructured and

Reorganized .( 1989)

lbExecutive Order (1982), Amended (1984)

ences and seminars; (7) publication of a newsletter

(see Figure 4 for descriptions).

The cornerstone activity for all these organizations is to provide a forum for discussing and exchanging ideas. (This function is written into the enabling

legislation or executive order of a number of ACIRs.)

Twenty-five of the 26 organizations conduct some

research; 21 make recommendations on legislation to

the governor or the legislature, or both; 19 provide

constituent services and technical assistance; 13 hold

conferences and seminars; 6 publish a newsletter; 5

represent local governments on other commissions;

and 5 offer data base services (see Table 3).

Budget and Staff

The budgets of these organizations tend to limit

the size of their staffs and shape the scope of their

activities. Nevertheless, some states are able to perform more extensive activities than their limited

funding and staff would suggest by borrowing staff

from other agencies and making other arrangements.

The budgets of state-local relations organizations range from zero (seven states) to more than $1

million (see Table 4). The sources of funds also vary

(see Table 5). Seventeen states receive a state appropriation. The Tennessee ACIR receives a mixture of

state and local funds. The Louisiana Municipal Association provided a grant of $10,000 in 1989 to launch

the state ACIR.

The staffs of state-local relations organizations

range from none (or loaned staff only) to a complement

of 19 full-time employees (see Table 6). Thirteen commissions have at least one full-time professional staff

member, while four have only part-time help. The remainder rely on staff and administrative support from

other agencies. For example, the Minnesota commission’s staff support, printing, and mailing costs are paid

by the state planning agency, and the executive director

of Utah’s council is loaned by the governor’s office.

Virginia’s committee staff is provided by the Commission on Local Government (a boundary review commission). The Michigan council’s staff is under the authority of the Legislative Council. The Pennsylvania council

supports a staff of 11 on a FY 1990 budget of $525,000,

of which 99 percent is derived from contract work. The

other 1 percent is generated from data request fees,

survey work, and computer hookup fees paid by private

interest groups and public agencies.

The range in funding levels for the legislative

organizations is the greatest of the three types of

state-local relations bodies. The Illinois commission

11
Figure 4

Roles of State ACIRs

Forum for discussion of long-range state-local issues. volves acting as ombudsman for local governments

A place where state executives, administrators, legis- that have grievances with state actions or proposed

lators, and local government officials can be heard and actions. Several state ACIRs serve as representacan engage in focused dialogue. Includes review of ex- tives of local government on other commissions.

isting and proposed state and federal policies and pro- Some ACIRs provide technical assistance to state

grams and mediation of conflicts between and among and local agencies and governments in a broad

agencies and governments. range of programs and policy areas. The state ACIR

Conduct research on intergovernmental issues.

This research leads to the development of recommendations for consideration by all governments,

where appropriate. Examples of ACIR research include: earthquake mitigation in Utah and Missouri:

municipal solid waste in Connecticut, Michigan,

Missouri, and Utah; special districts legislation in

Florida, South Carolina, and Utah; health care costs

in Tennessee; corrections in Florida, Iowa, and Tennessee; and state mandates in Florida, Louisiana,

Ohio, and South Carolina.

Data center and clearinghouse for information on

intergovernmental issues. This includes providing

information for constituents, as well as developing

computer data bases on intergovernmental issues.

New York has a computer-based description and

model of all state and federal aid programs. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida are working on similar data bases. The Florida ACIR publishes an annual compilation of state mandates to local governments. The Michigan Commission will serve as a

clearinghouse for local government case studies.

can coordinate and target this assistance to local

governments and also can provide technical training. Local tax studies are an example of technical assistance, as is Washington’s program to assist local

governments with infrastructure problems.

Develop and advocate policy recommendations as

suggested solutions to state-local problems. These

recommendations target emerging issues as well as

those well established on the political agenda. A

number of state ACIRs make recommendations on

legislation, either pending or not yet proposed. Others provide a local voice in the state regulatory process. Missouri’s proposal to create a local govemment risk management fund, a state-administered

self-insurance program, is an example of ACIR recommendations that subsequently were adopted and

implemented.

Hold conferences and seminars on issues of interest

to state and local officials. Connecticut’s conference

on solid waste is an example.

Publish a newsletter to inform constituent govemments and citizens of issues and events affecting

Provide constituent services and technical assis- them. These could include publicizing what other

tance. Constituent services include acting as con- state ACIRs are doing. Currently, five statespublish

gressional liaison or as intermediary between state a newsletter, and there are others in the planning

agencies, local governments, and COG S. It also in- process.

receives more than $1.1 million, and the New York

commission collects more than $425,700 in state appropriations. On the other hand, South Dakota’s commission receives only $5,000-$6,000, and the Maryland

committee has no specific state appropriation. Staff

sizes are reflected in budgets. The Illinois commission is

able to support 19 full-time staff members (including 6

in Washington, DC). The New York commission has a

staff of nine full-time employees, including six research

analysts. South Dakota, on the other hand, has two

part-time staff members, while Maryland receives staff

support from the General Assembly’s Department of

Fiscal Se&es.

Neither local advisory panel receives a state appropriation or any other direct funding; hence, both

staffs are modest. Maine’s panel is administered by

the state’s commissioner of transportation, and any

necessary expenditures incurred by commission

members are paid by their respective organizations or

agencies. Indiana’s council has one executive assistant who operates out of the governor’s office.

Inactive and Emerging State ACIRs

Arizona. The ACIR, established by an executive order that still stands, became inactive when interest

waned and the governor’s office decided not to staff

it. Previously, it had operated on borrowed money

and staff-a situation that works in some states but

apparently was not sufficient in Arizona.

12
State

Table 3

Fuff~~nsPerfor~e~&~StateOrganriatio~~ ZYY6?

Constituent Represent Local

Services/ Governments Recommendations

Conferences/ Technical on Other On

Research Seminars Assistance’ Commissions Newsletter Legislation Data Base Other

Colorado x

Connecticut X X

Florida X X

Illinois :: X X

Indiana X

Louisiana

Maine ::

Maryland X X E

Massachusetts X

Michigan X X X

Minnesota X X

Missouri X X X

New Jersey

New York ii X ::

North Carolina X X

North Dakota X X

Ohio

::

X X

Oklahoma X X

Pennsylvania X X

Rhode Island X

South Carolina

::

1 1

South Dakota

Tennessee X X

Utah X X ::

Virginia X

Washington X X

Totals 25 1 3 19

‘This includes a variety of services, from filling simple information requests to providing ombudsman services.

*Estimate state shared revenues, calculate constitutional officer salaries.

30ffice through which a state presence in Washington, DC is

maintained, liaison (General Assembly With congressional delegation, NCSL, CSG, ACIR).

4Advice to Governor.

SLiaison, congressional delegation; review all interstate

compacts each four-year term.

X X 2

X 3

X X 4

X

X

X 5

X X 6

X X X

X

X X

X

X X 7

X 8

X X 9

X 1 0

X

X

X

X X X

X 1 2 X 1 3

5 7 21 5 15

61nput into the regulatory process.

‘computer modeling.

‘Liaison between state agencies, local governments, and

COGS; advocate for local governments.

‘Intergovernmental coordination during disasters.

i”Infonnation services, federal-aid application review process.

“Participate in leadership development/continuing education program for public officials.

‘*Newsletter in planning stage.

13Draft legislation.

Table 4

Funding Levels for State Organizations, 1990

State

$50 ooo- $100,000-

$0 $4$99 $QQ:QQQ $199,999 $%i State

$I- $SO,OOO- $lOO,OOO- Over

$0 $49,999 $99,999 $199,999 $200K

Colorado X North Carolina 5,397

Connecticut 131,500 North Dakota 4,100

Florida 623,411 Ohio 212,000

Illinois 1,110,700 Oklahoma 150,000

Indiana 75,000 Pennsylvania 525,000

Louisiana 10,000 Rhode Island X

Maine South Carolina 235,000

Maryland :: South Dakota 5-6,000

Massachusetts X Tennessee 375,900

IMichigan 135,000 Utah X

Minnesota X 13.000

Missouri 84,500 Virginia 50,000

;:zCTY 425,700 235,000 Washington Total 7 5 3 3 8

13
Table 5

Sources of Funds, 1990

State

State

Appropriation Contracts Grants

Local No Funds

support Of Own

In-Kind

Services

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

Illinois

Indiana

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Utah

Virginia

Washington

Totals

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

E

X

X

17 1 2

X

1

X

X

7

X

X

X

3

California. The legislature, with the concurrence of the

governor, abolished the Council on Intergovernmental

Relations (CIR) in a move designed to whittle down the

size of government. CIR’s original proponent also sponsored the bill to repeal it.

Iowa. The ACIR was allowed to “sunset” June 30,1990,

with its future to be determined by an interim committee.

Kansas. The legislature and the governor approved the

repeal of the state ACIR statute because of “a tendency

to proliferate governmental effort by establishing innumerable boards and commissions. . . ” and the necessity

for increased funding from time to time. Efforts to revive the KACIR are continuing.

Texas. The ACIR, established by statute and still on the

books, discontinued operation on August 31, 1989,

when the governor vetoed the FY 1990-91 state appropriation to keep it going.

Vermont. The ACIR, established by executive order in

1985, “fell into disuse.” Legislation was introduced in

1990, but not passed, to make it statutory.

Several of these state ACIRs became inactive at

about the time they could have been most useful-in

times of financial stress. It appears that a primary factor

in the demise of state ACIRs is a change in administration and the political climate. A new governor not supportive of the ACIR concept or a legislature faced with

a budgetary crisis may view the state’s ACIR as expendable. Support or lack of support from the state municipal league, the county association, the legislative leadership, and the governor can have a determinant impact

on the viability of a state-local relations body.

But, even as some of these organizations cease

operation, others come into existence. For example,

Wyoming has a new Local Government Coordinating

Committee operating out of the governor’s office. and

Wisconsin has a new Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations in the governor’s office. In Idaho, legislation

has been introduced in recent years to establish a

state ACIR.

14
Table 6

Professional Staff of State Organizations, 1990

State Director

Association Researcher/ Administrative

Director Analyst Staff Other Total

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

Illinois

Indiana

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Utah

Virginia

Washington

1

6

1 11

1

11’

1

4

6

1

1’6

1’6

1

‘One part-time secretary and one intern

*Editor, federal aid coordinator

‘All staff provided by legislature, aduitor, and participating

organizations

4Staff support provided by department of fiscal services

50ne clerk/intern, part-time

?3tate planning agency provides administrative staff

7Part-time secretary

*Not 100% LGAC, not funded from LGAC budget

‘Part-time staff services provided by legislative council

2

4

0

2

1 10

3 19

1

1 1 3 3

0

4 0

0

1 1s 3

6 0

1 2

1 6

1 1’ 1 0

1s 2

9 0

1 1’0 4

1” 1

4 s* 1 1

1

1 4

214 2

2 1’5 8

0

1

1’4 1

loPublic information officer

“Project director

‘*Information specialist, IRP coordinator, IRP assistant,

EDP manager, and programmer

13Part-time director

14Part-time employee

“Publications assistant

16Govemor’s office provides executive director

“Under direction of legislative council

180fficial title is secretary

15
Table 7

Activities and Accomplishments of State ACIRs, 1990

State

Statutoryl

Fiscal State Solid Special Human Emergency Infra- Functional Constitutional

Issues Mandates Waste Districts Services Preparedness structure Responsibility Revisions

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

Illinois

Indiana

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Utah

Virginia

Washington

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X x

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

1 6
2. THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF STATE-LOCAL RELATIONS BODIES

The range of activities and accomplishments of

state-local relations bodies is great and expanding. A

brief look at some areas of common activity dcmonstrates the contributions that these organizations have

made to improving state-local relations (see Table 7).

Fiscal Issues

State and local fiscal issues are receiving a great

deal of attention. Michigan and South Carolina have

prepared comprehensive studies of the fiscal health

of local governments, and Minnesota and New York

have studied the service delivery responsibilities of

local governments. The Tennessee ACIR developed

a fiscal impact model to study the effects of a major

new development and to estimate required new services and their cost. TACIR also studied school district fiscal capacities and finances. In Minnesota, the

council identified all public services provided jointly

by the state and one or more types of local government. The Massachusettsadvisory committeeparticipated in a governor’s task force that analyzed local

financing needs and recommended restructuring

state aid to local governments. Maryland and Ohio

have studied revenue sharing and tax base sharing.

A South Carolina priority is strengthening organizational and fiscal resources for local governments,

including alternative revenue sources. The Florida

ACIR issued a study profiling municipal and county

revenues. New Jersey targeted for study the flow of

funds between the federal, state, county, municipal,

and special district governments. New York is continuing its issue brief series with reports on reserve funds

and auditing by local governments. Missouri held a

symposium to help local officials understand the implications of federal funding cuts and to look for ways

to enhance existing revenues through better cash

management. The Indiana council is developing a

plan to utilize state resources for local training and

technical assistance.

Another fiscal issue is the effect of municipal

liability insurance costs on local governments. Maryland recently studied the matter, and the Missouri

commission achieved one of its top legislative priorities in 1985 when the state legislature established a

state-administered, shared-liability insurance pool

for local governments. The Minnesota council proposed legislation that would limit the liabilities of

local governments.

Taxes, property taxes in particular, receive attention from several organizations. For example, Maine

and Tennessee are studying the effects of general

property tax relief, and Florida is evaluating the effects of such relief on elderly homeowners.

Maryland’s committee is looking at state aid to local

communities and its relation to the local property tax.

The Utah council was credited with avoiding a revenue-reducing tax cut after providing independent impact information to the legislature that showed the

probable effects of the proposed cut. The Rhode Island

commission is looking at the relationship between state

aid to local communities and local property taxes.

Sales taxes also are an issue of interest in several

states. For example, the South Carolina ACIR developed state legislation permitting a local option sales

tax for cities and counties that was passed by the

legislature. Colorado’s ACIR summarized and quantified exemptions from the state sales tax, and the

Tennessee ACIR promoted legislation to tax

out-of-state mail-order sales.

On other fiscal issues, South Carolina’s ACIR

developed a new uniform financial reporting form,

which has been implemented statewide, and trains

local government finance officials in its proper completion. The Tennessee ACIR devised a uniform

method for determining tax equivalent payments for

publicly owned electric systems in the state. The

South Dakota council drafted laws repealing many

antiquated performance bonds required of individuals and businesses. The Ohio commission conducted

a comprehensive study of the local government fund,

the state’s chief means of sharing revenue with local

governments, and also drafted the law that allows

local governments to “piggyback” on state contracts

for the purchase of goods and services. Florida’s

ACIR studied impact fee use, and Michigan’s commission is making a film on privatization. The Connecticut ACIR surveyed the state’s 169 municipalities

and the 17 regional school districts for their experiences in adopting their 1990-91 budgets.

17
State Mandates

New Jersey’s commission helped pass revised city,

town, borough, village, and township laws, absorbing

all elected special districts other than fire districts.

The issue of state mandates to local governments is one of the hottest in state-local relations.’

Several states are studying or recently have studied

the matter (Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio, New York, Rhode Island, and South

Carolina). Louisiana’s commission is studying state

mandates involving the financing of state district

courts. The Minnesota council helped reform the

state’s mandate process. The ACIRs in Florida,

New York, and South Carolina issued studies of

state mandates affecting local governments. The

Rhode Island commission studied state mandates,

including their costs and fiscal notes. The Ohio

commission created a subcommittee to study state

mandates in two phases. This effort produced a

published policy report, followed by a detailed catalog. The Colorado committee is summarizing and

quantifying federal and state mandates on local

governments in social services, education, corrections, and the environment.

Solid Waste

Several states have considered the difficult problem of solid waste management. In 1988, for example,

Connecticut convened two working forums that led to

the development of a data base on local government

solid waste management practices. The Missouri

commission also held a conference on solid waste; its

recommendations resulted in the establishment of

solid waste districts and a solid waste management

fund. The Michigan council is preparing a handbook

on municipal solid waste, and the North Carolina

commission requested and received administrative

and legislative action to deal with the short- and

long-term problems of solid waste management. In

Maine, where the legislature recently passed a landmark solid waste law, the council is advising the governor on implementing the law and on other related

issues. Washington’s commission was a major player

in developing the state’s policy regarding hazardous

waste disposal sites.

Special Districts

Four states sought to reform or restructure special districts, and the commissions provided useful

and timely assistance.

Florida’s ACIR developed a major reform of state

policy toward special districts that has been enacted

into law.

Connecticut’s ACIR produced a major study of how

taxing districts are created and terminated, and their

accountability to the public and other entities. The

study led to the introduction of a bill to overhaul the

state statute governing special districts.

South Carolina’s ACIR established and maintains a

data base on special purpose districts.

Human Services

State ACIR responses to a variety of human services issues highlight the versatility of the organizations. The issues include child care, health care, education, housing, and substance abuse.

From 1986 through 1989, the Illinois commission

hosted a series of conferences on child-support payments. The conferees’ final recommendations were

submitted to the legislature, which passed a number

of bills strengthening the collection process. The

South Dakota council examined the regulation of day

care facilities and drafted laws that required criminal

record background checks on employees, residents,

and family members of day care providers. The Minnesota council analyzed the state’s child development

services programs and proposed ways to improve

their coordination.

The Tennessee commission prepared a comprehensive study on hospital financing and a study on

indigent health care and its impact on government-owned hospitals. The Illinois commission published a study of health care in rural areas.

Education issues also have been analyzed by several state-local relations bodies. The Illinois commission recently completed phase one of a two-phase

study on the governance of higher education and is

studying the pros and cons of membership in a Midwest Higher Education Compact. Spurred by recent

court cases in Texas and Kentucky, the commission

also has been assessing inequities in state funding of

primary and secondary education.

The Massachusetts committee participated in a

task force that examined special education and submitted suggested regulatory changes to the Department of Education. The task force recommendations

resulted in a number of bills being introduced in the

legislature. Maine’s council also has been advising

the governor on education funding.

In 1989, the Tennessee ACIR held a two-day

symposium on education reform issues. The commis-

* U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental . -Ke lations, Mandates: Cases itI State-Local P-‘-tr-*+* \C,Ul,“,,J mrorh;r \.,a311111gton, DC, 1990).

18
sion continues to contribute research on education

financing and performance issues.

State ACIRs also provide technical assistance in

various areas of human services. For example, New

Jersey’s commission soon will issue a report recommending a massive governmental transfer of $230

million in county and municipal human services costs

to the state. The Pennsylvania council offers training

and technical assistance to nonprofit organizations

that furnish low-income housing to physically disabled and mentally ill people. The Missouri commission recently formed a committee on substance abuse

to design treatment programs for cities and counties.

Emergency Preparedness

Disaster planning has received a great deal of

state-local attention, especially in the central region

of the country near the New Madrid fault. The Missouri and Ohio commissions play coordinating roles

for state and local governments preparing to respond

to earthquakes and other disaster situations. Utah’s

council also is working on state and local earthquake

mitigation legislation. In its active days, the Texas ACIR

conducted seminars and briefings for local officials and

citizens, developed training materials and programs,

and provided staff support for the state 911 Commission

until it became financially self-sufficient.

Information Services

Several state-local relations bodies are finding a

receptive audience for their role as data base managers

and information clearinghouses. By establishing a central location for data crucial to careful intergovemmental decisionmaking, they fill a vital niche in the political

process. This function is becoming more widespread as

states realize its importance and marketability.

Pennsylvania’s council has developed and made

available a computer data base with a wide range of

intergovernmental data compiled from a variety of federal and state sources, from which the council derives a

significant percentage of its contract income.

Florida’s ACIR maintains an extensive state-local

computer data base containing revenue and expenditure information and local demographic records, and

has issued a user’s handbook for state and local agencies.

Michigan’s commission has received funds to complete and maintain a Michigan State University data

base of local government fiscal and statistical information. It plans to establish a clearinghouse on local government issues, and has developed a cross reference of

taxing authorities (statutes, litigation, and minimum and

maximum taxes) for local governments.

New York’s commission maintains and continues to

refine its local government and aid data base. ‘Ihe New

York data base is designed to be used by individuals

without programming skills for access to information on

aid flows or other local government information.

In addition, three states produce statistical abstracts and related reports detailing state-local services and fiscal information (Minnesota, Ohio, and

Oklahoma). The growing number of states performing this clearinghouse function reflects the ability of

state-local relations bodies to identify and develop

roles well suited to their intergovernmental mandate.

Infrastructure

Several state ACIRs have been concerned with

parts of the nation’s infrastructure. The Washington

ACIRplayed a key role in identifying the stntc’s infrastructure problems. The Florida council developed a

report on urban in-fill and infrastructure. Indiana’s

council is building a strategic plan to address state-local

concerns on infrastructure, the environment, taxation

and finance, public safety, and economic development.

Functional Responsibility

Responsibility for courts is another issue studied

by state-local relations bodies. For example, the Minnesota council conducted research on transferring

the trial court system to the state, and New Jersey’s

commission is working on a proposal to transfer 4,000

court employees from county government to the state.

Statutory and Constitutional Revisions

Several state ACIRs are considering revisions to

state statutes and constitutions. The Connecticut

ACIR surveyed municipal officials and legal counsel

on problems with the state statute indexes. The commission also joined with the office of the state Law

Revision Commissioner to review local government

statutes in an attempt to make them more accessible.

The Florida ACIR is promoting a constitutional

amendment and legislation affecting the referendum

and initiative process, The Illinois commission staffed

a year-long project exploring the need for a state

constitutional convention.

Conclusion

State-local relations bodies fill an important niche

in intergovernmental relations. The depth and breadth

of their activities are considerable. Whether an ACIR, a

legislative committee, or a governor’s advisory panel,

each has a role in fostering intergovernmental cooperation. As federal financial aid to state and local govemments has declined, the need for easing state-local tension points has increased. State-local relations bodies

are helping to meet that need in many creative ways.

19
20
3. A NETWORK OF STATE-LOCAL RELATIONS BODIES

Although the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations has no formal legal ties to

its state counterparts, the commission supports those

organizations and helps promote the creation of new

ones in states where they do not currently exist.

In 1983, the U.S. ACIR helped establish the

state ACIRs network by sponsoring the first national

meeting of state advisory commissions in Charleston,

South Carolina. The success of that meeting has led to

additional meetings once or twice a year. Some of these

meetings, including the first one, have been held in

conjunction with regular meetings of the U.S. ACIR.

Following the August 1989 meeting in Columbus,

Ohio, the state ACIRs established a steering committee to plan future conferences and encourage communication to strengthen the network. The 1990

meeting took place in Newport, Rhode Island, and

the committee is making arrangements for the 1991

conference in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Most recently, to promote communications, the

U.S. ACIR prepared a directory containing a brief

summary of each state organization’s structure, functions, funding, staff, and accomplishments (see Appendix C). The directory will be available to existing

and prospective state ACIRs and to others interested

in these organizations.

The U.S. ACIR assists state ACIRs in their research projects, primarily by providing published reports and consultations. The U.S. ACIR also does contract research for or with the state ACIRs. by special

arrangement, as was the case for the 1990 South Carolina tax study. The Commission also works through the

state ACIRs when doing research in their state.

Another element of the U.S. ACIR’s support of

the state organizations is the “Spotlight” series published periodically in Intergovernmental Perspective.

Twelve state ACIRs have been profiled over the last

few years,’ and the series will continue in the 1990s.

When requested, ACIR has provided testimony,

materials, and technical assistance to states interested in establishing state ACIRs and similar organizations. Information packets, putting new ACIRs in

touch with established ones nearby, telephone consultations, and other techniques are used as appropriate and

as requested. The best advice for new state ACIRs,

however, comes from established ones. Suggestions are

being considered to facilitate these contacts.

‘The states and the issues in which they were profiled are as

follows: Connecticut, Winter 1988; Florida, Summer/Fall

1987; Minnesota, Winter 1989; Missouri, Winter 1987;

New Jersey, Summer 1988; New York, Fall 1985; Ohio,

Spring 1989; South Carolina, Spring/Summer 1985; Tennessee, Winter/Spring 1986; Texas, Summer 1986; Virginia, Summer 1989; and Washington, Summer 1987.

21
22
Appendix A. STATE ADVISORY COMMISSION

ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

Published as suggested legislation in ACIR State

Legislative Program, 

Structure and Processes, November 1975.

1.303 State Advisory Commission

on Intergovernmental Relations*

Intergovernmental relations has changed in many

ways since the mid-1970s. As the federal government’s

role in domestic affairs has shifted, the need for statelocal cooperation has increased. Many programs of federal financial aid to state and local governments have

decreased or been discontinued, and federal research

and technical assistance programs have receded. A larger proportion of federal aid is passed through the states,

tying federal dollars for local governments more closely

to state decisionmaking processes. Furthermore, state

mandated costs of local government continue to rise

while limits on local revenue raising continue or intensify. The federal government also is relying more heavily

on preemptions and mandates. As a result of these

considerations, state and local governments increasingly have to rely on their own revenues to fmance public

services, and they need to work together more closely to

meet the challenges of the 1990s.

The states in particular have a major role in

meeting these challenges, either directly or in concert

with their political subdivisions. While many states

have begun to take remedial action or have provided

local governments with the fiscal, functional, structural, and personnel authority to do so, much more

needs to be done to ensure that coordination rather

than conflict will characterize state-local relationships. One way in which this objective can be achieved

is through the creation of a state advisory commission

on intergovernmental relations.

The attached suggested legislation provides for

the establishment of a permanent state advisory commission on intergovernmental relations to study

structure, finances, functional performance, and relationships for local, regional, and state governments,

and interstate relationships. It establishes a framework for the formulation of recommended solutions

to intergovernmental problems.

Through a broad-based, bipartisan membership

structure, diverse viewpoints can be applied to the difficult challenges facing state and local governments,

and workable approaches to resolving them can be developed. Such commission representation is achieved

* Derived from: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, The Challenge of Local Governmental Reorganization, Volume III of Substate Regionalism and the Federal System (Washington, DC, February, 1974).

through a balanced mix of members coming from the

general public, the executive and legislative branches of

state government, and all of the basic local units within

the state-counties, cities, and other political subdivisions. While the latter could include school districts or

special districts, the basic thrust of the commission’s

work should be oriented to general purpose govemment units. Depending on the nature of state and local

elections, members might be appointed without regard

to political affiliation or in such a way as to achieve an

even or nearly even partisan balance.

Even though the state advisory commission on intergovernmental relations is essentially a state-local

body, the significant impact of federal assistance and

policy decisions on state and local operations suggests

consideration of representation for the federal govemmerit. Members of Congress and federal agency representatives have been included among the members of

certain state ACIRs.

The permanence of the state advisory commission on intergovernmental relations is underscored

by the assignment of an ongoing mandate to the commission, the procedures for readily filling vacancies,

and avoidance of a termination date. Professionalism

is ensured by authorizations for an executive director

and staff. Finally, conducting hearings; submitting

reports; and drafting and disseminating statutes, constitutional amendments, and model local ordinances

are means for calling the recommendations of the

commission to the attention of decisionmakers and

enhancing implementation prospects.

This suggested legislation is geared toward overcoming the shortcomings of more limited approaches

to state-local cooperation-for example, federal-state coordination bodies, interstate cooperation

commissions, departments or other agencies for community affairs, and councils of local affairs. The suggested legislation is based on a recommendation in

Volume III of the Commission’s report on Substate

Regionalism and the Federal System and on experience with state ACIRs.

Section I sets out the need and purpose for a state

advisory commission on intergovernmental relations.

Section 2 creates the commission; Section 3 establishes its membership; and Section 4 outlines the

commission’s functions and duties.

Section 5 makes provisions for the commission to

hold meetings, conduct hearings, and establish committees. Section 6 authorizes the employment of appropriate support staff; Section 7 deals with finances: and

Section 8 requires that the commission issue reports on

its findings, recommendations, and performance.

Sections 9 and 10 provide for separability and

effective date clauses.

2 3
[AN ACT TO ESTABLISH

A STATE ADVISORY COMMISSION

ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONSI

SECTION 1. Findings and Purpose.

(a) The [legislature] finds and declares that there is a need for a permanent intergovernmental body to study and

report on:

(1) the current pattern of local governmental structure and its viability;

(2) the powers and functions of local governments, including their fiscal powers;

(3) the existing, necessary, and desirable relationships between and among local governments and the state;

(4) the existing, necessary, and desirable allocation of state and local fiscal resources;

(5) the existing, necessary, and desirable roles of the state as the creator of the local governmental systems:

(6) the special problems in interstate areas facing local governments, intrastate regional units, and

areawide bodies, such studies where possible to be conducted in conjunction with those of a pertinent sister state commission(s); and

(7) any constitutional amendments and statutory enactments required to implement appropriate commission recommendations.

SECTION 2. Commission Created. There is hereby created a [insert state] [Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations].

SECTION 3. Membership.

(a) The commission shall be composed of 20 members, as follows:

(1) four elected county officials, four elected city officials, two state executive branch officials, and four private citizens, all of whom shall be appointed by the governor, except that the county and city members

shah be appointed from lists of at least eight nominees submitted by their respective state associations;

(2) three state senators appointed by the [president pro tern of the senate];2 and

(3) three state representatives appointed by the [speaker of the house of representatives].:!

(b) The chairperson and vice chairperson of the commission shall be [elected by the members] [designated by the

governor from among the members] and shall serve in these respective capacities at the pleasure of the [electing]

[appointing] authority.3 In the event of the absence or disability of both the chairperson and vice chairperson, the

members of the commission shall elect a temporary chairperson by a majority vote of those present and voting.

(c) Of the first members appointed by the governor after the effective date of this act, two of the elected county

officials, two of the elected city officials, one of the officials of other political subdivisions, one of the state

executive branch officials, two of the private citizens, and three of the state legislators shall hold office for a

term of two years. The remaining members, and members subsequently appointed, shall be appointed for a

period of four years; provided that a member appointed to succeed another member whose term has not

expired shall be appointed for the period of the unexpired term, and may be subsequently appointed for a

four-year term4 Should any member cease to be an officer or employee of the unit or agency he or she is

appointed to represent, membership on the commission shall terminate immediately and a new member

shall be appointed in the same manner as the predecessor to fill the unexpired term.

[Alternative 1.1

[(d) The members appointed from private life under subsection (a) shall be appointed without regard to political

affiliation. Of each class of local government members appointed by the governor, not more than half shall be

24
from any one political party. Of each class of state members appointed by the [president pro tem of the senate

and the speaker of the house of representatives], two shall be from the majority party of their respective houses.

WI

[Alternative 2.1

[(d) Members of the commission shall be appointed without regard to political affiliation.]

(e) Twelve members of the commission shall constitute a quorum.

SECTION 4. Functions and Duties.

(a) The commission shall carry out the following functions and duties:

(1) serve as a forum for the discussion and resolution of intergovernmental problems;

(2) engage in such activities and make such studies and investigations as are necessary or desirable in the

accomplishment of the purposes set forth in Section 1 of this act;

(3) consider, on its own initiative, ways and means of fostering better relations among local governments and between local governments and the state government;

(4) draft and disseminate legislative bills, constitutional amendments, and model local ordinances necessary to implement recommendations of the commission;

(5) encourage, and where appropriate, coordinate studies relating to intergovernmental relations conducted by universities, state, local, and federal agencies, and research and consulting organizations;

and

(6) review the recommendations of national commissions studying federal, state, and local government relationships and problems and assess their possible application to [insert state].

SECTION 5. Meetings, Hearings, Committees.

(a) The commission shall hold meetings quarterly and at such other times as it deems necessary. The commission

may hold public hearings from time-to-time on matters within its purview. [By its subpoena the commission

may compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of books, papers, and records of any agency of

the state or any of its political subdivisions.]

(b) Each officer, board, commission, council, department, or agency of state government, and each political subdivision of the state, shall make available all facts, records, Information, and data requested by the commission and in

all ways cooperate with the commission in carrying out the functions and duties imposed by this act.

(c) The commission may establish committees as it deems advisable and feasible, whose membership shall include at least one member of the commission, but only the commission itself may set policy or take other

official action.

(d) The commission shall promulgate rules of procedure governing its operations, provided they are in accordance with the provisions of [insert state administrative procedures act].

(e) All meetings of the commission, or any committee thereof, at which public business is discussed or formal

action is taken shall conform to [insert state open meetings act].

SECTION 6. Staff.

(a) The commission shall employ and set the compensation of an [executive director], who shall serve at itspleasure. The [executive director] may employ professional, technical, legal, clerical or other staff, as necessary

and authorized, and may remove such staff.

(b) The staff of the commission shall be within the unclassified service of the [insert state civil service act]. and

then- compensation shall be determined by the commission within the limitations of appropriations for commission staff purposes.

25
SECTION 7. Finances.

(a) A member of the commission is not entitled to a salary for duties performed as a member of the commission.

Members who are not full-time salaried government officers shall receive per diem at a rate equal to the

amount available to [members of the legislature] [civil service employeesJ5 Each member is entitled to reimbursement for travel and other necessary expenses incurred in the performance of official duties.

(b) The commission is authorized to apply for, contmct for, receive, and expend for its purposes any appropriations or

grants from the state, its political subdivisions, the federal government, or any other source, public or private.

(c) Political subdivisions of the state are authorized to appropriate funds to the commission to share in the cost of

its operations.

(d) To assist financially with the exercise of the functions and duties provided in Section 4, state appropriations

are hereby authorized in such amounts as may be necessary.

SECTION 8. Reports. The commission shall issue reports of its findings and recommendations from time to time, and

shall issue annually a public report on itswork. Copies of the annual report shall be submitted to the governor, presiding officer[s] of the [legislature], each county, city, regional unit and other political subdivisions of the state, and appropriate state departments and agencies. Reports of the commission shall be available to the public.

SECTION 9. Separability. [Insert separability clause.]

SECTION 10. Effective Date. [Insert effective date.]

Notes

i Suggested short title: State Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.

*Individual states should insert the appropriate names of

the upper and lower houses of the legislature and titles of

their presiding officers.

3 Other, more restrictive methods of choosing the chairperson and vice chairperson might be considered, but may

prove to have disadvantages. It could be specified that the

chairperson and vice chairperson be from different membership categories and that they be confirmed by the legislature. In practice, the chairman of the U.S. ACIR has generally been a private citizen member (to preserve governmental

neutrality); the vice-chairman has generally been an elected

official (to highlight the need to be practical)

In some states, the chairperson is the person filling a particular membership role (such as lieutenant governor).

Some negative reactions to this perceived “capturing” of

leadership by a particular type of official suggest the possibility of rotating the chair among membership categories.

However, rotation may arbitrarily unseat a successful

chairperson who should be continued.

4 States having two-year terms for. either house or senate

members may wish to adjust the terms for members of the

commission.

5A specific dollar amount could be inserted here, but might

quickly become outdated and be left unamended. The alternatives offered here are intended to raise the issue of

equitable treatment of ACIR memberscompared toother

officials in the state having comparable political stature.

26
Appendix B. ESTABLISHING A STATE INTERGOVERNMENTAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION: MODEL LEGISLATION

State-Local Task Force

National Conference of State Legislatures

March 1987

This model legislation is a modification of suggested legislation recommended by the U.S. Advisory

Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR).

While NCSCs State-Local Bsk Force generally approves of ACIR’s recommendations, it believes that

revision of numerous details can strengthen state intergovernmental relations commissions.

Creation of a state commission on intergovemmental relations is one of the fundamental recommendations of NCSL’s Bsk Force on State-Local Relations. This document consists of two parts-a

discussion of the need for and structure of such organizations and draft legislation for creating one.

Background

We are on the brink of a long period of significant

change in the way that state and local governments

interact. As states in recent years have been moving

to address new problems facing their citizens, relationships with local governments have been broadening. State municipal leagues, county associations, and

other local governments have become more active,

professionally sophisticated, and effective in presenting local problems to the state government and in

interpreting state policies and programs to their constituent units of local government. Local govemments are having to confront new and increasingly

difficult technical and fiscal problems, and many of

these are inextricably tied to the state as a whole.

State departments of community affairs, housing finance, environmental protection, and economic development have been established, and new legal, administrative and financial linkages between state and

local governments have evolved.

Another major impetus for change in state-local

relationships has been the federal government’s

withdrawal of financial support for state and local

governments. Federal aid has decreased substantially, and further large reductions appear likely. These

changes create a vacuum that forces states to reasses

their traditional policies and postures vis-a-vis local

units of government.

In recognition of the growing importance and

complexity of state-local linkages, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) established a

Task Force on State-Local Relations to assess these

relationships and develop recommendations for improvement.

The T&k Force adopted a report on August 5,

1986, calling for:

new approaches and processes for developing

state-local policies: and

strengthening and improving particular state

policies toward local governments, including:

state enabling legislation for sounder and

more diversified local revenue systems;

review of state mandates upon local govemment and measures to bettergauge their cost

prior to enactment, assisting in local compliance costs, and modifying or eliminating

other mandates;

sorting out financial and functional responsibilities between state and local levels: and

increasing state technical assistance to local

governments, especially smaller units.

This document deals with one of the NCSL Task

Force proposals in the “policy development process”

area-namely, the need in every state to establish or

strengthen a permanent state organization for

state-local and other intergovernmental relationships. The T&k Force report states:

A specific organization dedicated to

state-local issues is needed because the profound changes in this area require ongoing

study. States have research organizations

and standing legislative committees capable

of studying a particular problem and developing new policies to deal with it, but those

existing entities have many other responsibilities and cannot continuously devote the attention that is required to state-local issues.

Other reasons. . . are the complexity of the

issues and the rapidity with which they are

changing. The various local governments

within a state differ significantly, local revenue systems are complicated, and solutions

to problems must consider both revenue and

spending ramifications. An organization that

specializes in state-local issues is best able to

study the nature of problems in this area to

suggest alternative policies. . . .

The Task Force report goes on to point out that

no single model can or should be developed for such

an organization because of differences in traditions
and governmental structure among states. The Task

Force sets forth the following guidelines, based on

state experiences so far:

n It should be permanent, not interim or

temporary, and be created by statute;

creation by executive order is entirely

unsatisfactory on two grounds-transitory nature and lack of sufficient legislative involvement.

w It should be either a legislative commission or a state Advisory Commission on

Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR); it

should be either part of the legislature

or an independent entity, not a regular

executive agency under the domination

of the governor.

n It should have an adequate budget and

qualified staff (e.g., for states having sufficient resources, a minimum budget of

$200,000 and four staff members), with

local government participation in financing the organization.

Finally, the Task Force notes that in the approximately 25 states already having intergovernmental

relations commissions, most have too little scope and

influence, inadequate budgets, and an insufficient

role for state legislators.

Considerations Flowing

from the NCSL Task Force Guidelines

Following is a range of factors that need to be

taken into account in framing legislation to establish a

state organization to deal with state-local and other

intergovernmental relations, using the T&k Force

guidelines as a base. Three basic conditions are necessary for maximum effectiveness of the organization:

(1) adequate statutory scope for advisory and research role; (2) balanced legislative-executive roles in

the organization’s structure and operation; and (3)

continuity in professional competence, usable output

of good quality, budgetary support and bipartisan political support. Optional ways to fulfill these three

conditions in the legislative creation or overhaul process are dictated by the situation existing in the particular state. Obviously, state government is strongest

when, after deliberation and accommodation, executive and legislative branches can pull together in an

equitably balanced structure. There are other factors

to be considered, however.

The legislative commission approach is most

clearly called for in two types of situations: (1) In a

“clean slate” condition where no executive, legislative, or joint organizations are in existence and where

the governor will not agree to creation of an agency

that includes substantial and equitable membership

allocation and other participation by the legislative

branch. (2) In a condition where an executive-dominated agency exists, but in either a dormant or highly

unsatisfactory status; in this condition, a substantive

and structural overhaul to bring about a strong and

balanced agency is the most desired outcome; if this is

not possible, the legislative commission approach

should be taken.

The “state ACIR” approach is most warranted (1)

where a well performing executive-oriented agency

exists and there is opportunity to achieve the necessary structural amendments to ensure the kind of

legislative membership and other participation called

for in the task force report; and (2) where there is

already in existence a state ACTR with balanced legislative branch membership and participation. In this

situation, strengthening amendments regarding

. scope, budget, and other aspects should, of course, be

sought if needed.

The draft bill that follows contains the elements

considered essential in the T&k Force report, and in

most structural, membership, and financing areas,

alternative language possibilities are presented. The

major issue and problem areas in addition to the legislative commission vs. state ACIR question discussed

above include:

n The question of further categorization of membership requirements, especially size of local jurisdiction, mayorlcounty executive vs. council

member Relevant factors include the extent

to which populous jurisdiction officials may

be discriminated against in the nominating

process, where a league or association operates on a one unit, one vote basis; whether

county commissions and city councils are on

a strong- or weak-executive basis; and

whether a league or association is inclined always to nominate hierarchy officers in the organization, regardless of qualifications, or if

the organization boards have shown a tendency to use care in this regard. The ‘I&k Force

modified the US. ACIR’s recommendation by

granting to state associations of local officials

the power to appoint members to the commission. The U.S. ACIR had suggested allowing

the governor to make these appointments

from lists of at least eight nominees submitted

by the respective associations.

w The question of political afiliation of commission members. State tradition, relative

strength of party versus philosophical divisions in state and local affairs, and presence

or absence of a two-party system are all relevant factors.

28
Among the other changes made in ACIR’s model

legislation by the Iask Force are: adding to the prescribed duties the preparation of an annual report on

the state of local governments; eliminating subpoena

power, which is an optional feature of ACIR’s model

legislation; and requiring that local governments contribute financial support to the state body.

The ‘IZisk Force discussed but did not change several other provisions, such as increasing the number

of legislators on the commission, changing the requirement that employees be part of the civil service,

and giving the legislature rather than the governor

the power to appoint the chair and vice chair.

The question of which specific classes of local

governments should be represented on the commission was also discussed, with recognition that the

appropriate membership would vary according to the

local government structure in a particular state.

While school districts are important local govemments, it was not recommended that they be included

because their interests and concerns tend to be different from other categories of local governments.

29
[AN ACT TO ESTABLISH A STATE INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

COMMISSION]1

(Be it enacted, etc.)

SECTION 1. Findings and Purpose.

(a) Ihe [legislature] finds and declares that there is a need for a permanent intergovernmental body to bc concerned with how to strengthen and facilitate relationships between the state government and the cities, counties,

and other local governments in the state, including but not limited to the following:

(1) perform the functions and roles of:

(i) providing a forum for discussion of long-range state-local issues;

(ii) promoting experimentation in intergovernmental processes, both state-local and interlocal; and

(iii) developing possible solutions or remediations of state-local problems. .^

(2) study and report on such issues as:

(i) the existing, necessary, and desirable relationships between and among local govemments and the state;

(ii) the powers and functions of local governments, especially the adequacy of their fiscal resources and powers;

(iii) the existing, necessary, and desirable allocation of state and local responsibilities and fiscal resources;

(iv) emerging local problems and the role of the state government concerning them;

69 impact of federal or state judicial decisions or of existing or proposed state legislative or executive policies upon the capacities and effectiveness of local government;

(vi) the special problems in interstate areas facing the local governments, intrastate regional

units and areawide bodies, such studies where possible to be conducted in conjunction

with those of a pertinent sister state commission(s); and

(vii) any constitutional amendments and statutory enactments required to implement proposals of the commission.

(3) prepare an annual report on the state of local governments, describing and interpreting changes in

their tax rates, taxbases, expenditures, non-taxrevenue, and related fiscal indicators, including measures of fiscal capacity, fiscal effort, and fiscal stress.

SECTION 2. Commission Created. There is hereby created a [state name] [State Commission on State-Local Relations] [Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations] [other], hereinafter referred to as “the commission.“2

SECTION 3. Membership.

(a) The commission shall be composed of [19] members, as follows:

(1) [four] elected county officials, [four] elected city officials, [two] state executive officials designated

by the governor; the county and city officials shall be selected by their respective state a‘ssociations;

(2) [three] state senators appointed by the president pro tern of the senate;3

(3) [three] state representatives appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives;3

(4) [three] private citizens, one of whom shall be appointed by the governor and two by joint action of

the [president pro tern of the] state senate and the [speaker of the] state house of representatives.

30
(b) The chairman and vice chairman of the commission shall be appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by [the state senate] [each house of the legislature]. In the event of the absence or disability of both the

chairman and vice chairman, the members of the commission shall elect a temporary chairman by a majority

vote of those present and voting.

(c) Of the first members appointed by the governor after the effective date of this act, two of the elected county

officials, two of the elected city officials, one of the state executive branch officials, one of the privatecitizens,

and three of the state legislators, shall hold office for a term of two years. The remaining members, and members subsequently appointed shall hold office for a four year term. Should any member cease to be an elected

official, officer or employee of the unit or agency he or she is appointed to represent, membership on the

commission shall terminate immediately and a new member shall be appointed in the same manner as the

predecessor to fill the unexpired term.

[Alternative 1.1

[(d) The members appointed from private life under subsection (a) shall be appointed without regard to political

affiliation. Of each class of local government members not more than half shall be from any one political

party. Of each class of state legislative members appointed by the [president pro tern of the senate and the

speaker of the house of representatives] no more thari’half shall be of the same political party.

[ORI

[Alternative 2.1

[(d) Members of the commission shall be appointed without regard to political affiliation.]

(e) [eleven] members of the commission shall constitute a quorum.

SECTION 4. Functions and Duties.

6-4 Inaddition to the activities listed in Section 1, the commission shall cany out these further functions and duties:

(1) encourage, and where appropriate coordinate, studies relating to intergovernmental relations conducted by universities, state, local, and federal agencies, and research and’consulting organizations;

(2) review the recommendations of national commissions studying federal, state, and local government

relationships and problems and assess their possible application to [insert state]; and

(3) engage in such other activities and make such studies and investigations as are necessary or desirable in

the accomplishment of the purposes set forth in Section 1 of this act;

(4) in the conduct of its work rely, to the extent appropriate, on research data, studies, and other resources of public and private educational and research organizations in the state and elsewhere.

SECTION 5. Meetings, Hearings, Committees.

(a) The commission shall hold meetings at least quarterly and at such other times as it deems necessary. The

commission may hold public hearings from time to time on matters within its purview.

(b) Each officer, board, commission, council, department, or agency of state government, and each political subdivision of the state, shall make available all facts, records, information, and data requested by the commission and in

all ways cooperate with the commission in carrying out the functions and duties imposed by this act.

(c) The commission may establish committees as it deems advisable and feasible, whose membership shall include at least one member of the commission, but only the commission as a whole may take official commission action.

(d) The commission shall promulgate rules of procedure governing its operations, provided they arc in accordance with the provisions of [insert state administrative procedures act].

(e) All meetings of the commission, or any committee thereof, at which public business is discussed or formal

action is taken shall conform to [insert state open meeting act].

31
SECTION 6. Staff.

(a) The commission shall employ and set the compensation of an [executive director], who shall serve at its pleasure. The [executive director] may employ professional, technical, legal, clerical, or other staff, as necessary

and authorized, and may remove such staffP

(b) The staff of the commission shall be within the unclassified service of the [insert state civil service act], and

their compensation shall be determined by the commission within the limitations of appropriations for commission staff purposes.5

SECTION 7. Finances.

(a) A member of the commission is not entitled to a salary for duties performed as a member of the commission.

Members who are not salaried government officers or not otherwise compensated on a per diem or other

basis shall receive [SSO] per diem. Each member is entitled to reimbursement for travel and other necessary

expenses incurred in performance of official duties.

(b) The commission is authorized to apply for, contract for, receive, and expend for its purposes any appropriations or

grants from the state, its political subdivisions, the federal government, or any other source, public or private.

(c) Political subdivisions of the state are authorized and encouraged to appropriate funds to the commission to

share in the cost of its operations. State funds in the support of the commission may not exceed [80] percent

of total funds in its annual budget from all sources; annual total local government support, in cash or in kind,

shall comprise at least [amount in dollars] [20 percent of the total commission budget from all sources].

(d) To assist financially with the exercise of the functions and duties provided in sections 1 and 4, state appropriations are hereby authorized in such amounts as may be necessary.

SECTION 8. Reports. The commission shall issue reports of its findings and recommendations from time to time, and

shall issue annually a public report on its work. Copies of the annual report shall be submitted to the governor, presiding officer(s) of the [legislature], each county, city, regional unit, and other political subdivisions of the state, and appropriate state departments and agencies. Reports of the commission shall be available to the public.

SECTION 9. Separability. [Insert separability clause]

SECTION 10. Effective Date. [Insert effective date]

Notes

‘This draft is intended only as a point of departure for state

legislators and staff setting about to draft legislation to establish an organizational structure in the state govemment for state-local relations. This draft is a modification

of a 1975 draft issued by the U.S. Advisory Commission on

Intergovernmental Relations.

2 See preceding discussion of alternative organizational arrangements.

3 Proper designations of the upper and lower houses of the

legislature and of their presiding officers should be substituted where appropriate for the terms and titles used

here.

4 Committee reports, floor debate, or other recorded deliberationssurrounding the enactment of legislation creating

the commission should reflect a legislative intent that a

nucleus professional staff serve the commission on a continuing basis and that appropriations be sufficient to ensure such continuity.

‘This depends on the adequacy of state civil service and

other personnel policies and procedures to provide necessary levels of competence and compensation.

32
Appendix C. A DIRECTORY OF STATE-LOCAL RELATIONS

ORGANIZATIONS

This directory of the intergovernmental organizations-counterparts of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations-that are active

in 26 states includes type of organization, legal basis,

membership size and composition, budget, staff, functions, current activities and recent accomplishments,

and a contact. Entries may vaq in detail, based on the

information provided by the organizations in response

to a 1989 survey.

The ACIR counterpart organizations, collcctively called “state ACIRs,” are classified into three types .:

based on the composition of their membership:

ACIRs, legislative committees, or local advisory panels.

ACIRs generally follow the model of U.S. ACIR,

with members drawn from the executive and legislative branches of state government, from local govemments, and from the public. The 20 state ACIRs draw

their membership from state government, counties,

municipalities, towns, townships, special districts, school

districts, statewide organizations, and private citizens.

The four legislative committees are made up predominantly of legislators. Each of the two local advisory panels is located in the governor’s office. These panels are

made up largely of local officials who advise the governor on state-local relations.

The organizational function information is based

on a 1990 survey and is not listed in order of importance.

Functions include research, sponsorship of conferences/seminars, constituent work/providing information,

representing local governments on other commissions,

acting as ombudsman (for local governments that have

grievances with state actions or proposed actions), issuing a newsletter, and making recommendations on

legislation (either writing legislation or recommending a position). Respondents occasionally added a few

functions, which are listed accordingly.

For five other states, current contacts familiar

with intergovernmental affairs are listed. There also

are listings for the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and for the federal departmental directors of intergovernmental affairs.

The organizational function information is based

on a 1990 survey and is not listed in order of importance.

Functions include research, sponsorship of conferences/seminars, constituent work/providing information,

representing local governments on other commissions,

acting as ombudsman (for local governments that have

grievances with state actions or proposed actions), issuing a newsletter, and making recommendations on

legislation (either writing legislation or recommending a position). Respondents occasionally added a few

functions, which are listed accordingly.

For five other states, current contacts familiar

with intergovernmental affairs are listed. There also

are listings for the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and for the federal departmental directors of intergovernmental affairs.

33
w

P

State-Local Relations Bodies in the States, 1990 (Reco gnized Counterparts to U.S. ACIR)

State

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

Illinois

Indiana

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Utah

Virginia

Washington

Type of Legal

Organization Basis

ACIR

ACIR

ACIR

Legislative

ACIR

Legislative

ACIR

ACIR

ACIR

ACIR

ACIR

Legislative

ACIR

ACIR

ACIR

ACIR

ACIR

ACIR

ACIR

Legislative

ACIR

ACIR

ACIR

ACIR

Informal

Statute

Statute

Statute

Executive Order

Statute

Executive Order

Statute

Statute

Statute

Executive Order

Executive Order

Statute

Statute

Statute

Statute

Statute

Statute

Incorporated

Statute

Statute

Statute

Statute

Statute

Statute

Executive Order

Legend and Notes

A = Association (e.g., of officials or governments)

C = Member of U.S. Congress

L = Local government

LAP = Local Advisory Panel

P = private citizen

R = Regional council of governments

SE = SI;IIC government, executive branch

SL = SIiltc government, legislative branch

‘Slalc Appropriation

‘Municipill Association Grant

399 percent contracts

Governing Body

Size Composition

30

f/i

12

45

:‘2

16

40

ii

30

1 5

:x

1 1

2

18

::

i;

20

18

22

SLSWA

=3VUAP

%SW-.,&P

SL

L

SL,SE,L

R,L,A16

SL’S

s3L

SL.SE,R,L,A

SL,SE,/A,P

SLLP

s$”

SL,SE,A

SJ-GWJ

SLSWAC

SL,SE,L

f%SJWA

SLU-,P

SLL

SLSELP

SLSWJ’

=SU-.AP

SL,SE,L

Approximate Staff:

- Budget Full/PartFY1990 Time

s13&m1

$623,411’

$1,110,700’

$75,ooo’

$10,0002

-

-

SU~rnl

$84Sool

!§23~,000

$150,ooo~

S525~ooo’

$235,000’

35-6,ooo’

$375,900’

513jtw

$5O,ooo’

ii

8/l

19/o

l/O

3/o

O/G

ii

o/2

E

9/l

o/2

-

%

ll/O

O/l

4fO

o/2

8/O

O/l

l/O

O/l

Conferences/

Research Seminars

:: X

X X

X X

X

X

X

::

X

X

;):

x X

FUNCTIONS

Recommend ConstitPolicy/ uent NewsLegislation Work” letter Other

xx ::

::

X 1 3

X x s

X X

X

X X

X

X

X

::

X

X

X

:: ::

X X

X X X

X

6

‘3

1 3

X

::

8

X

X

x ‘,’

X

X x a

X

X 10,13

I 1

4State funds administrative expenses, while private sourcesprovide in-kind services.

%tate representation in Washington, DC

%iasion, congressional delegation

‘Input into the regulatory process

*Represent local governments on other commissions

%iaison between state agencies, local governments, and COGS

lOProvides technical assistance

“Participntcs in leadership development/continuing education

program for public officials

**Newsletter in planning stage

X

X X xx X x l3

E

X X X a

1 2

X X

13Data base services

“‘This includes a variety of services, from filling simple information requests to providing complex ombudsman services.

151n addition, there are several nonvoting, ex officio members

who represent the executive branch of state government as

well ns local governments.

16M:line-6 a1 large members appointed by governor: Michigan-S at large members appointed by governor; 2 by suprcmc court: North Carolina- 3 at large members appointed

by governor
Colorado -Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations

Legal Basis

Informal (1987), adopted voluntary structure, 1989

Size and Composition of Governing Body

24 members-8 state, 12 local, 4 undetermined

8 legislators appointed by legislative leadership (4 House, 4 Senate)

4 appointed by Governor

1 2 appointed by local government (3 school

district, 3 special district, 3 county, 3

municipal)

Legislators serve while in office; all others

serve indeterminate terms.

Budget

None

Staff

l-part time, supplied by the Department of

Local Affairs

Functions

Ombudsman

Recommendations on legislation

Research

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Summarized and quantified exemptions

from the state sales tax statutes.

Summarizing and quantifying federal and

state mandates on Colorado local governments in social services, education, correc-

. tions, and environment.

Contact

Geoff Withers

Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental

Relations

Department of Local Affairs

1313 Sherman Street, Room 521

Denver, CO 80203

(303) 8664660

35
Connecticut - Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations

Legal Basis

Statute (1985)

Size and Composition of Governing Body

25 members-9 state, 11 local, 5 other

Secretary, Office of Policy and Management

6

1 1

legislators (Senate President Pro Tern,

Senate Minority Leader, Speaker of the

House, House Minority Leader, and 1

each appointed by the Senate President

and House Speaker)

appointed by Governor (2 from municipalities over 60,000 population; 2 from

municipalities between 20,000 and 60,000;

2 from municipalities less than 20,ooO; 1

from Association of Boards of Education,

1 from Superintendents of Schools Association, 1 from Regional Planning Association, 2 state executive employees)

private citizens (1 appointed each by the

Governor, Speaker of the House, Senate

President, House Minority Leader, and

Senate Minority Leader)

appointed by the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities

appointed by the Council of Small

Towns

Appointees serve 2 years; all others serve

while in office.

Budget

FY 1990-$131,500 (state appropriation)

Staff

2-executive director, research associate

Functions

Conferences/seminars

Constituent work

Recommendations on legislation

Research

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Solid Waste: Convened two “working forums” in 1988. Developed a data base on

local government solid waste management practices, creating the first comprehensive compilation of efforts in recycling, basic trash disposal, bulky

waste, and cornposting.

Home Rule: Developed a major report,

Home Rule in Connecticut: Its History,

Status and Recommendations for

Change. Followed with a 1989 supple-

: ment and a constitutional provision supplement, D&ning Statewide vs. Local Concerns: Can It Be Done and Is It Necessa y?

Revisions to State Statute Indexes: Surveyed

municipal officials and legal counsel for

specific problems. Joined with the Connecticut Law Revision Commissioner’s

Office to review statutes dealing with local government in an attempt to make

them more accessible to citizens.

Major Study of Taxing Districts: Studied district creation and termination mechanisms and accountability to the public

and other entities. Introduced a bill that

overhauled the state statutes governing

special districts.

Contact

David W. Russell

Executive Director

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental

Relations

80 Washington Street

Hartford, CT 06106

(203) 566-1393 FAX (203) 566-6295

36
Florida -Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations

Legal Basis

Statute (1977)

Size and Composition of Governing Body

2 1 members-8 state legislators, 4 local, 9 not

specified by law

8 legislators (4 Senate, 4 House)

9 appointed by Governor (from elected

and appointed state and local officials

and other interested citizens-generally

city and county officials, state department heads, private citizens)

4 ex officio, nonvoting (directors of Florida League of Cities, Association of

County Commissioners, Association of

School Administrators, and School

Boards Association)

Gubernatorial appointees serve 4 years; legislators serve 2 years.

Budget

FY 1990-$623,411 (state appropriation)

Staff

11-9 full time, 2 part time (executive director,

7 legislative analysts, 1 administrative assistant, 1 part-time secretary, 1 intern)

Functions

Calculate county constitutional officer

salaries

Compile estimated state-shared revenues

and local option revenues

Conferences/seminars

Constituent work

Data bases

Recommendations on legislation

Research

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Major reform of state policy on special

districts.

Constitutional amendment and legislation

affecting initiative and referendum process.

Legislation altering policy toward criminal

justice funding.

Maintain local government data bases.

Reports, including: 1988 Cntnlogrre of State

Mandates; I989 Report on Mandates and

Measures Affecting Local Government

Fiscal Capacity; Elderly Homeowners and

the Property Ta;x: An Examination of the

Issues; A Profile of Florida Municipal and

County Revenues; Urban Infill and Infrastructure Capacity: Orlando Case

Study; Impact Fee Use in Florida: An

Update; County Jail Expenditures in

Florida: A Fiscal Impact and Explanatoly Analysis.

Contact

Mary Kay Falconer

Executive Director

Advisory Council on Intergovernmental

Relations

c/o House Office Building

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300

(904) 488-9627 FAX: (904) 487-6587

37
Illinois - Commission on Intergovernmental Cooperation

Legal Basis

Statute (1937, amended 1984)

Size and Composition of Governing Body

12 members- 12 state

12 legislators appointed by legislative

leadership (6 Senate, 6 House)

Members serve 2 years.

Budget

FY 1990-$1,110,700 (state appropriation)

Staff

19-Springfield Office (13) : director, associate director, editor, office manager, 5 research associates, federal aid coordinator,

2 research assistants, receptionist/ secretary

Washington O&e (6): director, 4 research associates, 1 administrative assistant

Functions

Conferences/seminars

Constituent work

Liaison (General Assembly with

congressional delegation, NCSL, CSG,

and ACIR)

Newsletter/policy reports

Ombudsman

Recommendations on legislation

Research

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Committee of 50 to Re-examine the Illinois

Constitution. Staffed a year-long project

exploring the need for a constitutional

convention.

Conducted preliminary hearings on governance of the state’s institutions of higher

education. Currently planning next

phase of project.

Studied the costs of immediate income withholding to employers and employees and

the appropriateness of current withholding charges allowed to employers,

Published The Finoncinl Impact of Immediafe Income Withholding Orders for Child

Support: A Report to fhe Illinois Gene&

Assemblyppursunnt to HR 1513.

Studied the state of health care in rural Illinois.

Analyzed the potential impact of the integration of European markets in 1992 on

the Illinois economy.

Analyzes potential impact on state budget of

proposed school aid funding formulas.

Exploring possible benefits and disadvantages of membership in a Midwest Higher Education Compact.

Studying the state’s education for employment system with the goal of making recommendations for improvements and

for statewide policy.

Contact

Kevin Noone, Executive Director

David Griffith, Assistant Director

Commission on Intergovernmental

Cooperation

707 Stratton Building

Springfield, IL 62706

(217) 782-6924 FAX: (217) 782-3513

38
Indiana - Governor’s Local Government Advisory Council

Legal Basis

Executive Order (1989)

Size and Composition of Governing Body

45 members-45 local

45 appointed by governor (15 county officials, 9 mayors, 4 city council, 2 city/

county council, 6 township, 8 town, 1

common council)

Members serve one year.

Budget

FY 1990-about $75,ooO (state appropriation)

Staff

l-executive assistant

Functions

Advice to Governor

Constituent work

Local government representation on other

commissions

Ombudsman

Recommendations on legislation

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Expanding network of communications between the Governor and local government

officials.

Developing a plan to utilize state resources for

local training and technical assistance.

Building a strategic plan to address statelocal concerns on the environment, infrastructure, taxation-finance, public

safety, and economic development.

Contact

William Shrewsberry, Jr.

Executive Assistant for Local Government

Governor’s Local Government Advisory

Council

Office of the Governor

Statehouse, Room 206

Indianapolis, IN 46204

(317) 232-1053 FAX: (317) 232-3443

39
Louisiana -Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations

Legal Basis

Statute (1986)

Size and Composition of Governing Body

17 members-8 state, 9 local

Secretary, Economic Development

Secretary, Transportation and Development

Secretary, Revenue and Taxation

Superintendent of Education

4 legislators, appointed by legislative leadership (2 Senate, 2 House)

9 appointed by statewide organizations (3

municipal, Louisiana Municipal Association; 3 parish, Police Jury Association; 3

school board, School Boards Association)

Legislative members serve at the pleasure of

majority leadership; others serve 1 year

by informal agreement.

Budget

FY 1990-$10,000 private sources (municipal association grant)

Staff

3-l attorney, 1 researcher, 1 administrative

person provided by legislature, auditor,

and participating associations

Functions

Forum for discussion

Recommendations on legislation

Research

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Began meeting in 1989. Currently conducting a study of state mandates involving

state district court financing.

Contact

Cathy Wells

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental

Relations

Senate Local and Municipal Affairs

Committee

PO. Box 94183

Baton Rouge, LA 70804

(504) 342-6181 or 342-8896

FAX: (504) 342-0617

40
Maine - Governor’s Municipal Advisory Council

Legal Basis

Executive Order (1979, amended 1987)

Size and Composition of Governing Body

12 members-at least 6 local

1 Conference of Mayors

1 Association of Assessing Officers

1 Municipal Association

1 Town and City Clerks Association

1 Town and City Managers Association

1 Association of Regional Councils

6 “at large” members appointed by Governor

(Executive Director of Municipal Association participates in advisory capacity)

Members serve 2 years.

Budget

None-necessary expenditures incurred by

members paid by respective organization or agency.

Staff

None-necessary staff services donated.

Functions

Provide information to the Governor

Recommendations on legislation

Research

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Advising the Governor on measures to address property tax rehef and the funding

of education. Advising the Governor on

issues related to Maine’s landmark solid

waste law.

Contact

Hon. Dana Connors

Commissioner of Transportation

Governor’s Municipal Advisory Council

Statehouse Station 616

Augusta, ME 04333

(207) 289-2551 FAX: (207) 289-2896

41
Maryland -Joint Committee on Federal Relations

Legal Basis

Statute (1937, amended 1983,1987,1988,1990)

Size and Composition of Governing Body

16 members-16 state

16 legislators appointed by the legislative

leadership (8 Senate, 8 House of Delegates)

Members serve 4 years. Several nonvoting ex

officio members meet with the Committee

to represent the executive branch of state

government and local governments.

Budget

None

Staff

l-Provided by legislative Department of

Fiscal Services as needed.

Functions

Conferences/seminars

Constituent work

Liaison with congressional delegation

Recommendations on legislation

Research

Review of all interstate compacts each

four-year term

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Studied Maryland revenue sharing program,

state mandates, interstate compacts, impacts of impending changes to child welfare and clean air acts, and local government audit reports.

Examining state code to determine the number of local government mandates.

Contact

John Donaldson

Staff Director

: Department of Fiscal Services

Joint Committee on Federal Relations

90 State Circle

Annapolis, MD 21401-1991

(301) 841-3742 FAX: (301) 841-3722

42
Massachusetts -Local Government Advisory Committee

Legal Basis

Statute (1981), superseded 1976 Executive

Order

Size and Composition of Governing Body

4 0

6

3 4

members-7 state, 33 local

legislators appointed by legislative leadership (3 Senate, 3 House)

appointed by Governor (1 state executive, 8 selectmen, 8 mayors, 8 city or town

managers, 4 city or town councillors, 1

town finance commissioner, 4 Association of School Committees)

Members serve for one year.

Budget

None

Staff

None-necessary staff services supplied by

the Executive Office of Communities

and Development.

Functions

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Participated in two Governor’s task forces:

(1) analyzed local financing needs and

recommended restructuring state-local

aid (submitted to the legislature): (2) examined special education and submitted suggested regulatory changes to

the Department of Education. Various

bills were introduced in the legislature.

Contact

Marilyn Contreas

Senior Program and Policy Analyst

Local Government Advisory Committee

Executive Office of Communities and Development

100 Cambridge Street, Room 1803

Boston, MA 02202

(617) 727-3253

Advocate local government interests

Input into the regulatory process

Local government representation on other

commissions

Recommendations on legislation

Research

43
Michigan -Michigan Commission on Intergovernmental Relations

Legal Basis

Statute (1988)

Size and Composition of Governing Body

21 members-6 state, 12 local, 3 other

7 appointed by Senate Majority Leader

7 appointed by House Speaker

5 appointed by Governor

2 appointed by Supreme Court

Members serve 4 years.

Budget

FY 1990-$135,000 (state appropriation)

plus $50,000

grant for data base

Staff

3-executive director, 1 administrative assistant, 1 clerk/intern (part time)

Legislative Council controls budget and

staff.

Functions

Assistance to legislature

Conferences/seminars

Data Base

Newsletter

Ombudsman

Recommendations on legislation

Research

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Secured funds to complete and maintain a

Michigan State University data base on

local government fiscal and statistical

matters, called the Center for Reindustrialized States (CRIS).

Conducted a self-contained, cross reference of

all taxing authorities for all local units of

government referenced by statute, litigation, and minimum and maximum taxes.

Conducting comprehensive study of fiscal

health of local units of government and

how other states are dealing with local

government bankruptcy.

Preparing a “handbook” on municipal solid

waste for local governments.

Studying the impact of tort claims on local

policymaking.

Establishing a clearinghouse on local govemment issues-Intergovernmental Clearinghouse Information System (ICIS).

Making a film on privatization.

Contact

C. Grady (Bud) Drago

Executive Director

Michigan Commission on Intergovernmental

Relations

502 Hollister Building

P.O. Box 30036

Lansing, MI 48933

(517) 373-5991 FAX: (517) 373-0171

44
Minnesota - Governor’s Advisory Council on State-Local Relations

Legal Basis

Executive Order (1985, amended 1985)

Size and Composition of Governing Body

20 members-10 state, 10 local

State-6 executive (commissioners of Revenue, Finance, Energy and Economic Development, Education, and Human Services; director of State Planning)

4 legislators appointed by legislative

leadership (2 Senate, 2 House)

Local-2 appointed by League of Cities; 2

by Association of Counties; 2 by Association of Townships; 2 by School Boards

Association; 1 by Association of Regional Councils; Metropolitan Council

Chairman

Members serve at the discretion of the appointing authorities.

Budget

State planning agency provides funding for

printing and mailing; member expenses

paid by respective organization or

agency.

Staff

2-state planning agency provides administrative staff. Director of state planning

serves as executive director; agency assistant director serves as administrator

and staff coordinator. Agency staff assigned to projects as needed; staff assistance also provided by local government

organizations and the legislature.

Functions

Constituent work

Ombudsman

Recommendations on legislation

Research

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Reformed local land use policies and state

mandate process.

Analyzed child development services (proposed ways to improve the coordination

of these services).

Conducted research on transferring the trial

court system from the counties to the state

(passed by the legislature).

Studying state and local service-fiscal responsibilities, including a systematic

identification of all public services provided jointly by the state and one or

more types of local government.

Contact

Roger Williams

Executive Director

Governor’s Advisory Council on State-Local

Relations

Room 300 Centennial Office Building

658 Cedar Street

St. Paul, MN 55155

(612) 296-2633 FAX: (612) 296-3698

45
Missouri - Commission on Intergovernmental Cooperation

Legal Basis

Executive Order (1985)

Size and Composition of Governing Body

3 0

4

1 5

1 1

members-9 state (5 executive, 4 legislative), 11 local, 10 other

legislators appointed by legislative leadership (2 Senate, 2 House)

appointed by Governor (10 private citizens, 5 state officials)

appointed by statewide organizations (4

elected municipal, Municipal League; 2

elected county, Association of Counties;

2 local government administrators, City

Management Association; 1 regional

planning commission director, Association of Councils of Governments; director, Municipal League; director, Association of Counties)

Members serve open-ended terms.

Budget

FY 1990-$84,500 (state appropriation)

Staff

2-director, administrative assistant

Functions

Conferences/seminars

Constituent work

Local government representation on other

commissions

Ombudsman

Recommendations on legislation

Research

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Established MoPerm-Missouri Public

Entity Risk Management Pool for Liability Insurance

Conducted symposium on Impact of Reduction of Federal Funds

Staff Ad Hoc Committee on Solid Waste

Management held a conference on solid

waste that led to legislation establishing

solid waste districts and a solid waste

management fund.

. Formed new committee on substance abuse

to design treatment programs for cities

and counties.

Coordinating state and local agencies in

preparation for earthquakes and subsequent mitigation.

Contact

Lois Pohl

Director

Missouri Commission on

Intergovernmental Cooperation

Room 430 Truman Building

PO. Box 809

Jefferson City, MO 65102

(314) 751-4834 FAX: (314) 751-7819

46
New Jersey-County and Municipal Government Study Commission

Legal Basis

Statute (1966, amended 1986)

Size and Composition of Governing Body

15 members-6 state, 6 local, 3 others

6 legislators appointed by legislative leadership (3 Senate; 3 Assembly)

9 appointed by Governor (3 county, nominated by Association of Counties; 3 city,

nominated by League of Municipalities;

3 private citizens)

Senators serve for 4 years, members of the

Assembly for 2 years; others have indefinite terms.

Budget

FY 1990-$235,000 (state appropriation)

Staff

6-executive director, 3 research associates,

1 research assistant, 1 office manager

Functions

Information

Recommendations on legislation

Research

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Revised city, town, borough, village and

township laws, absorbing all elected special districts other than fire districts;

laws were reenacted.

Recommended enactment of the Optional

County Charter Law.

Continuing work on proposal to transfer

4,000 court employees from county government to the state.

Contact

David C. Mattek

Executive Director

County and Municipal Government

Study Commission

142 West State Street

Trenton, NJ OS625

(609) 292-6226

47
New York-Legislative Commission on State-Local Relations

Legal Basis

Statute (1981, reauthorized 1990)

Size and Composition of Governing Body

10

10

members- 10 state

legislators appointed by legislative leadership (3 senators by the Majority Leader, 3 members of the Assembly by the

Speaker; 2 senators and 2 members of

the Assembly by the Minority Leader of

each chamber)

Members serve 2 years.

Budget

FY 89-90-$433,200 (state appropriation)

FY 90-91-$425,700 (state appropriation)

Staff

lo-director, deputy director, 6 research

analysts, administrative assistant, secretary (part time)

Functions

Computer modeling and data base development

Conferences/seminars

Constituent work

Ombudsman

Newsletter

Research

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Produced, in conjunction with Cornell University, comprehensive listing of services

being performed by counties, cities,

towns, villages, and school districts.

Continued refinement of the Local Government and Aid Database.

Studied police consolidation.

Issued a major study on industrial development agencies.

Released issue briefs, including Cufegoricd

Aid or Block Grants? Block Grnnt Approaches in Education Aid, and another

focusing on mandate reimbursement.

Continuing issue brief series with reports on

reserve funds and auditing by local governments.

Contact

Margaret Sherman

Director

Legislative Commission on State-Local Relations

Agency Building 4, 14th Floor

Empire State Plaza

Albany, NY 12248

(518) 455-5035 FAX: (518) 455-5396

48
North Carolina -Local Government Advocacy Council

Legal Basis

Statute (1979), replaced 1978 Executive

Order

Size and Composition of Governing Body

1 9

4

6

members-4 state, 12 local, 3 other

legislators appointed by legislative leadership (2 Senate, 2 House)

county (executive committee and executive director of Association of County

Commissioners)

6 municipal (executive committee and executive director of League of Municipalities)

3 at large appointed by Governor

Members serve 2 years.

Budget

FY 1990-$5,397 (state appropriation)

Staff

2 part time-staff director, secretary;

staff supplied by state Department of

Administration.

Functions

Advocate for local government

Constituent work

Liaison between state agencies and local

governments,

including arbitration of disputes between state

agencies and COGS

Ombudsman

Recommendations on legislation

Research

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Developed state policy on regionalism (regional councils/COGs).

Requested and received administrative and

legislative action to deal with short-term

and long-term problems of solid waste

management.

Surveyed local governments on cooperative/

coordinated activities dealing with drug

abuse prevention.

Contact

Sara Stuckey

Chief of Local and Regional Affairs

Local Government Advocacy Council

Office of Intergovernmental Relations

Department of Administration

116 West Jones Street

Raleigh, NC 27603-8003

(919) 733-0499 FAX: (919) 733-9571
North Dakota -Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations

Legal Basis

Statute (1989)

Size and Composition of Governing Body

II members-5 state, 6 local

Governor

4 legislators appointed by legislative leadership (2 Senate, 2 House)

6 nominated by statewide organizations (2

by Association of Counties; 2 by League

of Cities; 1 by Township Officers Association; 1 by Parks and Recreation Association)

Members serve 2 years. All terms expire on

June 30 of odd-numbered years.

Budget

FY 1990-$4,100 (state appropriation)

Staff

None-Legislative Council provides staff services.

Functions

Constituent work

Ombudsman

Recommendations on legislation

Research

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Held two organizational/informational

meetings; surveyed representatives of

political subdivisions to ascertain issues

they would like the Commission to

study. Because of budget cuts, the Commission will meet only once more before

July 1991.

Contact

John Walstad

Counsel

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental

Relations

Office of the Legislative Council

State Capitol

Bismarck, ND 58505

(701) 224-2916

5 0
Ohio -State and Local Government Commission

Legal Basis

Statute (1978)

Size and Composition of Governing Body

13 members-5 state, 6 local, 2 other

Lieutenant Governor, chairman

4 legislators appointed by legislative leadership (2 Senate, 2 House)

6 appointed by the Governor (2 nominated by County Commissioners Association; 2 by Municipal League; 2 by

Township Association)

2 public representatives appointed by

Lieutenant Governor

Legislators serve for 2 years; others, 4 years.

Budget

FY 1990-$2l2JXKl (state appropriation), 95

percent state funding, 5 percent private

sources

Staff

4-executive director, researcher, public information officer, office manager

Functions

Conferences/seminars

Constituent work

Forum for discussion

Local government representation on other

commissions

Newsletter

Ombudsman

Recommendations on legislation

Research

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Sponsored conference on Local Government Leadership.

PublishedAn Overview of the Mandate Problem and Recommendations for Ohio. Introduced mandate legislation to require

the state to provide funds for mandates

issued to local governments.

Sponsored orientation seminar for newly

elected officials.

Issued a report on Tax Base Sharing: An

.- Evaluation of Its Use and Potential in the

State of Ohio. First phase of a larger

project.

Published a Directory ofstate Services to Local Government.

Functions as a liaison between state government and local elected officials in time of

natural disasters.

Developing a Technological Information

Network for local jurisdictions on solid

waste management information and resources.

Contact

Craig L. Zimmers

Executive Director

State and Local Government Commission

77 South High Street, Room 714

Columbus, OH 43266-0535

(614) 466-2108 FAX: (614) 466-9150

5 1
Oklahoma -Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations

Legal Basis

Statute (1987)

Size and Composition of Governing Body

22 members-l federal, 11 state, 10 local

Governor

Director, Department of Transportation

14-appointed by legislative leadership (4

elected municipal, 2 elected county, 4

House, 4 Senate)

6-appointed by statewide organizations (1

each by County Officers Association,

Association of County Commissioners,

Municipal League, Tax Commission,

School Boards Association, Oklahoma

Congressional delegation)

Appointees serve at pleasure of appointing

authority; others serve while in office.

Budget

FY 1990-$150,000 (state appropriation)

Staff

3-(2 vacant)

Functions

Conferences/seminars

Constituent work

Research

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Assembling first publication, Selected Cultural and Economic Data of Oklahoma

Counties, which contains audited expenditures and revenues for 1984-3988 as

well as other statistical and cultural information on all 77 counties.

Contact

Peggy Wilhoit

Project Manager

Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental

Relations

307 State. Capitol

Oklahoma City, OK 73105

(405) 523-3525 or 523-3533

52
Pennsylvania -Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Council

Legal Basis

Incorporated (1978) private, nonprofit; formalized original 1975 agreement

Size and Composition of Governing Body

18 members-10 state, 8 local

4 legislators appointed by legislative leadership (2 Senate, 2 House)

5 appointed by Governor (executive

branch)

8 appointed by the general-purpose local

government associations (2 each from

counties, cities, townships, boroughs)

1 appointed by Local Government Commission

Members serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. Voting membership automatically ceases on termination of office

or membership with the appointing body.

Budget

FY 1990-$525,000 (contracts 99 percent)

FY 1991-$552,000

Staff

11-director, deputy director, 2 staff associates, 1 information specialist, IRP coordinator, IRP assistant, EDP manager, programmer, administrative assistant,

secretary (currently, the deputy director,

IRP assistant, and programmer positions

are vacant).

Functions

Computer data base and information services

Conferences/seminars

Federal aid application review process

Forum for discussion

Newsletter

Research

Training and technical assistance

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Developed computerized intergovernmental

data base to support contract research

services. The data are from a variety of

federal and state sources.

Under the Community Services Block Grant

program, provides training and technical

information services related to low-income housing with emphasis on physically disabled and mentally ill populations

(and the role of nonprofit organizations).

Administers the Intergovernmental Review

Process (IRP) under contract to the

state; involves state review and coordination of state and local views on federal

assistance applications.

Assisting Pennsylvania Department of Transportation with promoting various local

government programs through workshops, publications, and survey work.

Contact

Charles D. Griffiths

Executive Director

Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Council

P.O. Box 11880

407A Finance Building

Harrisburg, PA 17108-1880

(717) 783-3700

53
Rhode Island - State-Local Relations Commission

Legal Basis

Statute (1987, amended 1988)

Size and Composition of Governing Body

17 members-9 state, 8 local

3 state officials, including the chief of the

Office of Municipal Affairs in the Department of Administration and 2 others, appointed by the Governor

7 appointed by the legislative leadership

(3 House, 2 Senate, 1 appointed by

Speaker of the House to represent local

school committees, and 1 appointed by

Majority Leader of the Senate to represent local school superintendents)

5 municipal officials appointed by the

League of Cities and Towns

Executive Director, League of Cities and

YhVllS

Executive Director, Public Expenditure

Council

Members serve while in office or while members of appointing group.

Budget

The state funds administrative expenses;

private sources provide in-kind services.

Staff

1 part time

Functions

Recommendations on legislation

Research

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Studied state mandates, including their costs

and fiscal notes.

Currently looking at state aid to local communities and its relation to local property

taxes.

Contacts

Jeffrey M. Newman

State-Local Relations Commission

Office of the Speaker

Room 104, State House

Providence, RI 02903

(401) 277-2466

Gary S. Sasse

Executive Director

Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council

300 Richmond Street

Providence, RI 02903

(401) 521-6320 FAX: (401) 278-4491

54
South Carolina - Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations

Legal Basis

Statute (19&t), replaced 1979 Executive Order

Size and Composition of Governing Body

2 1 members--8 state, 9 local, 4 private citizens

8 legislators (4 Senate, 4 House)

Local members (3 municipal, 3 county, 1 regional council, 1 school board, 1 special

purpose district)

4 private citizens

Members serve 2 years; all appointments

made by Governor.

Budget

FY 1990-$235,000 (state appropriation)

Staff

4-executive director, legislative analyst, fiscal analyst, administrative assistant

Functions

Clearinghouse for information

Conferences/seminars

Develop and advocate policy recommendations

Leadership development programs and

continuing

education for public officials

Liaison among governments

Recommendations on legislation

Research

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Developed state legislation permitting a

local option sales tax for cities and counties (passed by legislature).

Issued a comprehensive study of state mandates to local government.

Prepared an analysis of how local government debt is treated, including recommendations for improvements.

Issued a study on planning and a call for the

establishment of a statewide comprehensive planning process.

Conducted a state tax policy study with U.S.

ACIR.

Studying various options for annexation reform. Recent court decisions have

brought into question two of the state’s

three methods of annexation.

Contact

Dan B. Mackey

Executive Director

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental

Relations

P.O. Box 12395

Columbia, SC 29211

(803) 737-1705 FAX: (803) 737-1707

55
South Dakota-Local Government Study Commission

Legal Basis

Statute (1968)

Size and Composition of Governing Body

15 members-11 state, 4 local

11 legislators appointed by legislative leadership (7 House Standing Committee on

Local Government, 4 Senate Standing

Committee on Local Government)

4 appointed by executive board of Legislative Research Council (local elected officials, including 1 municipal and 1

county)

Legislators appointed for 2 years; others 4

years.

Budget

FY 1990-$5-6,000 (state appropriation)

Staff

2 part time-l professional, 1 secretary

Functions

Recommendations on legislation

Research

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Studied the issue of surety bonds required of

individuals and businesses, Drafted legislation to repeal many antiquated bond

requirements. Most passed the 1989

Legislative Assembly.

Addressed the issue of child day care regulation.

Studying hunting preserve issues, construction expenditure limits that require the

use of an architect or engineer, and the

issuance of tax deeds.

Contact

Mark Zickrick

Fiscal Analyst

Legislative Research Council

Local Government Study Commission

500 East Capitol

Pierre, SD 57501-5070

(605) 773-3251

5 6
Tennessee -Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations

Legal Basis

Statute (1978, amended 1981)

Size and Composition of Governing Body

2 9

1 0

16

members- 14 state, 10 local, 5 private citizens

legislators appointed by legislative leadership (5 Senate, 5 House)

appointed by Governor (4 city, nominated by Municipal League; 5 county,

nominated by County Services Association; 5 private citizens; 2 executive

branch)

Commissioner, Finance and Administration

Comptroller of the Treasury

President, State Development Districts Association

Members serve 2 years.

Budget

FY 1990-$375,900 (88 percent state appropriation; 12 percent local governments)

FY 1991-$366,600 (75 percent state appropriation, 25 percent local governments)

Staff

S-executive director, research analyst, 3 research associates, publications assistant, office manager, secretary

Functions

Computer modeling and data base

development

Conferences/seminars

Constituent work

Newsletter in planning stages

Recommendations on legislation

Research

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Initiated and sponsored laws (1) extending the

sales tax to mail-order items, (2) changing

the property tax assess-ment procedure to

perpetual current value indexing, and (3)

changing the formula for tax-equivalent

payments from municipal electric companies.

Prepared a study of public school fiscal capacity and financing in Tennessee.

Developed Tennessee Industrial Location

Impact PC model to assist local officials

in estimating the impact of new economic development in their areas.

Developed comprehensive local government

fiscal data base.

Produced comprehensive study on hospital

financial data for state and local

policymakers.

Appointed to Governor’s Cabinet Council

on Indigent Health Care.

Prepared at least 30 documents on intergovernmental issues, available to all city and

county governments.

Published: Fiscal Eflort, Fiscal Capacity, rind

Fiscal Dispardy among Local Govemments in Tennessee; Populution Growth

in Tennessee; Preparing for Economic

Change in Lawrence County; Prepcrring

for Economic Change in Giles County,

Preparing for Economic Change in Lewis

County, Preparing for Economic Change

in Dickson County.

Contact

Harry A. Green

Executive Director

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental

Relations

226 Capitol Boulevard Building, Suite 508

Nashville, TN 37219

(615) 741-3012

57
Utah -Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations

Legal Basis

Statute (1987)

Size and Composition of Governing Body

20 members-11 state, 8 local, 1 private

citizen

6 legislators appointed by legislative

leadership (2 Senate, 4 House)

9 appointed by Governor (4 municipal, 4

county, 1 private citizen)

Chairman, State Tax Commission

Director, Department of Social Services

State Planning Coordinator

State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Director, Department of Health

Legislators serve 2 years; others, 4 years.

Budget

None

Staff

3-Governor’s office provides executive

director.

Functions

Conferences/seminars

Constituent work

Draft legislation

Local government representation on other

commissions

Newsletter (planning stage)

Ombudsman

Recommendations on legislation

Research

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Avoided a tax cut in June 1988 by providing

correct impact information.

Working on state and local earthquake legislation.

Planning to coordinate a plan for solid waste

management with federal government.

Contact

Mike Christensen

Executive Director

Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations

Office of Planning and Budget

State Capitol Building, Room 116

Salt Lake City, UT 84114

(801)538-1560

5 8
Virginia -Local Government Advisory Council

Legal Basis

Statute (1977), restructured and reorganized,

1989

Size and Composition of Governing Body

1 8

6

1 2

members-8 state, 9 local, 1 private

citizen

legislators appointed by legislative leadership (3 Senate, 3 House)

appointed by Governor (4 county, 4 municipal, 1 Association of Planning

District Commissions, 2 state executive,

1 private citizen)

Members serve 4 years.

Budget

FY 1990-$13,000 (state appropriation)

Staff

1 full time-provided by the Commission

on Local Government.

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Restructured and reorganized as of January 1,

1990. In the past, the Council served primarily as a forum for discussion between

state and local government officials.

Along with this function, the Council

plans to promote understanding of

state-local interrelationships and policies;

facilitate sorting out state-local responsibilities in shared programs and administrative undertakings; and encourage academic institutions to undertake studies of

state- local situations and relations.

Contact

Robert Kirby

Secretary

Local Government Advisory Council

702 Eighth Street Office Building

Richmond, VA 23219

(804) 786-6508 FAX: (804) 371-7999

Functions

Forum for discussion between state and

local officials Research

59
Washington - Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations

Legal Basis

Executive Order (1982, amended 1984)

Size and Composition of Governing Body

22 members-10 state, 12 local

Governor

Director, Office of Financial Management

Director, Community Development

Director, Revenue

Secretary, Social and Health Services

Director, Office of Indian Affairs

1 6 appointed by Governor (6 elected city, 6

elected county, 4 legislators)

Members serve at the pleasure of the Governor.

Budget

FY 1990-$50,000 (state appropriation)

Staff

1 part time-Department of Community

Development provides administrative

support to the Commission and coordinates staff support for the Commission

with the Office of Financial Management and other relevant state agencies.

Functions

Constituent work

Forum for ongoing discussion of

common problems

between the Governor and other state

and local

officials

Ombudsman

Research

Recent Accomplishments/Current Activities

Major player in developing state policy regarding hazardous waste disposal sites.

Played key role in identifying state’s infrastructure problems. Subsequently, the

legislature established a $45 million

state public works trust fund to provide low- interest loans to local governments.

Contact

Ken Back

Special Assistant

Department of Community Development

Mail Stop GH-51

Ninth and Columbia Building

Olympia, WA 98504

(206) 586-3666

6 0
Additional State-Local Relations Contacts

IOWA

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental

Relations

Contact

Steve Maslikowski

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental

Relations

Department of Management

State Capitol, Room 12

Des Moines, IA 50319

(515) 281-3322

TEXAS

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental

Relations

Contact

Jay Stanford, Senior Consultant

Joseph Ivy Company

7800 North Mopac, Suite 210

Austin, TX 78759

(512) 346-6921

VERMONT

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental

Relations

Contact

Eileen Hennessey

Agency of Development and Community

Affairs

Pavilion Office Building

Montpelier, VT 05602

(802) 828-3217 FAX: (802) 828-3339

(Governor’s Office)

WISCONSIN

Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations

Contact

Dan Theno

Director

Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations

Department of Administration

101 S. Webster Street, 6th Floor

PO. Box 7868

Madison, WI 53707-7868

(608) 266-6850 FAX: (608) 267-0200

WYO-MING

Local Government Coordinating

Committee

Contact

Dan Perdue

State Capitol

Governor’s Office

Cheyenne, WY 82002

(307) 777-7434 FAX: (307) 777-6869

6 1
The U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations

Legal Basis

Statute (1959)

Size and Composition of Governing Body

26

6

3

3

4

members-9 federal, 7 state, 7 local, 3

private citizens

appointed by the President (3 executive

branch and 3 private citizens)

appointed by the President of the Senate

(3 senators)

appointed by the Speaker of the House

(3 representatives)

appointed by the President from a panel

of governors submitted by the National

Governors’ Association

appointed by the President from a panel

of state legislators submitted by the National Conference of State Legislatures

appointed by the President from a panel

of mayors submitted jointly by the National League of Cities and the United

States Conference of Mayors

appointed by the President from a panel

of elected county officers submitted by

the National Association of Counties

Members serve 2 years, while in office or until replaced; members may be reappointed.

Budget

FY 1990-$1,300,000 (federal appropriation)

Staff

1 9

3

permanent-executive director, director

of government finance research, director of government policy research,

senior fellow, 5 analysts, information officer, accountant, budget and management officer, personnel officer, administrative assistant, marketing assistant, 2

administrative secretaries, publications

assistant, mail room supervisor

Current Activities

American Federalism: Concept and History

Federal Preemption and Mandate Reimbursement

State School Aid Programs

Interjurisdictional Tax and Policy

Competition

Local Governments in International Affairs

State Governments in International Affairs

Federal Infrastructure Strategy

Setting Agendas for Intergovernmental

Decentralization: The International

Experience

contract-Criminal Justice Project Di- Congress, the States, and Federalism

rector, research associate, intern Boundary Review Commissions

Functions

Conferences/seminars

Constituent work

Forum for discussion

Monitoring the federal system

Policy recommendations

Research

Recent Accomplishments

Significant Features of Fiscal Fedcmlism

1990, Vols. 1 & II

South Carolina Tax Study

. 1988 State Fiscal Capacity and Effort

State Constitutional Law: Cases and

Materials with 1990-91 Supplement

State and Local Initiatives on Productivity,

Technology, and Innovation: Enhancing

a National Resource for International

Competitiveness

Representative Expenditures: Addressing the

Neglected Dimension of Fiscal Capacity

Mandates: Cases in State-Local Relations

State Regulation and Taxation of Telecommunications

Intergovernmental Regulation of Telecommunications

The Volume Cap on Tax-Exempt Private

Activity Bonds: State and Local Experience in 1989

1990 Changing Public Attitudes on Governments and Taxes

62
The U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations - (cont.)

How Local Public Economies Work

intergovernmental Coordination and

Assignment of Functions in Poland

Shifting Functions

Water Management in the Federal System

Local Revenue Diversification: Tourist

Taxation

The States and Local Autonomy

Medicaid

Chicago Area Local Fiscal Capacity

Federalism in Transition (Decade of Change)

Property Tax Study

State Laws Affecting Local Government

Environmental Decisionmaking

Criminal Justice: The Role of General Purpose Governments

Regulatory Federalism Update

Local Self-Reliance: Alternative Approaches

to Providing Local Public Services

Educational Outcomes

Immigration

National Guard

Contacts

John Kincaid, Executive Director

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental

Relations

111120th Street, NW Suite 2000

Washington, DC 20575

(202) 653-5540 FAX: (202) 653-5429

Staff*

Coleman, Henry A. 653-5536

Director, Government Finance Research

McDowell, Bruce D. 653-5536

Director; Government Policy Research

Allen, Ronald D. 653-8410

Analyst

Criminal Justice

Behrens, John 0. 653-5544

Senior Fellow

Property Tax

Casey, Joan A. 653-5536

Information OfSicer

Editor/Librarian

Coffel, Lori A. 653-5536

Adminisfra five Secretary

to Bruce McDowell

Dubin, Elliot J. 653-5322

Analyst

Education Finance

Fiscal Trends

Economic Data

Grants

Public Finance

Hahn, Thomas D. 653-5640

Accounfant

Phillips, Ruthamae 653-5540

Administrative Assistant to John Kincaid

Travel Invitations

and Reimbursements

Rafuse, Robert W., Jr. 653-5640

Senior Fellow

Representative Expenditures

Fiscal Capacity

Reeves, Andree E. 653-5143

AnaZysf

State ACIRs

State Mandates

Suggested State Legislation

Reynolds, Anita McPhaul 653-5536

Administrative Secretary to Robert Ebel

Reynolds, Pamela 653-5640

Personnel Oficer

Co-Editor, Intergovernmental Perspective

Riggins, Phillip E. 653-5540

Analyst

Smith, Betty 653-5640

Marketing Assisfant

Publications Sales

Recepfionisf

Steinko, Franklin A., Jr. 653-5640

Budget and Managemenf Oficer

Budget and ACIR Finance

Desktop Publishing

Watts, Vivian E. 653-8609

Criminal Jusfice Project Direcfor

*These are not complete job descriptions. They are general

indicators of interests and responsibilities.

6 3
Federal Departmental Directors of Intergovernmental Affairs

AGRICULTURE

Larry Werrier

Director, Intergovernmental Affairs

Department of Agriculture

14th and Independence Avenue, SW

Room 102-A

Washington, DC 20520

(202) 477-7615

COMMERCE

Alison Kaufman

Director, Intergovernmental Affairs

Department of Commerce

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW

Room 5413

Washington, DC 20230

(202) 377-3281

DEFENSE

W. Clark Wurzberger

Assistant to the Secretary of Defense

Department of Defense

The Pentagon

Room 3D-964

Washington, DC 20301-1000

(703) 697-7968

EDUCATION

Michelle Easton

Deputy Under Secretary for Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs

Department of Education

400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Room 3073

Washington, DC 20202

(202) 401-0409

ENERGY

Jacqueline Brown

Assistant Secretary for Congressional

and Intergovernmental Affairs

Department of Energy

Forrestal Building

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Room 7B -138

Washington, DC 20585

(202) 586-7944

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Schuyler Baab

Deputy Under Secretary

for Intergovernmental Relations

Department of Health and Human Services

200 Independence Avenue, SW

Room 6OOE

Washington, DC 20201

(202) 475-6060

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Stephen Glaude

Deputy Under Secretary

for Intergovernmental Affairs

Department of Housing and Urban Development

4517th Street, SW

Room 10140

Washington, DC 20410

(202) 708-3480

INTERIOR

Selma Sierra

Assistant to the Secretary

and Director of External Affairs

Department of the Interior

18th and C Streets, NW

Room 6130

Washington, DC 20240

(202) 208-4203

JUSTICE

William Lucas

Director, Office of Liaison Services

Department of Justice

10th and Constitution Avenue, NW

Room 4213

Washington, DC 20530

(202) 514-3465

64
Federal Departmental Directors of 1nterp;overnmentaI Affairs - (cont.)

LABOR

Jim Conrad

Associate Assistant Secretary

for Intergovernmental Affairs

Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Room 1508

Washington, DC 20201

(202) 523-8004

STATE

Joan H. Colbert

Coordinator for Intergovernmental Affairs

Department of State

2201 C Street, NW

Room 6808, PA-IGA

Washington, DC 20520

(202) 647-7416

TREASURY

Sarah M. Hildebrand

Deputy Assistant Secretary

for Public Affairs

Department of Treasury

Main Treasury Building

15th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Room 3452

Washington, DC 20220

(202) 566-9075

TRANSPORTATION

Betsy Hancock

Director, Intergovernmental

and Consumer Affairs

Department of Transportation

400 7th Street, SW

Room 10405

Washington, DC 20590

(202) 366- 3 524

VETERANS AFFAIRS

John J. Forster

Director, Intergovernmental Affairs

‘Department of Veterans Affairs

810 Vermont Avenue, NW

Room 600 (075C)

Washington, DC 20420

(202) 233-3116

65
66
Recent Publications of the

U.S. Advisory Commission

on Intergovernmental Relations

Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism, 1991 Edition, Volume I, M-176, 1991, 180 pp. .................. $20.00

The Structure of State Aid to Elementary and Secondary Education, M-175, 1990,72 pp. ................ $10.00

Representative Expenditures: Addressing the Neglected Dimension of Fiscal Capacity, M-174,1990, 128 pp. $20.00

Mandates: Cases in State-Local Relations, M-173, 1990,64 pp. ........................................ $10.00

Changing Public Attitudes on Governments and Taxes: 1990, S-19, 1990,40 pp. ......................... $10.00

1988 Fiscal Capacity and Effort, M-170, 1990, 160 pp. ................................................ $20.00

State Constitutional Law: Cases and Materials, 1990-91 Supplement, M-172, 1990, 56 pp. ................ $7.00

Intergovernmental Regulation of Telecommunications, A-115, 1990,48 pp ............................... $10.00

The Volume Cap for Tax-Exempt Private-Activity Bonds: State and Local Experience in 1989,

M-171,1990,36pp ............................................................................ $7.50

Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism, 1990 Edition, Volume I, M-169, 1990. 152 pp. .................. $17.50

Volume II, M-169-11, 1990,280 pp. ............................................................. $17.513

State and Local Initiatives on Productivity, Technology, and Innovation, A-114, 1990, 180 pp. .............. $25.00

Local Revenue Diversification: Rural Economies, SR-13, 1990,60 pp. .................................. $8.00

State Taxation of Banks: Issues and Options, M-168, 1989,48 pp. ...................................... $10.00

A Catalog of Federal Grant-in-Aid Programs to State and Local Governments:

Grants Funded FV 1989, M-167, 1989,40 pp. .................................................... $10.00

Local Revenue Diversification: Local Sales Taxes, SR-12, 1989,56 pp. .................................. $8.00

State Constitutions in the Federal System: Selected Issues and Opportunities for State Initiatives,

A-l13,1989,128pp. .......................................................................... $15.00

Residential Community Associations: Questions and Answers for Public Officials, M-166, 1989, 40 pp. ..... $5.00

Residential Community Associations: Private Governments in the Intergovernmental System?

A-l12,1989,128pp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._........

Readings in Federalism-Perspectives on a Decade of Change, SR-11, 1989, 128 pp. . . . . . . , . .

Disability Rights Mandates: Federal and State Compliance with Employment Protections

and Architectural Barrier Removal, A-111, 1989, 136 pp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hearings on Constitutional Reform of Federalism: Statements by State and Local

Government Association Representatives, M-164, 1989, 60 pp. . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

State and Federal Regulation of Banking: A Roundtable Discussion, M-162, 1988,36 pp. . ~ . . .

Assisting the Homeless: State and Local Responses in an Era of Limited Resources,

M-l61,1988,16Opp.......................................................................

Devolution of Federal Aid Highway Programs: Cases in State-Local Relations

and Issues in State Law, M-160, 1988, 60 pp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . .

State Regulations of Banks in an Era of Deregulation, A-110, 1988, 36 pp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

State Constitutional Law: Cases and Materials, M-159, 1988,480 pp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Local Revenue Diversification: Local Income Taxes, SR-10, 1988,52 pp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan Organization: The St. Louis Case, M-158, 1988, 176 pp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Interjurisdictional Competition in the Federal System: A Roundtable Discussion, M-157, 1988,32 pp. . .

$10.00

. . $10.00

. . . $10.00

. . $5.00

. . . $5.00

. $10.00

. . . $5.00

. . . $10.00

. ~ $25.00

. * . $5.00

. $10.00

$5.00

State-Local Highway Consultation and Cooperation: The Perspective of State Legislators,

SR-9,1988,54pp............................................................................. 5.00

The Organization of Local Public Economies, A-109, 1987,64 pp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5.00

Is Constitutional Reform Necessary to Reinvigorate Federalism? A Roundtable Discussion,

M-154. 1987,39 pp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Local Revenue Diversification: User Charges, SR-6, 1987, 64 pp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Devolving Selected Federal-Aid Highway Programs and Revenue Bases: A Critical Appraisal,

A-108,1987,56pp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._.....................................

Federalism and the Constitution: A Symposium on Garcia, M-152, 1987,88 pp. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. $5.00

. . . $5.00

. $10.00

$10.00