June 15, 1967
Page 16087
MODERNIZING LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, inquiries by my Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations during the last 4 years have revealed the need for strengthening the quality of public administration in our cities and towns.
The local level is the firing line for nearly all governmental programs. If local governments are not adequately staffed, financed, and organized, programs fail and people suffer.
Mr. Robert F. Steadman, staff director of the Committee for Improvement of Management in Government of the Committee for Economic Development, Washington, D.C., discussed the importance and problems of local government in an April 24 talk to the annual conference of the National School Boards Association in Portland, Oreg.
Mr. Steadman's remarks, entitled "Modernizing Local Government," are timely and informative. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that his remarks appear in the RECORD at this time.
There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
MODERNIZING LOCAL GOVERNMENT
(Comments by Robert F. Steadman at the annual conference of the National School Boards Association, Portland, Oreg., April 24, 1967)
Mr. Chairman, fellow panelists, members of this Association:
Your invitation to meet with you here today, on this subject is much appreciated by me and by the organization I represent. You and I have a common interest in education, as some of my credentials may illustrate. My mother, my five sisters, my wife, and I have all taught in the public schools; and one of my sons and my son-in-law are presently engaged in that occupation. More than half of my working years have been spent in college classrooms, and the depth of our common concern for education must provide some bond between us. And the Committee for Economic Development, which I serve as a staff member, has shown a strong and continuing interest in our public school systems and in the other educational resources of America.
Some of you may be familiar with CED through its publications or otherwise, but since others may not I should spend a moment explaining the unique character of this organization. We are celebrating our twenty-fifth anniversary this year. CED was founded during World War II, by a group of business leaders deeply concerned about the economic and social problems involved in reconversion from the gigantic war effort, then under way, to more peaceful times. These wise and public-spirited citizens devised a most useful approach for this purpose, quite unusual at that time. They sought out the outstanding economists in the United States, in the universities and elsewhere, and met with them in intimate and lengthy give-and-take discussions of ways and means to avoid any recurrence of the great and disastrous depression of the 1930's. This group developed and published proposals for national policies designed to encourage economic growth and a stable, healthy economy. Many of their recommendations were followed, including the formation of local committees in 3,000 communities, pledged to assist in the reconversion.
CED today consists of 200 Trustees, most of them outstanding leaders in our business community but including several university presidents. The basic concept has been continued; each subject is studied by a subcommittee of Trustees and a distinguished group of academic and professional Advisers, sitting together in extended sessions until a reasonable degree of consensus may emerge.
At that point, CED publishes a statement of national policy, such as those you may have seen.
In 1958 CED issued a policy statement entitled "Paying for Better Schools," Which took an unequivocal position on some of the major issues of that day. CED recommended four kinds of action to overcome financial obstacles. First, it proposed vigorous state action to encourage redistricting, so that no local school system would have fewer than 1,200 pupils. Second, the states were urged to assume a larger share of school financing. Third, federal supplementation of state and local funds was recommended for schools in the poorer states. And, fourth, citizens concerned with improvement of schools were urged to organize and participate in efforts to achieve those ends.
Again, in 1965, CED issued its policy statement on "Raising Low Incomes Through Improved Education." This statement emphasizes the economic advantages derived from expansion and extension and improvement in quality of public educational efforts throughout the country. At the same time, it recognizes the major cultural values implicit in these goals. If I may quote:
"While in this statement we emphasize improvements of education to raise productivity, incomes, and employment, we do not suggest that this is the only, or even the most important, goal of educational improvements in America today. The ultimate goal, the welfare of individuals and the quality of their lives, depends not only on their incomes but also on what they do with their incomes and other capacities, privately and collectively. Our recommendation is that as we extend education in numerous dimensions we should pay attention to the children and adults who might otherwise be left behind the rapidly advancing standard of American education.”
Today, CED has under consideration issuance of a new policy statement, on the subject of innovations in education – on the new means available for improvement in the educational process and the advancement of learning.
But we are here to discuss another CED policy statement, on "Modernizing Local Government." I had a motive in describing CED's efforts to advance the cause of public education in the United States. What we seek is your sympathetic understanding and support for CED's recommendations in this vital field, in the same spirit that CED has shown toward the special problems of the public schools.
This policy statement was prepared by a special committee of CED Trustees – the Committee for Improvement of Management in Government – consisting of the 25 members with most experience in government as well as in business or university affairs, assisted by 10 public figures from outside CED and by an Advisory Board of 15 distinguished academicians and professionals. The Chairman of this group is Hon. Marion B. Folsom, former Secretary of HEW. The Vice Chairman is President John A. Perkins, of the University of Delaware. After issuing three policy statements concerned with various improvements in the national government, this Committee turned its attention to government at the local level.
This CED policy statement rests upon two primary propositions. First, there are profoundly important values to be gained through the preservation and strengthening of local self- government in the United States. Second, our past and present failure to adapt local institutions – originally designed to meet the needs of simpler times – to the newer conditions and challenges of our society has deeply endangered their future role. Change, swift change, is all about us – in agriculture, in industry, in transportation, in communication, in commerce and trade, in urbanization, in rural depopulation, and in almost every aspect of our lives. But local
governments change very slowly, most reluctantly, or not at all. CED urges their modernization, to cope With the problems in our present situation and with the circumstances facing us in decades to come:
"There are strong reasons for disenchantment. American crime rates in rural, urban, and suburban areas are high. Several countries with less per capita wealth have lower infant mortality rates and longer life expectancies. Public school deficiencies are more noticeable, as the necessity for higher skills and stronger educational qualifications becomes more obvious. The character of public welfare programs and the competence of their administration are under attack. Urban transportation problems outpace attempted solutions. Slum clearance and redevelopment lag behind the processes of decay. Economic development of most communities is frustrated by want of government power. Local units depend too heavily on the property tax, administration of which is generally so inequitable as to be scandalous."
The weaknesses and inadequacies of local governments in most states of the Union, with pleasant exceptions in Hawaii and Alaska, are quite obvious. They have been identified by CED as follows:
"1. Very few local units are large enough – in population, area, or taxable resources – to apply modern methods in solving current and future problems. Less than half contain as many as 1,000 people; less than 10 per cent have more than 10,000 inhabitants; and less than 1 per cent have over 100,000. Even the largest cities find major problems insoluble because of limits on their geographic areas, their taxable resources, or their legal powers.
"2. Overlapping layers of local government – municipalities and townships within counties, and independent school districts and special districts within them – are a source of weakness. These layers, in some cases numbering ten or more local units with power to tax the same parcel of land, compete in a struggle for revenue sources. The competition extends to the division – among layers – of home rule powers, granted by the states, often leaving no local government with legal authority adequate to cope with urgent community needs. This impairs overall local freedom to deal with vital public affairs; the whole thus becomes less than the sum of its parts.
“3. Popular control over local governments is ineffective or sporadic, and public interest in local politics is not high. American voters collectively must select over 500,000 local elective officials – often obscure personalities with inconsequential duties. Less than 80 per cent of American adults vote in separately held city elections, while over 60 per cent vote in Presidential contests. County, school, township, and special district elections commonly attract even smaller fractions of voters. Confusion from the many-layered system, profusion of elective offices without policy significance, and increasing mobility of the population all contribute to disinterest.
"4. Policy-making mechanisms in many units are notably weak. The national government has strong executive leadership, supported by competent staff in formulating plans that are then subject to review and modification by a representative legislative body. Comparable arrangements are found in most cities, but seldom elsewhere among local governments. Multiple elective executives and mal-apportioned or gerrymandered legislative bodies abound. These factors – combined with lack of broad legal authority, financial resources, and geographic jurisdiction – inhibit the kind of long-range planning and decision-making essential to effective local government.
"5. Antiquated administrative organizations hamper most local governments. Lack of a single executive authority, either elective or appointive, is a common fault. Functional fragmentation obscures lines of authority. Organizational concepts considered axiomatic in American business firms are unrecognized or disregarded in most local governments. The quality of administration suffers accordingly.
"6. Positions requiring knowledge of modern technology are frequently occupied by unqualified personnel. Except in large cities, most department heads are amateurs. The spoils system still prevailing in parts of the nation has deep roots in many local governments, but is only one source of this difficulty. Pay scales are usually too low to attract competent professional applicants. Further, specialized skills in the public service are too often held in low esteem by influential citizens."
CED has recognized that correction of these weaknesses may be sought in other ways than through modernization and reform of local governments. As a nation, we might conceivably depend upon the national government or on the state governments for basic decisions in solution of major local problems, and for the administrative efforts involved, as well. CED does not favor these alternatives.
But if we propose to depend upon local governments for a significant role in the future, we must face the fact that no government can be expected to serve fundamental purposes well unless it meets at least four minimum qualifications.
Political unity. Each population governed must have enough common interests, problems, and communications to qualify as a political entity able to produce political leadership responsive to active citizen concern.
Size. Each local unit must be sufficiently large – in population, geographic jurisdiction, and financial resources – to make long range plans, to attract professional staff, and to manage modern services.
Powers. Each government must have legal authority adequate to cope with the problems for which it is responsible, and to enforce its decisions.
Rational structure. Each government must have a representative governing body concerned with policy decisions, and a single chief executive to secure unity in administrative operations.
In order that our local governments may meet these primary requirements, CED has made nine major recommendations. They are:
"1. The number of local governments in the United States, now about 80,000, should be reduced by at least 80 per cent.
"2. The number of overlapping layers of local government found in most states should be severely curtailed.
"8. Popular election should be confined to members of the policy-making body, and to the chief executive in those governments where the ‘strong mayor’ form is preferred to the 'council-manager' plan.
"4. Each local unit should have a single chief executive, either elected by the people or appointed by the local legislative body, with all administrative agencies and personnel fully responsible to him; election of department heads should be halted.
"5. Personnel practices based on merit and professional competence should replace the personal or partisan 'spoils' systems found in most counties and many other local units.
"6. County modernization should be pressed with special vigor, since counties – everywhere except in New England – have high but undeveloped potential for solving the problems of rural, urban, and most metropolitan communities.
"7. Once modernized, local governments should be entrusted with broad legal powers permitting them to plan, finance, and execute programs suited to the special needs, interests, and desires of their citizens.
“8. The 50 state constitutions should be revamped – either by legislative amendment or through constitutional conventions concentrating on local government modernization – to provide for boundary revisions, extensions of. legal authority, and elimination of needless overlapping layers.
"9. The terms and conditions of federal and state-grants-in-aid should be revised to encourage the changes recommended in this statement."
You will have a special interest, of course, in those specific recommendations dealing with public education, and particularly those concerned with the independent school districts. Our Committee hesitated to urge consolidation of public school systems with the kinds of local units now found in most parts of the country, under prevailing conditions. But, to quote:
"This Committee places high priority on the development of an effective system of general purpose government at the local level in every state, managerially competent and politically responsive to the citizenry. Until this condition prevails, public school separatism, where it now exists, may be the lesser of evils. But the national ideal must contemplate strong local governments, so highly respected that they may be entrusted with a function even as vital as education."
There are disadvantages in school separatism, along with the advantages well known to all of us.
We need to coordinate such functions as recreation, parks, playgrounds, traffic, fire and police protection, health services, and library resources. We need to extend educational opportunities beyond the strict limits of the "K-12" pattern, upward, downward, and outward, to reach all of our needs more effectively. And we need to overcome the mutual distrust and suspicion between "school people" and the political and professional leadership in other governmental institutions.
In any case, CED has now repeated one of its earlier recommendations, in slightly modified form, in these words:
"The consolidation of school districts should be continued until every unified school system has at least 1,500 students. Preferably, boundaries would be coterminous with those of restructured counties, which might then be empowered to manage the local school systems on the basis of local option."
In our view, the recommendations made apply with equal force and quite directly to conditions in most rural areas of the nation, to smaller and middle-sized communities, and to great metropolitan areas. In large measure, they apply to every section of the nation, and to all the 48 states described as the "Continental U.S." We recognize that the changes sought will take time, and that in many cases they will be accomplished only step by step. But, equally, we regard early and vigorous movement in these directions as imperative. Our policy statement concludes as follows:
"Citizen information and understanding in public affairs, particularly at the local level, are all too low. Blame for this must be widely shared, among all those groups and institutions – including the family – that influence attitudes and modes of conduct in formative years and beyond. The importance of local and other governments in gaining and keeping an economic and cultural climate in which our basic institutions may flourish must be fully understood. Not only in school curricula from primary grades onward but in all community circles, citizen responsibility for policy-making and for service in official posts of trust and honor must be recognized as the foundation sustaining this Republic,"