April 9, 1975
Page 9650
NEW VITALITY IN STATE GOVERNMENT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, at a time when public opinion polls demonstrate a devastating loss of public confidence in government at all levels, positive stories about government reform are welcome news. An interesting article published in the Washington Post earlier this week attests to the growing vitality of State governments throughout the Nation.
Reviewing recent reorganizations of State executive departments in Missouri, Georgia, Delaware and elsewhere, Neal R. Peirce concludes that:
What the new wave of reorganization does mean is that the governors, in fact as well as theory, are becoming the chief executives of their states ... The voters can really hold the governors accountable for the success or failure of service delivery by state government. At a time of unparalleled public cynicism about politicians and government, no development could be more important.
I ask unanimous consent that the article entitled "Reorganizing State Government," be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
REORGANIZING STATE GOVERNMENT
(By Neal R. Peirce)
Missouri's 36-year old governor, Christopher "Kit" Bond (R), glows with excitement when he talks about what seems the deadliest of subjects — state government reorganization. Indeed, Bond has reason to be pleased. Until recently, Missouri had one of the most disorganized, unresponsive state governments in America. The citizen looking for service had to cope with an almost incomprehensible array of 90 overlapping "underlapping," uncoordinated agencies, boards and commissions.
Then, a few months ago, years of effort culminated in a sweeping reorganization that reduced the number of Missouri government departments to 14, each responsible for a clearly defined area.
The Missouri reform puts the "Show Me" state in a class with 19 others which have completely overhauled their structures in the past 10 years. There are another 20 states that have gone part way with reorganization, establishing several consolidated departments in fields like the environment, transportation and social services.
For broad-gauged reform of state government, there has never been a decade like it in American history.
My key question to "Kit" Bond was whether reorganization really makes any difference for the average citizen. He responded with the example of the Missourian looking for visiting nurse service, either for himself or herself or an aging parent.
Until last year, he said, the citizen might have gone to the state office of aging, the welfare office, the health department, or his county government. Whether he found a visiting nurse service where he looked would have been a matter of pure luck.
Now, Bond points out, visiting nurse service is one of many functions consolidated under the new state department of social services. "Instead of three or four different agencies covering the same tracks, often duplicating efforts, we have one department responsible for seeing that problems like home health care are taken care of."
Polluted waters are another example. Before reorganization, Missouri had 22 government agencies concerned with water problems; now the state's new department of natural resources is responsible for coming up with a single, clear-cut response on any water problem citizens bring to it.
Bond's enthusiasm about reorganization is mirrored again and again when one talks with governors who were able to persuade their newly apportioned legislatures — or the people in statewide referendums — to overhaul state government structures.
Each governor points to new efficiencies and economies reorganization has made possible in his state. In some states, the restructuring has averted or minimized the massive deficits threatened in this year of recession and inflation. But the ultimate payoff of reorganization, the governors insist, is in filling citizen needs where they were not met before.
In fact, the people who form the natural "constituency" for reorganization — businessmen, taxpayer watchdog-groups, and well informed citizens disgusted with the traditionally horrendous organization of state government — may not be those who benefit the most.
Jimmy Carter (D), who recently stepped down as governor of Georgia after spearheading the reorganization of 300 departments and boards into 22 functioning agencies, argues that the reformers tend to be self-reliant folk in any event.
"The people who benefit the most from a drastic clarification of the government process," he says, "are those the most dependent on government for services in the realm of welfare, public health, prison reform, problems of alcoholism, the aged, the drug addicts, the illiterate citizens."
Former Gov. Russell W. Peterson (R), now chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, accomplished a model restructuring of Delaware government into 11 cabinet departments in 1969-70.
He recalls that in the old days Delaware was ruled by a commission form of government, with some 140 separate entities. The commissioners all had other regular employment, and met only once a month. To get action on a problem, a citizen might have to cultivate all the members of a particular commission. Delays in action were interminable. Log-rolling was prevalent; to get a particular road black-topped, for instance, there might have to be agreement to get a bridge built in the home area of a recalcitrant commissioner.
When the cabinet form took effect, Peterson said, "my seat as governor got a hundred times hotter overnight. Now everyone knew the responsibility was with me and the cabinet secretaries I appointed and controlled."
The precise nature of reorganization has almost as many forms as there are states. In some cases, like Georgia and Delaware, the old agencies are abolished in one fell swoop and state government is reconstituted from the ground up. Others, like Massachusetts and California, set up "umbrella"-type supercabinet posts, and then, over a period of years, reorganize the old-line agencies below them.
Still others, like Arizona, Kansas, and Ohio, reorganize just one or two areas at a time.
No matter how it is done, reorganization runs into a buzz-saw of resistance from entrenched bureaucracies, jealous state legislators, and special interest groups who see their "special working arrangements" with old agencies in jeopardy.
Such pressures have stymied reorganization in several states. The real governing of Texas, for instance, is still done by more than 200 boards and commissions with overlapping six-year terms. New Hampshire has at least 70 agencies which theoretically report to the governor — which means, in practice, that none is really accountable to him.
Even where reorganization is accomplished, some serious compromises are often necessary. In Missouri, for instance, four of the 14 departments are still commission-run. Bond ruefully admits that the highway commissioner, who decides where roads will be built, has more influence over Missouri's physical development than he, as governor.
Nor can reorganization, in itself, solve all problems of state government. Quality leadership, sound budgeting and good administration are just as important. Moreover, reorganization is never a finished job. Periodic reassessments are vital. For instance, Wisconsin, which reorganized eight years ago, will be at the job again this year.
What the new wave of reorganization does mean is that the governors, in fact as well as theory, are becoming the chief executive officers of their states. With a limited number of cabinet or department secretaries whom they appoint and can fire at will, there is no longer a question about who is ultimately responsible.
The voters can really hold the governors accountable for the success or failure of service delivery by state government. At a time of unparalleled public cynicism about politicians and government, no development could be more important.
Viewing the atrophy of state government Sen. Everett McKinley Dirksen warned that the time was not far off when "the only people interest in state boundaries will be Rand-McNally."
But a single decade has brought such a sweeping rejuvenation of state governments that no national politician would dare make that statement now.