Mr. McGRATH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and before proceeding further, I know that other members of the subcommittee share my sadness over your decision to retire from the Congress at the end of this term. Over the years you have been a guiding force in the development of our federal system of government and working to make it better. It is fitting that the hearing we are holding today revolves around Public Law 86-380, a law which you authored in 1959. I want to take this opportunity to wish you well and to hope your wise counsel will always be available to this subcommittee. Today, we are holding hearings on bills to include township representatives and elected school board members on the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. I believe the testimony will show that both types of governmental bodies can make a strong case for inclusion on the ACIR. As prime sponsor of H.R. 5192, a bill to add elected school board members to the Commission, I appreciate your willingness to hold a hearing on the subject. At present, H.R. 5192 has 173 cosponsors in the House, including 5 members of this subcommittee and 25 members of the full Committee on Government Operations. The sponsor in the Senate is our distinguished colleague, Senator Charles Percy of Illinois. The ACIR has done its job well over the past 22 years. It has a highly competent professional staff and has produced work of the highest quality. The Commission has testified before this subcommittee on many occasions in the past and I, for one, have always been impressed by the ACIR's preparation and presentation. Even though the Commission is relatively unknown to people outside Government and even to some Members of Congress, it is nonetheless the single most influential body studying the administration and coordination of Federal grant and other programs addressing emerging public problems that are likely to require intergovernmental cooperation and recommending the most desirable allocation of functions, responsibilities and revenues among the several levels of government. The House Government Operations Committee report on the original ACIR legislation describes the Commission's purpose thusly: The underlying purpose of the Commission is to strengthen the ability of the federal system to meet the problems of a complex society by promoting greater cooperation, understanding and coordination of activities between separate levels of government. The membership will be drawn, for the most part, from among active and responsible public officals I emphasize At all levels of government. One of the most noticeable trends to emerge in government in the past 22 years is the growth in importance and independence of local school districts. A recent ACIR report in discussing various levels of government makes the statement that: Although school districts are special districts in the strict meaning of the term, they are considered separately because of the near universality and importance both fiscally and in terms of personnel employed. According to the 1977 census of governments, local school districts accounted for 36 percent of all local direct general expenditure and 45 percent of local government payroll. Today, about 94 percent of all local school district governments are elected and hence directly accountable to the people and nearly 90 percent are fiscally independent. It would seem that in terms of their overall importance in their function, local school districts can be considered to be a bona fide level of government. The New Federalism with which we are now experimenting means changed relationships among all levels of government, and, indeed, intergovernmental competition for resources may be critical in future decisions on which functions shall be assumed, expanded, contracted, or dropped. It is imperative that all major levels of government, including local school district government, be given a voice in the development of the New Federalism and on the advisory body whose only voice is so influential in the federal system. I want to thank you once again, Mr. Chairman, for having hearings on these two bills. Mr. FOUNTAIN. I want to thank my distinquished colleage from New York, Mr. McGrath, for his complimentary remarks about my service here and for his very meaningful statement. The subcommittee has received a report on H.R. 2016 and H.R. 5192 from the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, which will be entered in the record at this point. [The report follows:] ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20575 April 16, 1982 The Honorable L. H. Fountain Chairman Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Dear Congressman Fountain: As requested, we are pleased to provide the Commission's views on H.R. 2016 and H.R. 5192, two pending bills to expand the membership of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. The Commission has on several occasions reviewed its composition. The criteria set forth by Congress in our 1959 enabling statute, P. L. 86-380, have consistently guided the Commission in its consideration of proposals to add members: These criteria are: - - A certain balance among the federal, state, and local A certain bipartisan balance. Appointment of only elected officials to represent Representation of only those types of general govern- In addition to the above criteria, the Commission has taken size into consideration, believing that the membership, which has remained at 26 since 1959, should not become too large to be ineffective as a deliberative body. With these criteria in mind, the Commission reconsidered its longstanding position in opposition to expanded membership at its January 8, 1982 meeting. Arguments for and against representation of town and township officials and school board members were presented, as they had been in the past. These are summarized below, together with the Commission's response. Towns and Townships The main argument for town and township representation on ACIR, as proposed in H.R. 2016, is that in some states these units are general governments with numerous functions. They are, in fact, the reasonable equivalent of municipalities or cities in these cases. The essential arguments against representation of towns and townships are that they are far from universal in our nation and, in many instances, are not general governments with substantial functions. To be more specific, towns and townships exist in 20 states that fall into two general classifications. In the 11 states designated as "strong township states" by the Census Bureau the six New England (town) states, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin townships are usually, but not always, general purpose governments with extensive functional responsibilities. They account for 8% of local government direct expenditure and 10% of full-time local government employment in these 11 states. The Census Bureau refers to the second classification as "rural township states. They are all in the North Central region of our country Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, and South Dakota. Most townships in these states are the historic 36 square mile survey townships created to offer the possibility of local self-government primarily for rural areas. They rarely have extensive functional responsibilities, which is indicated by the fact that they account for only 1% of local government expenditures and 1% of local government employment in these states. The generally limited role of townships, taking both the "strong" and the "rural" township states together, is further indicated by the 1977 census statistic that 51.6% of all townships had zero full-time equivalent employees. After considering the above arguments at its January meeting, the Commission decided that towns and townships, although they are not universal and vary considerably in the states where they exist, deserve some representation on the ACIR. The members voted to recommend that P. L. 86-380 be modified to include membership of these units under the existing local government categories. The Commission felt that the details of implementing such a change should be left to the Congress. If the recommendation were to be acted upon, however, an amendment to the ACIR legislation might resemble the following: Section 3. Membership of the Commission (a) Composition (6) Four appointed by the President from a panel of at least eight mayors, and elected town officers submitted jointly by the National League of Cities, and the United States Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of Towns and Townships; at least one such appointee shall be an official of a small "town," as defined by state law; and (7) Three appointed by the President from a panel of at least six elected county and township officers submitted jointly by the National Association of Counties and the National Association of Towns and Townships; at least one such appointee shall be an official of a small "township," as defined by state law. NOTE: New language added by amendment is underlined. Present language deleted is crossed out with hyphens. Such an amendment to ACIR's existing law would maintain the current size of the Commission and substitute one member from a small town in place of a mayor and one member from a small township in place of an elected county official. The nominating process would become more complex since the National Association of Towns and Townships would be invited to caucus with the municipal and county associations to develop the panels of nominees. School Boards The Commission has also considered the case for and against school board representation on the ACIR, the subject of H.R. 5192. The members fully recognize that school districts are a very important local element in the American intergovernmental system. The education function is of critical importance to our society and is, by a wide margin, the largest of all state-local functions in terms of both expenditures and employment. Further, school districts are a nearly universal type of government throughout the United States. 94-258 0-82--3 |