Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • ACIR - 5 Types of Local Govt

    Uploaded by

    Sarah Nomercy Mercer
    1 views40 pages
    Masters of Public Administration Urban Politics article

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Masters of Public Administration Urban Politics article

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views40 pages

    ACIR - 5 Types of Local Govt

    Uploaded by

    Sarah Nomercy Mercer
    Masters of Public Administration Urban Politics article

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 40
    SF che cet for vascdeuts fyi prbes Set Bearous fac imeocperchens p. 2% Dilley Reale co ecto! _— ‘ Chapter + | Co olay's rout rally choetone Sas The Five Types of Local Government: 82) Characteristics and Development saclasnnt, qrofwek blustin « Focal, fropeud Cree) eet Ooyclatedat geen’ Blase ee wt, by dy Speck Distret? 2 AcIR jaar Cinsssuahule oh Cope sre yt ans cftccttow en, municipalities account forthe largest share o Srophow a diet expendres and prove the greatest be and Cock ques (> variety of services. At the same time, it revealed that in | the past ten years municipalides have regressed by both ‘ these_measures end thot counties and spacial districts p be tothe. Deeper of have Increased in relative imporiance, Locad (cout Digests “The purpose of this ehaptcr is 10 identify the essential | characterises ofeach typeof local unt andthe principal forces fostering or inhibiting the grovrh and develop- : - <_ ment of their functional responsibilities. The objective Arde ur o{ ascetan tle AG EN grin an understanding of wh eagh af the wpe. cure ok 2B ‘liowa INew York ato As|etssissppi © Nevaca——_Colocado, ashnevaca lWest Vigita Vermont i7|Soutn Dakota idaho Inissout INow Meco [Vermont Massachusetts 3 West Veginia |NowMoxico = 50\!dan0 =! SOURCE: ACR soy ma sat con, 5 couric ACI, Niesoney Sa! Sgt Docent” ce MT ah BS US Onvumer Peng Bea states also were ranked separately on these two indices These two rankings belp explain whether the cities of counties or bath are responsible forthe general posture of loca dscrevonary authority in each sate, Cautions, of course, must be observed in using these rankings because of the many subjective Factors entering fino their constuction. Still. the ratings ean be accepted 48 general indication ofthe relative Standing of the $0 states with respect tbe amount af lea discretion that they give to their general purpose local governments a a whole. Thus, one would be justifee in saying, as @ rrinimwum, that the fen states rated atthe top—Oregon, Maine, North Cuofina, Connecticut, Alasks, Maryland, Penasylvania. Vieginia, Delaware, and Lavisians—give thei foal governments relatively gret discretion inthe management oftheir own affairs, whereas the tem ranked aC the bottom—Nebraska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Jowa, Mississippi. Nevads. South Dakota, New Mexico, ‘West Virginia, and ldaho—tend to maintain the ereatest degree of contol over their local units. Furer, the 30 fates in berwsen ranked neither highest aor lowest in the degree of focal discretion aezorded to their general purpose local units, OF course, because of the many judgmental factors involved, too much must not be read into the specific place rankings of the indvidust sisies, The Actual Use of Local Authority Local government's possession of discretionary eu thority isome thing: ts actual ase of thar powers another. ‘The questionnaice survey of state officials and other in- ormed observers sought their assessment of the extent of actual use, It revealed that: © The power to draft and adopt a charter is not Utilized often by eligible local governments, This conclusion seems at least parly explainable by the fact that many local governments drafted and adopted charters years ago and sill are saishied ‘with tiem or prefer optional charters made avall- able by state or by general laws that grant mea- ger discretionary powers. ‘© Cities and other local governments possessing the power 1o amend their charters do s0 infrequently. "s Only one-fifth to one-fourth of the respondents reported thar there was an increase aver time the utilization of cach of the four types of local discretionary powers, with the greatest increase concentrated ia the finctiona aces ‘# Twenty-seven states authorize some oral oftheir general-purpose local units to supersede general arn special] state laws by the enactment of 3 loa law, bylaw, or ordinance and only 37% of the respondents in these states indicated that local governments often or occasionally acivaliy supersede sate Jaws, ‘© AoUC @ thitd of the respondens indicated that Iocal governments often request the Tegslalure 10 pass specia) legislation on maties that already fall within the purview of focal discretionary thority, Ths suggests the ambivalence that exists among many local officials wi respect t0 i ereesed autboriy tok care oftheir vin asi. ‘© Respondents reported that vagious factors tended to reduce the actual exercise of local dseretionacy aifforiy- Fériy-one percent of the respondents reporting reductions attributed them to the state legislature, 27% t0 state court decisions, 18% 0 federal cour decisions, 54% o federal grant cone ditions, and 305 (0 slate grant conditions. The exercise of local discretionary authority was found to be seduced by fiscal restraints in every state. Thiny-six percent of the respondents at- urbuted the reduction to debt limits, another 354% ‘ited tax Knits, and an additional 29% placed the blame on a Jack of revenue Ambivalence About Local Authority ‘The indices of local authority indicate that in most states general-purpose loeal governments fall short of possessing broad structural, functional, and financing _powers—particularly the later. At the same time, as the “ACIR’s survey showed, localities in some Key ateas do nol always use all of sheirayalable authority, such 0s the power 0 adopt oF amend local charers. Moreover, cites and counties often request special sate legislation ‘even_when. they. olrady- hava the sequested authority ‘ndee their charters or genera legislation Tis report, ACIR suggested the reasons for this ap- parent contradiction: ‘Some see this ambivalence of many local of- ficial as a healthy recognition that certain local igblems afe Beyond local solution and segue ‘ke superior resources ot ihe state, Others see it as refecting—despite the pleas for more “home rule"—a cautious conservatism amon: ffigials who may be aetustomed (0 operating under special legisation, unsure of their local powers, and hesitant 10 test their authority Sul others discern 8, desire to pass the buck 263 ‘of political repercussions tothe state, Overall, the gap beween the thetic and the reality Ssceus to demonstrate again some ofthe basic See aie of Aman felts Ih per ‘eral and sst-local elas ip-panicula: the | Gente power position ef, sate, government, ‘ind. ne basic. pragmatic, interest at all levels sing whatever_govermmentl iastvuions aye aualsble to solve public problems." If this interpretation i core, it portends for the fu- ture thatthe oles ofthe various types of loca units will continue to evolve in pragmatic response to the shifing urents of political, economic, and social forces, so that the kely pattem of loca! government o the 24th Century ‘would be as ard to predict as the patter of the late 20th Century would have been for coloniat peoples of the 1p Century. CONCLUDING OBSERVATION (ne conclusion stands out in this sumary look at the evolving roles of the various types of American local aoverment: the gradual biming of disfeances ameng the general-purpose aniiS—partcularly between the mur nicipality and the county. This change is reflected in the hal if not the actual reversal, of the municipality's rowing dominance in the provision and financing of local services, and the rise ofthe urban county. Its also reflected to some extent inthe complex pattems celin- cated by the Stephens” typology. The reason forthe blurring has been touched upon in the discussion of the county sind the municipality. Es- sentially, it may be seen a¢ case of she-one histoce urban form-the municipaiyogtkeeping-in wih the demands of galloping urbasization, The reasons forthe lag are complex: the legal, poll, economic, and ter- ioral inhibitions on rovnicipalites—paricutarly the older, larger ones; the avaiabiy of the county snd the special district «9 meet urban needs the tendency jn cecent years toward increased demand by citizens in both raral and arban areas for wrban-ype services: and the expanded importance of federal asistance and the federal governments prowing practice of making such sistance evailable o counties and special distri, as well as to municipalities. ‘Some might add tothe picture of diminishing die coces betwsen the mniipaity and other los) govern seat types the potental—if rot already acival—expan- son of the role of some tovenships in rural township states as.a consequence of the stimulus of genzrl revenue Sharing. Townships then become closer in nature © iunicipaltype towns in te strong vvsnship ses. “The constanily changiog nature of focal government forms represen, of course. the adaptation of institutions to ehunging conditions. Various arpoets of this adupive proéeés are examined in depth in the ensing two chap- ters and in # separate volume. Chapter 3 is devoted to 4 description of the emergence and staus‘of subscate regional bodies—reatvely new institutions for meeting functional needs atthe substte level. Chapter 6 de- seribes the many effors at the state and Tocl levels ro make local institutions more equitable. effective, and responsive through procedural and organizational im- provements. These effons, always under powers a= corded, and within roles esablished, by site gover ments, have scored vatioss degrees of success. A Companion volume, The Federal Influence om Sia ad Local Roles in the Federal Sten. discuses another important force at work in the assignment and reassign- tect of functions atthe sate, substate regional, and Tocal levels—the growing influence of the federal goverment FOOTNOTES acs Anderson, The Unite ef Goverment a the Uae Ses ‘Chisago I, Pls Adrien Service, 1959 ed. p 7 SUS, Deparment of Commerce, Bureas of the Censis. Govern non! Unit te United Ser: 1902, Washingea. BC, US. Government Prat Ose. 1 Sep 0. Ross Sepsene and Gerald W. Olson, Pa-Thowgh Federal “Aid and tneteel Fleance dhe Amevcen Fedral Sate, 1957 te 1977, Kansss Cis, MO, University of Misner-Kansas Ci, 198. Val. pe BS ‘Some autores believe Gat many o¥nsipspantelry those nike sae “nc toe aihp™siais—do pote sient fms Feagonibis fo quay a general purse unk. vs sommuy account ofthe ex istry of foe govemme in {he Unie Sines is Yased mainly a Hares F Ait, American cal Goverment and Admaisvation, New York, NY, The 264 ‘MacSilan Co. 1986, 5p, S1-68: and effersonB. Porta, Local Goverment Lee, Mineola, NY, th Foundation Pres. tne. 1975, pina. “DiivrP Feld, PresilyS Sikes, Jom E. Stone. Sate Goverment Su et,, New York, NY, Harpe ana Brxbrs, 1982, pp, 46162. ‘Lane W, Lancair Governmens ie Rural Ansrce, Princeton, NI B, Van Nostrand Co ney 1982, pp. 228-29, ‘The lierture am pellets is salon he iss of pre-coonil ecient, Seo John C Beles’ authoriatve work, Spero! Diser Goverunenes nth Used Stars. Berkeley and Los Angles, CA, Trier of Clfmia Press, 1957: Rober’ ©. Seis, Pei Auorites. Spec Discs nd Local Goverment, Washing ‘BE, Navorl Astovition of Counties Reserch Founciien, 1963; ft anda texteon lea! govermes. Sei does move hat oes ‘itis "aay wel Beaded stray the medieval gulls xi Smith, op ie a “Acs Commision trgverzeaia Relion(ACIR). The ‘Probe of Speiel Districts In American Goverone: (Repo ACEI Watngion, BC. U.S. Gonramen Ponting Ge May tbat. ‘toh Din, Canmemries onthe Lae of Manipal Corpor fon, Bases Mar Lie Boon. & Con lis She, Var, feo 3, «SE te sh hen uty te dato sora agence of marci or eure, Ta ‘Sear inepener cel sormmons, fst ines Arche Cen Bara Se dcimiono sctetdaee low. ‘Comte abled eos In 196, sed thet fotons were “sumed by est ny ls Rode sd css te ever mer thn jc doc ‘Nott Astin af Comes-tnenatona City Mengemens Dessnion NACOACMAY, Conary Year Bank 978, Washgtn, Devise Desay 13. Sone emo eco nd some dependence clr and aks Nx Slope eens faa ue. “ted ae "Bind F Doorn ane Anu J Mee, Goverment Wai he Sears Readings Mas Auda Wey Pubuiting €9. 197, ne ~ Gly 8, Lawrence ad Ita M.DeGrse, “Conny Govenes Stress The Coun Yor ot 1978, Wasigon, DC, NACS™ eMA, 1996p 31 ibid pe 9159, Some pape night quesion whee ean of thee Qnciny wore ence of an aban cancer par {Boerne tran aves ae, sch maar nd cl bel Spel bah Sees and Tso sees. The dere inboard eporte o ype Cees in the metopllnronsetopoin can compat Ste ae. tn. 9899. 2D tn fp 9-58 "Coal te lager tan cies: 103 of he 288 SMA In ther 1979 wee singlecan aoe Scales Cin Beal Suen, Are Shing Powers 0 Geunin” Tne New Fark Tes, Rovere 9, 199. 1 8c ACIR, Conmanty Devon. Te Workings of Federale Tac Blick cr Rap Bes. Waste, DC. 8. Gover tom Ponting Offer Tt, pp 2-26 » SEACIR, The Convene Epon and Tain Ae Earle Reads ono rid ck Grom (eget h 50), Wasting, BG, US. Goverment Ping Othe, 107 Main B. Hil Jr rane Lavt Cones Loc! Gover Sc. te tnd Adnintaven, ates. GA, ase of Gversne, ata of Corn, 178 * See ACTR, Se an of Leva Esendinre par 8-6) ‘Wastinpon, OC, U.S- Goma Pring Ofc, ty 198 SNACorEMA, Coma) Her Book 1978. Wasingen, BC 1578, 3198, ps. Goicraméntal Research Itt, Clee- fund, OH, No. 371-8, January 25, 1980. ™NAGOICMA. Counn’ Year Book 1978. Washington, DC. 1978 Direct) 13. This exlaesefht cousin Messtuses ove 250,000 population, "U.S. Baran ofthe Census, Census of Gover. 197, Vol Io. 1, Governments! Orgonzation, Washington, DC, U.S. Got ‘mine Printing Ole, 1998, 2 "See Pi, For sil ste serio. Joseph F Zimmereas, "Coping with Metopolian Problen/The Boudry Review Commins. "State Goverment, Attu (07S, fp 257-260, Ths arile wees rw commissions bat those In ew Morico ang Neva we not aclve Richard Fora" Annentions nd Corporate Changes: 1970-18." The Menicpal Fer foe 197. Washington, DC, Inston Cy Managemeat Asocain, 2 Dvorin and Mise, op. ct. I = Dilloa. op People ve Hurbur, 4 Mich. 44 (1871), alderfer opin 9-18, “Diora ed Miser op. . 122. The cout cases involved were (Cit of Trenon va. New Jersey, 262 U.S. 182 (1933) (Ge pees) (City of Newark New Jersey, 262 U.S. 192 (1923) (egal pro tection), and Haver vs. Cy of Possburg, 207 U.S. 16h (3907) ‘oneal nate i op. et, 8 “*Mimeesoiaconstiuion, ale XI. se. 2. ‘Ford, op. ct. 76. The ACI erased this apreac forthe ‘unedonl suo’ of cena loa) governere wa in Site Come iationl and Stators Restrictions Upon he Stacaral, Face ona and Persone! Powers of Lacol Goveramevis (Repar 812), ‘Washington, DC, U.S. Govertment Pring Ofie, (962. p73 “Josep F Zimmenson, “Lec Dstetionary Avior Within Sue ‘Governmental Syste.” pape presened a 978 Annual Mes, ‘American Polixal Science Assocation, New York, NY, Aug 31-September 3, 1978, p. 2 PHL, op. ela we iba. 9.8. "US. Deparment of Commerce, Burvu ofthe Census. Census of ‘Governments, 197. 1977, Val, No. S, Compe ef Gove ‘nen Finances, Westnglon, DC, U.S. Govermen Pring Off, 1369, 1979 “ACI, SgntfeaneFeteres of Fiscal Feelin, 1976-77 Ediven. Part Ti—Reverue oral Dest Repo M-1101, Washington, DC. US. Goverment Paring Ofee, 197, Teles 98,95, ab 116. ‘Tod. Tables 8149862. ‘an Shane, “The Tax Revol est on Local Finances.” ‘ine of emks before OME Naa Conference on Improving ‘R95. Washington, DC. November 19-20, 1070. Append Table 1 977, Table 3 12. ‘See Lynne E, Bronne and Richard F. Sya, “Cis Suburbs. nd Regions," New Erland Eronomir Revi. onan Febreary 1079. pp. 82-85. Enusiemtocl excrese of powers in uincorporsted2d- ‘een: teas is anoter way of exponing 3 manips reach Dat, Itsetecivenes i relatively limited. See Chapter The 1969 Vong Rigi Act Maybe dering some emnexsions See Joseph Fe Zimrernan, "Tie Fecerl Voting Righis Acts pect om Anseration,” Netianal Chic Review. June TOT 3B. Tes, Richard L. Fors, “Annestons snd Corpocle Changes Since the 1870 Censes: Wh Historica Data on Anneutin fr Lge Cis {ee 190071970." The Munltpl Year Book 1978, Washington. DC, Incenationa! City Management Asoeiton, 1975, p.21- Ao see ‘onual opts i sobiucn sues of The Manip! Year Boo. SACIR (Repon Arad) op. ls pp 82-83, ibid, pea ‘Now Englund towns ars also goverod by many special foe and posers sereled under ecastulonal aneadinenes in Connect, astetoset, and Rhode Islnd. US. Deparimatt of Commerce. Bureau of the Census, Census of ‘Governments 1977, Vol, Na. Fosanees of Mniipts and See Joseph F, Zinpernan, The Massochuseus Town Meeting & Tenacious Inston Alby, NY, Site University of New York at Albay, 1967 Bardhan opel. 25-26, This len the cae now tha ae pat, tant tote fahoo eset conolcalen movemer. US! Depanmear of Commerce, Biscay of the Census, Census of Governmerts, 1917, Vol No. Fnahees of Maniipelites as Township Governments. op. et. Table 21 "Census Baresa actualy eeprs 99.9% of ladiana population served by township goverment U.S. Deparment of Commueee, Dura of the Cents, Cosas of Goverment, 1977, Vat 1. No. I, Cote 265 roent Ores, Washington, DC, US, Goverment Pia ing Ore. 197, Tae 8. Sia, Tbe 8 : ip “O'S Computer Genet, Rene Staring Fend imp Mid ‘ison Taos st Now Exlod Coen, Washington, D, 1ste pp 9a cyte F ier. cat Government acerca, New Yer, Se Apptton Centro In 887-9. 238 «Artur Wr, Bremer “Rercrmcdatons on Tontaip Gove ‘on™ (Rpon 3 othe Commis on County Govern af ‘Ee Nao! Mein Lego, atone Manip Review Fee Tiny 1834, Suppemect: pp. 15048 Canine or Eero: Beveopern. Moding Lol Go fraent, New Yorn 3. 1906 Nismo ie Expechare Sty Piet Sud of Toei Go raens Vernon Casts, Misr lesen Ce. NO. May {sa Freer eampls se Lean cf Were Ves hia The Ananya Ow Freshp, Chega Deena 197: 08 ‘ror Wr Benge, Shall We Save the Township” Nerina! Minit Reew: Cater 1936 pp. 385-85. ‘areas, ae 82 teas af ses Ves of ics, op ACI: Genoa! Revome hie Ar HCP Reeelacon Repo AS), Wshingen, DC.U.S Goren Pang Of Osher 1578p. 12

    You might also like