|
Work Plan 2001
The panel reviewed the draft work plan for
FY 2001, continuing traditional panel activities as well as
identifying new areas of focus:
Support NAPA's Initiative to Create an Intergovernmental
Center
Identify Intergovernmental Relations Challenges for Presidential
Transition
Organize a Forum on Federalism Cases before the Supreme Court
Sponsor Joint Forum(s) with other Panels, including the New
Standing Panel on Social Equity
Sponsor Joint Forum(s) with the American Political Science
Association Section on Intergovernmental Affairs and Management
Transition Questions
The meeting considered the question of what the new Administration,
the new Congress, and the new term of the Supreme Court may
mean for intergovernmental relations and the federal system.
The group noted that intergovernmental issues have not figured
prominently in the Presidential election campaign. After the
close Presidential election and the questions that have arisen
over state election practices, intergovernmental questions
may become more important over the next two years. Considering
the close division between Republicans and Democrats in Congress,
several members predicted that there is not likely to be legislation
this term that will dramatically alter federal-state-local
relations; more political leadership may come from state capitals
than from Washington, DC. Federal legislation is most likely
to come in narrow areas such as paying for prescription drugs.
In response to an inquiry from the White
House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, which came to ICMA
the day before the meeting, the panel provided feedback on
the top five intergovernmental issues that will face the new
administration and the top five accomplishments of the last
eight years. Based on the group's discussion, ICMA included
these issues in the response it sent to the White House on
November 20:
Accomplishments
1. The 1995 National Environmental Partnership System that
has resulted in 33 voluntary performance partnership agreements
and 43 voluntary performance partnership grants.
2. The increased flexibility for state and local governments,
such as waivers granted by the Administration, to give grant
recipients discretion to try new and more effective approaches
to delivering public services such as health care and welfare
reform.
3. ISTEA, which along with the successor transportation planning
legislation (T-21), has been an overall success in opening
up transportation planning and programming to greater participating
and better results for states, communities and metropolitan
areas, and citizens - although many challenges remain in carrying
out the full intent of those provisions.
4. UMRA has provided a "pause" to Congress as it
considers new mandates, and has led to some greater awareness
of the intergovernmental costs associated with mandates while
the President's parallel Executive Order on Federalism has
extended similar considerations to agency actions.
5. CDBG's consolidated plan has forced some groups to work
together (although it, too, has opportunities for improvement,
such as the lead paint standards)
Challenges
1. Working with the White House and Congress to find a solution
to challenge of sales tax collection from remote locations
so that state and local governments continue to have reliable
sources of revenue and more effective and streamlined collection
system.
2. The lack of data on intergovernmental programs, or the
poor quality of data, for federal policy makers to examine
the outcomes of these programs as they are administered by
state and local governments. Even where data exist, it is
difficult to make a meaningful comparison from one state to
another.
3. The difficulty of structuring meaningful consultation with
state and local governments in developing and implementing
federal policies and programs, whether the subject is transportation,
housing, welfare services or federal regulatory mandates.
4. Carrying forward the implementation of the Government Performance
and Results Act so that federal agencies' goals and performance
measures for intergovernmental programs more effectively reflect
the intended results and create incentives to all partners
to accomplish them.
5. Working with Congress and federal agencies developing proposed
laws and regulations to make UMRA and the Executive Order
on Federalism more effective in providing early indicators
of potential intergovernmental conflicts and facilitating
balanced resolution.
New Intergovernmental
Center Concept
NAPA is interested in seeking funding for
a new intergovernmental center and has reached agreement with
Suzette Rowley to work part-time to identify opportunities
and gather support for that effort. In addition to building
on the Academy's potential to provide contract research and
technical assistance to state and local governments, the concept
of an Intergovernmental Center stems from concerns that there
is no longer any institution compiling and publishing the
fiscal data and other state and local information once provided
by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations
(ACIR) since it was eliminated from the federal budget a few
years ago.
Panel members discussed various aspects
of ACIR's work, noting it was particularly respected for compiling
objective state and local data from sources such as the Census
of Governments. Panel members also indicated concern about
proposed cuts in the U.S. Census of Governments, which is
an essential source for the data compiled and published by
ACIR. Bruce McDowell noted that during his tenure at ACIR,
only two full-time staff worked on the survey research operation.
The group agreed that as a nonpartisan nonprofit respected
for the quality of its information and analysis, NAPA would
be well positioned to play the role of compiling and publishing
that kind of objective information, if a source could be found
to provide the necessary financial support. The group also
recommended strongly that the Academy should not take on the
other major element of ACIR's operations, supporting a commission
of top-level elected officials from federal, state, and local
governments to address intergovernmental concerns.
Practitioners and researchers (including
many panel members) rely on the data and are feeling the gap
in information since much of it is no longer available. Several
panel members expressed interest in helping to flesh out the
Academy's approach to a new intergovernmental center.
Japan's National
Institute for Research Advancement
For the past eight years, panel members
have taken the lead for the Academy in organizing a series
of international conferences with the National Institute for
Research Advancement (NIRA) in Tokyo, beginning in 1994 with
a conference on localization and globalization. In July 2000,
NAPA joined with NIRA to hold the fourth conference, in Tokyo,
on the subject of Sustainable Development, with representatives
from Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, and the United States.
This conference marked the first time that the conference
included roundtable discussions and site visits involving
a substantial number of practitioners as well as more academic
paper presentations. Associate Panel Member Dale Krane, professor
at University of Nebraska-Omaha, who led the fundraising and
administered the travel grants for the U.S. delegation this
year, reported on the most recent conference. Mr. Naoki Hoshi,
NIRA staff, attended the panel meeting and is coordinating
publication of the conference proceedings. The U.S. papers
will also be available on the Federal System Panel home page
along with the papers presented by U.S. participants at NAPA's
previous international conferences.
All Fellows Welcome
The panel encourages all Fellows to take
part in panel activities; "membership" includes
any Fellow who wants to be on the mailing list and participate
in meetings. In coming months, the staff and chair hope to
provide occasional brief updates by e-mail on important developments
in the intergovernmental area. Everyone was invited to sign
up to receive those periodic (but not frequent) updates if
they are interested.
|
