|
STAFF ATTENDEES: Suellen Keiner, Noel Popwell,
and Jim Frech
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
Paul Posner welcomed everyone to the meeting
and explained the meeting's agenda:
o Update on setting up the Intergovernmental Center
o Preparations for the Fall meeting
o Status of the Book Project
The meeting opened with some discussion
about the work of the Fiscal Future committee. Beth Keller
said she had volunteered to serve on this positioning committee
to add a state and local perspective to the group. Beth said
that she had missed the most recent meeting and asked Noel
Popwell to provide a brief update. He mentioned that a paper
has been drafted by John Petersen on the federal fiscal imbalance
for comment by the committee's participants and that there
is a lack of consensus on the contents of the paper. The committee
is in the process of working on a new draft. Another paper
on the condition of state and local finances will be circulated
soon. A third paper on the concepts, principles and process
of good fiscal governance, the third in a three-part series,
has not yet been written.
Suellen Keiner told the panel that several
of the other positioning committees have not been fully active
as yet.
UPDATE ON SETTING UP THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL
CENTER
Jim Frech updated the panel on the work
he has been doing to fulfill the Board's approval of the project
proposed by the Intergovernmental Relations Positioning Committee
(PC). Jim said that he has been in contact with various individuals
and organizations to get the initiative started. These include
NGA, NCL, ICMA, Rockefeller Institute, Brookings, and the
Pew Charitable Trusts. Jim mentioned that Pew is planning
to establish a new Pew Center for the States, which may cover
many of the ideas proposed in the report by the Intergovernmental
Relations PC, such as convening, research, data, and other
projects. But the Pew Project is likely only to be focusing
on state policy, not local issues nor the intergovernmental
aspects. Jim reported:
1) the new Pew Center has been recommended
by program officers at Pew but not yet approved by their Board,
2) the disposition of Pew's Government Performance Project
(GPP) has not been clarified, and
3) both Susan Urahn and Peter Harkness could be involved in
running the new Pew organization, but Jim needs to corroborate.
Jim mentioned that he senses there is a
good deal of buzz over intergovernmental issues from talking
to people since he began working at the Academy.
Don Borut had a question about what was
driving the creation of this new Pew Center. Jim indicated
that it was intended to move state policy changes forward.
He also noted that Peter Harkness received a Pew grant to
help plan more of the details of what the new Center could
address. Jim also said that a lot of the people he talked
to are aware of what the Academy is doing regarding the Big
Ideas and the work in the Intergovernmental area, primarily
from visiting the Academy's website. He also senses that some
organizations are willing to collaborate in this area. Jim
thought that Pew might be willing to give the Academy funds
to maintain the GPP when its grant runs out in June. The GPP
has a website that includes a large electronic document and
data repository, plus other assets. Jim pointed out that maintaining
the website and the repository was not the same as running
the GPP's survey program, which is something that the Academy
would address separately if Pew wants to continue that project
a couple of years from now.
Beryl Radin expressed some reservation about
this possibility, saying that there are some issues with GPP
(including the fact that it takes a "once-size-fits-all
approach", and minimizes the role of the state legislatures),
so the Academy needs to proceed cautiously. Don Borut observed
that the GPP questionnaire to the states includes almost 500
items. Jim pointed out that the survey approach had been changed
to reflect this concern about an analytic bias toward the
views of Governors' offices, and he noted that the GPP was
reaching out to state agency levels. Beryl Radin was concerned
that it did not reflect the state legislatures' viewpoints
either. Jim noted that this was still true.
Jim said that he also met with McConnell
& Associates about a number of Congressional contacts
for potential support of our intergovernmental initiative.
One idea is to ask Congress to direct the Academy to conduct
an educational program for members and their staffs. The Academy
would like to conduct the program on an annual basis, perhaps
with a congressional agency like the CRS. Another idea is
to obtain a Dear Colleague letter of support from a member
of Congress for the Academy to convene a forum on intergovernmental
cooperation. The Academy is also discussing obtaining direct
appropriations of funds to the Academy for broad intergovernmental
purposes. Jim will likely have draft appropriations language
next week for McConnell to review.
Don Borut expressed strong concern that
the Academy not be too dependant on federal funding to support
the Center as we move forward. He would rather seek funding
from foundations because in his view, there are fewer strings
attached to the money. Beryl Radin noted, however, that foundations
increasingly require grantees to do performance metrics and
demonstrate specific results as a condition for funding.
Paul Posner asked the group whether they
had a sense of how the Academy's foray into the intergovernmental
arena is viewed by the state and local community. Beth said
that Bob O'Neill expressed support for the idea in a recent
conversation. Jim Frech said that there is some ambivalence
in the nonprofit community by potential competitors.
PREPARATIONS FOR THE FALL MEETING
Paul Posner thinks that the Panel could
use its time at the Fall meeting (Thursday November 18, 3:30
to 5:00 pm) to present a "Transition Paper" focused
on Intergovernmental Relations as a possible agenda item for
the new administration. Beth Kellar said that we need an integrated
approach. Don Borut mentioned homeland security as an example
and observed that police agencies are now being used by the
federal government more or less as intelligence collection
centers.
Paul tried to get the Panel to think about
the overriding principles that the Panel could use to guide
its work as well as the key points that the Panel would wish
to bring to policymakers.
Enid Beaumont said that there is a prior
transition paper, written by the Academy for the 1996 election,
which can be updated with new issues such as homeland security.
Jim Frech said that he has started to write a paper for the
transition, but will also try to locate the existing paper
and send it to the Panel. Beth Kellar will also check her
files to see if there are any prior papers on the transition
which the Panel could use.
Paul suggested we need a Call-to-Action
to highlight the problems of declining state and local revenues
which would be aimed at both the President and Congress. Don
said that, because of terrorism, the transfer of responsibility
and costs has become a festering issue. Beth also observed
that state and local governments are looking for creative
ways to reach national goals.
Suellen mentioned that the NGA has engaged
the Academy to do a study on the issue of federal preemption
of state regulatory programs. Bruce McDowell, who is staffing
the preemption project, updated the Panel on its work. He
is currently developing an outline for the report, and Carl
Stenberg, Charles Wise and DeWitt John (Panel Chair) are serving
on the Panel. So far, they have had input from Ray Scheppach
who requested the study and various scholars, including Paul
Posner. The Panel expects to hear from other interested parties,
such as business and labor in mid-November. The group hopes
to finish its report sometime in January.
The Panel discussed the names of prominent
individuals involved in state and local issues as possible
participants for the fall meeting. They include: David Mora,
Frank Fairbanks, Eric Anderson, Randy Johnson, Feather Houston,
Ron Corley, Tony Griffith, Harley Duncan, Scott Pattison,
Gov. Mark Warner, Mayor Tony Williams, Dirk Kempthorne, Bob
O' Neil, Bruce Roemer, Peter Harkness, Neil Pierce, and Ray
Scheppach. Beryl Radin said that the Panel definitely needs
a current city manager for the fall meeting.
Suellen pointed out that Morgan and Lisa
Trahan should be informed about the additional suggested names.
Enid Beaumont suggested the Panel needs to meet again before
the fall meeting.
THE BOOK ON THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM
The Panel reviewed the name of volunteers
to write 14 papers that will become the chapters in a new
book on Intergovernmental Management in time for the conference
in the spring 2005. At the conference, participants will be
invited to provide observations and commentary on the papers.
The following suggested assignments for the papers were made:
" Ray Scheppach - Globalization/The Economy
" Enid Beaumont - Governance
" Bruce McDowell - Regionalism/Preemption
" Charles Wise - Homeland Security
" Nancy Tate - Election Reform
" Judith Feder - Healthcare
" Shelly Metzenbaum - Grants Management
Other possible chapter topics include energy
and infrastructure. The question remains who would fund the
publication of this book.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The Panel expressed satisfaction that Jim
Frech was able to make a lot of contacts in a relatively short
space of time.
Don Borut said that there is no issue as
to whether the Academy will have an Intergovernmental Center;
it's only a question of what it will look like.
Suellen Keiner said that the GPP would be a good way for the
Academy to "get our foot in the door."
Beryl Radin said that it may be worth it
to look at the Macarthur or Soros Foundations as potential
sources of funding for the Center.
Paul Posner adjourned the meeting at 12:50
p.m.
|
