Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

enhance cooperation among the different levels of government and thereby improve the effectiveness of the Federal system of government as established by the Constitution. Two subjects so identified by the Commission relate to the problems of freeing local governments of restrictions which reduce their effectiveness in providing urban services, and of coordinating the many diverse Federal programs affecting urban development. Despite the great interest in Federal programs of assistance for the physical development of urban areas during the last few years, no systematic study had been undertaken of the impact of these programs on the plans and organizational structure of local government in the United States.

The following report provides a detailed and systematic analysis of the major Federal programs assisting urban development, and several policy recommendations for State and Federal action to improve local government organization, local government planning, and Federal interagency coordination.

This report was adopted at a meeting of the Commission on January 24, 1964. FRANK BANE, Chairman.

WORKING PROCEDURES OF THE COMMISSION

This statement of the procedures followed by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations is intended to assist the reader's consideration of this report. The Commission, made up of busy public officials and private persons occupying positions of major responsibility, must deal with diverse and specialized subjects. It is important, therefore, in evaluating reports and recommendations of the Commission to know the processes of consultation, criticism, and review to which particular reports are subjected.

The duty of the Advisory Commission, under Public Law 86-380, is to give continuing attention to intergovernmental problems in Federal-State, Federal-local, and State-local, as well as interstate and interlocal relations. The Commission's approach to this broad area of responsibility is to select specific, discrete intergovernmental problems for analysis and policy recommendation. In some cases, matters proposed for study are introduced by individual members of the Commission; in other cases, public officials, professional organizations, or scholars propose projects. In still others, possible subjects are suggested by the staff. Frequently, two or more subjects compete for a single "slot" on the Commission's work program. In such instances selection is by majority vote.

Once a subject is placed on the work program, a staff member is assigned to it. In limited instances the study is contracted for with an expert in the field or a research organization. The staff's job is to assemble and analyze the facts, identify the differing points of view involved, and develop a range of possibile, frequently alternative, policy considerations and recommendations which the Commission might wish to consider. This is all developed and set forth in a preliminary draft report containing (a) historical and factual background, (b) analysis of the issues, and (c) alternative solutions.

The preliminary draft is reviewed within the staff of the Commission and after revision is placed before an informal group of "critics" for searching review and criticism. In assembling these reviewers, care is taken to provide (a) expert knowledge, and (b) a diversity of substantive and philosophical viewpoints. Additionally, representatives of the American Municipal Association, Council of State Governments, National Association of Counties, U.S. Conference of Mayors, U.S. Bureau of the Budget, and any Federal agencies directly concerned with the subject matter participate, along with the other "critics" in reviewing the draft. It should be emphasized that participation by an individual or organization in the review process does not imply in any way endorsement of the draft report. Criticisms and suggestions are presented; some may be adopted, others rejected by the Commission staff.

The draft report is then revised by the staff in light of criticisms and comments received and transmitted to the members of the Commission at least 2 weeks in advance of the meeting at which it is to be considered.

In its formal consideration of the draft report, the Commission registers any general opinion it may have as to further staff work or other considerations which it believes warranted. However, most of the time available is devoted to a specific and detailed examination of conclusions and possible recommendations. Differences of opinion are aired, suggested revisions discussed, amendments considered and voted upon, and finally a recommendation adopted (or modified as the case may be) with individual dissents registered. The report is then revised in the light of Commission decisions and sent to the printer, with footnotes of dissent by individual members, if any, recorded as appropriate in the copy.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Staff work for this report was conducted by Bruce D. McDowell, a staff member of the Commission.

The Commission and its staff profited from an informal review of an early draft of the report by a number of individuals, including George E. Allen, William K. Brussat, William N. Cassella, Jr., W. C. Dutton, Jr., Lewis Elston, Daniel R. Grant, John Gunther, I. M. Labovitz, Stephen D. Moses, and Robert L. Williams. Sections of the report dealing with individual Federal programs were submitted for review and comment by specialists in the appropriate Federal agencies.

Special acknowledgment should be made of the cooperation and assistance of Victor Fischer, Assistant Administrator for Metropolitan Development of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, and William B. Ross of the Bureau of the Budget, in the development of the project design and throughout the course of the study.

Appreciation for this assistance is gratefully acknowledged. Final responsibility for the report and its contents, of course, rests with the Commission and its staff.

WM. G. COLMAN,

Executive Director.

NORMAN BECKMAN,

Assistant Director, Metropolitan Areas.

XI

« AnteriorContinuar »