The U.S. is about to hit the debt limit ceiling again; another budget crisis.
"How did this happen?" many wonder. In 1986, I wrote the
following article for the World Future Society. If you are short of time, just
consider the first line. The need is greater today, the answer the same.
REGIONAL
COUNCILS: Today's Governmental Tool for the 21st Century (1986)
Thomas J.
Christoffel, AICP
Revenue sharing may soon become
deficit sharing, as the crisis of the U.S. Federal debt causes the national
government to retrench from its fiscal assistance to state and local
governments. With programs being
eliminated or severely cut back, state and local governments are getting
financial and program responsibility for their own self-help for urban,
suburban and rural development. This decentralization is occurring at a time
when the shift to a global economy is causing havoc in many industries and
likewise in the tax base of local government. As they seek to broaden the tax
base to help take up the federal fiscal slack, they find themselves in
competition with other regions of the country or their own state, for existing
as well as new development. Since no industry is safe from downturns, greater
diversity is being sought in the local economic base. Economic development is
the goal of the day for most state and local governments.
An important reality that
governmental officials are learning is that "...business owners select
locations primarily on the basis of regional characteristics, not local
attributes."1 The
structure of the economy does not follow governmental boundaries at the local
level any more than it does at the global level. While this is not startling
information to futurists, it is news to those elected officials who have not
caught up with the changes in the global economy. Local officials must look at
economic development in the context of their geographic region and attention
must also be paid to the governmental services that create the environment in
which productive economic activity can take place. In The Third Wave, Alvin
Toffler correctly identified the trend to decentralization in government. To
deal with it he said, "...the institutions of government must correlate
with the structure of the economy, the information system, and other features
of the civilization."2 State
and local governments now need such an organization of the future to deal with
these changes.
Organizations of the Future
Toffler said organizations of the
future, "...have flatter hierarchies...are less top-heavy.... [and]
consist of small components linked together in temporary configurations....
capable of assuming two or more distinct structural shapes as conditions
warrant...."3 Furthermore, these organizations: ...need
managers who can operate as capably in an open-door,
free-flow style as in a hierarchical mode, who can work in an
organization structured like an Egyptian pyramid as well as in one that looks
like a Calder mobile, with a few thin managerial strands holding a complex set
of nearly autonomous modules that move in response to the gentlest breeze.4
Surely there is no
"module" more autonomous than a local government. Do local
governments have such an organizational structure and managers available to
help them deal with the crises of the future as the demands on and cost of
governmental services increase?
Yes they do, since most local
governments belong to: "...a public organization encompassing a
multi-jurisdictional regional community ... founded, sustained and directly
tied to local governments through local and/or state governmental laws, agreements
or other actions."
Although the local name may be
council of governments, planning district commission, or planning and
development district, the generic name is "regional council."
There were 534 councils in the U.S. at last count and they exist in all but
four States: Alaska, Hawaii, New Jersey and Rhode Island. Their governing
bodies are composed of elected and/or citizen members appointed by the local
governments and states.
Although formed in response to
federal programs and state enabling legislation, they each now work essentially
as a tool of the local governments within their region, and as an advocate of
the region to the state and federal levels. Staff size and budget vary with the
nature of the region served, ranging from under five employees in some rural
areas to over 50 in large metropolitan areas, but generally ranging between 6
and 15. Budgets similarly run from $150,000 to over $5 million, a very small
share of the total local government cost.6 In Virginia in fiscal year 1982 for
example, regional council budgets totaled $6.9 million compared to $4,313.2
million for cities and counties. This does not include towns or special
districts.
Besides an Executive Director,
councils employ what are essentially information workers; planners for community
assistance, economic development, environmental concerns, human services, and
transportation; engineers, data analysts, cartographers, and computer
specialists. By providing ad hoc coordination from a regional perspective, they
help the local governments correlate their local plans within the structure of
the regional economy. They are also capable of dealing with specific sets of
localities on various issues, being for example, the transportation planning
organization for the urbanized areas of the region or the service provider for
programs for the elderly. They are entrepreneurs providing data services to
local governments and the private sector, regional training for agencies, and
ride-matching services for commuters. Unlike local governments, they can easily
expand and contract their staffs to meet program needs.
Changes in Local Government
According to the International City
Management Association (ICMA), 1960 was a benchmark year for "...the
beginning of rapid growth in the federal aid system, the closely related
expansion of local government responsibilities, the creation of substate
regions, and the modernization of state governments."7 In contrast, 1980 is the benchmark
year for the decline of the federal aid system, but the roles it helped fund
still remain for local government to carry out. In 1960, local governments
raised 70.6% of their revenue and their budgets totaled $32,424 million. In
1983, their $178,994 million local share was 60.7% of their $294,651 million
total budgets.8 Although
the percentage share declined by 10%, the total increased 909% in 23 years. The
Federal government share of state and local government revenues peaked at 22%
in 1978, and declined to 18.5% by 1983. The difference of 3.5% was absorbed
1.7% by the states and 1.8% by localities.9
This has created conflict at all
levels of government, since citizens want better services without further tax
increases. Quality governmental services are, in fact, a prerequisite for the
economic development sought to balance the tax base, so more investment is
necessary. Local governments will be forced to seek greater efficiency and look
for economies of scale in service delivery to deal with the impact of the
federal fiscal crisis, the changes brought by technology, and the global
economy now and on in to the 21st century.
How has the structure of government
changed to correlate with that of the global economy? Local government
has gotten more complex and fragmented. Since 1962, at the local level,
decreases have occurred in counties, declining in total from 3,043 to 3,041;
townships and towns from 17,142 to 16,734; and school districts from 34,678 to
14,851. Municipalities have increased from 18,000 to 19,076, and special
districts from 18,323 to 28,588.10 Thus
in spite of the consolidation of almost 20,000 school districts, the total
number of local government units has increased by 10,931 since 1962.
Consolidation of local government
units is often proposed as a means of dealing with the cost of government, but
is generally rejected by local politicians and even by the voters in
referendums, if the idea gets that far. The report of the Governor's Commission
on Virginia's Future in 1984 called for a bold realignment of local government
boundaries to consolidate many rural counties, but the idea has not moved any
local governments to action. It also recommended more aggressive state
leadership in the promotion of regional solutions to regional problems and
state aid to reward regional cooperation and encourage consolidation among
local jurisdictions.11
The rapid pace of change may in fact
make people cling to the local identity provided by governmental boundaries,
even as they understand that they work, shop and play within a greater region
than the single jurisdiction in which they live. State aid to reward regional
programs is more likely to help achieve coordination among the autonomous
modules of local governments, since it offers something in return for local
control shared in a regional program. Likewise, the State agencies must share
decision making with these regional programs.
Kent Mathewson, Counsel on Urban
Affairs from Ray Associates, Inc., recently told City and County Managers in
North Carolina that, "Fiscal restraints are reshaping Federalism."12 He quoted Andrea Beatty, a former Vice
President of ICMA, on the benefits to local governments of this
situation: "As the Feds opt out the locals are given the opportunity
for greater control and decision-making and ... enlarge the opportunity for regionalism
as a cost necessity, e.g., water resources and economic development."13
What tools do localities have for
working regionally?
Primarily there are the special
districts, the majority of which are single purpose. They deliver services such
as transportation, sanitation, parking, etc. As a reflection of the complexity
of governmental services, they have grown by 56% between 1962 and 1982. While
they can be efficient in delivery of a limited range of services, Kent
Matthewson says his boss, Jim Ray, "...foresees the awful prospect of
impotent general purpose local government elected officials (city and county)
as special purpose politics move power and service options off of their hands
and into special purpose districts, independent local commissions or boards,
and regional single-purpose authorities."14
The Regional Council Alternative
Regional councils are a type of
special district, but they can be comprehensively multi-jurisdictional and
multi-purpose in terms of the scope of their services. By their representation
from local governments, they can avoid some of the tunnel vision that limits
single purpose authorities. Although regional planning commissions have existed
in metropolitan planning areas since the 1920's, they were composed primarily
of citizen representatives. It wasn't until the 1950's that informal meetings
of city and county elected officials became structured as councils of
government, as a response to local interest and encouragement by the Federal
Housing Act of 1954.15 Georgia, in 1957, created a state-wide
system of planning and development districts. Other States investigated the
idea and followed suit. With the 1968 Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, the
federal government encouraged the concept by establishing the A-95 review
process which called for a regional review of applications for grant funding to
determine the regional impact of projects. The Department of Housing and Urban
Development supported the concept by funding councils for regional planning.
Regional councils, as early
networks, put local governments into a situation where they had to share power
in decision-making. Under this system, applications for Federal and sometimes
state grants had to be reviewed by a regional clearinghouse for its impact on
local and regional plans. Thus, to get a local sign-off on a grant application,
a central city may have had to deal with growing suburbs or vice versa. These
early regional forums were either controversial or yawn inducing as they dealt
with the allocation of assisted housing or abstract issues of regional
planning. The reaction of local officials to the concept of the regional
council in many cases was that it was an unnecessary level of government and a
threat, fearing that they would be eliminated at some time in the future. State
administrations often oversold the early regional councils, such as in
Virginia, where the enabling legislation even included an option for a directly
elected multi-purpose regional service district.
What are the roles of regional
councils today? That depends upon the size and characteristics of the
region served. There are three basic categories, depending upon the size of the
metropolitan area within the region: large, medium and small or rural if
there is no City/suburban area of over 50,000 populations within a Metropolitan
Statistical area of 100,000. In a 1985 meeting of regional council Executive
Directors, all levels saw economic development as a functional concern of their
member governments. This reflects a growing understanding by all involved in
the process that companies pick regions in which to locate, since single
jurisdictions can seldom offer all the amenities sought. Also the high cost of
marketing encourages cost sharing approaches. The rural/small metro and medium
metro councils saw their roles as providing specific types of technical and
operational assistance for localities, while promoting, brokering and assisting
in financing/grantsmanship deals to bring about economic development. The large
metros operate as information/data resources with increasing private sector
ties to facilitate better management of a broader region.16
As tools of local government,
regional councils can be shaped by the member governments to handle programs
for one or more member government as desired, though authority may have to come
from state legislation. In southwest Virginia, two regional councils are
involved in implementation of a variety of programs, including development of a
regional industrial park, operation of solid waste disposal programs, and job
training. In southeastern Virginia, for the Norfolk-Portsmouth-Virginia Beach
metropolitan area, the regional council serves as the ad hoc coordinator for a
variety of regional services through a network of appointed and elected
officials. The states can use these councils to promote regional cooperation
through an application of incentives, however if they are to function in
concert with state agencies, the agencies must share power.
Conclusions
Looking back at the 1950's, the
leaders in the regional council movement envisioned the benefit of local
governments working cooperatively to benefit themselves and each other. Within
the past thirty years, the regional council has grown from a "meet
and eat" affair for local officials, to become a valuable tool for local
and state governments to deal with complex issues which are now faced by the
various substate and interstate regions of the country. A tremendous amount of
consciousness raising was necessary on the part of local officials to get them
into the 20th century. Now that many have arrived, using the local planning tool,
it is now time for them to jump shift to a tool for the 21st century, the
regional council.
The ultimate decentralization in the
current political structure is to the local government, those boundaries set up
in the horse and buggy days. The identity local governments provide is as
important to American democracy today as it was then, so it is unlikely that
the public will voluntarily reorganize in the name of efficiency. At the same
time local government will face crises as impacts are felt from (1) the
shortage of public dollars, (2) the shift to a global economy, and (3)
technological changes. A viable option for local governments is the continued
evolution of regional councils consistent with the needs of the regions they
serve. The regional council is a tool for today and tomorrow.
Published in “Challenges and
Opportunities: From Now to 2001,” Howard F. Didsbury, Jr. ed., World Future
Society, Bethesda, MD, 1986. ©
REFERENCES
1. National Association of Towns and
Townships, "Harvesting Hometown Jobs: a small-town guide to local economic
development," Washington, D.C.: 1985 National Center for Small
Communities, p. 11.
2. Toffler, Alvin, The Third Wave,
New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1980, p. 449.
3. Ibid., p. 280.
4. Ibid., p. 281.
5. National Association of Regional
Councils, "Directory of Regional Councils 85-86," Washington, D.C.,
p. 3.
6. National Association of Regional
Councils, Report No. 107, March, 1985.
7. Anderson, Wayne F. et al, The
Effective Local Government Manager, Washington, D.C.: International City
Management Association, 1983, p. 172.
8. U.S. Bureau of the Census,
Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1986, (106th edition.)
Washington, DC, 1985 p. 274.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid., p. 262.
11. Governor's Commission on
Virginia's Future, "Toward A New Dominion: Choices for
Virginians," Charlottesville, Virginia: Institute of
Government, University of Virginia, December, 1984, pp. 37-8.
12. Kent Mathewson,
"Perspectives on Council-Manager Government: American
Federalism," remarks to the 25th Annual City and County Management
Seminar, Institute of Government, University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill, text copy. p. 6.
13. Ibid., p. 7.
14. Ibid., pp. 11-2.
15. Hartman, Richard C., "The
State's Role in Regionalism," February, 1973, p. 163, The Regionalist
Papers, Kent Mathewson, ed., Southfield, Michigan: Metropolitan Fund,
Inc., 2nd Edition, 1978
16. National Association of Regional
Councils, "Directors' News," Vol. 6, No. 10, October, 25, 1985.
