Search (7 results)

Applied Filters (Reset)

  • Tags = Folder topic: Urban Policy Council | 1966

Filters

Result Types

Item Types

Tags

Featured

Box 14, Folder 20, Document 2

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_014_020_002.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 14, Folder 20, Document 2
  • Text: United States of America Vol. 112 veragc of lc,c1l employees under the State mertt system; (2) technical services In one or m ore areas or personnel admJnlstratlon s uch as recruitm e nt. exnmlnations, classification and compensation pla ns; (3 J cooperative resear ch and demon stration projects for the u se of valid personnel m ethods ; or (4) intergovernmental cooperntlve arra n gem ents between the Sta te and local governments or among local governments, Including facili tating Inter jur isdictional loans, transfers or promotions or personnel; (c) provide for financial participation by State or such local governments, or both, In the costs of providing services a t least equa l In runount to the F ed er al grants, a nd provid e further thn t the opera tlon of the pla n will not result in a r eduction In State and local expenditures or a eubstitutlon of Federal for State or loca l funds for personnel admin is tration; and (d) provide that the State agency will m a ke such reports in such form and containing su ch information as t he Secretary may from time to time r equire and shall keep and m a ke available such records as he may require for the verification of such reports, Part C. Grants for personnel administration in m etropolitan areas Soc. 207(a). From the sums appropriated under section 202 ( c ) the Secretary shall m a ke an nually payments to States or m&tropolitan units of general loca l government which have projects approved by him under section 206. SENATE (b) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, shall establlsh such standards for the distribution of grants under this section among the States a nd among such metropolitan units as will most effectively carry out the purposes of this Act, and shall estabJlsh regulations for financial participation by States or such units, or b oth, in an amount equal to at least one-third of the costs of each project, including the reasonable value of facliities a nd personnel services made avaliable by the State or such loca l government for the administration of the project. Project requirements SEC. 208, Projects to be approved for grants unde r section 207 shall conform to ,criteria established in regUlations which shall be Issu ed by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Grants wiU be used, in accordance with such regulations, for projects for strengthening personnel administration on a merit basis in order to meet increasingly critical problems of administration In metropolitan units of general loca l government. Projects may Include, but are not limited to-( 1) assessment of m anpower needs In developing programs and methods for meeting them; (2) Improvement of classification and compensatioh plans, and recruitment and examinations, particularly for profeeslonal, administrative and technical personnel In shortage ca tegorles; (3) application of psychological and other research in personnel administration directed toward improvement of selection and development of members of disadvantaged groups whose capacities are not being fully used; (4) plans for establishing auxiliary or support types of positions to perform a ppropriate functions currently performed In occupations In which there are now shortages; (5)research and demonstration relating to t echniques, such as electr onic d a ta processing, for Improving the speed and quality of personnel operations; and ( 6) cooperative activities in recruitment and examining by governmental Jurisdictions operating In metropolitan areaa. Exceptlon--Submittal of Local Projects SEC. 209. After the expiration of one year from the date or enactment of this Act, if a State h as n ot submitted any proje{:ts under section 208 of this title which have received approval, the metropolitan units of general local government may submit proj ects for approval , a nd such projects may be approved If they comply with the reqUlrements or section 208. Administration SEC. 210. The provisions of this title shall be adminis tered by the Secr etary, who Is authorized to furnish such technica l assistance to States or units or general local governments and to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this title , Suspension of Grants SEC. 2 11. Whenever the Secretary, after giving reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the State or local agency administering a plan approval under this title, finds ( 1) that s uch plan has been so changed that it no longer complies with the provisions of thls title, or (2) that 1n the administration of the plan there Is a failure to comply substantially with any s uch provision, the Secr etary shall notify such agency o! h!s findings and no further payments will be made to the State or other recipient under this title (or in his discretion further pay- 1 May 25, 1966 ments wlll be limited to projects pnder, or portions of, the plan not affected by such failure), until he ls satisfied that there will no longer be a ny failure to comply. TITLE III-AUTHORIZATION FOR TRAINING D eclaration of Purpose SEC. 301. The plll'pose of this title is to foster the training of State and local employees by permitting their attendance at Federal courses, and by authortzing Federal departments or agencies administering grantin-aid progrruns to conduct training and to permit Federal grants to States and localities to be used for training and educational leave. Participation In Federal Programs SEC. 302. Any Federal department or agency conductlng training programs for professiona l, administrative, or technical employees In the Federa l service is a uthorized to include In such programs , under conditions imposed by the head of such agency, State and local officers and employees in sim_Uar or related functions, on the request of the State or local government. Fees for attendance at any such training program may be received by the Federal agency conducting It and expended In the same manner as fees r eceived for attendance of Federal employees, or the payment of fees may be waived in occupational categories d etermined by the head of the Federa l department or agency to be in short supply. Training In Grant-Aided Programs SEC. 303 , Any Federal department or agency administering a program of gr ants or financia l assistance to States and localities is au thorized (a) to conduct training for State and local officers and employees in professional, administrative, and technical fields r elated to such programs: (b) to make grants to State and localities from Federal funds appropriated for State or local administrative expenses of the program, unc!er the usual terms and conditions of such grants, for the conduct of training for S tate and local officers and employees In such progra m: and (c) to make grants to State and loca lities from Federal funds appropriated for State or local administra tive expenses of the progr am , under the usual terms a nd conditions of s u ch grants, for education a l leave or comparable arrangements for sala ries a nd training expenses or employees In professiona l, administrative, and technica l fields who h ave been employed under a merit system of personn el administration in State or local agencies ad ministering the federally aided program, In order for . them to attend university or other training courses related to the program. S aving Provis ion SEC. 304. The a uthorizations in this title are not a limita tion on exis ting authority u nder la w for Federal d epartments or agencies to conduct training or to make grants for training or edu cational leave. TITLE IV-GRANTS FOR TRAINING OF STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES Declaration of Purpose SEC. 401. The purpose of this title Is to promote higher levels of performance of employees In the public service, particularly in professional, administrative, and techn ica l fields , and the development of employee potentia l by providing Federal assistance to State and local gov er nm en ts to ins ti tu t c and carry out programs for the training of their employees ln fields where such Federal assistance is not already provided under grant-in s.Id or other statutes. Appropriation Authorization SEC. 402. There Is h ereby authorized to be appropriated the following sums for payments to States and units of general local government which h a ve plans approved un der this title for the training of their employees: tl0,000,000 for fiscal year 1967, $25,- �May 25, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - 000,000 for fiscal year 1968, and $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1969, 1970, and 1971. Grants Authorized SEC. 403(a). From the sums appropriated under section 402 the Civil Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). shall make annually grants to States or units of general local government which have plans approved by It under sections 404 and 405, respectively. , (b) The sums available annually !or grants under this section shall be allotted among the States, and between States a nd units of general local government In a State, under formulas to be approved by the Commission which shall gi ve weight to the number of State and local employees, the number of local governments p a rticipating, the scope of training to be provided , and the financial ab lllty of th e State as indicated by Its relative per capita Income , excep.t that each State will receive not Jess than $25,000 for fiscal year 1967 and $50,000 annually therea fter. Requirements of State plans SEC. 404. A State plan for training of officers and employees to be approved mus t ( 1) designate the State agency for the admini stration of the plan; ( 2) set forth a program for the training of omcers and employees of States and units of general loca l government which will meet the objectives of this title and provide for training personnel of agencies not r ece iving assis tance under other Federal program s ; (3) provide for continuing assessment of trai ning needs ; (4) set for th equitable standards for the selection and assignment of personnel for training; (5) provide fo r the efficient utillzation of p ersonnel who h ave been given such training, a nd for their continued service for a reasonable p eriod of time; (6) provide that educational leave or other arra n gements for p aymP.nt of salary and training expenses for period s In excess or one month in a ny one year sh a ll be allowed only for career personnel empl oyed in accordance with a merit system; (7) set forth, when training ls to be given through univers ity or other nongovernmental facilities t h e policies with respect to the selection of such facilities and the types of agreements to be entered Into for th e training ; and (8) provide for financl ,t l p:nticlpation by the States. the uni ts of genera l loca l government thereof, or from private sources. in a n amount equal to one-fourth of the cost or the training, In cluding the reasonable value of facilities and personal se rvices made available for admini stration of the training, provided that the operation of the plan wlll not r esu lt in a reduction in State and local expenditures or substitution of Federal for State or loca l funds !or training . Exception-Submitta l of Loca l Plans SEC. 405. I! after one year from the effective date of this Act, a State has not sub mitted and had approved a plan under sec tion 404, Including provision for training o! local governmental emr-'oyees Involving expenditures at Ins t equ iv alent to the expendi tures for training of State government employees, one or more units of general loca l government In the State Jointly or severally may submit a plan for such training during the following fiscal year, designating a single local agency for adm ini stration and otherwise conforming to the requirements of section 404 under regulations which sha ll be prescrl bed by the Commission with the concurrence or the Secretary o! Housing and Urban Development. Administration SEC. 406. The provisions of this title shall be admlnlstered by the Commission, which SENATE 10989 Is authorized to furnish such technical assistance to States or units of general iocal government a nd to prescribe such regulations as m ay be necessary to carry out the purposes of this title. Suspension of Grants SEC. 407. Whenever the Commlssion, after giving reasona ble notice and opportunity for hearing to the State or other agency administering any plan app~oved under this title, finds (a) that a State or other plan has been so changed that It no longer compiles with the provis ions of th.ls title, or (b) that in the administration of the plan there ls a !allure to comply s ubstantially with any such provision', the Commission shall notify such agency of !ts findings and no further payments will be made to the State or other recipient under this title (or In !ts discretion further payments wlll be llmlted to projects under, or portions of, the plan not affected by such !allure) until It ls satisfied that there will no longer be any failure to comply. Metropolltan Unit of General Local Government SEC. 703. "Metropolltan un!t(s) of general local government" mea ns any city or comp a ra ble general-purpose political subdivision of a State with a population of 100,000 or more, as determined by the most recent Federal census, or any county or parish with such population which Includes a city or comparable subdivision with a population of 50,000 or more, as determined by such census. Non-metropolltan Unit qf General Loca l Government SEC. 704. "Non-metropolltan unlt(s) of general local government" means any city, county, p al\ish, town, village or other generalpurpose polltlca l subdivision of a State, except such units of general local government as are included In section 703 of this Act. TITLE V-COOPERATION JN PERSONNEL RECRUITMENT AND EXAMINATION SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE INTER- SEC. 501. The Commission Is authorized to Join, on a shared-cost basis, with State or units of general local government or both, in cooperative recruitment or examinations under such regulations as may be Jointly agreed upon . SEC. 502. The Commission Is authorized, upon written request from a State, a unit of general loca l government thereof, or both, and under such regulations as may be Jointly agreed upon , to certify to such agencies, from appropriate registers, a llst of ellglble personnel who h av e successfully completed such examinations a nd satisfied such requirements as the Commiss ion has prescribed, upon the pay ment by the unit of government making the request, of the salaries and such other costs for performing such service. SEC. 503. The terms of reimbursement for the service authorized under section 502 shall be d etermined by the Commission. All mon eys received by the Commission In payment for furnishing such serv ice a uthorized s hall be deposited to the credit of the a ppropriation of the Commission. There being no objection, the bill and the section-by-section analysis was ordered to be printed in the RECORD , as follows: GOVERNMENTAL PERSONNEL ACT OF Section 1. Short title. Section 2. Declaration of Polley. 1966 Under our federal system and In an Increasingly complex society, effective State and local governments are Indispensable. Their efficiency a nd administrative competence Is of nationa l concern, p articularly since many programs they administer are federally financed . The appllcatlon of merit systems of p ersonnel administration In certain federally aided progra ms h as contributed to their efficiency, and such systems should b e extended to other grant programs. Federa l fin a ncia l a nd technical assistance should a lso be made avallable to State and local governments to strengthen their overall personnel administration. The Federal Government should encourage and assist in the continuing training and development of State and local employees, particularly in professional, administrative and technical fields , in order to Improve the capab!llty of the public service. The Act recognizes that the success o'f the Joint-action programs enacted by the Congress and the State legislatures Is vitally affected by the caliber of State a nd loca l personnel a dministering them. It recognizes TITLE VI-AUTHORITY FOR INTERSTATE COMPACTS that a ll levels of government Involved · In SEC. 601. To promote higher personnel these Joint ventures-Including the Federal standa rds and mobillty of quallfied person- Government-have not only a right but a n el, particularly profession a l , administrative, duty to take steps to see that such progra ms and tech nical personnel In s hortage cate- are efficiently a dministered and that the -gorlcs, the consent of the Congress Is hereby fund s provided a re u sed effectively to accom give n to any two or more States to enter Into plish the purposes prescribed by Jaw . The compacts or other agreements, not In conflict Act, then, Is designed to assist State and with any law of the United States, for co- loca l governments in strengthening their opernLlve efforts and mutual assistance (In- partners hip role In the federal system. cluding the establishment of such agencies, States and Iocall ties are facing cri tlca l Joint or otherwise, as they deem desirable) for the admin is tration of personnel and problems In the recruitment, selection. and training programs for officers and employees retention of well-qualified personnel for new and expanded programs. This shortage Is of State a nd local governments. acute In the upper levels, both In the public TITLE VII-DEFINITIONS and pri vate sectors of the economy. The When used tn this Act, State and loca l flnanclal and technical resources for publlc personnel a dministration State SEC. 701. The term "State" means any of and staff development, however, h ave not the several States of the United States, the kept pace with the growth of the programs District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, any terri- they administer. Yet, qualified personnel tory or possession of the United States, or and sound personnel policies are absolutely any agency or lnstrumentallty of a State, but essential to effective governmental operadoes not Include the governments of the po- tions . The Act proposes to bulld on the Interlltical subdivisions of any State. governmental personnel experience in certain Merit System grant-In-aid programs. It would make SEC. 702. "Merit system" means a planned matching grants and technical services availState or local operation to develop and main- able to State and local governments for the tain an efficient career service, under publlc improvement of their overall personnel adrules, which among other provisions Include ministration . It would encourage cooperaappointment through competitive examina- tive efforts In recruitment and training on tion, nondiscrimination in race, polltlcs or an lnterle vel and Interstate basis. It would rellglon, equal pay ror equal work, tenure make available Federal training facilities contingent on successful performance, and and also provide grants and technical assistpromotion on evaluated capacity and service. ance for training. Thus, It balances the need �10990 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE t o f ost er dynamic p ersonnel systems f o r r ecrui t m e nt of Sta te ana local staffs of high ca p a.c lty with an effort to assis t In their continuous development. TITL E I - EXT E N S ION OF THE M ERIT SYS T EM I N F E DERALLY AIDED PROGRAM S This title a uthorizes the Preside n t, In orde r to achie v e grea ter efficiency in a dministr ation of p rogr a m s fina nce
  • Tags: Box 14, Box 14 Folder 20, Folder topic: Urban Policy Council | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 14, Folder 20, Document 3

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_014_020_003.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 14, Folder 20, Document 3
  • Text: Gam OURGrUsK I~OOIT UCI PAN, AS SBOCUIATOUOIW 406 FULTON FEDERAL BUILDING: / ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 June 3, 1966 ACTIVE PRES City COMMISSIONER JOHN E. YARBROUGH IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT ROME, GA. MAYOR RANDOLPH MEDLOCK STONE MOUNTAIN, GA. Mayor W. B. WITHERS MOULTRIE, GA. City COMMISSIONER CARL E. PRUETT GRIFFIN, GA. Mayor B. F. MERRITT, JR. MACON, GA. FIRST DISTRICT PRESIDENT MAYOR JACK A. LEROY AILEY DIRECTOR Mayor J. W. SNELL WRIGHTSVILLE SECOND DISTRICT PRESIDENT MAYOR W. P. HENRY PELHAM DIRECTOR MAYOR MAcK E. WILLIS BAINBRIDGE THIRD DISTRICT PRESIDENT RIcHARD B. RAY PERRY DIRECTOR Mayor O, E. WHITE PINE MOUNTAIN FOURTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT COUNCILMAN LINTON BROOME DORAVILLE DIRECTOR COUNCILMAN CLYDE J. Hicks CONYERS FIFTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT MaYoR AUBREY E. GREENWAY ROSWELL DIRECTOR ALDERMAN E. GREGORY GRIGGS ATLANTA SIXTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT Mayor J. GARDNER NEWMAN LAGRANGE DIRECTOR MAYOR HERBERT H. JONES McDONOUGH SEVENTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT Mayor J. C. Woops TRION DIRECTOR MavOR RALPH R. CLARK, JR RINGGOLD EIGHTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT MAYOR ELTON D. BrRroOoKS DOUGLAS DIRECTOR MAYOR JAMES T. WINDSOR, JR McRAE NINTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT MavYor DUARD B. WHITLOW CARNESYILLE DIRECTOR MAYOR MAG. JESSIE L. GARHER BAHLONEGA TENTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT MAYOR JULIUS F. BISHOP ATHENS DIRECTOR GEORGE A, SANCKEN, JR AUGUSTA DIRECTORS STATE AT LARGE f EL ft, “shin ¥ Poca yin err Crry Com»ussronen J. Steve Knicnr,’ President- yy) COLUMBUS e Mayor Matcorm R. Macuean, First Vice President SAVANNAH Mayor Joun L. Cromantre, Second Vice President GAINESVILLE W. Etmen Geonce, Executive Director wey fos futon é oar, / a / TELEPHONE 255-0424 / / Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Associate Administrator EOA, Inc. 101 Marietta Street Building, Room 400( Atlanta, Georgia a0208 Dear Dan: Iam calling a meeting of the GMA Services Evaluation Committee for Thursday, June 9, 1966. The meeting will begin at 12:00 Noon in Elmer George's office, and after luncheon together, we will wind up at approximately 3:00 P. M. Elmer and Jim Burgess have been working up several important items for consideration by the committee and these have been documented, to save time. I do not believe there will be a more important GMA program this year than the one being undertaken by our committee and it will be appreciated if you will be present. Before it is over, we may have to involve Federal agencies, the National League of Cities, our Congressional delegation, the Governor, State Legislature and county officials. Please advise on the attached postal card if you can attend this first meeting of our committee. IC:rg Enclosure COUNCILMAN GEORGE H, BULLOCK ATHENS MavToR eA Jack HAMILTON DEGATU Mayor JOHN C. EDENFIELD THOMASTON Sincerely, John Cromartie, Chairman GMA Evaluation Committee ALPERMAN J, J. SHOOB SAVANNAH MAYOR LEE E, CARTER City MANAGER JOH NH, MARKLAND | T, GITY MANAGERS’ BEGTION poate ALDERMAN CEEIL TURNER ATLANTA nee Neate R, TRAVIS HIGGINBOTHAM PRES|DENT. CITY CLERKS" 1ON ALBANY SMITH HARTWELL civ AIF ORNEH eS PRES/DENT, CI AMERICUS: INEVS! SECTION aa
  • Tags: Box 14, Box 14 Folder 20, Folder topic: Urban Policy Council | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 14, Folder 20, Complete Folder

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_014_020.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 14, Folder 20, Complete Folder
  • Text: @}IlE©~@~ ~ C 1TY C°'veragc of lc,c1l employees under the State mertt system; (2) technical services In one or m ore areas or personnel admJnlstratlon s uch as recruitm e nt. exnmlnations, classification and compensation pla ns; (3 J cooperative resear ch and demon stration projects for the u se of valid personnel m ethods ; or (4) intergovernmental cooperntlve arra n gem ents between the Sta te and local governments or among local governments, Including facili tating Inter jur isdictional loans, transfers or promotions or personnel; (c) provide for financial participation by State or such local governments, or both, In the costs of providing services a t least equa l In runount to the F ed er al grants, a nd provid e further thn t the opera tlon of the pla n will not result in a r eduction In State and local expenditures or a eubstitutlon of Federal for State or loca l funds for personnel admin is tration; and (d) provide that the State agency will m a ke such reports in such form and containing su ch information as t he Secretary may from time to time r equire and shall keep and m a ke available such records as he may require for the verification of such reports, Part C. Grants for personnel administration in m etropolitan areas Soc. 207(a). From the sums appropriated under section 202 ( c ) the Secretary shall m a ke an nually payments to States or m&tropolitan units of general loca l government which have projects approved by him under section 206. SENATE (b) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, shall establlsh such standards for the distribution of grants under this section among the States a nd among such metropolitan units as will most effectively carry out the purposes of this Act, and shall estabJlsh regulations for financial participation by States or such units, or b oth, in an amount equal to at least one-third of the costs of each project, including the reasonable value of facliities a nd personnel services made avaliable by the State or such loca l government for the administration of the project. Project requirements SEC. 208, Projects to be approved for grants unde r section 207 shall conform to ,criteria established in regUlations which shall be Issu ed by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Grants wiU be used, in accordance with such regulations, for projects for strengthening personnel administration on a merit basis in order to meet increasingly critical problems of administration In metropolitan units of general loca l government. Projects may Include, but are not limited to-( 1) assessment of m anpower needs In developing programs and methods for meeting them; (2) Improvement of classification and compensatioh plans, and recruitment and examinations, particularly for profeeslonal, administrative and technical personnel In shortage ca tegorles; (3) application of psychological and other research in personnel administration directed toward improvement of selection and development of members of disadvantaged groups whose capacities are not being fully used; (4) plans for establishing auxiliary or support types of positions to perform a ppropriate functions currently performed In occupations In which there are now shortages; (5)research and demonstration relating to t echniques, such as electr onic d a ta processing, for Improving the speed and quality of personnel operations; and ( 6) cooperative activities in recruitment and examining by governmental Jurisdictions operating In metropolitan areaa. Exceptlon--Submittal of Local Projects SEC. 209. After the expiration of one year from the date or enactment of this Act, if a State h as n ot submitted any proje{:ts under section 208 of this title which have received approval, the metropolitan units of general local government may submit proj ects for approval , a nd such projects may be approved If they comply with the reqUlrements or section 208. Administration SEC. 210. The provisions of this title shall be adminis tered by the Secr etary, who Is authorized to furnish such technica l assistance to States or units or general local governments and to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this title , Suspension of Grants SEC. 2 11. Whenever the Secretary, after giving reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the State or local agency administering a plan approval under this title, finds ( 1) that s uch plan has been so changed that it no longer complies with the provisions of thls title, or (2) that 1n the administration of the plan there Is a failure to comply substantially with any s uch provision, the Secr etary shall notify such agency o! h!s findings and no further payments will be made to the State or other recipient under this title (or in his discretion further pay- 1 May 25, 1966 ments wlll be limited to projects pnder, or portions of, the plan not affected by such failure), until he ls satisfied that there will no longer be a ny failure to comply. TITLE III-AUTHORIZATION FOR TRAINING D eclaration of Purpose SEC. 301. The plll'pose of this title is to foster the training of State and local employees by permitting their attendance at Federal courses, and by authortzing Federal departments or agencies administering grantin-aid progrruns to conduct training and to permit Federal grants to States and localities to be used for training and educational leave. Participation In Federal Programs SEC. 302. Any Federal department or agency conductlng training programs for professiona l, administrative, or technical employees In the Federa l service is a uthorized to include In such programs , under conditions imposed by the head of such agency, State and local officers and employees in sim_Uar or related functions, on the request of the State or local government. Fees for attendance at any such training program may be received by the Federal agency conducting It and expended In the same manner as fees r eceived for attendance of Federal employees, or the payment of fees may be waived in occupational categories d etermined by the head of the Federa l department or agency to be in short supply. Training In Grant-Aided Programs SEC. 303 , Any Federal department or agency administering a program of gr ants or financia l assistance to States and localities is au thorized (a) to conduct training for State and local officers and employees in professional, administrative, and technical fields r elated to such programs: (b) to make grants to State and localities from Federal funds appropriated for State or local administrative expenses of the program, unc!er the usual terms and conditions of such grants, for the conduct of training for S tate and local officers and employees In such progra m: and (c) to make grants to State and loca lities from Federal funds appropriated for State or local administra tive expenses of the progr am , under the usual terms a nd conditions of s u ch grants, for education a l leave or comparable arrangements for sala ries a nd training expenses or employees In professiona l, administrative, and technica l fields who h ave been employed under a merit system of personn el administration in State or local agencies ad ministering the federally aided program, In order for . them to attend university or other training courses related to the program. S aving Provis ion SEC. 304. The a uthorizations in this title are not a limita tion on exis ting authority u nder la w for Federal d epartments or agencies to conduct training or to make grants for training or edu cational leave. TITLE IV-GRANTS FOR TRAINING OF STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES Declaration of Purpose SEC. 401. The purpose of this title Is to promote higher levels of performance of employees In the public service, particularly in professional, administrative, and techn ica l fields , and the development of employee potentia l by providing Federal assistance to State and local gov er nm en ts to ins ti tu t c and carry out programs for the training of their employees ln fields where such Federal assistance is not already provided under grant-in s.Id or other statutes. Appropriation Authorization SEC. 402. There Is h ereby authorized to be appropriated the following sums for payments to States and units of general local government which h a ve plans approved un der this title for the training of their employees: tl0,000,000 for fiscal year 1967, $25,- �May 25, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - 000,000 for fiscal year 1968, and $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1969, 1970, and 1971. Grants Authorized SEC. 403(a). From the sums appropriated under section 402 the Civil Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). shall make annually grants to States or units of general local government which have plans approved by It under sections 404 and 405, respectively. , (b) The sums available annually !or grants under this section shall be allotted among the States, and between States a nd units of general local government In a State, under formulas to be approved by the Commission which shall gi ve weight to the number of State and local employees, the number of local governments p a rticipating, the scope of training to be provided , and the financial ab lllty of th e State as indicated by Its relative per capita Income , excep.t that each State will receive not Jess than $25,000 for fiscal year 1967 and $50,000 annually therea fter. Requirements of State plans SEC. 404. A State plan for training of officers and employees to be approved mus t ( 1) designate the State agency for the admini stration of the plan; ( 2) set forth a program for the training of omcers and employees of States and units of general loca l government which will meet the objectives of this title and provide for training personnel of agencies not r ece iving assis tance under other Federal program s ; (3) provide for continuing assessment of trai ning needs ; (4) set for th equitable standards for the selection and assignment of personnel for training; (5) provide fo r the efficient utillzation of p ersonnel who h ave been given such training, a nd for their continued service for a reasonable p eriod of time; (6) provide that educational leave or other arra n gements for p aymP.nt of salary and training expenses for period s In excess or one month in a ny one year sh a ll be allowed only for career personnel empl oyed in accordance with a merit system; (7) set forth, when training ls to be given through univers ity or other nongovernmental facilities t h e policies with respect to the selection of such facilities and the types of agreements to be entered Into for th e training ; and (8) provide for financl ,t l p:nticlpation by the States. the uni ts of genera l loca l government thereof, or from private sources. in a n amount equal to one-fourth of the cost or the training, In cluding the reasonable value of facilities and personal se rvices made available for admini stration of the training, provided that the operation of the plan wlll not r esu lt in a reduction in State and local expenditures or substitution of Federal for State or loca l funds !or training . Exception-Submitta l of Loca l Plans SEC. 405. I! after one year from the effective date of this Act, a State has not sub mitted and had approved a plan under sec tion 404, Including provision for training o! local governmental emr-'oyees Involving expenditures at Ins t equ iv alent to the expendi tures for training of State government employees, one or more units of general loca l government In the State Jointly or severally may submit a plan for such training during the following fiscal year, designating a single local agency for adm ini stration and otherwise conforming to the requirements of section 404 under regulations which sha ll be prescrl bed by the Commission with the concurrence or the Secretary o! Housing and Urban Development. Administration SEC. 406. The provisions of this title shall be admlnlstered by the Commission, which SENATE 10989 Is authorized to furnish such technical assistance to States or units of general iocal government a nd to prescribe such regulations as m ay be necessary to carry out the purposes of this title. Suspension of Grants SEC. 407. Whenever the Commlssion, after giving reasona ble notice and opportunity for hearing to the State or other agency administering any plan app~oved under this title, finds (a) that a State or other plan has been so changed that It no longer compiles with the provis ions of th.ls title, or (b) that in the administration of the plan there ls a !allure to comply s ubstantially with any such provision', the Commission shall notify such agency of !ts findings and no further payments will be made to the State or other recipient under this title (or In !ts discretion further payments wlll be llmlted to projects under, or portions of, the plan not affected by such !allure) until It ls satisfied that there will no longer be any failure to comply. Metropolltan Unit of General Local Government SEC. 703. "Metropolltan un!t(s) of general local government" mea ns any city or comp a ra ble general-purpose political subdivision of a State with a population of 100,000 or more, as determined by the most recent Federal census, or any county or parish with such population which Includes a city or comparable subdivision with a population of 50,000 or more, as determined by such census. Non-metropolltan Unit qf General Loca l Government SEC. 704. "Non-metropolltan unlt(s) of general local government" means any city, county, p al\ish, town, village or other generalpurpose polltlca l subdivision of a State, except such units of general local government as are included In section 703 of this Act. TITLE V-COOPERATION JN PERSONNEL RECRUITMENT AND EXAMINATION SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE INTER- SEC. 501. The Commission Is authorized to Join, on a shared-cost basis, with State or units of general local government or both, in cooperative recruitment or examinations under such regulations as may be Jointly agreed upon . SEC. 502. The Commission Is authorized, upon written request from a State, a unit of general loca l government thereof, or both, and under such regulations as may be Jointly agreed upon , to certify to such agencies, from appropriate registers, a llst of ellglble personnel who h av e successfully completed such examinations a nd satisfied such requirements as the Commiss ion has prescribed, upon the pay ment by the unit of government making the request, of the salaries and such other costs for performing such service. SEC. 503. The terms of reimbursement for the service authorized under section 502 shall be d etermined by the Commission. All mon eys received by the Commission In payment for furnishing such serv ice a uthorized s hall be deposited to the credit of the a ppropriation of the Commission. There being no objection, the bill and the section-by-section analysis was ordered to be printed in the RECORD , as follows: GOVERNMENTAL PERSONNEL ACT OF Section 1. Short title. Section 2. Declaration of Polley. 1966 Under our federal system and In an Increasingly complex society, effective State and local governments are Indispensable. Their efficiency a nd administrative competence Is of nationa l concern, p articularly since many programs they administer are federally financed . The appllcatlon of merit systems of p ersonnel administration In certain federally aided progra ms h as contributed to their efficiency, and such systems should b e extended to other grant programs. Federa l fin a ncia l a nd technical assistance should a lso be made avallable to State and local governments to strengthen their overall personnel administration. The Federal Government should encourage and assist in the continuing training and development of State and local employees, particularly in professional, administrative and technical fields , in order to Improve the capab!llty of the public service. The Act recognizes that the success o'f the Joint-action programs enacted by the Congress and the State legislatures Is vitally affected by the caliber of State a nd loca l personnel a dministering them. It recognizes TITLE VI-AUTHORITY FOR INTERSTATE COMPACTS that a ll levels of government Involved · In SEC. 601. To promote higher personnel these Joint ventures-Including the Federal standa rds and mobillty of quallfied person- Government-have not only a right but a n el, particularly profession a l , administrative, duty to take steps to see that such progra ms and tech nical personnel In s hortage cate- are efficiently a dministered and that the -gorlcs, the consent of the Congress Is hereby fund s provided a re u sed effectively to accom give n to any two or more States to enter Into plish the purposes prescribed by Jaw . The compacts or other agreements, not In conflict Act, then, Is designed to assist State and with any law of the United States, for co- loca l governments in strengthening their opernLlve efforts and mutual assistance (In- partners hip role In the federal system. cluding the establishment of such agencies, States and Iocall ties are facing cri tlca l Joint or otherwise, as they deem desirable) for the admin is tration of personnel and problems In the recruitment, selection. and training programs for officers and employees retention of well-qualified personnel for new and expanded programs. This shortage Is of State a nd local governments. acute In the upper levels, both In the public TITLE VII-DEFINITIONS and pri vate sectors of the economy. The When used tn this Act, State and loca l flnanclal and technical resources for publlc personnel a dministration State SEC. 701. The term "State" means any of and staff development, however, h ave not the several States of the United States, the kept pace with the growth of the programs District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, any terri- they administer. Yet, qualified personnel tory or possession of the United States, or and sound personnel policies are absolutely any agency or lnstrumentallty of a State, but essential to effective governmental operadoes not Include the governments of the po- tions . The Act proposes to bulld on the Interlltical subdivisions of any State. governmental personnel experience in certain Merit System grant-In-aid programs. It would make SEC. 702. "Merit system" means a planned matching grants and technical services availState or local operation to develop and main- able to State and local governments for the tain an efficient career service, under publlc improvement of their overall personnel adrules, which among other provisions Include ministration . It would encourage cooperaappointment through competitive examina- tive efforts In recruitment and training on tion, nondiscrimination in race, polltlcs or an lnterle vel and Interstate basis. It would rellglon, equal pay ror equal work, tenure make available Federal training facilities contingent on successful performance, and and also provide grants and technical assistpromotion on evaluated capacity and service. ance for training. Thus, It balances the need �10990 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE t o f ost er dynamic p ersonnel systems f o r r ecrui t m e nt of Sta te ana local staffs of high ca p a.c lty with an effort to assis t In their continuous development. TITL E I - EXT E N S ION OF THE M ERIT SYS T EM I N F E DERALLY AIDED PROGRAM S This title a uthorizes the Preside n t, In orde r to achie v e grea ter efficiency in a dministr ation of p rogr a m s fina nce
  • Tags: Box 14, Box 14 Folder 20, Folder topic: Urban Policy Council | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 14, Folder 20, Document 6

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_014_020_006.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 14, Folder 20, Document 6
  • Text: DRAFT say ofS EIR MEMORANDUM URBAN PO sbol.G-Y, COUNCIL MEMORANDUM URBAN POLICY COUNCIL The purpose of this memorandum is to present a statement of the need for establishing a steering committee or Council on Urban Policy in this state to consider formulation of policy recommendations with regard to local government involvement in the development of federal grant-in-aid legislation as affecting urban program development in Georgia. As a basic premise it is felt that local government officials and ad- ministrators should play an active part in the initial formulation of federal grant-in-aid legislation that affects the growth, development, ad- ministration, and operation of local government in Georgia. Local govern- ment officials and administrators should also be consulted in the develop- ment of implementing administrative regulations for such legislation. Many federal grant-in-aid programs appear to be founded to a large degree upon criteria or standards of application as determined almost en- tirely at the federal level. An example is current legislation in Congress to establish community development districts, the makeup and composition of which is proposed to be approved by a cabinet officer based upon predeter- mined criteria. Intergovernmental Cooperation There is strong probability that future urban programs, of even our larger cities, will as a prerequisite to federal approval, have to be re- viewed by regional organizations or area planning and development commis-— sions. The Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1965 (S. 561) which passed the Senate and not the House would have required review by a metropolitan planning agency before the federal government would act. Regional organizations composed of public officials are now recognized by federal law. These organizations have come into being to meet the need for dealing with problems of urban development that transcend established political and jurisdictional boundaries and cut across entire regions. These organizations will play a vital role in total coordinated urban devel- opment. Only recently were these organizations recognized by the federal gov- ernment to be more than mere planning agencies. Future federal policy con- templates grants to these agencies conditioned upon mandatory not voluntary membership. Also being considered in some quarters is the evolvement of this regional voluntary association of local governments into an instrumen- tality, either operating regional type functions or serving as the control center over other regional, functional units. Thus, our traditional gen- eral purpose cities and counties of today may be defining tomorrow's re- gional general purpose network of government. It should be apparent that these developments are restructuring our intergovernmental relationships in the urban area. Workable Program Part of the problem of local inflexibility and lack of administrative coordination perhaps lies with the over involvement of federal staff per- sonnel in the development and implementation of federal grant-in-aid pro- grams. There has not been enough involvement by local administrators and decision-makers in federal aid program development and implementation. There are many examples of past legislative grant-in-aid enactments by the Congress that often hamstring local government administrative machinery because of the inflexibility of black and white implementing federal rules and regulations which apply to all units of government re- gardless of size. A good example is the workable program for community development. This program as a prerequisite to involvement in certain federal programs is lacking in flexibility, in its application, and im- poses standards laid down without regard to the fact that local ability to implement and execute programs varies between large and small cities. The requirement of a long range capital improvements budget is cer- tainly desirable as a basis for scheduling of projects. However, many local units of government do not even have annual operating budgets. Con- sequently, the reality of a blanket requirement of a long range capital improvements program without requiring operating budgets is open to ques-— tion. The arbitrary requirement that the workable program be recertified each year regardless of size of city results in local administrative falsi- fying each year. There is a real question of whether the large city should be required to recertify the workable program each year -- why not every five years or every ten years? One large city produced a model workable program and was so claimed by the federal administrator to be one of the best workable programs in the nation. The next year the workable program of that city was not recerti- fied because the federal administrator had said that it had not changed enough over the previous year as reflected by the city's progress reports. Another city was refused recertification because the administrator said the city needed four additional housing inspectors over the previous year's commitment. Yet no standards or justification were stated as to why these requirements were imposed. In large cities, specific programs do not necessarily reflect dramatic changes on a yearly basis. Thus, recertification of the workable program for many cities is certainly jeopardized unless that city can "pad" its progress reports in order to convince the federal administrator of progress (not given units of progress but progress) and thus secure recertification. There is involvement in the initial drafting and development of federal legislation because of NLC, USCM, and NACO activities, committee hearings, etc. Yet it appears that broad discretion is given to federal administra- tors with regard to program implementation of legislation. This can be seen in the writing and drafting of agency regulations for implementation. The preparation of such regulations should involve the local public official or administrator in order to bridge the gulf between policy makers and practi- tioners. Quite often the administrative regulations seem to go much further than the intent of legislation. Urban Renewal In the case of urban renewal, real estate acquisition is supposed to be based upon a program of local determination. The criteria on rehabili- tation are extremely rigid on what a city is allowed to do. The same cri- teria apply to a large agency with large projects as well as to a small agency working on a single project. The large agency with the larger pro- jects need more flexibility in the planning, direction, and execution of such projects than would be the case of a small agency. Urban renewal regulations make reference to specific noncash credit items such as a 100% credit for a street serving the project, 50% for a boundary street, 25% for sewer line, etc. However, specific noncash items cannot always be apportioned in specific terms to a given urban renewal project. As an alternative, why not allow an overall total grant with credit given for noncash items in a program sense rather than in specifics so that the local credit items could be reflected in an overali urban renewal plan, as opposed to specific items on a project basis. Specific criteria and prerequisite standards are applied in the devel- opment of urban renewal projects. Yet similar requirements for streets, highways, and other physical facilities may be programmed with a total dis- regard for city's master plan. Economic Opportunity Program The following is a discussion of areas where cities (particularly, mayors) have encountered local problems in administration of the Economic Opportunity Program. Many mayors would have liked to have had some say in the initial devel- opment of VISTA (Volunteers In Service To America), or domestic peace corps program. Apparently, many mayors were not involved in the initial develop- ment of this program, and consequently, found it necessary to refuse parti- cipation in the VISTA program or were required to use their influence to cancel VISTA programs operating within their communities. An understanding of the extent of the role of VISTA within the politi- cal area is a demand the mayors could assert. However, this would be in opposition to the philosophy of VISTA in granting great flexibility and freedom. Thus, EOA, bearing in mind the problems which could be created for the mayor and the city council by completely unhindered volunteers, has had to demand that VISTA volunteers be tied down to specific assignments. This has been particularly true of the program in Atlanta. The question of the mayors veto of OEO projects is continuously raised. Certainly obstructionist politicians should not be able to deny necessary and reasonable programs for their citizens, Yet, neither the federal gov- ernment nor any other agency should be in a position to institute programs utilizing tax resources in a political subdivision with complete disregard of the elected leaders of that subdivision. The OEO philosophy demands involvement of the poor at the local level by CAP agencies in planning and in conducting CAP programs. However, this philosophy of involvement does not apparently apply at the Washington level. Many programs have originated from Washington with fairly stringent guidelines in which there have been no participation by municipal officials or other interested groups at the local level. Many of these programs are under the guise of demonstration programs such as the Foster Grandparents Demonstration project (as conducted in Atlanta) and many of them are actu- ally designed to be on-going projects. Recent changes in the requirements of the Small Business Development Center program under Title IV of the Economic Opportunity Act is an indi- cation of lack of consideration on the part of local officials in making sweeping changes in the intent and content of a program. The original Title IV provision was designed to help increase employment by providing low interest loans to small businessmen who would guarantee creation of additional jobs which could be filled by the poor as well as the creation of new entrepreneurs under low income groups. The initial guidelines have now been so changed that the program simply is being conducted to see how many loans can be granted to persons who are not now in business and who are in poverty. The SBA makes it clear that it is interested in making as many loans as possible to Negroes to start small businesses. Recreation Recent Congresses of the United States, recognizing the growing demand by citizens for recreation and parks, have passed considerable legislation affecting these movements. The recreation profession, although pleased to see the vast interest in recreation and parks on the Federal level of gov- ernment, does hold some reservations about it. Specifically, the Federal government has classified all recreation and parks under one heading -- "Outdoor Recreation". This fact alone con- tributes to a narrow view of recreation. Recreation, as it is conducted in Georgia cities, includes every facet of leisure pursuits for the devel- opment of the citizenry. The area of "Outdoor" recreation is only one com- ponent of the field of recreation. It is the feeling of many persons in the field that future wording in Federal legislation should state plainly - "Recreation" in its broadest sense and not "Outdoor Recreation". Current Federal laws, such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund Bill, the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, the Older Americans Act, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1965, and many others have affected the growth and development of recreation in the nation. Basically sound legislation has lost the main emphasis on the programs through guidelines established by the various Federal departments administering the programs. Basic programs originally included in the legislation have been given such low priority that approval of an application is almost impossible. Recent Federal legislation relating to recreation and parks will have a great impact upon the recreation and parks movement in the United States. There are, however, many areas of the present legislation which could be improved to better serve the communities, ae These are: Ll. The Federal government or the Federal departments administering the legislation has placed guidelines on the programs which make them quite difficult for many communities to take advantage. (a) (b) (c) (d) Practically all the current programs require detailed community-— wide planning. Although this requirement is basically good, it makes many of our smaller communities ineligible from lack of proper finances for planning. Federal agencies administering the programs should be given leadway in approving applications from small communities who do not fully meet the guidelines established by the Federal department. The community leadership should be permitted to best determine the more suitable location for any program or facility. It should not be restricted entirely to poverty areas. State governments should be given the authority to renew, recommend, and approve applications prior to submission to the Federal govern- ment. State agencies are aware of the needs of communities in their respective states and will act with speed and efficiency, Currently many programs by-pass the state altogether. In such in- stances this renders the area planning and development commissions and similar groups less effective in guiding orderly planning and development. By the same token, state agencies capable of assist- ing communities with various developments, are seldom consulted. Present program applications are by far too difficult for the aver- age community to complete and file with the proper agency. Present methods almost require the full-time services of a person trained for this purpose. Many of our smaller communities cannot afford to employ such a person. (e) Guidelines should be set forth in common terms understandable by all communities, Presently, it is the case where some of the fed- eral employees with the administering departments do not agree on the requirements. This simply causes confusion and misunderstand- ing on the part of local governments. (f£) Federal employees should be qualified to interpret and supervise Federal programs in which they work. It is inconceivable that a person trained in forestry, agriculture, and horticulture can do the total job necessary for recreation and parks. Recreation is a new profession with personnel trained in this field. Personnel possessing the broad concept of recreation and parks should admin- ister Federal programs. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Bill is designed to provide match- ing funds up to 504 to states and their political subdivisions for planning, acquisition and development of outdoor recreation areas. State planning is essential. Each state, in order to be eligible (Georgia could receive up to $2 million annually in this 25-year program) must prepare a state plan which must be approved by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. As of May 1, 1966, comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plans have been approved except Georgia, Iowa, North Carolina, Utah, and Wyoming. Projects will not be approved until the state plan is approved. This law states specifically that matching funds "may be made avail- able to political subdivisions". Upon making further inquiries as to how the communities actually fit into the plan and how they will participate in the program, no clear cut answers were available. Actually, local communities do not now know to -10- what extent they will be included in the program. The contention of many is that a state plan cannot be a comprehensive one unless it includes the needs and capabilities of communities. After all, the masses of the people are located largely in the urban areas. Al- though the Georgia plan now being developed might include the communities, this does not seem to be the case since inquiries point to the fact that no community has been requested to participate in the planning. It seems, ' in this light, plans cannot be made for communities without the communities assistance. This piece of legislation is vital to all cities and consequently, they should have a voice in the make-up of the program in Georgia, In other states attempts have been made to remove the L&WFB from poli- tics and to insure that projects are considered on the basis of need. In one state, for example, over 100 carefully selected leaders were brought together in the forming of a council for the purpose of establishing guide- lines for the program. It was their responsibility to determine a real basic point -- what percentage of the funds would be allocated to local communities, state parks, and federal agencies within the state. A lay group, representing various interests, should be appointed for the purpose of making these same decisions in Georgia. Additionally, this same group or a similar one should be appointed and authorized to review each piece of federal legislation prior to its implementation in Georgia, and make certain procedural recommendations. Without positive action there is a possibility that Land and Water funds will completely elude the cities of Georgia. This situation requires immediate positive steps. -ll- Conclusion The broad shopping market of federal programs portrays a gross amount of money for use locally as the federal government sees fit, and according to its program emphasis. In many cases, the emphasis on specific programs and projects is determined nationally not locally, However, it is believed that many of our cities, large and small, do have the capability of making such determinations and should be allowed the administrative flexibility to determine the level of emphasis that should be placed on specific local programs. If such were the case, a city could submit a comprehensive state- ment of its needs in terms of priority and emphasis on local programs and be given a grant with the necessary flexibility for implementation in accord- ance to priorities as determined locally by that city. Urban Policy Council In conclusion it is felt that this state could take a very positive step toward harmonious coordination of federal grant-in-aid programs and urban development by establishing a steering committee or council on urban policy charged with the responsibility of developing a statement of policy for coordination, development and administration programs dealing with the total growth and development of our communities. Such a committee should be composed of the following: representatives of municipal government through the Georgia Municipal Association; representatives of county gov- ernment through the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia, repre- sentatives of state government through the Executive Office; and represent- atives of Georgia's Congressional Delegation. This committee could have the given responsibility for the performance of the following basic functions: =j2= To analyze the trends, conditions, needs, and problems affecting local government in Georgia's rapidly urbanizing state; To define the complimentary and cooperative roles of local, state, and federal agencies with respect to the development and implemen- tation of urban programs; To recommend appropriate policies that would govern the working relationships between local, state and federal agencies in the development, implementation, and coordination of programs to cope with urban growth.
  • Tags: Box 14, Box 14 Folder 20, Folder topic: Urban Policy Council | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 14, Folder 20, Document 4

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_014_020_004.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 14, Folder 20, Document 4
  • Text: GreiOlvuRGHUAR IMOOIS UCI PANIC, RKSSOCILATIUORY Crry Comaiussionen J. Sreve Kwicnt, President COLUMBUS Mayor Marcotm R. MAciean, First Vice President SAVANNAH Mayon Jonn L, Cromantie, Second Vice President GAINESVILLE W. Extmen Georce, Executive Director 406 FULTON FEDERAL BUILDING: / ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 / TELEPHONE 255-0424 ACTIVE PAST PRESIDENTS Cit¥Y COMMISSIONER JOHN E, YARBROUGH IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT ROME, GA. MAYOR RANDOLPH MEDLOCK STONE MOUNTAIN, GA. MAYOR W. B. WITHERS MOULTRIE, GA. CiTY COMMISSIONER CARL E. PRUETT GRIFFIN, GA. MAYOR B, F. MERRITT, JR. MACON, GA. FIRST DISTRICT PRESIDENT MAYOR Jack A. LEROY AILEY DIRECTOR Mayor J. W. SNELL WRIGHTSVILLE SECOND DISTRICT PRESIDENT Mayor W. PF. HENRY PELHAM DIRECTOR COUNCILMAN J. C, MINTER CAIRO THIRD DISTRICT PRESIDENT RICHARD B. RAY PERRY DIRECTOR MAYOR O. E. WHITE PINE MOUNTAIN FOURTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT COUNCILMAN LINTON BROOME DORAVILLE DIRECTOR COUNCILMAN CLYDE J. Hicks CONYERS FIFTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT MAYOR AUBREY E. GREENWAY ROSWELL DIRECTOR ALDERMAN E. GREGORY GRIGGS ATLANTA SIXTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT Mayor J. GARONER NEWMAN LAGRANGE DIRECTOR MAYOR HERSERT H. JONES McDONOUGH SEVENTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT Mayor J.C. Woops TRION DIRECTOR MAYOR RALPH R, CLARK, JR. RINGGOLD EIGHTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT MAYOR ELTON D. BROOKS DOUGLAS DIRECTOR MAYOR JAMES T. WINDSOR, JR. MCRAE NINTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT MayorR DUARD B. WHITLOW CARNESVILLE DIRECTOR MAYOR Mrs. JeEssi— L. GARNER DAHLONEGA TENTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT MAYOR JULiUS F, BIsHOP ATHENS DIRECTOR GEORGE A. SANCKEN, JR, AUGUSTA May 31, 1966 Mr. Dan Sweat Federal Programs Coordinator City Hall Atlanta, Georgia Dear Dan: I appointed a committee during the last board meeting in Atlanta for the purpose of evaluating the role of the Georgia Municipal Association as relates to the part the Association should play in relation to the metropolitan local councils of government and to area planning and development commissions. Under Section 701-G of the 1965 Housing Act, certain grants may be made to metropolitan local councils of government for studies and data collection, etc. It has occurred to the GMA staff that a relationship might be developed between the local councils and the Association which would have the effect of (1) providing the already existing resources of the Associa~ tion to local councils, thereby avoiding unnecessary duplication and competition of GMA programs which have been over 33 years in the making and (2) providing a strong liaison between the larger urban areas in the evaluation of programs which are directed, or should be directed, toward our large cities and/or their respective metropolitan areas. Since counties are involved in the metropolitan local councils of government, it might be of benefit to work with the Assoc- iation of County Commissioners in developing joint policy in support of our large urban areas, recognizing at the same time, that local decision-making must not be interfered with, nor any joint programs pursued, except with the consent of local officials. Another area for possible consideration by the committee is the problems of the local community outside the metropolitan areas. ALDERMAN J. J: SHOOB en GEORGE H. BULLOCK CITY MANAGER JOHN H. MARKLAND: ATHEN SAVANNAH BRE IBENT: cITY MANAGERS’ SECTION SIERCTONS, ene wits WILLIAM JACK HAMILTON ALDERMAN CECIL TURNER: BEATE ‘sane Canoe ATLANTA ADMIN. Mags R. SENS Mest NBOTHAM MAYOR: Jou eo coesris MAYOR LEE E. Carter finan oY ee aatek THOMAST HARTWELL CiTyY ATTORNEY WILLIAM E. resiorar iT, Cl Nee | = a i Mr. Dan Sweat is May 31, 1966 There are some problems developing in relation to programs of area planning and development commissions which serve com— Munities outside metropolitan areas. There are federal programs being developed for municipalities under 5,500 population, administered by the Farmers Home Administration and other agencies of the Federal Department of Agriculture. These deserve serious review. For the cities of over 5,500 population outside standard metropolitan statistical areas, there are other problems, or opportunities. In addition, there are other problems in relation to new and/or changing federal grant and loan programs which need to be studied. It has taken the Georgia Municipal Association 33 years to develop a coordinated program to assist our cities and towns at the political level, as well as at the service level. We need to evaluate the role of the Association with the new metropolitan local councils of government, the area commissions and our total membership. The committee, as appointed, is as follows: Mayor John Cromartie, Gainesville, Chairman Mayor Howard Atherton, Marietta, Vice-Chairman Mayor Jack LeRoy, Ailey James B. Blackburn, City Attorney Savannah Dan Sweat, Federal Programs Coordinator, Atlanta Please return the attached card, advising of your acceptance. Sincerely, A lar J. Steve Knight President JSK/rs ec: Malcolm Maclean enclosure
  • Tags: Box 14, Box 14 Folder 20, Folder topic: Urban Policy Council | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 14, Folder 20, Document 5

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_014_020_005.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 14, Folder 20, Document 5
  • Text: Gre OUERGrLUAA IV EGUS IN PICO CE AGIE! KS SOCIAL OI 406 FULTON FEDERAL BUILDING: / ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303 May 17, 1966 ACTIVE PAST PRESIDENTS City COMMISSIONER JOHN E. YARBROUGH IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT ROME, GA. MAYOR RANDOLPH MEDLOCK STONE MOUNTAIN, GA. Mayor W. B. WITHERS MOULTRIE, GA. City COMMISSIONER CARL E. PRUETT GRIFFIN, GA. Mayor B. F. MERRITT, JR. MACON, GA. FIRST DISTRICT PRESIDENT MaAYorR Jack A. LEROY AILEY DIRECTOR Mayor J. W. SNELL WRIGHTSVILLE SECOND DISTRICT PRESIDENT MaYoR W. P. HENRY PELHAM DIRECTOR Mayor Mack E. WILLIS BAINBRIDGE THIRD DISTRICT PRESIDENT RICHARD B. RAY PERRY DIRECTOR Mayor QO. E. WHITE PINE MOUNTAIN FOURTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT COUNCILMAN LINTON BROOME DORAVILLE DIRECTOR COUNCILMAN CLYDE J. Hicks CONYERS FIFTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT MAYOR AUBREY E. GREENWAY ROSWELL DIRECTOR ALDERMAN E. GREGORY GRIGGS ATLANTA SIXTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT MAYOR J. GARDNER NEWMAN LAGRANGE DIRECTOR MAYOR HERBERT H. JONES McDONOUGH SEVENTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT Mayor J. C. Woops TRION DIRECTOR MAYOR RALPH R. CLARK, JR. RINGGOLD EIGHTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT MAYOR ELTON D. BROOKS DOUGLAS DIRECTOR MAYOR JAMES T. WINDSOR, JR. MCRAE NINTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT MAYOR DUARD B. WHITLOW CARNESVILLE DIRECTOR Mayor Mrs. JESSIE L. GARNER DAHLONEGA TENTH DISTRICT PRES|DENT Mayor JULIUS F. BISHOP ATHENS DIRECTOR GEORGE A. SANCKEN, JR. AUGUSTA Mr. Dan Sweat Coordinator of Governmental Liaison City Hall Atlanta, Georgia Dear Dan: Crry Commissioner J. Steve Kyicut, President COLUMBUS Mayor Matcotm R. Macuean, First Vice President SAVANNAH Mayor Joun L. Cnomantie, Second Vice President GAINESVILLE W. Eimer Geonce, Executive Director / TELEPHONE 255-0424 Enclosed are copies of a draft memorandum on the urban policy council. I have included in the memorandum the statements and thoughts that you had on the Economic Opportunity Program. I would ap- preciate your review of the memorandum and any suggestions that you may have for its improvement. Any other ideas or changes that you feel should be covered in a memorandum of this nature would be most welcome. I look forward to hearing from you. Please do not hesitate to call on us whenever we can be of service or assistance. JVBJr/rs enclosures DIRECTORS STATE AT LARGE COUNCILMAN GEORGE H. BULLOCK ATHENS MAYOR WILLIAM JACK HAMILTON DECATUR MAYOR JOHN C, EDENFIELD THOMASTON ee. i ———— Sincerely yours, ALDERMAN J. J. SHOOB SAVANNAH ALDERMAN CECIL TURNER ATLANTA MAYOR LEE E. CARTER HARTWELL V. Burgess, Jr. ciate Director City MANAGER JOHN H. MARKLAND PRESIDENT, CITY MANAGERS’ SECTION DECATUR ADMIN. Assist, R. TRAVIS HIGGINBOTHAM: PRESIDENT, CITY CLERKS’ SECTION ALBANY CITY ATTORNEY WILLIAM E. SMITH PRESIDENT, CITY ATTORNEYS SECTION AMERICUS
  • Tags: Box 14, Box 14 Folder 20, Folder topic: Urban Policy Council | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 14, Folder 20, Document 1

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_014_020_001.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 14, Folder 20, Document 1
  • Text: GOR GrIUBN IZ OCSINVUCION PANG, RISOCIUIATCUOIWS City Commussionern J. Steve Knicut, President COLUMBUS Mayor Matcotm R. Mac ean, First Vice President SAVANNAH Mayor Joun L. Cromantie, Second Vice President GAINESVILLE W. Extmen Geonce, Executive Director 406 FULTON FEDERAL BUILDING: / ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303 / TELEPHONE 255-0424 ACTIVE PAST PRESIDENTS CITY COMMISSIONER JOHN E. YARBROUGH IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT ROME, GA. MAYOR RANDOLPH MEDLOCK STONE MOUNTAIN, GA. Mayor W. B. WITHERS MOULTRIE, GA. June 28, 1966 CITY COMMISSIONER CARL E. PRUETT TO: GMA BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER Hg MUNICIPAL EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE MACON, GA. GMA MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW COMMITTEE FIRST DISTRICT PRESIDENT Mayor Jack A. LERoy AILEY DIRECTOR Attached is a report from the May 25, 1966, Congressional Mayor J. W. SNELL WRIGHTSVILLE Record which may be of interest to you. We wrote SECOND DISTRICT Senator Muskie, requesting extra copies for distribution Mavon W. P, Henny to the GMA Board, the Municipal Educational Policy DIRECTOR Committee and the Municipal Services Review Committee. MAYOR Mack E. WILLIS BAINBRIDGE THIRD DISTRICT PRESIDENT RICHARD B. RAY PERRY DIRECTOR Mayor ©. E. WHITE PINE MOUNTAIN FOURTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT COUNCILMAN LINTON BROOME DORAVILLE DIRECTOR COUNCILMAN CLYDE J. Hicks CONYERS FIFTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT MAYOR AUBREY E. GREENWAY ROSWELL DIRECTOR ALDERMAN E, GREGORY GRIGGS ATLANTA SIXTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT Mayor J. GARDNER NEWMAN LAGRANGE DIRECTOR MAYOR HERBERT H. JONES McDONOUGH SEVENTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT Mayor J. C. Woops TRION DIRECTOR MAYOR RALPH R. CLARK, JR. RINGGOLD EIGHTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT Mayor ELTON D, Brooks DOUGLAS DIRECTOR MAYOR JAMES T. WINDSOR, JR. McRAE NINTH DISTRICT PRESIDENT MAYOR DUARD B. WHITLOW CARNESVILLE DIRECTOR Mayor Mrs. JESSIE L. GARNER It becomes more evident every showing stronger and stronger fairs. The Intergovernmental is a further demonstration of It will be appreciated if you day that Washington is interest in local af- Personnel Act of 1966 this. would let us hear from you if you have any suggestions or recommendations regarding this Act. Yours very truly, W. Elmer George Executive Director WEG/rs enclosure DAHLONEGA TENTH DISTRICT DIRECTORS PRESIDENT STATE MAYOR JULIUS F. BISHOP AT LARGE ATHENS DIRECTOR GEORGE A. SANCKEN, JR. AUGUSTA COUNCILMAN GEORGE H, BULLOcK ATHENS MAYOR WILLIAM JACK HAMILTON DECATUR: MAYOR JOHN C. EDENFIELD THOMASTON ALDERMAN J, J. SHOOB SAVANNAH ALDERMAN CECIL TURNER ATLANTA MAYOR LEE E, CARTER HARTWELL. CITY MANAGER JOHN H. Mp PRESIDENT, CITY MANAGERS" SECTION DECATUR ADMIN. A R. TRAVIS Higar HAM. ae Ane ae ? ee secrloN ALBANY CITY ATTORNEY men Maehicte ‘Cine or thie ae eecriant AMERI
  • Tags: Box 14, Box 14 Folder 20, Folder topic: Urban Policy Council | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021