Box 14, Folder 20, Complete Folder

Box 14, Folder 20, Complete Folder

@}IlE©~@~
~
C 1TY C°'<MI SSIO N ER J . STE V E
COL U MBU S
©~IT©IT~£&
M AYOR M ALC OL M
SAVANNAH
R.
MAYOR J oH N L . C R OMARTIE,
G A I NES VILLE
W.
4 06
F ULTO N
FEDE R AL
BUILDI N G• /
AT L A NTA . GEORGI A
30303
ELMER GEORGE,
/
K N I GHT,
M A CLE AN,
President
First Vice President
Second Vice President
E xecutive Director
TE L EPHO NE 2 55 -0 4 2 4
ACTIVE PAST
PRESIDENT S
June 28 , 196 6
CIT Y C O MM I S S IONER JOHN E . Y A RBROUGH
I MMED I A TE PA S T PR E S I D E N T
ROM E, G A .
M AYO R R ANDO LPH MED LOC K
S TONE M O U NTA IN, GA .
M A Y OR W . 8 . W I THERS
M OU L TR I E , G A .
C1T v C OMM 1s s10NER C A R L E . PR u E r r
TO:
GR I F F I N , G A .
M A Y OR 8 . F . M E RR ITT , J R .
M A CO N , GA .
FI R ST
GMA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MUNICIPAL EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMI TTEE
GMA MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW COMMI TTEE
DISTRICT
PR E S I D E N T
MAYO R J AC K A . LEROY
AILE Y
D I R E CTO R
M AYOR J . W . SN E LL
W R I GHT SV I LL E
SECOND
DISTRICT
P RES I D E N T
M A YOR W . P . H EN R Y
P E L HAM
D I RE C T OR
M AY OR MAC K E . WI LLI S
B A I N BRID G E
T H I R D
D I S TRICT
PRE S I DE N T
RI CH A RD B . R AY
PERRY
D I RE C T OR
M A YOR 0 . E . WHI T E
P I N E M O U NTA IN
F OU R T H
It becomes more evident ever y
showing stronger and stro n ger
fairs.
The Intergovernme n tal
is a further demonstration of
Congre s sio n al
wr ote
d is tr ibut i o n
Po li c y
Commi t t e e .
day that Wash i ngt on i s
interest in l oc a l a fPer sonne l Ac t o f 1966
thi s .
D IST R IC T
PR E S I D E NT
C O U N C IL M A N
LI NT O N
BROO M E
DO RAV ILL E
DI REC T OR
C OUNC IL MA N C L Y DE J. HI C K S
CO NY ERS
F I FTH
Attached is a report from the May 25, 1966,
Record which may be of interest to you.
We
Senator Muskie, requesting ext r a copies fo r
to the GMA Board, the Municipal Educ at io na l
Committee and the Municipal Ser vices Rev iew
It will be appr e ciated i f you would let u s hear f r om
you if y ou have any suggestio ns or rec omme n d a ti o s
regarding this Act.
DISTRI C T
Your s ve ry tru l y,
PR ES IDEN T
MA Y O R A U B R EY E . GRE E NWAY
R OS W E LL
D I R E C TOR
ALDER M AN E . GREGOR Y GRIGGS
A TL AN T A
S IXTH
DISTR I CT
W. Elmer George
Exe c u tive Direc t or
PR ES I D EN T
MA Y OR J . GA R DN ER N E WM A N
LAG RAN GE
DIRE CTOR
MAY O R H E R B E RT H . J O N E S
McD O NOU G H
SEVE N TH
WEG/ r s
DISTRICT
P RE S I D E N T
encl o sure
MA Y OR J . C . W OO D S
T R I ON
D I REC TOR
M A Y OR R A LP H R . C L ARK , J R .
R I NGGO LD
EI G HT H
DI S T R ICT
P RESIDEN T
MA Y O R ELT ON D . B ROO K S
DO U G L AS
D I R EC TOR
MA YO R J AMES T . W I N DSO R , JR .
Mc RAE
NINTH
DISTRICT
P R ES I DE NT
M AYOR O U ARD 8 . W H I TL OW
CARNES VIL L E
D I R ECTOR
M AYOR M R S . J ESS I E
D AH LO NEG A
T E NT H
L.
G A R NE R
DI S TR IC T
PRES I DENT
MAYOR JULIUS F . BIS H OP
A T HENS
DIREC T OR
GEORGE A . S ANC KE N , J R .
AUGUS T A
DIRECTO R S
STATE
C O UN CILMAN GE O RGE H . BULLOCK
ATHE N S
A L DERMAN J . J . S HOOB
MAYOR WILLI AM JACK H AM I LTON
DECATUR
ALDERMAN CECIL TURNER
ATLANTA
MAYOR JOHN C . EDENFIELD
THOMASTON
MAYOR LEE E . CARTER
AT LARGE
SAVANNAH
CITY M ANA GER JO HN H . M A R KLAND
PRESIDE NT. CI TY MANA G ERS ' SECT IO N
DECATUR
ADMIN . ASSIST R . TRAVIS HIGGINBOTHAM
PRESIDEN T . CITY CLERKS ' S ECTION
A L BANY
HARTWELL
C I T Y ATTORNEY WILLIAM E . S M I TH
PRESIDENT , C I TY ATTORNEYS' S EC TION
AMERICUS
�United States
of America
Vol. 112
<to grcssi n tRecord
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE
89 th CONGRES S
1
SECOND 11 SESSION
WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1966
F ederal aid to State and local governments will have more than quadrupledrising from $3.1 billion in 1955 to an
estimated $14.6 billion in 1967. And in
number, these programs have reached
the 170 mark. In relative terms, this
growth has been fairly modest. Witness
the fact that Federal a id as a percentage
of State and local revenue during this
13-year period increased by only appi·oximately 5 percent. But this gradual
growth highlights indirectly the extraorTHE STATE AND LOCAL MANPO\VER CRISIS
For over three and a half years the dinary effort that State and local govSubcommittee on Intergovernmental Re- ernments have made to resolve their fislations of the Committee on Government cal crisis. During this same 13-year peOperations, which I am priviJeged to riod, State and loca l expenditures will
chair, has been examining the critical, h r.ve more than d oubled-rising from
but largely misunderstood, topic of Fed- $34.5 billion in 1055 to approximately
eral-State-local relations. On the basis $84 billion for fiscal 1967. The increase
of the subcommittee's diverse legislative in the number and amount of- Federal
and research undertakings, I am now aid available to State and local govconvinced that the success of the Great ernments, then, is not the most signifiSociety programs-and indeed, perhaps cant factor in the total State-local fiscal
the future of American federalism- picture, but it has thrust greater burdens
largely depends on whether or not we on a n already strained intergovernmenrecognize and overcome the crisis in gov- tal system.
State and local employment, for exernmental m anpower, especially as it involves State and local governments. In ample, reached the 8 million mark last
his May 11 address at Princeton Univer- year. This represented a half million
sity, President Johnson took note of this increase over the 19'64 fi gure, a 2.2 milcrisis and called for a joint effort to sur- lion rise from the 1961 fi gme, and a 4.7
million hike from the 1946 employment
mount it.
But to date, we at the national level level. By way of contrast, the Federal
h ave acted largely as though the crisis Government employed 2.6 million workdoes not exist. During the past five ses- ers in 1965, or 60 ,000 more than in
sions of Congress we have developed the 1964. This figure-was 200,000 above that
most impressive package of Federal of· 1961, but 100,000 less than in 1946 .
legislation since the New Deal to attack These comp&.risons dramatically high.:
poverty, ignorance, uneven economic de- light the strenuous efforts State and
velopment, discrimination, and urban local governments have made in the
blight and sprawl. For the most part past two decades to meet the demand
we have utilized the categorical grant- for more public services.
A breakdown of the 8 million Statein-aid device as the basic weapon in this
many-faceted attempt to achieve a social local employees, by jurisdictional cateand economic betterment of all our peo- gories, is equally striking. State govple. But the grant-in-aid involves joint vernments now account for over oneefforts, not simply Federal efforts. It fourth of the State and local total.
involves joint action, not just Federal Counties have one-eighth of all such
action. It involves the utilization of employees, while municipalities engage
governmental manpower at all levels, nearly one-fourth, and school districts
a little less than a third. Townships
not merely the F ederal.
The grant-in-aid today is the most employ 3.5 percent, and other special
striking symbol of cooperative federal- districts, 2 perce1,t of the total. From
ism. Yet its effective use constitutes one 1961 to 1965, the States, other special
of the greatest challenges to creative districts, townships, school districts, and
federalism. And in the final analysis, counties--in that order-experienced
our heavy reliance on the grant mech- the greatest increase in employment.
Changes in · occupational categories
anism has made the gover~ental
manpower crisis a crisis of contemporary further highlight the impact of public
demand for new or improved·State and
federalism.
governmental services. From April
Most of us are unaware of the extent local
1957 to October 1965, the number of fullto which we have turned to the grant- time
State and local highway workers
in-aid in our efforts to implement the rose by 24 percent. Employment in poEisenhower program, to chart the New lice protection increased by 30 percent,
Frontier, and to establish the Great Society. From 1955 through 1967, total and in public health and hospitals by 41
THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL
PERSONNEL ACT OF 1966
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am
pleased to introduce a bill to enable
greater colla boration in personnel matters between and among the levels of
government in order to improve t he administration of Federal grant-in-aid
programs and to strengthen the public
service of the States and their localities.
No. 86
percent. The number of full-time public
employees in education soared by 60 percent, and those in public welfare, by 62
percent. Much of this massive growth
in State and local employment can be
attributed to the population explosion
and the demand for expanded services
generated by it. The physical and social
problems stemming from urbanization
and suburbanization, however, have been
other key factors in developing greater
needs for police, fire, housing, sanitation,
welfare, and other public services. In
addition, one of the byproducts of our
a ffluent society is the rise in popular expectations with respect to governmental
services. To put it more bluntly, the
American citizem-y is not willing to settle for the level and quality of services
that were provided three, or even two,
decades ago.
THE FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY
The c1isis in State and local employment, however, also bears a close relationship to expanded Federal programs
and activity. Federal programs in highway construction, education, urban ren ewal, housing, water pollution control,
and poverty-to mention only a fewh ave produced new and urgent personnel
needs at the . State and local levels.
Moreover, other new legislation in the
fields of primary and secondary education, the aged, and medical assistance-if inadequately planned for-will only
aggravate this manpower crisis.
Much of the recent Federal aid legislation sets only general goals and provides the funds necessary to achieve
them. The job of implementation falls
to the States, the counties, and the cities,
which then have to "staff up" to accomplish the objectives of this legislation.
Further, some Federal aid programs
simply make .money available to the
States and municipalities for developing
their own plans for use of such funds .
In these instances, Federal agencies
merely play the role of disbursing agent
to underwrite plans and projects Initiated
and developed at the State and local
levels. Finally, many of these Federal
efforts generate counterpart efforts at
other levels of gove1nment, with many
States and localities enacting legislation
in program areas similar to those covered in Federal legislation.
In these various ways, congressional
action directly or indirectly has contributed to the extraordinary growth of
public employment at the State and
local levels. So, the States now employ
more than 2 million workers with a
monthly payroll of $850 million, and
�May 25, 1966
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
local governments employ nearly 6 million workers with a monthly payroll of
$2.5 billion.
We have reached the point where, on a
day-to-day basis, intergovernmental relations are primarily administrative rela,tions. As the recent subcommittee
survey, "The Federal.System as Seen by
Federal Aid Officials," pointed out, the
authorizing statutes, the funds, and the
legislative oversight which affect Federal-State-local relations come from
legislative bodies. Policy directives,
budgetary review and control, and administrative rules and regulations come
from top management policymakers.
Advice, assistance, and support, as well
as complaints, criticism, and censure,
come from officeholders, individual citizens, and interest groups at all levels.
These basic forc es in our pluralistic
political system shape and sustain the
intricate pattern of today's intergovernmental relations. But the "wheelhorses
of federalism" are administrative, professional , and t echnical personnel-the
Federal middle-managem ent aid offi.
cials, their fieldmen, and their functional
counterparts at the State and local levels .
We must focus our attention, then , on
the largely unexplored topic of intergovernmental m anpower if our eff01ts to
achieve a creative f ederalism are to
succeed.
The various growth figur es I have
cited indicate that State and local governments are vigorously attempting to
provide the m anpower needed to administer the new joint-action programs as
well as their own . They suggest that
present Federal efforts in this area are
inadequate, since they are geared largely
to the needs of certain grant progr ams
and to certain categories of specialized
personnel administering them. They indicate that the Federal Government has
a greater responsibility to provide financial, technical, and other forms of assistance to the States and localities to
h elp them mount a broad attack on this
manpower crisis. And they indicate the
critica l need for the legislation I am introducing today.
Economy and efficiency compel our
concern, for the wisest use of the Federal grant-in-aid dollar depends upon
how well we m eet this challenge. Improved public administration makes it
necessary, since the success of these various programs depends on our ability and
willingness to solve this crit ical problem.
Improved intergovernmental cooperation requires it, for conflict between and
among administrators is one of the
major sources of friction in contemporary Federal-State-local r elations. Finally, manpower needs of State and local
governments in the years immediately
ahead clearly dictate that the Federal
Government must join with the other
levels of government in helping to surmount this crisis.
Present estimates indicate that total
governmental employment will reach the
13 million m ark by 1975. As in the past
t wo decades, nearly all of the increase
will be in State and local governmental
agencies. Continued population growth
and the ·migration of people from rural
to urban areas, and from cities to sub-
10983
SENATE
urbs, will raise the requirements for public health services, education, police and
fire protection, sanitation, street and
highway maintenance, welfare, and other
services. Consequently, State and local
government employment is expected to
rise by more than 38 percent between
now and 1975 , whereas little change is
expected in Federal employment-barring, of course, major unemployment,
big wars, or other national catastrophes.
There already exists a shortage of welltrained and highly qualified administrative, professional, and technical personnel at all levels of government, and forecasts indicate this gap will grow. Many
well-trained and well-qualified employees in State and local governments were
hired during the depression years and
are now approaching retirement age.
More than one-third of all municipal
executives fall in this category and will
retire within the next decade. · In certain specialized categories, howeve1'., the
proportion is even higher. Half of the
Nation's municipal health directors, for
example, will be eligible for retirement
within the next 10 years. And a recent
survey of New York City revealed that
one out of every five budgeted positions
of a professional, managerial, .or technical nature-excluding education-was
vacant. Many others were filled with
people not fully qualified . More or less
similar conditions exist in many other
of the Nation's cities. By 1980, local
governments will have to recruit approximately 300,000 additional administrative employees to achieve their current program obj ectives.
When the long-term implications of
r ecently enacted programs are considered, this m anpower gap widens. Witness these facts: That, as of 1964, it was
estimated that the Nation's counseling
personnel would have to be increased
during the subsequent 3 years by approximately 90 percent to m eet the new
requirements for public schools, public
employment offices, and other governm ental a gencies; that there will be an
estimated 3,000 vacancies each year for
trained, recreation workers, but only
about 600 persons complete preparation
for this occupation annually; that there
will be 200 traffic engineer vacancies occurring annually, but there are only approximately 50 n ew gradu ates in this
specialized area; that there will be at
least 2 vacancies for every graduate of
a university course in city management;
and that between 1960 and 1970, accordIng to t h e Manpower Commission's report, the overall demand for professional
and technical personnel at the local level
will h ave increased by 40 p ercent.
These current and projected estimates
of governmental manpower sho1tages
have implications extendin g far beyond
the individual States, communities, and
programs that are affected. They indicate that we can take no great comfort in
the fact that State and local employment
has reached the 8 million mark. They
indicate that State and local governments generally-not just a few of these
jurisdictions-are having difficulty in
attracting and holding professional,
managerial, and technical personnel,
and that these levels will experience even
greater difficulties in the future. They
suggest that decisionmakers at all levels
of Government are not yet fully aware
of the c1itical nature of this manpower
gap, and that long-range planning in
this area is in its infancy. They further
corroborate John W. Gardner's assessment-in his book on "Excellence"that:
• • • The demand for hlg-h-talent manpower is firmly rooted In the level of technological complexity which characterizes
modern life, and In the complexity of modern social organization. And more important than either of these is the r ate of Innovation and change In both technological a nd
social spheres. In a world that Is rocking
with change we n eed more than anything
else a high capacity for adjustment to
changed circumstances, a en.pa.city for
innovation.
And finally , these estimates document
the need for a national policy on intergovernmental personnel. The legislation
I introduce today provides such a policy.
CHA RTING A COURSE
The proposed Intergovernmental Personnel Act does not purport to solve all
the manpower problems faced by State
and local governments. There is, of
course, no panacea for the absolute
shortages in the country in certain prof essional fields. The Federal Government in a variety of ways is now assisting in the professional education of many
in these fields. But these measures are
geared to specific Federal program n eeds
and specific types of personnel. They
must be supplemented to meet the particular staffing requirements of State and
local public agencies. Personnel administration in the S tates and localities must
be equipped to deal with the whole range
of State and local job needs. Practical
m ethods must be devised for r ecruitment,
selection, utilization, and development
within the realities of current supply and
demand. At the same time, a rational
plan for meeting projected n eeds must
be devised and initiated. This legislation
will encourage the developm ent of such
m ethods and plans.
The ac t deals direct ly with three major hurdles confronting State and local
governments in recruiting and holding
qualified employees. A fourth-low salary schedules--is not so directly considered, but it is a topic that cannot be ignored. Generally, State and local salary
schedules-though better today than
they were a few years ago-are still lower
t han those at both the Federal Government and private industry. The Municipal Manpower Commission r eport found:
S ala ries are a major source of dissatisfaction among m ore than one-third of a ll mu nicipal executives-
And thatnine out of ten believe that their salaries a re
not as high as comparable posi tlons I carry I
in private business, a nd 60 percent believe
that Federal salaries would also be higher.
Not so long ago, Clarence B. Randall,
the distinguished Chairman of the Panel
that President Kennedy appointed to 1·eview Federal salary policy, wrote:
Inadequate Federa l pay poses two problems
that seriously hamper Federal agencies'
operation . It's a tossup in the Federal service whether getting the best people Is more
difficult than keeping the good ones. • • •
�10984
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
SENATE
The average salary of vocational rehabllltaInadequate compensation ls one of the
principal reasons for reluctance to enter Fed- tlon counsellors ranges !rom an annual mln!eral service. In fact, it frequently eliminates mum of $6,051 to a maximum of $7,712. Such
groups o! potential candidates !or Federal counsellors are responsible for ln!tlating and
positions. On others it Imposes severe fi- carrying out rehabilitation processors for
nancial sacrifices . First there are those who p ersons who are physically and mentally
have not yet reached the top of their career h andicapped. The position usually requires
ladders and who are still faced with such a college degree and some experience 1n the
real problems as mortgages and their ch!l- field of vocational guidance, psychology,
dren's education. • • • Not so generally social work, personnel work, or industrial
known a.re the problems associated with rel ations.
filling second echelon positions. • • •
The average salary of an administrative
I do not contend th at government salaries officer In a State's Civil Defense program
should be Identical with those in Industry. ra nges from a minimum of $ 6,893 to a maxiOn the contrary, I never want to see the mum of $0 ,819. An employee In this posimoney seekers go Into government. • • • tion provides administrative assistance In
But the present disparity between publlc pay the personn el, budgetary, and fi scal areas to
and private pay In the leadership positions is Clvll Defense offices ; the position u sually
a scandal. It must be corrected or the r equires a college degree and considerable
United States will not be able to fulfill the experience In the fi eld of general adminhigh destiny to which It has bee n called In istration, office m anagement, or a combinathis difficult modern world.
tion of both .
While Mr. Randall was primarily conIn light of these and other findings , I
cerned with Federal pay scales-and it am convinced that the President and the
should be noted that his panel's recom- Advisory Commission on Intergovernmendations were ins"trumental in enact- mental Relations should join in launchment of the Federal Salary Refo1m Acts ing a national study of State and local
of 1962 and 1964-his r emarks have no salary reform. The issue is that critical.
less relevance to the States and their lo- Constitutional barriers and the dictates
calities. The report of the Municipal of interlevel comity bar direct consideraManpower Commission and the survey tion of this question in the proposed legof Federal aid officials conducted by the islation. But certain of its provisions
Intergovernmental Rela tions Subcom- b ea r indirectly on such reform-includmittee clearly indicate that low pay and ing those sections which seek respectively
the resulting high personnel turnover to streng then the merit system , upgrade
have served to put m any State a nd loca l classification and salary schedules, and
governments at a competitive disadvan- improve training programs in these
tage. And the lates t figures-July 1, jurisdictions .
1965-for specific State and loca l profes ! I) THE MERIT SYSTEM IN GRANT-IN-AID
sional and technica l positions, indicate
PROGRAMS
that, despite some recent improvements,
A
basic
problem
in the intergovernsalary schedules are still a critica l problem. A few case studies will illustrate m ental p er sonnel field concerns the
m erit principle, and particularly as it
my point:
The average a nnual sala ry of a State hea r- applies to Fede ral g rant-in-aid proings r efer ee ranges from $7,750 minimum t o g rams. The proposed Intergove rnmen$9,737 ma ximum. Such referee s are respon- t a l Personnel Act deals directly with
sible for preparing, conducting, and deciding this controversial issue. My experie nce
quasi-judicial h earings Involving questions ::i s a State legisla tor, as Governor of the
of statutory compliance, claims, a nd viola State of M a ine. a nd as a U.S. Senator
tions of regulations in Issu es between St ate convinces me of the validity of this prindepartments and other parties; they u sually ciple. I s trongly beli eve that an o pen
must have an A.B. and a law degree.
The average annual sala ry of a n unemploy- system of public empl oym ent, operating
ment claims deputy ranges from a mini m um under public rul es and based , among
or $5,237 to a maximum of $6 ,604 . This other factors, on competitive exa minatechnical position Involves non-moneta ry tions , equa l pay for equal work, tenure
determinations on unemployment Insura nce contingent on successful perfor mance,
claims, Includin g the adj udication of ques- and promotion on evalua ted capacity
tionable or contested claims; successful ap- a nd se rvice , provides one of th e s urest
pllcants must possess considerable prior ex- foundations for the development and
perience or college training.
The average salary for public ass istance m ai ntenance of a n efficient career civil
case worker supervisors ranges from a mini- service based on excelle nce. Equally immum of $5,8 10 to a maximum of $ 7 ,762 . This portant, It m eet s the democratic objecpost involves professional social work a t the tive of equal opportunity.
local level and Immediate supervision a nd deThe b eg innings of State a nd local civil
velopment of a group Of case workers; It service, b ased on the merit pri nciple, first
usuall y requires training In a grad uate appeared in the 1880's, followin g the enschool of social work .
The an n u al pay of sanitarians ranges from a c tment of the Federal legislatio n .
a mini mum of $5, 142 to a m aximum of $ 6,592. Thanks to the efforts of the National
This professional position In environmen tal Civil S erv ice Leag ue and ot hers, addisanitation work Invol ves control of commu- tional jurisdictions subsequently adopted
nicable diseases, promotion of health and the s ystem. But widespread acceptance
safety, and the solution of environmental did not come until the 1930's. Beginhealth problems; It usually requires a col- n ing with an amendment to the Social
lege degree with speclallzatlon In the physical Secu rity Act in 1939, the Federal Govand biological sciences .
ernment contributed to this development
The mean salary of a public h ealth nurse by specifying standa rds which would
ranges from a mlnlmwn of $4 ,778 to a maxlmwn of $6,1 94. T h is position usually re- bind State and local agencies to such
quires graduation from an accredited school requirements If ihey received Federal
of nursing, State registration, and a program funds under certain grant programs.
In spite of these advances and some reof stud y In publlc health nursing, or appropriate public health nursing experience.
cent improvements in a fe w of the larger
3
May 25, 1966
States and in some municipalities, only
28 States and only our larger cities today
have a merit system covering employees
in most of the executive departments ; 22
States and most of the smaller local
jurisdictions only apply the principle
selectively. In these 22 States, the merit
principle applies in all instances to departments administering those few federally aided programs ,subject to merit
requirements, but in only some in.stances
to employees of one or more other departments. In these States, the impact of
those grants-based on approximately
nine statutes and administered by the
Departments of Health, Education , and
Welfare; Labor; and Defense-has been
a primary if not exclusive factor in encouraging the merit principle.
Is this record adequate? I think not.
I am completely aware that formal
merit systems based on detailed examination, promotion, dismissal, and other
factors may not prevent political sabotage of the p1inciple. I am also aware
that a patronage-based system of personnel administration may produce at
any given time a competent civil service
with high morale. In general, however,
I am convinced that the application and
extension of the formal requirements
have had a salutary effect. And I am
convinced that the arguments President
Roosevelt advanced in his message calling for application of the merit principle
to the social security program are as
valid today as they were in 1939:
• • • I recommend th at the States be required, as a condition for the receipt o!
Federal funds , to establlsh and maintain a
merit system for t he selection of personnel.
Such a requirement would represent a protection to the States and cl tlzens thereof
r ather than an encroachment by the Federal Government, since It would automatically promote efficiency and eliminate the
necessity for minute Federal scrutiny of
State operations.
F or these reasons, I b elieve m erit
standards should be added to more
grant-in-aid programs as a condition for
elig ibility.
Title I of the Intergovernm e ntal P ersonnel Act of 1966 provides for this by autho1izing the President to require , insofar as he d eems p ractica ble, that, as
a condition f or receiving Fede r a l funds
under any grant program , personnel engaged in its a dminis tration mus t be employed under a me1it syst em m eeting
Federal standards. This discretionary
provision recognizes the difficulties of extending the merit system to all g r a nt-inaid programs. More particul arly, it
recognizes the troubles inherent in att empting to apply it to many of the
recently enacted p rograms. At the same
time, it encourages action in those grant
programs which involve s ubstantial Federal funds and are on going, rath e r than
experimental , ventures.
The Federa l
hig hway prog ram immediately comes to
mind as an excelle nt candidate.
The proposed legislation also seeks to
strengthen the merit system by· providing that the grants authorized for improving S t ate personn el administration
under title II be used to strengthen or
e xtend the career civil service of the
State. To sum up, the Federal Govern-
�May 25, 1966
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
ment, a majority of the States, most of
the larger cities, and nearly all of the
experts in the field recognize the relationship between attracting and retaining competent public administrators and
the presence of · a viable merit system.
These provisions of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act are based on this
relationship.
(2) OVERALL PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION
Aside from the Federal interest in
more effective administration of grant
programs, there is a clear Federal interest in strengthening the overall personnel management of the States and their
localities as partners in the federal system. The absence of an effective system
of personnel management contributes to
the manpower difficulties now confronting State and local governments. Both
the merit principle and modern management techniques require such a system,
which calls for imaginative recruitment
efforts and sophisticated examination
techniques; an intelligent placement system, which fits the man to the job, and
a fair and rewarding promotion system;
the development and continuous updating of a position classification plan, since
the grouping of positions into classes
helps to identify questions of pay, lines
of promotion, requirements for transfer,
and other basic administrative questions; the meaningful development of
the time-honored concept of a career
service, in which advancement is not
limited merely to service in one agency;
and planning for the manpower needs
of the years ahead.
These are but a few of the basic objectives of good personnel management.
Concern with the merit system initially
prompted the development of examinations and classification plans. And the
requirements of modern management
and modern government have modified
and expanded the original list of personnel administrative functions. Yet, in
nearly all of the States and localities
that lack a general civil service system,
personnel management, in practice, is
usually limited to the job classification
and salary setting functions. Even in
those States possessing a viable merit
system, conflicts between the policing
efforts of the Civil Service Commission
and the management concerns of the
Governor-his staff and personnel officer-sometimes have impeded improvements in this area.
In general, then, State and local resources for public personnel administration have not kept pace with the growth
of the programs they administer. With
few exceptions, State and local personnel
agencic:; have not been equipped or given
additional support for new workloads.
The inadequate support of personnel
planning and operations has left many
personnel agencies short of needed professional personnel, including trained
job analysts, personnel psychologists and
training staff. For example, only 10
States have as many as 25 professional,
administrative, and technical employees
in the State civil service or merit system agency to handle their continuing
responsibilities, let alone to undertake
broadened activities. Yet State and
local personnel agencies must cope with
new needs and new problems.
The Intergovernmental Personnel Act
of 1966 recognizes these needs and attempts to come to grips with these problems. Title II of the proposed legislation authorizes grants to enable States
to strengthen their systems of personnel
administration, to provide State personnel services to smaller jurisdictions of
local government, and to stimulate projects for the improvement of personnel
administration in their lar'ger cities. To
qualify, States would need to develop
programs of personnel improvement
which might cover such topics as: expansion of the coverage of a State merit
system; planning for manpower needs;
improvement in one or more of the
traditional areas of recruitment, examination, position classification plans,
and compensation schedules; or possibly
research and demonstration projects in
the new areas of electronic data processing and motivational research.
Title II also seeks to improve the personnel administration of smaller units
of local government. Grants are authorized for the development of State
plans that might involve broader coverage of local employees under a State
merit system, State technical personnel
services to such units of government,
cooperative research and demonstration
projects in this field, or cooperative intergovernmental ·efforts relating to loans,
transfers, or promotions of personnel.
The title assigns full responsibility to
the States for developing their own programs and a coordinating role for their
local jurisdictions.
There is a need for pioneering efforts
in State assistance to nonmetropolitan
local governments. At the local level,
the smaller jurisdictions are not in a
position to establish modern personnel
systems that meet the need for broader
recruitment for professional personnel or
for attracting able young men and
women who regard these initial jobs as
rungs on the career ladder rather than
as blind alleys. Intergovernmental ·c ooperation with the possibility of increased mobility can help meet these
prnblems.
Self-contained local personnel systems
present certain problems of parochialism
even in our larger metropolitan governments. They are simply not feasible for
the smaller nonmetropolitan governments in terms of either the expense or
the availability of technica l services.
Hence there is a need for State services
to the nonmetropolitan governments.
The act provides for a variety of services ranging from merit system coverage
to more limited specialized services.
Part C of the title authorizes a separate
program of Federal assistance for personnel improvement in our larger cities.
There is a pressing need for innovative
activities in our metropolitan areas.
The shortages of professional, administrative, and technical personnel require
planned recruitment, selection to assure
the Intake of a fair share of young talent,
and a long-range staff development pro-
10985
gram covering various occupational
fields. Imaginative job analyses can lead
to the establishment . of new types of
auxiliary jobs to help meet the absolute
shortage in many professional and technical fields. They also may open up opportunities for job training and employment for many of the disadvantaged.
While public personnel administration is
not a social program designed to solve
the problem of employn1ent of the disadvantaged, governments, as large employers, can and should show leadership
in this· area.
The act provides for project grants for
metropolitan personnel administration
in order to permit a wide range of experimentation and demonstration projects to strengthen personnel administration and meet urgent manpower
problems. These grants may be used for
personnel planning, for upgrading or
establishing personnel agencies, for improving personnel operations in specific
functions, or for initiating pilot projects
designed to meet current and projected
needs.
The States are given the initial opportunity to work with the cities in developing project proposals under this section,
with special emphasis on the particular
problems of our larger metropolitan units
of general local government. But if a
State fails to submit any projects after
one year, individual metropolitan units
may then initiate their own projects.
This aproach, I feel, recognizes the necessary coordinating role of the States in
personel management, while permitting
direct Federal-local efforts· in cases of
State inaction.
Title II, it should be noted, would be
administered by the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare. More
specifically, It is anticipated that HEW's
Division of State Merit Systems would
assume primary responsibility for its administration. This division has h a d more
practical experience with State personnel
systems than any other unit in the Federal Government, thanks to the merit
requirements of many HEW grant programs. Moreover, it already has a tradition of extending technical assistance to
State and local governments which have
sought out its assistance in upgrading
their civil service. The concurrence of
the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, however, would be required
before HEW could approve projects for
metropolitan jurisdictions.
In addition to the grants authorized
for State and local personnel administration under title II, the proposed legislation provides another means for Improved intergovernmental collaboration
In this field. Title V of the act authorizes the Civil Service Commission to join
on a shared-cost basis with States or
units of general local government, or
both, in cooperative recruitment or examinations under mutually agreeable
regulations. Some authorities believe
the Commission already pos.5esses this
autho11ty, but the same authorities concede that adequate provision is lacking
with respect to financing such joint
activity. This title provides a statutory
�10986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
basis for the Commission's au thority to
enter into such cooperative arran gem ents, and it settles t he financial question by adopting the sh ared-cost
formula .
In these ways, the proposed legislation
squarely confronts many of t h e mo re
significant personnel m an agement problems confronting S tate a nd local governm ents t oday. The amounts a uthorized
a re m odest, a nd the coopera tive arrangem ents are permissive. But t he
fun ds will be seed money well spent, a nd
t he devices for cooperation will encourage a concerted a t tack on wh a t we must
now concede to be a joint problem.
( 3) TRAINING
Inextricably linked to t he m erit system a nd personnel m a n agem ent problems is the n eed for more a nd better
tra ining op'por tunities. Ideally , such a
progra m should in clude provision fo r
orienta tion, in-service and out -ser vice
training, tuition r efund, a nd educational
leave. It should be r ooted in th e car eer
service ethic a nd imply future prospects
tha t r eward special effo r t on the part of
employees. Our concern h ere is training within the service after a ppoint ment, not educa tion for public service
prior to appointmen t . T he la t te r, of
course, deserves t h e consideration of a ll
of us, a n d hopefully title I of t h e H igh er
Education Act of 1965 will resolve some
of the problems in t his area.
T he man power shortages I have described, a long with t h e mou nting technological, social, a n d econ omic ch an ges
affect ing t h e a ctivities of S ta te and local
governmen ts, u nderscore t h e emphasis
tha t a ll of us should give to establish in g
and st ren gthening tra ining progra ms at
these levels of governm en t. Many legisla tors , administrators, a nd other public officials n ow recognize the need for
such programs. Yet only California,
New York, Mich igan, a nd a few other
States have t raining programs for top
m anagement.
Others provide some
trainin g fo r other key ·p ersonnel. But
a ccording to a r ecen t sur vey conducted
by t he International City Man agers Association, most of the States have no
t raining or development progra ms for
administrative, t echnical, a nd professional personnel. And no city h as anything approaching a model training
program.
Most existing t raining is still designed
to improve the skills of routi ne officeworkers, policem en , and firemen. Moreover, training prog rams stimulated by
Federal grants-in-aid are largely geared
to specific functional specialties. Such
inservice training and education al leave
are valuable, of course, but they do not
meet the growing requirements of S tate
a nd local govern ments for more and better administrative, professiona l, and
technical talen t . The repor t of t he
Municipal Ma npower Commission a nd
the survey of th e Federal aid officials by
the subcommittee fully document the
need for a Federal response to this critical personnel management deficiency,
The Intergover nmental P ersonnel Act
attacks this problem of training in four
ways. First, title III authorizes Federal
departments and agencies conducting
programs for their professional, admin-
lstrative, and tech nical employees to open
t h em up to S ta te and local personnel in
counterpart agencies. The S tates or
localities would initiate t h e r equest to
participate, and f ees for a ttendance could
be waived for employees in sh ort -supply
categories.
S econ d, Federal departments or a gen cies a dministering grant -in-a id programs are a ut horized to establish training programs fo r counte rpart State and
local personnel in the professional, a dministrative, and tech nical fields. Such
a gencies a re authorized to m ake grants
to S tates a nd localities from F ederal
funds appropria ted for administrative
costs of the progra m to cover the expenses of such training. In a ddition,
such F ederal agencies are permi tted t o
m ake grants from such funds for educa tional lea ve or comparable arra ngements
fo r sa laries a nd training expenses of
m erit system employees in short-supply
a reas, to permit them to a ttend university or other training courses r elated to
their progra m.
Third, title IV establish es a grant.;!_!1a id progra m f or inservice training of
S tate and local employees. This provision is geared to promoting high levels
of per form ance of such personnel, pa rticula rly in th e professional, a dministra tive, and technical a reas, and t h e development of employee potential by providing F ederal fun ds for S tate and local
governments t o initiate or strength en
t raining programs for t h eir own public
servants. Such assista nce would be
available only in personnel a reas wh ere
compa rable a id is not already provided
under other Federa l statutes. The pattern of Federal assista nce h ere roughly
pa rallels that of title II, except that the
Civil S ervice Commission would be the
a dministering a gency.
T h e S ta tes would be given t he p1im ary
r esponsibility for developing pla ns for
the training of their employees and the
initia l responsibility for joinin g with
local governm ents in the developmen t of
t raining progra ms for local personnel.
Such pla ns would include provisions for
a continuing assessment of training
needs, for equitable stan dards r elating
to the selection and assignment of per sonnel for t raining, a nd fo r efficient
utilization of personnel receiving train ing-including contin ued service for a
reasonable period of time. Educa tional
leave or other a.rra ngements for salary
a nd tra ining payments for periods in excess of a month in a ny one ca lenda r year
would be permitted only for career personnel employed under a merit system.
In addition, a Sta te plan would include
guidelines covering t h e selection of universities or other nongovernmental facilities, when such institutions a re to be
used for t raining purposes.
The title also autho1izes units of general local government in a State, either
jointly or separately, to submit a training plan if , within a year from the effective date of the act, the State fails to
submit a proposal which includes sub.stantial provisions for training local government employees. Such proj ect applications would have to m eet the same
general requirements applying t o State
plans and t he administrative regulations
5
May 25, 1966
establish ed by t h e Civil Service Commission. I n addition , the concurrence of the
Secretary of Housing a nd Urban Developm ent would also be r equired for project approval, to assure full considera tion
of the special training problems of our
Na tion's cities .
It is impor tant t o underst and what
this title does not provide. It does not ,
for example, distinguish between m etropolitan a nd n onmetro:i,iolitan units of
local government, since the problems relating to inser vice t raining differ mat e1ially fr om those falling under the
tra dition al h eading of personnel administration. It d oes n ot compete with title
VIII of the Housing Act of 1964 which,
a mong other things, a uthorizes m a tching g1·ants t o the States for developing
and expanding pr ogra ms to provide special training in skills needed for economic
a nd efficient community development to
technical and profess ional people who
a re employed or are being trained for
employm ent in a governmental body
which h as resp onsibility for such development. That Housing Act title is prim arily concer ned wit h a compar atively
n arrow range of voca tional specialties
and, it should be n oted, h as yet to be
fund ed .
Title IV also is not intended to duplica te or compete ,vith title I of t he High er
Educa tion Act of 1965. Tha t Act authorizes the Commission er of Education
to m ake gra nts t o strengthen community
service programs of colleges a nd univer sities. It is geared to institutions of
high er education in t h e Stat es, and to
the development of an educational program design ed t o assist in the solution of community problems in ru ral,
ur ban , or suburban areas, with particular emph asis on urban and suburban
problems. To date, only a few project
applications submitted un der t itle I of
the High er Educa tion Act of 1965 relate
t o t h e broad inservice trainin g n eeds
of the various cat egories of State and
local personnel.
In sh ort, t itle IV is residual. Personn el receiving training under oth er F ederal statutes are specifically excluded
from its coverage. It does not repla ce
or restrict existing F ederal tra ining programs for a wide va riety of professional
personnel in grant-aided fields. But
more positively, it m eets the t rainin g
n eeds of the Stat es and their localities,
as these jurisdictions see them. It em ph asizes training n eeds as t h ey a re seen
from the a dministra tive firin g line. It
is designed to r epla ce the piecemeal
method t ha t has to date cha racterized
the Federal approa ch. It is geared to
a ttacking a problem tha t a dministrator::;
a t a ll levels, as well as experts in public
a dministration , h ave described as criti cal. . Finally, it full y recognizes t h a t, as
President J oh nson sta ted a t P rinceton :
The public serva;:i.t toda y moves along
p a ths of a d ven t ure wh ere h e Is h elp less wit hout the tools of a d vanced learnin g.
The proposed I n tergovernmenta l Pers on nel Act provides still another m eans
for improving t he in-service t r aining
capability of State and local governments. Title VI gives prior Congr essional consent to interstate compacts or
other agreements, not in conflict with
�May 25, 1966
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
SENATE
10987
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- grants In any program fin a nced in whole or
sent that the text of the bill, together in part by Federa l funds, the personnel engaged in the ad.ministration of the program
with a section-by-section analysis, be be
employed under a State or local merit
inse1ted in the RECORD immediately fol- system meeting Federal standards. He is
lowing my remarks, and that the bill authorized to approve for this purpose standlie on the table for 10 days so that other ards for a merit system of personnel administration. The Federal Government, howSenators may join in cosponsoring it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill ever, shall exercise no authority over the
selection, tenure, or compensation of ind ividwill be received and appropriately re- uals
ferred; ,and, without objection, the bill system.employed in accordance with such
will be printed in the REconD , and will lie
TITLE II-GRANT6 FOR s X. ATE AND LOCAL
at the desk, as requested by the Senator
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION
from Maine.
Declaration of Purpose
The bill <S. 3408) to strengthen interSEC. 201. The purpose of this title is to
governmental cooperation and the ad- provide
Federal grants-in-aid to enable each
ministration of grant-in-!!id programs, State to strengthen its system of p erson n el
to extend State merit systems to addi- ad ministr ation, to provide State personnel
CONCLUSION
tional programs financed by Feder.al ser vices in nonmetropolita n units of loca l
Improved merit systems, improved funds, to provide grants for improvement government, a nd to stimulate projects for
State and local personnel management, of state and local personnel administra- the improvement of personnel administration
and improved in-service training pro- tion, to authorize Federal assistance in in metropolita n areas.
Appropria tion Authorization
grams--these are the three basic con- training State and local employees, to
SEC. 202. There is hereby authorized to be
cerns of the Intergovernmental Personnel provide grants to Sta,te and local governAct of 1966. Put more simply, greater ments for training of their employees, to appropriated for the fisc a l year ending June
career competence is the paramount authorize interstate compacts for per- 30, 1967, and each of the four succeeding
years, the following sums: (a) $10 ,theme of this legislation. Through a sonnel and training activities, and for fiscal
000,000 for payments to States which h ave
judicious combination of grant funds, other purposes; introduced by Mr. Mus- plans for State personnel administration aptechnical assistance, and new devices for KIE, was received, read twice by its title, proved under section 204; (b) $8,000,000 for
intergovernmental cooperation in the referred to the Committee on Govern- payments to States which h ave plans -for
personnel area, the proposed legislation ment Operations, and ordered to be provision of State personnel services to nonmetropolitan units of general loca l governprovides a variety of ways to strengthen printed in the RECORD, as follows:
ments approved under section 206; and (c)
the professional standing and prestige of
s. 3408
$15,000,000 for payments to States or metropersonnel at the State and local levels.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
politan units of general loca l governments
The Advisory Commission on Intergov- Representatives of the United States of which
have projects for metropolitan p erAmerica
in
Congress
assembled,
That
this
Act
ernmental Relations went on record at its
sonnel administration approved under secmay
be
cited
as
the
"Intergovernmental
PerApril meeting as favoring the objectives
tion 208.
of this legislation. And at Princeton, son n el Act of 1966."
Part A . Grants for State personnel
Declaration of Policy
President Johnson called for a program
administration
of assistance to "State and local governSEC. 2. The Congress hereby finds a nd
SEC. 203. (a) From the sums a ppropriated
ments seeking to develop more effective declares :
under section 202(a) the Secretary of Heal th ,
That effective State and loca l governmen- Education, and Welfare (hereinafter referred
career services for their employees."
tal institutions are essential in the mainte- to as the Secretary) sh all make annually
Prof. Charles Adrian has pointed out n a nce and development of the Feder al sys to States wh ich h ave plans for State
that conflict in our cooperative federal tem in a n increasingly complex and grants
personnel ad.ministration approved by him
system does not stem today from the interdependent society.
under section 204.
relations between the levels of governTh at, since numerous governmental activ (b). The sum availabl e a nnually for grants
ment as such, but that "friction results ities administered by the Sta te and loca l under this section s h a ll be a llotted among
governments
are
related
to
national
purpose
whenever the administrative personnel
the States under a formula approved by the
at a particular level for a particular and are fin a nced in part by F edera l funds, a Secretary which shall give weight to the
national
interest
exists
in
a
high
calib
er
of
number
of employees under the merit sys function are not fully professionalized." public service in State a nd local governments.
tem and the financial ability of the State
The findings in our survey, "The Federal
Th at intergovernmental cooperation in as indicated by its r ela tive per capita inSystem as Seen by Federal Aid Officials," State
personnel administration on a merit come, except th at each State will receive
clearly illustrate the administrative diffi- basis has contributed to greater efficiency not less than $25,000.
culties produced by such friction.
in various federally a ided programs ·and
Requirem ents of State Plans
We n eed greater expertise at these should b e extended generally to such proSEC . 204. A S tate plan for State personnel
grams.
levels, then, because its absence is now
administration to be approved by the SecThat F ederal financial and technical assis- retary mustone of the primary sources of tension and
tance
to
State
and
local
governments
for
conflict in intergovernmental relations.
(a) des ignate the appropriate S tate perstrengthening their personnel administra - sonnel agency for the administration of the
We need it because t he success of the tion
will Improve the effectiveness of the pla n;
Great Society programs depends on re- public service and is in the n ational interest.
(b) provide for a merit system conform ducing these antagonisms. We need it
That the continuing training and developto the Federal sta ndards established
because we live in an age of administra- ment of career employees, particularly in ing
under this Act for a Merit System of Per tive federalism ; in an age of more, not professi onal, administrative , and technical sonnel Administration; ·
less, use of grants-in-aid; in an age of fields, are critical to the success of joint Fed(c) set forth a program for the improve more, not less, contact among the ad- eral-State-loca l programs and that the Fed- ment and s trengthening of State personnel
eral
Government
should
encourage
and
assist
ministrative officials at all levels of
administration which m ay include, among
government. We need it if the States in such training for State and local em- other features :
ployees.
( 1) expansion of the coverage of S tate
and their localities are to be vigorous
TITLE I-EX PAN S ION OF MERIT SYSTEM I N
employees under the State m er it system;
members in the great partnership that
FED ERALLY AID ED PROGRAMS
(2) assessment of m anpower need s in
was established in 1789. We need it if we
developing programs and methods for m eet Declara tion of Purpose
are--in the President's words-to "dethem;
SEc. 101. The purpose of this title is to Ing(3)
velop a creative federalism to best use
improvement in one or more a reas of
achieve greater efficiency in the administra- personnel administration such as r ecruit the wonderful diversity of our institu- tion
of programs financed In whole or in ment, examinations, classificat ion, and comtions and peoples to solve the problems, part by Federal funds extending the a pplicafulfill the dreams of the American tion of personnel standards on a merit b asis pensation pla.ns:
(4) research and demonstration projects
people."
in the a dministration of such programs.
for the use of valid personnel methods, inThis is precisely what the IntergovPersonnel Sta ndards
cluding electronic data processing techernmental Personnel Act of 1966 is a-11
SEC. 102. The President is authorized to niques;
about. And that is precisely why I am require, insofar as he deems practicable, that
(5) development of a uxiliary or support
as a condition for the receipts of Federal types of positions to perform appropriate
introducing this measure today.
any law of the United States, for cooperative efforts and mutual assistance relating to the administration of personnel
and training programs for State and local employees. The New England Governors' Conference already has launched
a survey of the possibilities of regional
collaboration with respect to personnel
training programs. Building on the
precedent set in the Housing Act of
1961-which gave prior congressional
approval to interstate compacts establishing metropolitan agencies in multistate urban areas--this provision hopefully will encourage expanded efforts to
develop training programs on a regional
basis.
'
�10988
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
functions currently performed in occupations
in which there are now shortages; and
(6) interdepartmental and intergovernmental cooperation in personnel administration;
(d) provide for financial participation by
the State in the costs of merit system administration at least equal in amount to the
Federal grants, and further provide that the
operation of the plan wlll not result in a
reduction In State expenditures for such administration or the substitution of Federal
for State funds previously available for merit
system administration; and
(e) provide that the State agency will
m ake such reports in such form and containing such Information as the Secretary
m ay from time to time require, and shall
keep and make available such records as he
m ay r equire for the verification of such
reports.
Part B. Grants for State personnel services to
nonmetropolitan units of local government
SEC. 205(a). From the sums appropriated
under section 202(b) the Secretary shall
m a ke annually gra nts to States which have
plans a pproved by him under section 206 for
services to nonmetropolitan units of gener a l
local government.
(b) The sum available annually for grants
under this section shall be allotted under a
formUln approved by the Secretary which
shall give weight to (1) the number of employees and number of local governments
served, (2) the scope of State services provided, and ( 3) the financial ablll ty of the
State as indicated by i ts r elative per capita
income, except that each State sh all receive
not less than $25,000.
Requirements of Sta te plan
SEC. 206. A plan for State services on personnel administration to nonmetropolltan
units of general local government to· be approved by the Secretary must( a) designate the State agency, which may
be the agency des ignated under section 204,
for the administration of the plan;
(b) set forth a program for Improvement
and strengthening of personnel administration of such local governments by one or
more of the following means :
( 1) the 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<!. with F ed e ral
funds , t o extend to additional programs the
r equire m ent that Sta te and local personne l
in s uch progra ms be employed unde r a S tate
or local merit system meeting Fede r a l standa rds. No F ed er a l authority would be exercised over the selection, tenure of office , or
compe n sation of a ny individua l employed in
a ccord.a nce with such systems.
This p n.ttern o f administration Is n ow
applicable In the va rious public assis t a n ce,
child h ealth a nd weifare, public h ealth, employment service a nd une mployment Ins urance, ci vil defense , and aging programs . The
merit system r equirement was originally
enacted for program s under the Social S ecurl ty Boa rd. This action was t a ke n b y
Congress in 1939 a f ter some three yea rs '
e xpe rie n ce with out s uch a requireme n t
d e m o n str ated the n eed for it to assure pro gra m effectiven ess a nd economy. It h as b een
e xpanded ove r t h e years, most r ecently b y the
89t h Con gress i n t h e m edical assis t ance tit le
of t h e Socia l Security Ac t and in t h e Olde r
Ame ricans Act of 1965 .'
The Division of State Merit S ystems of
HEW has served f o r more than a quarter of
a century as the Fedet"al Interdepartmental
unit concerned wi t h State and local p ers onnel a dm1nlstra tion. Under commo n F eder a l standard s f or t he a pplica tion of t h e
merit syst em in various gran t programs administer ed b y t h e D ep a r t m e nts of HEW,
L a b or and D efense, It h as pr ovided coordinated F ederal technical a nd advisory ser vices
on S tate and l ocal personnel m a n agement.
Under t h is t itle, the Preside nt, at his dis cretion, would d e t erntlne if and whe n to
e x tend t h e m erit system r equire m ent to
oth e r programs. H e would b e free to take
i n to accou nt su ch f actors as h e deemed
r elevant. S u ch c riter ia m ight i nclude the
proport1on of F eder al funds i n volved or the
exp erimen tal n atu re of t he program.
T I TLE II- GRANTS FOR STATE AND LOCAL
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION
Section 201 expr esses t h e threef old obj ect! ve of t h Is ti tie to provide Feder a l gra n ts to
enable each Sta te t o 1) s tren gth e n Its system
of personnel admlrulsr atlon, 2) p rov ide State
p e r so nnel services to nonmetr opolitan local
governments, a n d 3) stimulate projects for
t h e improvement of personnel administration In metropolitan units of general local
gover nmen t (as defined In Sectio·n 703 of this
Act).
Section 202 a u thorizes $8 mi111on , $10
million, a nd $15 million, r espectivel y, to
car ry out the purpoees of this title.
Grants f or State personnel administration
Section 203 p r ovid es that grants will be
made to States which have approved p la n s
for State personnel administration under a n
allotment formula which gives weight to the
number of emp1oyees under the State merit
system and the financial a bility of the State.
The Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare Is assigned the responsibility of
administering this program in recognition of
the f act that HEW's D iv ision of S tate Merit
Systems has the gree.test experience In the
area of State personnel admlnlstratlon.
Section 204 lists the major elements a
State plan must have to be approved. These
1 Cf. U .S.C. Title 42, Sec. 302(a) (5), Sec.
503(a) (1), Sec. 703(a) (3) , Sec. 712(a) (3),
Sec. 723(a)(2), Sec. 1202(a)(5), Sec. 1352
(a) (5) , Sec. 2674(a) (5); and U.S.C. Title 50,
Sec. 2236(a)(4).
include d esign a tion of a State agency, conformity with Federal standards, provision for
Sta te ~ a tchl ng funds and a d escription of
~he program f or Improving and strengt henm g p ersonnel administration. The progr a m
m ay Include expa nsion of the s cope of the
m erit sys t em; pla n s t o meet m a npower needs
In new a nd exp a nding S tate program s; improveme nt of ser vices in recruitment e xamin a tions, classifica t ion a nd p a y pla n s; d e velo pm ent of a u x iliary types of pos itions to
supple m e nt professiona l staff In short supply; r esear c h a nd d emons tration projects;
a nd In terdepa r t m e nta l and int ergovernmental cooperation m ~rsonnel a dminlstrntlon
Grants fo r State per sonnel services to non m etropoli tan local governments
Section 205 p rovides tha t the Secr etary of
H ealth, Educatio n , and Welfa re s h a ll m a ke
gran ts a nnually to Sta tes which h a ve a p proved plans f or S ta te personnel services to
nonmetropolltan local governments under a n
a llo tmen t f ormula. w hich gives weight to the
number o f local governments and employees
to be ser ved, t h e scop e of the services to be
provided, a nd t h e financial a bility of t he
Stat e.
·
Sec tion 206 lis t s the major elem en ts a
State pla n f o r s erv ices to nonmetrop olitan
local governme n ts must h a ve to b e a pproved,
including S t a te or local matching fu n d s.
It provides tha t these services to local governments m a y include: covera ge of local
e mployees under the State merit sys tem;.
teclmlcal services f rom the State In such
areas a s recruitment, examinations classlficntlon a nd compe n sation plan s; cooperative r esearch a nd d e mons tra~lo n pro jects ;
a nd coop erative a rrang eme nts (Including
inter c h a n ge of p ersonnel) amon g units o f
local go.J1e1nments or b e t ween State and local
governmen ts.
The S tates and loca lities could s tre n gth e n
p ersonnel oper a tions for nonmetropolltan
units of go vernment in a variety of ways.
The plan may not only va ry from S tate t o
State, but may p rovide f o r differe n tiated
ser vices w ithin a Stat e d ep e nding on t he
s ize a nd needs of the local governrne n ts.
The services m ay va ry from complete coverage o f local e m p loyees under the State m erit
system to liml t ed ser vices t o m eet ,;p ecliic
local n eeds. T h e . latter migh t Include recrmtme nt of specialized p ers onnel or d emon s tra tion pro ject s .fo r Improved classifica tion plans .
Gran t s f or personnel admini st ra t ion in
metropolit a n areas
Section 207 provides t h at t h e Secr etary of
the D ep a r tment of Health, Education, a nd
Welfare sh a ll m ake p aymen ts annu ally to
S t ates ( a nd a lternatively u n d er . Section 209
t o l ocal governmen ts in m etr opolitan areas )
w hich h ave approved pro jects for personnel
administra tio n , with State or local financia l
participation to the ext ent o f one-t hird o f
t h e costs of the p ro jects. Sta nda rds governi ng the d istribu t ion of s u ch gran ts shall
be made by the Secretary o f HEW w l th t h e
concu rrence of the Secret ary of Housi ng a nd
Urban Development.
Section 208 provides that app roved projects may incl ude man power p lanni ng and
u t ilization; Improvement of classification and
compensation p lans and of recruitment and
exantlnlng; research for the Improvement o f
the selec tion and the developmen t of tllsadvantaged persons whose capacities are not
being used; developing .aux lllary positions in
shortage occu pations; improvement of management techniques, s u ch as electronic data
processing, in p ersonnel operations; and d eveloping cooperative activities in such areas
as recruiting and examining by government
Jurisdictions in a metropolitan are&.
Metropolitan governments are facing new
and acute problems with lintlted resources
May 25, 1966
in pe rsonnel a dminis tration . This t it le Is
designed to provide for innovative projects
of various kinds to meet special n eeds. This
m a y Involve t he application of tested personnel m ethods or the d emonstrat ion o f new
t echniques . Local governments vary g reatly
in both their organization f or p er sonn el administration a nd t he level of i ts e!Iec tlven ess. Ma n y factors exp lain this , including
the administrative a nd p o litical traditions
of the juris diction, the stat utory b ase a nd
the _fina n cia l support for n ersonnel a dministra tion, a nd public a ttftudes. Since the
s cope and quality of personnel oper a tions
va ry, the Act p ermits projects to be d esigned
realis tically to m eet specific needs for improvement.
Sect ion 209 provides tha t if a S tate has
not s ubmitted a ny projects (unde r section
208) r eceiving a pproval w ithin one yea r a fter
the en actme nt of this l egisla tion, the metropolita n unit of gen e ral local go'iernment m a y
submit projects for a ppr oval.
Section 210 provides tha t this title will be
administer ed b y the Secretary of H ealth,
Educa tio n , a nd Welfa re. The criteria for
m e tropolita n p roj ects, a s was n oted previously, would be established with t he concurrence of t he Secretary o f Housing a nd
Urba n D evelopm ent.
The inten t o f t his s ection Is t o u t ilize the
e xperie n ce in In tergovernmen tal pers onnel
r ela tion s of the Depa rtme nt of Heal t h, Education, a nd Welfa re's Division of Sta te Merit
Sys tems In various gra nt-In-a id . progra ms.
At the s a me time, the responslb!llt y of the
Department of Housing a nd Urba n Developm e n t with resp ect to urba n per sonnel adminis tration would b e recognized b y i ts required concurren ce i n the d evelopment o f
criter ia for m etropolitan personnel pro jects.
The F ed er a l appr oach would b e coordina ted,
t a king i n t o account t h e Federal interest In
the various grant program s a nd t h e d iffer ential n eed s for S tate a nd for local nonmetropollta n a nd m etr o politan a dmin istra tion.
T echnical s er vices, a s well as fin ancia l ass ist a nce, would b e a va ilable t o str engthen
S tate a nd local personnel adm in istration.
Section 211 provides f or w it h holding of
f unds after notice a nd h earing for noncomplia n ce with a p proved plans or p roject,;;.
TIT L E I I I -AUTHORIZATION FOR TRAINING
This tit le permits, u pon requ est of the
r espective S tate a nd local governmen ts, the
attenda nce of State and local em ployees ·at
F ed era l t raining courses; it a u t h orizes F eder a l agen cies administering grant programs
to con duct training for S tate and local profess ional, administrative, and technical p er ~
sonnel; and it provides that Fed er al f u nds
granted to State and local governments for
t h e a d ministration of Joint programs may b e
u sed to cond uct training or for education a l
leave.
Cooperative relationships in the field o f
t r a ining h ave, in recent years , d eveloped to
s u c h a n ex tent that t h ey are becoming common p ractice. Even so, most of the m are
limited to p a r ticu lar types of training o f fered by one Federal department or agency
t o e m pl oyees In counterpart State and local
agencies. That the F .B.I. Academy provides
cer tain training f or law enforcement officers
for both State and local governments Is well
known. Not so well known is the fact t h at
many other Federal d epartments and agen cies al so offer train i ng to S tate and local
officers and employees. Among these are the
D epartment of Agricul ture, the Food a.nd
Dru g Administration, the Forest Service, the
Internal Revenue Service, the Public Health
Service, and many more.
This title builds on these precedents and
extends authority to all Federal departments
and agencies to make their training programs
ava!lable to ·counterpart State and local officers and employees. It d oes not limit
existing training authorizations.
�May 25, 1966
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE
TITLE IV-GRANTS FOR TRAINING OF STATE AND
LOCAL EMPLOYEES
Section 401 states the purpose of t his
title: to promote higher levels of performance In the publ!c service and to develop
employee potential through Fed eral assistance to Sta t e and local governmen ts for Initiating and ca rrying out training programs
in fields where s u ch Federal assistance Is
not already provided under exis ting grantin-aid or other statutes.
Secti on 402 authorizes $10 million for fiscal 1967, $25 million for 1968, and $50 million each for 1969, 1970, and 1971 to carry
out the stated purpose of this title.
Secti on 403 provides that the Civil Service
Commission shall make grants to S tates
(and, alternatively under Section 405, t o
local governments) which h ave approved
plans for t raining under an a llotment formula which gives weight to the n umb er of
State and/ or local employees and governments to be ser ved, t he scope of the services
to be provided, and the financia l ab!l!ty of
the S tate.
Section 404 lists the major elem ents a
State plan for training must h ave to be approved under Section 403. These Include:
designating the State agency to a dminister
the training plan; settin g forth t he program
of tralnlng, with educa tional leave for
periods of over one month limited to ca reer
personnel; providing for continuing assessment of training needs; es tabllsh!ng s tandards for the s election of personnel for trainIng and their subsequ ent u t ilization; a nd
Issuing policies a nd standards for the sel ection of univer sity or ot h er nongovernmental
f ac!llties a n d for the t ypes of agreements
to be entered Into for such tra ining; providing f or fina ncia l p a rticipation f rom State,
loca l or priva t e sources to the extent of onefourth of the total training costs.
Section 405 provides t hat If within a year
after t he enactment of this legislation a
State has not received approval for projects
which provide at least a s much training
for l ocal employees as for State employees,
then the local govern m en ts may submit
pJa ns for such t r a in ing .
Section 406 au t h orizes the U .S . Civil Service CommlS&ion t o administer the provisions
of this title and to furnish t ech n ical assistance to State or local governments. The
Commission Is assigned t h is responslbll!ty
because of the exten sive experience It has
acquired · throu gh Its own career development training program f or F ederal employees . The Commission Is a lso authorized to
prescribe t h e regulations necessar y to ca rry
out t he p urposes of this title. Local pla ns
for tra ln1ng m u st be consistent with criteria
est a blished In regulations Issu ed with the
concurrence of the Secretar y of Hou sing a nd
Ur ban Development.
Section 407 provides for the withholding of
f und s after notice and hearing f or n oncomplia n ce with a p p r oved plans.
ently fea red that It might be Improperly
used. Thus, It was further assumed that
each proposed compact would be carefully
examined and debated as a part of the consent procedure. This procedure often Is no
longer fully a dhered to. The Congress has
on numerous occasions given prior consent,
and In 1948 when the Southern Regional
Education Compact was under consideration, the point was m a de that no formal consent was r equired for two or more States to
perform cooperatively an a ctivity that each
h as the power to perform Individua lly.
TITLE VII-DEFINITION
This title provides definitions of the terms
"Sta te," "m erit system," "m etropolitan unit
of general local government," a nd "nonmetr opolitan unit of general loca l governm ent."
TITLE V---<:O OPERATION IN PERSONNEL R ECRUITMENT AND EXAMINATION
This title a u thorizes the U.S. Civil Ser vice
Commission to cooperate with State or l ocal
governments on a shared-cost basis In cooperative recruitment or examinations.
TITLE
VI-
AUTHORITY FOR
PACTS
INTERSTATE COM -
T his t itle a uthorizes any two or more
Sta t es to enter Into compacts br other agreements for cooperative effort s and mutua l assistance for the adin1nistrat1on of person nel a n d t raining prograins for officers and
employees of State and local governmen ts.
The purpooe Is to promote higher personnel
standards and moblllty of qualified personnel , particularly professional, administrative,
and techn1cal personnel In shortage categories.
When the compact clause of the Constitution was framed and adopted, It was appilr-
,o
10991
�~ /V&k ~
·~:c:. ,~~2~
@}~@~®~
~'CQJ~IT©IT~£&
COLUMBUS
M A YOR MA LCOL M
//
R.
MAC L EA N,
,u
.A
A
First Vi ce President ~-L//
SAVANNAH
MAYOR J o H N L. C ROMARTIE,
GA IN ESVILLE
~ ~ © © ~~ IT©~
VV . EL~·t E R GEORGE,
4 06
FULTON
FEDERAL BUILDING• /
ATL A NTA . GEORGIA 30303
/
Second V ice President
Executive Director
TELEPHONE 255-0424
June 3, 1966
ACT I V E PAST
PR E SID E NT S
C I T Y COMM I SS I ONER J O H N E . YA RB R OUGH
I MMED I ATE P AST P R ES I D E N T
ROME , GA .
MA Y OR R ANDO L P H M EDL OCK
S T ONE M O UNTAIN , G A .
MAYOR W . 8. W ITHE R S
M OULT RI E , GA .
Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Associate Administrato :ti
EOA, Inc.
/__
101 Marietta Street Building, Room 400 ( _ _
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
CIT Y CO MM I S SIONER C A RL E . PRU E TT
GR I F FIN , GA .
Dear Dan:
M AY OR 8 . F. ME RRITT , JR .
MAC O N , GA .
FIRST
DISTR I CT
PRES I DENT
MAYOR J AC K A . LER O Y
AILEY
I am 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.
D I R ECTOR
MAYOR J . W . SNE L L
WRIGHTS V I L L E
S E CO ND
P RES I DENT
MAYOR W .
PE LH AM
DIST RI CT
P.
H EN R Y
D I REC T OR
M AY O R MACK E . W ILLI S
B A I N B R I DGE
THI RD
Elmer and Jim Burgees have been working up several
important items for consideration by the committee and
these have been documented, to save time.
D I ST RI CT
PRESIDENT
R ICHARD 8 . RAY
PERR Y
DIRE C TOR
MA Y OR 0 . E . WH I T E
P I NE MOUNTA I N
F O URTH
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 pre sent.
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.
DISTR IC T
PRES I DEN T
C O U NCILMAN LI NT O N
BROOME
DO RAV ILLE
DI R ECTOR
CO U NCILMAN C L Y DE J. H IC KS
CONYERS
FIFTH
DISTRICT
PR ES I DEN T
MAYOR A U BRE Y E . GREENW A Y
ROSWE LL
D I RECT O R
ALDERMAN E . GR E GOR Y GR I G GS
AT LANTA
SIXTH
Please advise on the attached postal card if you can
attend this first meeting of our committee.
DISTRICT
PRES I DEN T
MA Y OR J . GARD N ER NE W MA N
L AG RAN G E
D I R E CTOR
MA Y OR HE R BERT H . JONES
Sinc e r e l y,
Mc DONO UGH
SEVENTH
~
DISTRICT
PRE S I DEN T
MAYO R J . C . WOODS
TR I ON
D I RE C T O R
MA Y O R R A L P H R . C LA R K, JR .
John Cromartie, Chairman
GMA E valuation C ommittee
R I NGGO LD
EIGHTH
DISTRICT
PRE S I DE N T
MAYOR E LT ON D . B ROO K S
DOU GL A S
J C:rg
Enclo s u r e
D I R ECTOR
MA YOR JAM ES T . WI ND S OR , JR .
McRA E
NINTH
DISTRICT
PAES I OE N
M A.YO R 0U A R D
B. W H ITL OW
C_A Rf"ESVl l,.L E
D I RE C T O R
MA YOR
MR6 . JE SS I E
L .
GA R NES
COUNC IL MAN GEORGE
D A HLON E GA
T l! N T H
D I ST RI CT
PRES I DE NT
MA YO R JULIU S
ATHENS
F.
B I SHOP
D I RECTOR
GEORGE: A . SANCKEN. J R .
A U G USTA
H.
BULL O CK
ATHENS
D IR E C T OR S
STATE
AT LARGE
M ,,,.YO R W I LLIAM JA C K
DE C ATUR
ALPERMAN ,J , J , S HOOS
SAVANNAII
H A M I LTO N
MAYOR JOHN C . E DENFIELD
THOMASTON
AL OC RM AN
CCIL. T U R N Crt
ATLANTA
MAYOR LEE E . CARTER
HARTW E LL
C ITY M A NAGER -'OHN
H , MA R K l AND
PRFSIDE'NT, CITY MA.NAGFRS ' SECTION
DECA TU R
ADMIN ASSIST R
TRAVIS HIGGIN80THAM
PRE SI DENT . C I TY CLERKS ' SECTION
ALBANY
CITY ATTORN E Y WILLIAM E SMITH
PRESIDENT , CITY ATTORN EYS' SECTION
AMERIC U S
�ce~®~®rr£.
~'(QJ~Il©Il~£&
~~©©Il£.~Il©~
CITY CO MM IS SIONER J . STE VE KNIGHT,
C OLUMBUS
MAYOR MALCOLM
SAVANNAH
MACLEAN,
MAY OR J OHN L. CROMARTIE,
GAINESVll.LE
W.
406 FULTON FEDERAL BUILDING• /
R.
ATLANTA . GEORGIA 30303
ELMER GEORGE,
President
First Vice President
Second Vice President
Executive Director
/ TELEPHONE 255-0424
May 31, 1966
ACTIVE PAST
PRESIDENTS
CITY COMMISSIONER JOHN E . YARBROUGH
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
ROM E, GA .
MAYOR RANDOLPH MEDLOCK
S TO NE MO U NTA IN , GA .
MAYOR W . B . WITHERS
MO ULTRIE , GA .
CITY COMMISSIONER C ARL E . PRUEl"r
GRIFFIN, GA .
MAYOR B . F. MERRITT, JR.
MACON, GA .
FIRST
Mr . Dan Sweat
Federal Programs Coordinator
City Hall
Atlanta, Georgia
DISTRICT
PRE SIDENT
MA YOR JACK A . L E RO Y
AILE Y
DIRE CTOR
MAYOR J. W. SNELL
WRIGHTSVILLE
SECOND
DISTRICT
PRESIDENT
MAYOR W. P . HENRY
PELHAM
DIRECTOR
COUNCILMAN J. C , MINTER
CAIRO
THIRD
DISTRICT
Dear Dan :
I appointed a committee during the l ast board meeting in
At lanta for the purpose of evaluating the role of the
Georgia Munic ipal Association as relates to the part the
Association should pl ay in relation to the metropolitan
local councils of government and to area planning and
development commissions .
PRESIDENT
RICHARD B . RAY
PERRY
DIRECTOR
MAYOR 0 . E . WHITE
PINE MOUNTAIN
FOURTH
DISTRICT
PRESIDENT
COUNC IL MAN LINTON BROOME
DORA VI LLE
DI RECTOR
C OUNCILMAN CLYDE J . HICKS
CON YE RS
FIFTH
DISTRICT
PRESIDENT
MAYOR AUBREY E. GREEN WAY
ROSWELL
DIRECTOR
ALDERMAN E . GREGORY GRIGGS
ATLA NTA
SIXTH
DISTRICT
PRESIDENT
MAYO R J . GARONER NEWMAN
LAGRANGE
DIRECTOR
MAYOR H ERBERT H . JONES
McDONOUGH
SEVENTH
DISTRICT
PRESIDENT
MAYOR J . C . WOODS
TRION
DIRECTOR
MAYOR R ALP H
R . CLARK, JR .
RINGGOLD
EIGHTH
DISTRICT
Under Section 701- G of the 1965 Housing Act , certain grants
may be made to metropolitan loca l 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 council s and the Association which would have the eff ect
of (1) providing the already existing resources of the Association 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 a reas 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 loc al 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 l arge urban areas, recognizing at the same time ,
that local decision-making mus t not be interfered with, nor
any joint programs pursued, except with the consent of l ocal
officials.
PRESIDENT
MAYOR ELTON D . BROO K S
DOUGLAS
D I REC T OR
MA YO R J AMES T . WINDSOR , JR .
MCRAE
NINTH
Another area for possible considerati on by the committ ee is the
problems of the local community out side the metropolitan areas .
DISTRICT
PRESIDENT
MAYOR OUARD 8
CARNESV ILLE
.
WHITLOW
DIRECTOR
MAYOR MRS . JESSIE L . GARNER
DAHLONEGA
TENTH
COUNCILMAN GEORGE H . BULLO CK
ATH E NS
ALDERMAN J . J . S H OOS
S A VAN NA H
MAYOR WILLIAM JAC K H AM ILTON
DE C ATUR
ALDERMAN C EC IL T UR NER
ATLA N TA
MAYOR JOHN C . EDENFIELD
THOMASTON
MAYOR LE E E . CAR T E R
HARTWE LL
DI STR ICT
PRES I DEN T
MAYOR JULIUS F . BISHOP
ATHENS
DIRECTOR
GEORGE A . SANC K EN , JR .
AUGUSTA
DIR ECTORS
STATE
AT L A RGE
CITY MANAG E R JOH N H . MAR K LAND
P RE S IDE N T , C I T Y MA NA G E RS ' SE C TION
D E C AT U R
A D MI N . AS SI ST . R . TRAVIS HIGGINBOTHAM
PR E S IDEN T . CI T Y C L E R KS· SEC TION
ALB A NY
CI T Y ATT OR N E Y W I LLI AM E . S MI TH
PRESIDENT , C IT Y ATTOR N EYS ' S EC TION
A M E RI C US
�Mr. Dan Sweat
- 2-
May 3l, l 966
There are some problems developing in relation to programs
of area planning and development commissions whi ch serve communities 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 citie s 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
t o be studied.
It has t aken the Georgia Municipal Associ ation 33 years to
devel op a coordinated program to assist our cities and towns
at the political l evel, as well as at the servic e 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
Mayo r J ack LeRoy, Ailey
J ames B. Blackburn, City Attorney Savannah
Dan Sweat , Federal Programs Coordinator, Atlanta
Pl ease r eturn the attached card, advising of your acceptance .
Sincerely,
J. Steve Knight
President
JSK/ r s
cc:
Malcolm Maclean
enclosure
�J.
CITY C o:vtM ISSI ONER
C OLU?lo·£DU S
MAY O R MA L COLM
R.
S TEVE KNIG H T,
MACLEA N ,
President
Fi rst V ice President
SAVANNAH
MAYO R J mrn L. CROMARTm ,
GAINESVIL L E
W.
406
FULTON
FEDER A L
BUIL D ING• /
AT L AN TA.
GEO R GIA
30303
/
Second Vice President
E xecut ive D irector
E LM ER G EORGE ,
TELEPHONE
2 5 5 -0 4 24
May 17, 1966
ACTIVE PAST
PRESIDENTS
C I TY CO MM I SS I ONER JOH N E . YARBROUGH
I MM EDI A T E PAST PRES I DE N T
RO M E , GA .
MAY O R R ANDO LPH ME DLOCK
S TONE MO U NTA I N , G A .
MAYOR W . B . W I THERS
MOULTRIE , GA .
CITY COMM IS S IO NER C AR L E . PRUEl"r
GR I FF I N , GA .
MAYOR B .
F.
MERR IT T , J R .
MA C ON , GA .
FIRST
DISTRICT
Mr. Dan Sweat
Coordinator of Governmental Liaison
City Hall
Atlanta, Georgia
PR E S I D EN T
M AYOR J ACK A . L ERO Y
A ILE Y
Dear Dan :
DIRE CTOR
MAYO R J . W . SNELL
WR I GHT S V I LL E
SECOND
DISTRICT
PRES I DENT
MAYOR W . P . H ENRY
PELH A M
DI R EC TOR
M AYOR M A C K E . W I LLIS
BA I N BR I DGE
THIRD
DISTRICT
PRESIDE N T
R I CH A RD 8 . RAY
PERR Y
D I REC T OR
MA Y OR 0 . E . WHI TE
PI N E MOUNTAIN
FOURTH
Enclosed are copies of a draft memorandum on the urban pol:icy
council.
I have included in the memorandum the statements and thoughts
that you had on the Economic Opportunity Program . I would appreciate 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 .
DISTRICT
PRE SI D EN T
COUN C IL M A N
L I N TO N
BROOM E
DORAVILLE
DIRECTO R
I look forward to hearing from you .
Please do not hesitate to
call on us whenever we can be of service or assistance.
COUNCIL M AN CLYDE J . HIC KS
CONYERS
FIFTH
Sincerely yours ,
DISTRICT
P RE S I DENT
M AYO R A U B REY E . GREENWAY
RO SWE LL
DI RE C TO R
A L DERMAN E . GREGORY GR I GGS
ATLAN TA
SIXTH
Jr.
D I STRICT
PR E SIDE N T
MAYOR J . GARDNER NEWMAN
L AGRA N GE
DIRECTOR
MAYOR HERBERT H . JONES
JVBJr/ rs
McDO N O UGH
SEVENTH
DISTRICT
PRES I DENT
enclosures
MA Y OR J. C . WOODS
TRI O N
D I RECTOR
MAYOR RA L PH R . CLAR K, JR .
R I NGGOLD
EI GH TH
D I S TRICT
PRES I DENT
M A YOR ELTON D . BROOKS
DOU G L A S
D I RE C TO R
MAYOR J AME S T . WI NDSOR , JR .
MC RAE
NINTH
D I S T R ICT
PRESID ENT
MA Y OR DU A R D B . WH I TLOW
CARNE S VI L LE
DIRECTOR
MA Y OR M R S . J ESSIE L . GA R N E R
COUNCILMAN G EOR G E H . B U LLO CK
DAH LO NE GA
T E NTH
AT H ENS
DI S TRICT
PRESIDENT
M AYOR JULIU S
F.
B I S H OP
ATHENS
DIRECTOR
GEORG E A. S ANCK E N. J R .
AUGUSTA
DI R ECTO R S
STATE
M A YOR WI L L IAM J ACK H AM ILTON
DECATU R
AL DERMAN J . J . S HOOS
SA VANNA H
A LDERMAN CECIL T U R NER
AT L AN T A
AT LARGE
MAYOR JOHN C . E DENF IEL D
T HOMAST ON
M AYOR L EE E . CARTER
HARTWEL L
CI T Y MANA G ER JOHN H. MAR K LAND
PRES I DE NT . C IT Y M ANAGER S' SECTION
DECAT UR
AOMIN A SSIS T . R . TR AVIS HI G GINBOTHAM
PRES I D E NT , C I TY CLERK S ' S EC TION
ALBANY
C I TY ATTORNEY WIL L IAM E SM I TH
PRESIDENT. CIT Y A T T OR NEY S ' S E C TION
AMER I CUS
�DRA F T
M EMO RA NDUM
URB A N
P OL I CY
COUN CI L
�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 bas i c premise it is felt that local government off icials and administrators should play an active part in the initial formulation of
federal grant-in-aid legislation that affects the growth, development, administration, and operation of local gover nment in Georg i a.
Local govern-
ment off icial s and administrator s should also b e cons u lted in the dev e lopment of implementing administrative regulations for such l e gislation .
Many fe deral grant- in- aid programs app ear to be f ounded to a l a r ge
degree upon criter i a or standards of app lication as de t e r mined almost ent i rely a t the federal leve l .
An example is curr ent leg islation in Congress
to es t ablish communi ty development dis tr i c ts, the make up and c omposit ion of
which is proposed to be approv ed by a cabinet officer based upon prede t ermined criter ia .
Intergovernmen tal Cooperation
There is strong proba bility that future urban programs, of even our
larger c ities , wil l as a p rerequisi t e to fe deral a pp rova l , have t o be reviewed by regional organizations or area p fanning and development commissions.
The Intergovernmental Coop eration Act of 1965 (S . 561) which passed
the Senate and not the Hou se would have required review by a metropolitan
planning agency before the federal government would act.
�-2-
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 develop~ent that transcend established
political and jurisdictional boundaries and cut across entire regions.
These organizations will play a vital role in total coordinated urban development.
Only recently were these organizations recognized by the federal government 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 instrumentality, 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 regional 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 personnel in the development and implementation of federal grant-in-aid programs.
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
�-3-
federal rules and regulations which apply to all units of government regardless of size.
development.
A good example is the workable program for community
This program as a prerequisite to involvement in certain
federal programs is lacking in flexibility, in its application, and imposes 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 capjtal improvements budget is certainly 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 toquestion.
The arbitrary requirement that the workable program be recertified
each year regardless of size of city results in local administrative falsifying 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 previo us year's
commitment .
Yet no standards or justification were stated as to why these
requirements were imposed .
�-4-
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 practitioners.
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 we ll 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
�-5-
project .
As an al t ernative, why not allow an over all total grant with
credit given fo r noncash items i n a prog r am sense rathe r t han i n specifics
so that the local credit items could be reflected in an overall urban
renewal plan, as opposed to spe cific items on a project basis .
Specific criteria and prerequisite standards are a pplied in the development of urban renewal projects .
Yet similar requirements for streets,
highways, and other physical facilities _may be programmed with a total disregard for city 's master plan .
Economic Opportunity Program
The followi ng is a discussion of areas where cit i es (particularly,
mayors) have encountered local problems i n a dmin is t r a tion of the Economic
Opportunity Program .
Ma ny ma yors would have l iked to have ha d some say in t he initial developme nt of VI STA (Vo lunteers In Se rvic e To Ame rica ), or dome st ic peace corp s
program.
Apparent ly, many mayor s we r e not i nvolved in the i n i t i al devel op-
ment of t his p r ogram , a nd consequent l y, fo und i t ne ces s a ry to refuse part i cipat i on in the VISTA program or were re quired t o use their influence to
cancel VISTA pr ograms op erating within t h eir communities .
An understanding of the extent of the role of VISTA with in the political area is a demand the mayors could assert .
However, this would be in
opposition t o the philosophy of VI STA in gra nt ing great flexib ility and
freed om.
Thu s, EOA, b earing in mind th e problems wh ich could be created
for the mayor and the city council by completely unhindered volunteers, has
had to demand that VISTA volunte e r s be tie d down to s pec i f i c a ssignments .
This has been par ticularly true of the program in Atlanta .
�-6-
The question of the mayors veto of OEO projects is continuously raised.
Certainly obstructionist politicians should not be able to deny necessary
and reasonable prog r ams for their citizens o
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 involv~ment of the poor at the local level
by CAP agencies in planning and in conducting CAP programs o
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 gro ups 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 actually designed to be on-going projects .
Recent changes in the requ irements of the Small Business Development
Center program under Ti tle IV of the Economic Opportunity Act is an indication of lack of consideration on the part of local officials in making
sweeping changes in the intent and content of a prog r am .
The or iginal
Title IV p r ovis i on was des i gned to help increase employment by p roviding
low inter est loans to small businessmen who would gua r an t ee creation of
additional jobs wh i ch co ul d be filled by the poor as well as the creation
of new entrepreneurs under low i ncome groups o
The initial guidelines have
now been so changed that the program simply i s be ing conducted to see how
many loans can be g r an ted t o persons who are no t now in business and who
are in poverty o
The SBA makes it clea r that it is inter ested in making a s
many loans as poss i ble to Negroes t o start small businesses .
�-7-
Recreat i on
Rec ent Congre ss e s of t h e Uni ted States, recogn i z i ng the growing demand
by citizens for recreation and parks, have passed considerable legislation
affecting these movements .
The recreation profess i on, although pleased to
see the vast interest in recreation and parks on the Federal level of government, does hold some reservations about it .
Specifically, the Federal governm~nt has classified all recreation
and parks under one heading -- "Outdoor Recreation" .
tributes to a narrow view of recreation .
This fact alone con-
Recreation, as it is conducted
in Georgia cities, includes every facet of leisure pursuits for the development 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
Bi ll, th e Housing and Ur ba n Dev e lopment Act of 1965, t he Older Ame r i cans
Act , the Economic Oppo r tun ity Ac t of 1965, and many o the r s hav e aff ec ted
the gr owth and development of r e c rea tion i n the nation .
Bas i c ally sound
legislation h a s los t t he ma i n emphas i s on t he p ro gr ams t h r ough gui delines
e stabl i shed by t he various Fede ral de partmen t s admini s tering t he p ro g r ams <
Bas ic p r og r ams orig i n a l ly i n c l ude d in t h e leg i sla tio n have be en g iven s uch
low prior ity t h a t app r oval of a n a ppl ic a t ion i s almo s t i mp oss i bl e .
Rec ent Fede r al legis l ation re lating t o recrea t i on and pa r ks wi l l have
a g re a t i mpact upo n the r e c r ea tion an d pa r ks moveme n t in t h e Uni t e d States .
The r e a r e, however, many a r eas of t h e pr esent l egi slat i on which cou ld be
i mp r oved t o b etter s erve t h e communit i e s .
�-8-
These are :
1.
The Feder al government or t he Federal departments administer i ng the
legislation has plac ed guidelines on the prog r ams which mak e them quite
diffi cult fo r many communi t i e s to take advantage .
(a)
Practically all the curr ent programs require deta i led communitywide planni ng o
Although this requirement is bas ically good, it
makes many of our smaller communities inelig i ble from lack of
proper finances fo r planning .
Federal agencies admi n i stering the
programs should be giv en leadway in approving applications from
small communities who do not fully meet the guideli nes established
by the Federal departme nt .
(b)
The community leader shi p should be permitted to bes t determine the
mo r e sui table locat i on fo r a ny program or facil i ty .
It should not
be r est ric ted en t ire l y to poverty areas .
(c)
St ate governments s hould be given the authority to r enew, recomme nd,
and approv e appl i cations pr i or to submiss i on t o the Fe deral government .
St ate ag en cies are awa r e of th e needs of commun i t ies in
t heir res pective s tate s and wi ll a c t wi th sp e e d and e f fi ciency .
Cur rently many pr ograms by-pass the stat e al t og e ther .
I n suc h i n-
s tance s th i s rend er s the a r ea planning and dev elopme n t commi ss i ons
and similar groups less effective in guid ing orderly planning a nd
deve l opment .
By t h e same token, s t a te agencie s c ap a b le of a ssis t -
i ng communities with v arious deve lopme n ts, are seldom consul t ed.
( d)
Pr e sent p rogr am app lications are by far too difficul t for t he a verage community t o comp l ete and fi le with the proper agency .
Pres ent
methods almost requ i re the full-time services of a person trained
for this pur pose .
Many of our smal ler communities cannot aff ord
to employ such a person .
�-9-
(e)
Guidelines should be set forth in common terms understandable by
all communities o
Presently, it is the case where some of the fed-
eral employees with the a dministering department s do not agree on
t he requirements o
This simply causes confusion and misunderstand-
ing on the part of local gov e r nments o
(f)
Federal employees should be qualified to interpret and supervise
Federal programs in which they work o
It is inconceivable that a
person trained in forestry, agriculture, and hort iculture can do
the total job necessary for recreation and parks o
Recreation is
a new profession with personnel trained in this field .
Personnel
possessing the b ro ad concept of recreation and parks should administer Federal programs o
The Land and Water Conser v ation Fund Bill is designed to provide matching funds up to 50 % to states and their political subd ivisions for planning,
acquisition and deve lopment of out door recreation areas o
State pla nn i ng is essential .
Each state, in order to be eligible
(Georgia could receive up t o $2 million annually in th i s 25-year program)
must prepare a state plan wh i c h must be approved by t he Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation "
As of May 1 , 1966, comprehensive statewide out doo r re reation
plans have been a pp r ov ed exc ept Georg i a, Iowa, North Caro lina, Ut ah , and
Wyoming .
Proje c ts will no t be approv ed unt i l the s t a t e plan i s app r oved .
This law stat es spec if ically that matching funds "may be made available to political subdivi s i ons" o
Upon maki ng furth er inquiries as to how the communities a c tually fit
int o the plan and how t hey will parti cipa t e in the prog r am , no clear cut
answers were a vailable o
Actually, local communities do no t now know t o
�-10-
what ex tent they will be i ncluded in the program .
The contention of ma ny i s t hat a state plan canno t be a comprehensive
one unless it i nclude s the needs and capabil i t i es of communitie s .
After
all, the masses of the people are loc ated 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'
assistanc e .
This piec e of legislat i on is vital to all c i ties and consequently,
they should hav e a v o ice i n the make-up of the program in Georgia .
In other s t a t es a tt emp t s hav e been made to remove the L&WFB from politics and t o i nsure that project s are considered on the basis of need .
In
one st_a te, fo r ex ample, ov e r 100 car efully selected leaders were b r ought
t og ethe r i n t he form i ng of a c ouncil fo r th e purpose of es tabl i shi ng guidelines fo r t h e prog r am .
It wa s t heir r esponsib i l i ty to determ i ne a r eal
basi c point -- what percent a ge of the funds would be al l o ca t ed t o l ocal
communit i e s, s tate parks, and f ed eral agenci e s wi t hin the s tate .
A l ay group , rep resent i ng v a r i ou s i n teres ts, should b e a pp oin ted f o r
t he pur pos e of maki ng t h ese s ame deci s i on s i n Ge or g i a .
Additionally, t h i s
same gr oup or a similar one should b e app oint ed and authorized to rev iew
e a ch p iece of fed era l leg islation p ri or t o its i mp l eme n tation i n Ge or g i a,
and make certa in procedural recommenda tions .
Without positive action t he r e is a po s sib i l ity that Land a nd Water
funds will comp letely elude the c ities of Georgia .
immediate positive s teps .
This situation r e quires
�-11-
Conclusion
The broad shopp i ng 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 o
In many cases, the emphas i s on specific prog r ams
and projects is determi ned nationally not locally o
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 o
If such were the case, a city could submit a comprehensive state-
ment of its needs in terms of pri ority and emphasis on local programs and
be given a grant with the nec essary flexibility for implementation in accordance to priorities as determi ned locally by that city o
Urban Policy Council
In conclusion it is fe l t t ha t this state could take a very pos i tive
step toward harmonious coord i nation of federal grant-in-aid p r ograms and
urban development by e s tab lish ing a s t eering committee or council on urban
policy char ged with t he res ponsibility of dev eloping a statement of pol icy
for coord i nat i on, dev elopment and administration prog r ams deal ing wit h the
total grow t h and development of our communities o
be composed of the f ollowing :
Such a commi t tee should
r e p resentatives of municipal gov ernment
t hrough t he Georg i a Municipal Association; r ep r esentatives of county government t h r ough the As so c iation of County Commissioners of Geor gia, rep r e sentatives of stat e gov ernment t h r ough the Executive Off ic e; and r ep r es ent atives of Georgia ' s Congressional Delegation o
This commi ttee could hav e t he g iven responsibility for the performance
of the fol lowing basic functions:
�-12-
1.
To analyz e the t r ends , condi tions , needs, and problems affecting
local government in Geo r gia ' s rapidly urbaniz i ng s t ate;
2.
To def i ne the compl i mentary and cooperative roles of local, state,
and federal agenc ies with respe c t to the development and implementation of urban programs;
3.
To re commend appropriate policies that would govern the working
relationsh i ps bet ween local, state and federal agenc ies in the
development, implementation, and coordination of programs to cope
with urban growth .
�