DOCSLIB.ORG

Bills, Budgets Fiscal Notes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bills, Budgets Fiscal Notes A Legislative Guide to Bills, Budgets & Fiscal Notes Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst W310 State Capitol Complex Salt Lake City, Utah 84114‐5310 Office (801) 538‐1034 FAX (801) 538‐1692 http://legislature.utah.gov/lfa/index.htm Revised 8‐2008 Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1 The Legislative Fiscal Analyst 3 How a Bill Becomes a Law 6 Bill Types 7 The Legislature Sets the State Budget 7 Consensus Revenue Estimates 8 All Legislators Sit on Budget Subcommittees 8 Budget Subcommittee Hearings 9 Ranking Funding Requests 10 Budget Bills 11 Performance Measures 12 Introduction to Fiscal Notes 13 What do Fiscal Notes Look Like? 14 Fiscal Note Types 14 The Analyst “Owns” the Note 15 Pre­session Budget Calendar 16 Session Calendar 19 The Fiscal Note Process 21 How to Respond to a Fiscal Note Worksheet 24 Fiscal Note Worksheet Tips 27 Glossary 35 Analysts by Assignment i Introduction This guide includes: • How a bill becomes law • Session rules, and deadlines • Budgets • Fiscal notes • Glossary of terms • Fiscal analysts by assignment The Legislative Fiscal Analyst The Legislative Fiscal Analyst (LFA or the Analyst) advises the Legislature on money matters. The Analyst: • Has a staff of about 20: analysts, economists, secretaries and DP support • Staffs Executive Appropriations Committee • Staffs ten appropriations subcommittees • Makes budget recommendations for state government • Writes fiscal notes • Writes the budget bills 1 How a Bill Becomes a Law A citizen advocate, special interest group, or government agency tells a legislator about a problem and the Legislator decides, “There ought to be a law.” (This example follows a bill that starts in the House of Representatives.) Attorneys Draft a Bill The legislator asks Legislative Research and General Counsel (LRGC) to draft legislation. An attorney: • Reviews existing law • Researches issues • Drafts legislation • Checks for statutory and constitutional problems Bill Approved & Published The attorney gives the bill to the legislator for review and approval. LGRC numbers approved bills. The legislator may then introduce the bill. LRGC sends copies to: • Senate or House docket clerk • Bill room • Internet • Fiscal Analyst (for a fiscal note) First Reading & Rules Committee The Speaker has the bill introduced with the first reading, and the bill goes to Rules Committee. The committee recommends to the Speaker which standing committee should hear the bill. 3 Standing Committee & Public Hearing The standing committee reviews the bill in a public meeting. The committee may: • Amend • Hold • Table • Substitute • Recommend the bill The Second Reading The H ouse hears the committee report and adopts it by motion. This is the Second Reading of three constitutionally required readings. The House puts the bill on the calendar for the Third Reading. The Third Reading & Floor Debate The clerk reads the bill by title a third time. The legisl ative sponsor explains the bill, and answers questions. The House debates and may amend or substi tute the bill. Vote on the Bill A prev i ous question motion closes debate. The Legisl ature requires a simple majority (38 of 75 repres entatives). Send Bill to the Senate If the bill passes, the House sends the bill to the Senate and requests Senate action. Senate First Reading & Rules Committee The clerk reads the bill’s title for first reading. Rules Committee recommends to the Senate President which standing committee should hear the bill. 4 Standing Committee Hearing The committee may: • Amend • Hold • Table • Substitute • Recommend the bill In the Senate, a previous question motion requires a committee majority vote. Legislators may not make this motion on the Senate floor. Bill Returned to Full Senate The Senate hears the committee report and pl aces the bill on the S econd Reading Calendar. Senate Second Reading & Debate The clerk reads the bill’s title a second time (Second Reading) and the Senate debates the bill. It must pass a floor vote to advance to third reading. Senate Third Reading, Debate, & Final Vote The clerk reads the bill’s title a third time (Third Reading) and the Senate debates the bill again. The bill needs a simple majority to pass (15 of 29 senators). Bill Signe d & Enrolled After the bill has passed both houses, the President and Speak er sign it. Legislative Research and General Couns el staff check the bill in a process called enroll ing. They prepare the bill in final form with all amendments included and return it to the House. This enrolled bill is an exact, accurate, and official copy of the enacted bill. 5 Bill Sent to Governor The Legislature prints the enrolled bill and sends a copy to the governor for approval. The governor can • Sign • Veto • Allow it to become law without his signature The Bill Becomes Law Bills become effective 60 days following session, unless the bill specifies another date. Bill Types Resolution (House or Senate) These only pertain to the house of origin. A bill establishing a committee or changing a rule is an example. Joint Resolution (House & Senate) Both the House and Senate must pass a joint resolution. The Legislature uses them for matters involving both houses such as appointing joint committees or issuing join communiqués. Proposals to amend the Utah Constitution are contained in joint r esoluti on s. Concurre nt Resolution (House & Senate, & Governor) These show the state’s position on a specific matter. The resolutions are passed by both houses and signed by the Governor. House Bill A House Bill is legislation sponsored by a member of the State House of Representatives. Senate Bill A Senate Bill is legislation sponsored by a member of the State Senate. 6 The Legislature Sets the State Budget The budget is the Legislature’s plan for spending the State’s limited resources. The budget funds all state agencies‐including prisons, schools, higher education, costly new bills, new buildings, debt service, and highways. Finding the right balance is the Legislature’s challenge. Consensus Revenue Estimates The Constitution requires a balanced state budget. The first step is to decide how much money is in the budget. To reduce disagreements, the LFA, the Governor, and the Tax Commission estimate income using their own methods. Then they meet together and agree on a single revenue estimate. All parties balance budgets to that amount. State funds are General, Education, and Uniform School Funds. 7 All Legislators Sit on Budget Subcommittees Utah’s appropriation process involves every legislator. Each member s its on one of ten Joint Appropriations Subco mmitte es . Some members sit on more than one. The c ommittee s are: • Executive Offices and Criminal Justice • Capital Facilities & Government Operations • Commerce and Workforce Services • Economic Development and Revenue • Health and Human Services • Higher Education • Natural Resources • Public Education • Transportation, Environmental Quality, and National Guard • Retirement & Independent Entities Budget Subcommittee Hearings The Legislature sets state budgets by passing spending bills. Legislators hold a series of hearings before they write the budget. In these hearings they: • Hear from staff analysts • Hear from program managers • Take public testimony • Measure program performance • Hold program managers accountable • Debate and vote on budgets Subcommittees report to Executive Appropriations Committee (EAC). EAC meets to make final decisions, often after caucus discussions. It then directs the Analyst to write the bills, which show the Legislature’s priorities set in dollars. 8 Ranking Funding Requests Since there is never enough money to fund everything, there needs to be a way to rank funding requests. The following questions help legislators prioritize spending requests. 1. Program Reduction‐‐Can the Legislature reduce or eliminate this program? What would happen? 2. Court Orders—What must the state fund due to legal rulings or settlements? 3. Federal Mandates‐‐What is the penalty for not funding federal program growth or matching ratio changes? 4. State Mandates—What must legislators fund to comply with state law? (The Legislature can change the law.) 5. Compensation—How much must the state pay to retain its workforce? 6. Enrollment Growth—How many new students are entering the public school system? 7. Workload—What does a program needed to serve more clients? 8. Program Maintenance—How much will it cost to cover anticipated expenses in an existing program? 9. Program Enhancement—How much should the Legislature allocate to expand or improve services? 10. New Programs—How much is left for new programs? 9 Budget Bills The budget is not in just one bill, but many: The Base Budget bill funds state agencies with the same budget as the current fiscal year but with one‐ time f unding removed. The Legislature passes the bill early in the session. The School Finance Bill funds the public education base budget. The bill changes the number of Weighted Pupil Units to account for changes in the number of students. The Current Fiscal Year Supplemental adds to and takes away from the budget year currently underway. The New Fiscal Year Supplemental, sometimes called the “Big Bill,” adds to and takes away from the Base Budget. It has all rates and fees. The Minimum School Program Amendments changes the value of the Weighted Pupil Unit and other public education programs. This is public education’s “Big Bill.” The Compensation Bill has all budget changes related to personnel costs. This includes salary adjustments, and insurance rate changes. It does not include school districts. The General Obligation Bond Bill authorizes general obligation bonds and projects. The Revenue Bond Bill authorizes (by project) state and higher education lease and revenue bonds. Appropriations Adjustments is known as the “Bill of Bills” because it funds each bill passed with a fiscal note. It is the last spending bill passed and contains last minute changes. 10 Performance Measures Mission statements and the Utah Code say what most agencies should be doing.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Civil Service Law
    Unofficial Translation Final Version of CS Law 06/09/ 005, Zarif Waez CIVIL SERVICE LAW CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS Basis: Article 1 In accordance with Article 50 of the Afghanistan Constitution, this Law has been enacted to establish sound administration, to implement reforms in the administrative system, and to regulate the activities of the Civil Service. Objectives: Article 2 This Law has the following objectives: 1. To establish sound administration through the planning and implementation of reform of the country’s administrative system. 2. To determine the duties of Civil Service. 3. To fill Civil Service posts on merit and competency. 4. To regulate personnel management arrangements and duties of civil servants. Civil Service: Article 3 The Civil Service performs all the executive and administrative activities of the Government based on provisions in law. The Civil Service includes the following activities: 1. Manages, regulates and delivers government services. 2. Develops policies, and provides and offers professional advice. 3. Develops, prepares and implement laws, decrees and relevant regulations Civil Servant: Article 4 1) A civil servant is a person appointed by the Government to perform its executive and administrative duties based on the provisions in law. The ranks and grades of civil servants will be regulated according to the relevant legal document. 2) Any person who is not included in the ranks and grades described in Clause 1 of this Article is not considered to be a civil servant. 1 Chapter 2 Independent Administrative Reform and Civil Service Commission (IARCSC) Leadership of IARCSC: Article 5: 1) The IARCSC is established in order to lead, regulate, reform, formulate and implement structure policies of public administration system.
    [Show full text]
  • The Admission of Government Agency Reports Under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C) by John D
    The Admission of Government Agency Reports under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(c) By John D. Winter and Adam P. Blumenkrantz or (B) matters observed pursuant having hearsay evidence admitted under to duty imposed by law as to which Rule 803(8)(c) follow from the justifica- matters there was a duty to report, tions for adopting the rule in the first excluding, however, in criminal cases place. The hearsay exception is premised matters observed by police officers on several conditions. First, the rule as- and other law enforcement person- sumes that government employees will nel, or (C) in civil actions . factual carry out their official duties in an honest 2 John D. Winter Adam P. Blumenkrantz findings resulting from an investiga- and thorough manner. This assump- tion made pursuant to authority tion results in the rule’s presumption of n product liability and other tort ac- granted by law, unless the sources of reliability. Second, the rule is based on the tions, plaintiffs may seek to introduce information or other circumstances government’s ability to investigate and re- Igovernment records or documents, indicate lack of trustworthiness. port on complex issues raised in many cas- federal and nonfederal alike, to establish es, from product liability claims to section one or more elements of their claims. In This article focuses specifically on 1983 actions against government officials. this regard, plaintiffs attempt to rely on the third prong of the rule: the use of Government agencies generally possess reports or letters written by government agency records in civil actions that result levels of expertise, resources, and experi- agencies responsible for overseeing the from an agency investigation made ence, including access to information that health, safety, and consumer aspects pursuant to authority granted by law.
    [Show full text]
  • India and China
    India and China: A Comparative Analysis of Mobile Phones in Agriculture By C2014 Prashanthi Bonthu Submitted to the graduate degree program in Global and International Studies and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts. ________________________________ Chairperson Professor Eric Hanley ________________________________ Committee Member Professor Darlene Budd ________________________________ Committee Member Professor John James Kennedy Date Defended: Feb 3rd , 2014 The Thesis Committee for Prashanthi Bonthu certifies that this is the approved version of the following thesis: India and China: A Comparative Analysis of Mobile Phones in Agriculture ________________________________ Chairperson Professor Eric Hanley Date approved: Feb 3, 2014 ii Abstract In 2010, China and India were named the first and second largest mobile phone markets in the world based on their number of subscribers. India and China have focused on extending their telecommunication services into rural areas for socio-economic benefits. Both countries liberalized and privatized the industry under different political regimes utilizing different strategies. The aim of this thesis is to examine the collaborative efforts of public and private agencies in India and the role they do in disseminating information to farmers through mobile phones when compared to the government agencies in China that have been created to share that information in order to determine which program is more effective. To answer this question, the thesis compares Indian and Chinese policies and programs enacted to encourage sales and use of mobile phones in the agricultural sector to increase efficiency and encourage growth. As free market principles and private for-profit corporations are generally more efficient than government agencies, this thesis hypothesizes that the policies and development initiatives taken by the Indian government are more successful in disseminating information than the government agency approach followed by China.
    [Show full text]
  • 7: GERMANY Dr
    7: GERMANY Dr. Elke Löffler, Public Sector Consultant, Birmingham, UK Overviewi The New Public Management approaches pursued in New Zealand and the UK have evoked little interest in the central or federal governments of some major and successful economies, notably Germany and Japan. Public demand for service improvements in Germany was considerably less than in the UK and other New Public Management countries, arguably at least partly because the baseline of public service quality was perceived by citizens as higher. As a result, there was no real perceived need to engage in radical public sector reforms in Germany. Furthermore, the strong legalistic tradition of the German public administration, when taken together with the strong position of trade unions and staff councils and the decentralized structure of the German federalist system, also encouraged gradual reforms, and gradual reforms based on pilots and employee involvement. In Germany, the public management agenda of the early 1990s was dominated by the Unification process and related public sector transformation policies that imposed the structure and principles of West German public administration on the new Laender, the former East Germany. Only later, with the fiscal crisis that resulted from Unification was there some wider interest in New Public Management approaches within the German public sector. There has since been a degree of bottom-up experimentation with certain elements of New Public Management reforms at local levels in Germany. Subsequently the Laender, as well as some Federal agencies, have shown some interest in pursuing managerial reforms. But given the more equal balance between the legislative, judicial and executive branches in the German system as compared to Westminster-system countries, the pursuit of managerial reforms should not have been expected to – and did not in practice – override the prevailing fundamental legal and political processes in the German system.
    [Show full text]
  • Grant to Provide Volunteer Taxpayer Assistance Services
    Changes to Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Request for Proposals: Grant to Provide Volunteer Taxpayer Assistance Services On July 2, 2021, the Minnesota Department of Revenue made two changes to the Request for Proposal originally posted on June 30, 2021. These changes are detailed on pages 6-7, under Part One, Grant Overview and page 11, under Part Three, Proposal Content and Format. 1. “Eligible Organization” was expanded based on the grant appropriation language passed during the Special Session. The new language is: “Eligible organization” means an organization that meets the definition provided in section 7526A(e)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986” New for FY22-23: Eligible Organization The applicant must be classified as one of these: • A private or public non-profit organization that qualified for and received an IRS determination letter confirming the organization’s tax exemption under section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, including but not limited to credit unions and faith-based and community organizations • A public, non-profit, or proprietary (privately owned, profit-making) college, university, vocational school, or other postsecondary educational institution • A local government agency including a county or municipal government agency and an Indian tribe including any tribally designated housing entity or other wholly owned tribal entity • A regional, statewide, or local coalition with one lead organization that meets one of the eligibility requirements noted above; the lead organization filing the application must have a substantive role in the coalition • In the case of applicable taxpayers and members of underserved populations as defined in section 7526A, to which no organizations described above are available, a state government agency or Cooperative Extension office as established by a land-grant college or university are also eligible 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Internal Revenue Service Appropriated Accounts
    Appropriated Accounts Appropriated Internal Revenue Service Program Summary by Appropriations Account associated business processes, (Dollars in Thousands) and technology systems to FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 effectively and efficiently Appropriation Enacted Enacted President’s Increase/ % Budget Decrease change meet service and enforcement Tax Administration & Operations $9,762,024 $9,998,165 $10,460,051 $461,886 4.6% strategic goals. Assistance $1,828,373 $1,829,190 $1,805,965 ($23,225) (1.3%) Outreach $544,146 $500,329 $466,217 ($34,112) (6.8%) Ta x p a y e r s e r v i c e i s Processing $1,337,128 $1,276,459 $1,295,273 $18,814 1.5% improving in key areas. In Subtotal, Taxpayer Service $3,709,647 $3,605,978 $3,567,455 ($38,523) (1.1%) FY 2004, almost 62 million Examination $3,214,410 $3,477,623 $3,711,889 $234,266 6.7% Collection $1,779,233 $1,825,715 $1,990,562 $164,847 9.0% individuals filed their Investigations $656,131 $681,980 $767,418 $85,438 12.5% returns electronically – up Regulatory Compliance $256,248 $252,993 $264,855 $11,862 4.7% 16 percent over last year. Service Revenue Internal Research $146,355 $153,876 $157,872 $3,996 2.6% Electronic filing is faster and Subtotal, Enforcement $6,052,377 $6,392,187 $6,892,596 $500,409 7.8% more reliable, both for the Business Systems Modernization $387,699 $203,360 $199,000 ($4,360) (2.1%) taxpayer and the IRS.
    [Show full text]
  • Top Management Service in Central Government: Introducing a System for the OECD Higher Civil Service in Central and Eastern European Countries
    SIGMA Papers No. 1 Top Management Service in Central Government: Introducing a System for the OECD Higher Civil Service in Central and Eastern European Countries https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kml6gln4cbq-en GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OCDE/GD(95)45 SUPPORT FOR IMPROVEMENT IN GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES (SIGMA) A JOINT INITIATIVE OF THE OECD/CCET AND EC/PHARE FINANCED MAINLY BY EC/PHARE SIGMA PAPERS: NO. 1 TOP MANAGEMENT SERVICE IN CENTRAL GOVERNMENT: INTRODUCING A SYSTEM FOR THE HIGHER CIVIL SERVICE IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Paris 1995 COMPLETE DOCUMENT AVAILABLE ON OLIS IN ITS ORIGINAL FORMAT SIGMA -- Support for Improvement in Governance and Management in Central and Eastern European Countries -- is a joint initiative of the OECD Centre for Co-operation with the Economies in Transition (CCET) and the European Union’s Phare Programme. SIGMA assists public administration reform efforts in Central and Eastern Europe. It is 75 per cent funded by Phare; several OECD Member countries also provide resources. The OECD -- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development -- is an intergovernmental organisation of 25 democracies with advanced market economies. The CCET channels OECD advice and assistance over a wide range of economic issues to reforming countries in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The Phare Programme is a European Union initiative which provides know-how and investment support to Central and Eastern Europe to foster the development of market economies and democratic societies. Established in 1992, SIGMA operates within the OECD’s Public Management Service (PUMA).
    [Show full text]
  • Government & Public Administration Career Cluster
    Government & Public Administration Career Cluster 1. Explain the purpose and functions of government and public administration and the application of democratic principles in the process of governmental and administrative policymaking. GV 1.1: Explain the purpose and functions of government and public administration and the application of democratic principles in the process of governmental and administrative policymaking. Sample Indicators: Contrast how various societies have governed themselves. GV 1.2: Evaluate the alignment of institutions of government and public administration with the principles of U.S. and international law to guide policy development. Sample Indicators: Evaluate importance of individuals, public opinion, media, political parties, associations and groups in forming public policy. Describe the significance of diversity in the American political system. Recognize tension between constitutional ideals and realities of American political and social life. GV 1.3: Examine the levels of government and public administration to establish roles and relationships among federal, state and local governments. Sample Indicators: Explain the various forms of state and local governments, agencies and commissions. Compare the roles and relationships of federal, state and local government. GV 1.4: Analyze U.S. foreign policy to determine its effect on other countries. Sample Indicators: Analyze the effects of domestic politics on foreign policy. Evaluate circumstances in which the U.S. has politically influenced other nations. Evaluate circumstances in which other nations have influenced the politics and society of the U.S. Examine the purpose and function of international governmental organizations. 2. Analyze the systemic relationships of government and public administration agencies. GV 2.1: Examine the interrelated nature of complex international, national, state and local governmental and public administrative systems to serve the public interest.
    [Show full text]
  • International Public Administration Reform : Implications for the Russian Federation: Country Reform Summaries
    International Public Administration Reform : Implications for the Russian Federation: Country Reform Summaries February 2003 Nick Manning/Neil Parison Page 1 11/22/2004 International Public Administration Reform Country Reform Summaries.doc International Public Administration Reform : Implications for the Russian Federation : Country Reform Summaries ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...........................................................................................9 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................11 1: AUSTRALIA..........................................................................................................12 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................12 The sequence of reforms ......................................................................................12 Reformers' concerns.............................................................................................13 INSTITUTIONAL STARTING POINTS.............................................................................14 Constitution/political system................................................................................14 Structure of Government......................................................................................15 Central agencies and reform management..........................................................16 Politicization........................................................................................................17
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas San Antonio Division
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION ERIC STEWARD, by his next friend ) and mother, Lillian Minor, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CIV. NO. 5:10-CV-1025-OLG ) ) ) RICK PERRY, Governor, et al. ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________ ) UNITED STATES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE The United States of America respectfully submits this Reply in support of the United States’ Motion to Intervene. The Defendants incorrectly argue that: 1) the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of filing suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et. seq.; 2) despite Congress’s delegation of authority to the Attorney General to enforce the ADA, the United States lacks a direct and substantial interest in the litigation sufficient to warrant intervention as of right; 3) the United States’ interest can be represented by private Plaintiffs’ counsel; 4) the Defendants will be prejudiced if the United States is granted intervention; and 5) the United States attempts, as a nonparty, to improperly join the State of Texas as a Defendant. The Defendants’ arguments lack merit and should be rejected. I. The United States Has Satisfied the ADA Title II Statutory Procedural Requirements Contrary to the Defendants’ assertion, the United States need not satisfy the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1 prior to seeking intervention because Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of 1 Civil Procedure governs intervention and nothing in the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act restricts the United States’ ability to intervene pursuant to Rule 24.
    [Show full text]
  • Goal Ambiguity in U.S. Federal Agencies
    ARTICLES JPART 15:1–30 Goal Ambiguity in U.S. Federal Agencies Young Han Chun Chung-Ang University, Seoul, South Korea Hal G. Rainey University of Georgia ABSTRACT Observations that government organizations have particularly high levels of organizational goal ambiguity, and that this goal ambiguity has major influences on their other characteristics, abound in the literature on public bureaucracy. Few researchers, however, have developed quantified measures of goal ambiguity and tested these frequent assertions with large samples of government organizations. We develop measures of four dimensions of goal ambiguity: mission comprehension ambiguity, directive goal ambiguity, evaluative goal ambiguity, and priority goal ambiguity. Confirming hypotheses developed from the literature on public organizations, the last three variables show relations to organizational age, financial publicness (proportion of funding from government allocations), competing demands, policy problem complexity, and regulatory status. The success of the measures of goal ambiguity demonstrates the feasibility of measuring the concept and conducting empirical tests of observations that are often repeated without such testing, and will support further theoretical and methodological development of this important topic. In the literature on the distinctive characteristics of public organizations and their management, the most frequently repeated observation concerns the greater vagueness of their goals, as compared to the goals of private business firms, and the greater difficulty that public organizations face in assessing goal achievement (e.g., Allison 1983; Dahl and Lindblom 1953; Downs 1967; Drucker 1980; Lowi 1979; Lynn 1981; Wildavsky 1979; Wilson 1989). Although scholars and expert observers further contend that this goal ambiguity has many serious consequences, mostly dysfunctional ones, conceptual analysis and empirical research on the topic have been quite limited.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring the Opportunities of Minority Senior Executive U.S. Federal
    Journal of Research Initiatives Volume 4 | Number 1 Article 6 9-2018 Exploring the Opportunities of Minority Senior Executive U.S. Federal Government Agency Leaders: A Qualitative Analysis Crystal Gathers-Whatley North Carolina A & T State University Tyrone Chase University of Maryland Eastern Shore Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.uncfsu.edu/jri Part of the Adult and Continuing Education Administration Commons, Community College Leadership Commons, Higher Education Administration Commons, Higher Education and Teaching Commons, Leadership Studies Commons, and the Organization Development Commons Recommended Citation Gathers-Whatley, Crystal and Chase, Tyrone (2018) "Exploring the Opportunities of Minority Senior Executive U.S. Federal Government Agency Leaders: A Qualitative Analysis," Journal of Research Initiatives: Vol. 4 : No. 1 , Article 6. Available at: https://digitalcommons.uncfsu.edu/jri/vol4/iss1/6 This Research Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journal of Research Initiatives at DigitalCommons@Fayetteville State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Research Initiatives by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@Fayetteville State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Exploring the Opportunities of Minority Senior Executive U.S. Federal Government Agency Leaders: A Qualitative Analysis About the Author(s) Dr. Crystal Gathers-Whatley received her Ph.D. from the Organizational Leadership Doctoral Program at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore. She is currently a full-time Adjunct Professor in the Department of Leadership Studies and Adult Education at North Carolina A&T State University. Dr. Tyrone Chase is a full-time Assistant Professor in the Department of Organizational Leadership Doctoral Program at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore in Princess Anne, Maryland.
    [Show full text]