CHAPTER TWO STATE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
The Council of State Governments 49 THE GOVERNORS, 1988·89
By Thad L. Beyle
The two-year period was marked by relative ing these elections down into the three most calm for Ihe governors after a few years of recent blocks of four elections each, begin turmoil on several levels. First, there was less ning with the 1978 elections. 'we see there was political activity with only 12 races in 1988 some variation in these percentages. For ex and two in 1989. However, in 1988, [he unsuc· amplt; in the fast election block of 1978-1981 , cessful Democratic candidate for president 76 percent of the.54 incumbents were eligible was a governor, and in 1989 much attention to seek another term, 83 percent of them did, focused on the election of a black governor and 68 percent were successful. In the second in Virginia. Second, the series of investiga grouping, 1982-1985,80 percent of the .54 in tions inlo gubernatorial actions and charac cumbents were eligible to seek another term. ter which had generated so much negative 74 percent did, and 75 percent won. In the publicity in the mid-1980s had passed, and no most recent elections of 1986-1989, 66 percent new major problems surfaced. The action was of the .53 incumbents were eligible to seek re mOfe policy related as governors grappled election. 77 percent did. and over 81 percent with increasing demands for slate services and were successful. funds while state revenues weakened. Thus, while the number of incumbent gov ernors eligible to seek re-election varied be Gubernatorial Elections tween 80 and 66 percent over the period, and their rate of seeking re-election also varied be Fourteen governorships were decided by tween 74 and 83 percent, their success rate elections in 1988-89. In nine of these contests steadil y climbed from 68 to 7.5 to 81 percent. the incumbent stood for an additional term, Incumbency is obviously growing as a major with eight winning re-election. The winning factor in electoral success for governors, incumbe nts were Michael Castle (R-Dela much as it is for other elected officials in the ware), John Ashcroft (R-Missouri), James federal system. I For example, over the four Martin (R-North Carolina), George Sinner congressional elections in the 1980s, incum (D-North Dakota), Edward DiPrete (R-Rhode bent return rates rose from slightly over 90 Island), Norman Bangerter (R-Utah), Mad percent to over 98 percent.2 eleine Kunin (D-Vermont) and Booth Gard The six newly elected governors display ner (D-Washington). The one incumbent who some of the diversity that exists in the routes was defeated in the general election was Arch taken to the governor's chair. TWo moved Moore (R-West Virginia). He had served as directly up from other statewide elected po Governor of West Virginia for 12 years, from sitions to become governor, Evan Bayh (D-In 1969-1977 and from 198.5-1989. diana) from secretary of state and Douglas Looking at the 163 gubernalOriai elections Wilder (D-Virginia) from lieutenant governor. in the 13-year period, 1977-1989, incumbents Tho moved directly from congressional seats, were eligible to seek another term in 74 per Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) and James cent of the contests. Eligible incumbenl5 did seek re-election 78 percent of the time and Thad L. BeyJe is Professor of Political Science at had a 74 percent success rate. However, break- the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
50 The Book of the States 1990-91 GOVERNORS
Florio (D·New Jersey). The two others, Stan have cost more, ranging from only three per Stephens (R-Montana) and Gasper Caperton cent between 1984-1988 to 134 percent be (D-West Virginia), moved from the private tween 1985-1989. The latter figure demon sector, although Stephens had served sixteen strates how expensive contests for open seats years in the state legislature, many of these as can be. as both the New Jersey and Virginia a legislative leader. Lieutenant Governor Ro incumbent governors were constitutionally bert J. Miller (D-Nevada) succeeded to the prohi bited from seeking another term in 1989. governor's chair in January 1989 when in These were the most expensive races ever cumbent Governor Richard Bryan, who won recorded in either state. the U.S. Senate race in 1988, was sworn into Over the 1977-1989 period, during which office. campaign expenditure data is avai lable in Among those who sought the governorship most states, the ten most expensive governors' unsuccessfully were two lieutenant governors, chairs (in 1987 dollars) have been: Texas (an John Mutz (R- Indiana) and Robert Jordan average of $26.8 million), Louisiana ($21.7 (D-North Carolina), two congressmen, Jim million), New York ($20.7 million). Califor Courter (R-New Jersey) and Stan Parris nia (S20.S million), Ke ntucky (S I8.4 million), (R-Vi rginia), a U.S. senator, Paul Trible (R Florida ($ 14 million), New Jersey (SI3.8 mil Virgi nia), a former governor, Thomas Judge lion), Tennessee ($11.7 million), Virginia ($10.6 (D-Montana) and a former governor's wi fe million) and Pennsylvania (SIO million). All and state legislator, Beny Hearnes (D-Mis are eit her among the nine largest states in souri). Many other legislators and legislati ve population or are southern states. Three leaders, mayors and former mayors unsuc states still have gubernatorial campaigns cessfully sought governorships. which have averaged less than one million The partisan affiliation of the winners in dollars in total expenditures over the period: 1988-89 was evenly split as Democrats and Vermont ($0.8 million), Delaware (SO.7 mi l Republicans each won seven races. However, lion), and North Dakota ($0.6 million). since there were more open seats previously The most expensive individual gubernator held by Democrats, the Republicans were able ial campaigns in the two-year period were in to close the gap in the statehouses to 29 Virginia, with losing candidate Marshall Cole Democrats and 2l Republicans. However, man (R) spending S9.4 million and winner governors in 30 of the states will face legisla Wilder (D) spending S6.9 million, in New Jer tures with o ne or both houses controlled by sey, with winner Florio (D) and loser Court the opposite party. Split ticket voting is alive er (R)each spending over S7.7 million and in and well in the states. North Carolina, with incumbent winner Mar tin (R) spending over S6.3 million. In each of Cost of Gu bernatorial Elections these cases, they were the most expensive in The costs of gubernatorial elections con dividual gubernatorial campa igns eve r tinue to escalate wit h the most expensive elec recorded for the state. tions generall y associated with highly contest There was a ve ry high correlation between cd primaries, especially when there is an open spending the most money and win ning the scat, or with efforts to unseat an incumbent. election in these 14 races. In 12 of the races, and when someone with considerable mon the winner spent the most money, and eight ey of their own wants to becomegovemor. Ta of them wert the incumbent governors. In ble A indicates the cost of the most recent cumbency still breeds funds for a re-election gubernatorial campaigns for each of the campaign. In the Virginia race. the winner, states in actual dollars for the year involved. Wilder (D), did outspend his rival, Coleman Table B presents the total cost of guber (R), in the general election, but Coleman had nalOrial elections by year, normalized to 1987 to fund an expensive three-way Republican dol lars. In nine of the 12 years for which there nomination fight. I In Indiana. the losing is earlier comparable data, these elections candidate. Mutz (R), outspent winner Bayh
The Council of State Governments 51 GOVERNORS_. COSTS Of' GUIDt,"i,o\TUlU,\L CA..
s....- ikMO...... ,...... r... om.:..: n.r eo-:il- 0# 5tM< eo--.. .. ScoI:. Mooo ... of "'" ~_ of P\loIiIiCd ~ U...... ,. 01 Nonh c...... a..pd Hil. ... til I ..... ,...... -"'" dullioM;;" f\pNo ... Do.- ...... doIIan b I .. ,.... ~ (21 o-nau.rd bJ ~..,... ~ apmdiII..a bJ • '''"'''''_ tall &IId-. ..,...... ~_ror"'"~ 0-•• III
l2 The Book of the States 199()..91 GOVERNORS T_ . T(JfAL COST 0 ., CUB.:M,"AlORIAL t:U :CTIOK'i, 1'7"1·1_ (1•• _ ...... of ..... Ian.
Tor •• c...,.I:p c..c.
A'on,. COOl "'·.",Iwr .... "... a ...... -hM.t.. ,- .. - ~~ . 19I1 S 1,.1$ ~I I )
,m , 9.111 ,,~ " 414 ,m ~ 99.7JJ 169.90J ••120 ,m , )2.14<1 ...... 16,41 1 47JlS ,.,. ,... , l'.1l1 ,,,,., 'N' " 19.996 14J1' .. 4'''' "., ~ 11I.14J 21 • .126 '.\161 .". , )9.~ 1J.169 - 'N',~ 46,8)0 "'"' 1,:149 UJO .. ,,., ", 11.1 42 19.151 -•••u. m.9)1 nulO "N1.211 0 21'1\ ",~.. , 40,212 4!U1l _ 12'" " ,.'" ...... "... . " , . 1.902 ~.~ 0 1:14.. .. "".. " u.m"'" ~ •. '" 111.110 l,on :l'96 ... " by $4.4 million to $3.8 million, even though amount of party control the governor has in 8ayh had a nominal contest for the DemocraO' the legislature. The results indicate that over tic nomination. The one incumbent governor a 20·year period, the governor's power over losing his seat, Moore (R) of Wesl Virginia, the executive branch has increased while pow was outspent by wi nner Capenon $4.6 million er vis·a-vis the legislative branch has declined.) 10 $2.4 million. An updated study, using the same NGA There were at least 78 separate candidates measures but extending the comparisons in these 14 governors races in 1988·89 as through 1990, corroborated and re in forced measured by those who fi led campaign ex these trends. The governors gaining t.he most penditure reports. Many of these candidates power were in those states classified. as Repub spenl little or no money campaigning. New lican in terms of level of party competition, Jersey with eleven and West Virginia wi th nine states in the mid-west and in the less populous topped the states with crowded fie lds of can states suggesting that the more populous didates. In New Jersey the fight was in the states had already provided their governors Republican primary with eight candidates vy_ with greater powers.4 ing for the nomination. In West Virginia the Another recent study of the institutional fight was in the Democratic primary with sev powers of the governors in 1990 added the en candidates. governors' removal powers to this equation leading to a comparison of the relative pow Gubern atorial Powers ers of the SO state governors.' In this presen· In a 1987 study, the National Governors' tation, the editOrs made three significant Association (NGA) analyzed "The Institu shifts in how the rank ings were calculated. tionalized Powers of the Governorship, I96S- First, they averaged the scores instead of us· 1985: 0I Based on previous studies by political ing actual scores. Then they broadened the scientists,2 the NGA study used a numerical ra nge for moderate powers. Finally the states scoring system to measure the governors' ten we re give n an absolute ranking ra ther than ure potential, appointive powers, budget just placed in a broad category. making powers and veto powers, plus the leg· In general, the governorships group togeth islature's budget changing authority and er as moderately powerful in the amount and
53 The Book of the Slates 1990-91 GOVERNORS of government (the legislature) on how to res type of institutional powers they hold. There tructure its internal practices" to avoid per are no states in the very weak category, and ceived abuse of gubernatorial power. The only one. Maryland. in the very strong cate court's suggestions were to keep the legisla gory. Four states. Massachusetts, New York. ture's "internally generated initiatives out of South Dakota and West Virginia are rated budget bills, or (amend) ... the state consti strong, while seven states fall into the weak tution~,l The Wisconsin legislature placed a category. constitutional amendment before the voters In that study, seven states weak on guber prohibiting the practice of "pick-a-Ieuer" ve natorial powers and their weaknesses are: toes,4 and Democratic Speaker of the As North Carolina (lack of veto. restricted re sembly lbm Loftus is challenging Republican moval power); New Hampshire (short term, Governor Thompson for the governorship in restricted veto power); Nevada (restricted the 1990 election. Wisconsin voters approved removal and veto powers); Rhode Island the prohibition of "pick-a-letter" vetoes by 62 (short term. restricted veto power and split percent vote in April 1990. Slill pending in a partisan control); South Carolina (restricted court suit is the question of a govenor veto appointment power, split partisan control); ing selected numbers. S 1l::xas (reSlricted appointment power, weak In Oregon, the state's Supreme Court took budget power and split partisan control); and a considerably more restrictive view of the use Vermont (short lerm, restricted veto power).' of the gubernatoria1 veto.' Here. the case Gubernatorial Veto. The governor's pow concerned whether the veto power could be er to veto legislation, either in toto. by item, extended to "any" provision in a bill bearing or in part, continues to be controversial in the an emergency clause. The court, in declining states. In Florida, controversy erupted when to grant greater veto power to the governor by Governor Martinez vetoed only a portion of limiting it to the emergency clause alone. ar line-item projects, which legislators fe lt over gued that the "governor's veto power is not stepped his veto power. The legislators argued the kind of provision that must find new ap that it was the principal and not the amount plications in changing technical, economic, or of money involved. For example. the governor social conditions~'7 eliminated an $80,000 position at one univer Despite these conflicts and court decisions., sity, but not the entire budget line. So a law a recent study of the item veto experience in suit will have to determine what constitutes the states concludes there is no one clear trend a line-item veto. I toward either gubernatorial or legislative dom In Wisconsin, gubernatorial-legislative war inance.1 There is continuing punching and fare continues over Governor Tommy Thomp counter-punching with mixed signals from son's use of the item veto to alter language in the referees. And as for an item veto for the legislation by saving letters from some words president, one careful observer notes "(S]tate and then using the letters to make new words. experience indicates the item veto is not a In a June 1988 four-to-three split decision, the magic wand capable of making the deficit dis state's Supreme Court sided with the gover appear. The old-fashioned medicine of polit nor arguing that the "partial" veto provision icalleadership remains the only viable cure!,9 in the Wisconsin constitution confers broader At the ballot box in 1988, Oregon voters authority to the governor than do item veto amended their constitution to extend the dead provisions found in other state constitutions.l lines for vetoes and now require the governor The Wisconsin court established only two to give more notice of planned vetoes. 10 Nonh tests to determine whether the governor's ac Carolina's Governor Martin continues to tion is legitimate: Is the result a "complete. en push for a constitutional amendment pro tire. and workable laW,' and are the revisions viding him or his successors with the veto "germane" to the original? In addition, the power. Calling 1989 the "Year of the Veto:' he court "overtly invoked political considera called on the legislature to act; there was ac tions, including advice to a co-equal branch tion but nothing like getting an amendment
54 The Book of the States 1990-91 GOVERNORS onto the ballot. It was clear that to get to that el seem to be the ways governors approach voter hurdle, major compromises between the this challenge. In addition, the st udy found governor and the legislature would be need no "single best way" to structure [he gover ed in developing a "balance of powers" pack nor's o ffice, and that the governors them age that gives something to the legislature selves may "be the best source of information (longer terms, off-presidential year elections) about the ways organization and manage as we ll as the governor. II ment are achieved" in the office. I Gubernoloriol Appointment Power. Gov There have been changes in who the gover ernors have greatly increased the number of nors have hired to serve on their stafr. Com women they appoint to state-level cabinet po paring surveys of gubernatorial staffs in the sitions. Between 1981 and 1989 the number of late 1960s with those serving between 1982- women in these positions increased by 114 1986 found: more women (3 1 percent, up percent. However, the increase was only IS from 7 percenl in the earlier period); more percent between 1987 and 1989. Those with non-whites (7 percent, up from 3 percent); the largest percentages were Governors Baliles more with an urban upbringi ng (54 percent, (VA) wit h 42 percent, Schaefer (MD) with 39 up from 39 percent); and mo re with an occu percent, Clinton (AR) with 36 percent, the pation in public administration or manage two Thompsons (IL and WI) with 32 percent , ment (20 percent, up from 10 percent). There Bellmon (OK) and Roemer (LA) with 30 per were also fewer journalists (14 percent, down cent. Governor Ashcroft (MO) was the only from 20 percent); slightly fewer native born governor who had not appointed a woman at residents of the state (55 percent, down from the cabinet level. These figures do not include 62 percent). There was little change in age appointments to governors' own personal (mid 30s), whether they had a college degree staffs. I (84 percent did) and whether they were attor A recent survey of fifteen states on the leg neys (s lightly less than 50 percent ....-ere).2 islature's role in the governor's appointment The areas of expertise of the staff members power found that informal relations between also had changed between the two ti me peri the governor's office and legislati ve staffsecm ods. In the late 1960s, the top five areas of cx to facilitate confirmation of the governor's pertise were: budgeting, state government appointments, at least in these specific ad generalists, education, legislative relations ministrations. However, legislative refusal is and intergovernmental relations. In the mid seen as an ever-present danger.2 19805, the tOp fi ve areas were media/ public re Governors have also become more interest lations, budgeting, legislative relations. legal ed in the ways they can evaluate and monitor issues and education.3 the performance of those they appoint to cx ecutive branch positions. A recent report sug Changes in I.he 'Rules of the Game' gests the bottom line is the governor's in dividual style, and how he or she defines per There have been several changes made in formance expectations.3 The Oklahoma the "rules of the game" for elections in the states over the past two years. As an aftermath governor's office has developed an elaborate [0 the election and impeachment of Arizona computer-based appointment management system to monitor the appointment process.4 Governor Evan Mecham (R), who served in 1987-88. that state adopted a run-off provi sion for general elections. Unless a candidate Gonmors' Ofriees receives a majority of the vote in the general A recent 50-state study of the governors' election, there will be a run-ofr. I Mecham offices fo und the governors faced with an in won with only 40 percent of the vote in the terest ing challenge. T hey must " run a well three-candidate 1986 governor's race. o rganized and clearly st ructured executive Mecham is also challenging the so-called team ... (while maintaining) a high degree "Dracula" clause in the state constitution by of nexibility to deal with complex variables" seeking the governorship again. The clause, which are constantly changing. Relying o n a which bars impeached officials from seeking small staff and using the chief-of-staff mod- and holding office, has prompted several in-
The Council or Siale Governments 55 GOVERNORS terpretations. The first is that Mecham is In 1989, West Virginia voters soundly re clearly barred from office by the successful jected a gubernatorially supported amend impeachment action. The second is that the ment to the state's constitution which would senate vote on the issue. taken immediately af have eliminated the separately elected offices ter it had convicted him of the impeachment of secretary of state, treasurer and agricullure charges by a two-thirds vote. failed to gain the commissioner. At the same time they reject necessary two-thirds vote, so he is not subject ed another amendment which would have to the "Dracula" clause. A third interpreta eliminated the state board of education and tion is that only the conviction needed a two the state superintendent as constitutional thirds vote, not the "Dracula" clause which offices in favor of gubernatorial appoint only needed a majority vote. 2 The altorney ments.3 general sided with the second interpretation Lieutenant Governors. This office con and Mecham is in the 1990 race. tinues to be the focus of controversy. As not Also in the 1988 elections, Arizona voters ed earlier, it can serve as a launching pad for removed an outdated provision that constitu a run for the governorship, and it can be a tional officers be male; Iowa voters decided powerful legislative position. For example. in to have the governor and lieutenant governor 1989, lieutenant governors presided over the run and be elected as a team beginning with state senate in 28 states, can vote in case of a the 1990 election. 3 Beginning with the 1990 tie in 25 states, can assign bills to committees primaries, candidates for office in North in fifteen states and appoint committees and Carolina will need only 40 percent, rather committee chairs in seven states. I than.sO percent, of the party primary vote to Lieutenant governors can also be a power become tbe party nominee. This change was in the executive branch not only as the succes made in an attempt to give minority candi sor 10 the governor - the "heartbeat" pow dates a better chance to become the party er (42 states) - but also by serving as acting nominee, and to reduce the number of second governor when the governor is disabled (40 primaries. states) or out of state (27 states), as executive Indiana is gradually changing how it allows branch board members (31 states), or as a state government to assist state parties in rais member of the governor's cabinet or adviso ing money. In 1986, Republican Governor ry body (20 states). Moreover, they can per Robert D. Orr ended the practice of allowing form other duties assigned by the governor motor vehicle branches to use "profits" for (33 states) and can make appointments to ex partisan purposes. Up until then, the county ecutive branch boards and commissions (6 party chair of the governor's party controlled states).2 Under Governor Robert Orr (R-In the branches and the "profits" oflen found diana), Lt. Governor Mutz served as the ex their way into the state party coffers. In 1989, ecutive director of the state commerce depart Democratic Governor Bayh ended the prac ment and secretary of agriculture.1 ti~ of deducting party dues from govern 4 Some of the 42 states with the office have mental employee's pay checks. considered abolishing it as did a legislative study committee in Kansas. Some of the eight Separately Elected Officials states without the offi~ have considered add The concept of separately electing execu ing it. In other states, there are moves to ex tive branch officials continues to be alive and pand the scope of the office's responsibility weU in the states. In 1988, Georgia voters such as in Kentucky where the lieutenant soundly rejected a constitutional amendment governor wants to merge the office with that which would have made the currently elect of the treasurer and the secretary of state. 4 ed state school superintendent an appointed There are continuing political problems position,l while Oklahoma voters supported surrounding the offi~ of li eutenant governor. a switch back to an elected commissioner of After 1988 elections in North Carolina, the labor.2 state senate reduced the powers of the lieu-
56 The Book or the Stales 1990-91 GOVERNORS tenant governor as presiding officer. Why? tivism, the attorney general of New Mexico For the first time in this century, a Republi argued this was only imerfering in federal can was elected to preside over the Democrat regulation of interstate business by placing ic body.5 Mississippians recently fo und out the National Association o f Attorneys Gener that their lieutenant governor since 1980, al (NAAG) imo the role of "a shadow Con Brad Dye, has made more than $23,000 gress ... using the cover of 'consumer pro "moonlighting" as governor whenever the tection' to impose their own ami-business, governor leaves the state. He is paid at a rate pro-government-regulation views on the en o f $172.60 per day, more than the 525 daily tire nation!,6 One observer suggested that rate a lieutenant governor can make in Wis NAAG should be renamed the "National As consin, but less than the 5239 in Texas. Eight sociation of Aspiri ng Governors".7 6 states have such a provision. In Georgia, a controversy between the at On the personal side, the dean of lieutenant torney general and the state bar association governors, John A. Cherberg (D-Washington) over the power of the bar to d iscipline the at retired in 1989 after serving in the office for torney general for breaching normal client 32 years, the longest tenure as lieutenant lawyer relations was resolved in favor of the governor of any state in history. He was pre o fficeholder. The case involved a suit brought ceded in that office by Vic Meyers, who had by the attorney general against the state per served from 1933 to 1953. Washington had sonnel board for violating the open meetings just two lieutenam governors over the 62-year 7 law, and the bar argued that since the attor span. ney general was the attorney for the board, Attorneys General. Recent actions by attor this violated rules which forbid lawyers from neys general in several states has led some to sui ng their clients. The bar appealed but lost pin a rising activist bent on this office. Most in a lower court decision. 8 of these initiatives focused on trying to regu In another area of conflict involving the al late certain business activities. For example, torney general, there is growing realization of eight state attorneys general joined in a suit the tension in roles they must perfo rm as the against major insurers ove r what they alleged lawyer for the state, state agencies and state was collusion in liability insurance coverage officials, and their role as the people's coun restrictions. I I They lost their fi rst round in sel. This often places the attorney general in this case, but fou nd that multi-state effons re duce the cost of litigation, while enhancing the position o f suing a state agency or seek ing prosecution of a state official while repre the impact of undertaking a case. 2 Some attorneys general have also init iated senting them officially.9 action against airlines and car renlal firms for In Virginia, the attorney general and pro misleading advertisements, and have taken spective 1993 gubernatorial candidate Mary steps to control o r forestall mergers and Sue lerry is involved in a conflict over wheth takeovers. J Three attorneys general were re er the all-male Virgi nia Military Institute ported to be investigating anti-trust activities should admit women. On one side o f the ar in a proposed takeover in the texti le indus gument is tradit ion, alumni and some impor try.4 Most recently, twenty-nine state attor tant poli tical interests; on the o ther is the neys general joined in a suit against the as women's movement. Adding to the general bestos industry in an attempt to have the in controversy is the question of whether the at dustry foot the bill for removi ng cancer torney general is taking a political step in con causing asbestos fro m public buildings, in testing the case, or is doing so as the common· cluding schools. s wealth's lawyer? These actions obviously were comroversial, The attorney general of Illinois was criti even among the attorneys general. While cized for settling an abortion suit out of court many argued that inaction by the federal gov rather than pursuing it all the way to a U.S. ernmem on some of these issues led to this ac- Supreme Court decisio n. 10
The Council or State Governments 57 GOVERNORS
Secretaries of Slate. A recent study indicat range of boards and commissions, primarily ed that this office could enlail as many as 26 those having to do with the raising or invest separate duties falling inlo five general cate ment of local and state funds. 2 gories: electoral, registration, custodial, pub In California, the state's Supreme Court lication and legislative. I Individual state of had to de<:ide whether Governor Deukme fices ranged from a high of 23 duties in Mis jian's appointment of U.S. Representative souri to a low of six in Virginia; the average Dan Lungren as state treasurer had been ade across the SO states was 15.6.2 quately confirmed by the state legislature as The office also has a strong political char req uired under a new amendment to the state acter. Over the 20th cenlury, 20 of the 1,087 constitution. The appointment, made to fill serving governors (1.8 percent) had previously out the remaining ponion of the late Treas served as secretary of state. There have been urer Jesse Unruh's term, was approved by the two basic patterns of moving from the office state house but was rejected by one vote in the to the governorship. The first is by being in statesenate. In 1988, thecoun de<:ided unani the direct line of succession should anything mously that the appointment required con fir happen to the governor. Something did hap mation by both houses before Lungren could pen to a number of chief executives and thir take office. Five of the seven judges on the teen secretaries of state became governor in Coun were Deukmejian appointees. 3 this manner, all in the western states of Wyo In 1988, Arizona voters repealed the limi ming (7), Arizona (3). Oregon (2), and Alas tation of thei r treasurer's tenure by removing ka (I). Ten of these successions occurred be a two consecutive elected term ban ..' fore 1950.3 The second pattern involves using the po National Goyernors' Association sition as a stepping stone to run for governor During the 1989-1990 fiscaJ year, NGA and (5 cases) o r for an intermediate office such as the new nat ional administration unempted to lieutenant governor or attorney general en join cause on several common interests. The route to the governorship (2). Because of the most visible of these interests was education, individual-political nature of this route, no as highlighted by the September summit in state had more than one such individual." Charlottesville, Virginia between the gover This pattern is of more recent vintage - no nors and President George Bush. From this secretary of Slate was elected to the governor summit flowed an NGA Thsk Force on Edu ship prior to 1966 - and interestingly all in cation which is working with President Bush this pattern were Democrats. Currently, three on educational reform. The results or this former secretaries of state are serving as gov cooperative effort were seen in the president's ernor, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Mario Cuomo 1990 State of the Union Address where he of New York, and Rose Morford of Arizona. S outli ned the national education goals that he The dean of secretaries of state, Thad Eure and the governors had agreed upon. ' Subse (D-NC), the self-proclaimed ''oldest rat in the quently the president attended the winter Democratic barn:' retired in 1989 after 52 years of service in the position. Beginning meeting of NGA to continue the discussion with his election in 1936. he served with twelve on educational reforms, and to endorse the six goals and 21 objectives developed by the separate governors over the period. 6 NGA Thsk Force. 2 Treasurers. The Council of State Govern ments recently issued a repon on the activi Footnotes ties and functions of state treasurers.' While most of these officials are elected, eight are appointed by the governor, and four are Gubernatorial EI«tion5 selected by the legislature. In addition to their 1. See Gerald Benjamin, ''The Power of In specified duties related to cash management cumbency,' Empire Stote Report (April 1987), in the state treasury, most also serve on a 33-37.
58 The Book or the States 199().91 GOVERNORS
2. David Shribman, " DriYe to Restrict Ten Eagleton Institute of Politics, 1988), 62. ure in Congress to 12 Years Is Pressed in Cap 4. "Gubernatorial power:' 26. For more on ital and One-Third of the States:' Wall Street this fight see also: "Wise. Court Asked to Journal (March 12, 1990), A12. Veto Vetoes;' Governing 1:4 (January 1988), 58; "Wisconsin Veto Flap, Chapter 2:' Costs or Gubernatorial Campaigns Governing 1:5 (March 1988), 68; and, Tony Hutchison, "Legislating Via Vet~' State I . Larry Sabato, "The 1989 Gubernatorial Election in Virginia:' (Charlottesville, VA: Legislatures 18:1 (January 1989), 20-22. 5. " Veto Powers;' State Policy Reports 8:8 Department of Government and Foreign Af (April 1990), 24. fairs, 1990), and letter 10 the author, Febru 6. Cf. Lipscomb, et 01 v. Oregon St. Bd. of ary 14, 1990. Higher Educ., 305 Or 472, 478, 753 P2d 939, 942 (1988). Gubernatorial Power 7. Frohnmayer, 62. I. Office of State Services, State Manage 8. 1. Pottorff, "Political Stew: hem Veto Is ment Notes, "The Institutionalized Powers of sues Bubbling to the Top in State Court Juris the Governorship, Slale Management Notes dictions;' Emerging Issues in State Constitu 1965-1985:' (Washington, DC: National Gov tional Law (National Association of Attor ernors' Association, 1987). neys General, Inaugural Issue, 1988), I. See 2. Joseph A. Schlesinger, "The Politics of also Office of State Services, "Gubernatori the ExecutivC;' in Herbert Jacob and Kenneth al Item Veto AuthoritY,' Management Brie/s, N. Vines, eds., fblitics in the American States (Washington, D.C.: National Governors' As A Comparative Analysis 1st. ed. (Glenview, IL: sociation, 1988). little. Brown, 1965), 207-237, and 2nd. ed. 9. Calvin Bellamy, "Item Veto: Dangerous (1971), 220-234; and Thad L. Beyle, "Gov Constitutional Tinkering:' Public Adminis ernors:' in Virginia Gray, Herbert Jacob and trotion Review 49:1 (January/ February 1989), Robert Albritton, eds., Politics in the Ameri 51. can Stoles 5th. ed. (Glenview, IL: Scott Fore 10. Elaine S. Knapp, "Voters like lotteries, sman, 1990), 201-251. reject tax cuts:' State Government News 31:12 3. Thad L. Beyle, "The Institutionalized (December 1988), 27. Powers of the Governorship, 1965-1985:' Com II. Phung Nguyen and Alva W. Stewart, parative Slale Politics Newslelter9:1 (Febru "North Carolina Governors and the Veto ary 1988), 26-27. Power:' Comporotive State Politics Newslet 4. Author's and NGA calculations. ter 10:4, (August, 1989) 26-32. See also the 5. Thad L. Beyle, "The C hief Executive: symposium on the veto in North Carolina in The Powers of the Governor of North Caro North Carolina Insight 12:2 (March 1990), lina:' North Carolina Insight 12:2 (March 2-26. 1990). 27-45. 6. Ibid., 41-43. Gubernatorial Appointment Power
Gubernatorial Veto J. "Women in politics:' State Government News 32:4 April 1989), 28. I. "Gubernatorial power:' State Govern 2. Office of State Services, "Legislative ment News 31:9 (September 1988), 26. Confinnalion of Gubernatorial Appoint~' 2. State ex reI Stale Senate v. Thompson, Management Briefs (Washington. DC: Na 144, Wis 2d 429, 424 NW2d 385, 386, n. 3 tional Governors' Association, January 10. (1988). 1990). 3. David Frohnmayer, "The Courts as Ref 3. Office o f State Services, "Managing the ercC;' in Lawrence 8aum and Frohnmayer, Performance of Gubernatorial Appointees:' eds., Th e Courts: Sharing and Separating Management Notes (Washington, DC: Na Powers, Eagleton'S 1988 Symposium on the tional Governors' Association, February 1988), State of the States. (New Brunswick, NJ: 18.
The Council of State GovernmenlS 59 GOVERNORS
4. Office of Slate Services, "Appointments, 2:8 (May 1989), 78. Management and Tracking Systems;' Man· 7. Hugh A. Bone, "Record Setting Incum agement Briefs (Washington, D.C.: National bent Retires in Washington State!' Compara· Governors' Association 1989). tive State Politics Newsleller 9:6 (December 1988), 2-3. The Governors' Offices Attorneys General I. Office of State Services. "Organization and Staffing Patterns In the Governor's Of· I. "Activist Attorneys General:' State Policy fic«' Management Notes (Washington, DC Reports 6:7 (April 1988), 18-19. National Governors' Association, November, 2. Elder Will, "AGs Fire on Asbestos In 1988), 16. dustrY,' Governing 3:7 (April 1990), 12. 2. Donald P. Sprengel, "Trends in Staffing 3. "Why the States Are Ganging Up on the Governors' Office," Comparative State Some Giant Companies:' Business Week Politics Newsletter 9:3 (June 1988). II. (April 11, 1988). See also Randall Bloom· 3. Sprengel, 14. quist, "Can the States Regulate National Ads?:' Governing 2:10 (July 1989), 64-65. Changes in the ' Rules of the Game' 4. The states were New York, North Caro li naand South Carolina. "Activist Attorneys I. Knapp. 27. General:' State Policy Reports 6:8 (April Kathleen Sylvester, "MCi:ham Wants 2. to 1988),21. Know If Dracula Law Has Theth:' Governing 5. Witt, 12. 2:11 (August 1989),71·72. 6. "Insurance, Attorneys General, and State Knapp, 27. 3. Insurance Regulators:' State Policy Reporls 4. Rob Gurwiu, "'ndiana Curbs Pany Pay· 6:12 (June 1988), 12. roll Deductions:' 2:11 (August Governing 7. ''Activist Attorneys General:' Stale Policy 1989), 16. Reports 6:8 (April 1988), 21. 8. "Power of Attorneys General to Sue Separately Elected Officials State Officials:' State Policy Reports 6:8 I. George H. Cox, Jr., "1988 Referendum (April 1988),27. Results From Georgia:' Comparative State 9. Dave Frohnmayer, "Representing the Politics Newsleller 10:1 (February 1989), Public: Public Interest Comes First:' Journal 18·19. o/Stote Government 61:3 (April/ May 1988), 2. Knapp, 27. 92. 3. "West Virginia Setbacks;' State Policy 10. "Attorney General Roles:' State Policy Reports 7:18 (September 1989),23. Reports 8:5 (March 1990), 16-17.
Lieutenant Governors Secretaries of State 1. Ran Coble, "Comparison of Powers of I. Joy Hart Seibert, The Secretory ofState: the Lieutenam Governors Among the 50 The Office and Duties, (Lexington, KY: States:' North Carolina Insight II: 2--3 (April Council of State Governments, 1987). 1989), 164. See also Kathleen Sylvester, "Lieu· 2. Jack Betts, "The Department of the tenant Governors: Giving Up Real Power For Secretary of State: Which Way Now?:' North Real Opportunity,' Governing 2:5 (February Carolina Insight 11:4 (August 1989),7, 10. 1989), #-'0. 3. Those secretaries of state who initially 2. Ibid. succeeded to the office of governor were: 3. Sylvester, "Lieutenant Governors:' Fenimore C. Chatterton (R-WY, 19(3); Frank 4. "Lieutenant Governors:' Slate Policy Benson (R·OR, 1909); Frank Houx (D·WY, Reports 7: 16 (August 1989), 31. 1917); Ben Olcott (R-OR, 1919); Frank Lucas 5. Coble, 162·163. (R-WY, 1924); Alonzo Clark (R.WY, 1931); 6. Jonathan Walters, "Lieutenant Gover· Dan Garvey (D-AZ, 1948); Arthur Crane (R. nor Reaps a Stand-In's Bonanza:' Governing WY, 1949); Clifford Rogers (R.WY, 1953);
60 The Book of Ihe States 199().91 GOVERNORS
Jack Gage (O-WY. 1961); Keith Miller(R-AK. (Lexington, KY: Council of State Govern 1969); Wesley Bolin (O-AZ. 1977): and Rose ments, 1988). Mofford (O-AZ. 1988). 2. "The Role of State Treasurers:' Stale 4. Those secretaries of state elected to the Policy Reports 6:16 (August 1988),30-31. office of governor were: Kenneth Curtis (0- 3. "Court to Deukmejian: Forget Lungren:' ME, 1966); Tom McCall (D-OR, 1966); Ed Governing 1:11 (August 1988), 15. mund G "Gerry" Brown (O-CA, 1974); Jay 4. "Election '88: State-by-State, Arizona:' Rockefeller (O-WV, 1976); Mario Cuomo (0- USA/ TODAY (November 10, 1989), 8A. NY, 1982); Mark White (O-TX. 1982); and. Birch Bayh. Jr.• (D-IN, 1988). 5. T had L. Beyle, "Secretaries of State Who National Governors' Association Became Governor in the 19705 and 19805:' 1. "Education: Consensus on Goals Reached North Carolina Insight 11:4 (August 1989), by Bush. NGA Thsk Force:' Governors' Week 16. ly Bulletin 24:5 (February 2, 1990), 1-2. 6. Bens. 5. 2. "Bush Endorses National Education Goals Adopted by the Governors This Week;' Treasurers Governors' Weekly Bulletin 24:8 (March 2, 1. State Treasury Activities and Functions 1990).
The Council of State Go\'ernments 61 GOVERNORS
I'l! l ss.ss S99SS SSSSS SSS,S SSSS9 SSS,' 9SSSS S.SSS slSSS• -'1 ~ fiJI ~~~~l ~~l~l ~~~~1. ~~~.~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~l~~ ~~~ll ~l~~l
e :; ------"
...... t " .. "'" '"'' ,." .. , ... " "." it jjJIJ Jil~l ]il~j Ili!l 11111 Jil!! !ijj! Jflli Ill!)
62 The Book of the Stales 1990-91 GOVE RNORS
~• •c c 9 o~ z '" '"o> " ...'"=
The Council of State Governments 63 GOVERNORS
Table 2.2 THE GOVERNORS, QUA LlflCAnON S FOR OFfiCE
~"'OI'" Mitt"""'" Si... rill_ U.s. rlllU'l St~~"""" ~- • ...., " , , 0 A~o.. ,.- -- " -- II" -- - "'1'''0. " ""'_ . "0 0 CoIIloni. ".. , 0 c..-. 0 0 _0- " " ,• 0 -''''''0 " • " • II.... " "0 , 0 ,- 0 , " 0 , ,-"_ . II" , '_a , ,..... 0 , " ....!Wo, ... , 0 , • 0 ...... II" ,• 101.., ..... " '0'" 101_,.",11 . " MkWI" fb) 0 , .a_ II" , 101_11 . " " .\too,." (tJ " 0 "0 " '-N_o , , 101...... "II , 0 ~H~ N", hnof " 'ia' S_Mo","" " 0 , 0 N.... Vol1l .. " 0 , Nortk ea...... " , , N_ o.u.... . " 0 , 0 0Il/oo (eI, " 0 0 0 ...Ontoo -. . " 0 , " ,-,...... 0 , MM* , ...... (d " 0 -""- " 0 s..Ik 0.1...... " . .,. , , 'g_ ~ . o T ..... 0 U,.' , ',' 0 v...... , " • 0 ~~ , 0 • ,-~ .... ,. ...-. " ··s " • • • W,_'~- ...... '"i4' • , • A __ • , • ., " , • lW . ~_ " , -...... u.s. \...... _ " ", Not... TbIo ,.bIt inti ...... 64 The Book of the States 1990-91 GOVERNORS Table 2.3 THE GOVERNORS, COMPENSATION 51." Of OlNr Go~', QjIJ<. A The: Council of Slate: Gove:rnme:nIS 65 GOVERNORS TH E GOVERNORS: COMPENSATION- Continued Itq: • - YOlo ... _No N.A._ I"oI ...... bIo (.0) Do1lftIrioDoor ··...... ·.ott\a!".wr· vary.."... 'lIr-.o-r...... ,.neraI office """""" 10 ...rf .... rOf voriooas OpmoIioDo ..;,hLa 1M ncao· Ilvo offlco. (bl Rdmbllroed fOf lra.-.lo_. Alat.m&_rrimbw.... uplO ~eI ...... "'" ~ (lUI "' ...... ~.....-Iorftmbln 66 The Book of the States 1990-9 1 GOVERNORS ...... - - "' ~~ e :u .• :u .• ~ : v u. ·U 1.11.1",,,,1.1 • :u • u • .• ip!j -~ ~ ! !~l, e , jl ... .. • • .. • . . .. ••••• ...... • .. • hi' Ii',I~l ...... h, ...... ...... ·. . .. • ...... · ... . · .. • ...... · .... · .... ...... • .. · ...... s s s . • •••• ..... • •••• . . ... • •• •• • •••• • • ••• ...... ...... · ...... 1t Ijl!~ JJ:~j f t The Council of Siale Governmen lS 67 GOVERNORS 68 The Book of Ihe Siaies 1990-91 GOVERNO RS q ;;: 3 BE 3 3 ... ~'"'" ""./fIb! • J 01 I»{q"S ...... • ,. ..".,.., ::l j ""'''''1ft''!''''' 01 I»{q"S .. .. ·. . . • ;:> q '"Q ~ ss •~! ~ !: B~ :S Z ~ ~ ••••• • . .o • .o •• • .... . • g'" ""f'.:J!Notd ~-1'- ""M • ...... • • •• • • .. •. • ... . ~ ;;;" •"-0"' i .. .~ ~~ I g3! ];! ! .. SS '" ""f''''IJI''IIU,. ""i1Q ... , .o •• •• • ...... • ...... • ... '"Z '" 0 - ...... -'" ,...-.ud.,~""''''''''''I'''''' ... • • .. • .. . .. • 0 ..'" Z "..S'.''_ "."ulold''I~ I>N ...... • ... • .. • .. . . JII~ 01 PfIOdull ;:0 < N "'OfIS/lUlfI The Council or Stale Governments 69 2l GUBERNATORIAL EXECUTIVE ORDE~nlinued ~ ""'- f -- 2, t,1 ~ ! j if Itt {tI! i1, :l h t II Ii I !!i --I i • '! I ...... "Itl.l!oorludM.-...... Jor !n Xl ~ lh !H1 in II .I U it Ii c .. . .. • . .. • • ....T_...... , • •• , (1110) • ·• ., .. (~) • T_- ...... • • ... • • ...... • • • • • • • ! UUIo ••• • .. • ...... v_ ... '.'• • • ... • ...... ' ;" 00 .. Ojl ""'""",...... • ...• .. (t) .. (t ~ ) • .•.. • .. ~ff",-J .. Ie) w. ~' 1rwI*o.. . S,I• to) • ... • • • • ' ,; '. ' f, 't<.ooJ ---w,...... •, • • • • • • .. 1\*,00,,", .. "', 8 < IM.~s..... __ ..... •.• . , , c.c • • • • • • • • ...... "'-"' ...... , g (q) To .ed.... _ 0kp0IIIIiwreI1a ,ron", IIoontolL Soouta,- MaIa Table 2.6 STATE CA BINET SYSTEMS I ! "10100 .... • • 21 T~ ",... "hl)' CI) • "t...... • • 17 R The Council or Stale Governmell\s 71 GOVERNORS Table 2.7 THE GOVERNORS: PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR TRANSITION .....k .... ,., .-. • • • • "'-... ,._ ..... • ....., • • Calli,,",", . • ~ )(I.OCO • • • • • 111.000 • • • • • ,-.c...nln , • • • • ...... ~ • ~t(d) • • ...... • • • • • • II..... • 100.000 • • • • • • ".N • 15.000 • • • • • • ,.... • • • (e) • • • • ,...._. • ~:ciIo • • • • • • ·,. 10.000 • · W ·. , 1( ...... • 100.000 • • • • • • I(.. '.do, ... . • Unopecirood • • • • • • .-. • 10.000 • • • • , .. (ll • M..,.... • ,.... • • • .- • .. • • • • • • • • • • • 1.000.000 « ) • • • • • • • • • .....N." • • • • • • • ,..... • • • . (t) Mo.,••• • ,... • • • • • • 111..-.... "',000 (j) • • • • • 'Ii"_ , ," • S.. II~ • ,... • • • • • 1'0 ... "",,,", • "' ... • • • • • 1'1 ... M ...... 1'1 ...... • • • • S ..._ea.- • 5O.000(d)" ·,., • • • S ..._D ...... • •• Ca, • .. • • • • Olt...... • ..". .. • • ...... !'flo .., .,...... • "." • • • • • • , • ".,.. • • • • s...... C_ • ,c,:cOO • • • • • llo.,_ Dato' • . 10.000(0) T"_ • • • • • To. • • ",~~ ·., ,. \'JttI"'. .. It) 110'_ ...... • • tl, • (.J • (I) .. (t' 1'1' ... "Ira!'" • • • • • • • --. • • -,- Un,ptdrled "'_.. So_ (,' Gouo ...... S.. M"- '_ U,J. \·q;...... -Sooutto.: Tho Nilional CcrtmIoon· "'-=wioIo 1911' ' ~ n 72 The Book of the Slates 1990-91 GOVERNO RS . ' ' , , ' , , ...... , ... ' .' .. .. .- -.. . ." .. :' ...0 :' ...0 :' S :SS 9 :99 : ...... , ;. :-g s··· .. '.. ' . '.... '. ' 3 ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~g ~~~~ ~6~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~- .i " ,1".i E, .i,i "j , ~ .ii i ii.i .. -t .i.E ,it i• H " .." :,;11 : " If S1 t jS -. sit i' If li' :s: t .~ ~ ~ "" • ;; ~~~~~ z~zzz ~~~~ : :~~%~ %~•:~~ ~ = ~z~ ~ ~ z~ z~=z: $2 j:e: j:~ •• ••• • •••• ...... _... . _...... ~ : : : : ~! ."W • I' rJIj~;:S :. The Council of State Governments 73 GOVERNORS ,~ !II' !• -P ' .~ ,I Hi ... . . , . I , ,; t . III ~ Ii ~ ! i J "- 11 e & I ! ~~ 'l I II .. I ," , , ,go .. t~ IiiI§ ~ ~J -~Il . !I ... o:l.l!- i.l! o. ~Hd'!h4i 'I •• f 'II "- = ld:i d !!i~'I~1 c i~ Hi " bf!ii~~, ~I ~l '=c I! i~sis s S~ 1 <3 • s ;: HI~ li'1 1!hm I I j' i .i~"'!!p',jhJl' ~llpWt~ ~ .11 ~ i'l" ... . • ' . lJ]I]li ] h~".iliJl !ii'" f - .jl·~"! I, ~tl l ' i~I~'J . I : ~ltl ;: ;:, ,I ~ ...... Jr Jls ~H! lI o ~ jU l- z ii! i~j!i~i~~~iii~!.~.0< '5 _ - ! I ...... "' ... '" '" "' '''' '"z e ~fl Ji' 'j ! '41 '"- e-> "-- IiI hI l i lJi .." : ~ : H Hi ~~ ' li~ ~ Iii I- II 'l 'n s ss z ! rll~' j , '4 l; ~j i~! t I ~11 '" -* i I - '5 ~ u= 1'·' I J~ ill' j :I::I::I::I::I: ..~ ... I~~ id ! , ~ iI! -l; h ~ Jn~h~ !111·1~ 114 - §: §: dtlW.i !'N~ .•... ! - ; J 11tH l'Iz ~1~"~- ' t. 'lAllI'I ' . " , tl~~U ,:! ~1!'h!J ' " 1 ihbil Ii! !- il!isl1i. if r J J IiI Jii~~li ' ~~~~I~~fil!i~ii it lhb i i~tH ' 1~!!'S . : . "gr·~te.'ili 74 The Book of the Stales 1990-91 THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH: ORGANIZATION AND ISSUES, 1988-89 By Thad L. Beyle Execuliye Branch Reorganization over half going through the process with rela tively little conflict between the two branches. ~ Reorganization of slate executive branches There wascOllsiderable conflict over reorgani has occurred in four distinct waves over the zation in 5 states (Arkansas, Florida, Massa 20th Century usually following similar efforlS chusells. Michigan and Wisconsin) and a at the national level. The most recent wave be· moderate level of conflict in 4 stales (Con gan in the mid 1960s and included 22 differ· 1 nect icut , Delaware, Georgia and Iowa). ent states through 1987. There was good reason for gubernatorial A study by James K. Conant of Ihe mosl legislative conflict in terms of what resulted recent efforts in these 22 states examines each from these reorganizations. For example, in rcorganizalion, its genesis, process, outcomes 2 several states there was a significant increase and effects. Several of the author's findings in potential gubernatorial power as the num· are of interest. The average germination peri ber of independent boards, commissions and od (the years between the lasl and the most agencies decreased from a ra nge of 300 (Geor recent reorganization) was 4S years, with a gia and Louisiana) to 85 (Wisconsin) pre·re range from no previous effort in Iowa, to 84 organization, to a range of 30 (Wisconsin) to years in Florida, 10 5 years in California. The 7 (Virginia) post-reorganization.' governor was the initiator or key figure in 18 The governors' appointment powers also of the 22 reorganizations. the governor and increased considerably depending on the the legislature jointly initiated the effort in model used for the reorganized state executive three other slates (Florida. Missouri. Louisi· branch. There are three generic models: the ana). while the legislature initiated the action traditional model with many agencies (over in Colorado. 17) and a low degree of functional consolida The goals articulated by those seeking re tion; the cabinet model with nine to 16agen form were "moderniz.ation and streamlining cies with moderate functional consolidation of the executive branch machinery. efficien into single-function agencies (over 50 percent CY. effectiveness. economy. responsiveness into single function agencies); and the secre and gubernatorial control~· 3 The authorizing tary/coordinator model with one to eight mechanism of choice was a constitutional agencies with high consolidation into broad amendment. In half of the states a numeri single-function or large multiple-function cal limit was set on the number of depart agencies.7 ments allowed. In Louisiana reform was ac For the four states opting to use the secre complished via a new constitution. The proc tary/coordinator model, governors were able ess was elaborated by either statutes or execu to appoint 80 percent or more of the depart tive orders. In 10states the authorizing mech ment heads;' and for those ninc states mov anism was statutory, and in Kentucky it was ing to the cabinet modcl, the governors were an executi ve order.4 Gubernatorial-legislative confli ct over re Thad L. Beylc is Professor of Political Science at organiz.a tion varied across the 22 states, wit h thc Uni,·ersity of North Carolina al Chapel Hil l. The Council of Statc Governments 7S EXECUTIVE BRANCH able to appoint 60 percenl or more.\) For Between 1970 and 1988, fi\'e Minnesota those ten states selecting the traditional mod· governors issued ISS reorganization orders, el, the increases in appointment power were most of which were merely administrative in much less significant, ranging from a high of nature and were often issued to carry out the S8 percenl in North Carolina to a low of 17 intent of new legislation. Several recent orders have involved more significant transfers. is percent in Wisconsin. 10 However, despite the avowed goal of Over the past two years there has not been a high level of action on state governmenl re· achieving efficiency, effectiveness and econ· o rganization. In 1988, Mississippi Governor omy, actual savings occurred in only six of the Ray Mabus induced the legislature to create 22 states, and in three of these the savings a 25-member commission to study his reor· were modest. In fact, only Georgia and Iowa ganization proposal which would reduce the even made attempts to document "the bottom number of state agencies from 160 to as few line results of the reorganization;' This led as 15. 16 In 1989, West Virginia Governor Conant to argue that reorganization propo· Gaston Caperton was able to gain legislative nents "should be more cautious about the approval for consolidating 150 executive bottom line results they expect from reorgani· boards and agencies into seven new depart· zalion, but they need not abandon the pur· ments; 17 but as noted earlier, he was unable suit of a modernized, streamlined executive to get voter approval of a constitutional branch or strong executive leadership;,ll amendment to abolish three constitutional A recent NGA study of governors' cabinets ly elected offices. found that "effective cabinets do not just hap. pen. They require careful preparation and Partial Reorganizations regular attention" from the governor and his or her senior staff. 12 Further, the cabinet's Economic development role "is a function of the governor's style and There has been considerable fennent in this priorities, the governor's relations with his or area of state concern in recent years. Part of her appointees, and his or her view of the the drive for this has been the changing view governor's role in the day·to·day administra· 13 of what economic development means in the tion of state governmenl. states today. This changing view has been the The Minnesota governor has the authori· basis of much gubernatorial action that looks ty to transfer powers and duties among execu· at the question of economic development tive branch agencies by executive reorganiza· from the perspective of America's and each tion orders. These transfers can be made to state's changing role in a global economy and "improve efficiency and avoid duplication:' not necessarily from the perspective of new must be made in the form of a reorganization programs or more spending.1 order effective upon being filed with the In a recent study of what he calls the "dec· secretary of state, and may only be made to ade of enormous in novation at the state lev· agencies in existence for over a year prior to el:' David Osborne classified the various the order. There are some limitations on this gubernatorial efforts of the 19805 into 10 cat· power: a governor cannot transfer "all or sub· egories: improving the intellectual infrastruc stantially all the powers or duties or person· ture; improving the skills and education lev· nel of a department, the Housing Finance els of the work force; improving the quality Agency, or the Pollution Control Agency" of life; improving the entrepreneurial climate; without legislative ratification, and each Jan· improving access to risk capital; improving uary the commissioner of administration the market for new products and processes; must submit, in bill form, all the statutory assisting industrial modernization; changing changes necessitated by the governor's rear· the culture of industry; improving social or· ganization orders. Ifno action is taken by the ganization; and;. bringing the poor into the legislature, the order stands. l' growth process. 76 The Book of the States 199().91 EXECUTIVE BRANCH Osborne clearly sets out two agendas that Corporation, a public/private organization to some governors have followed. The firs! is to assist development in rural areas by provid· create economic growt h as a staple of guber. ing loans and capital for business ex pansion natorial goals and actions. The second agen· in 1988.' At the same time, Maryland creat da, howeve r, is to bring the poor - individu ed the Economic Development Opportunities als and communities - into the the growth Program Fund to assist in attracting or retain process. From Osborne's observations of gu· ing com mercial, industrial, educational or re bernatorial and state actions, the most suc search entilies. 'o cessful address both agendas.) Some examples of this approach follow: In Corrections 1988, Colorado formed an Office Economic Development to consol idate imernational Privatizi ng state correctional systems con· trade, minority, women's and small business tinues to be an option despite unresolved ar· agencies in the governor's office in order to guments over many of the issues involved. provide a more cohesive mission and to There are several trends now seen in the states: strengthen the governor's contro\.4 Florida some states are expanding the authority of the created the Office of Space Programs to help corrections department (state and local) to the state stay in the forefront of space tech make greater use of privatization; there is a nology, attract corporations with an interest growing private sector capacity to provide an in building in space and in becoming the array of correctional services; and contracts home for the first commercial spaceport. ' are being let by state and local governments Pennsylvania created a Governor's Response for larger and more secure corrections faeili· learn to work on limiting the bureaucratic red ties. I tape businesses must wade through when 10· The activities undertaken in a private/pub cating in the state. Ii lic relatio nship in corrections fall into five Also in 1988, Mississippi reorganized its models: services, construction, managemeOl , Department of Economic Deve[opment by ownership and operation, and take-over. The abolishing the board which had directed the private services model is the oldest and best agency and replacing it wit h a director ap known and is used to provide selected services poill1ed by the governor and confirmed by the in a more efricient manner. In the private con state senate. The agency also received some of struction model, private firms usually handle the functions previously performed by the all aspects of prison const ruct ion free of gov. abolished Research and Development Center. ernmeOlal control. Proponents argue this Statcs continued to cstablish funding mech saves money, time and avoids delays. The pri. anisms to assist citizens and businesses in fur vate management model is as named: a pri. thering economic deo.'elopment. Kentuckyes vate firm is contracted to run prisons and tablished a Rural Economic Development Au jails. The private ownership and operation thority in 1988 which will issue revenue bonds model takes this last relationship one step fur to finance manufacturing projects in high un ther by allowing the private business 10 own employment counties. Lou isiana combined the prison. The take-over model, in which the all I he Department of Economic Develop· the entire system is placed in the private sec· ment's financial assistance and investment tor has been suggested but not adopted in any programs in an Economic Development Cor· state. 2 poration.in order to provide one-SlOp shop· Some specific actions in the corrections ping for those businesses and communities in area are as follows: In 1988, Mississippi reo terested in financial aid. 7 VermOnt created placed the independeOl Board of Corrections, the VermOnt Captive Insurance program to and reorganized the corrections department, enable businesses to become self-insured, and pUlling it under the control of a director ap thereby reduce premiums. 8 pointed by the governor with senate ap· NOrth Carolina created the N.C. Enterprise proval.J In 1988, California voters gave the The Council or Slate Governmenls 77 EXECUTIVE BRANCH governor the power to review decisions of the niques currently associated with helping a Parole Board through a constitutional amend governor fulfill this role may be helpful to the ment.4 governor and could lead to better state gov ernment, they should not replace the hard Environmenl work and thinking needed "to set state goals or make decisions:,2 In 1989. the Michigan legislature decided not to fund the Toxic Control Commission Sunset which had been established in 1979 as a walch dog of the agriculture, nalural resources and Another method of achieving change with public health departments. This came in re in the executive branch is sunset laws and sponse to the accidental mixing of a chemi procedures to terminate agencies, boards, cal name retardant with livestock feed. which commissions, orcommitlees unless the legis was not detected for a year. In 1990, the gover lature specifically reauthorizes them. Started nor transrerred the toxic emcrgcncy response by Colorado i.n 1976, the concept spread powers from the defunct commission to the rapidly so that every state and even Congress Department or Public Health.! has considered il. By 1981, at its highwater mark, 36 states had adopted some form of Higher Education sunset legislation. A recent survey found that 1 Maryland took major steps to reorganize by 1989 six states had repealed their laws, and six others had aUO\\'td theirs to lapse into iLSsyslem orhigher education in 1988. An 11- 2 campus system was established 10 be run by inactivity. One of these states, Connecticut, a single Board of Regents, and the campus al has rescheduled the sunset review cycle to College Park was designated as the flagship 1995 after postponing it twice. All but one of of the system. The Maryland Higher Educa the states (Ill inois) dropping their sunset law tion Commission was also established 10 had part-lime legislatures with below average coordinate all public and private institutions spending on the legislative institution suggest in the state.! ing "that weak legislative bodies are not well In July 1989, a three judge rederal panel suited to implement sunset rcvicw.') ruled that Louisiana's governing structure for There has been variable success with sun higher education must be revamped. The set laws in the states. 'Termination of agencies court mandated abolishing the current system continues but not at the same rate as in ini with four separate boards as they "perpetu tial reviews. Few of the agencies terminated ated illegal segregation", and called for a sin were of "major" status; most were of a pe gle l7-member board appointed by the gover ripheral nature and had lost their usefulness nor and confirmed by the senate. This deci or relevance. There have also been some sion paralleled an earlier proposal made by changes made in agency status and activities the governor but rejected by the legislature. 2 flowing from the sunset review process, most ly "aimed at improving the efficiency of agen Management Techniques cy and board operations;' i.e., "92 percent have added public members to to licensing The current trend in analyzing the role of boards or agencies~'4 But in Oklahoma, the governors is to view them as managers and to governor was able to combine his veto power look at what managers in other organizations and sunset legislation to make serious inroads and situations, especially in the private sec on minor regulatory agency's independence.' tor, do. The "Governor as Manager" model has prompted several articles and publications Productivity suggesting, examining, and assessing this pa tential role for governors and the styles that When reorganization fails to create more several governors have used.! However, one cost-effective government, states often tum to observer has cautioned that while the tech- other types of programs to reduce costs. 78 The Book or the States 1990-91 EXECUTIVE BRANCH Several states have implemented programs to professional degree has risen to 55 percent reward state employees fo r money saving from 40 percent. These administrators arrived ideas or innovations. In 1988, Governor John at their position mainly by promotion up Waihee of Hawaii started "A Commillee for through the agency (37 percem) or from an Excellence" (ACE) to seek innovative ways other agency in the same state (19 percent). A state government could serve the public. Oth small number (5 percent) were hired from an er states with employee incentive or recogni other state.] tion programs include Delaware, Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon and Tennessee.] Ethics Ethics in government cominues to be an is Planning sue across the states. The New York State Policy and program analysis still are elusive Commission on Governmem Imegrity in its parts of decision-making agendas in state and report, " Restoring the Public Trust: A Blue local governments. A recent re issue of a study print for Government Imegrity,' called on the and guide to this process suggests that suc state legislature to consider tougher laws in cessful analyses tcnd to be well timed in terms several areas, includi ng campaign finance, of making the findi ngs available to the poli ball ot access, judicial selection, pension for cy makers when they need them, include ex feiture, and the closing of loopholes in the plicit political and administrative considera 1976 Open Meetings Law and the 1987 Ethics tions that could affect implementation, and in Government Act. I focus on clearly-defined problems rather than Authors o f a major study of state ethics on broad issues.] codes wonder if the recent introduction across O ne o f the joint approaches that governors the slates of reforms which "opened the elec and other state policy makers are using to en toral process, fostered accountability mea hance their planning capabilites is the de sures and increased clarificatio n of connict velopment of the State Scanning Network of interest", and setting standards of qualit y, coordinated by the Council of State Planning "have nOI been at least as significant as the ot her re forms" the states have undertaken Agencies and NGA. This process of "scan 2 ning" various sources fo r clues as to trends over the past two decades. and new issues by many separate observers, In 1988, voters in Arkansas approved a gu with their observations then screened fo r bernatorially sponsored ethics measure which broad trends by a review panel, has helped will set standards of conduct for lobbyists and states identify new issues of importance to state officials. Voters in Mississippi also su p state policy makers.2 T his process has also ported their governor's push for reformed been used on the regional level by such organi county governments by adopting centralized zations as the Southern Growth Policies county road administrations to replace the Board. current corrupt systems.) The Oklahoma Ethics Commission was renamed the Oklaho Stale Agency Heads ma Counci l on Campaign Compliance and Et hical Standards, its funding doubled, and Since 1964, Deil Wright has conducted several gray areas in the law darified. 4 periodic surveys of state agency heads. Com There were some very serious situations in paring the results of the 1964 and 1988 sur the states in which ethical questions graded veys, he finds that th e typical administrator over into charges of corruption. West Virgin is now slightly less male (83 percem V5. 98 per ia's popular state treasurer, A. James Man cent in 1964), slightly less white (91 percent \IS. chin, who had run unopposed in November 98 percem), younger (median age of 46 vs. 1988, was caught in a scandal when outside 52), and more educated (only I percem have auditors found record losses in the state's high school or less vs. 18 percent in 1964). The Consolidaled Invest ment Fund of nearly $300 number of agency heads wit h a graduate or million in December 1988.s Although he in- The Council or Siale Gove rnmeniS 79 EXECUTIVE BRANCH itially refused to resign, Manchin did so in Footnotes July after being impeached by the House of Delegates, just before his trial in the Senate Executive Branch Reorganization began. While criminal corruption was not 1. The 22 states in chronological order are: shown, someone on Manchin's staff had mis Michigan, Wisconsin, California, Colorado, managed agency funds in a pooled investment Florida. Massachusetts, Delaware. Maryland, with the result that they lost half their value. 6 Montana, Maine, North Carolina, Arkansas, The state seemed snakebit as Attorney Gen Virginia, Georgia, South Dakota, Kentucky, eral Charlie Brown resigned one month later Missouri, Idaho, Louisiana, New Mexico, after being accused of perjury and facing a Connecticut and Iowa. grand jury investigation into the financing of 2. James K. Conant, "In the Shadow of his 1984 and 1988 campaign.' Then, thr« Wilson and Brownlow: Executive Branch Re state senators resigned over money corruption organization in the States, 1965 to 1987:' Pub issues.8 It was a hard year for the state; even lic Administration Review 48:5 (September/ the governor got involved in a messy divorce. Octobe, 1988), 892-902. Finally, in April 1990 former Governor Arch 3. Ibid., 895. Moore (R, 1%9-77, 1985-89) agreed to plead 4. Ibid. 5. Those states with low conflict over rear guilty to extortion, mail fraud, tax fraud and ganizlion were: California, Colorado, Mary obstruction of justice. These were tied to his land, Montana, North Carolina, Virginia. successful 1984 campaign, unsuccessful 1988 9 Maine, Soulh Dakota, Kentucky, Idaho, loui campaign, and his third term as govenor. 1t siana and New Mexico. is reported that 50 other officia1s may be fac 6. Conant, 895. ing criminal charges in the state. 10 7. ACIR, The Question of State Govern Thnnessee is undergoing an FBI investiga ment Capability (Washington, DC: ACIR, tion into allegations of corruption in the state 1985), 149. run bingo operation. lbp officials are charged 8. Those state adopting the secretary/co with setting up phony charities so bingo games ordinator model were California, Massachu could be run. Governor McWherter has is setts, Virginia and Kentucky. sued tighter ethics rules for any gubernatori 9. Those states adopting the cabinet mod al appointees in the wake of the scandaL II el were Delaware, Maryland, Maine, Arkan Recently, several states have established in sas, South Dakota. Missouri. Louisiana (mix spector general offices, which are to probe with traditional), New Mexico and Iowa. into allegations of wrong doing in state gov 10. Those states adopting the traditional ernment. Beginning with Massachuseus in model were Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, 1981, four other states set up such an office Aorida, Montana, North Carolina, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana (mix. with cabinet) and Con in the last five years: Louisiana, New York, necticut. Ohio and Pennsylvania. While often limited II. Conant, 892. in their authority over the legislative and ju 12. Barry Van Lare, Office of Stale Serv dicial branches, and other separately elected ices, ''The Role of Cabinets in State Govern officia1s, they all can investigate allegations ment:' Management NOles (Washington, DC: in agencies under the governor. In Massachu National Governors' Association, November setts, the authority also extends to local gov 1988), II. ernments. But not all the office's activities are 13. Ibid. in response to allegations, as they can "iden 14. Mark Shepard, "Governors' Reorgani tify programs or departments thai might be zation Powers:' House Research Information vulnerable to corruption!' Some other states Brief, (St. Paul: Research Department, Min argue that the attorney general's office or the nesota House of Representatives, 1988), 2. auditor have these responsibilities. 12 IS. Ibid., J. 80 The Book of the States 1990-91 EXECUTIVE BRANCH 16. Joseph Parker, "Mississippi Governor Higher Education. Goes 'TWo for Four in First Legislative Ses 1. Reeves, 29-30. sion;' Comparative State PoIWcs Newslelter 2. Thomas H. Ferrell, "Federal Court Or 9,3 (June 1988), 20-2l. ders Restruct uring of Higher Education in 17. Elder Witt, "A Governor Seeks Less Louisiana;' Comparotive State Politics News Government;' Governing 2:9(June 1989), 66. letter 10:4 (August 1989),8-9. See also "High er Education Segregation;' State Policy Re Economic Development port 6: 17 (September 1988), 23-24. I. David Osborne, "States lead economic rebirth:' State Government News 31 :11 (No Managerial T~hnique s vember 1988), 12-14. I. See especially the JulY/August, 1989 is 2. Osborne, 13· 14. sue of The Journal of State Government for 3. "The States as Laboratories;' State Poli different perspectives on this subject. cy Reports 6:11 (June 1988), 20-21. 2. Joseph Fisher. " Fo rmal Mechanisms: 4. Linda Wagar, " Economic development: Helping the Governor to ManagC;' ibid., 131. States hone strategies;' State Government News 31 :11 (November 1988), 8 Sunset 5. Wagar, 10. I. Arkansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New 6. Wagar, II . Hampshire, North Carolina, Wyoming. 7. Wagar, 10. 2. Connecticut, Illinois, Montana, Nevada, 8. Wagar, II. Rhode Island, South Dakota. 9. Joel Thompson, "North Carolina's 1988 3. Richard C. Kearney, "Sunset: A Survey Short Session: Missed Opportunities;' Com and Analysis o f the State ExperiencC;' Pub parative State Politics Newsletter 9:4 (August lic Administration Review 50:1 (January/ 1988), 26. February 1990), 55. 10. Andree E. Reeves, "Cont roversies & Ac 4. Kearney, 52-53. complishments of the 1988 Maryland General 5. "Sunset Legislation in Oklahoma;' State AssemblY,' Comparative State Politics News Policy Reports 6:10 (May 1988), 24. letter 9:4 (August 1988), 30. Productivity Corrections L Fara C roson. "State Awards Programs I . Keon S. Chi, "Prison Overcrowding and Recognize Innovative Ideas from Employees:' Privatization: Models and Opportunities:' Governors' Weekly Bulletin 23:17 (April 28, The Journal oj State Government 62:2 1989), 3-4; and " Productivit Y,' Governors' (March/April 1989), 70. Weekly Bulletin 23:18 (May 5, 1989),4. 2. C hi, 70-72. 3. Thomas H. Handy, "Mississippi Focuses Planning o n Education & Economic Development;' I. Harry Hatry, Program AnalysisjorState Comparative State Politics Newsletter 9:4 and Local Governments (Washington, DC: (August 1988), 23. Urban Institute, 1988), reviewed in State Poli 4. "Election '88: State-by-S tate: Califor cy Reports 6: 16 (August 1988), 29-30. nia:' USA / 70DAY(November 10,1988), 8A. 2. "Scanning Network", Governors' Week ly Bulletin 22:10 (March 4, 1988), 4. Environment Stale Agency Heads I. Brenda L. Wilson, "Toothless Watchdog Commission Quits:' Governing 3:7 (April L Data provided by Deil S. Wright. For the 1990), 13-14. comparison between the 1964 and 1984 re- The Council of State Governments 81 EXECUTIVE BRANCH suits, see Peter J. Haas and Deil S. Wright, 4. Casey Hamilton and K.C. Moon, "Okla "Research Update: The Changing Profile of homa 1988 Session HighlightS:' Comparative State Administrators:' The Journal of State State Politics Newsleuer 10:1 (February 1989), Government 60:6 (November/ December 7. 1987), 270-278. S. " In Briefs: West Virginia:' Comparative State Politics News/euer 10:2 (April 1989), 47. Ethics 6. "West Virginia Woes:' State Policy Re ports 7:17 (September 1989), 30. 1. Joseph F. Zimmerman, "Commission 7. LaDonna Sloan, "In Briefs: West Virgin Calls for lbugher Ethics Reform la~ for New ia:' Comparative State Politics Newsletter York:' Comparative State Politics Ne",!slelter 10:6 (December 1989), 37. 10:1 (February 1989),24-25. See also Zimmer 8. "West Virginia SctbackS;' State Policy man, "Government Integrity in New York:' Reports 7:18 (September 1989) 23-24. Comparative State Politics News/eller 9:1 9. AP wire story, "Former governor of West (February 1988), 14-16. Virginia to plead guiltY,' (Raleigh) News and 2. Fran Burke and George Benson, "Writ Observer (April 13, 1990), 8A. ten Rules: State Ethics Codes, Commissions 10. "West Virginia Problems:' Stote Policy and Conflicts:' The Journal of State Govern Reports 8:8 (April 1990), 24 ment 62:S (September/October 1989), 198. II. Janice L. Davis, " In Briefs: Tennessee;' 3. Elaine S. Knapp, "Voters like lotteries, Comparative State Politics Newsfe//er 11:1 reject tax cutS:' State Government News 31:12 (February 1990), 34. (December 1988), 27. See also, Jonathan Wal 12. Cheri Collis, "State inspectors general: ters, "In Arkansas, A New 1Wist On Use of The watchdog over state agencies:' State Initiatives!' Governing 2:2 (November 1988), Government News 33:4 (April 1990), 13. 72. 82 The Book of the SLaICS 1990-91 EXECUTIVE BRANCH T.bk: 2.9 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR LENGTH AND NUMBER OF TERMS OF ELECTED STATE OFFICIALS , I , ~ I j ! ~ i SI,,,, 0<' OiMr ! p..ud;e,iofI ,f ~, j i, ~ .:i• I ! ! ! ! "' ... AI...... ~, .0 m m .0 4/l (.) &d . 01 Ed_ioa-V·; PvbIic StMor '" C-"'...... ,· A ...... 412 (b) ." ,., An...... ~ . ~ . ~ . 'ii ~ . eorpo..•• C...... - ".; Mia< iMptaor_lI. A~_ ...... ~ . .,'". ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . ,., !.aDd c.....-lI- CMlf...... ,. .,. ~ . ~. ~. ~ . ". lid. of ~-41 . C-...... ,. .,. ~ . .,. ~. lq..... 01 Unl.. Of CoIo.-4of·; &d. of Ed_ioII-6I· C_, .. .,. .,. ., . ~ . ., . Dot ...... ".• /1 (f) .,. .,. ., . .,. ., . . . . tlorid • ... ." .,. ., . .,. ., .,. .,. ., . ." .,. ., .,. .,. .,. ., .,. ,.. Publk: s...i« '" Comm._6!. 110- 011 •• ." . ,., lid. of Ed .....Ioao-4!U I ...... ,. ., . ~ . .,. ~. Ii) ~ . -"1111_ .. .,. .,'" ., .,. .,". ~. lid. 01 T""'.... , U... . oI IU.-6I· I ...... "'01 ". mOl .,. 4IlU) U1 til ~ . I...... ,U "" "" .,u " '" "- ...... ~. ""~ . ~. "" "" ~ . &d. of Ed"oodo.. -lI· ~ ...... '" '" ~, . ~ lailr..-d C-.-lI...... '" .,. ~ . .,. .,. ~. lid. of Educatioa-V'; '" '" '"". '" '" '" ~~ '" '" C-.-6I.; a.c. ,..... c...... ,. "bl ... .n 104 ."...... ' 12 (b) '". .,u .,. M.~ ...." .... .,. .,. .,. ., . .,. .,. Euc. Council-V· M " ~ Ip. .,. ., . .,. ., . Urli ...... _11 .; Bel . 'm' of Ed_ lion-I/· 101 1._• •..• .,. .,. .,. .,. 1011...... " "~. ~ . ." .,. "~ . (ri ' .,. .,. Pu"' ic~ C_.-4/·; Hilh· "'-l'C...... - "'· Ml_rl ... "'10 .,. ". .,. ' Il (f) 101 _ .... ~. .,. .,. ""~ . ~ . (i) Publil: StMor ". Com ...... ,· sn..... • ... "'1 (b) .,. .,. .,. 412 In) .,. l..-. of U... . or _ .-61.; lid. or &too. _-41.; Publi< StMor C_.-6I· .0 ~ . .,. .,. lid. of lqcnll__ 6! ·; ". ". &d. of E6IIcoIlOll_ ~, ~--H ___ ... . u· u..,. eou_l-V· ~ , ....,...... n " N ... M ..k- • • 4/1 (0) '" U I (o) 411 (0) 411 (0) 411 (01 Cm.,. of Public ". (0) ~'"(o); Bel. or Ed .....io The Council or Siale Governments 83 EXECUTIVE BRA NCH LENGTH AND NUMBER OF TERMS-Conlinued I I ~ I Sl-u 01' 0lMt- I • j i• j _.. d , I :, , 1 I s...t. o.a.._ .. 84 The Book of the States 1990-91 EXECUTIVE BRANCH Table 2.10 SELECTED STATE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS, METHODS OF SELECTION Ad,tltlQnl Urw"""", A;:;:r S/QI' o._~ ",_no; -~of $/111. ,-- ..- A d..w.iJt~I HM A,rInoll." tMnkj"z &'''' "'J.~ ...... C> a N.A. ,_. a. , a. G'B , , , ...... '" " " '" a '"a, '" , ",1\,_- '"C> '" a; a a a a '0 CalIf...... '" a; "a; " " '" '" " " "a; a; a, (• •9) CoIofMo .•••• "co a; a; a; '"a, aD '" a, eol-,k., . co co a; a' a, a, a, 0tI0.. · . .. . co " '" "a a, t-...w • ... '"co a; '"co a; (,· U) " ...... '"co '" '" '" "'", '"a '" '"a; '"a 11 ... 011 "a; " " '"a a ,a'" ...... a; a; a; , a "co " '" '" '" a, '" ••,u ... '" "co co '"a '"a '", '"a a ,...--... .. '" "'" "co " "'" '"a, '" '" a, '"a, 1.0 ...... '" " " '" '" " a 1I>ftII ..~ ,. • a; a a a; a a ...... " " "a; " "a; '" '" a;" '" a M .... Cbj . " " cc "a. a. '"a '"a au au'" ,a M ill ..... " Ci cc a a' ,a a, M_h.,.." .• " '" " a '"a a a a MkW...... co o. a, o. 0' MI._• .... "'" "a; " "a; "a; a o. a,• '", a, M~ ...•...•.• " a; a;" a; a; .N.A. a; M_I'I " a; a; '" o. o. '"~ '", 104 .." •• • "a; " "CE , '"o. a, , a N-..• ...... CE CE a; a; a, a, a, a, a, N ...," • . " " (1 .6) ...... CE CE "CE a '"a 'a /'I.... II ••,...... " " ac e, ac ac ac"" ac ,ac N .... JtrxT . . . "co "a' o. o. ,ac 0' s... M~.u.. . '" ""o. '", , ,...... v.n. .. "a; " " " ,.", "a '" a Non. C"'- CE '" '" '" a '"a '" '"a a ,"ort. 1hI<041 a; '" " " co" a (.·H) a;" (n) ... . " "a; " a '", a 010.1._• ..•.. " '" a, '" " o. '" '" GD/GS 0..,- ...... a; a; a • , '0 __..... OOIJ" I ...... "a; " " '" '"a o. '"a " '"a; '"a;" " '"a '" '"a '" SM,. CarooII .. "CE " a; " a; '"• ("1-' ) "• s.,.,. o. ~ o, • . " CE " " 0 " , , T .._ ...... ,., e, cr e, a 0 a a , T.u• .... '"co "e, '" '" '"0' '" a u...... '" '" '" '" • o." 0'" 0 ,'..--, ... " " a;" " " '" '" 0' '''' \"\r.lIa .•• " '" a. '" '"a. a". a'". '"a. , a, 10"_.. ' " a; a 0 0 a 10"... ,·ItJIooi. "CE " a; "CE CE o. a; 10"_ .. .•...... " "a; '" " a; a, , " , co '" , '" ,a" 10",0.1 •• ...... '"" " 0 " '"a 0 '" NtH. .. The ctoltf odrtoInbtt ..l"" ..f1kiab raponoiblo for eodI ("""'..... GOC__Urut...... , Ckwenoo< ...... Cound _ or ... bi ...... "".. mined I...... iBf...-iooo ..... ~...... 10; "'" _ f ...... W ,ioo .. liKed III St.,. Adrro/IIm,.,i.., 0 . ~"'" b, 1'1.... ,,_ The Council of State Governmenls 8S EXECUTIVE BRANCH SELECTED OFFICIALS: METHODS OF SELECTION- Continued 0 .. Cowt...... u, c-p..lr< _. ... c-_ .u-r Ci.Mfptt"(ll/#r ...... <1/.. EdIonot..... --.-.tIM""'.. ~ ...... """ ...... --.... -,(I' U ) N.A • ~ ...... A • • A .A .A -• • A Art-••.. A •.,• •• A A •os• •• •• ( ..2) AO_ N.A. '0' '0' (I_l) a .. a cr Collf... .. o. ., a •0 a. as (1·11) '"c.• A .,.,... ). I I 86 The Book of the States 1990-91 EXECUTIVE BRANCH SELECTED OFFICIALS, METHODS OF SELECTION - Continued ~blplo_f '-u Eo,l,ol_ofal F.", HllIwr ••k F_~ ..... II.. ,,, -.-' ...... -~ -~ .-iItJIifr ...... " 111t_p AIab_ ...... a Aa Aa a tl.ll) N .A . a A" "I.. A A a.• A a. A a.• -a•. (1"2) Arll_ ...•....•..•. A A A a, A A A Art_ . a a A a a • G a a CoU'O"'" .. :::::::· • a, a, a, a, a,'" ""a, • a,• c __ ...... ""0> a, (1· 1l) "" c-*"! ...... A A A a, 0< (1-6) a, '" '"A .--- ...... Aa (.·m "A " Aa" (0")'" Aa'" • AG A A a A " GOC A • ,.-oIl, .. a A a "" "" • • ...... - ...... '" A A to") A • tl"2) " .... 011 a, tl.' ) tl· ll) a, Id • • ...... A a, A A a, A • t·.. 2, 1111",",. '" " " " a, a, (I.JI) a' ,"'".,J"~) a, '""1 • (1"2)" 1..11.0 •• . a a A a (I'" A (1·6) ""a N.A . a a, (.· Il) '" '" 10'" ...... '" " " (I") • A A (1·191 A tl.9) (1"·12) (I'" '" (I"Z) ...-...... , Aa Aa (0-'")1) (l·ll) (1. 1l) Aa (1. 1)) Aa a• Aa ~ ..... ,. ., a, .1") ""A a, M _ (b) ...... Aa au a au'" au au (I·ll) A au• au MOIlh...... AG'" Aa"" '"A (1· . )1 A G A M ...... U ... a G a '"a (1-61 a '"G '"a a a M Ir...... N.A . (I.~) (l .lI) a, 0> (."2) M la_.I ••...•• A A (il (I." (1-6) A M I!.oIooI ...... " " tl.. 1) " N.A . " • " aD A "A (I'" '" ._. ""A A A A • A • • '"-'•1) Mo.,,_ ...... A A A A (1.9)"' A N~ . '"A s-.. (I.') A a, a, (.·m (1"1 a, • ,.-oIl)'" N...... a a a A (1. 1l) G G a (1"1) N... II ...... G Ge a Ge (1'". 6) OGC AGe AGe OGC"• (," Z) 1'1 ... h OW)' . A AGe a, (1"1 (1.6) a, OG (I"~I N... MuIft ...... '" A a, '" A a, N ... ".n...... a, (I") (1'•21) (1-6) tl.I') (I· m s .... ~ . Aa"" '"G A'"a , 1·ll) (• . 9) Aa'" Aa "" Aa N_ DM.,.., .•..• '"A a '"A '"A (1.9) a ,., a • '"G 01010 •• ...... Aa (1·9) '"A (I") • (1-'1) Olh•• • (I.U)'" '"A '" \1") (I") '" '" (1-'1) Ooqoo ...• ::::::::: ,Aa.. " Aa • (I.') • Aa• • A ...... ,...... a A ca • (I''') (mm)• a, • A 1t_ ....I111 ...... ( .. ,) a, (.""·l6) (1·9) "" ooc• (1"1) Co, oII.1 .. '" '" s...,. A • a '"A (1·6) "• "• '"• • ,""'1) s... .. OM.... A A A A tl." a (1-6) A T.. _ .•.••• A a a A ,. ., a a • ' . ... 1) Tnao ••••••••••••••• a A (1. 1l) • ( ... ) '" • u...... Aa • Aa• AG tl. l)) Aa• • • II":• ) \ ....-, ... A • a, Aa tl" l Aa ~~ '"Aa • a' 'l The Cou ncil of State Governments 87 EXECUTIVE BRANCH SELECTED OFFICIALS: METHODS OF SELECTION-Continued Hi8t~ _IW_'~ ~,- _. pg~~..J", , ,-~ of,..,...,""" _.. -...... '"' .u...... - ... .. e """e "'"""" 0 NA_ , ""'""-" --e• e. • e. • , ...... - A_ ...... 0 os• • • GS • • Os' , Art_ .. 0• 0• .•0 , • e e e, e, Call' ...... e '_I os Os' '" GS e .c. c...... _...... GS GS ( , c-... iQ 0' o. ( ..11) .." , AO '" GS'" '0'"• .0'""~I os .e'" GS• •0 co; ...r- ..... , co; 0 ooc '" GS (I ." , - , '"co; ,• ,• • 0 <"-.k ...... '" • os " ..... e .e GS" GS e 0' 0 ,.... GS GS '" '" , .. II) '", ,- - GS• GS GO GS• GO• GO GO• • .0 ,.... N.A. e 0 0 e 0 •0 e '_ ...... GS GS os GS , GS • GS (1•" 6) co;" Ka-...... os HA_ , (l·ll) GS'" (1.9) , ..... _, • 0 0 ' 0 AO 0 0 •r. GO" (I'"~ ) e. e". o. e. (1"·21) ""o. e. 88 The Book of the States 1990-91 EXECUTIVE BRANCH SELECfED OFFICIALS: METHODS OF SELECfION-Continued wtiJil! ,...,. ,... SoI>d_ "...., R~w ... " ...... - ...... tea --..-' ptJIitr ,.... A..... _ .... ""...... (1.1) --0 cr 0 N.A. 0 ,.·1"7) N.A. A 0 N.A . A...... A A 0 A (1.201) A 0 0 A A A 0 0 Arlz_ • . . -A 0 A o. A A o. 0' 0' A...... A AO '- ...... 0 0 0 A 0 0 A 0 CooII fonoia CO A o. o. A • o. o. o. 0 o. C...... ( .. u) o. o. ,.... o. o. c-tk.I ...... (I.U) O' O' A O' 0' 0 ' 0' ...... CO AO• AO AO AO'" AO o. '" AO'" '"A o...... A A , A A OOC A '"A A '"A o. .-...... -- ...... 0 " ,.... A o. A A A 0 H...... " 0 0 o. o. AO '" 0' o. I,.H ...... (,'", 11) A o. '"A '"A o. A A o. (1. 11) 1.1Mb . • (. · 1) o. (1--6) o. o. (1·11 ) o. (1· 11 ) '"o. I ...... ( • • 1) 0 0 '"0 (1 --6) 0 (.. 1"7) A 0 A 0 .. ~ ,.·19) "A o. o. A A A o. ~ ... ,",U) o. o. '"A '"A o. o. ( •'"• 21) o. A o...... (. ·11) 0 0 AG AG 0 AO AO 0 0 0 ~ (H' ,o. 0 OS o. o. o. Mol. (b) (I'U) I!/; (1.11) 0 '"A 00 CI·2I) AO N.A. ,",U) 104.., ..... '"A G> A A (o. U) A A o.'" ""A o. 104 ...... CI'"· IJ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 A 0 10410"",_ ••••••••••• (I')') C, o. o. ,.. o. o. 0 A A 0' A A o. , , 0 0 '"A o. N.A. '"A o. '"A A 104_ •• ,~J).. '" '" '" '" '" --_M_ • 0' '"A A o. A o. 0 A ...... N.A. A "'o. o. A ., A A -~-. . (1. 1) • 0 ,.... A 0< 0< (1.21) 0< A 0< N ...... (1-6) 0 "0 '"0 AO 0 0 A AO 0 N •• H ••,...... ••• . A OC AOC" OC AOC (1·201) OC OC AOC AOC a OC N .. J...., ... (1·9) A AO AOC o. o. A (,,11) A o. N"'M...... , , '"o. , , o. , , o. A 0 Now""" ..••. ,~, ( •• 11) o. o. (1-6) ("17) (l.lI) o. (.·16) s_c-... ' 0 A O 0 '0 0 AG '0 0 AO 0 N_DM...... , A cr 0 , CO'" 0 A '"0 A ... (I...U) 0 o. o. A 0 (1-)1) o. '0 0 o. Ot.1a_ . (1·9) 0 0 0 , 0' 0 , 0 , • • ) 1) 0 o..ao- ...... 0 o. AO , 0' 0' (1 ·211 0' , , .._In ... . (I" ) CO , (1. )9) , , 0 ' (1· 11 ) o. a_h...... o. 0' 0 0 A 0'" 'o· U) o. ,'" , , A 0 -.. ~ '" • '" ....'" '"" '" " s-... o.._ ...... AO , '" (I.ZI) '0 , T_ ...... , • CO" 0 , '"0 '"A , 0 0 0 TDM ...... (1. 1) " ,.", 0 (0-6) (.. Il) (.. 17) , 0 A ( •'"• )6) u ...... ,",U) AO• '0 '0 AO o. 0' '0 '0 '0 o. v..--•...... (1·9) 00 o. '0 ,o. , vltpll ...... (I·U) 0 0 (I") 0 0 '", 0 0'"0 '", 0 0 '", 0'"0 Woslol.,.... •••••• .•. ,., 0 (n ) , 0 (1.)7) 0 0 0 w.. "loti... (1--6) 0 o. ,~, ,., '0 o. • , o. " , A o. w_ ...... ( .. n) '" '" '", 0 0 w,...... '" '"• '" 0 ''"0 '" '"0 '" " Ubi-orion, SI ... LlbflO)' lad of SoclaI and . DrporuMn, • H.. h h lad H"""" ~ ..... The Council of Siale Governments 89 EXECUTI VE BRANCH Table 2,11 SELECTED STATE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS: ANNUAL SALARIES A~I_ ... ""'- --~of- -:= n- ..- ....--...... A...-.- ~.. ""- .. g,,," !llo...... ~.m '),160- ",,", ".112 ",156 56.'IZ ",n< n,'" ,~. II."" 66,1161<11 66.'16(<1) 66.116 (d) 66.116 ( 90 The Book of the States 1990-91 EXECUT IVE BRANCH SELECTED OFFICIA LS: ANNUAL SALARI FS- Conlinued c__ CMI Com", ~ ~/!J' Com""IH C_",H ~, ... Sl.I~ 'ilAIJ oJI"" C""'PI_.-.ica .oM C SH,' IJH_ ll.fll 'J.491 (1·16) 41,)09 ,. .~ l7.JJ6 Sl,99t ~. ~ (0·1) T"_ Sl.000 M.~ (1·11) ~.~ 61 .000 J'.OOO ...... CI. I1 ) 9O~~ I I.SOO Tu ...... '1.111 74.970 '8.100 74 .691 7Moo ".111 ... ~ CI · II) 11 ~ , 471 Sl.7.10 u• •• " .. , "."7 62,llO ,., 6!.936 S6.11'!1 l7.294 62.llO lO,tL4 69,712 n,l99 '1' .... 0.1 . '1.116 ".n6 '2.)11 (.,f) ".291 '1,116 H,161 ... su 61.651 ' 9l.9U 71."2 17,(ISI 1) ,640 )9.f Jj 92, 111 91.Ul \1'-'29 61 .61""7 100'...... ' _ ".711 n.", n.'" (a") !7.760 71.11! n.'" (1.11) M ..... 4O.111 100'... ,.I The Council of State Governments 91 EXECUTIVE BRANCH SELECTED OFFICIALS: ANNUAL SALARI ES-Continued £ ••/,.,./IIft,.1 '0· ... ::::=., em:.f:" ~ ...... ~ ""'._if• If_~ ...... lfiPwp "...... ~,.Il 62,5~ '1.600 n.," ~.'12 (,·11) --51,591 m.m ~,'" ~"11 ...... d '2.141 (d) 116 ~.loW !eI) 66,116 -61.SOf Id) 66,116Id) 64.620 (d) (I~ ,,-.. 62'''l ) 66. 1d) )',).16 d) )',lI6 (eI) n;* (eI) 55.," d) '1.07~ d) 01;_ .... (I.S) (I.))) ' I,IIS )9.91' (1.9/ 60.~9 (I") 120./100 to"2) 69.110 U,,," 69.110 (1·9 69.110 ~,'" 69.110",.. IXI.ooo ~ .... ""- ,.'" ~,~ M,,",, ,.", 61,500 M,,",, ~JOO ~JOO 6Oi!~~ u"'" .1.)6) 17.0).t{cI)'_J 67.'" (d) 67." (d) 6O.191 1d) 100.696 17.120 (I"Z) S-IIoC_--_.- 19.0017 MJOO SS. 161 66,'lO (d) t:ll 6l,).t9(eI) 71.11l d) 93.619 (d) '7",700 (d) ('''2) S-t_ OMola ..... 1O. lll n,,," 1).'14 ~,." t.·9) 53.IM (~ '2._ M,,", '2,666 Tn_ n./IOO 51.500 ~JOO U,,", 57.XXI n, '1.000 W,,,", (I~ T_ 51.500 n,,," 61.oll 67.,.S (.. /l 75.600 tl") ~,,", 1.,.'23 ~, U~ . ~, ... ".lIZ "~ . sa.760 (1·11"'1 ".4Zl (I'" U (I-U) 5),061 "'11 ,- )9.0011 sa, l51 ...., (I'" 41.001 ~ ... "... ",'" 61.714 v....- .... 6].)51 75,996 03.6301 6l.1U 'UIJ ", ~,'" 9).011 "..,. 9CI . '~ ". ~ ., ..... sun U,'" }9,71) N,"" tl·9) .. ,., (I") N-'" U,,",, (I-tl) w...... 32.000 "./100 ,./ (106) ) 1."2(d) 25.IU (eI) ,W, ~,,",, w...... )7.567 (eI) 46.111 (eI) 4J.53 (d) SO.... '0' , (d) 92 The Book of the States 1990-9 1 EXECUTIVE BRANCH SELECTED O."FlCIALS: ANNUA L SALA RI ES-ConHnued lIisWk .II"",li ""II~ NIII~"" $/gt~ 1"",,,,- , The Council of Siale Governments 93 EXECUTIVE BRANCH SELECTED OFFICIALS: ANNUAL SALARIES-Continued ,....., h"" """,..., .... "' ...... """ ~ ,- _"'~I""" - ""' ,-- A_ . ....• (1·ll) n.ooo 17.191 '6.111 61.(122 ~.'Il (1. J1) 17.6" SO.IOl l-6.lll )).13-1 ,- ...... 61.JOI (d) 61.501 (d) 61.501 (d) 61.501 (d) (1-2-4) 61.SCI (d) 66.'16 (d) '9.1.0 (d) 61.SCI (d)61.501 (d) 66.116 (d) An-...... "6.606 Cd) .:JOO(d) Cd)'1- .(171 Cd) IUOO (d) "6.606 (d) "US Cd) -.0,2" ".)62 ".000 A .._ ...... ~.w - )I:'M SO.I)6 '.... Il -19.199 'UIO ".000 "'.17' MJ" ~.'" CalIf...... n.,.. '.'" ... ., ".0" '-'91 Cd) 95.0'2 95.1»% 79.676 101 .3-11 61.W 95.1»1 ~ ...... (1-11) 56,210 q.- ,..." ".610 ..... 75.000 ".1601 ".1601 'I."" ~ ...... (.~ 59.719 (dJ 10.111 (d) lUll (d) 6:I.loI6 Cd) 61.6)9 (d)67.6:l9 Cd) '9.11' (d) n."1 (d)'l.790 (d) 12.i69 (d) ~ ...... 42.011 ",.. 1 d.'" M .... ".100 61 .... ' )6.0SI (d) 16.100 .-...w...... 7'.460 61.I9f *""...w 67.919 61."6 um M .... ,,: M." ~.'" ~ ~ 1,.90J 7USM 71.110 61.41 ".420 ".JOl IUOl 11.110 IU02 IUOl ..... (1-1)1 $ ,. .... ~'* M.m Woot\· • ,~, "::!':I;:.; (a1l ~1. ., .... ., ~ 21.6)6 (d) ,., l6.J6oI (d) lUll •'.ZJO " .. ... n,ll (d) J7.367 (d) 50.162 (dl 51')11 (dl .0.142 (dl ».1Il (d) 67.7Il (dllO.+U (d) 16.1"11 (d)Il.'J9 (d) » .... l (d) w,- ...... , 'J·n) ".316 (d) '5.509 " .lOIO 'l.J.6J SI.loIO 'S,H' 50.291 '6.... S 69.120 ~.'" 94 The Book of the States 1990-91 EXECUTIVE BRA NCH SELECTED On' ICIALS: ANNUAL SALA RI ES- Conlinued ,-m .rll, ;, '" • 5<< Ubrory. " . 1 The Council of Siale Governmenls 95 EXECUTIVE BRANCH Table 2.12 LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS: QUALIFICATIONS AND TERMS u.s. o.. SuM,.,"''' /wi"""' ...... 't,';;""". toAI#nIior-. • ....- ,...... -, .-- , .u.-...... - - --- • A ...... , , • -""'- ANo---...... " " ,. • A"'_ ...... " • , • , Call' ...... " , , • • c-.- ...... " • • C_ ...... • ...... " '11 , • FIMMo ••••••••••••• " • • (""---ala ...... " • " ,• • II ...... • , • • ,,-...... " • , • ...... " •, , • .-...... " • , •• "-...... " • , ...... "J ...... """ ... , ...... ,• •, • • • M ...... " M • .,...... ,. ,'" • M ...... " ...... '" , • M ...... '.) •••••••• " • , • • M-..,.;I ...... ,." , • .-rou...I ...... " • 111_...... " " ", N...... , •, , • N... _ ••••.•••••••• " , , • N... II ...... " (OJ • • N.... hnt)r •••••••••• " (OJ N .... IIIake ••••••••• • • • New yot\ , • '" N... c-...... " , • '2" /II ... DM MO ...... " • • • OWe •••.••..•••.••• " • • • '2" 01<10_. 96 The Book of the Stales 1990-9 1 EXECUTIVE BRANCH Table 2.13 LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS: POWERS AND DUTIES M""bt< 0/ "'-- A~tltoril, lot ,.,-_ ... St"", ot(}t ~ A-",,~ - ", ,.,- 0_ & <0" Asoi' .... ~-. iwri>dktlD" """,,,,I,, .... fOJl-Nl1 Ita bills ",M_,bot!y-~. 11<11 -~"",. auiz" "",ta .,,-,.,-oj".", A.... _ ...... ,., A_• . • • • • • 0 ' A"'-...... • • • (e) A"'_ ...... • • • C.llfonl• ••••••••••• • • '" • • C ...... • • • DtI... _ • .. • • • • • • -.loriolo ...•...•. • • • • ('oO<> The Council of Stale Governmenls 97 EXECUTIVE BRANCH UEUTENANT GOVERNORS: POWERS AND DUTIES-Continued ~: Tk CoudI 01 Sulk GownI-.. $pri/I:f 1990. Xq; " _ I'r(W\sIon fot ,~blllI~ . • _ ~ ptO'tiJioII (Of ~biliIy. I., ~ all ...... 1«1 . AIIobouDa ~"'._ opoeiaI _itl 98 The Book of the States 1990-91 EXECUTIVE BRANCH Table 2.14 SECRETARIES OF STATE: QUALIFICA nONS FOR OFFICE S,.,. 0< 01"" U.s. ci'I~~ SI"",~, Q-/iJi«ho'" p.rWk'/(pr ',..,1 ,,..,1 A ..--. .•••. ,-, • A ...... ,., , AA"'_ ... _ ...... ••• . . • • • • , c.N1_ . ... . " "• • • , c __ ...... U" • , c..~ •...... • , No" ...... • • • , J"""" .. " , • , Goo s...-: no. Boot <¢ ,IW ~ ll1U-n...... , M iIIksippi · r~ ,...,.. NtM: n.;, IObk oon,,'. """"if"' ..... _ ••...... ,.,...... "QoaM. Ie) Ooono br join! boIIoo of ...... oro and ~ . ,. loll .... r.... _ .... pro.ioioco ...., .. I .. oddiUoDol.eoidm<)o.1>II o;;oi_ohi" .... _ ~ H .... pstom. r The Council of State Governments 99 EXECUTI VE BRANCH Table 2. 15 SECRET ARIES OF STATE: ELECTION AND REGISTRATION DUTIES .I ., i I .!, ..0- I • A*la (lo) .. • • • • • • • • • ArI_ ...... • • • • • • • -Arb_ .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • CooII' ...... • • • • • • • • c..... • • • • • • • • .. (~) • c_, • • • • • • ,,...... • • • • • • • Ilo 100 The Book of the States 1991)..91 EXECUTI VE BRANCH Table 2.16 SECRETARIES or STATE, CUSTODIAL, P UBLICATION AND LEGISLATIVE DUTIES • , 1 • H j Ala"'." •••••• • • • • • • A'..... (b) •.••. • • • • • Arho...... • • • • • • • • • A .... u ...... • • • • • • • • • C.U'"n," • • • • • • • c_,~ • • • • , • ()ooIa ...... • • • • • • • .lori4. • • • • • • • "-V• .. • • • • • • • • "" "" ""• • ' II ..U (b) ,,' • • • 'd. 1oo •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • '" , • • "",-~ ...... • • • • • , • ••• • • • • • 11_ .. • • • • • • • • • • • K ..,,,,",,, , • • • • l The Counci l of State Governments 101 EXECUTIVE BRANCH T.ble 2.11 AlTORNEVS GENERAL, QUALlFlCATlONS FOR OFFICE u.< ...... "" o , - , A_• ...... -A_ ... . 'il' -• · ',' - •, A"'_ ...... • , CoIII _ •....• "• • (., , " ('1 c.IonM •..••.... • , • , ~ " • • • , ...... -.... ••"• ", • " " , c-,. o " •, • ,'I_...... 'io' • , • • •, ,. ... o • , , ,.....- .... ~I • , ""_ ... . , "" ..... , .. . ':to' , ,• , ...... o • ,,' "'.~- .. 10(0) , ... • Cd) • "'_...... " • , "'I<~. CI) ...... • , "'~ ...... :to'... . , "'....."...... • , , ...... • '~I, , "' __.. w ... . o , , , ,"_. ib) .. . II Co) • ,., ,., • , N...... • • , N" ....,.,...... " ' .. • • A ,~- ' I c., •, • • •, "'"s...v "'u.... n • • , (.,• • , N... ~ C~ .•• • • • ,., • N... ~ OUCH. " • • • , OIl ...... " • • • , " • , ...... - ..., " • ", "• , ...... • • ...... •" • •. • • , SM--, •• CaroII .. . " • • , SM•• DeI!_ .. , T_ • • • • T_ • W u•• ,~, • , v_ ...... " • • • , Viral'" .• JIi) , 101'_ .. '_ ...... • • • , 101'.. \ •...- ••• ~, • , • •' " • , ,,',...... • • • • A -A-"n.- So.OI •... • IM.Ca •N• __..... , • ...... Ilke ...... • • V.I. VloPI _ • (01'" '" • 102 The Book of the States 1990-91 EXECUTIVE BRA NCH Table 2.18 ATTORNEYS GENERAL: PROSECUTORIAL AND ADVISORY DUTIES ~ , ·r ~ 10_ .. , A.D '.0 , • • • • • • • 10_• . ,., • • • • • Art ...... "'. B '0'.C.O,~ '.'0'0 '.0 '0', • • • • • • ArII ..... o o • • • • • CalIf., ... . "'.B.D.E.F "'. B.D.E "'.B.O.E "'.B.O.E • • • • • • • C __ ...... , D.r Cbl • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~-1ltI...... ,., • • ,., • • 1l<> , " ..,mli< cri ...... I or "'hot body. , M · ~'''~' ;~'~~~'i'~~¥~~~~~~lqtoloIW .... - The Council of Siale Governments 103 EXECUTIVE BRANCH Table 2.19 ATTORNEVS GENERAL: CONSUMER PROTECTION ACTIVITIES, SUBPOENA POWERS AND ANTITRUST DUTIES M~ It-"'Iw ...... ~ H_ St~1t '" fNMr ~ -..,- A~IIt"." ""'.., ...... ~- p.,ildlcflott PFOCf'tdI~,r-- """"',."- ::r.) ,...--- ~,."."-- OJ dwl...... • • • • - ••• ~ • • • • • • •.C 1011_ .•• • • • • 10.1.0 A.u- •. • • • • • ••C CeII(...... • • • • • • A.I.C,D «) ...... • • • • • I.C,D (k) c...nInoI ..... • ,.j • • 10.1.0 Dolo.·... • • • • • A.I.C ...... • • • A.I,C,D OJ ...... • • • . .C 11 ...l1li • • • • (•• f) A,I .C.D l u ...... • • • • , Ilw .... • • • • • .... B.C.D • • • I .C.D ,--'". • • • • • A.B.CoO • • • • • • B.C.D ,.-"...... , • • • • • ,.j 10.1,0 ,...... • • • • • A,I.C,o • • • • • • A.B.C .-M.',...... • • • • • • a.C,D MuutII... u • •. • • • • • A.I.C.D M ...... • • • • • A. I .C.o • • • • I .C.D .. - • • • • • A.I.C.o .-M_rl ..•... • • A.I,C,D .. • I .C.o ._-S",""",-" • • • A,I.C (dl.o ...... • • • • • A.II.C.n s ...... ,..Ir;;::. • • • • a.c,o --N... '..-.or • • • • • • A.a.c,O "'"' ~ ...... • • • • • ..C s- l"on .. • • • • A.B.CoO Nora eu.tI.. • • • • A.R,C.D N..." IlIkol• •. ::::. • • • • • A.a.o • • • • • • I.C.D ...... -- • ,.j • • .., • • ,.j • • A. a.c.o ...... 1" ...., ,, ..... • • • • • A,R.C.D R_' ...... • • • • • A. a.C.D SMIIIC"""" • • • • A.a.c.o s..,•• 00-1. .... • • • • ....a.C.D 'N_ • • • Ie) • • "'.I.C.D TUM •• • • • • .., u,. • (d) • (d,t) ... (a).R.C.DW ,- • • • • .• " • A.R.C.D ' • ,., • • .... a.C.D "...... I.t;:.;. . • • .• " • A.R,D w.. \· • • • • " • A. a.D ...... • • • ..C ".,-.. • • • "'-"<00. 80,_• •. • • • • " •. M..-I_ • • • • • • a:i::o vs.n.. ,_ ... • • • .. (e) (., • A,B.C • · ro • · • ....R (I).C,D --$000 ...... Tho Cowlldl o( So.1f Ocwmo .... n,,· ...... "l', Spri", 1990. £1 ,. Ihis 104 Th~ Book or the States 1990-91 EXECUTIVE BRA NCH Table 2,20 AlTORNEYS GENERAL: DUTIES TO ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES ... .. ,._. A.B.e .. (.) • • • • • ...... A. B.e • • • • • • • • Aruo• • .... A.II.e (•• d) • • • • • '" • • Arl<._ .. A.B.e .. (II • • • • • • • CooII'""",, ••. A. B.e .. (I) • • • • • c __ .. .. A. B.e .. (II • • • • • • • co. __ ...... B.e ., • • .. (b) • ... • • DtI...... B.e .. (I) • • • • • • • • .""', A.8.e .. (I) • • • • • • c_. A.B.e (b •• ) • • • • • • • H ...... A.' (b •• ) • • • • • • • • ...... "'.B.e .. (I) • • • • • • • 1111 ...... "'.8.e ( '>.<.~) • • • • • • ...... "'.B.e (.) • • • • • • ,...... "'.II.e ·.. (II • • • • • • "-- ...... "'.B.e .. tl) • • • • • l Nt.... ' · .. "'.B ' .e • • • • • • • • ...... "'.B.e • • • • • • • 114 ...... "'.8.e (b.d)'" • • • (b) • • • 114 • .,'...... "'.B.e • • • .. tb) • '"• • • 114_ ...... "'.8.e (b.c.d) • • • • • • MkWs" ...... "'.B.e (b,cA) • • • • • 1141_ ...... "'.B.e (c.d) • • • • • • M~ ...... B.e • • • • • • • ._. "'.B.C • • • • • • 114 ...... "'.B.e • • • • • • • S-• .. "'.8.e • • • • • • • / The Council of Siale Govern menlS 105