CHAPrERTWO STATE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THE GOVERNORS, 1984-85
By Thad L. Beyl.
Throughout the 1980s, the importance of and 26 (67 percent) aought reelection; and in the atates and their elected leaders has 1984-86, there were 15 races and seven (47 grown, especially as the federal government percent) aought another term. Preliminary haa sought to reduce ita involvement in and estimates for the 1986 elections. in which 36 responsibility for domestic programs and is seats will be open, indicate that only 50 per sues. This trend has helped push the gover cent of the incumbents will seek reelection, norship ever more into the leading position continuing the trend noted. I However, those in the state&-if for no other reason than 88 seeking reelection in the 1980s generally the one state official who mtUt take the lead have fared well, with 31 of the 45 (69 per in sorting out the responsibilities the states cent) winning-increasing from a 58 percent will continue to perform and determining at win rate (seven of 12) in the first two years, what level of etTort. Further, the governors to a 73 percent rate (24 of 33) in the laat four have continued to become more active in the years. traditional functions of the states, such 8S Gubernatorial campaign coets continued to education and health. escalate in 1984-85. As shown in Table A, in the 15 races of the biennium, candidstes Gubernatorial Elections spent about $65 million aa officially re Fifteen governorships were up for election ported-led by North Carolins at $13.7 mil in 1984-85; in seven of these contests the in· lion and New Jersey at $10.7 million-for an cumbent stood for an additional term, with average of $4.3 million per race. There was five winning reelection. Both of the defeated a significant difference between races for an incumbents, Allen Olson of North Dakota open seat ($40.5 million for an average $5.1 and John Spellman of Washington, were He million) and roces in which the incumbent puhlicana who lost the 1984 general elections or a former governor was seeking reelection in their states. Incumbent governors Bill ($24.5 million for an average of$3.5 million). Clinton (D.Arkansaa), Robert Orr (R.Indi. Four years earlier, in the 1980-81 elections ana), Ted Schwinden (D-Montana), John for governor in these states, the total spent Sununu (R-New Hampshire), and Thomas was $49 million. Thua, there haa been an in Kean (R-New Jersey) all won their attempts crease of$16 million between the two time to serve an additional term. periods; controlling for inflation, the increase Four incumbent governors were constitu was $1.6 million (i n 1967 dollars) or 8 per· tionally ineligible to seek another term: cent, still an indication that the COflt of be Pierre duPont (R·Delaware), Chriswpher coming governor continue, to rise. Bond (R-Mi880uri), James Hunt (D-North Clearly, the road to the governorship in the Carolina), and Charles Robb (D.Virginia); 1980s continues to have stops at elected state while four other incumbents opted to retire offices. Of the 15 governors elected in from office: Joseph Garrahy (D-Rhode Is 1984-85, 10 (67 percent) had run successfully land), Scott Mathe&On (D-Utah), Richard in previous atate races and had held a visible Snelling (R. Vermont), and John RockefelJer state-level office. Of the 10, five previously (D.West Virginia). These eight out-going gov held JJtatewide office: two moved up from the ernors. five Democrats and three Republi lieutenant governor's office (Michael Castle. cans, had served a combined total of 60 years DelawBN! and Madeleine Kunin, Vermont), in the governorship, all serving for eight two from the attorney general's office (John years (except Robb, who served under a one· Ashcroft, Missouri and Gerald Baliles, Vir term constitutional limitation). ginia), and one from previous service as There has been s general trend in the governor (Arch Moore, West Virginia). Two 19809 for fewer gubernatorial incumbents to others moved from the state legislature (Nor- seek reelection: in 1980-81, there were 15 races, and 12 incumbents (80 percent) &Ought Thad L. Beyle is Proreuor or Political Science at reelection; in 1982·83, there were 39 races, the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
24 Table A Costa of Gubernatorial Campaigns, 1984-86
CoM Winne". voce ~r total s• ••• Yur All nndldl\eol Winner Ptreent ~reentaK~ "ote(b) Total ...... 11'72.$49 125.949.011 .,1.,10
Arkl n ••o( c)••••••••••• 0 1.9oIU13 8740592 " " 2. 111 o..laware(d) •••••..••. ",. .. 0 1.1)57.769 6$,111 .. .. ~ Indian':.) •••..... ",. U!III.284 2.701.966 MI ...... ri(d) ••••••..... ,• 7.014.292 2.940.503 " " Mon ••n ••) •.••... "" 482.113(.) .." " '" 0 370.744 ,,, "" " " '" N~w 1I . ... poloJ...,rcl .. "" , 1,0II'7,l118 " ' .M N.w J"e ..... 10.125,190 .. ,w ..... , &.61 North Caroiln.dl ..... "" 2.l136,176 " ,"... " , 13.727.12Stn 3'== ~ 8.1' North nlk::J.hI ..•. • ,... 0 630,00011") " M" ' .00 Rhod ~ '''.nd( ) •...... , 3.475.483 1,401.1181..... " .. 8.&1 ",. , " " ,... 0 '''' 0 ,""... 0 "", • "
man Bangerter, Utah, and George Sinner while continuing to hold onto seats in Arkan North Dakota); two were local government sas, Montana, and Virginia. The net of this leaders (Edward DiPrete, former mayor of electoral activity is that Democrat governors Cranston. Rhode Island, and Booth Gardner, stiU hold more than a two-to-one ratio(34-16) former county executive in Washington); and of the governorships as of January 1986. one was a former congressman (James Mar tin, North Carolina)_ Investigations The importance of previous statewide elec In 1985, two gubernatorial incumbents toral experience in winning the governor· were the foc us of investigations in their ship, however, is down somewhat from the states_ In February 1985, a grand jury in 198().81 period when 80 percent had such ex· dicted Governor Edwin Edwards (D·Louisi· perience, and the 1982-83 period when 85 aDa)on 51 countsoffraud and racketeering, percent had come from state offices. The posi. in which he was charged with influence ped. tions from which to lauDch a winning guber. dling by steering state hospital permits to nalorial race over lhe six-year period were companies in which he was alleged to have lieutenant governor (nine of 10, for a 90 per· had a secret interest. He argued the monies cent win rate), attorney general (eight of 13, received were for legal fees earned while he for 62 percent), and former governor (seven was out of the governor's office between of 11, for 64 percent). terms, and that the secrecy was necessary as Republicans began to show more parity in then-Governor David Treen, a Republican, their ability to hold and win gubernatorial would have thrown out any application with seats, as they won Di ne of the 15 races in Edward's name on it. The first trial ended 1984-85. They captured four governorships with a hung~ury; the second is underway at previously held by Democrats in North Caro this writing_ lina, Rhode Island, Utah, and West Virginia, On July 1, 1985. an Alaskan grand jury is while continuing their hold on five seats in sued a 69.page report on alleged favoritism Delaware, indiana, Missouri, New Hamp by Governor Bill Sheffield (D-Alaska) in the shire, and New Jersey. But Democrats cap signing ofa $9.1 million, 100year lease by the tured three formerly Republican-held spots slate, in which one of his major political sup in North Dakota, Vermont, and Washington, porters was the benefi ciary. The allegation
25 was that the governor personally changed legislature in Nebraska, and the upper house the specifications necessary for the leasing in Alaska. Ten states require a two·thirds of a building by the state so that only one vote to impeach, as is suggested in the Model building fit-that owned by his 1982 cam State Constitution, developed by the Na paign fund raiser. The grand jury did not tional Municipal League/' 17 require a ma issue any indictments in its report, but jority, and 22 have no provision for the vote recommended the state legislature call a to impeach. special session to consider impeaching the Impeachment trials are held in the upper governor for actions which thejury felt were houses in 45 states, the lower house in Alas· "a hairbreadth above the criminal level. .. 3 ka, a court of impeachment in Nebraska, a Aft.er a highly publicized set of hearings, the special commission elected by the Senate in Republican-dominated Senate refused to im Missouri (for impeachment of a governor or peach the governor, and the process stopped. Supreme Court member), and the Senate and judges of the Court of Appeals (co urt of last Gubernatorial Impeachment resort) in New York. Most state constitutions The Sheffield situation marked the first require an extraordinary majority vote to serious threat of impeachment since the late convict an official: 29 requ.ire a two-thirds 19308 when Governor Richard Leche ofLoui vote of the members, and 15 require a two siana was threatened with impeachment and thirds vote of those members present and resigned. While counts vary, there appear to voting. In Missouri, a five-sevenths vote of have been 15 gubernatorial impeachments the court of special commission is necessary and seven convictions across the 50 states.~ to convict, and in Nebraska, a two-thirds vote Threats of gubernatorial impeachment are of the court of impeachment. Alabama, Mas more than events concerning the activities sachusetts. and New Hampshire do not spe of individual governors. They are constitu· cify the number of votes necessary for con· tional crises which pit one branch of state viction. government against another-the legislative Although the provisions and procedures for versus the executive. Moreover, these crises impeachment are in place in the states, they oft.en broaden to the judicial branch which are seldom used. Since the American Revolu must reluctantly take sides with one of the tion, 2,096 governors have served in the other branches-usually the legislative-to states; only 15 (0.7 percent) were impeached, settle legal and constitutional questions and seven (0.3 percent) were convicted. Im (even though the very involvement by the peachment is more of an unlikely threat than courts has itself raised legal questions under a reality. the separation of powers clause ofm08t state constitutions). Gubernatorial Powers Among the questions the courts have had Gubernatorial succession to address are whether a state legislature can This question still remains a political issue call it.selfinto special session for the purpose in some states. In 1984. Arkansas voters of impeaching the governor (23 states can do adopted a constitutional initiative replacing so), and whether a legislature, once called in the two-year, unlimited terms provision with to special session by the governor with a spe four-year terms for the governor and other cific agenda to address, can go beyond the elected executive branch officials. Governor call to include the consideration of impeach William Allain of Mississippi, in his 1985 ment. Moreover, the courts have had to ad· message to the legislature, called for a study dress the question of what exactly an "im· of the slate constitution and gubernatorial peachable offense" is: Do the actions in· succession. volved have to be criminal or can governors In 1984, New Hampshire voters rejected a be impeached for non.criminal acts? constitutional amendment that would have All state constitutions, except Oregon's. provided the governor with a four-year term provide for the impeachment of elected offi limited to two consecutive terms, instead of cials. (For more information, see Table 2.8.) the current two-year unlimited terms provi In Oregon, elected officials are tried in the sion. The electorate did, however, adopt an same manner as criminal offenders. Im amendment which provides for the filling of peachment proceedings are initiated in the the governor's seat in the event of a vacancy lower houses of 47 states, the unicameral or incapacity. In the same year, Connecticut
26 voters adopted a constitutional amendment Gubernatorial appointments to establish procedures for declaring the gov· In 1984, Wyoming voters rejected a consti· ernor unable to hold office. The 1985 North tutional amendment that would have al· Carolina General Assembly has placed a con· lowed the governor to remove officers he or stitutional amendment on the 1986 ballot she appoints, unless otherwise provided by that, beginning in 1992, would prevent the law. governor and lieutenant governor from seek· Other activity in the appointments area ing t wo consecutive terms-a right that was concerned gubernatorial. legislative rela· just obtained in a 1977 constitutional amend· tions, which will be discussed later in this ment. analysis. In a unique transition squabble, the de· feated governor of North Dakota refused to Governo rs a nd Lieutenant Governors leave offi ce until January 5, 1985-exactly In 1984-85, there were few indications of four years from the day he took office. The the problems that 80 often characterized the newly·elected governor sought to take office relationship between these two state officials on January 1, but was thwarted in his at in the past. Instead, during this period, there tempt. Although previous governors had were more positive trends apparent in the taken office on the first day of the legislative lieutenant governorship in the states. session (which would have been January 8 First, was t he increasing political impor· in 1985), t he state Supreme Court ruled with tance of t he office, at least from an electoral the new governor. The real issues in the tran· standpoint; as noted earl ier, nine of 10 lieu· sition, however, centered on which governor tenant governors who sought the governor· would appoint two Supreme Court justices, sh.ip won their races. Moreover, Massachu· as well as the need for a hiring freeze, and setts Lieutenant Governor John Kerry bonuses for state employees.6 stepped directly from the office into a U.S. Finally, in 1984, Georgia voters adopted a Senate seat in the 1984 elections. In some constitutional amendment banning retire· states, however, there were indications that ment benefits for governors based on invol· the office still sufTers from a lack of promi· untary separation from office; that action nence and substance. In 1984, New York stemmed from a 1983 case in which the out· Lieutenant Governor Alfred Del Bello reo going governor filed for retirement benefits signed from t he office to pursue a career in arguing that he was invol untarily separated private industry. from office by the constitutional provision Nevertheless, several occupants of the lieu· restricting a governor to two consecutive tenant governor's offi ce continued to become terms. He later removed his request because more active in policy questions facing t heir of the political reaction it received. states. In 1984, the Iowa incumbent spon· sored a major two-day conference-"Iowa and Gubernatorial ueta the Future" -in an attempt to take the lead In North Carolina- the only state that does in state planning. In 1985, h.is counterpart nat provide the governor with veto power in Kentucky also formed and chaired a con· the 1985 General Assembly again refused to ference-"Kentucky Tomorrow; The Com· honor the governor's request that a constitu· mission on Kentucky's Future." In 1985, leg. tional amendment granting veto power be islation provided for a " main street pro· added to the 1986 general election ballot. gram" in the New Mexico lieutenant gover· Gubernatorial vetoes were also the subject nor's office-a program designed to assist in matter of two court actions in 1984: t he Ken· the revitalization of central business districts tucky Supreme Court ruled t hat t he state through the preservation of historic and budget must be passed by t he legislature as unique architectural structures and ec0- a bill rather than as a joint resolution im· nomic development. And the governor of mune to the line item veto of the governor; Minnesota sent h.is lieutenant on a series of and t he New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in trade missions to Sweden and Egypt. favor of the governor's use of veto power to The question of whether t he office of lieu· reduce or eliminate items in the budget tenant governor is executive or legislative in passed during the 1984 legislative session. nature continued to receive attention during
27 the biennium. In his 1985 address to the leg tinual stalemate and partisan bickering.' islature, the governor of Oklahoma called for The trend is indicative of the effect of split the team election of the governor and lieuten ticket voting in the states, as well as the con· ant governor. In November 1986, voters in tinual decline in the strength of political par South Dakota will have the opportunity to ties. consider a constitutional amendment remov ing the lieutenant governor as the presiding Separalion of powers officer ofilie senate, and requiring the gover Conflicts over constitutionally-based sepa nor to assign executive duties to the occu ration of powers iaeue8 continued to mark pant. relations between the iOvernors and legisla However, these few efforts were offset by tures. J4 the governors have grown stronger, other actions during 1984-85. In 1984, Texas SO too have the legislatures_However , these voters approved a constitutional amendment reforID8 and changes have done little to authorizing the state Senate to fill a vacancy reduce the natural executive-legislative con in the office of lieutenant governor. Events flict built into state constitutions; in fact, in 1985 pointed to the inability of governors they may have heightened the strain as the to fill tbe office when the lieutenant gover two branches have continued to vie for nor dies (as in Ohio) or resigns (as in New power-each one with more weapons at its York) and the majority leader of the Senate disposal. (a member of the opposite party) becomes the The principal of separation of powers is ex next in line of succession to the iovernorship. pressly contained in the constitutions of 38 The governor of Massachusetts faced a sim· stat.e8. Twenty.nine include some exceptions ilar problem when his lieutenant governor to a strict interpretation principal. Only 12 moved on to the U.s. Senate, thereby placing constitutions do not include any separation the aeparateiy-elected secretary of state next of powers provisions.s Hence, conflicts over in line of succession. the "turf' type of issue are oft.en left to the state courts to decide. Governors and the State Legislatures Despite an underlyini need for the state's Leguialive veto chief executive and the legislature to work The leiislative veto is a procedure legis· in harmony, particularly when eetting policy latures have adopted to permit them to and budgetary priorities in the states, the review proposed executive branch regula· relationship between these political actors tions or actions, and then block or modify continued to show evidence of stress during those with which they disagree. After a the biennium. series of national· and state-level court cases which consistently ruled against legislatures Politics ond powenpliu exercising this power based on the constitu Partisan politica are always afoot in the re tional separation of powers concept, several lationship between governon and state legis state legislatures tried other means to latures. The most obvious problem occurs achieve the same goaL g when the governor is a member of one party In 1984, Iowa voters approved a constitu· and the opposing party controls one or both tional amendment allowing the legislature houses of the legislature. Political power is to void state agency rules via a joint resolu shared, with neither party completely con tion; and legislation enacted in Virginia calls trolling both branches (or in some states, for executive and legislative review of regu even controlling both houses of the legisla· lations replacing the legislative veto. In ture). response to the Kansas Supreme Court's Power sharing is becoming more of a fact voiding of the legislative veto, legislation of life in the states, with more than half fac was adopted in 1985 to allow the legislature ing this situation during the 19808. As of to exprese concern over rules or regulationa January 1986, 28 states were divided, with and to ask that rules be amended or revoked 16 Democrat and 12 Republican governors via the adoption of concurrent resolutions. facing legislatures partially or totally domi· Taking another route entirely, the 1985 nated by the opposition party. The result can North Carolina General Assembly rewrote be healthy-forcing compromise and work· the Administrative Procedures Act to re able legislation-or disastrous, with con- strain the rule-making authority of state agencies, and set up an Office of Adminis· Mississippi court decision led to major trative Hearings with administrative law statutory changes in appointment powers, judges to settle disputes between state agen· and to a constitutional convention for addi· cies and citizens. This office was to be actio tional changes. In Pennsylvania, however, vated upon the approval of the state's Suo the 1984 legislature added four of its memo preme Court, but t he Court refused to give bers to the State Board of Education. an advisory opinion with no actual case or In 1985, in a more traditional type of dis· controversy involved, and did not want to pute, Hawaii's governor and stale Senate take a step placing itself "directly in the argued over what "advice and consent" by stream of the legislative process." the legislature meant. The governor had This non·action by the Court raised a legal nominated the acting attorney general to cloud over implementing the act, and placed become pttorney general, but the Senate into limbo the proposed eight-person Admin· Judiciary Committee, after holding four istrative Rules Review Commission to be ap hearings, refused to report out the name. pointed by the legislature. However, the When the governor kept the nominee, Senate chief justice did appoint a director, and hear· leaders argued the action was improper as ings judges were hired. Now, the governor the individual had been " rejected" by that has challenged the constitutionality of the body. The governor countered that the nomi· revised act, charging that the regulatory nee had not been "rejected," since the authority of the executive branch has been nomination had not gone before the full infringed upon by not authorizing ~ber . chamber. Before the constitutional question natorial appointment of the director. 0 of legislative " advice and consent" could be In the 1984 general election, Alaska voters ' decided however, the nominee resigned,!2 defeated a constitutional amendment permit Since 1929, under the constitutional exec· ting a legislative veto, and in Michigan, the utive budget provision, New York governors electorate defeated an amendment that have been exercising discretion in authoriz· would have allowed a joint legislative com· ing the filling of state positions. More recent mittee to review agency rules prior to adop· ly, however, the legislature became disen· t ion. In 1985, New Jersey voters refused to chanted with the governor's failure to au· affirm legislative veto power for their legis· thorize the filling of vacancies (with lature. 1983.appropriat-ed funds) in four state agen, cies. The 1984 appropriations bill specifically Appointments provided funds for additional positions, and A related area of conflict between the exec· instructed the budget director to follow a utive and legislative branches involves ap plan that would insure staffing levels were pointments to office, and particularly the role achieved, and to periodically report to the of the legislature in this process. Legislatures legislature's fiscal committees,! have the constitutional authority to confirm gubernatorial appointments, and in some The budgetary process states, have the constitutional or statutory Considerable executive-legislative stress authority to make appointments to executive still exists in the budget process and in deter· branch boards and commissions-sometimes mining the role each branch should play in even appointing legislators to those posi. the development and implementation of the tions. In 1983, four states strictly banned budget. The conflicts have been over who legislators from being appointed to boards controls the creation and implementation of and commissions, and 11 01 hers allowed the budget, and the desire of the legislatures them to serve only if the body was advisory to gain more control over federal grant in nature. More importantly, however, 20 monies coming into the state. The trend duro states permitted legislators to sit on boards ing 1984·85, albeit slight, has been in t he and commissions exercising management re governors' favor. spons ibilities. II In a major shift increasing gubernatorial Such actions are viewed as "legislative in· budgetary power in Mississippi, 1984 legisla· trusion" into the executive branch, and have tion moved the budget initiative authority been successfully challenged in Kentucky, from the Commission of Budget and Account MiSSiSSippi, and North Carolina by both gov ing to the governor's office, which is to sub ernors and citizen members of boards. A 1984 mit the budget to the Legislative Budget Of·
29 fice. Once adopted, a new Fiacal Manage Notea ment Board, consisting of the governor and L Rhodes Cook, et aJ.. "The 1986 Governors' two of his appointees will oversee daily Elections: De5pile History, Opportunity Knockl ror budget operations. The former Board of GOP," CongrtuionaJ Quart~ly WNkly Rtport44:1 Budget and Control was a mixed executive (January 4, 1986): 3. 2. Since the 19208, six governors, including Ed· legislative body consisting of the governor, wards, have been indicted while in office: Warren president of the Senate, chairman of the T, McCray (Indiana, 1924) and Marvin Mandel Senate Finance Committee, and the chair (Maryland, 1977) were oonvicted; Arch Moore man of the House Ways and Means Commit (Weill Virginia,I975)and William LangerCNorth .... Dakota, 1934) ....-ere round not guilty, and later .uc During the biennium, two other states also eessfully toughl reelection; and Edward L. Jacmn made changes in their budgetary processes. (Indiana, 1928) never came to trial. See "Indict. In 1984, Virginia voters adopted a constitu ment of Governors in Office, Historical," State tional amendment requiring a balanced bud Policy Rtport, 3:6 (March 1985): 29, get, and Alabama voters approved a "budget 3. Bruce Scandling, "Alaska Impeachment Hear ing Delayed," USA Today (July 15, 1985): 3A. isolation" amendment, which ties the pas 4. ThOle governors convicted and removed were: sage of other legislation to the appropriations William Holden (North Carolina, 1870); David bill. The amendment requires a three·fifths Butler (Nebr8llka, 1871); Adelbert Arne. (Miuia vote for any legislation passed prior to the sippi, 1876); William Sulzer (New York, 1918); approval of the major appropriations mea James Walton (Oklahoma, 1923); Henry Johnston sures-education and the general fund. (Oklahoma, 1929); and James FergullOn (Texa.), Also in 1984, Arizona voters rejected a con who resigned a day before hia conviction in 1917. stitutional amendment that would have pro Another governor'. term ended berore the im vided for legislative control over federal peachment trial took place (Henry Clay Warmoth, Loui.iana, 1872), and two other incumbenLl re monies received by executive branch agen signed under the threat of impeachment (Ames of cies. Miuisaippi and Leche or Louisiana). Executive-legislative budget problems of Silt other governors were impeached, but won ac another sort were reported in North Carolina quittal in their trials: Charlet! Robinson (KanllU, where the governor lacks the "policing 1862); HarrillOn Reed (Florida, 1868 and 1873): power" of a veto. Recently, there has been Powell Clayton (Arkan888, 18711; Johnston (Okla an increase in the state legislature's use of homa, 1928) who was later impeached and re special provisions in the budget bill which moved from office; Huey Long (Louisiana, 1929); go beyond the normal instructions to the ex and Henry Horton (Tennessee, 1931 ). For an analyais or gubernatorial impeachment, ecutive branch on how monies are to be see Thad L_ 8eyle, "1985: It WH8 A Great Year spent. The provisions have been used to for Governor Watchers," unpublished mIJ., Depart. amend, repeal, and change laws outside the ment of Political Science, University of North budget act; to establish new programs or Carolina at Chapel HilL alter powers and duties of existing agency 5. Thad L. Beyls, State GowrnmenL· CQ', Gu.we programs; to establish new executive branch /l) Cu.rrent/nut, ond Actjujt~1, 198$-86 (Wash boards, commissions, and councils, or alter ington, D.C.: Congreaaional Quarterly Prete, Inc., the powers of existing boards; to change pro 1985): 197. gram eligibility requirements; and to change 6. Theodore Pedeliski, "North Dakota'. funding formulas and tax laws. In the 1981 Gubernatorial Transition 1984-85: Battling It Out in the Budgetary Badlands," unpublished m•. , regular session, there were 36 special provi Department of Political Science, Univeuily of sions; in the 1985 seasion, 118-an increase North Dakota. of 328 percent in four years. H 7. Sharon Sherman, "Powersplit: When Leriala ture. and Governou Are of Opposing Partiea," ugilllati~ sessions Stau ~6~loturt. 10:5 (May/June 1984): 9-12. New Hampshire voters rejected a 1984 con 8. Jody George and Lacy Maddox, "Separation stitutional amendment that would have or Powers Provi.iona in State Constitutiona," in eliminated the power of the governor and the Boord.. Commj"ionl, ond Council. in the execu Executive Council to extend a legislative re tiw Branch of North Carolino Stote Gowrnmrnt (Raleigh: North Carolina Center for Publk Policy cess without the legislature'S consent_ Research, 1984): 51. 9. The U.s. CongreS!l lost the power in Immi· sions." Stale Legilliative Rf'porl (Denver: National gmtion and Naturalirotion &ruicr 11. Jadi"h Rai Conference of State Legislatures, 1983). Chondho (1983): state legislatures in Alaska, Con· 12. Anne F. Lee, " Hawsii Legislative Report: necticut, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, New Hamp 1985 Session," Comparotive Slate Politin New,fet· shire, and West Virginia lost the power between ler (October 1985): 15. 1982 and 1984. 13. Joseph F. Zi mmerman, " New York Legisla· 10. "Executive and Legislative Power," Stote ture Mandates the fo'il1 ing of Vacancies," Compa. l'aliry Reports 4:2 (January 29, 1986): 28. See also, rative Stole Politic. Newdetter (June 1985): 7·8. Rob Christensen, "Martin Plans to Challenge Law 14. Ran Coble, "Special Provisions in Budget on R ule~," The(Raleigh, N.C ') Newil olld Ob8erver Bills: A Pandora's Box for North Caroli na's Citi· (March 18, 1986): 1A; 9A. zens," (Raleigh: North Carolina Center for Public II. "Legislators Serving on Boards and Commis- Policy Re!ICarch, 19861.
31 Table 2.1 THE GOVERNORS 1986
~.. "." g~ggg giggg gg~g~ ggg ~ g hll~ 2- 11 · 1 h1h~ "1-, :l~:!!:H :!!H:!!:l :H:i~:i :!!~:!!:i:!! ~"O- •• 33 Table 2.2 THE GOVERNORS, QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICE U.S..... rldVII A_...... , "n.o...... " • "''''''- ...... "• • Cali' ...... , • C-.M ...... C-*- ...... • ...... • IleoWo ...... • Goo • ~1;"1MI PfO"ioIoA: ...... beI of Jfti"...... opoc/f'oed • • . •_No ro...... prooi ...... (I) 0- ~. Bo.d Go...... ,.. ·. ActVOf '" JI.tr ,,_1. #011 ~ 'If~ ,- Ollw<... iwudK1 _ ,.., .",. A W I~ •.,.M Hd,"""" ""- ,?fl/::::. A_"'• ... $6Un ~ • • OJ • ,_...... lUll • ,,, • A,b ...... 62.}00 " • • " J Ar~ ...... J'.OOO .." • ,., • CoIl fo.."l • •••••••••••. 49.100 Ill.) • (OJ '" c.Io>rooto ••. ~.~ C • • \OJ • C-*-t ...... 6' .000 ~ • \OJ • 1_ ...... ~.~ U • II.jOO(d) • ,_ ..... 18.1'1 JS(tI) • • "' • c-p, ... 19.)" .. • • OJ"' • .. u.n .... ' 9. .00 • 4$.OOOld) Ido"" ~.~ IS/i) • • ., • lliiaoh ••••••••••••.•. n.ooo ,~" • • 11l.;I(lO(d) • 10011 .... M.9IIS • • • , • 1_0 ...... M.~ " • • ., • ,- ~ • • ., • 1WtM ...., •.•••.•. •61 .200 " • • • ,,' • n ..oo "~ • • • n .OIXI(d) • 1--101.1 ...... J,.OOO • • ,., 101 .0") ' .... . 71.000 10901" • • • ,., • M ...... ~ ...... TS.OOO '00 • • • \OJ Mkk"" ••••••••••. ".100 .. • • • (OJ • 1011._ •. U • • ,., • M ~ •••••••••••• ... ~'" n • • U .OJ1(d) • Mhootorl .... .I1.IDI. (OJ " • • • ""' ...... XI." l 2'-1" • • ',J • s_• .. ~ .~ .. • • • " J • s ..· ...... (0' • s ... Ih ..p . hl ...... " • ,., " I k) 1'1' .... J ....~ ••••••••. " .OOO ~" • • · I t ) '" 1'1' ... M <; 35 THE GOVERNORS, COMPENSATION-Continued 37 ,...... -:s:-o- ", :u: : u :: :'" '" .", .. ., .. ., ...... , • •••• :< • ... ..: . ..: : . ., .. ., .. ., ...... :: :: ., , • I P~ .: . . .• .. 8. ~ ~ r ! b .~ . ., "~ ~I ""·" : . ... , . , ., .....':; .;E.. ""''''~ ., ...... ~IID"'I ~I"'PO 01 t»fq ~$ "',.~~ ""1''''1/11'''' ".,. twllt/ "' --- ., ~" ...... i, · .. •• ~ ~~ ~ l, !, z '" ,,"0":-"- . ':' o ., .••...... c:; "• . ~:;~.... ! .. , ..-'" ~, , • " ~ 1J(J!'lUiSl~I"'ptI . , ...... , . , ., .. JnM~~I·'S z o ;:: ~O 'WCfSSI"'IM().J/ rNlII"'lM().J : .... /I14II_ ..! '" ., ...... "" ...... '" "",,1< " "!""'!~ ...... ~ ',f~ '" up"~""" . ~ :;1 C>!/lltod ',u,,"'''p ...... ",W/IP "~t:J i2'" z'" '" '" " 39 · .E . E. .. . ·: : :: .. • · ! • . ·. "C" '5 I: € : ~ . ~ 6 .:h i • .... ~ ... .. ·...... • • ... · .... . • .. . · .. · .... ...,,,...... , ,(,..,.,,,"". : : . z. . -~ . ~- - ....0 '.:i., . . •·. . • · • • ...... ."...... ! "!I'IM _,..", • ...... • MWjIp HOI:> I .• "'-;;/1.1'" U..,.., ...... -"',...... - :;0 m "'''''''~i .;" ~~ · .... · . fhif 1i ~$ "; h Table 2.6 STATE CABINET.. SYSTE MS ;I. .g• i'Cl ll'Cl itt "'·um/)noJ ." WS;~ • i~~ m ..... , .~ ~!~ crztm.t!' I Fffljut!lIq oj NJ/>in'" (i""'"di~1 & ~ j It~ ! n ~h ",,"'nor) ~/>i"". """''''''IS ...... """ "n'. AI. b ..... • • ,. Go • .". di"',""n • Al.,I<0 . • . • • R..,ul.,ly * 11 1 Ariro... . • " "".. kl y A.hn ... • • " R'lull.ly Colilo,nl •.... . • • • " Ev Mon'... . . *. II 6"mna~.. • ,,,,,", ...k. •• n W..,Uy ..-___•• _ • _____•• _____·_ (Ol ______••• ______·_···_· __ ~ __ I'I~·- .d • .... . N ... n.m ...... --_···_----_·_-----_·_------(·1 .----.. ---. N ... h • ..,. . •• • 21 0- or IW"", monlhly 1'1'." Muko . . . • 11 Mon'hly /II... YOI1< •••• ••• • • • 21 eo• .". di", ... lon N .. ". COI .... _ ..i) • . • . . . * 10 M"",hJy N ..... [)ohl' •.. . -----"'------0IIk> • ••• •• • • • n Gov.". dioe, ,,,.,n II) Okl.hU"'. • • 10) Go .... dioa",iotr ( ...... • II W..,kly ""nn" I.. nl. • • • . . 20 Go,.", di ..... i"" • MhOO. hlood •• ..--.~. -- ---. -- ~ - .------·_------1<) ------_·_-_·_---_···_-- S So11101' ''0 • • • . • . l6 MOfIlhly ""nol \·I.. l..t . ... -----... -'.-.. --'- ·__ · ·--·-1< )----·_-_··_-----_·_---_·_- ""10<" 0<1 • . ------_···_···_···_------·-1< 1----·-- --... - .. -...... ---.------.- "", ..",I. J ... ·-C< )· •• .-----. K.)': hal" nor l>c 41 Table 2.7 THE GOVERNORS: PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURES ..oR TRANSITION I~_· ebW, 1010" A_ ...... ,.j A ...... - " n-...... A r1< _ ••.•••..••. • 6O:cioOIb, • • 00II,_ ...... • _,(IOO(() • • • • C__ ...... • IG.OOOIeI' • • • • • • C_ ...... • n ... • • • Dolo ...... • 49.00010' • """"" ...... ".000 GootJio ··· .. · .. ·· .. . • • • • • • Ib...... • ~ ... • • • • • • ,...... • ~ ... • • • • 1111 ...... 10 ...... • 4G·.000 • • • • • I ...... ' W 10.000 • • ","J ""_ ...... • 100.000 • • • • • • knI.... , ...... • u....,r... • • • • • • ...... • 10.000 • • • M_ ...... • , • • • M..,_ ...... • ...... • • • • • M_ ...... • • • • IoIkWpto ...... • '.000.0001<1 • • 101-...... • N." • • • • 1oI ~ ...... • n." • • • • • • PoI ~ •••••••••••. • 100.000 • • • M... t. .. . . • • • • • • • N ...... 10.000(1) • "'""_ ...... '.0001"'1'" • • N. .. II ...... • ,... • • • • • N... ' .....,. •••••••••• • ,..... • • • • • No«- M.;Ute ...... """' y...... • ", • • • N... ~c....IIM •..••• • ,,:ooQ:.) • • • N.... DM_ ...... • ow...... • • • • ~ ...... '" • • 0..-,...... • • • • • • '--..-- ...... • 'OJ",~= • • • _1_...... • s... c..I...... • ... .. • • • • SoootI. Dolo...... • 10.000101 • • • T_ ...... • ., • T ...... • • • \/...... • • V..-...... 11',000 ' ~ (q) • • • vital ...... ,...... • .....' 2.000 • • • • • "'"". -... y...... "" ...... • Un..p.;.cirkd • • • • • • "''1-...... "j • • A ...... s.- ... . "",,","" Gu...... ,.N• . M ...... '1tPo 1_ ... .. ' ..... ", . " ... " . . • . . lIn 9 :::l co co co ss co :SSf co co :f 0: ,..... 2- ." ." ." " °" ." ." , , JJ . ~~ .! jjjjj] i!jjH jjjjjjjj ~ .1;<>'.1;<>.] • t E jj jj j ~'H . E E E E E" E" z:! E E E E" E " E " E . E" E~ 6$E ., ... .a ... .I;,o ... .1; ... .1; ...... a ... - ~'H ;:;;:;;:;;:; ~ E~ E E ;:;;:;;:;;:;i ~ E::::; E~ ;; ;; '.• ~ ;; s;:; • ;; ;; .'.;; in ::...'" .. " .. ". .". -z , t~~ '] E. H E' Ed ".iii i :h , :d , ~ : E E" i E E : E ~]l ." ';i- •...;,..;.1; ... ·..;,;i- ·7 's-; . 'f 'S;:; i;; , HE ~;E E " ;; i ~ e ~ ~ ... "" .. ,, " "" ". "" " """"" """ " " , , , , , ~ , :Jj ~ .~ i:: : . : . . ,1. ~ .,~ ~] .. .. :1 ,; .. : I ~ • , 'I H,t := ... =... , j • !. • 1 , T- ='t· , ! 3,.-.... nUl < a ua H=• • ",,:1.:1.:1. izolz:1. 43 ••• • • • ...... nlil•• rl '0 '0 . I;) :<.:10 : d§ II :.... . g :gg ...l ...... • :: : g ~ 0'ira. '" cc , .!! .. ~~.~ in.i.E [ l.ii e "el! iIlil iiii, .]> .... ii...... i ,.".. !e1i!~ i!S.i! ~ . ~! ;::;Ee;:::;;::; , " , ;::;;;;e;::;e e;:::; B;::; ;;;;;; ,• ~ s s s s ~ ;;I~ t-n! ...... • ...... t i . , '.i, ...5.5 .. '·"e-si '. ·s;;fE ~XX% % % XXX XXX.: XXX.: THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH: ORGANIZATION AND ISSUES 1984-85 By Thad L. Beyle State Government Organization trial Development in t he Department of States tend to be cautious when it comes to Commerce; and Wyoming created an Eco making major revisions in their governmen nomic Developme nt and Stabilization Board tal structures; it is never entirely clear that (1985). something new will be better than the status Several states took steps to enhance the ex quo or that the structure is the cause of the porting ability of small- and medium-sized problems. But when major changes in state businesses: Illinois created an Export De organizational configurations do occur, they velopment Authority (1983); Minnesota es often occur in several states at approximate· tablished an Export Finance Authority in Iy the same time. For example, a major wave the Department of Agriculture (1983); North of state government reorganizations took Dakota set up an Export Trading Company place between the mid·1960s and the mid· in conj unction wi th the Industrial Commis· 1970s-the fourth such wave in t his century. sion (fu\ly operational in 1985); and Okla However, in the 19808, there have been no homa created an International Development major state government reorganizations. Division within its Department of Economic While many reorganization efforts are un· Development (1985). dertaken for economy and efficiency pur A number of other states established agen poses, evidence that these goals actually are cies and funds designed to provide fi na ncial achieved is lacking. In fact, it may be that assistance to economic development efforts: governmental reorganization is more of a Arkansas created a Finance Development political-rather than an administrative Authority, which may sell tax·exempt bonds tool.! Nevertheless, Oklahoma is consider for industrial development loans or for cap" ing major reorganization into a cabinet sys· ital improvements, and converted a private tern, following t he recommendations of its agency, First Arkansas Development Corpo governor and the Commission on Reform of ration, into the Arkansas Capital Corpora. State Government, and the governor of Iowa tion to provide financial assistance to finan also is proposi ng major reorganization in cial instit utions and businesses (1985); Ha t hat state. waii set up a Capital Loan Revolving Fund for small local businesses (1985); Iowa Partial reorganization created a new authority to make grants to During t he biennium, most reorganization lending institutions for lower interest rates activity in the states was of a partial nature, on operating loans to farmers a nd small busi· as has been the pattern over t he past decade. nesses (1 985); Nebraska established the In The majo!" reorganization activity was in the vestment Finance Authority for making area of economic development: Arizona es loans to compa nies pla nning to construct of tablished a Department of Commerce to re fice buildings in the state, and a Small Busi place the Governor's Office of Economic Plan ness Development Authority to provide fi ning a nd Development (1985); Idaho and nancial a nd technical assistance(1984); Ver West Virginia each created a Department of mont set up a State Industl"ial Development Commerce (1 984); Missouri changed the Fund w make loans available to financially name of its Department of Consumer Affairs troubled farmers (1985); and Virginia created to the Department of Economic Development the Statewide Certified Development Com (1984); Rhode Island set up a Small Business pany and a Small Business Financing Act to Ad vocacy Council (1985); Was hington assist small businesses with capital needs, created a Department of Trade and Economic Development (1985); West Virginia set up a Thad L. Beyle ill Profe$$Or of Political Science at Governor's Office of Commerce a nd Indus- the University of North Carolina al Chapel Hill. 45 the Statewide Development Company to use vert a branch of the state university into a federal Small Business Administration funds prison (1984). to assist small businesses, and a Rural Devel Energy: Kansas granted new powers to the opment Foundation for economic programs entity that regulates the Wolf Creek nuclear in rural areas (1984)_ power plant (1984); and West Virginia In 1984·85,80me states took steps to foster created a Department of Energy to oversee closer ties between economic development ef coal, oil, gas exploration, production, and forts and higher education: Arkansas took conservation, and a Public Energy Develop action to provide matching grantA to spur ment Authority to issue bonda for building universitylindustry cooperation in research. energy·related facilities (1985). product development. and production pro EnvironmenL' ArUon8 established the ce88e8 (t 985); Kentucky established the Of Commission on Arizona Environment (1985); fice of Business and Technology in the Com California created the Coastal Conservancy mer« Cabinet to expedite the transfer of to assist in providing public access to beaches technology to existing busine88eS (1984); and in the public domain, and the Tahoe Conser· Virginia created a Center for Innovative vancy to acquire environmentally·sensitive Technology to foster the cooperative develop lands in that basin (1985); Indiana set up a ment of technology between industry and Natural Heritage Protection Fund (1984); public institutions of higher education (1984). Nebraska established a Water Management Other areas of organizational activity in Board and a management fund (1984); and the states were quite varied. New Mexico created a Rangeland Protection Adminiatralion: Illinois, by executive Advisory Committee within the Department order, created the Office of Inspector General of Agriculture (1985). "to investigate and/or coordinate the investi Hazordoua waste: Idaho set up a special gation. regulation, licensing, and inspection planning committee for a statewide survey to of all persons, matters, and entities subject identify areas best suited for hazardous to reguJation. licensing, and inspection under waste facilities (1985); Kansas granted the the laws" of the stat..e(l984); New Hampshire Department ofHeaIth and Environment ad restructured ita Department of Revenue Ad ditional power to ban the burial of hazardous ministration (1985); New Jersey established waste, and created a "superfund" to help fi· a General Services Administration in the De nance cleanup efforts (1984); and in Califor partment of Treasury (1984); Texas created nia, a controversial gubernatorial reorgani· a real property asset management and inven zation plan tocreat.e a Department of Waste tory program under a new Asset Manage Management by consolidating toxic waste ment Division to review state holdings every control programs in 12 agencies was pending four years and make recommendations sub before the legislature at this writing. ject to comment by the state's Purchasing HeoUh.: Florida established a statewide a.nd General Services Commission; and Vir databank containing information on medical ginia revamped ita cabinet form of adminis incidents and claims (1985); Iowa (1985) ex trative structure, by creating separate secre tended the life of its Health Data Commis taries for administration and finance, and sion; and Wyoming created a health care combining the transportation and public data authority to collect and report financial safety secretaries (1984). and other data (985). Several reorganization Education: Indiana created a single II· measures were related to cost containment member State Board of Education by merg in the health area: Florida authorized the ing the Commission on General Education, state Hospital Cost Containment Board to the Cornmis6ion on Teacher Training and Li approve each of the state's hospitals' budgetA censing, and the Commission of Textbook annually and to assess fines when the ap Adoptions (1984); Iowa set up a foundation proved budget rates are exceeded (1964); to research educational issues and distribute Hawaii declared the Health Planning and results to schools and policy makers (1985); Development Agency's principal function to North Dakota voters rejected a 1984 statu· be health care cost containment (1984); tory initiative to require the state Board of Washington legislation continued the Higher Education to give up control over the Hospital Commission in order to assist the state's three junior colleges; and South legislature in enacting positive cost contain· Dakota dropped a controversial plan to con- ment legislation, although much of impor. tance in the act was vetoed by t he governor Some entities were dismantled during t he (984); and West Virginia created t he state biennium: Alaska voters adopted a 1985 ini Hospital Aut hority to sell bonds a nd notes tiative repealing t he Alaska Transportation to provide fi nancing fo r hospit a l im· Commission; Rhode Island eliminated the provements and equipment purchases (1984). Department of Community Affairs, a long Human services: Arkansas reorganized the wit h several boards a nd commissions (1985); Department of Human Ser vices, and shifted and in Texas, the Healt h Facilities Commis the powers of three boards to its director sion was abolished. ma king it the first major (1985); Hawaii established a Human Services state agency to close under the Sunset Act Citizen AdvilJOry Board to he lp revise pro (1985). In 1984, t he New Ha mpshire Sunset vider roles and responsibilities. and a State Committee recommended abolishing 16 of Council on Mental Illness (1984); and New the 64 state programs under review, and Mexico created a state agency on agin g making major cha nges in 21 others. The (1984). Some states directed t heir attention 1978 law calls for the review of one·third of to childre n: Arkansas combined children's t he state's agencies every two years; since services from several divisions into t he 1981. the state has reviewed 180 programs, Children and Family Services Division, a nd terminated 35, and altered 65. established a Missing Children Information Clearinghouse; Wisconsin created a Child Exec utive Bra nc h Issues Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board (1984); Selection of officials and Wyoming set up a state commission on Another state may join the list of those oon child support (1985). ducting t heir state and local elections in non Transportation: Florida once again reor· presidential election years in an effort to in· ganized ita Department of Transportation sulate those races from national election (1985); Minnesota set up a Regiona l Tra nsit trends and impacts. In 1985, the North Caro Board for t he greater Minneapolis-St. Paul Iins General Assembly took action to place metropolitan area (1984); and New Hamp on the 1986 ri rst primary ballot a refere n· shire created a new Department of Transpor dum on the question of shifting state and tation incorporating the Department of Pub county elections from even· to odd-numbered lic Works and Highways, t he Aeronaut ics years, beginning in 1989. If adopted, the Commission, t he transportation function of statewide officials elected in 1988 would t he Public Utilities Commission, and the serve a n extra year- through 1993- t hus mass a nd urban transit planning function of placing the state's elections in the same cycle t he Office of State Planning. as New Jersey and Virginia. Miscellaneous: Connecticut voters a p That would leave only 12 states remaining proved a 1984 constit utiona l amend ment to on the presidential-yea r cycle.' In 1964,29 move t he Criminal Justice Division to the ex states held their elections in t he same year ecutive branch, Illi nois, by executive order, as nationa l races; by 1972, t he number had set up a new Department of Employment Se· dropped to 19. As in North Carolina. many curity to administer the unemployment in· of the election year shifts have been state surance program (1984), Missouri estab Democratic Party responses to t he electoral lished a Public Telecommunications Author problems posed by national party candidates ity to expand public programming to r ural for president and vice-president. areas of the state; New Hampshire consoli In 1985, Alabama took a step in reaction dated individual agencies to create a new De to incrensing Republican strength in t he partment of Libraries, Arts, and Historical state, by moving the state's primary elec Resources, and created a new Department of tions (first primary a nd runoll) from Justice, by combining the attorney general's September to June, beginning in 1986. The office with some others (985); Oregon con · move is expected to allow party nominees solidated the state Banking Division and Of· more time to heal any political wounds Buf· rice of Savings and Loan Supervisor into a fered in a bruising runoff before the general new Division of Financial Institutions in t he election- from less t han a month and a ha lf Department of Commerce (1985); and West to four and a half months between the pri Virginia created a new authority to sell maries and general election .3 bonds to set up jails by region. instead of by During the biennium. some states changed county (1985). the method used to select particular execu- 47 tive branch officials. In 1985, Louisiana abol ported it effective); Program Evaluation, in ished the unique tradition of electing the 34 states (13 reported it effective); Perfor state Board of Education and the superinten mance Measurement, Reporting and Moni dent, in favor of having the Board appoint toring, in 31 states (only four reported it ef the superintendent.. In 1984, Colorado voters fective); a computerized Management Infor adopted a constitutional amendment making mation System, in 30 states (only 16 reported the insurance commissioner a gubernatorial it effective); Zero·Base Budgeting, in 10 appointee rather than a civil servant. states (only seven found it effective>; Manage One slate changed the specifics involved in ment by Objective, in 10 states (only four recalling its officials. In 1984, Oregon voters found it effective); and Quality Circles, in agreed to a constitutional proposal changing nine StaUlS (four found it effective). States in the necessary number of signatures on recal.1 the northeast and north central psrts of the petitions from 25 percent of the votes cast in country reported greater use of these tools, the last election for Supreme Court justice as did states with larger budgets. e to 15 percent of the votes cast for governor. There was, however, growing concern over Other proposed changes. however, were not the central management capabilities of the successful. In 1984. Georgia volers rejected states. Two surveys conducted during the a constitutional amendment providing for biennium revealed that less than half of the the appointment oflhe slate superintendent. states had discernable central management In the same year, South Dakota voters de improvement units. Those that had such feated a constitutional amendment to elimi· units located them in the governor's office nate the elective office of state treasurer. (New York), in a management and budget of· In 1984 , four states redefined eligibility for fi ce reporting directly to the governor (Alas· service in particular offices. California now ka, Maryland, Michigan, Tennessee), in a permits its state constitutional offi cers to budget and planning office (Florida, Georgia, reside anywhere in the state. Georgia voters, TexllS, Wisconsin), or in departments of ad· in approving a constitutional amendment, ministration (Colorado, Minnesota, North banned dual office holding by state and local Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania).' government officials. Maryla nd voters Some reports have called for the governors adopted a constitutional amendment requir to give management improvement a stronger ing all constitutional elected officials to be emphasis in their administrations. In addi· registered voters. And North Carolina voters tion to the effort noted above, the National agreed to an amendment requiring attorneys Governors' Association also provided an an· general and district attorneys to be author alysis of the management capabilities of the ized to practice law. states.7 On the policy side, some of the states have Poli4!y mantJBl!ment undertaken a process known as "issue scan During the biennium, there appeared to be ning." A variety of officials &ca n relevant little change in how state governments are periodicals, papers, and other materials for managed on a day-to-day basis. No new man information and events that may be indica agement systems-such as MBO, Zero-Base tive of trends, and then funnel the items into Budgeting, or strategic planning- were be a central coordinating location. Periodically, ing pushed through the states, and activities officials with a variety of perspectives review tended to focus on data management systems these bits of information, note trends that for the budget process.4 Instead, it appears could affect the state, and determine their that the states are incorporating a range of policy implications. sophisticated tools into their management Eight states (Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, and budgeting processes, and in doing so are Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, Oklahoma, finding varying degrees of effectiveness in and Pennsylvania) are reported to conduct the use of these tools. issue scanning, while several other states are A 1984 study reported that Forward·Year attempting to develop similar processes. Projection of Expenditures and Revenues Some regional organizations have conducted was in use in 42 states (26 reported it effec issue acanning projects for their regional con tive); Program Analysis prior to program ap stituents, and the Council of State Policy and proval, in 40 states (24 reported it effective>; Planning Agencies coordinates an 11 - Program Budgeting, in 37 states (only 14 re- member "State Scanning Network," which 48 reports bi-monthly to the governors of all wrongdoing in government. In Iowa, legisla. states.' tion enacted in 1984 protects state employees In other policy developments during the from reprisals for disclosing waste or mis biennium: Delaware created an Office of management, and in Rhode Island, 1984 leg State Planning and Coordination, designed islation stipulates the employees no longer to work through four new cabinet cou ncils can be threatened, fired, or discriminated in providing a three-year pol icy agenda for against for reporting violations of law or for the state; Florida now requires the gover· participating in investi gations. nor's offi ce to submit a plan for orderly growth management; and futures projects Ethics were undertaken in Connecticut. Idaho, With legislation enacted in 1984 , three Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, states took steps to more clearly define eth Ohio, South Carolina, and Virginia. ical behavior for public officials: an Illinois law requires state officials to file annual ec0- Patronage nomic disclosure statements or face new pen States continued to address the question of alties: Nebraska legislation prohibits the at how far down the bureaucracy a governor's torney general and all assistant attorneys power should extend. North Carolina in general from engaging in the private prac creased the job security of state employees tice of law; and the connict of interest law in 1985 by reducing the seniority necessary in Rhode Island now covers all state em to qualify for protection against arbitrary or ployees. political firings, and by setting caps on the For two other states, however, efforts in the number of employees who serve at the plea area were not as successful. In 1984 , Missis sure of the governor.9 sippi voters rejected a constitutional amend That same year, however, Virginia re ment that would have banned public officials moved 500 top state policy makers from cov or employees from misusing their office for erage under the commonwealth's grievance profit. The amendment .....ould have prohib procedures in order to ~ive the governor ited a public official from doing business with more control over policy. 0 (or having an interest in) a business that con· tracts with the level of government in which Whistfeblower protection he or she serves. In July 1985, the Massachu· Two more states took steps to protect state setts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the employees from retaliation for reporting State Ethics Commission lacks the authority Table A Sunshine Laws In The States: Major Provisions 1"",_1>'... 1,.1 or ...her remed"l _ioon 10 _iOod it 1.0 .. yiol.\.ed " eom"';I __i np ",.. 111. b.. """n .. M_;"lI' ollooool .... ,liM ", .. 01 b.. __ .. 1>;0< ....""". In .....ili<>n to .«... 1 """ioion m •• i...." m .... be ""Id in _n """""11" " No n~mptl ..... to open...... ,.i...., pnwioio ...... lIo wood 11,,1_ . ped flood In.'''' I, .. " 10. poloey ...... " ..ml "r- .he ...... i .... I..... """Id bo 1iI..... Uy ...... "'" " Wher-e cloMd (n.... ti ...) _iooou.re .110",,".• 11 n ....1 _io... m.... be ""ken in open _I",," " Qu ..I ·judlriol _inp m .... boo open ~ \I'!>en lIMo I... pennlta d".oed _i..... I"" put. Invol.ood "",y req_ that lhe)' be ope""" H n..re it rIO _ ..... lOr d ...... in __n ...... ,_ or ott- IinaDdal ....'IftI'n ,...... " ... _ .... " " 49 to fine a public official for violation of the Notes commonwealth's conflict of interest law.1I 1. James Conant, "Reorganization and the Bot-> tom Line," P"blic Admini.lralitm Revitw 46:1 Open government (JanuarylFebruary 1986): 55. During the biennium, sunshine laws and 2. 11u-ee of the 12 remaining statE&-New Hamp shire, Rhode Illand, and Vermont-hold their elec· provisions continued to be of interest in the tiona every two year&, 10 they lwing back and forth states. A 1984 Virginia law amended the from a prelidential to a non·presidential election state's Freedom of Information Act in re year. As such, only nine of the remaining .tatel sponse to a court ruling- public bodies will elect their officia!. in conjunction with the presi· no longer be able to conduct meetings dential election. through telephonic, video, electronic, or other S. David 1.. Martin, "Alabama Legislative Devel· communications means. In 1985, Hawaii opments," Comparalive StaJ.e Polilin Newluller amended its sunshine law--establishing the 6:3 (June 19M): 2. right of private citizens to sue if a meeting 4. "Stste Government Management," Stale Po/,. subject to the law is closed (in violation of the icy Reporll 3:23 (December 1985): 9. 5. Stanley B. Botner, ''The Use of Budgeting! law), and restricting the holding of executive Management Tooll by State Governments," P!Jblic sessions by bodies covered under the Jaw. Adminiltrotion Reuiew 45:5 (September/October, Moreover, the amendment provides an affir 1985): 616-20. mative right to the public to speak on any 6. Coalition to Improve Management in State agenda item at any meeting held by those and Local Government, The GolJf!rnor'. Manag~ bodies covered under sunshine require. ment Impt'f'lWmtnl Program..' How to Do /I (Wash· mcnts.12 ington. D.C.: Natklnal Academy of Public Adminis A 1984 study ofthe sunshine laws across tration, 19M): 14-16. 7. Office of Slate Services. R«Jrgonization and the states identified 23 separate provisions MOIUl(/'tmtnt lmproorment lnitiotivn: An Euoy of that can be contained in these laws, and Stale E:x"nUnt:C (Washit!ilon. D.C.: National Gov. found that the states varied considerably in ernor', A8IOciation, 1986). their definition of sunshine (as measured by 8. National Scanning Board, Reporllo the GoM the combinations of these provisions). Ten· non (Washington, D.C.: Council of Slate Palicy ne8See and Florida led the states by contain· and Planning Agencies, bi-monthly), and Commit ing 21 and 20 of these provisions, respective tee on Southern Tranda, LooJcing Forward: Viliont ly, while Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and orthe F"tu~ orlhe Soulh 50 Tllble 2.9 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR LENGTH AND NUMBER OF TERMS OF ELECTED STATE OFFICIALS , , ! I I ! • ! I I 51",.« ! j• 1• 1 • (JIM< ",_,;or, , , 1, ~ I J 1 ! ! .! ""." ,U.,"_ . . / 2(1) ed. or Educa'ion~ .; '" '" Public Scm M ...... "" ...... ". ". ". ". ". ". (i) P"blic Stt.-\co ". ". ". ". ". ". Com ...... -4I ·; " ieI> • '" '" ...yeomm n.-u. 11-1'-"" ...... 4/ 2(0 ". ". ". . / 2(0 "" "'_...... ". ". ". ". ti) Pubtioo Sn.-\co ". ". ec.u.. ...-4I . N 5 1 LENGTH AND NUMBER OF TERMS- Continued ,I I ~ I i t I ,• ~, t, OIltnjl , ...... oIIowni. IIIIY""'''-'''· 1liiy hold o'fIar , ... an ~nlim"nI ... dtctnl by ..,.....n .... n'ol (i) ..tmlnlsu.,,,, pn' ... m. ,,,,,",Ion " .._ca N",ini.. ,.,... pe""''''' 'uMlIon. Table 2.10 SELECTED STATE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS: METHODS OF SELECTION tw".. M ~'8" Arr""'ry ArIjr."ml Ad"'/lIio· At,/. S.o.r Go_,.", _., T_,.,," ,","Q/ 'I1Ilio1t &mkl,., ,~ ~- "/.",,, ru/"" .. 101.1111 ..... CE CE CE C< C< G CE G ... 1...... CE CE G. G. G. , , , , Arbo •• . CE CE e, CE G G' e, "G ... rt< ...... CE CE CE CE CE G G • 'G AG com ..... I • .. CE CE CE CE C< G' h~ G' , • • 1(\) Colotodo •••••. CE CE C< CE C< G G' G' , G' CoeMrtkto' • •. CE CE CE e, G G' G' G' , 001._" CE CE '"CE CE G' G' G' G' ~lorid • .. CE cr '" CE CE G' G' '"CE (.·12) , (""-.1• ..•. CE CE '"CE CE (.·20) G G' cr G' G 11 . ..· .11 CE cr (1·9) G' 'G G' Id.ho .•• ••• CE CE CE CE CE G G' G' G IIli...... CE cr CE '"CE CE "G G' G' G Q '" ledl••• •• . CE cr CE C< G '", G G 10 ...... cr C< CE" C< G' , G' /1·12) ...... cr '"CE C< cr G' " G' I(•• h, " k· ~ cr cr C< cr C< G G CE• G (1·20) 1.0001 ..... CE CE C< C< C<" "G' G cr G' " G' Mo...... CE G GC> GC> 'G M ' I)I."" . CE cr " "cr " (1. )1) G> 'G' G' M . ~ ~ ..." • ••• cr CE '"CE e, "CE "G G G G ,G Mlclol",. cr CE CE CE G' G' G' , G' G' MI._.. cr CE CE CE CE G G' G' (1 ·20) MISl\hoIppi CE CE CE CE cr G' G' , )'oI1...,ott ••. " CE CE CE CE CE G> "cis' G'" , Mo... eo ..•. CE CE CE CE , G G' G' ", G N.bnsl• .•. C< CE C< CE CE e G' G' , N.. - . d• ••••• CE CE CE CE CE G G '", ( • .(0) N... )10 .."",1 .. CE GC GC GC GC'" GC (.·6) N... J • ....,. ••• CE "G' G' " G' , , /II_Muir• .. . . CE CE CE CE '"CE G' ( •.ll) '" '"G' G' ...... VOII< CE CE G' CE G' G (.·ll) G' G G NOr!. Co •• H•• C< CE CE CE CE G G '"cr G' 'G ..... 0.. . DUo.. CE CE CE CE CE G (.·ll) CE G' (hh) 01010 •. CE CE CE CE CE e G' G' , G' ()I.I ...... cr CE G' cr CE G' G' (.·20) 0...... CE CE CE G G' G' 'GG' , P•• ft .,.. ...10 •. cr CE G' cr CE G G' G' G IIh..... I ....d ••••• CE CE cr cr" cr G G' , G '" ( ) Sott.h C ..oIl • •. CE CE CE cr CE CE (1.9) CE .... "• Sott.h Ihk" •• CE CE CE CE CE G G' , (.·20) r ...... CE CT G G G G , T.~ ...... CE ~ G' CE CE '" G U •• h cr CE " CE "CE G G' G' G' G \' ...... , ... CE CE CE '" G' "G' G'" G' \·I,p.Io. '"cr cr G' cr" G' G'" G. G. , G' Wu/tI'I'''' . cr cr CE CE cr G' G' G' , (.·20) I'I'nI \·irli.l. cr cc CE cr G' (.·)1) CE G' 1'1'1"""' .... e, cr cc CE cr G , G' 'm, l'I'y"... I .. CE CE G' CE G G'G , G G NOIt: T1>r 53 SELECTED OFFICIALS: METHODS OF SELECfION-Continued c-. c_ _ c_ 1JJW";/1 lr c_ ...... 1Id",lfIb' C_fJIII ~iJt;. , &tw:.11ooo $i.'~ tillt""'''' 54 SELECfED OffICIALS, METHODS Of SELECTION- Continued ,-,..- '---, '''''" '-v ~. Hillwr $(.,~ -~ -, -. ,.... .mdJ/fr 1Il1Ir_fl ...... -~ """ ...... II""'~ ...... ".. _...... , e e (.-29) , "...... , , -, e. e. e, --, ,• • (1-40)• ".. , _...... '"e .," ,e e, «1-40) A.b._ , ...... ,e '"e e, '"e (1_6) • (1.6) '"e, '"oo• e c..11...... e, • e, e, • e, e, • c• ..." C...... d o ...... '", , , (I ' U) '" ,1-6) e, c..-un.• ...... e, ,a ,• e, e' e," CI·6) e, • , n,.I ...... ,e Co·)I) , e, , CI'" ,a • '" ,-...... , , ,• e, , e, eoc , • .." GtooaIo ...... "• ..... CI-j) , , , , I'''''. e CI'" • ,..." II...... (I ." , , ,e (I." CI-12) '" , ,...... , e '"_" "e, , '", ,....,...... , (1·29) , , .(" , I ...... "" .... '"e e '" tl'"-" , (1-6, e • e 1_- ... ='", '"• C.-Ill , '" • , , '" '" '", (0-6, 0 '" '" '" Iri._ ...... CI'" 0 ,.... "tel_)· ...... a , a e e (1.20) ,e e t.o.I\I . . ... " ...... '" '"e, (1·6) • (1-6) '" •0 e "' ...... ,e'" au'" , e"'" e" e"'" (1. 20) '", e" ,..." ",.,,10"" ... ,.... e .. • ,a (1 · 12) e ., e, 0 ,e Il0l ...... '' • •••• a e e a (1·6 ) e (1' .16) e 0 ,., Mklll...... , 0 a , (1·9) (I.l\l) (1·9) e, (1-40) MI.-u ... . .•..•. e e, ,., e, , t.·6) e, a, , Il0l1...... ,,...... e e 0 (1·9, , 0 '"0 '", ,• , (1-6) , (1·6) ,• "'_rl ...... • "0 M .... '"...... '", , e , (1-6) SolIn•• •.•...... ,I.', , '" tl-6) 0 Nn_ ...... e 0 , tl' U, 0• , '", '" ,....'" S .... II• • ,.,...... e '"e '" (0-6)"' t... ) ,• '" J....., ...... , =, ( ) = = s...... ,=• (''') ,.... S .... M ...... , '"e, '", , '" '"0 N ... v.,. tl.') ( • .v) a tl· l9) to·16) SHI_ '" '" ,.... c...i.'',; ::' e e ,. (1' l9) (.:" , '", '"e ,e'" S .... o.~IM' ..•. , e ( •'"• 11) , (bh) e '"tiil '"e 0 a 01110 ••.••..••..• ,e e, (.-6) , '" (''') '" ,... 0Ii101oo,,," •.••. . • e, '" '" e , 0 '" ,..... ~ ...... ,e• • • I.") ,e • ' ••••,. 10·181 • .• .. ••• . " e'• (nn)• ,.• ,....." a_o4t 101 ...... ("')"• 0 ( •'"• )4) e, e '", eo C ..oII •• , " '" '" '" '" ,..... §o.,,_ , e ,. 11·9) •0 ,e • ,• , SM• • Ih~ ...... , , , , , e Co·6) , , r ... _ ...... , 0 , Co") , 0 '"0 ,..." r._ ...... 0 0 '" , ,• \I...... Ae ,• 0 A.-a • C'''' • ,.." • y ...... e e, • . '" • A'" " C'''' '" • ,.... ,...... e. e.'" , e. e. " eo eo'" e. e. • Ca") , ::~ .::::::: e 0 ,".19) ,• , •0 ...... '" '", '", '", '", , , ''Of', .....--... '" '" " ,-...... '"e e e 0 (a·ll) e (a'" '"e '"e • II") a~bilti J.o .....od to,- [li~.,... V.... I ... 'lon ...... ot k 0"" (q) a~I;' ...... red by ~""" AMisuo>I C_... PoultryC...... _ (Ii"",,,,,. P\a.nI Boord."nd I ...... ''''''''' 1'1 ...... , ~aI DioobiIiI," DMoioa. boIh irt o.,.n_ of Mmtal t ..,,,, ltcp-...n ... I.... MI ,k 55 SELECTED OFFICIALS, METHODS OF SELECfION-Continued Hwont: ...,.. -" ,~ ,~ _M - Pi and Dlrec- ,...... _0010(. \~; 56 SELECTED OffiCIALS: METHODS Of SE LECTION- Continued ~ ~. ~lIlil.l'...... "'~,.. ""INk ~,- ..., MQ""s<'--" TrallSPO'- S.Q'r Ii".",.,""" , "", rlllls1"z ,~W ... TOIl';"" /IN/"" .1Id" . .. .. ~"" -' ". ._ ... (1. 12) a c; a CI.)!) A a a a " .....1 •.. A A• a. Aa (I.ll) Aa CI.:!l) a. A A a. ,, 57 Table 2.11 SELECTED STATE ADMlNISTRA TIVE OFFICIALS, ANNUAL SALARIES SN,t or ... ,,-, "'~"'.~I Adlnl~ ,,,,. (N~~ 00_ ""'-, O/I(.tr ,-~ .....,.) C1'/1~~ .... ,., "'-~ ..... 'm'" ..... AIo ...... S6l.U9 S21.91!(b) Sl2,9l1 15'.000 "",000 152.1'" "'9.1'2 In.N! S«l.111 AImIt ...... ".ll1 -- 66.116 66.116 U4.'ili ~."" 66.816 N.'" ~.'" ~'" ArIlou ...... ~.'" 1'.000 ~-'" 17.~ .0."56 "'.0111 <010."56 .0•• 56 A"'._ .. .. . 1'.000 1".000 22,m U.'" ~ ,., ".000 ".'"v .... ",.m ... (c.20) U.'" n", CoIIl'on," • "9.100 .2,500 "2.500 47.~ • 1.500 ".... lUll CoIcJftH ...... 1l,OOO 12.000 12.000 71.996 601.110 66.S.IO ".610 6oI.n.! " " 6oI.9S1 .,....,.., ~ ...... n.ooo "... 1'.000 "9,119 "9.119 Sl.16I ...... DoI.ware ...... ~ ... " Sl.JOO... ~ ... ".000 ...... "1.100 " ,,,.. non'" ...... 11.1$1 "6I.'sa... 61.1016... ".1016 61,011 67.1016 IC....· l2) ",.. ~."" " ..""0 GtotaM ······ ·.. ·· 79.356 41,150 OJ.'''' "... (t.lO) 61.011 51,500 OJ.'''' SI.500 ".'" II...... '9.400 '1.~ 50.'90 (0·9) 11,.12 ".1101 SO.'9O .,- ...... ".000 n.m "1.000 H.500 61.900 ...~ ".- ".921 '9.SoI' 1_.. "'1.000... )7,000 ... "" 61.1001 "'.~ G.'" OJ.'' ,...... "."" ".""'I.OU "~ ... 19.'20 .7.'SoI 11.6001"' ... .l.116 "",'Sol " "',99' ... ,,,,11) .... 21.900 011.000 }.I,'SO 4'.100 I...... "'''' "1.000 "... "." "1.000 Il.- ...... ~ ... 11.216 S7.m 016./16 OJ .... 56.0n ...'" 51 •• " .... "M'II' ...... 61.100 '1.021 "'2,au... n.au ",um... '1.000 51.000 (c·lO) ...... 11.400 61.]66 60.169 66.561 60.161 ".""~ ... "'.""66,'92 60.161 n.~ M ...... 1'.000 )2,'11 .',09L lUll ".1016 ":II.... ," )6.... l 101.., ...... 75.000 6i5OO ".000 G."" G."" ".'"SO.I96 1<'111 ...'" '1.400 ".'" M_~-' ... . 15.000 OJ.'' OJ.'' ~ ... OJ.,, 6I,OIL n,m 19.064 "2.467 }.I.'" rotklolp ...... 11.800 ",ISO 7!.000 1$.GOD ..... OJ.'' ".100 1011_ •. . M.'" 016.'10 016.'10 "."" "}.I.91'... OJ.,, S9.n. ".:116 ".""IC.lO) rot~ ••• ~ .... .'.GOD "I.GOD '1.491 ... "',000 '1,000 ".""'.000 G." rot_rl • .. • "'1.000 ... 62,100 62.100 .7.1S9 ".~ ..... ~.'"' ..... N.'" ~.'"' rot ...,., ...... 5O• • n 36.L.I 11.1<11 46.016 ~.'" lUll N...... 11.000 11.000 19,m n,GOD .l.69l".'" '9,500".'" ".""".1J2 SO.191 ".'""'.809 N.. IMII ...... 6!.000 10.~ ,,-'" n.m '1.000 )6.:111 .... !)1 19.601 »,lll ,... , N ... H~~ .... ~ .... l4.'17 56, lll 1 59 SELECfED OFFICIALS: ANNUAL SALARIF.S- Continued <-.- ...., St.,.. '" ...., ..,..~ - ..... -, ,,,. Htflil. H"II""P Oi'" joIrildiC'fiotl "", ,,- -, .....-. """~ ...... "1._• ...... -su .... In,ll! SoI6.TI6 sn.JoII Ul,.... t c.29~ IU,IJ6 196.168 114,749 m.a« A ...... - 66,116 u. ~ 166,11 6 6UI6 66.116 ~.'" ",196 ~.'" ~.'" ".." ArlI_ .•.• . ••. . •... ",611 36,922 st,111 q."" ".." lUIOn.'" 61,162 ".61'44,911 ."," ~.'"SUI! ~.'"M,nT 1O.9H ""'.-...... '" M.'.' (e-oI(I') CIoIIf-.. ..••.. . •. . ~~u "", ...1un lUll lUll''"'' ...... 71.2131'M' 11.%01 N."" c.ao.w...... JI.400 ..... (~12) H.' 71."50 ~ ~ ... C~ ...... ''''10)6,71) S2.~ ",n9 , ...m n.m '1,150 '''''Sn.m DofI...... )1.000 , ... )1) .. ''''' 66,'" 42.100 ",400 ~ ... 31.900 I'"" ..... ,... Iltrilio •.•••.....••. to,oIZS ..... "... ".m U.S6l "" 37,000 (<-5) "..,. "..., ".... IIl:!I,OOO" .,...,...... ".550 "'.112 ~ ... SO.IOO ~ .... ,.... , ~. ~ ... "..,. II...... (e-51 ~ ...... ~ .... (e-9) 11,JOO ,e-1l1 ~.'" (c-9) ".- " 160_ ...... 19.11' •.m ".w ..>', '6.1_ ".." S7.OJl ,.,..... ,...... )1.000 ",000 (c·291 ~ ... Ie") 65.000 ~ ... 1_ ...... 21.67' 4).)1' lUll "41.JJoI... "2"'71 ... (c"l 47.'501 4"..,.7.1'" ~ ~ N.'" I."...... 32,400 ...... , ~ ... f<:."..,·Il) JI ,IOO ..., .. .., 'I.'" h _ ...... 17.'" '9,lIO n ..... 4),910 "'" H.' H~ . ,..., 1' ..,,,n J ...... 44,100 'M' '7,JIXI (o·'M'lO) 7UllO n.lO) ~ ~ ."" ~."" "~.""... ~."" ...... ~ . JUS4 41 .&.11 '1.'&.1 ~ ,..0, l2.166 (e") 6J.m 71.419 49.911 ... ,,~ "'01 ...... 19.)10 )l,lI0 lUll 41. 246 41.:46 41.l46 (0·10) ,,' (e'1 ",..,Ia...... 39.100 ~.JOO 51.500 (e·ll) SI.400 ~."" ~."" ".1 1IoI __.MtI ...... """ "."" ~.'" Jl.S69 sun 61. 4\12 (e'" 42.461 (c.)6) "'.S" ~ ... "'1t*"I- ...... )).916 4),611 (c·9) (0-l9) (0-9) ~ ... 40.1 19 ,.... '0' 0.09 41,169 ...... ~ S9.n4 S7."IIl 61.471 "''-...... S9.'''' ,., ... ".lll "'...... "...... U ... 41,000 ..... n."" , 29.116 '1'M'.0'1$ ",., N.". " .000 MIMMfI ...... ",., 46.104 B."" H."" (..e") " ... (e"l 62.100 61 , 1110 "...... Z1.s1. lUll! )I).lll JUS7 C,''' lUH -,_N...... )11.641 ,~, " 51,140~."" 'e'S) 36.012 42.m ".""6J.6U (c'" ".112 H~.... N ...... lJ.loI7 4l.1QI) (o- Il) ,,- 4UB n ... ' 00 SELECTED OFFICIALS: ANNUAL SALARIES-Continued ...... , 1IdN>nc ~.. ~. , .-~ ,~- ",Iwr jf "1 Il.pfn... Qnl~ . m;,,; .....ion: S, ... lIud ... Admlnl",..... 01 ,II< Bud ... Oivi""" wilhln lui fI _ 61 SELECI'ED OFFICIAlS: ANNUAL SALARIES-Continued fll 62 SELECTED OFFI CIA LS: ANNUAL SALA RI FS-Continued 63 Table 2.12 LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS: QUALIFICATIONS AND TERMS ,,-u.£ .~ ,....,... , -,, ...... M , , - A ...... M " • AriMa ...... - -, (. - , ArIc ...... M •, , • e.m ...... " • • e.....- ...... M • e.. __ ...... M • • .-...... M • I"""" ...... M " •, • GtorsIo ·· .. ·· ... · .... ·· . M • " • • 110 ...... M • , • • ,-...... M • , ,...... • , • ,_...... M , , • 10 ...... "M • , • It ...... , Itnt..rlJ" ..• • ,., ...... M • "10...... • ",..,-10'" ...... " • "'----...... " M ...... • M __ ...... " • M""",","" ...... • "'''-I ...... " • "'_ ...... " • NH...... " • N... "' ...... " s..,.,....,.N ... "_""," ...... " • ~!Ik...... ~\' ...... • .. Nen_ c.t.IIooo ...... " • , NoortIoDol_ ...... " • ow...... "M • 0..-...... • ~ ...... " ..P ....""',, ...... ,• s..,_C-...... '10'" • s..,_ DB...... , T_ ...... T...... U..- ...... M • \ ....- ...... " •, \1tpoIo ...... M \\ ...... • \\001 , ...... • \\ ...... \\'1001'" ...... • A_.S'-O ...... ,U c...... JO No. M_...... _:M:... ___'-'- ___'-'- ___-'- P.no Itko ...... \'lrJIoo ,...... JO (b) s--;,." _ foobiddao. (() c- • "'-rJ 0' ~ fI/ ~ Ul Md. '11. 121 A.%dOI \1966~ -.01 _ cd ,bao u.s. 01 ...... bJ a.a:nNIY.' __ , ... off""",. Cd) A ~ ...... '- bcIoIo ~ 01 fdofty ... __ 01 puIIIIo .,... io .... di&lblc Lo ,ho oftlor t.... poriod 01 JD,. ... In.. "",,>'kIioto. Table 2.13 LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS: POWERS AND DUTIES ,,""U M''''Mt 0/ ~u., "' ... ,,",,'" A~lltorify /'" '0 ..... _·. ".IN wM. SlQ/I '" A-,,," & .." AW6'" '0 ..... "'" 10 ~~/IN ",_"IN 011.. , j~risdkti"" !H""""- rom"';tl"" roIl~llin bill, 4f.IiJ" dw.!;. edW-I'_" OIl' 0/ Ullt ~ AI. b .... . 0 (1) AI...... • • • • o (b) ____. (0) _ • • Arbo... . ------_. "' ...... , .. • • • C.llf ...... • • • • Colol""Odo ••. • • • C O ft~ lno l ••• • • • • • • [)d. .... • • • • • tlGrkI • •. • G«>,.Jo. • • • • 11 ...· . 11 • • • Id.h" • Old) • • • • 1111"...... • ladho_ • • • • I"" • .. • • ,,' • 10 Ko ft '" • IV 10 K, . ,,,,,ky ...... • ... • • • • I.... wloi ••• ••••. • • />t ...... ------··--··--·-----_·---·-·-·--Cc'"' )·------M,.,'""" ... • • • M . ....h ... m . • • • Mic.n,; • • .•. • • • • • M I,,_," •. • M I»I»ippl •. • • • • • MI...,... • • • • M"al'''' . * .. * (1) Sob.. ", • •••. a li) • . a U) * .. S.··. d• ...... o (k) (I) a S •• [lI mp."'•• . .______.. ____. ______. (C).------S ... J ....., . ---.-.------~----- « ) .. ---.------... --.. ----- S." />t ..i 65 LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS: POWERS AND DUTIES-Continued Table 2.14 SECRET ARIES Of STATE: QUALIfICATIONS fOR OffICE u.s. s.Qt~ s'Q'~ IN M;~ ;",u", dll~" """", I>I~" j'''isdIniml q. ,- ,~.. A_b._ ...... ~ , ...... (1)- • Aruo...... ~ , • , A ...... "• • • , C.m"'ftll . . " • • • , c ...... " • • , Co .....tn' • (1orI ...." " • • ,• ~" , , ("~ • , .-.. . " • 1I . .... il . . .. _------_._-" "-(1)-- Id...... ~ • , , lIIiool> .•. • , , 1""1.... " , 10'" • , l ..... , l.", ... ~ y ~ LG~i 67 Table 2.1S SECRETARIES OF STATE, ELECTION AND REGISTRATION DUTIES I ! ...... • • • • • • • • • • • • • ...... 0(111 •••••••••.• • • • • ... ru-...... • • • • • • • • • • Afl< ...... • • • • • • • • ,,' • • • CooII'...... • • • • • • • • " • • • c...... • • • • • • • • '" • • • c..-un.c ...... • • • • • • • • • • • Otto...... • • n..w...... • • • • • • • • • • c...po ...... • • • • • • • • • • • • " ..·tillb ) . " • • • • • • Ido" ...... , • • • • • • • • • • IIM_ .. • . • • • • • • • 1_...... • • • • • 10_ ...... " • • • • • • • ..:- ...... • • • • • • • • • • K .....t.J ...... • • • • • • • • • ..-...... • • • • • • • • • • • Mol ...... • • • • • • • • 101 ." ...... • • _ (d) • • 101 ...... ,10 ...... " • • • • • • • • • MkWpoo ...... " • • • • • • • • • • Ml._ ...... • • • • • • • M~ ...... (~) • • • • • • • • • 101'-1...... • • • • • • • • • • • • M.. I ...... • • • • • • • • • I'~...... • • • • • • • "'...... • • • • • • • • • • • N ...... ,...... • • • • • • • '"• • • • N.wJ.,...,...... • • • • • • • ,,' • • • 1'... 101 ...... • • • • • • • • • N ... la.,...... ,,' • • • N_ C_ ...... • • • • "'.... DoIr_ ...... • • • • • • • • 0M0 ...... • • • • • • ., • • • Ol""_ ...... • • • • • • Ortao...... • • • • • • • • • ,.. ••1) '.. 010 ...... " • • • • • • • • • 51 .... '...... •••• .. • • • • • • _"CMoII .. ... • • • • SMo.' OM_ .,.... " • • • • • • • • • • • T_...... (f) • • • • • • • Tea...... • • • • • • • • 1J'"'(b) ...... " • • • • • • • • • "...-...... • • • • • • • • \·IrJIMo ...•...•...... , • • • W ...~ ...... • • • • • • w ... "'...... • • • • • • • • \1-_ ...... ,• • • • W, ...... • • • • • • • ., • • • • ...... • • K;y: - " -~bk (or """i ••y • .. .- 1"0< I'CJpOnllblt 'or """M.y. (a) U ...... wI .. l!lda Or~ coo-porOliom...... (101 No_..,.o f otOI~ . Durin 1.... .,., l1li _ perl...... II)' lieu' ...... (el ... u .... 10 ~' . _"'~ .. Wtadil;'" _, or- ...... "'arta!. la ~ aad NcUub...... , ... Mal 001 doai. _ ,NnrJ....,.._ ...... P«l*'fdIl)' ...._·."""" ... ·. om.... 68 Table 2. 16 SECRETARIES OF STATE: CUSTODIAL, PUBLICATION AND LEGI SLATIVE DUTIES Ck ! SI.,~Df' <>Ihr< jk,;>4kri 69 Table 2.17 ATIORNEVS GENERAL, QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICE u.s. ..."". ~ ....""' /otHt/tJlWIII -...... """'" - -~.. . Oi _~br-_. ... ,-""- ~:::r '-' ...... II , ----" - , A_...... • A A~ ...... 'iJ . --, , AlIoo_ - ...... • • • c.IIf...... " ,.. 70 Table 2.18 A TTORNEVS GENERAL: PROSECUTORIAL AND ADVISORV DUTIES "-' A ~liIorilJ '" 1~I 7I ------. Table 2.19 AlTORNEYS GENERAL: CONSUMER PROTECTION ACTIVITIES, SUBPOENA POWERS, AND ANTITRUST DUTIES A __ ••••••.•••••.••••••• • • • • A • • AIooIt...o •••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • ' .C AI1.to ...... • • • • A, S, D ...... • • • • • S. C, 0 CoI"'._lr"""• ••..•..•••..••..••. • • S, C, 0 COIOf1"IO • • ••••••••••••••••• • • • • • S. C. DlIo) <00_ • • • A. B. D Dol ...... • • • • • A. B, C ,- ...... • • • • • A.I.C,D GootaIo •..•••••..••••.••..•• • • • • B, C, 0 11 ••1011 ••••••••••• _••••••••• • • • • A, B. C. 0 ,...... • • • • o ,_ ...... • • • • • A, B, 0 ,...... • • • B. C, 0 10'" . ••• . • • • • • A, I. C, 0 ,.._ ...... • • • • • • B, C. 0 KotIlar ...• . ..•.. . •.. . ..•• • • • • • ,,' A, B, 0 t..oIbi...... •..•...• • • • • ' .C !>hl ...... • • • • • '.C M.r,-Io..t . •.••. • • • • • • B, C, 0 104 ....._ .. . . • • • • • A, a, C, 0 MItWJ- ...... • • • • • A. a,C, O M-...... • • '.0 MIooItooi!oIoI •••••••••••••••••• • • • • H "'_ ...... • A. a. C, 0 104 .... _ ••• • • • • • B,C. D N_• ...... • • • • A, I, Cld), 0 """ ...... • • • • A, B, C. D 101*" II ... "",... • • • • B, C, 0 N~ .. J..,.,...... • • • • • • A, B, C, D N", Mw...... • • • • • A.C N .... y"", ..••.•.•.•.. • • • • A. B. C. D N""_c...... • • • • A. B. C. D N_DMIOI• ...... •• • • • • • C. O ow...... • • • • • • B, C. 0 ouo ...... • , 5000'~r .._ Po~o...... • • • • A, B, C. D • • A. B. C. D Tu.. • • '.0 ·,n • /+.(I), B. C. OW ~~ :::: ... ::::::::::::: • • • A. B.C, 0 VIrPoo/IO ...... , •..• • ., • A , B, C. 0 w __ ...... • • .• " .•" A , a. 0 ""'~~ ...... • • • • A , B, 0 ""~ ...... • • • • A . B, C. 0 ... ,..-...... • • • A_s.- ...... • • • N,.. Morill.. I • • ••••••••••••• • • • B,C.D PWflO Ritco ...... • • • A, B, C \'!rPo I ...... • • • A. S(i), C. D Km A- H .. __ fMI'" .... horiIy ' 0 __ ..." 011 botwoIr 0( _ ...... ;.. OI III~ "'~nnI ~ ..._ ...... -.t• . B-Ma,- _ _ ""-..._ 011 boWr oI ....~ .. _~ """" •. C_May.-.- ...... ~ 0-:.10, ~ cit ..., .-la ..... 01 .... _AI ...~ ... ;.. m;ovum. 72 Table 2.20 ATTORNEYS GENERAL: DUTIES TO ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES A PPt·... 1M stQt~ I~ StQt~ '" m ... i",,/ athtr j~rlJdt 73 I."" 49.SOO " • • '.SOOI.d) • (k) So • •k c...... ~.OOO " • • 11 .000 s.".k I)o ~ "" """", H.110 ~. . • • .J • 1... _ .••.••••••••• U" • • ,., • r ...... IM.HO ", • • ,,, • 0 ...... ~ . ~ "I'.' • • (OJ • \ ...... ~.OOO " \OJ \· I . lI ~ i o .. 1'.000 n • • • ,,, • W.>hl ...... 63.000 • • N.A . • W~ \'IrlI ...... n.ooo " • • " J • W""-'l• .••••••••••• 11. ) )1 "JJ . , • • 'm) • W, ...... ~.OOO , • (OJ • A _ .S._ .•••.. ".000 N~ . • N . ~ • Goo ...... ".000 N~ . • N . ~ • .....0 RIn .... ]' .000 N.A . • • N~. • \"1 .... 1.... 001, ••••• '2,.00 N."'. • N.A. •
r ~he:n in <><'<1Ili.-, .....ion. (i) Con"i,",,,," "",vidt!s for • Co.noil "f SUI< m..x up of .....i •• (bl Wi,h ,he: