Upload
myles-crawford
View
218
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
GOVT 2306
Texas Bureaucracy
In a previous section we looked at the bureaucracy and discussed its
relationship with the elected portions of the executive branch.
While the bureaucracy exists in the executive branch, it occupies a unique position within it, one
removed from the direct control of the upper, elected, levels.
This has lead some to argue that it constitutes a distinct,
fourth branch of government.
In this section we look at the actual bureaucracy in the state of Texas
and some of the specific controversies associated with it.
Recall that a large number of bureaucratic agencies – though not
all of them by any measure – are established in the Texas
Constitution. No executive agencies are established in the US
Constitution.
For supplemental reading:
Texas Politics: Bureaucracy
(I’ll pull some additional reading from that source here and there)
A reminder, the bureaucracy is composed of the individuals and institutions that
actually implement the laws.
They are the face of government – they are the people you are most likely to
interact with on a daily basis, the one’s who implement the policies established by
the legislative branch, as clarified by the members of the upper levels of the
executive branch.
People like me.
The entire public education system in Texas from Pre-K to Graduate
School is a great example of one of the largest bureaucratic entities in
the state.
We’ll be looking at it in an upcoming section.
The Texas bureaucracy is composed of people who perform a large variety of functions. Some of these involve providing certain services and products that might not otherwise be provided for by
the private sector.
It can also be composed of people and institutions that are intended to regulate certain aspects of the economy or individual behavior. This includes law enforcement.
The executive bureaucracy contains the largest number of people who work in the
government.
According to Texas Politics: as of 2002 about 1.16 million worked in the
bureaucracy in some executive branch on the national, state or local level.
Here’s the breakdown as of 2002:
165,000 Federal employees265,000 Texas employees
Nearly 1 million local employees
click here for some pretty slides with some content.
This doesn’t count the number of people who work part-time or who
work for private firms with government contracts.
From Texas Politics: “The annual payroll for state employees for
fiscal year 2003 was approximately $10.6 billion, out of total state expenditures of $60.27 billion,
making state payroll about 17.6 percent of total state spending.”
Texas has a lower state work force than most other states. “Data gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau show that Texas
ranked 44th among the fifty states in terms of numbers of full-time equivalent state employees as a percentage of the
total state population.” – TP
This makes sense given the state’s political culture.
For more detail on the structure, size and scope of the Texas
Bureaucracy, click here for that section in the Bureaucracy Chapter in Texas
Politics.
As is the case in all other states, more people work for the state and local bureaucracy than the national government. But it is
important to note that national laws tend to be enforced by
bureaucratic officials who reside in the state.
For background and additional data: US Census: Government Payroll
2010 Public Employment and Payroll Data State Governments TEXAS
To get an idea of the size and scope of the Texas Bureaucracy,
click on this link in the Texas State Directory:
Agencies, Boards and Commissions
Here’s a list of state agencies from Wikipedia.
Aside from increasing in size, the bureaucracy has also expended its
authority by acquiring quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial
functions.
This is a problem for those who believe the bureaucracy has grown
too powerful – both on the state and national level.
“Quasi – Legislative Functions” refer primarily to the ability of the bureaucracy to establish rules that
clarify how law is to be implemented.
Aside from the ability to implement the law, rulemaking grants the bureaucracy tremendous power, especially when the
legislature is somewhat vague in the legislation it passes. Sometime this is done purposefully so members of the legislature can avoid blame for any consequences of
bills that turnout to be unpopular.
“In many ways, Texans are ruled by rules. The legislature has endowed
169 Texas agencies with rulemaking authority. In 2001, agencies proposed or adopted 17,927 rules spanning 11,116
pages of the Texas Register.” – click here for the source.
An example of the rulemaking process in one Texas Agency:
- Rules and Rulemaking from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
(The TCEQ is one of the many agencies with boards the governor appoints)
The process is was established by the Texas Administrative Procedure Act (APA). See below for more detail:
Administrative Law Handbook - Texas Attorney General
Developments in the Law of Rulemaking - UTCLE
All records of state agency rulemaking is maintained in the
Texas Register, which is maintained by the
Texas Secretary of State.
Click here for past copies of the Texas Register.
“Quasi – Judicial Functions” refer to the ability of the bureaucracy to resolve disputes in a process that
resembles a judicial hearing.
Civil Service Protections
As also mentioned previously, those hired to work in the bureaucracy are given
protections from the political forces that tend to dominate those in higher office.
The hiring and firing of workers in the bureaucracy, in addition to their behavior, is supposed to be immune from political
pressure. The intent is to establish a bureaucracy that is neutral and
professional.
The requirement that the bureaucracy be neutral and professional stems from the
writings of Max Weber, a sociologist who studied, among others things, various ways that
governmental authority worked.
He analyzed three types, authority based on tradition, charisma and on a rational legal foundation.
The first two were based on, respectively, history and individual personality. In the
first, tasks and duties were not well defined, and not based on merit or
competence. In the second, authority was based on devotion to the individual.
In the rational – legal system, duties were well defined and
impersonal and the assignment of jobs was based on technical
competence.
Weber argued that societies with this type of authority worked best. This argument
helps explain the nature of the merit based system we have in the US.
The Texas Politics text argues that the rational-legal system has a
bureaucracy based on six principles:
1 - fixed division of labor, with specialization of workers
2 - positions organized into a chain of command, a hierarchy
3 - rules and regulations regarding work
4 - separation of personal and official property
5 - selection of personnel on the basis of technical qualifications
6 - employment that is career-oriented
The establishment of the civil service system on the national
level allowed for a competitive, non-partisan way for people to be
hired to bureaucratic positions primarily, but not exclusively in the
executive branch.
The governing system in Texas also designed to allow a degree of
insulation of the bureaucracy from political pressures.
The fact that many executive functions in the state are overseen by board and commissions
that are elected or appointed to six year terms is intended to insulate them from political
pressures, but this is not always successful.
When the governorship is held by one person or members of one party for long periods of time, it can allow for political control, but some argue
that this is what ought to happen in a democratic system.
This creates a huge issue.
Who ought the bureaucracy be accountable to? And how can that
accountability not be used to control the bureaucracy for
political purposes?
Types of accountability
ElectoralLegislative
Chief ExecutiveInterest Groups
A general note:
The decentralized nature of the bureaucracy means that no single
individual or entity has the power to influence all aspects of the
bureaucracy, or is responsible for what it does. Again, this is a consequence of
the plural executive.
Electoral accountability refers to the idea that the bureaucracy ought to be controlled by the
population, but there are questions about whether the
general population can effectively provide accountability over a large,
complex, relatively anonymous bureaucracy.
No lower lever bureaucrats are directly accountable to the
population, though upper level officials, as we know, can be
subject to elections – so they can be in theory.
Again, this is to reduce the possibility of corruption.
Legislative accountability exists in a variety of forms, but varies
depending upon whether the bureaucracy is affiliated with an agency that is established in the Constitution or by statutory law.
The legislative branch has control over the budget (the power of the
purse) and can audit legislative agencies. It also has oversight
authority over executive agencies and can use this power to develop legislation which can then be used
to change executive agencies.
Perhaps most importantly, the legislature has sunset review
authority which has been established in the
Sunset Advisory Commission.
Here’s the official description from the SAC’s website:
In 1977, the Texas Legislature created the Sunset Advisory Commission to identify and eliminate waste, duplication, and inefficiency in government agencies. The 12-member Commission is a legislative body that reviews the policies
and programs of more than 150 government agencies every 12 years. The Commission questions the need for
each agency, looks for potential duplication of other public services or programs, and considers new and innovative
changes to improve each agency's operations and activities. The Commission seeks public input through hearings on
every agency under Sunset review and recommends actions on each agency to the full Legislature. In most cases, agencies under Sunset review are automatically
abolished unless legislation is enacted to continue them.”
The process simply asks each agency to justify its existence.
The Sunset Review process was established – after the
Sharpstown Scandal – to institutionalize periodic oversight
of state agencies.
In the 2012-2013 cycle, the 83rd Legislature will review the
following agencies:
Architectural Examiners, Texas Board ofArts, Texas Commission on the
Correctional Managed Health Care CommitteeCriminal Justice, Texas Board and Department of
Education Agency, TexasEngineers, Texas Board of Professional
Ethics Commission, TexasFacilities Commission, Texas
Fire Fighters' Pension Commissioner, Office ofHigher Education Coordinating Board, Texas
Housing and Community Affairs, Texas Department of*Information Resources, Department of Judicial Conduct, State Commission on
Lottery Commission, TexasPardons and Paroles, Board ofPension Review Board, State
Port of Houston AuthorityPreservation Board, State
Procurement and Support Services Division of the Comptroller of Public Accounts* Public Utility Commission of Texas*
Railroad Commission of TexasSelf-Directed Semi-Independent Agency Project Act
State Employee Charitable Campaign Policy Committee Windham School District within Texas Department of Criminal Justice*
As mentioned before, accountability to the chief
executive (the governor) is limited in order to reduce the possibility
that bureaucratic powers are used for political ends.
The very concept of a plural executive limits the direct power of the governor and establishes a
degree of autonomy for each agency – at least in theory.
There have been attempts to increase the power of the
governor over time – including the expansion of the term of office
from 2 to 4 years and allowing the governor to appoint members to
newly created agencies.
The governor’s line item veto authority does allow the ability to
impact state agencies by cutting their budgets.
This also provides the governor leverage over the agency. They might
be more likely to bargain with the governor knowing he has this power.
The governor has no direct hiring power over lower level bureaucratic employees, so the governor only has
indirect control over the bureaucracy.
But the level of control can be considerable, the appointment power has increased the powers of the office.
It also creates opportunities for favors since appointments are
commonly influenced by political donations rather than expertise in
the field.
But the governor has far more direct power over agencies with board and commissions he can
appoint rather than those that are elected separately.
A large number of agencies, plus information about how to interact
with them, can be found at texas.gov.
It calls itself “The Official Website of the State of Texas.”
It also contains information about employment and jobs in state agencies
.
Why not allow the chief executive the ability to hire and fire civil
servants?
Here’s a fun little read: Where did civil service for
cops come from anyway, and why?
And more: The section in the Local Government Code that
attempts to “secure efficient fire and police departments composed of capable personnel who are free from political influence and who
have permanent employment tenure as public servants.”
While this is true for all executive agencies, it is especially vital for their to be no political influence
over the operations of law enforcement.
Problems with civil service protections on the local level: existing rules protect senior employees at the expense of
younger ones and termination can be very difficult.
Related story from The Daily News.
Is the bureaucracy most accountable to interest groups?
Do interest groups control the bureaucracy?
Bureaucratic agencies are generally tailored to the needs of a specific
interest, so its not unusual for interest groups (clientele groups) that benefit from the programs administered by
the group to be heavily involved in the political process in order to influence
how those programs are administered and who does the administering.
It is common for high level appointees to the bureaucracy to
be affiliated with the industry affected by the agency.
It is also common for high level appointees in agencies to return to
work in the industry after their terms are over.
If the agency becomes fully controlled by the affected interest group, then that agency is argued to have been “captured” by the interests it was
meant to regulate.
This effectively allows the interest group to regulate itself and use
regulatory power to limit competition.
Example: The Commissioner of the Texas Department of Insurance has a background in management with
insurance companies.
Here’s an article in the NYT that argues she is too closely tied to the industry, and
an argument in a Corpus Christi newspaper that the Insurance Commissioner should be elected
to office.
This leads to the development of what are called iron triangles and
sub-governments where the interests of various actors
concerned with a particular aspect of public policy.
See TP: - 4.3 Interest Groups and Bureaucracies
A typical iron triangle is composed of members of interest groups, the agency that oversees the issue important to the group, and the members of the legislative committee that has jurisdiction
over the subject.
Each has benefits they can offer the other, so relationship commonly grow. It is also common
for people to go from positions in one institution to another within the triangle.
Relationships in Texas can be further complicated by the relative powers of the presiding officers of both chambers of the
legislature and the governor. Instead of an iron triangle, it is the iron Texas star.
The former are heavily influential in the legislative process and the governor’s
appointment powers and line items veto make each central to this circle of influence.
These relationships are cemented by the fact that each provides lucrative
opportunities to the others. The specifics depend on their precise goals, but
altogether critics argue that this creates a “Pay to Play” culture in the state.
Here’s a related story, again involving the head of the Texas Insurance Commission.
Here’s an important caveat.
While there might be a great many interests that exist in the state, governing
officials – and the bureaucracy in general – is more likely to be influenced by
organized groups with concentrated strength rather than unorganized groups
or individuals.
Influencing the bureaucracy requires a great degree of
resources, concentrated power, and sustained effort.
Organized groups are far more able to do this than unorganized
groups and individuals.
The Federal Context of the Texas Bureaucracy.
Not all executive agencies in the state of Texas exist because the
state has chosen to establish them.
Some exist because of efforts of the federal government to entice all states to create agencies that
pursue nationally established goals.
Perhaps the best example is health policy, especially Medicare and the State Children’s Health Insurance
Program.
Other programs include unemployment insurance, and a
small handful of others.
Click here for a look at a list of the various types of federal aid to state
and local governments that are meant to entice states to
implement national policies that focus on defined national
standards.