196 State Papers and Addresses

complete local administration, without either State or Federal supervision.
Doubtless the greater number who have adhered to this viewpoint will not go
so far as to recommend a complete return of administration of relief and public
assistance to local government, but there are those who would welcome it in the
area of general relief. In considering any such proposal, however, it is well
to look at our experience of the past few years, and also our experience in public
health and public education. If we begin with the assumption that state fi-
nancial participation is essential, then we must reason to the conclusion that
each needy person in the state, no matter where he lives, is entitled to a mini-
mum availability of funds and a minimum standard of administration.

It is not necessarily true that by this type of state leadership we sacrifice
our belief in local government and local self-determination. I do not believe
there is any state in the union where people subscribe to this principle of local
government more than we do in Maryland. But we achieve this through certain
carefully thought-out practices which work toward an efficient and satisfactory
combination of local-state efforts. In Maryland we believe, and believe strongly,
in local administrative boards. The program is too new, the untried areas too
many, to attempt to operate without the leavening influence of lay opinion. We
place the primary direction of the program in the hands of an administrative
board of seven citizens, carefully selected by the county commissioners from a
list of eligible persons submitted by the State Department. The executive
director of the county is responsible to the members of that board, and they in
turn are answerable to the State Department.

The State Department promulgates general rules and regulations within
which the local board is free to make additional policies not contrary to. the
State plan. The State Department periodically audits accounts, maintaining a
staff of field supervisors whose duty it is to see that the local unit conforms to
State requirements. By this combination we believe that we assure to the
citizens of our State a measure of desirable uniformity, and a capacity for
State-wide planning which would not otherwise be possible.

The basic conception of State-local relationship, as developed in Maryland,
is that administrative responsibility should rest primarily on the local political
subdivision, which should also bear some part of the financial burden; the func-
tion of the State Department should be advisory and supervisory over the local
administrative bodies.

I believe that some of the same character of relationship can be created
between the State and the Federal Government. At times certain actions taken
by the Federal departments may seem to permit too great Federal control.
There is a danger that we may jump to too hasty conclusions, that we do not
study carefully enough the purpose behind these acts, that we may very well
find ourselves opposing constructive moves which would tend to strengthen,
rather than undermine, the hand of the state. It goes without saying that
the Federal agencies are grappling with perplexing problems, as likewise are
the states. They should be measured and judged by the sincerity of their in-
tentions and objectives, and by the amount of thought and study which goes
into their decisions. Present and future conditions may require that the states
look to Federal financial participation and the setting of minimum standards of
performance by the Federal agencies, combined with a positive leadership in
general direction. At the same time the states can maintain their conviction
that a high degree of self-determination on the part of the states is imperative.