|
A majority of the Committee felt that
this dispersion, or this dilution of execu-
tive authority, interferes with the gover-
nor's ability to implement and carry out
his programs; that when the people elect
particular individual as governor they
have a right to expect that the man they
vote for will not have hobbles on his feet
in initiating and carrying into effect the
programs which he promises in his election
campaign.
The Committee concurred in the state-
ment contained in a book published in 1960
by the National Municipal League:
"The greatest single impediment to
executive unity lies in the constitutional
designation of top officials who obtain
office by popular election or by legisla-
tive action."
It also concurred in the statement that
William G. Coleman, executive director of
uhe Advisory Commission on Intergovern-
mental Relations, made before the Commit-
tee. In that statement Mr. Colman said:
"The Commission believes that the
state constitution should provide for a
'short ballot.'
"In other words, executive authority
should be pinpointed in the governor, and
should not be scattered among many
separately elected administrative officials
and boards and commissions. Just as
fewer and fewer cities find the 'commis-
sion form' of city government with its
political fragmentation tolerable, states
are finding a similar need to focus ex-
ecutive power in their chief executive.
Not only does the 'long ballot' make it
extremely difficult for the governor to de-
velop, propose, and carry out coordinated
policies and programs; it also adds to the
burden of the voter in the voting booth
and contributes to the low visibility of
state government which we all deplore.
"From the point of view of inter-
governmental relations, moreover, the
scattering of executive authority among
many separate elected officials places the
governor at a tremendous disadvantage
in trying to keep informed of and to co-
ordinate the flow of federal grants-in-aid
into the state.
"Here again, if we insist on the dilu-
tion of gubernatorial power among a
group of independently elected officials,
we place the governor at a tremendous
disadvantage in dealing with the Presi-
dent of the United States on questions
of federal-state relations. We do not in-
|
sist that the President share his execu-
tive powers, so why do we insist on doing
the same thing at the state level? So I
say to you, if you want weak state gov-
ernment, a good way to achieve it is
through the long ballot."
This Advisory Commission is not made
up of theoreticians. It consists of top-flight
people who have had years of practical ex-
perience in government. Here are some of
the members:
Frank Bane, Chairman of the Commis-
sion; many of you will remember him; he
was the executive director of the Governors'
Conference for years.
Other members of the Commission in-
cluded: John Anderson, Governor of Kan-
sas; Richard Batterton, Mayor of Denver,
Colorado; Neal S. Blaisdell, Mayor of
Honolulu, Hawaii; Howard R. Bowen, citi-
zen member, Grinnel, Iowa; Anthony J.
Celebrezze, former Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare, who I believe was
also the former Mayor of Cleveland; Ed-
ward Connor, Supervisor, Wayne County;
C. Douglas Dillon, Secretary of the Treas-
ury; Michael V. DiSalle, former Governor
of Ohio; Clair Donnenwirth, Supervisor,
Plumas County, California; Robert B. Dun-
can, Speaker of the House of Representa-
tives, Salem, Oregon; Florence P. Dwyer,
member of the House of Representatives;
Sam J. Ervin, Jr., from Tennessee, Mem-
ber of the Senate; L. H. Fountain, North
Carolina, Member of the House of Repre-
sentatives; Ernest F. Rollings, Governor
of South Carolina; Eugene J. Keogh, Mem-
ber of the House of Representatives from
New York; Karl E. Mundt, Member of the
Senate from South Dakota; Edmund S.
Muskie, Member of the Senate from Maine;
Arthur Naftalin, Mayor of Minneapolis.
These are just some of the people who
are on the Advisory Commission on Inter-
governmental Relations that endorsed that
statement which I just read.
These, then, are the principles that have
governed the majority of the Committee in
making its recommendations set out in Re-
port EB-1. The committee's recommenda-
tion as to what not to include in the new
constitution had widespread support among
witnesses who appeared before us, or who
submitted statements to the Committee at
our request.
Mr. Chairman, I now come to the com-
mittee's recommendation with respect to
the Board of Public Works.
I want to emphasize at the outset that
we are not recommending that the Board
|
