Opportunistic Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations

CASE 3: REINSTATEMENT OF THE ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS (ACIR)

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) was a nonpartisan agency that provided research and recommendations on intergovernmental relations to the President, Congress, and state and local officials. It was established in 1959 and abolished in 1996 (Chi, 2004). Its mission was “to strengthen the American federal system and improve the ability of federal, state, and local governments to work together cooperatively, efficiently, and effectively” (UNT, 2022). By its very mission, the ACIR was set up for failure, however, in a system of federalism.

In recent years, there has been renewed interest in the idea of re-establishing the ACIR. Proponents argue that the commission could help to address the growing problem of gridlock and polarization in American politics. They contend that the ACIR could serve as a forum for constructive dialogue between different levels of government, promoting cooperation and collaboration rather than conflict and dysfunction (Stenberg, 2011). Opponents of re-establishing the ACIR argue that it would be an unnecessary duplication of effort, as there are already numerous agencies and organizations that focus on intergovernmental relations. They also worry that the ACIR would simply become another vehicle for special interests to advance their agendas (Kincaid, 2011). The question of whether or not to re-establish the ACIR is complex, and there are compelling arguments on both sides. Ultimately, it is a decision for Congress to make, but this paper will argue that there are several reasons why the ACIR should not be re-established. First, the ACIR would duplicate the work of other existing organizations, such as the National Governors Association and the Council of State Governments. Second, the ACIR was likely just as swayed by special interests as any other Commission. Third, the ACIR was the federal government’s attempt to influence intergovernmental issues more directly, potentially overstepping the checks and balances of federalism. Finally, there is no evidence that the ACIR had any positive impact on intergovernmental relations. In fact, some experts believe that the ACIR actually made relations worse by creating an atmosphere of distrust and rivalry among different levels of government. For these reasons, it is clear that the ACIR should not be re-established.

ROLE OF ACIR IN SOLVING INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

The United States Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (USACIR) was an independent, bipartisan agency established in 1959 to study and report on issues related to federalism and intergovernmental relations. The Commission completed its work in 1996 and was abolished by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. During its nearly four-decade lifespan, the Commission issued over 500 reports on a wide range of topics, including fiscal federalism, emergency management, civil rights, environmental protection, and Native American affairs (Kincaid & Stenberg, 2011). While the Commission did not have the authority to enact policy changes, its reports often served as a catalyst for intergovernmental reform. For example, the Commission\\\'s 1971 report on revenue sharing sparked a decade-long debate over the best way to distribute federal funds to state and local governments (Kincaid & Stenberg, 2011). The report ultimately led to the enactment of the Revenue Sharing Act of 1972, which provided billions of dollars in federal aid to state and local governments. In another instance, the Commission\\\'s 1982 report on urban policy helped to shape the way the federal government provides assistance to cities. The report\\\'s recommendations led to the creation of several new programs, including the Community Development Block Grant program and the Urban Development Action Grant program. While it is no longer in existence, the USACIR played an important role in solving intergovernmental issues during its 36 years of operation (Kincaid & Stenberg, 2011).

REASONS ACIR WAS SUNSET IN 1996

While the commission was tasked with studying the relationship between different levels of government and making recommendations for improvement, over time the commission became increasingly redundant, as other organizations took on similar roles. In addition, the Growth of Government Act of 1983 limited the commission\\\'s ability to engage in advocacy or research. As a result, USACIR was sunset in 1996. Ultimately, a Republican-led Congress joined forces with a Democratic President (Bill Clinton) who was not happy with the way the ACIR was handling unfunded mandates (McDowell, 1997).

Clinton and Congress were likely both upset as constituents in cities looking for relief saw the ACIR vote against its own recommendations to provide relief (Shafroth, 1996). Democrats and Republicans alike were unhappy with the committee’s performance, and nothing effective seemed possible from stalemates and watered down proposals. Allowing the ACIR to sunset in 1996 simply made sense from a practical standpoint for all parties concerned.

REASONS FOR REINSTATING OR NOT REINSTATING THE ACIR

First, the ACIR would duplicate the work of other existing organizations, such as the National Governors Association and the Council of State Governments. The National Governors Association (NGA) is a nonpartisan organization that represents the governors of all 50 states, commonwealths, and territories in the United States. The NGA provides governors with resources and opportunities to share best practices, learn from one another, and collectively address key national issues. The organization also works to serve as a strong and effective voice for governors on federal policy matters. In addition, the NGA provides valuable resources for governors and their staff on a wide range of topics, including economic development, health care, education, and transportation. The National Governors Association is an important resource for state leaders who are committed to improving the lives of their citizens. The Council of State Governments (CSG) is an organization that serves all three branches of state government. It was founded in 1933 as a way to help states cooperate on a wide range of issues, including education, transportation, and economic development. The CSG is made up of state legislators, governors, and judges from all 50 states. In addition to its work on policy, the CSG also provides training and technical assistance to state officials.

Second, the ACIR was likely swayed by special interests. It is well-known that lobbyists and special interests often have a significant impact on the legislative process. However, these groups also exert a considerable amount of influence over federal commissions. Members of commissions are often selected based on their ideological leanings, which furthers the goals of these groups. As a result, it is not uncommon for commissions to be filled with individuals who are beholden to special interests from various industries (Conlan, 2006). This can have a profound impact on the commission\\\'s decision-making, as evidenced by the controversial decisions that have been made over history. Thus, it is clear that special interests play a major role in influencing the actions of federal commissions.

Third, the ACIR was the federal government’s attempt to influence intergovernmental issues more directly, potentially overstepping the checks and balances of federalism (Conlan, 2006). The federal government’s increased involvement in intergovernmental issues has been a controversial topic for some time. Some argue that the federal government is overstepping its bounds by trying to directly influence state and local issues, potentially violating the principle of federalism. Others believe that the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that all levels of government are working effectively and efficiently. The debate over the proper role of the federal government is likely to continue for many years to come. Meanwhile, the trend of increased federal involvement in intergovernmental affairs does not appear to be slowing down in spite of the sunsetting of the ACIR.

Finally, there is no evidence that the ACIR had any positive impact on intergovernmental relations. In fact, the opposite is probably true – the ACIR actually quite likely made intergovernmental relations worse (Conlan, 2006). One of the main problems with the ACIR was its structure. It was designed to be a bipartisan body, but it quickly became politicized as politics inevitably influences everything touched by it. This doubtlessly made it difficult for the Commission to reach consensus on anything, and it also made it easy for members to pursue their own agendas. As a result, the ACIR quickly became known as a dysfunctional mess. Another problem with the ACIR was its lack of power. It had no authority to actually mandate anything, so its recommendations were often ignored or simply never implemented. In the end, the ACIR did more harm than good by giving the illusion of power, and there is no evidence that it had any positive impact on intergovernmental relations. For these reasons, it is clear that the ACIR should not be re-established.

THE NEW ROLE OF THE ACIR IF REINSTATED OR IF NOT REINSTATED, WHAT GROUP WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING FEDERAL IGR

It is generally agreed that some group should be responsible for coordinating federal intergovernmental relations; however, there is much debate over which group that should be. There are three primary options: the executive branch, Congress, or an independent agency. Each option has its own advantages and disadvantages. The executive branch is best suited to coordinate intergovernmental relations because it has the most power and resources at its disposal. However, this option also has the potential to create a conflict of interest, as the executive branch also represents the interests of the federal government as a whole. Congress is another option, but it is often seen as being too political and ineffective, often divided along partisan lines. An independent agency would be impartial and would not be beholden to any one interest group (at least in theory); however, it would also lack the power and resources necessary to truly coordinate intergovernmental relations. In the end, there is no perfect solution, and each option must be weighed carefully before a decision can be made.

However, an independent agency would probably be the best choice. This is because the federal government is a complex bureaucracy, made up of multiple agencies with often overlapping jurisdictions. This can make it difficult for state and local governments to know who to contact when they have questions or concerns about federal policies. Thus, one way to improve intergovernmental relations is to create an independent agency responsible for coordinating communication between different levels of government. This agency would act as a liaison between state and local officials and the various federal agencies, providing information and assistance as needed. The agency would also be responsible for tracking federal policies and regulations that could impact state and local governments, and ensuring that state and local officials are aware of these changes. By creating such an agency, the federal government would signal its commitment to improved communication and cooperation with state and local governments.

One of the key principles of federalism is the distribution of power between the federal government and state governments. Under this system, the federal government is responsible for certain national interests, while state governments are responsible for local interests. This division of power helps to ensure that no one level of government becomes too powerful. One might suppose that cooperation between different levels of government would be essential in such a system. However, what is federalism really if not competition among governments? In recent years, there has been a growing trend towards centralized decision-making in the American federal system. This has led to increasing frustration among state and local leaders, who feel that they are being ignored or bypassed. In response, many States have begun to push back against this trend, reasserting their rights and authority. As a result, cooperation between different levels of government has become more difficult. The mission of the ACIR—to strengthen the American federal system and improve the ability of federal, state, and local governments to work together cooperatively runs counter to this trend. Such a mission was always likely to further increase tensions between different levels of government, making it even harder for them to work together effectively.