sion that serious deficiencies existed in the way GRS was being administered during 1972-76. Despite the changes that Congress included in the reauthorizing legislation in 1976, the fact remains that the compliance activities by the Office of Revenue Sharing have not improved substantially since that time. În fact, there are many indications that they are even worse. For one thing the backlog is larger and growing. It now amounts to 850 cases as compared with 550 in 1976. The delays in handling cases at ORS, while slightly less than 1975, are three, four and five times the allowable period established in the legislation. The Office of Revenue Sharing still demonstrates extreme reluctance to apply hearing and fund termination sanctions to violators. No followup checks are made on settlement agreements, and no periodic compliance reviews are conducted. You asked why we thought that this was a problem and why the backlog was continuing. I think one substantial reason for that problem is the lack of adequate staff. I think what has happened at ORS has been that they have not filled positions very rapidly that have become open. They have not brought their staff up to the authorized levels. Part of the difficulty in filling these positions rests with the personnel practices of the Department of the Treasury. Frequently, we have found that the Office of Revenue Sharing has attempted to fill these positions only to be blocked by the Department of the Treas ury. As an example of the Treasury Department's attitude, when the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Altman, appeared before the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Proxmire asked him why the Office of Revenue Sharing was not submitting a request for increased staffing for the Office of Revenue Sharing. Secretary Altman indicated that that was not part of what the Office of Revenue Sharing planned to do this current year. Senator Proxmire was quite dismayed that they had failed to request additional personnel when the obvious need was there. MS. SOLOMON. I should add that only 19 of the 25 authorized audit positions are now filled in the Office of Revenue Sharing. Mr. SKLAR. I think there is another element of the problem. The role that the Congress could play in providing oversight of the Office of Revenue Sharing could be more effective and regular. We do get together every 3 or 4 years in terms of the reauthorization process, but I think there is a very strong need for more ongoing oversight by the Congress and by this committee in terms of how the Office of Revenue Sharing is handling its responsibilities. That would be a very useful step. Mr. TAYLOR. This may be a hangover of the no strings approach that the Treasury Department prides itself on in distributing these very large sums with a small staff. Every time they add a person that impairs their overall image of efficiency. We think that is wrong. Congress has said that while it is a general no strings approach, there are certain policies and standards that are fundamental and that are in the interest of efficiency and fairness. We will continue our efforts to get them to look at things a little bit differently over there. Mr. FOUNTAIN. Of course, we are not interested in encouraging the agency to get unnecessary staff, but they certainly ought to have adequate staff to do the job that the legislation requires them to do. I will ask this one more question before further questioning of other members of the panel, and before yielding to other members of the subcommittee. On page 9, Mr. Taylor, in your statement, in reference to the citizen participation provision, you said, "In many communities compliance has been minimal and the attitude of public officials has discouraged meaningful implementation of this provision." I wonder if you would, either now or later, provide the subcommittee with specific examples of communities where this has been the case. Mr. TAYLOR. We would be glad to. This goes to some of the things that Mr. Ginsburg mentioned in his testimony of getting adequate notice to the appropriate media. Perhaps he would like to say a word. Mr. GINSBURG. Let me add this word. I share your interpretation of what has been going on in the sense that citizens should have the opportunity to bring their views to the local officials, but in many cases, as the league reported and as we have found likewise, there has been poor attendance. That poor attendance, we think, stems from at least two factors. First, it has been 8 years now that revenue sharing has been in place. The money is received almost invisibly as far as local citizens are concerned. It does not have any earmarking on it. It gets mixed in with the other general funds. Then when it is spent it is often spent for current operations and local citizens do not think that they have much of a chance to have any influence on changing those allocations. Local governments are often pressed to use it for regular activities. There is not a special hearing for that. We can identify those communities where proper notices are not provided, and where the minority press is not informed, and where the other types of assistance to encourage and foster citizen participation do not occur. We would be glad to do that for you. Mr. FOUNTAIN. That will be appreciated. Without objection, the record will remain open at this point for the purpose of inserting the additional information referred to by Mr. Taylor and Mr. Ginsburg. [Material referred to follows:] CENTER FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE Information on Jurisdictions Which Did Not Comply Fully Cumberland County, Tenn.: Did not publicize hearings through radio, television, minority press. Did not publish a summary of overall budget with GRS allocations prior to hearing Did not notify public of availability of budget and supporting documents Time of meeting not convenient for good attendance. Sharkey County, Miss.: Did not publicize hearings through radio, television, and minority press. Hollandale, Miss.: Did not publicize hearings through radio, television, and minority press. Did not publish a summary of overall budget with GRS allocations prior to hearing. Did not notify public of availability of budget and supporting documents. Marks, Miss.: Took no special steps to involve senior citizens. Did not notify public of availability of budget and supporting documents. Birmingham, Alabama: Took no special steps to involve senior citizens. New Orleans, La.: Time of meeting not convenient for good attendance. Held early on weekday mornings. Toledo, Ohio: Did not publish a summary of overall budget with GRS allocations prior to hearing. Took no special steps to involve senior citizens in hearings. Lucas County, Ohio: Did not publicize hearings for GRS on radio, television or minority press. Did not publish a summary of the overall budget with GRS allocations prior to hearing. Did not invite public comment on the budget and relationship to GRS. Took no special steps to involve senior citizens. Time of hearings not convenient for encouraging attendance. 7-441 ) 80 - 2 Wayne County, Michigan: Took no special steps to involve senior citizens. St. Louis, Missouri: Did not publish a summary of overall budget with GRS allocations prior to hearing. Time of hearings not convenient for good attendance. on weekday mornings. Held carly Mr. GINSBURG. That is why we support the common thread you are hearing in our testimony, that is, there is a need for ORS to be far more vigorous in seeing to it that these very fine provisions are, in fact, implemented at the local level. Mr. FOUNTAIN. In my own area, particularly in the smaller communities, I made some observations at the hearing, and they said not to worry about the lack of attendance and that there are always one, two, three or four people representing various organizations who are in the audience. They said they did not hesitate to express themselves if they differ in any way. So, we may have that kind of appearance without it really being recognizable, that is, with someone representing large groups rather than appearing in large numbers. Mrs. Snowe? Mrs. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all of you for your informative testimony. It is obvious you did quite a bit of work and deliberation on this. I have a few questions. I continually hear from all of you that you are supportive of the administration's proposal. The subcommittee has not had the privilege of examining the administration's proposal because it has not been formally submitted to the Congress. We are expecting to hear from the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Miller, tomorrow morning. He will submit their proposal. I understand there are some changes. Are you fully aware of the changes involved? Some of them, I think, contradict your testimony that you are presenting here this morning. One of them is that the President is suggesting the elimination of the States' share of revenue sharing. Mr. TAYLOR. We are not privy to any information that the Congress does not have. The five things we are talking about are these. Let me be clear that we are not talking about elimination of the States' share. We are talking about a package of five proposals that go to the allocation of the local share. We know them in outline, although perhaps not in detail. One has to do with raising the 145 percent limit maximum to 175 percent. The second has to do with reducing the minimum from 20 to 10. A third is designed to get at the problem of shadow governments which get 50 percent or more of their funds from revenue-sharing sources. As we understand it, that is dropped to 25 percent in the proposal. The other two things have to do with reduction of what we might describe as the windfall which goes to very wealthy tax enclaves and wealthy communities. All we have seen about that is a chart as to how the changes would affect the sample number of communities. On the basis of that, we think those are changes that do go in the direction of equity, but, of course, we would like to see the details as much as you would. Mrs. SNOWE. We have no way of measuring, based on what the staff can find out, and we do not have a printout from the administration to suggest how their changes will impact on the various localities throughout the country. |