Helping State Leaders Better Prepare for the FutureHelping State Leaders Better Prepare for the...

The Council of State Governments, the multibranch association of the states and U.S. territories, works with state leaders across thenation and through its regions to put the best ideas and solutions into practice. To this end, The Council of State Governments:

• Builds leadership skills to improve decision-making;• Advocates multistate problem-solving and partnerships;• Interprets changing national and international conditions to prepare states for the future; and• Promotes the sovereignty of the states and their role in the American federal system.

Helping State Leaders Better Prepare for the Future

Council OfficersPresident: Gov. Frank Murkowski, Alaska Chair: Sen. John Hottinger, Minn.President-Elect: Gov. Ruth Ann Minner, Del. Chair-Elect: Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Nev.Vice President: Gov. Jim Douglas, Vt.Vice Chair: Sen. Earl Ray Tomblin, W. Va.

Southern: Colleen Cousineau, DirectorP.O. Box 98129Atlanta, GA 30359 (404) 633-1866Fax: (404) 633-4896

Midwestern: Michael H. McCabe, Director614 E. Butterfield Road, Suite 401Lombard, IL 60148 (630) 810-0210Fax: (630) 810-0145 Council Offices

Headquarters:Daniel M. Sprague, Executive Director2760 Research Park DriveP.O. Box 11910Lexington, KY 40578-1910 (859) 244-8000Fax: (859) 244-8001 Internet: www.csg.org

Eastern: Alan V. Sokolow, Director40 Broad Street, Suite 2050New York, NY 10004 (212) 482-2320Fax: (212) 482-2344

Washington, D.C.:Jim Brown, Director444 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite 401Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 624-5460Fax: (202) 624-5452

Western: Kent Briggs, Director1107 9th Street, Suite 650Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 553-4423Fax: (916) 446-5760

Spectrum: The Journal of State Government seeks to be an honest observer of the state government arena and a vehicle for express-ing the newest ideas and latest thinking on state policies and institutions. The mission of Spectrum is to provide reliable informationand insightful analysis on public-policy issues to anyone whose interest in state government stretches beyond the limited, short-termgoals of the status quo.Spectrum seeks to develop common ground among entities and individuals who are interested in improving state government andto unite practitioners, academics, businesses, the media and others in a common understanding of the problems and solutions thatare unique to the governance of the American states and territories.

Spectrum StaffDaniel Sprague: CSG Executive DirectorKeon S. Chi: Editor in ChiefHeather M. Perkins: Associate Editor Jeff Bledsoe: Graphic Design Coordinator

ISSN: 1067-8530, Copyright 2004, The Council of State Governments

The opinions expressed by authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect opinions or policies of The Council of State Governments.

Andrew Teague: Director, Information andTechnology ServicesLisa K. Eads: Production & Print Liaison Mona Lewis Juett: Reprint Permissions (859) 244-8238Publications Sales Department: (800) 800-1910

2 SPECTRUM SPRING 2004The Council of State Governments • www.csg.org

Keon S. Chi

The Council of State Governments would like to hear about your experiences with the difficult public policy issues affecting stategovernment. Information exchange among policymakers has always been a goal for Spectrum. We are continuing the tradition by offer-ing “Perspectives” or “Policy Options.” This is a forum for sharing your ideas and recommendations on key policy issues with otherstate officials.

Submissions should be no longer than 800 words. Please include address, telephone number and photo. Send two hard copies to:Editor, Spectrum: The Journal of State Government, 2760 Research Park Drive, P.O. Box 11910, Lexington, KY 40578-1910. If youhave any questions, call Heather Perkins at CSG (859) 244-8252 or e-mail [email protected].

E D I T O R ’ S N O T E

W E W A N T Y O U R P E R S P E C T I V E

SPRING 2004 3SPECTRUM The Council of State Governments • www.csg.org

No Child Left Behind and Emerging Trends

When talking about education reform today, there seems tobe no more controversial topic than the No Child Left BehindAct (NCLB) initiated by the Bush administration. In fact,NCLB has become a highly contentious issue in U.S. federal-ism and intergovernmental relations as well as in the 2004 pres-idential election. The controversy is likely to continue in theforeseeable future and deserves a closer scrutiny.

In this issue of Spectrum, we have included three sympo-sium articles representing divergent perspectives on NCLB.Ken Meyer of the U.S. Department of Education describesNCLB with “very impressive results.” William Mathis of theVermont Society for the Study of Education argues NCLBcosts the states a lot more additional expenditures. DewayneMatthews of the Education Commission of the States says,“The job of making the promise of NCLB a reality has fallento the states.”

In addition, readers will find a review by Ronald Chi of arecently published book, Letters to the Next President: WhatWe Can Do About the Real Crisis in Public Education. Thebook is a collection of more than 40 letters on education reformwritten by concerned citizens, including some leading expertson K–12 education.

This issue of Spectrum also includes articles on significantemerging issues: governors’ 2004 initiatives dealing with statetax revenues by Katherine Willoughby of Georgia StateUniversity; a multi-state agreement on Internet sales and usertaxes by Pennsylvania Rep. David Steil; homeland securityfrom a local perspective by Roger Kemp of Meriden,Connecticut; growing activities of state legislatures in interna-tional affairs by Timothy Conlan of George Mason Universityand Joel Clark of Michigan State University; military relieffunds for Iraqi war veterans by Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn of Illinois;key transportation issues for Southern states by Virginia Sen.Yvonne Miller; and growing influence of Hispanic state legis-lators by Elizabeth Burgos of the National Hispanic Caucus ofState Legislators.

Spectrum editors are grateful to all the authors for their con-tributions to this particular issue of the quarterly journal onstate politics, policy and administration.

Keon S. ChiEditor in Chief

Policy Options

Perspectives

Book Review

Spectrum: The Journal of State Government (order#SPECTRUMSUB) is published quarterly by The Council of StateGovernments. Annual subscription: $49.99. Single copies: $15.00. For address changes and subscription orders, notify: TheCouncil of State Governments, Publications Sales Department, 2760 Research Park Drive, Lexington, KY 40511, (800) 800-1910.

No Child Left Behind and Emerging TrendsKeon S. Chi, Editor in Chief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

V o l u m e 7 7 N u m b e r 2 S p r i n g 2 0 0 4

S P E C T R U M : T H E J O U R N A L O F S T A T E G O V E R N M E N T

Editor’s Note

Table of Contents

Symposium: No Child Left BehindNo Child Left Behind Act: A National PerspectiveKen Meyer, U.S. Department of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

No Child Left Behind Act: What Will It Cost States?William J. Mathis, Vermont Society for the Study of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

No Child Left Behind: The Challenge of ImplementationDewayne Matthews, Education Commission of the States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Emerging Trends & Foresight Tax Revenues in 2004: Governors Look Inward?Katherine G. Willoughby, Georgia State University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Streamlined Sales and User Tax: A Multi-State AgreementRep. David J. Steil, Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Homeland Security: A Local PerspectiveRoger L. Kemp, Meriden, Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

The International Activities of State LegislaturesTimothy J. Conlan, George Mason Univ. and Joel F. Clark, Michigan State Univ. . . . . . .26

Emerging Issues in Transportation for Southern StatesSen. Yvonne B. Miller, Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Hispanic State Legislators: Building Political Momentum Elizabeth Burgos, National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Illinois Military Family Relief Fund: How to Create Similiar FundsLt. Gov. Pat Quinn, Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Letters to the Next President: What We Can Do About the Real Crisis in Public EducationReviewed by Ronald H. Chi, Midway College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39


It would be difficult for anyone to argue that the past two years have been anything less than exciting regarding the education reformdebate in this country. All across the United States, state and local policymakers have been grappling with the tremendous challengesand opportunities of implementing what is considered to be the most significant and positive education reform effort the nation has everseen, certainly since the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The president’s education initiative, the NoChild Left Behind Act (NCLB), is having tremendous impact. And we are beginning to see some very impressive results.

No Child Left Behind: A National Perspective

By Ken Meyer, U.S. Department of Education

S Y M P O S I U M : NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

gap over the past 40 years, tests scores have remained stub-bornly flat. In addition, U.S. students are now falling danger-ously behind many other industrialized countries of the worldin math and science. This could have a direct and long-termnegative impact on our economic growth and strength, as wellas our national security if the trend does not shift. NCLB isdesigned to change the course.

Is the problem one of funding? According to the NationalCenter of Education Statistics, in 1965 the average per pupilexpenditure (PPE) in this country, including local, state andfederal sources, amounted to $3,588, adjusted for inflation. In2000, this amount had grown to $8,830. Over the same periodof time, however, test scores remained flat. Virtually noimprovement had occurred in achievement. Furthermore,according to recent scores of the National Assessment ofEducation Progress (NAEP), today two out of three fourth-graders cannot read at grade level. Seven out of 10 inner cityand rural fourth-graders cannot read at even a basic level.Nearly one-third of all college freshmen require remedial read-ing courses before advancement to college level studies. Andmost disconcerting, U.S. 12th graders now rank internationallyamong the lowest in math and science comprehension andapplication, according to the Third International Math andScience Study.

Nearly tripling the amount of money, in real terms, we spendon every student in this country, as well meaning as it has been,has resulted in no improvement in the outcome. Why not?What has been missing? In a word: accountability. A require-ment for successful results measured against realistic gradelevel standards.

From a historical perspective, every six or seven years, theESEA of 1965 comes back before Congress for restructuringand/or reauthorization so that more federal dollars can beappropriated to close the achievement gap. On January 8, 2002,President Bush signed into law the latest ESEA reauthorization

ducation has been, and will always continueto be, a state responsibility. As a matter offact, the U.S. Constitution is silent on thematter of education, however every state inthe country has adopted constitutional orstatutory language making education a stateright for all citizens. Yet the issue of educa-

tion has risen to a level of national prominence and priority inrecent years as technology has brought the states closer andthe country moves more deeply into a technical, informationand knowledge based economy, which demands far more ofour public education system than ever before. In the globaleconomy of the 21st century, these demands are becoming farmore evident as we compete internationally for services,products and labor. Furthermore, this issue has transcendedparty lines as elected members of both parties united in 2001and formed a consensus behind the common goal of dramati-cally improving public education in this country based on theconcept of establishing high standards, measuring againstthose standards and holding schools and school systemsaccountable for results. Rather than focus on dollars and thesystem as has been the case historically, the focus is now onchildren and results.

While education is a state responsibility, the federal gov-ernment has played a significant, growing and vital role inpublic education in recent decades, particularly since the pas-sage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965(ESEA). The intent of ESEA was to return money back to thestates for the purpose of raising student achievement acrossthe board and to specifically help close the significant gap ineducational achievement between the majority white studentpopulation and the low-income, primarily minority studentpopulation all across the country. Unfortunately, neither hasoccurred. Despite billions of federal dollars having been spentto improve student achievement and close the achievement

EE


Ken Meyer

to get there?” These annual goals are referred to as AdequateYearly Progress (AYP). This simply means that every yearprogress should be made to raise the level of proficiency forevery student, school and district. If adequate progress is notmade toward the goal in any one of the subgroups, the infor-mation is made available to parents, teachers, administratorsand the public at large and significant resources are then madeavailable to help that subgroup. The goal is to shed light onthose subgroups of students who have historically been leftbehind in the educational process so that everyone concernedcan focus on the problem and help provide solutions.Information is the key to improvement.

To date, every state plus the District of Columbia and PuertoRico has submitted and received approval for plans of accounta-bility based upon reaching the goal of 100 percent grade levelattainment for every student and every state is moving towardfull implementation of the requirements set forth in NCLB.

Have there been challenges? Absolutely. Have there been criti-cisms? No question. Is it working? Without a doubt.

There is a significant amount of misunderstanding, misappre-hension and outright misinformation floating around the countryregarding No Child Left Behind. Unfortunately, there are manypeople who believe that not every child can learn. PresidentBush and Secretary Paige believe differently and the data andtheir experience clearly support their position.

The most frequent criticisms of NCLB generally revolvearound the issue of funding from the federal level. Greatly mis-understood, this issue has become highly politicized recently. Inorder to develop an understanding of funding on this issue, it isimportant to have some basic knowledge of the congressionalbudget process, which essentially involves two steps. First a billmust be authorized, or in this case, reauthorized. This simplymeans that Congress writes a law with broad and specificrequirements. In this case, Congress requires states to produceresults for the billions of dollars Congress is willing to invest tohelp states improve education for every child. Congress alsosaid, while they are willing to invest significantly in the law, theyalso want spending caps put in place so that it is not an opencheckbook and taxpayers do not end up paying for $500 toiletseats, reminiscent of military appropriations several years ago.Or that per pupil expenditures are not again tripled without cor-responding results.

After an authorization bill is passed it is followed by anappropriations bill. The appropriations committees in theHouse and Senate are tasked with doing much research and duediligence to establish a realistic dollar amount to meet all of therequirements of the law based on reliable information. Forexample, the requirement to test every child in grades threethru eight and once in high school in math, science and readingcan be calculated on a per student basis and then a reasonableestimate is made based on research to determine how much itshould actually cost to test a child. Early estimates, especiallyduring the authorization phase of NCLB, were very high perchild. Some estimates were well over $50 per child. SoCongress used a high number to establish an authorized spend-

and the most comprehensive and focused effort in educationreform this country has ever witnessed. NCLB was passed bythe U.S. House and Senate with overwhelming bipartisan sup-port and it is built on a solid model of accountability andresults, not just an open checkbook.

The four guiding principles of NCLB are simple: accounta-bility to guarantee results, flexibility and local control to allowfor local management, utilizing research based instructionalmethods with proven results, and providing avenues for par-ents to become more engaged in the educational process bygiving them much more information on the progress of theirschools and allowing more options to be exercised to the ben-efit of their children. These options include public schoolchoice, supplemental educational services such as tutoring orprivate education companies and even the availability of char-ter schools, just to name a few. These options, as are all of therequirements of NCLB, are funded by appropriations made byCongress. And contrary to the rhetoric of NCLB critics, NCLBis more than adequately funded, which will be addressed later.

NCLB requires that every state create a set of standardsagainst which every student will be tested in grades threethrough eight and at least one time in high school. These stan-dards essentially outline how well a student can read and com-prehend as well as what a child should know about math andscience at any given grade level based on what educationexperts in each particular state determine appropriate. It isfocused on the basic fundamental building blocks of education.It sets a floor of minimal achievement to be considered at gradelevel or “proficient.” It may mean such things as when a childshould know his/her multiplication tables or when he/she cancorrectly diagram a sentence. When a child successfully pass-es a test with the appropriate grade level material, he/she isdeemed to be “proficient” or at grade level. The goal estab-lished in NCLB is for every child to be at grade level in math,science and reading by the end of school year 2013–2014.

One very important element of NCLB is the requirement thatthe annual test scores be broken down into subgroups basedupon various factors such as race, ethnicity, socioeconomicfactors, etc. This is referred to as “dis-aggregation” of the data.The intent is to shine light upon the subgroups, which have his-torically been largely ignored and left behind year after year,therefore missing out of the educational process. NCLB pro-vides resources to be directed toward those subgroups to helpstates bring those students up to grade level. In the past, stan-dardized test scores have primarily been aggregated or averagedinto one number, which was helpful but did not tell the wholestory. This aggregation allowed too many subgroups to fallbehind without notice because the overall numbers looked ade-quate and acceptable, when in reality many students were actu-ally falling through the cracks.

NCLB is actually a 12–year project with measurable incre-mental annual goals to work toward full proficiency for allsubgroups and for every child. As Secretary Paige andPresident Bush have pointed out many times, “how do youknow where you are going, if you do not have a goal or a plan


ing ceiling to be sure that it would be adequately funded.However, it was determined in the appropriations process thatthis original estimate was much higher than was necessary toactually meet the requirement. An analysis by HarvardEconomist Caroline M. Hoxby with the National Bureau ofEducation Research, for example, determined that the averagecost for testing is $5.81 per child, depending on the type of testused. The appropriated amount was substantially more than$5.81 per child but was not as high as the spending cap becauseit simply wasn’t necessary.

A simple analogy; if your child comes to you and says he orshe would like to have some money to purchase a book forschool but does not know the actual cost. You then estimate acost, let’s say $50, and you “authorize” your child to find thebook and make the purchase, up to $50. Your child then findsthe book and it turns out that it only cost $20, which is theamount you then “appropriate” for the purchase. Are you, as aresponsible parent, obligated to give your child the additional$30 because you said that is what you would be willing tospend? Of course not. Should we expect our elected officials tobe any less diligent or responsible with our tax dollars? Everyline item of NCLB can be broken down in a similar manner andby state for analysis at the local level.

In a broader context, as a country last year we invested$501 billion on K-12 public education from local, state andnational funding and we have almost tripled per pupil expen-ditures in the country over the past 40 years (inflation adjust-ed) without improvement. If Congress funded NCLB up tofull spending cap (authorized) levels, it would increasenational spending on public education by less than 1.25 per-cent of total K-12 spending. Given this history, is it logical tobelieve that a 1.25 percent increase in funding will really haveany significant impact on the outcome? No. While funding iscritical for education and as a country we are very committedfinancially to public education, accountability is the criticalkey to improvement.

Every element of NCLB is very well funded and it is welldocumented. Federal funding for all programs relative to NCLBhas increased an incredible 61.5 percent from FY 2001 to FY 2005. Every state is receiving unprecedented levels of fund-ing to meet NCLB requirements. It is now the responsibility ofthe states to fully implement the requirements of NCLB withthe federal tax dollars that have been provided for the purpose.

There are a lot of exciting things happening across the coun-try as we are beginning to see very creative thinking emerge toaddress some of the challenges of NCLB. The challenges alsodiffer from state to state and from urban to rural, but educatorsand policymakers are rising to and meeting the challenge headon. Our children are the beneficiaries.

Furthermore, over the past few months we have witnessedthe resolve of Secretary Paige to work very closely with statesto address some of the most significant concerns, which haveemerged since the passage of NCLB. In December, heannounced new guidance and regulations regarding SpecialEducation students. A few weeks later, he announced new guid-

ance to allow states to more effectively deal with the LimitedEnglish Proficient Students. Within the past couple of months,he has addressed the challenges of Highly Qualified Teachersin rural environments as well as the 95 percent participationrates for AYP.

To illustrate and underscore the dynamic nature of NCLB,Secretary Paige has made it very clear that he wants stretch thelimits of the federal law to accommodate all of the challengesof implementing NCLB within all of the states. He is demon-strating that commitment and the states are responding veryfavorably.

I have had the honor and privilege of traveling all over thecountry working with policymakers and leaders in 41 states.One thing is for absolute certain: despite the challenges ofNCLB, perceived and real, we are seeing great things happen-ing in public education all across the country. And we haveseen this issue raised to a level of national priority, where itshould always have been.

Ken Meyer is the deputy assistant secretary, Office of Intergovernmentaland Interagency Affairs, U.S. Department of Education. A graduate of theUniversity of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Meyer is a former state legisla-tor and businessman in Tennessee. He was asked to join the Bush admin-istration in 2002 and works for the development and implementation ofthe communication effort for No Child Left Behind. 400 Maryland Ave.,S.W., Washington, DC 20202, (202) 401-1989, [email protected]


Bio

mandates on state and local governments. The Right Purpose

Every child must be given high quality educational opportuni-ties. This is a moral imperative. However, it is a national tragedythat property wealthy districts spend 23 percent more than lesswealthy school districts and that the Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD) rates the United States asbeing one of the most inequitable of the industrialized nations.2But NCLB does not right these wrongs. It promises equality ofopportunity to all, denies it by insufficient resources, and thenpunishes the very schools addressing the needs of our most needychildren. NCLB’s Unpopular Methods

Virtually all citizens embrace the right to a good education forall children. Yet, few are aware of the law’s details. When theGallup Poll asked citizens specific questions about the elements ofthe NCLB law, the federal reforms proved highly unpopular.Among the findings:

• “The public has high regard for the public school, wants need-ed improvements to come through those schools, and has littleinterest in seeking alternatives.” The proportion of the citizensholding this view has now increased to 73 percent. A prominentNCLB feature is voucher, private vendor and religious alterna-tives.

• “Sixty-six percent believe a single test cannot (emphasis in theoriginal) provide a fair picture of whether a school is in need ofimprovement. NCLB bases this judgment on a state test admin-istered annually in grades three through eight.”

• “Eighty-four percent believe that the job a school is doingshould be measured on the basis of improvement shown by stu-dents. NCLB requires that a specified percentage of students —in the school as a whole and in each subgroup — must pass astate test and improvement is not a factor.”3

Furthermore, a large number of independent scholars havedemonstrated that it is not possible to have 100 percent of students

The No Child Left Behind Education Act will cost states an additional 27.7 percent in total educational expenditures based on cost-ing studies from 18 states. To carry-out these mandates, the states receive 3 percent. Furthermore, states face an increased legal liability from school districts and advocates if they fail to fund programs to assure all students reach state standards.

By William J. Mathis, Vermont Society for the Study of Education


No Child Left Behind Act: What Will It Cost States?

Introduction

“Measuring results is a hallmark of the private sector, where(managers have) to be held accountable to their shareholders,”said U. S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige at the National PressClub on September 24, 2003.1 Whether education is or is not amarket commodity, business model education reforms are ascen-dant. The theory is that an emphasis on efficiency, outcomes, thebottom-line and tough-minded business management will result inmore effective schools.

However, when we give the federal No Child Left Behind(NCLB) Act business-like scrutiny, we find it to be a bad piece ofbusiness.

• Your accountants tell you that you will be entering into a con-tract with the federal government that will require expendituresabout 10 times higher than your revenue.

• You will be required to produce a product to very precise andnarrow specifications at 100 percent accuracy with little controlover the inputs or the production process. That is, you cannotcontrol family, community and personal factors that influenceschool success.

• Your research, planning and development departments (fussyand unimaginative folks that they are) bring you studies thatshow that no one knows how to accomplish this task and pro-fessors from the nation’s most prestigious universities say thatif it can be done, then far greater social and family investmentsare needed.

• Your legal department has advised you (with much wringing ofhands) that your company will be legally liable for producingthe absolutely perfect results and warn that your legal and finan-cial exposure will be huge.

• Of course, any wise and responsible corporate CEO,accountable to the shareholders, who takes this contract, should beimmediately fired. As 45 of the 50 states struggle with red ink, thisis the highly regulated business prospectus the federal NCLB act


William J. Mathis

achieve a high standard (By definition, a high standard is highbecause few can pass it).4 Certainly, we are obligated to do ourbest for all children. Yet, any person who has spent any time in aclassroom knows that children come with a wide variety of intel-ligences, interests, skills, family backgrounds and study habits.NCLB advocates sputter in moral indignation when anything lessthan 100 percent meeting their narrow definition of success ismentioned. Yet, indignation does nothing for children with differ-ent needs.

The Costs of Implementing the Federal NCLB Law

In my May 2003 review of 10 states who had recently calculat-ed the costs of bringing all children up to state academic standardsas required by NCLB, seven of the 10 states showed total educa-tion cost increases greater than 24 percent. Of these, six states sawcost increases between 30 percent and 46 percent. Two were in the15 percent range and one estimated only added administrativecosts — not the added costs for the extra teaching of children.(The states in the study were Indiana, Maryland, Montana,Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, South Carolina, Texas,Vermont and Wisconsin.)

What is amazing about this set of independent studies is thatthey use a wide variety of outside experts, different researchmethodologies, different standards, different geographic regionsand a range of sponsors from legislative mandated research tovested interest groups. Nevertheless, they uniformly find that mas-sive new investments are needed.5

The largest single reason for the added costs is that the cost ofhelping at-risk children has been woefully underestimated. Theaverage state provides 17 percent additional money for these stu-dents but the costing studies found the effective figure to be dou-ble (or 100 percent) the base amount. A hungry eight-year-old liv-ing with a single mother working two jobs will not always be themost receptive student for the daily phonics lesson, nor will his 16year-old brother always be motivated to prepare for the NCLBhigh school science test.

In June 2003, Molly Hunter of New York’s Campaign for FiscalEquity reported that 29 of the 50 states were in various stages ofconducting studies on the costs of all students meeting state test-ing standards. Of these, five were court ordered, 14 were state ini-tiated and 10 were initiated by others.6 Doubtlessly, more havesince gotten underway. In this quickly evolving field, a number ofnew studies have recently come to light that were not included inmy earlier work. The results are surprisingly consistent:

Alabama — The Alabama State Board submitted their 2001plan for improving education as a result of the ACE v Singelmancase. New appropriations of $1.7 billion are required (whichincludes $173 million in school building repair or replacement) forevery student to reach high academic standards. This is a 48.5 per-cent increase.7

Arkansas — Following a Supreme Court decision, the JointCommittee on Educational Adequacy commissioned a study to

determine the cost of “establishing an educational system inArkansas capable of enabling every student to meet the rigorousperformance levels. . . .” The September 2003 study by LawrenceO. Picus and Associates found that an additional $848 million dol-lars would be required which represents an increase of 33 percentin total expenditures over the $2.6 billion in 2001–2002.8

Illinois — In October 2002, the State Board’s “EducationFunding Advisory Board” called for an increase of $1.8 billion forthe schools and an additional $3.5 billion in property tax relief.This represents a 24 percent increase in base costs not counting thegraduated poverty needs ranging from $355 to $2995 per student.9

Kansas — This legislatively ordered 2002 study used two dif-ferent methods of estimating costs and concluded that base costsneeded to increase by 22 percent and that additional new pupilcosts need to be added for special education, at-risk, and Englishlanguage proficiency.10

Kentucky — During 2003, Kentucky had three different esti-mates of the cost of all children meeting standards. DeborahVerstegen, working for the Council for Better Education, calculat-ed an additional $1.2 billion on a $3.9 billion base. Odden andPicus arrived at $743 million and the governor’s office said $400million would do the job. These three estimates represent increas-es of 31 percent, 19 percent and 10 percent, respectively.11

Missouri — Using outside experts, the Missouri EducationCoalition for Adequacy, a non-partisan group of education, busi-ness and philanthropic organizations, adds $913 million to the cur-rent $6.5 billion for a percentage increase of 14 percent in theirOctober 2003 study. However, the calculations are based on only69 percent of the students reaching mastery rather than the 100percent required by federal law.12

North Dakota — Augenblick, Palaich and Associates wereselected by North Dakota to conduct their analyses of the costs ofmeeting state and NCLB requirements. In September 2003, theyreported that a 31 percent increase in expenditures would be need-ed to fund all the schools to an adequate level.13

Washington — On April 3, 2003, the Rainier Institute reportedan 18 month study on the costs of adequacy taking into accountNCLB required costs. They projected an additional need of $1.7billion on top of a current budget of $5.65 billion for a 30 percentincrease.14 All of these eight state studies are new (2001–2003)and all are based on bringing students up to the state standard asrequired by NCLB. The average increase is 27.7 percent in totaleducation expenditures. This is a conservative number as the low-est increase figure (14 percent) in this group of states is based ononly 69 percent of the children reaching mastery. Two of the stud-ies do not include the costs of at-risk, special education or limitedEnglish in their base figures and only one of the eight includesfacilities costs.

These results are completely consistent with the previous esti-mates of the set of 10 other states noted above. Again, these stud-ies were conducted using a wide variety of methods, state govern-ment review panels, different authors and different sponsors.


Nevertheless, all 18 studies, taken together, show massive increas-es necessary to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind.

Using Secretary Paige’s estimate of $470 billion in K–12 edu-cation spending each year, a 27.7 percent increase to this numberis $130 billion new dollars needed to meet NCLB. Yet, the feder-al administration request for Title I (remediation for academicallyand socially deprived children) for FY04 is only $12.4 billion.

Reconciling the Federal Numbers with the State Numbers

The federal government has repeatedly claimed that the law isfully funded. President Bush said, “And we’ve committed theresources to help the students achieve these standards,” on January8, 2003. More recently, Secretary Paige wrote an opinion articlefor the Wall Street Journal (October 29, 2003) responding to theclaims that NCLB is underfunded. “Nothing could be further fromthe truth,” he said.15

Unfortunately, the federal government has not conducted acost-analysis of NCLB along the lines of those done by the 18states referenced here. Thus, we cannot compare federal and stateestimates and see how and where they differ. There is an isolatedfederal claim that the $400 million for testing is adequate.However, the General Accounting Office reports that the simplesttesting programs would cost $1.9 billion, and the more sophisti-cated approaches could reach $5.3 billion.16

The repeated rationale given for “adequate federal funding” isbest illustrated in Secretary Paige’s opinion article.

“President Bush has increased K–12 education spending by 40percent since he took office. . . . In raw terms, this president hasincreased education spending by $11 billion. As a nation, wenow spend $470 billion dollars a year on K–12 education local-ly and federally – more than on national defense.”17

These statements are true enough. However, metaphorically,they overlook the fact that a 40 percent increase in nothing is stillnothing. In apples-to-apples comparisons, the federal Title I allo-cation under the NCLB law is under 3 percent of total educationrevenues while the cost of the programs adds 27.7 percent to stateand local school budgets.

Most of the overall federal appropriations are earmarked forhigher education, special education, technical education, vouchersand other purposes. Seven of the $11 billion in new money isdirected to non NCLB programs. Further, while new money wasadded, the federal share of education spending has slipped from 10percent to 7 percent.

Secretary Paige compares education spending to nationaldefense to imply that education spending is too high. To sayone costs more than the other says nothing about the value ofeither. A new television may cost more than a bicycle but thatdoesn’t tell us whether they are good value for the money.Further, national defense is a federal government expenditurewhile state and local districts pay 93 percent of public educa-tion expenses.

Note that this defense of low appropriations avoids the funda-mental issue of how much the new mandates cost. SecretaryPaige’s claim that charges of underfunding are motivated by par-tisan politics and defenders of the status quo likewise avoids the

core question. Unfortunately, disparaging those who raise thequestions does not provide us the answers.

Perhaps there is some promise of greater clarity in the secre-tary’s words, “This is a time to join together, not play semanticgames for political posturing.”

Who Will Pay the Bill?

Most likely, the states will pay the bill. The federal govern-ment distributes the money under the “general welfare” clauseof the Constitution. There is no federal educational requirement.States choose to take the money and thereby enter into a con-tract that all schools will make adequate yearly progress on test scores.

Local districts have legal grounds to ask the state to provide suf-ficient resources to meet the achievement goals the state hasadopted. Since 1989, 18 of 28 cases brought against states havebeen decided in favor of the school districts. In total, 25 of the 50states have seen their funding systems struck down. Most of thesecases claim the state has the responsibility of providing adequateresources for all children to achieve the standards they have adopt-ed. In 2003, the National Conference of State Legislatures warnedstates that they are more vulnerable to legal action given theNCLB law.18

Conclusions

From an economic perspective, NCLB will cost states about 10times as much as they receive from the federal government. Therules are so prescriptive that, in time, virtually all public schoolsand districts in the states will be declared as failing regardless oftheir achievement pattern. Districts and advocates will take polit-ical actions to repeal the unpopular aspects of the law and courtactions will be filed asking the states to provide the dollars.

Bearing in mind that we have the moral obligation to give allchildren an adequate education, the following paths seemworthwhile:

• We should, through our Congressional delegations, request thatthe federal government do cost-studies of implementing allaspects of NCLB.

• All states should conduct costing and taxing studies and com-pare results with each other.

• Based on state and national analyses, state political and educa-tion leaders must press their federal delegations for adequatefederal funding of their mandates.

• States should also work with federal delegations to make thelaw workable or replace it with a more workable model. Federallegislators and administrative officials say no changes will bemade to the law. However, it is clearly evident at this early stagethat the adequate yearly progress, teacher qualification, andassessment procedures are unworkable.

• Finally, we must not abandon the goal of educating every childnot only in academics but to be contributing members to a dem-ocratic society.


(Continued on page 14)



hree years ago, the U.S. Congress, in anunusual show of bipartisanship, passed thelandmark No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).This sweeping legislation, even in these post9–11 times, is the cornerstone of the adminis-tration’s domestic policy agenda. As the reau-thorization of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act, NCLB affects every facet of federal govern-ment programs for K–12 education. However, the impact of thelegislation goes far beyond Title I and other federal initiatives.NCLB requires states to make fundamental changes in theirapproach to education. Under NCLB, states must set perform-ance standards for every school in America, and track studentlearning across a wide range of student subgroups. It estab-lishes significant consequences for schools, districts and statesthat fail to meet performance targets. Unlike past federal edu-cation legislation, it is fair to say that NCLB affects every childin every school in America. It all adds up to an unprecedentedlevel of federal involvement in education, and a shift of educa-tional decision making from communities and states to the fed-eral government.

It is little wonder that many state policymakers are express-ing deep concern about the impact of NCLB on their states, inspite of early and strong support for the principles of NCLB.Most state policymakers and education leaders remain firmlycommitted to the guiding principle of NCLB – that all childrencan and should learn. Groups like Achieve, Inc., The EducationTrust, and the National Center for Education Accountabilityhave identified schools throughout the United States that con-sistently reach high levels of student learning even with lowincome, minority and limited English-proficient students.NCLB asks the question: If these schools can help all childrenlearn, why can’t all schools?

While few in the states argue with the goal of NCLB, overthe past two decades states have established their ownapproaches to educational improvement and in some casesNCLB is coming into direct conflict with them. The early

excitement about this legislation has now matured into the dif-ficult and complex work of implementation.

The Key Elements of NCLB

While NCLB has elements that affect almost every aspect ofthe educational system, the sections with the most impact onstates are those addressing accountability and teacher quality.

The accountability provisions of NCLB are based onapproaches that have been developed in states over the past 20years. While NCLB requires all states to enact educationalstandards in grades three through eight and one year in highschool, and assess student learning against those standards,almost every state had already established a standards-basedaccountability system before NCLB was passed, althoughoften not in all the subject areas and grade levels required bythe legislation. However, in one key area NCLB broke newground. NCLB requires states to define a level of performanceas “proficient” and hold schools accountable that 95 percent ofall students in every identified subgroup reach this level. Nolarge-scale education system has ever attained this level of per-formance across all groups of students and all schools. Prior toNCLB, almost every state defined their expectations of schoolsin terms of improvement over time, and schools that showedcontinuous improvement were deemed in most states to bemaking satisfactory progress. NCLB says that continuousimprovement is not enough – all schools must reach a highstandard of performance within a fixed timeframe, or risk sanc-tions required by the legislation. As a result of the fixed time-frame, schools must meet interim performance targets begin-ning immediately. These steps are called Adequate YearlyProgress (AYP), which is the heart of the legislation.

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): AYP is the differencebetween where the state wants to be (its standards), and wherethe state is now (the results of its assessments), divided intoannual steps. NCLB requires states to define adequate yearlyprogress for all public school students, including charter schoolstudents. Although NCLB requires that each state determine

No Child Left Behind: The Challenge of ImplementationBy Dewayne Matthews, Education Commission of the StatesUntil now, the focus of states on the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has been on compli-ance. States first struggled to figure out what was required by the legislation, and then con-centrated on getting the state plan approved by the U.S. Department of Education. Now thatthis initial stage has past, states are turning their attention to implementation. They are nowtrying to understand how to incorporate NCLB into the state’s framework of educational gov-ernance, and how the legislation can be used to help the state meet its own goals for educa-tion performance.

Dewayne Matthews

TT

AYP, the specific definition is left to states. However, states arerequired to track performance for these subgroups: low incomestudents, racial and ethnic minorities, limited-English profi-cient students and students with disabilities. Furthermore, per-formance must be tracked for schools, districts and the state asa whole. Ninety-five percent of the students in each subgroupin each school are required to participate in the assessment forthe school to meet the AYP standard. Schools that fail to meettheir state’s AYP standard are identified as “needing improve-ment,” even if only one subgroup failed to meet the perform-ance standard.

Each state’s definition of AYP is included in an accountabil-ity plan, which was submitted by the state education agency tothe U.S. Department of Education. All state plans have beenapproved by the department.

Teacher Quality: For good measure, NCLB requires states toassure that there is a “highly qualified” teacher in every class-room of core academic subjects by the end of the 2005–2006school year. States must first define what they consider to be a“highly qualified” teacher, although the legislation requiresthat state definitions assure that teachers be fully licensed orcertified by the state and not have had any certification orlicensure requirements waived. Then, states must (1) annuallyincrease the percentage of highly qualified teachers until all arehighly qualified by 2005–2006, and (2) annually increase thepercentage of teachers who are receiving high-quality profes-sional development.

NCLB: The Effects Begin to be Felt

The first major milestone in the implementation of NCLBwas the release by states of the list of schools that failed tomake AYP in the 2002–2003 school year. The release of theselists was particularly important because, in spite of the bestefforts of many state leaders, the press often characterizedschools on the list as “failing” rather than the more accuratelabel of “needs improvement.” Given the fact that each statedefined its own standards, it was no surprise that the number ofschools that were identified varied across states. It was, how-ever, a surprise to some to see the extent of the variation.

The percentage of schools that did not meet AYP varied froma low of 8 percent in Minnesota to a high of 87 percent inFlorida. Three states (Kansas, Texas and Connecticut) identi-fied between 10 and 20 percent of their schools as not meetingAYP, while two states (South Carolina and Idaho) identifiedbetween 70 and 80 percent. This wide variation is primarily aresult of the difference in standards and proficiency levelsacross states. It’s no wonder that some in states with a largenumber of schools on the list questioned why they were being“punished” for having high standards.

Another factor that fueled the reaction to the release of theAYP lists was the growing awareness of the differencesbetween the ways AYP was addressed in the state accountabil-ity plans approved by the U.S. Department of Education.States were permitted several options in terms of how AYPwas calculated. States were allowed to determine the mini-

mum size for each subgroup, and could choose to calculateAYP based on equal annual steps or a “stair-step” approachwhere increases occur every three years. How states chose tocalculate AYP, and how much flexibility they were allowed bythe U.S. Department of Education in the approval of theirplan, had a lot to do with how many schools made the “needsimprovement” list.

States are also being held to the NCLB requirement that 95percent of students in every subgroup be included in assess-ments for the school to meet AYP. This means, for example, fora school with 40 students in a subgroup, if only three do nottake the test the school will not meet AYP. In many cases,schools have been identified as needing improvement becausethey did not meet this requirement for one subgroup. Twentypercent of the schools in West Virginia identified as needingimprovement were placed on the list because of this require-ment. Only three high schools in Hawaii met this requirement.

A further complication in interpreting AYP results is thatsome states have chosen to maintain their existing stateaccountability system in parallel with the NCLB system.Florida, Colorado and several other states now have a “feder-al” list of schools that need improvement, along with a statesystem that often produces very different results. Some haveexpressed a concern that having two systems produces confu-sion among parents, teachers and the media, and sends amixed message about what schools need to do to improve per-formance.

The Highly Qualified Teacher Dilemma

Aside from AYP, the provision of NCLB that poses the mostdifficult implementation challenge is the requirement that allteachers in the state be “highly qualified.” Among other steps,states must assure that teachers have been well prepared in thesubject they are teaching. While few argue with the intent ofthe requirement, meeting it is a particular challenge for ruraland other hard-to-staff schools.

In rural schools, teachers often must teach a variety of sub-jects to meet the requirements of state curriculum standards.NCLB requires that teachers demonstrate subject matterexpertise in all core subjects they teach. Likewise, some urbanschools already find it difficult to recruit and retain teachers.Finding and keeping teachers that meet NCLB requirements ismaking a difficult situation even more so.

Both the states and the federal government are attempting toaddress this problem through a variety of approaches. The U.S.Department of Education has funded several initiatives toincrease the supply of qualified teachers, particularly throughalternative certification routes. States are increasing the avail-ability of professional development to help teachers meet thenew requirements. However, this is one area where state budg-et cuts have directly impacted the capacity of states to meetNCLB requirements. This will be discussed in more detail later.

A New Role for State Education Agencies

While states have focused attention on meeting the direct



requirements of NCLB, there are a number of indirect effectsthat must also be addressed in state implementation. One of themost important is the changing role of state education agenciesin monitoring educational performance and helping schoolsmeet AYP requirements. States are coming to terms with twokey elements of this change.

The first is that NCLB requires states to track studentachievement and report it to the public. This will give states –and the nation – unprecedented information on school per-formance. It also requires states to create sophisticated studentrecord data systems at their state education agency to accom-modate NCLB requirements.

The second is that meeting NCLB performance goals willrequire states to develop a much stronger capacity to supportschool improvement efforts at the local and district levels.Schools that are identified as “needing improvement” underNCLB will have to provide technical assistance and profes-sional development to address their shortcomings. Many statesare not well equipped to do this. In some states, the number ofschools that will make the list of schools needing improvementwill be so large as to overwhelm the state education agency’scapacity to provide technical support. Even states with well-developed systems of school support, through regional servicecenters and other approaches, will find it difficult to scale uptheir capacity to the levels that will be needed. States that nowprovide only rudimentary levels of support to struggling dis-tricts will practically need to start from scratch.

Some states are pinning their hopes for addressing thisimplementation challenge on the data system itself. A sophisti-cated system of data on student achievement will allow statesto know much more about school performance problems thanmost do now. With the new data systems, states should havemuch more detailed information about the nature of perform-ance shortfalls in schools, including the scope of the problem(is it district-wide, or limited to a single subgroup in a specificschool?), and the specific subgroups, grade levels and subjectsthat need to be targeted. The new data systems will also givestates the ability to identify schools and districts that are suc-cessful in these same categories. The National Center forEducation Accountability is working with several states todevelop the capacity to systematically identify the best prac-tices in successful schools so they can be apply statewide inschools that are not measuring up. NCLB also requires allstates to participate in the National Assessment of EducationalProgress (NAEP). For the first time, the nation will have com-parable data across states on student performance by gradelevel and subject area. This data may lead to development of astronger national capacity to understand “what works” inschools.

Is NCLB an Unfunded Mandate?

Behind all the early promise and concern about the imple-mentation of NCLB, states are struggling to understand thecost implications of the legislation. This issue is particularlysensitive because of the unprecedented financial problems of

state governments. Some people in the states have alreadydecided that NCLB constitutes an unfunded mandate, whichwill have a significant short- and long-term impact on statebudgets. Others believe NCLB will make the enormous nation-al investment in education more cost-effective.

There are two types of costs states will incur because ofNCLB – direct and indirect. Much of the early attention of thestates has been focused on the direct costs –- things likerequired state assessments, data collection and reporting.NCLB provides new federal funding for these initiatives,although some are concerned that funding levels will not besufficient in future years to cover state costs.

More attention is now being paid to the indirect costs ofNCLB – paying for the actions states will need to take to meetNCLB student performance requirements. Nobody knows forsure what will be required, but many believe spending on edu-cation will need to increase if the performance targets are to bemet. For example, spending will increase if states conclude thatsmaller class sizes are necessary to achieve performance targets.Some are also concerned that NCLB requirements will create anew basis for legal challenges to state education funding sys-tems. However, all this speculation presupposes that there is adirect link between funding levels and school performance. It isnot clear at all if the data that will emerge from new state stu-dent performance data systems will confirm this link.

The indirect cost tied to NCLB that many states are begin-ning to focus attention on is that of teacher salaries. NCLBrequires that states take steps to assure that there is a highlyqualified teacher in every classroom, and makes it much hard-er for districts to hire teachers that do not fully meet staterequirements. The problem of finding, hiring and retainingqualified teachers is particularly acute in two areas – teachersof specific subject areas like math and special education, andteachers for hard-to-staff rural and urban schools. States areattempting to address this issue through improved teachertraining programs, stronger teacher recruitment and retentionprograms, and alternative certification routes. However, statesmay need to consider such strategies as differential pay oracross-the-board salary increases to fully address the problem.

NCLB: What Really Matters?

Until now, the focus of states on NCLB has been on compli-ance. States first struggled to figure out what was required bythe legislation, and then concentrated on getting the state planapproved by the U.S. Department of Education. Now that thisinitial stage has past, states are turning their attention to imple-mentation. They are now trying to understand how to incorpo-rate NCLB into the state’s framework of educational gover-nance, and how the legislation can be used to help the state meetits own goals for education performance. States are beginningto concentrate on three main implementation challenges:

• Creating a data system that provides the level of detail need-ed, but in a form that can actually be used to improve stu-dent performance.

• Creating a system of support for school improvement that

can help every school in need of improvement meet AYPexpectations.

• Figuring out how to meet the requirement for a highly qual-ified teacher in every classroom, in a way that is doable,affordable, and that contributes to improved studentachievement.

Both state political and educational leadership have beenalmost unanimous in their support for the premise and thepromise of No Child Left Behind. NCLB, if fully realized, rep-resents a chance to make the U.S. education system the verybest in the world by creating system in which every child,almost without exception, does well in school. If the nation canmeet this promise within 12 years, the implications are stag-gering to contemplate.

However, simply making the promise will not get it done,and no one knows this better than state leaders. The job ofmaking the promise of NCLB a reality has fallen on the states.For better or worse, NCLB has shifted the national focus ofeducation decision making to rest squarely on student achieve-

William J. Mathis (Continued from page 10)


Endnotes1 www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2003/09/09242003.html2 “The Other Gap: Poor Students Receive Fewer Dollars.” EducationTrust Data Bulletin, (May 6, 2001); “A League Table of EducationDisadvantage in Rich Nations (Florence: UNICEF Innocenti ResearchCenter, Innocenti Report Cards, No. 4, November 2002). 3 Lowell C. Rose and Alec M. Gallup. “The Thirty-Fifth Annual Phi DeltaKappa/ Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools.”Phi Delta Kappan, (September 2003), 42.4 See for example, Richard Elmore, “Unwarranted Intrusion.” www.edu-cationnext.org/20021/so html. Thomas J. Kane and Douglas O. Staiger,“Volatility in School Test Scores: Implications for School BasedAccountability Systems.” Hoover Institute, 2001.5 William J. Mathis, “No Child Left Behind: Costs and Benefits.” PhiDelta Kappan, 84, No. 9, (May 2003): 679–86.6 Molly A. Hunter, “State by State Status of Adequacy Costing-OutStudies (Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc., 2003) www.schoofunding.info7 “Alabama’s Public Schools: Educationally Adequate,” (Montgomery,AL: Alabama State Board of Education, November 8, 2001).8 Lawrence O. Picus, “An Evidenced-Based Approach to School FinanceAdequacy in Arkansas.” Report submitted to Joint Committee onEducational Adequacy, September 1, 2003.9 Illinois Education Funding Adequacy Board, final report.www.isbe.state.il.us/EFAB. See also, Augenblick, Palaich and Associates,Denver, CO, “A Procedure for Calculating a Base Cost Figure and anAdjustment for At-Risk Pupils that could be used in the Illinois SchoolFinance System.”10 ACCESS Kansas Costing-out Fact Sheet.www.schoolfunding.info/research/Cost-out_KS.htm. See alsoAugenblick, Palaich and Associates, Denver CO, “Calculation of theCost of a Suitable Education in Kansas in 2000–2001 Using TwoDifferent Analytic Approaches, Prepared for Legislative Coordinating

Council, May 2002.11 Deborah Verstegen, “Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Educationin Kentucky.” Study prepared for the Council for Better Education,February 2003. Lawrence O. Picus and Associates. “A State-of-the-ArtApproach to School Finance Adequacy in Kentucky. Report prepared forthe Kentucky department of Education. February 2003.12 http:// www.schoolfunding.info/states/mo/MissouriCosting-Out10-23-03.htm13 http://www.schoolfunding.info/states/nd/NDCostStudy9-12-03.htm14 http://www.accessednetwork.org/states/wa/WaCostingOut4-11 03.htm. See also, Rainier Institute. “What Will It Take?” April 3, 2003.www.rainierinstitute.com.15 Rod Paige, “It’s Not About the Money.” Wall Street Journal, (October 29,2003). http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2003/10/10302003.html.16 GAO “Characteristics of Tests will Influence Expenses; InformationSharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies.” GAO-03-389, (May2003).17 Paige, op. cit.18 ASCD, Education Policy Update, Volume 2, Number 10, October2003. http://www.ascd.org/cms/index.cfm?TheViewID=2224. NCSLMemorandum From President and President-elect, July 7, 2003.

William J. Mathis, Ph.D., works in Brandon, Vt. and was a 2003 NationalFinalist for Superintendent of the Year. He teaches educational finance atthe University of Vermont and has authored over 100 articles in financeand student assessment. He is a senior fellow with the Vermont Societyfor the Study of Education and consults on education finance issuesaround the nation. P.O. Box 345, Brandon, VT 05733. (802) [email protected].

ment. Everyone involved in making the education system work– from governors and legislators to teachers and principals –need to use the data on student performance to find out wherethe gaps are, and close them. The stakes are high.

Dewayne Matthews is senior advisor to the president at the EducationCommission of the States (ECS). Previously, he served as an educa-tion policy analyst with the New Mexico Legislature, executive direc-tor of the New Mexico Commission on Higher Education, and direc-tor of programs and services at the Western Interstate Commission forHigher Education. He holds a Ph.D. in educational leadership and pol-icy studies from Arizona State University. 700 Broadway #1200,Denver, CO 80203. (303) 299–3604. [email protected].

Bio

Bio

E M E R G I N G T R E N D S & F O R E S I G H T : FINANCE

n 2003, governors broughttheir citizens to the collec-tive kitchen table to discussstate finances —the discus-sion was brutal. Governorsunderstood the urgency withwhich they must address fis-

cal stringencies in their states andexpressed this to the public, indicatingthe need to make painful choices in atime characterized by many as the worstfiscal crisis since WWII. Regardless ofwhere the blame lay for the situation—9/11, sustained economic malaise,declining federal dollars, antiquated taxstructures, escalating health care, edu-cation and employee benefit costs, orhistorically poor management, chiefexecutives focused their 2003 state ofthe state addresses on themes of pullingcitizens together, returning to the pri-mary mission of state government andthen called on the federal governmentfor fiscal relief. Many governors alsomade promises to tackle tax reform intheir state, suppress political bickeringwith legislators, and enhance the per-formance of programs through manage-ment reforms.1

In actuality, states that reached bal-ance did so only by incorporating a widevariety of rather drastic revenue, expen-diture, debt and program management

strategies. According to the NationalAssociation of State Budget Officers(NASBO), the most states recorded inthe 23–year history of conduct of itsFiscal Survey of the States, “made eitheracross-the-board or selective programcuts in fiscal 2003” totaling almost $12billion, just about $2 billion shy of statebudget cuts in 2002!2 Then for fiscal2004, three quarters of the statesimposed new taxes and fee increases, cutspending and further reduced or emptiedbudget reserves and used up one-timerevenues. States also utilized a numberof revenue enhancement and financialmanagement strategies like tax amnestyprograms or accelerating tax remittanceto mute the impact on taxpayers as muchas possible.3

What is the tone of governors’ talksthis year? Can we expect more of thesame in terms of stated strategies andapproaches to managing the states?What does the state fiscal landscapelook like now and how are governorsapproaching the job of balancing statebudgets? The following assesses thestrategies that state chief executiveshave for addressing this task. State taxreceipts are considered and conclusionsdrawn based on the content of gover-nors’ state of the state addresses for 2004.4

II

In 2003, governors brought their citizens up short, recognizing the precarious position of their governments and then calling on the fed-eral government to provide relief. The federal government did come forward with some $20 billion in funds to states. These funds, alongwith numerous other tax and spending initiatives allowed the states to stay afloat, albeit just barely. Today, the revenue picture is a bitbrighter, but not strong enough for governors to snap fiscal ships into autopilot. Many governors have now gone back to their publicafter a stormy year, and few are talking about federal relief.

By Katherine G. Willoughby, Georgia State University

Tax Revenues in 2004: Governors Look Inward?

Governors’ Considered Possibilitiesfor Fiscal Relief

Last year, chief executives provided acornucopia of possibilities for relief,with federal funding at the top of theirwish lists. State government options forrelief included political or legal strate-gies like reducing partisanship acrossbranches, tax and tort reform, andadvancing greater local control of educa-tion. Economic development type strate-gies included the enhancement of a moretax-friendly and competitive businessenvironment, supporting partnerships,job training programs and bonding torealize a stronger in-state workforce,strengthening in-state tourism, and pro-moting biotechnology centers/corridors.Then, governors mentioned a number ofmanagement strategies, including sup-port for more accurate revenue forecast-ing, directed expenditure cuts and grantsto local governments, performance-relat-ed and privatization initiatives, reform ofemployee pension and benefit plans, ande-governance enhancements.5

In 2004, state chief executivesbrought up many of these same strate-gies, although their emphasis is differ-ent. For example, many mention eco-nomic development strategies as a pri-mary component of their 2004 agendas.These types of efforts actually have min-


Katherine G. Willoughby

imal direct (short-term) effect on indi-vidual citizens, yet can realize long-termrevenue gains. In Alaska, Gov. Frank H.Murkowski’s address titled “SecuringAlaska’s Future” lists his top priority asthe construction of a pipeline to advancethe production and sale of oil. In addi-tion, this governor is calling for thedevelopment of other natural resourceslike timber, fisheries and minerals toadvance local tax bases. In Illinois, thegovernor has asked for legislation tobring the coal industry back. And NewMexico’s Gov. Bill Richardson is pursu-ing increased trade with Mexico, alongwith an expansion of tourism.

Other governors used their addressesto encourage partnerships and collabora-tions between the public, private andnonprofit sectors. Such partnerships canbe used to enhance job skills of workers,advance venture capital funding, andsupport research leading to innovations.Results from these types of activities canbe used to replace state funding for sim-ilar programs, advance local and region-al economies, and eventually lead toincreased state revenues by adding to thestate tax base. South Dakota’s governorcalled for an allowance to venture capi-talists to be able to invest in “projectsand businesses that have the potential forhigh return to spur long-term economicdevelopment [with the goal of increas-ing] gross state product by $10 billionfrom $24 billion to $34 billion by theyear.” In Michigan the governor calledfor working with the private sector todevelop a large-scale regional distribu-tion center for cargo. And, Arizona’sgovernor mentioned developing “aknowledge-based economy for long termbenefits.”

The governors of Connecticut andGeorgia mentioned the creation of part-nerships specifically with faith-basedorganizations to share state responsibili-ty related to human welfare programs.Delaware’s Gov. Ruth Ann Minnercalled for matching federal and privatedollars with state funds to advanceinvestment in the manufacturing indus-try and biotechnology ventures in thatstate. Chief executives in Michigan,New Hampshire, New Jersey, North

Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennesseeand West Virginia all mentioned similartypes of strategies to manage throughfiscal year 2005.

Tax reform remains on the minds ofsome governors, even in the wake ofsome spectacular defeats of such effortsby chief executives in the past year—Alabama Gov. Bob Riley saw his recom-mended changes to that state’s tax struc-ture soundly defeated this past August.This year, Iowa’s Gov. Tom Vilsack hasasked for expanding the sales tax base toinclude some services but at the sametime reducing the rate. He also called foran increased cigarette tax, closing loop-holes and “ending unfair preferences.”6

In Kentucky, Gov. Ernie Fletcher has avery similar plan for expansion of thesales tax and the intangibles tax, anincrease to the cigarette tax, while low-ering the top income and corporateincome tax rates.7 In his address,Virginia’s chief executive discussed hisplan to make taxes fairer by increasingthe sales tax, lowering the income taxexcepting approximately 8 percent ofupper-income state citizens. He alsopushed for a tax cut on cars and food andregarding estate taxes for farms andsmall businesses. According to Gov.Mark Warner, “To me, it just doesn’tmake any sense that someone earningonly $17,000 a year in Virginia shouldpay the same tax rate as someone earn-ing $500,000 a year. This plan cuts taxesfor at least 65 percent of Virginians —and our methodology has been endorsedby four leading independent economists,including the president of the FederalReserve Bank of Richmond.” Finally,though not tax reform, Oklahoma’s gov-ernor called for a lottery as an avenue toadd revenues to the state’s treasury.

Coming from the other direction, sev-eral governors (those in Georgia, NewMexico and Kansas) brought up theimportance of collecting back taxes orunpaid taxes, and more vigilance in fer-reting out fraudulent returns. Theseefforts can certainly bear fruit. Forexample, “in a recent report to the NorthCarolina General Assembly’s RevenueLaws Study Committee, Secretary ofRevenue Norris Tolson announced that

Project Compliance, the Department ofRevenue’s crackdown on individual andcorporate tax dodgers, is on track. Theprogram’s ultimate goal is to collect$150 million in additional revenue forthe state. It has already exceeded itsinterim goals and recovered $47 millionto date.”8 Along these same lines, NewHampshire’s governor called for a“Taxpayers Bill of Rights.”

Others have called for constitutionalor statutory changes regarding newfunds, funding strategies, or balancedbudgets. Alaska’s governor seekschanges regarding the use and refurbish-ment of two funds supported by oil rev-enues. Again, this governor is calling onthe public to make the decision aboutfuture uses and replenishment of thesefunds (Permanent Fund andConstitutional Budget Reserve, respec-tively). According to Gov. Frank H.Murkowski, “the principal [of thePermanent Fund] has grown so large thatthe income created by the Fund exceedsthe revenue the state receives from oil.”California Gov. Arnold Schwarzengger’s2004 state of the state address includedhis “California Recovery Plan” thatmade reference to a new balanced budg-et amendment as well as an incredibledebt package. Schwarzenegger statedthat “We took the debt we inherited fromthe previous administration, the debt thatthreatens us with bankruptcy, and werolled it into a $15 billion recovery bond.Then we tore up the credit card. Wepassed a balanced budget amendment.And we created a rainy day fund forfuture hard times and emergencies.Never again will government be allowedto spend money it doesn’t have. Neveragain will the state be allowed to borrowmoney to pay for its operating expens-es.” New Jersey’s Gov. JamesMcGreevey has asked for tax increasesand changes coupled with $1.5 billion inborrowing to support a 9 percentincrease in spending.9

Other constitutional changes wererecommended by governors in Georgia,Hawaii, Maine and Nebraska. The gov-ernor of West Virginia asked for a con-stitutional amendment to provide cashbonuses to that state’s military men and


women who have served in Iraq, Kosovoand Afghanistan. In Wyoming, the gov-ernor discussed support for a constitu-tional amendment related medical mal-practice tort reform. About nine othergovernors mentioned tort reforms and/orchanges to health and other insurance toreduce premiums, avoid frivolous law-suits and save state dollars.

Reorganizations, and/or performanceand accountability measures are empha-sized with regard to particular agenciesespecially those related to health care andeducation services. In Vermont, Gov. JimDouglas remarked about a “massive reor-ganization” of that state’s human servicesdepartment. Regarding restructuring stategovernment, South Carolina’s Gov. MarkSanford probably provided the mostdetailed plan. He noted dramatic changesalready happening in the departments ofCommerce, Corrections, and Parks andRecreation. He also suggested the cre-ation of a sunset commission to furtherdepartment restructuring in that state andcalled for increased accountability inSouth Carolina “through attitudinalchange.” Maryland’s governor mentionedreorganization as well. Governors inRhode Island, Virginia and Wisconsinalso for called similar restructuring oraccountability measures.

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, todate, has been unsuccessful in raisingtaxes (property taxes for education) butshe was successful with the engagementof “Kansas Budget Efficiency SavingsTeams” to save “tens of millions of dol-lars” through management initiativeslike systems that automatically turn outlights to save money.10 Oklahoma’s gov-ernor is asking the state to institute zero-based budgeting to foster improved pro-ductivity and reduced costs. Gov.Douglas also established the VermontInstitute for Government Effectiveness,“a top to bottom review of governmentoperations to root out waste and ineffi-ciencies that cost taxpayer dollars.”

Governments are continuing thedeployment of technology to advancestate service delivery, many through e-governance initiatives. Several men-tioned by governors in their addressesinclude those in Illinois where the gover-

nor talked of streamlining applicationsfor state funding as well as “re-writingprograms to cut out the bureaucracy.”New Jersey’s governor also talked ofusing “e-governance models to cutexpenses.” In Utah Gov. Olene S. Walkerdiscussed the implementation of an“online service delivery system to cutcosts and increase the reach amongst cit-izens.” In West Virginia, the governorrelayed that the “use of websites to gar-ner feedback is saving taxpayers$40,000 in postage annually.”

The State Fiscal Landscape

Certainly the fiscal picture hasimproved from 2003, but just barely.State total budget balances as a percentof expenditures have stabilized, yetremain low and reminiscent of the early1980s’ 3.8 percent. The 2004 figure isestimated to be 3.2 percent. In 2000, thisratio was 10.4 percent!11

One recent state revenue report findsthat real adjusted tax revenue hasrebounded since a decade low in 2002.Specifically, “state tax revenue grew by4.5 percent in the July–September quarterof 2003, compared to the same quarter theyear before. Without the contribution ofnet enacted tax increases, this growthwould have been only 2.6 percent. If wealso take into account the effects of infla-

tion, real adjusted state tax revenue grewby only 0.4 percent – the first real adjust-ed growth since the April–June quarter of2001. This is the third straight quarter ofstrengthening revenue growth.”12

It is only mildly encouraging that statebudget gaps have contracted and thereare fewer states currently experiencingimbalance when compared to the sameperiod last year. Nonetheless, states haveyet to realize the revenue growth eitherhoped for or forecasted. For example, inGeorgia, a February 2004 fiscal reportexplained, “accounting for an expectedone-time revenue influx in June of $120million, revenues would need to growapproximately 10.8 percent over the nextfive months in order to meet the revisedrevenue estimate and avoid further FY2004 budget cuts.”13 Unfortunately,Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue’s latestpress release announces that net revenuecollections for the month of February2004 are down 1.9 percent when com-pared to last year at the same time —thepercentage increase year-to-date for fis-cal year 2004 compared to last year is 4percent. According to Perdue, such rev-enue figures call for continued disciplineand attest to the “seriousness of our cur-rent budget situation.”14 In fact, theNational Conference of StateLegislatures (NSCL) warned that states

Table 1 State Tax Collections by Type of Tax, 1994 and 2003,3rd Quarter (in percent)

1994 2003

General sales and gross receipts 34.6 31.4

Individual income tax 31.5 33.1

Motor fuel sales 7.1 6.3

Corp. net income 6.6 5.0

Motor vehicles 3.3 3.0

Other sales and gross receipts 2.3 2.5

Tobacco products 2.0 2.1

Insurance 2.0 1.9

All other taxes

Including: property tax, public utilities,

pari-mutuels, amusements, beverage

and other licenses, death, gift and

severance taxes, and taxes on document

and stock transactions 10.4 14.7

Source: Table 3: State Tax Collections by State and Type of Tax. Data available in Excel files

qtx033t3 and qtx943t3 at: http://www.census.gov/govs/www/qtax.html. Accessed on March 4, 2004.


can expect a ~$35 billion total budgetgap in 2005.15

Further exacerbating state revenueproblems is the fact that governors canexpect little relief from the federal gov-ernment in the future. While the federalgovernment came forward with $20 bil-lion for the states just this past year, majordiscretionary and mandatory programfunding changes from 2004 to 2005 havedecreased. President Bush’s 2005 budgetcalls for a decrease of 4 percent in manda-tory and entitlement spending (~$10 bil-lion) and a decrease of 3 percent in select-ed grants-in-aid (~$11.6 billion).16

While states enacted net tax hikes of$2.1 billion in the July-September 2003quarter,17 Table A reiterates that state taxreceipts, as a proportion of total receiptshave barely changed in a decade. If welook at third quarter figures for 2003 andthose from the same quarter almost 10years ago, only very minor changes haveoccurred. Individual income tax andgeneral sales and gross receipts stillcomprise the largest proportion of taxreceipts at the state level. Motor fuelsales tax receipts have decreased as aproportion of total tax receipts, but justslightly. Corporate income taxes havedeclined as a proportion of total receiptsas well. The “all other taxes” categoryincludes a number of tax sources thatcontribute less than 2 percent each tototal tax receipts in the states. Just a fewof these taxes in this category haveincreased as a proportion of totalreceipts, most notably, documentary andstock transfer taxes, from less than 0.7percent in 1994 to 1.5 percent in 2003.

Looking Inward

Governors undoubtedly are anxiousabout the future, and with good reason.Sixty percent of governors just complet-ed their first year as a state chief execu-tive. And, according to one scholar, “it’sasking too much for them to undertakemajor projects and programs with thesekinds of economic conditions. If theycan just manage to get the budgets tobalance they’re doing well.”18 Manyattempted to make changes to bettermanage the 2003 fiscal storm, yet wereunsuccessful due to intransigent legisla-tures or a wary public.

With tax receipts creeping up just a bit,the tone of most state of the state address-es in 2004 was less dire than in 2003, butno less worrisome. It was rare for anygovernors this year to plead for federalrelief like they did last year. On the otherhand, these chief executives remain cau-tious about federal involvement in theirtax systems. For example, the NationalGovernors Association (NGA) is current-ly monitoring possible changes to theInternet Tax Freedom Act of 1998 thatcould cost state governments billions ofdollars in lost revenues.19

Some governors have used their timein office to get to know their citizens.Michigan’s governor has toured her stateseveral times to talk with voters.Georgia’s governor has held individualone-on-one visits with citizens onSaturdays to gain public insight aboutstate operations and programs. In SouthCarolina the governor has held “opendoor after 4” sessions to talk with citizens.The governor of California took thatstate’s fiscal troubles to citizens and theyrewarded him with a balanced budgetamendment and $15 billion in debt —thelatter offering Californians a brief fiscalrespite. In the end, the governors are call-ing on the public again, to recognize thatstates are not out of the woods, that moretax, spending and debt strategies must beconsidered and undoubtedly that most cit-izens will need to contribute more forstates to get the work done that is bothneeded and expected.

Endnotes1 Katherine G. Willoughby, “State RevenueChoices: 2003 and Beyond,” The Book of theStates, 2003, (Lexington, KY: The Council ofState Governments), 2003.2 NASBO and NGA, The Fiscal Survey of theStates, (December 2003), 1.3 NASBO and NGA, 10.4 The 2004 state of the state addresses wereaccessed from January through March 5,2004 at the National Governors AssociationWeb site: http://www.nga.org/nga/legislativeUpdate/1,1169,C_ISSUE_BRIEF^D_6252,00.html. Five states did not have state of thestate addreses noted on this Web site duringthis time including, Arkansas, Montana,Nevada, North Carolina and Texas. Allquotes and data presented here are from theaddresses noted on the Web site, unless other-

wise noted.5 Willoughby.6 Jack Hunt, “Iowa: GOP Legislative LeadersDemand Tax Bill from Governor,” State TaxNotes 31, (March 1, 2004): 698.7 Joe Follick, “Kentucky: Increase CigaretteTax, Cut Income Tax,” State Tax Notes 31,(March 1, 2004): 698.8 Kay Miller Hobart, “North Carolina:Revenue Secretary Says ‘ProjectCompliance’ on Track,” State Tax Notes 31,(March 1, 2004): 707.9 Jeff Pillets, “New Jersey Governor Calls for$1 Billion in Tax, Fee Hikes,” State TaxNotes 31, (March 1, 2004): 687.10 Alan Greenblatt, “States of Frustration,”Governing 17, no. 4, (January 2004): 30.11 NASBO and NGA, 13.12 Nicholas W. Jenny, “State Tax RevenueGrows Slightly,” State Revenue Report 54,(Fiscal Studies Program, The Nelson A.Rockefeller Institute of Government,December 2003): 3.13 Alan Essig, “Fiscal Year 2004 RevenueEstimate Update,” Georgia Budget Notes no.15, (February),http://frp.aysps.gsu.edu/frp/frpnews/budget-notes/BudgetNote-15.pdf.14 Governor’s Press Release, “GovernorPerdue Announces February RevenueCollections,” (March 3),http://www2.state.ga.us/departments/dor/pressrel/p030304.pdf.15 Kerrita McClaughlyn, “NCSL: States SeeDecrease in Shortfalls, but Wary About Fiscal2005,” State Tax Notes 31 (March 1, 2004): 718.16 NASBO, Federal Budget Update:Administration’s Budget Lean for States;Cracks Down on IntergovernmentalTransfers, (Febraury 5), Table 1, MajorDiscretionary and Mandatory ProgramFunding.17 Rockefeller Report, 3-4.18 Greenblatt, 28.19 National Governors Association homepage,http://www.nga.org/nga/lobbyIssues/1,1169,D_6383,00.html.

Katherine G. Willoughby is professor of pub-lic administration and urban studies in theAndrew Young School of Policy Studies atGeorgia State University. She is the author ofnumerous articles on state and local govern-ment budget and policy practices and co-author of a book on public budgeting in theUnited States. Andrew Young School ofPolitics, Georgia State University, UniversityPlaza, Atlanta, GA 30303-3083. (401) 651-4599. [email protected].

Bio



E M E R G I N G T R E N D S & F O R E S I G H T : FINANCE

t is well recognized that notax, or system of taxation,will ever find broad-basedacceptance from those whomust pay the tax and thosewho collect the tax to provideessential government servic-

es. A tax collected on sales is one of theolder forms of taxation dating back tothe 1700s. While finding a measure ofacquiescence from those who pay thesales tax, it has always been a vexing andburdensome task for businesses thatbecome the agent of the states to collectthe sales tax. In the United States today,there are more than 7,600 taxing juris-dictions that assess the sales tax upon awide variety of goods and services at theretail level and at varying rates in thestates, counties and cities where suchtaxes are imposed. It is not at all unusu-al for businesses operating in multiplestates to find themselves responsible forcollecting the sales tax in the majority ofthese 7,600 sales tax locales. Such com-panies may well employ an entiredepartment of people whose sole job is to collect, report and pay the taxes due within these jurisdictions.

As we approach the mid point of thefirst decade in the 21st century, a conflu-ence of forces are gathering which couldlead to the most significant and coopera-tive change in taxing methodology expe-rienced in a century. These forcesinclude the changing purchasing habitsof people. No longer do they feel boundto visit a local store to purchase neededgoods and services. While catalog salesexisted for many years the majority of

retail purchases were still made in aface-to-face manner. With the rise of theWorld Wide Web, however, the possibil-ities of purchasing by Internet transac-tion is significantly changing the waybusinesses and individuals acquire prod-ucts and services.

Resulting from these new dynamicswas a recognized loss of revenue tostates that depend upon the sales tax forup to 60 percent of their total income.While every one of these states had asales and use tax law on the books, theycould not collect the sales tax on trans-actions occurring outside of the stateunless the seller had a physical presencein the state imposing the sales tax. Thiswas the result of several Supreme Courtdecisions, one in 1967 known as theBellas-Hess Decision and the Quill vs.North Dakota Decision of 1992. Both ofthese decisions barred states from col-lecting the sales tax on these out-of-statetransactions. In both cases, however, thecourt did not invalidate the right of thestates to collect the tax, but merelybarred the collection because of theundue burden placed upon the seller. Allof these states did attempt to impose the“use” tax on these transactions. The usetax is expected to be reported and paidfor by the purchaser at the time the prod-uct is received. This is, however, unen-forceable in most instances and thereforeis truly a voluntary tax. Perhaps there isno better definition of an oxymoron than“voluntary tax.”

While all of this was happening, tech-nology was advancing rapidly and pro-viding the means for states to develop an

IIA multi-state agreement providing for harmonized sales tax collection methodologies is bothbusiness friendly and an additional tool for state tax policies.

By Rep. David J. Steil, Pennsylvania

Streamlined Sales and User Tax:A Multi-state Agreement

alternative collection system. This sys-tem would provide for collection of thetax on remote transactions at the site ofthe seller, as opposed to that of the pur-chaser. It was believed that if this tech-nology could be sufficiently developedthen it might overcome the defect in cur-rent law as perceived by the SupremeCourt in its undue burden considerations.

During 1999, a working group madeup of the revenue officers of most stateswho collected the sales tax met andformed the Streamlined Sales TaxProject (SSTP). These states becameknown as the participating states.Around the same time, the NationalConference of State Legislatures(NCSL) formed a special task forceunder Sen. Steven Rauschenberger (Ill.)and Rep. Matt Kisber (Tenn.). Theresponsibility of the task force was tooversee the political implications of theSSTP. This unique combination of pro-fessional revenue officers and electedofficials allowed the project to move for-ward with consideration of both techni-cal and political influences.

The immediacy of the need wasbecoming apparent. In a study byProfessor William Fox of the Universityof Tennessee, published in September2001, it was estimated that $13.3 billionof revenue was lost to states nationwideas a result of Internet sales transactions.Further, it was becoming apparent thatmany merchants who maintained actual,physical structures, also known as bricksand mortar merchants, were at signifi-cant competitive disadvantage fromInternet sellers. Bricks and mortar retail-

David J. Steil

ers had to impose the sales tax whileremote or Internet sellers did not.

One final force added great impetus tothe need for resolution of the problem. In1998, the U.S. Congress had enacted theInternet Tax Freedom Act, which placed amoratorium on state and local taxes forInternet access. This original act was setto expire in October 2001, although it wasultimately extended till 2003. While thisact prohibited taxation only on Internetaccess, there was a fear that Congresswould begin to address the issue of salestax collection unless the states cametogether with a workable solution.

The original group of participatingstates evolved into a second group of 36states and the District of Columbiaknown as the implementing states,which embodied the ultimate decisionmakers in the resolution of the technicalissues surrounding development of the SSTP.

Those states came to an agreement,which was finalized on November 12,2002. This stunning achievementreached general concurrence on a num-ber of very difficult and complex provi-sions of sales tax law. These included:Uniform product definitions—Necessary to ensure that all states classi-fy and identify products in a similar uni-form manner.

• Uniform state and local tax base—While all states will still have the abil-ity to determine which productsshould be taxed, there needs to be uni-formity within the taxing jurisdictionsof that state to provide technologicalsimplification.

• Limits on state and local governmentsales tax rates—Many states have vary-ing sales tax rates among the differentlevels of government. Simplifying therate structure is important to simplify-ing the entire sales tax system.

• Central seller registration—This is keyto ensuring that businesses anywhere inthe United States can register for thesales tax collection system with onephone call to one destination.

• Uniform tax returns and remittances—There needed to be agreement amongthe states as to how they would receive

tax revenues and the forms whichwould accompany those receipts toachieve consistency among the states.

• Simplified exemption administration—All states would adopt the samemethodology of exempting productsfrom sales taxes and providing for salestax holidays.

• Uniform audit procedures—Will ensurethat auditing of sales tax collections areperformed in a coherent and uniformmanner.

• Uniform sourcing—Will ensure thattransactions are always destination anddelivery based.

• Uniform privacy protections—To pro-tect information provided by pur-chasers necessary to complete thesales transaction.

• Uniform rounding—To ensure that cal-culated sales taxes that are less than onecent will be rounded up or down in acommon manner. In addition to the agreement on all of

these issues, the member states needed toresolve the technology and find ways tocollect the sales tax in a manner trans-parent to the buyer and the seller. Thismeant the development of software andprotocols to allow transparent collection.Depending upon their own corporateneeds, businesses will have the option ofpurchasing the necessary software andcollecting the tax themselves, or devel-oping software themselves that complieswith all of the protocols established bythe SSTP. Finally, it is expected that asystem of third party collection will arisewherein new businesses will form whosesole purpose it is to act as the agent of thestate in collecting the tax. The linkbetween seller and agent would be elec-tronic, providing the requisite transparen-cy. Further, the agent would be responsi-ble for collection, reporting, and remit-tance of all taxes, thereby, greatly simpli-fying the responsibility of the seller.

Having achieved this historic agree-ment meant that the states could nowapproach Congress to request legislationauthorizing states to collect sales taxeson remote sales transactions where theprotocols of SSTP are employed. This

legislation would make it mandatoryupon sellers to adopt one of the threemechanisms of collecting the sales tax.The participating states agreed that whenat least 10 states representing 20 percentof sales tax states population had actual-ly passed legislation adopting the SSTPprotocols, Congress would beapproached.

Once again, the strength of this entireproject proved stunning to the partici-pants. By July 1, 2003, more than 20states had already adopted the compli-ance legislation allowing NCSL to beginthe drafting and introduction process inboth the U.S. House and Senate. Thesebills were introduced as HR 3184 in theU.S. House during September andS.1736 in the U.S. Senate in earlyOctober.

The proposed legislation contains aprovision that exempts small business andcatalog sellers with less than $5 million innationwide gross remote taxable salesfrom participation in the out-of-state col-lection responsibility. This will ensurethat small retailers are not additionallyburdened. The legislation, if adopted inCongress, will ratify the efforts of thestates acting collectively to resolve com-mon issues while ensuring that the sover-eignty of each individual state is protect-ed. Further, this is a way for the federalgovernment to assist the states’ fiscal cri-sis with no cost to the federal budget.

Rep. David J. Steil has 12 years experience inlocal government and 13 years as a member ofthe Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Heis also a small business owner with 35 yearsexperience in manufacturing and distribution.432 Irvis Office Building, Main CapitolBuilding, Harrisburg, PA 17120. (717)772–5396. [email protected].

Bio



By Roger L. Kemp, Meriden, Connecticut

Federal and state officials have made substantial progress in the field of homeland security since September 2001. City and county man-agers and their elected officials, however, are at the forefront of this movement. After all, local governments were the first responders tothe terrorist acts of September 11. While national and state leadership are essential, the future of homeland security will depend on pre-paredness initiatives at the local level.

Homeland Security: A Local Perspective

E M E R G I N G T R E N D S & F O R E S I G H T : HOMELAND SECURITY

Roger L. Kemp

times of disaster, whether natural orman-made.

Mitigation

Federal Assistance Programs. Thereare numerous federal programs availableto assist local officials in the mitigationphase of their emergency managementplans. Many of these training programsare provided by the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA), the U. S.Fire Administration, the Federal Bureauof Investigation, the Department ofJustice, Health and Human Services,Defense, and Energy. Contact should bemade directly with these organizations todetermine the details, availability andlocation of their respective training pro-grams. Many of these programs are pro-vided free of charge, or for a limitedcost, to local government officials. Inmany cases, these training programs arelisted on the internet websites of thesefederal agencies.

U. S. Homeland Security AdvisorySystem. In 2002, Thomas Ridge, thedirector of the Office of HomelandSecurity (now the secretary of this newdepartment), set forth a national systemwarning for advising all levels of gov-ernment – federal, state and local – aswell as the American public, of the pos-sible risk of a terrorist attack. Under thisfive- level color-coded warning system,several levels of possible terrorist threats

confronting the nation are specified.They are: low (green), guarded (blue),elevated (yellow), high (orange) andsevere (red). This national alerting sys-tem spells out various “protective meas-ures” suited to each warning category.So far, the highest level of alert thenation has witnessed under this codemodel is “orange.”

Threat Analysis and Assessment. Toproperly analyze and assess the threat-level of possible terrorist acts by individ-uals or groups within their jurisdiction,city and county officials must work withthe appropriate state and federal agen-cies. Possible terrorist targets, both pub-lic and private, must be examined, ana-lyzed and ranked by their level of possi-ble risk. Appropriate safeguards andsecurity measures should then be takenaccording to this ranking process. Thiscomprehensive approach to emergencymanagement fits well with FEMA’sIntegrated Emergency ManagementSystem (IEMS), which provides the nec-essary framework for an all-hazardsapproach to emergency preparedness.The more possible targets a communityhas, the greater the reliance of its publicofficials on using this model of threatanalysis and assessment.

Building Design and PhysicalStructures to Improve Public Safety.Certain types of construction are morelikely to withstand a terrorist attack than

ocal public officialshave developed newemergency manage-ment practices, appliednew computer softwareto this field, and havebegun to modify local

codes to enhance safeguards to protectcitizens. All of these new measures fallinto one or more of the four phases ofemergency management: mitigation,preparedness, response and recovery.

In less than two years, states havestandardized many of their practices inemergency management for those citiesand counties within their respectiveboundaries. The national governmenthas responded with a new agency, theDepartment of Homeland Security. Asthis department evolves, coordinationamong federal agencies in the area ofhomeland security will improve. Equallyimportant, federal departments are initi-ating training programs to educate localofficials in emergency management.Many of these state-of-the-art practicesand trends are examined in this article.They are categorized by the four phasesof emergency management. City andcounty managers throughout the nationshould pay special attention to theseevolving best practices, since the publicnot only expects, but also demands, thatthey take the necessary steps to safe-guard their life and property during

LL

work in and visit their buildings.Pedestrian and Vehicular Evacuation

Routes. To ensure that the public can beproperly evacuated from buildings in aneffective and timely manner, local publicsafety officials should prepare buildingevacuation plans and procedures. Thesafest and most expeditious exit routesfrom all buildings, especially those inhigh-rise areas, should be clearlyexplained. Buildings that are most vul-nerable to a terrorist act may need spe-cialized instructions for the public incase they must be evacuated. Vehicularevacuation routes leading out of townfrom urban centers should also be identi-fied and made available to the public.Depending on the type and size of a par-ticular disaster, local officials may wishto issue a directive encouraging residentsto evacuate their families to safer areas.

Preparedness

Assignment of Emergency Manage-ment Responsibilities. All departmentsand agencies should be assigned specificduties to undertake in case of an emer-gency or disaster, whether of a human ornatural cause. The roles of public safety,health and public works employees havebeen redefined and enhanced to improvethe nation’s preparedness for a widevariety of possible terrorist acts. Theproper roles for police and fire depart-ment personnel in the event of a disastermust be clearly defined beforehand. Incase of a HAZMAT emergency, forexample, it is common for police tosecure the perimeter of the area, whilefire personnel deal with the hazardousmaterial clean-up. Other departmentalemployees would be called as needed torespond to different facets of an emer-gency.

Emergency Plans and PossibleHazards. The emergency plans of citiesand counties should include prepared-ness procedures for all types of likelydisasters. These plans should detail thetechnical expertise that might be neededin the event of a terrorist attack, therequired resources, and the proper proce-dures for requesting assistance fromneighboring jurisdictions as well ashigher levels of government. Increasing

emphasis must be placed on the interac-tions of local, state and federal officials.Public officials in cities and countieswith sites that might be the prime targetof terrorists, such as nuclear powerplants and busy ports, should includethese sites in local emergency plans.

Mutual Aide Agreements. Fire depart-ments typically have mutual aide agree-ments with neighboring communities,but law enforcement, public works andhealth departments are increasinglyentering into these agreements as well.Mutual aid agreements ensure a promptresponse by departments and agenciesfrom contiguous municipal and countygovernments. The goal is to provide aseamless response to an emergency oncelocal resources have been exhausted.Under these agreements, a local govern-ment does not need to seek formalapproval to use services from anotherjurisdiction since the provision ofrequested services is automatic. Becausea terrorist act might affect more than onecommunity, mutual aide agreementsshould be made with all contiguous com-munities, as well as the county in whicha town or city is located. Contiguouscounties should also have mutual aideagreements for these same reasons.

Simulated Disaster Exercises. Whenpublic officials revise their emergencymanagement plans, they should periodi-cally test them against reality by con-ducting simulated disaster-responseexercises. Such exercises help ensurethat local emergency plans hold upagainst reality. These exercises shouldalso include state and federal agencies.Nongovernmental agencies from thenon-profit sector, such as the Red Cross,Salvation Army, hospitals, and otherpublic-assistance organizations, shouldalso be asked to participate. These exer-cises give local officials a chance towork the “bugs” out of their local emer-gency response plans, and assists them inresponding to possible actual emergencyconditions. Such disaster exercises helpimprove local preparedness, and assistpublic officials in limiting the loss of lifeand property during a real-life disaster.

Training for Local GovernmentEmployees. Since the September 11th

others. High-quality sprinkler systemsand new fireproof roofing materials, forexample, can reduce the chance of fire.Legal limits on building heights andbuilding setbacks can also lessen poten-tial damage from attacks. These andother safety features should be incorpo-rated into the design of new buildings.Physical structures also can be used toprotect existing buildings. The selectedplacement of steel and concrete barriersaround public buildings is frequentlyused to restrict vehicular access. Fences,walls and other protective encasementscan easily be constructed. New types ofdevices and barriers are emerging in themarketplace that control access to publicbuildings, monuments, and parks.

Municipal and County BuildingCodes. City and county building officialsmay want to update their developmentcodes for certain types of buildings –both public and private – to make themless vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Theloss of life and property can be limitedby retrofitting existing buildings or –sometimes a less-expensive option – bybuilding new structures that meet state-of-the-art safety and security criteria.Local government regulations shouldrequire the posting of exit signs, evacua-tion routes, and other appropriate securi-ty and safety information, in all publicbuildings for the safety of their citizens.City and county building codes shouldbe updated to impose these samerequirements on the owners of privatebuildings.

Nonstructural Measures to ImproveBuilding Safety. The use of police orsecurity guards (depending uponwhether a building is public or private),metal detectors, and surveillance cam-eras can help protect the occupants ofbuildings, as well as visitors, by identi-fying possible threats. Police or securityguards can inspect the personal belong-ings of people as they enter the premises.Existing labor agreements, possibly statelaws, will determine whether swornpolice officers, civilian employees, orcontract private security services can beused to provide this service. Buildingowners, both public and private, owe thislevel of security to those citizens that



cialized equipment or services are need-ed. Drop-off locations should be desig-nated and an accurate accounting shouldbe kept of all groups and individualswho donate goods and services both dur-ing and after an emergency. The collec-tion of these contributions from the pri-vate and non-profit sectors should bemanaged so as not to interfere in anywith the actual response by local govern-ment emergency service personnel.

Damage Assessment Practices.Damage assessment at the local levelmust be accurate and immediate, sinceassistance from higher levels of govern-ment depends on this information.Appropriate municipal and county offi-cials must be trained in the details of thisvaluable emergency management func-tion. In large jurisdictions, teams ofemployees are usually assigned to coverdifferent neighborhoods or areas of acity or county after a disaster occurs. Asa local government’s response unfolds,the information on the damage that isgathered must be continually verifiedand reassessed to ensure its accuracy.Procedures should exist in advance toproperly document the damage done toreal property, as well as methods todetermine the entire financial magnitudeof the disaster, including the costs of thelocal government’s response.

Early-Warning Public NotificationSystems. A key feature of a local govern-ment’s response to an emergency isprompt notification of the public. In caseof a flood, for example, public officialsmay have several hours’ lead-time inwhich to warn citizens. In the case of aterrorist act, however, the warning to thepublic must be as immediate as circum-stances will allow. Reverse 911 notifica-tion systems are prompt and flexibleenough to issue a warning to citizens ona block-by-block or neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis. The traditionalmeans of notifying citizens, such as thepublic media, may not be readily avail-able because of the time of day or nightthat an incident occurs. City-wide sirens(some have voice-over capability) canalso be used to inform the public.Government-access cable televisionchannels can also be used for this pur-

pose, but not as a primary source of noti-fication, since this warning system doesnot reach all of the citizens in the com-munity.

Emergency Shelters and Assistance. Anatural or man-made disaster, especiallya carefully designed terrorist attack,could leave a large number of citizenswithout food, water and shelter.Emergency shelters (beds and rest-rooms) and assistance (food, water, andfirst aid stations) should be availableimmediately. The location and size ofsuch shelters, and the organizations thatwould provide them, must be known inadvance of an actual emergency. Usuallypublic buildings are used for this pur-pose, with assistance provided by theRed Cross and Salvation Army.Municipal or county employees, depend-ing upon the state and its local forms ofgovernment, may provide health assis-tance. In case primary facilities are dam-aged, a comprehensive emergency oper-ations plan should note the location ofappropriate back-up facilities shouldthey become necessary.

Evacuation Procedures and Practices.In the case of an arson fire or bombing,people must be evacuated immediatelyfrom all impacted buildings and sur-rounding areas. Procedures should existto facilitate the smooth evacuation oflarge numbers of people in the shortestpossible time. In the case of fire or theimminent collapse of a building, aprompt response would save many lives.Vehicles owned by the local govern-ment, such as buses and vans, should beused to facilitate an evacuation. Thenumber of vehicles available, as well asissues relating to their accessibility,should be known in advance of an inci-dent. Proper exit signs and evacuationroutes should be conspicuously posted inall buildings, both public and private.The location of safety equipment andfirst aid supplies should also be knownand posted in advance of an emergency.

Geographic Information Systems.Computerized mapping using geograph-ic information systems (GIS) can pro-vide immediate assistance to local offi-cials when responding to either naturalor man-made disasters. City and county

terrorist incidents, specialized trainingprograms have become available forpublic safety personnel and other localgovernment employees in several areasrelating to man-made disasters. Trainingprograms are emerging in the areas ofstress management for public safetyemployees, the management of fatalities,proper responses to weapons of massdestruction, enhanced intelligence andinformation networking, medical servicereadiness, and the provision of socialservices to the victims of a disaster.Hazardous materials identification andmodern decontamination practices arealso new topics on the training agenda.Many of these training programs are pro-vided free of charge by state and federalgovernment agencies.

Use of Incident Command System(ICS). FEMA recommends the use of theICS when local governments respond toany type of emergency. This system ofmanagement best accommodates aresponse by multiple parties, includinglocal, state and federal agencies. It givesthe responsibility for command to an on-site manager, who reports to the emer-gency operations center. The use of thisemergency management process allowsfor the immediate coordination of servic-es from numerous sources, includingother levels of government. Local gov-ernments that use the ICS enhance theireffectiveness, streamline their chain ofcommand, and eliminate the possibleduplication of services. State and federalagencies provide much needed and valu-able training in the use of this state-of-the-art emergency management practice.

Response

Contributions and DonationsManage-ment. In large-scale man-madeor natural disasters, private citizens andlocal community organizations oftenstep forward to help victims and theirfamilies. As the public response to theWorld Trade Center attack demonstrated,non-profit organizations, as well asmembers of the public, are eager todonate goods and services and lendassistance to victims and their familiesfollowing a disaster. Specific requestscan be made by public officials if spe-

their findings to the incident command-er, who coordinates the immediate on-scene response. The location of maincommand sites and back-up locationsshould be determined on a neighborhoodbasis before an incident occurs. A sitewhere an act of terrorism has taken placeshould be treated like a crime scene. Thisrequires extra security and investigativeservices on the part of police personnel.

Public Information and the NewsMedia. Although local and state newsmedia pay attention to typical naturaldisasters at first, their interest, as well asthat of the public, soon wanes. In thecase of a man-made disaster, such as anact of terrorism, news media (print andbroadcast) at all levels (local, state andnational) will likely have a keen interestin a local government’s response forsome time. It is essential to have some-one at the emergency operations centerknowledgeable about the event and theongoing response. This person shouldalso be available to the media. Themedia provides an excellent way forlocal government officials to issue warn-ings and evacuation notices to the public.The media should be kept away from theepicenter of a local disaster wheneverpossible. Representatives of the newsmedia should not be allowed to getthrough the perimeter security of an inci-dent. Proper security measures must beprovided by police personnel to achievethis goal.

Recovery

Crime Scene Security. Man-made dis-asters such as terrorist acts are crimes,and the location of the incident should betreated like a crime scene. Evidence atthe site must be secured, collected andproperly protected for future use in legalproceedings. This evidence may be usedto prosecute the perpetrators at a laterdate, once the recovery phase of theemergency response has been complet-ed. This means that public access to thesite must be limited. First respondersmust be trained by law enforcement per-sonnel to both identify and protect evi-dence at the disaster site. For this reason,debris removal must be undertakenunder special, and controlled, circum-

stances. Depending on the size of a dis-aster, this process could take weeks,even months, to complete.

Crisis Counseling. Following a disas-ter, public safety employees, and citizensin general, often suffer from a variety ofstress-related symptoms, includinganger, depression, headaches and insom-nia. Debriefing and counseling sessionsfor affected personnel by experiencedcounselors should take place as soon aspossible after a disaster occurs.Psychologists, chaplains, family coun-selors and mental health professionalstypically provide these valuable servic-es. Many employee assistance programs(EAP’s) offer counseling services to cityand county employees. If a jurisdictiondoes not have an EAP in place, it mayneed to hire trained specialists to providepost-disaster counseling services toemployees and their families. Ideally,these services should be provided quick-ly, usually within 24 to 48 hours after anemergency takes place.

Disaster Assistance to PropertyOwners and Citizens. Public officials ina jurisdiction where a natural or man-made disaster occurs should immediate-ly establish a clearinghouse to coordi-nate assistance to the victims and theirfamilies. The FEMA, state governments,the Red Cross, Salvation Army, andother non-profit organizations, frequent-ly provide this type of assistance. Byproviding a centralized location for citi-zen information about assistance, cityand county officials will be able to facil-itate the process of restoring order after adisaster takes place. It is incumbent uponlocal officials to inform the public aboutthe disaster assistance programs that areavailable to them, as well as to coordi-nate the services provided by these pro-grams. Local government officials maywish to provide for “gap” coverage toproperty owners and citizens who werevictims of a disaster until other programs“kick-in.”

Management of Fatalities. The limit-ed scope of most local disasters does notrequire extensive planning for the man-agement of on-site fatalities. In the caseof terrorist incidents, however, localgovernment officials may need to make

officials should know the exact locationof power grids, public utilities, publictelephones, public open spaces, hospi-tals, natural amenities, and other usefulinformation, in advance. The location ofthese items should be on a publicagency’s computer database. This is inaddition to the usual information, such asthe location of property lines and build-ings. Staging areas, incident commandposts, emergency shelters, designatedmedical facilities and approved evacua-tion routes, should also be plotted for useby city and county employees whenresponding to emergencies. The use ofGIS was critical in New York City’sresponse to the September 2001 terroristattack, and helped police officers andfirefighters limit the loss of life andproperty.

Medical Services and Equipment. It iscritical that the availability of all medicalservices and equipment be known inadvance of an incident. The locations ofhospitals, ambulance companies, andprivate medical providers – and theresources they can provide – must beincluded in emergency operations plans.Because primary facilities may be dam-aged during a disaster, back-up medicalfacilities and services should also beknown and determined in advance. Alsoneeded are decontamination proceduresthat would be followed in the event of achemical or biological emergency.Public information must also be provid-ed within a short time frame to relativesand friends of victims. Careful advancedplanning in these crucial areas can leadto a timely and professional response bylocal government personnel.

On-Site Command and Control. Theimmediate on-site management of a dis-aster is essential. The on-site managerand command staff are responsible forcoordinating the response, includingtheir interaction with public officialsfrom other agencies (e.g., city, county,state, federal, and nonprofit). The on-sitecommand staff reports to the emergencyoperations center, which would relayincident information to the appropriatepeople, including elected officials andthe news media. Actual responders (typ-ically police and fire personnel) report



arrangements for temporary morgues,depending upon the size of the incident.Local mortuaries should be put on alertto handle the additional deaths createdby these type of emergencies.Procedures for properly notifying vic-tims’ next-of-kin must be worked out inadvance. Emergency operations plansmust include a section pertaining to themanagement of on-site fatalities. It isprudent to include this information in alllocal emergency response plans, regard-less of the size of the jurisdiction.Resources for the management of fatali-ties are an integral part of the recoveryphase of an agency’s emergencyresponse.

Rebuilding Private Structures andSpaces. Typically, after a natural disas-ter, the owners of damaged property willfile a claim with their insurance compa-ny to collect for damages. Once the mon-etary settlement is received, propertyowners can begin the process of recon-struction. In the case of a terrorist attackcausing widespread damage, the localgovernment has an important role to playin this rebuilding process. Local officialsmust notify all owners of damaged prop-erty and ask them to clear their land,ensure it is free of hazards, properlyfence it for public safety purposes, andultimately, reconstruct the improve-ments. In the interest of public safety,local government officials may wish toperform some of these tasks. In this case,permission should be obtained from theproperty owners involved. Public offi-cials may seek title to impacted privateproperties where the aggregation of indi-vidual ownerships best serves the pub-lic’s interest. This especially holds true iflocal owners of commercial and residen-tial properties do not want to rebuild inthe disaster area.

Restoration of Public Infrastructureand Open Spaces. After a disaster, citi-zens expect their local government offi-cials to restore the public infrastructure(for example, sewer and water lines,electricity, roadways, sidewalks andpublic transit) and public open spaces(parks, playgrounds, walkways, bike-ways, trails, beach access and water-ways, to name a few) in a timely manner.

While the public sector must hold citi-zens accountable for the restoration oftheir private property, citizens shouldhold their local government officialsaccountable for the timely restoration ofall public property. City and county offi-cials should take prompt action to gainthe trust of citizens in this regard. Thebottom line is that improvements in andaround the disaster area, particularlypublic amenities, should be restored assoon as possible following a terroristincident.

Conclusion

After the terrorist attacks in New YorkCity and at the Pentagon in September2001, and the hijacking that led to theplane crash in rural Pennsylvania, thefederal government coined the phrase“homeland security” to describe theactions of all levels of government toprotect citizens from future acts of vio-lence by terrorists. While the emergencymanagement practices and techniquesthat evolve during the coming years willbe different from the civil defense meas-ures of the past, the goal of these initia-tives it still the same: minimize the lossof life and property. This goal requiresthe implementation of policies and thetesting of procedures in each of the fourphases of emergency management.FEMA’s all-hazards approach to emer-gency management enables local gov-ernment officials to prepare comprehen-sive plans that encompass all potentialhazards, both natural and man-made.The field of emergency management hasgone full circle in the past half-century.External threats have focused the atten-tion of emergency planners on man-made disasters. At the same time, plansto cope with natural disasters must con-tinue.

Local government officials are takingthe dangers posed by a possible terroristattack seriously, and have implementedthe state-of-the-art practices examined inthis article since September 2001. In theearly 21st century, the evolving disci-pline of emergency management is in thespotlight. It is rapidly expanding in newdirections in response to external threatsto our nation’s many cities and counties.

New emergency management practiceswill be developed and tested at all levelsof government during the coming years.The trends presented in this chapter areat the promising forefront of these newdevelopments. All of the practices exam-ined represent the continued goal ofemergency management. That is, to limitthe loss of life and property of citizensduring times of a disaster.

Note: This article is based on nationalresearch for a new book, HomelandSecurity: Best Practices for LocalGovernment, published by theInternational City/County ManagementAssociation, and can be ordered by tele-phone (1-800-745-8780) or online(http://www.bookstore.icma.org/).

Roger L. Kemp has served as city manageron both the West and East Coasts, and ispresently city manager of Meriden, CT. Heholds a Ph.D. in public administration, and isa graduate of the Program for SeniorExecutives in State and Local Government atHarvard University. He has written and edit-ed many books on various topics related tolocal governments over the years. 421Brownstone Ridge, Meridian, CT 06451.(203) 630-4123. [email protected].

Bio

The International Activitiesof State Legislatures

State legislatures in the United States engage in a substantial amount of international activity. The emphasis of state legislative activityhas shifted from trade issues, which were the focus of legislative activity in the 1990s, to an emphasis on terrorism in the post-September11 era. As in most areas of state policy, however, there is a great deal of interstate variation in legislatures’ international activities.

By Timothy J. Conlan, George MasonUniversity and Joel F. Clark, Michigan StateUniversity

drawing upon their fiscal and legislativepowers and their expertise in the practiceof representative democracy. Althoughthere is wide variation in state legislativeinvolvement in the international arena,reflecting differences in state resourcesand priorities, legislatures as a wholehave joined with the rest of state govern-ment to become increasingly active par-ticipants in the global arena of the 21stcentury.

In order to explore the internationalactivities of state legislatures in moredetail, this article draws upon three setsof data. First, a questionnaire was mailedto directors of state legislative researchsupport agencies.4 Second, the authorsconducted computerized searches ofbills and resolutions introduced andpassed in all 50 states, covering a periodfrom 1991–2002. Finally, case studieswere conducted in five regionallydiverse states, allowing for in-depthinterviews with legislators and staff.5

State Legislative Involvement inInternational Affairs

The core function of legislative bodiesis to draft, debate and adopt new laws.Thus, the most important indicator ofglobal involvement by state legislaturesis their willingness to consider and adoptinternationally-directed legislation. Acomprehensive analysis of state legisla-tive activity across the 50 states showsthat, on the whole, legislatures have

indeed been active in this area, consider-ing and adopting hundreds of bills andresolutions with significant internationalcontent during the past decade.

The Scope of InternationalLawmaking. Measuring the level ofinternational activity among the 50 statelegislatures is a complex task. To accom-plish it, this study relied on multiplesearches of the Lexis/Nexis state legisla-tive database. Using a combination ofsearch terms such as “internationaltrade,” “human rights,” “Kyoto Treaty,”and specific country names (Cuba,China and Mexico), bill titles andabstracts were analyzed in multiplewaves of searches. Where ambiguitiesabout bill content were evident, a searchof the complete bill text was conducted.In some cases, a state’s own legislativedatabase was searched to supplement theresults of the Lexis/Nexis search.

This search process identified approx-imately 823 bills and resolutions withsignificant international content intro-duced in the 2001–2002 legislative ses-sions of the 50 states.6 These range fromresolutions memorializing Congress andthe president to take—or refrain fromtaking—a specific foreign policy actionto substantive laws utilizing the powersof state governments to affect immigra-tion, international trade, environmentalprotection, border relations with Canadaand Mexico, and national defense.Approximately 270 of these bills and

Introduction

Over the past 30 years, American stategovernments have become increasinglyactive in the international arena.2 Moststates now view international trade as anintegral component of their economicdevelopment strategies. By 1999, stategovernments had opened over 240offices in 34 foreign countries to pro-mote exports of state products, and mostpursued foreign direct investment withsimilar energy and creativity.3Governors and other state leaders rou-tinely travel the globe in pursuit of mar-kets and investments. States along thesouthern and northern borders of theUnited States have increasingly engagedwith their counterparts in Mexico andCanada over common policy concerns,from immigration to environmental pro-tection. State public colleges and univer-sities attract thousands of internationalstudents each year, while state depart-ments of Natural Resources andEnvironmental Protection have formedenvironmental partnerships with coun-tries around the world.

To date, our understanding of thesedevelopments has stemmed mainly fromhigh profile executive initiatives, such asgubernatorial trade missions and thedevelopment of executive branch officesand programs to promote trade andinvestment in the global economy. But,state legislatures also have participatedin the globalization of state government,

Timothy J. Conlan Joel F. Clark


E M E R G I N G T R E N D S & F O R E S I G H T : INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

1


Figure 1 International Legislative Activity, 1991-2002

Introduced Passed

congressional delegation to work toimplement a National Missile DefenseSystem.15 The “other” legislation cate-gory includes items ranging fromhumanitarian resolutions, environmentalissues, special tax provisions for over-seas activities, reciprocal educationagreements, and other diverse issues. AMassachusetts bill to provide for the pro-

tection of tropical rain forests by restrict-ing state purchases of certain wood prod-ucts16 represents one example that fallsinto the “other” category.

Non-Legislative Activity. State legisla-tive involvement in international affairsextends beyond legislative activity. Forexample, according to the survey of statelegislative research staffs, approximately

resolutions were enacted intolaw or, if simple resolutions,passed by the requisite legisla-tive chamber.7

The Substance of Inter-national Legislation. The sub-ject matter of state internation-al legislation is varied andevolving. In the 2001–2002legislative session, anti-terror-ism legislation was the singlemost common focus of legisla-tive action. This clearly reflect-ed the impact of the September 11, 2001terrorist acts, and it makes that legisla-tive session distinct from earlier sessionsexamined. State bills and resolutionsconsidered to have a focus on interna-tional terrorism included such proposedand adopted legislation as a Minnesotabill establishing new procedures fordeclaring national security health emer-gencies and providing criminal penaltiesfor bioterrorism,8 a Texas resolutionmemorializing victims of the terroristattack on the U.S.S. Cole,9 and a Virginiabill that expands the state law on wire-taps to enable a wiretap when terroristactivity is suspected.10

As Table 1 indicates, trade related leg-islation was the second most commonform of international legislation intro-duced in the 2001–2002 period.Examples here include such legislationas a New Jersey bill to establish a for-eign trade zone incentive program,11 aMinnesota resolution urging state andlocal government authority be protectedin international trade agreements,12 and aCalifornia bill to establish a position ofCalifornia liaison to the WTO.13 Anti-terrorism and trade legislation were fol-lowed in frequency by country-specificbills and resolutions, border policyissues and defense-related legislation.Examples of these types of bills and res-olutions are: a concurrent resolution inNorth Dakota urging that the tradeembargo with Cuba be lifted, a bill toestablish a Border Trade AdvisoryCommission in Texas,14 and a WestVirginia resolution urging the state’s

Bills IntroducedTrade Human Defense Anti– Environ- Country- Border Other Total

Rights Terrorism ment Specific Issues

Number 218 27 46 297 19 87 50 92 836

Percent 26% 3% 6% 36% 2% 10% 6% 11% 100%

Bills Passed

Number 71 5 7 92 8 40 14 33 270

Percent 26% 2% 3% 34% 3% 15% 5% 12% 100%

Table 1 Substantive Makeup of International Legislation, 2001–2002

Special Committee on InternationalDevelopment, and Washington State’sTask Force on International TradeAgreements and the Role of the State. Asmore state legislatures have becomeengaged internationally, they have alsobegun to institutionalize their proceduresfor international protocol. Twenty-threeof the states responding to the interna-tional survey (57 percent) had designateda legislator or staff person with majorprotocol responsibilities for the legisla-ture.

Trends in Legislative InternationalActivity

In order to examine trends in stateinternational lawmaking over time, thisstudy examined international legislativeactivity during three periods:1991–1992, 1995–1996 and 2001–2002.

As Table 2 shows, there was a clearpattern of increased activity over time.The number of international bills andresolutions introduced increased 17 per-cent between 1991–1992 and 1995-1996, and the number of bills and reso-lutions passed during this periodincreased 15 percent. The increase waseven more substantial in the latter peri-od. Between the 1995–1996 session and2001–2002, the number of internationalbills and resolutions introduced grew bya whopping 105 percent and the num-bers passed increased by 225 percent.This rapid pace of growth is illustratedin Figure 1.

Along with overall growth, the com-position of state international legislationhas also changed over time. Figure 2shows the changing composition ofinternational bills and resolutions intro-duced during the three time periodsexamined in this study. Trade-relatedbills and resolutions clearly dominatedthe states’ international agenda in theearly and mid-1990s, when approxi-mately 60 percent of all internationalbills introduced were trade related.About 15 percent of all internationalbills and resolutions in these earlier peri-ods were connected to specific coun-tries—resolutions concerning Israel andthe Middle East, Cuba, Armenia, and thelike. The remainder of the legislation

America and Africa. The creation of new institutional

structures and procedures for dealingwith international affairs representsanother area of state legislative activity.Twenty-six percent of responding legis-latures had created a committee or sub-committee with major responsibility fordealing with issues of international tradeor international affairs. Examplesinclude the Alaska Senate SpecialCommittee on World Trade andState/Federal Relations, the CaliforniaSenate Select Committee onInternational Trade Policy and StateLegislation, the Oklahoma Joint

half of all state legislatures received atleast one delegation of foreign leaders orparliamentarians during the 2001–2002period, and about half of all respondinglegislatures sent at least one delegationof members to a foreign country.Overall, about 50 different foreign coun-tries were involved, either sending orreceiving delegations. The largest num-ber of visits came via delegations fromEast Asian countries, followed byEastern Europe and the former SovietUnion, Western Europe and Africa. U.S.legislators who went abroad most fre-quently visited countries in East Asia,followed by Western Europe, Latin

2001–2002 TOTALS 1995–1996 TOTALS 1991–1992 TOTALS

Introduced Passed Introduced Passed Introduced Passed

823 270 402 83 343 72

Table 2 The Growth of International Legislation, 1991–2002

TOTAL


Figure 2 Numbers and Types of International Bills Introduced, 1991-2002


introduced dealt with a broad range ofother topics, from human rights and theenvironment to border issues anddefense. As noted earlier, and as Figure 2makes clear, the composition of interna-tional legislation changed dramaticallyin 2001–2002, reflecting a new and pro-nounced concern with issues of terror-ism. As noted earlier in Table 1, about 36percent of international bills and resolu-tions introduced in 2001–2002 dealt withissues of terrorism, while trade relatedlegislation comprised about 26 percent.

As Figure 3 shows, a very similar pat-tern emerges when looking at the trendsin inter-national bills and resolutions thatwere passed by state legislatures. Again,the dramatic growth in legislation adopt-ed in the most recent period was drivenmainly by the proliferation of new ter-rorism-related laws and resolutionsadopted after September 11, 2001. About

one-third of all legislation passed in thisperiod was terrorism related. Trade-related bills and resolutions remained thenext most popular form of legislationpassed in the 2001–2002 period, consti-tuting one-quarter of all adoptions. Inpercentage terms, this was a steepdecline from the 1995–1996 period,when 70 percent of bills and resolutionsadopted were trade related. However, itis important to note that, even with thatpercentage decline, slightly more tradelegislation was passed in 2001–2002than in 1995–1996—71 versus 58 billsand resolutions. The shrinking percent-age is simply a reflection of how greatlythe overall number of bills and resolu-tions increased in the recent period.

When interpreting these trend data, itis important to remember that data werecollected for only six of the 12 yearsbetween 1991 and 2002. This is helpful

for gaining an overview of general ten-dencies over time, but it means thatissues that arose and faded quickly inone of the non-sampled years may not becaptured in this data. One example ofsuch an issue involves state laws and res-olutions regarding global warming.There were relatively few pieces of leg-islation addressing this issue in the2001–2002 session, but during the peri-od from 1997 to 1999, 75 bills and reso-lutions addressing the Kyoto protocolswere introduced in the various state leg-islatures, and 21 of these were adopted.By 2002, approximately one-third of allstates had adopted policies through leg-islation or executive order to reduceemissions of greenhouse gases.17

Variations in State InternationalActivity

States vary widely in their policies,and state international activities are noexception to this pattern. The interna-tional activities examined in this studyvary considerably from state to state,even though they have increased sub-stantially in the aggregate. For example,in the 2001–2002 period, internationallegislative activity varied from zero billsand resolutions introduced or passed infour states to highs of 93, 81 and 66 billsor resolutions introduced in Texas,Virginia and Minnesota respectively.Overall, the 50 state legislatures aver-aged 16.7 bills and resolutions intro-duced and 5.4 bills and resolutionspassed.

International travel and the receptionof foreign delegations also varied wide-ly. Fifteen states reported receiving noforeign delegations, although many mayhave received international visitors on aless formal basis. At the oppositeextreme is California, which reported ahigh of 637 foreign dignitaries from 67different countries in 2001. Other statesalso reported significant numbers of for-eign delegations. Minnesota, for exam-ple, reported receiving 77 foreign dele-gations over a two-year period from2000–2001, with over 400 foreign visi-tors. Texas reported receiving 260 dele-gations over this same period.

Similar variations existed in state leg-

Figure 3 Numbers and Types of International Bills Passed, 1991-2002

legislators, such as The Council of StateGovernments and its regional affiliatesand the National Conference of StateLegislatures also play an important rolein policy diffusion.

Mass media were a third motivatingfactor of significance. Media attention toissues and problems, whether in the massbroadcast and print media or in morespecialized policy newsletters, wereidentified as a major source of inspira-tion for international activities and asource of policy ideas by 59 percent ofsurvey respondents. The most tellingexample of this media role is apparent inanti-terrorism policy, which went quick-ly from a secondary to a leading focus ofstate policy initiatives in the wake of theSeptember 11 terrorist attacks.

Federal Involvement in StateInternational Policymaking

Because foreign policy is primarily anational government responsibility, onemight expect to find a high degree offederal involvement when state legisla-tures engage in international activities.This is often not the case, however.Although there have been high profilecases of federal-state conflict over stateinvolvement in foreign policy—as in thecase of state efforts to sanction firmsdoing business in Burma/Myanmar—such cases of conflict and close intergov-ernmental interaction appear to be theexception rather than the rule.

For example, according to our interna-tional activities survey, federal officialsgenerally do not testify on internationalissues before state legislative commit-tees. Eighty-nine percent of surveyrespondents indicated that this rarelyoccurs. Similarly, 80 percent of respon-dents indicated that federal officialsrarely lobby behind the scenes on suchissues. Trade and environmental protec-tion were identified as the issues mostlikely to generate federal efforts to lobbyor influence state government, and offi-cials with the departments of Agricultureand Commerce were considered to bethe most likely to testify before the leg-islature. Finally, only two states(Washington and Maryland) reportedstate legislative consultations with the

in Washington, D.C. has worked nation-wide to secure the passage of state resolu-tions commemorating the genocide ofTurkish Armenians in 1915–1923.19

Agricultural groups have lobbied states toencourage lifting the U.S. trade embargowith Cuba, while environmental groupshave lobbied states to address globalwarming.20 Even foreign governmentshave been involved in formal or informallobbying efforts. The Mexican foreignministry has worked to persuade states, aswell as local governments and privatefirms, to accept the Mexican matriculaconsular as a valid form of ID in theUnited States.21

Legislators’ own substantive policyconcerns are another important motiva-tion for sponsoring international billsand resolutions. This factor was men-tioned as a major motivation by 59 per-cent of the survey respondents. OneMinnesota legislator, who has beenactive sponsoring resolutions concerninginternational trade agreements, NationalMissile Defense, and trade with Cuba,put it this way: “I grew up in an era wheninternational issues were vitally impor-tant—in the 1960s and 1970s—so it justseems natural. People tease me aboutwanting to chair the [nonexistent] StateForeign Relations Committee.” Personalpolicy concerns were mentioned as thedriving force behind New Jersey andCalifornia legislators’ efforts to addressthe preemption of state authority byinternational trade agreements as well.

Legislative policy activists oftenbelong to networks and organizationsthat link legislators across state bound-aries and that aid in the diffusion of pol-icy ideas from state to state. Many con-servative legislators are members of theAmerican Legislative ExchangeCouncil, which has taken positions onseveral international issues, includingtrade sanction legislation and stategreenhouse gas initiatives. On the leftare organizations like the Center forPolicy Alternatives and the StateEnvironmental Resource Center, whichdevelop model state legislation on issuesranging from immigration to labor andenergy issues. Non–partisan organiza-tions representing state governments and

islators’ travel abroad. Sixteen statesreported sending no legislative delega-tions abroad during the 2001–2002 peri-od, or they lacked data on the subject.Fifteen states reported legislative travelto 18 different countries. Indiana, forexample, reported legislative visits toeight countries in Europe and Asia dur-ing this period.

Motivations Behind StateInternational Activity

What motivates state legislators tobecome involved with internationalissues? States have modest powers in thefield compared to the national govern-ment, and constituents express far moreinterest in domestic policy issues, suchas education and transportation. Yet,many legislators do become involvedwith international issues. The reasons forthis are as numerous as the legislatorsthemselves, but several motivational pat-terns are apparent from the questionnaireand interviews with legislators and leg-islative staff.

Legislative Sponsorship. In both thesurvey questionnaire and interviews, themost commonly cited motivation forsponsoring international bills and resolu-tions involved constituency influenceand requests. This was mentioned as amajor motivating factor by 86 percent ofthe survey respondents. As one legisla-tive aide put it: “An individual legislatortypically gets contacted by a constituentactive with an organization, and we havelarge immigrant populations in thisstate.” For example, legislators and staffin several states related sponsorship ofresolutions on human rights in China tothe presence and activities of ChineseAmericans and recent Chinese immi-grants. African-Americans were leadingsupporters of bills and resolutions relat-ing to Africa in many states.

Direct constituency involvement issupplemented on many issues by lobby-ing campaigns orchestrated by organizedgroups. Far more interest groups are nowengaged in lobbying at the state level thanin the past, and this expansion of state-level lobbying is evident on internationalissues as well as domestic ones.18 Forexample, the Armenian National Institute


office of U.S. Trade Representative. The survey of legislative research

directors also uncovered only modestlevels of concern about the preemptiveeffects of international trade treaties,although such apprehension appears tovary considerably over time and fromstate to state. For example, 20 percent ofstate respondents did not consider feder-al preemption of state authority via inter-national trade treaties to be a major poli-cy concern at this time. The largest num-ber—slightly over 50 percent—described such preemption as an occa-sional concern.

About one-quarter of legislativerespondents did describe trade-basedpreemption as a major concern, althoughnone put it in the category of highest pol-icy priorities. Illustrative of these con-cerns, at least two states have establishedlegislative committees or task forces tomonitor the effects of international tradenegotiations on state legislative preroga-tives,22 and legislators in various stateshave sponsored resolutions memorializ-ing the president and Congress to respectstate authority when negotiating and rat-ifying international treaties.23 Accordingto questionnaire respondents, the policyareas where legislators are most con-cerned about federal preemption areenvironmental protection, labor regula-tions and transportation.

Overall, state legislators mirror broadersocial divisions about the costs and bene-fits of international trade. Some empha-size the positive dimensions of trade foreconomic growth; they tend to supportnew treaties to open markets and expandtrade, including state resolutions urgingCongress to support presidential “fasttrack” authority in trade negotiations.Others are more concerned about nega-tive effects of globalization, especially ondeclining industries and the environment.Depending on the nature of the localeconomy, some legislatures may be dom-inated by one of these positions, whileothers, such as California, are divided.24

The Future of State LegislativeInvolvement in International Affairs

State involvement in the internationalarena has grown significantly over time,

though often in fits and starts. On theexecutive side, earlier research of statetrade agencies found surprising volatilityin their budgets, staffs, and overseasoffices, often in response to changingstate fiscal conditions and gubernatorialpriorities.25 This study finds a similarpattern on the legislative side of stategovernment. Legislative concern withinternational issues increased substan-tially during the 1990s, but the pace ofchange and the issues of concern weresubject to rapid shifts.

In part, this variability reflects changesin the issue environment. Nationaldebates over the negotiation and ratifica-tion of new international treaties can gen-erate a burst of state legislative concernwith international issues, as was evidentduring the 1990s with the NAFTA andKyoto treaties and during 2002 with inter-national terrorism and homeland security.The condition of the economy and thestate fiscal climate can also shift legisla-tors’ attention. As one CaliforniaAssembly staffer ob-served: “In a time ofstate education and health care crises,how important are these internationaltrade issues in comparison?”

Despite some volatility, state legisla-tures are likely to grow increasingly con-cerned with international issues.Globalization makes it harder and harderto carve out distinct, autonomous realmsof state policy that are untouched byinternational affairs. Law enforcement,education, emergency preparedness andeconomic development have all becomeincreasingly intertwined with interna-tional forces. At same time, the federalgovernment relies increasingly on stateand local authority and resources to dealeffectively with many problems andissues in these areas. Thus, we are likelyto see international affairs becomeincreasingly intergovernmentalized inthe future, creating pressures and oppor-tunities for expanded state legislativeinvolvement in the international arena.The real question for the future may be,not whether legislatures are activelyinvolved with international issues butwhether the federal-state relationship ininternational affairs is predominantlycooperative or conflictual in nature.

Endnotes1This article grows out of a report sponsoredby The Council of State Governments, withfunding and support provided by the U.S.Agency for International Development.Special thanks go to Chris Whatley andMagdalena Mook of CSG, and to RichardSheppard, formerly with U.S. AID. Theauthors would also like to thank SuzanneBlagg and Kristina Dorville, both graduatestudents at George Mason University. Eachdevoted enormous energy to assisting withthe collection and assimilation of state leg-islative data. The authors also express theirdeepest appreciation to all of the state legis-lators, legislative staff, and other governmentofficials who gave generously of their time torespond to our questionnaires and participatein the interviews that made this report possi-ble. The authors are grateful for their candorand willingness to help give us a betterunderstanding of state international activities.Very special thanks are due to KevinDonahue, Patrick Flahaven, ChrisKuykendall, Christine Sasseville, ClarkeStraughan and Nick Vucinich.2 See Michelle Sager, One Voice or Many?Federalism and International Trade (LFBScholarly Publishing, 2002); and Earl H. Fry,The Expanding Role of State and LocalGovernments in U.S. Foreign Affairs (Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1998).3 David Naftzger, “The States’ Role (if any)in Foreign Affairs,” State Legislatures, 26(Dec 2000): 24.4 After two rounds of mailings and follow-upcalls, questionnaires were received from 40states.5 The states were California, Texas, Virginia,New Jersey and Minnesota.6 Three states, Mississippi, New Jersey andVirginia, hold their legislative elections inoff-years, so the period under study includesportions of two different legislative sessionsfor these states.7 These totals of 823 bills and resolutionsintroduced and 270 passed should be taken asclose approximations rather than precise esti-mates, however. Although they were careful-ly compiled, the exact numbers can varyaccording to several different factors, such asthe treatment of companion and substitutebills, definitions of international content, andthe search engine employed.8 House Bill 3031, 2002.9 HR 143, 2001.10 House Bill 38, 2001.11 Assembly bill A880, 2002.12 HF3733, 2002.13 SB 945, 2001.14 Senate Bill 195, 2001.15 House Concurrent Resolution 37, 2002.



ince September 11,2001, we’ve seen thelargest call-up ofNational Guard mem-bers and re-servistssince the Korean War.About 10,000 Illinois

National Guard members and reservistshave been called to active duty and near-ly half of them suffered a serious declinein their income to serve.

This was a wake-up call about the needto better protect the families of NationalGuard members and reservists when thebreadwinner is called to active duty. Whatfollows is a case study on how to create,promote and finance a Military FamilyRelief Fund in your state.

The Problem

In late 2001, I was called by MaryBeth Beiersdorf, a suburban mother ofthree. Her husband was called to activeduty with his Navy Reserve unit justafter September 11. He’d seen action inthe 1992 Gulf War, but now theBeiersdorfs had a growing family and amortgage, and Will’s employer opted notto pay his salary when he was away.They suddenly faced a 70 percent dropin household income.

Ms. Beiersdorf knew I had organizeda public awareness campaign in 1992 tohelp military families learn their rightsunder the federal “Soldier & Sailor CivilRelief Act.” She wondered if somethingcould be done for the military families

who — like hers — would soon faceserious financial straits. The idea of cre-ating a special fund to aid these familieswas born.

There are now 310,000 NationalGuard and reservists in the UnitedStates, and 174,000 on active duty.1Studies show 40 percent of NationalGuard and reservist families endure adecline in purchasing power because themilitary pay of the breadwinner is muchless than their civilian salary. Privatecompanies are not obligated to cover thedifference, so families often see a bigdrop in household income when thebreadwinner is away on active duty.2

Creating a Military Family ReliefFund

As Illinois State Treasurer(1991–95), I launched a public aware-ness drive during Operation DesertStorm to inform reservists about impor-tant rights guaranteed them under a lit-tle-known federal law called the“Soldiers’ and Sailors Civil Relief Actof 1940.” I set up a toll-free hotline andnotified lending institutions about theirobligations under this act.

After September 11, there was arenewed need to inform military mem-bers and their families of these guaran-tees. In October, 2001, I unveiled a web-site (www.OperationHomefront.org)highlighting service members’ financialand legal rights. (Our website domainname cost $75 for three years; hosting

the site costs $300–$400 annually.)Thanks to this site, I was contacted byMary Beth Beiersdorf. We discussedwives in similar circumstances, includ-ing Beth Kell of Chicago, Mari Evans ofChicago and Brenda Robinzine, a preg-nant Oak Park police officer.

Throughout Fall 2001, I traveledacross Illinois discussing the plight ofthese families with local media and othermilitary families. In November 2001 —just before Veterans Day — I unveiledthe “Illinois Military Family Relief Fundand Check-off Law” to create a taxcheck-off box on state income tax formsenabling taxpayers to contribute directlyto a fund to provide help to families ofNational Guard members and reservists.

Designated as House Bill 2742, itearned bipartisan support. The leadSenate sponsor – state Sen. EvelynBowles – was herself a highly-regardedWorld War II Coast Guard veteran. Thebill passed unanimously in the stateHouse, but stalled in the Senate.Throughout 2002, we continued to push.The war intensified, more units werecalled up and momentum for theMilitary Family Relief Fund grew.

We used free media, such as pressconferences at National Guard armoriesand the Eternal Flame in Chicago’sLoop. We wrote letters-to-the-editor. Wearranged for Brenda Robinzine to singthe National Anthem and Mary BethBeiersdorf to lead the Pledge ofAllegiance at public events. We shared

Illinois Military Family ReliefFund: How to Create Similar Funds

Most state laws ignore the financial hardships of families of National Guard members and reservists called to active duty, many of whomsuffer a disparity between their civilian salary and military pay. Here is a case study on how to set up a “Military Family Relief Fund”in your state.

SSBy Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, Illinois

P O L I C Y O P T I O N S : VETERANS


Pat Quinn

the stories of these families with maga-zine readers and radio listeners.

We used old-fashioned grassrootstechniques as well as high-tech methods.We drafted a model resolution support-ing the idea for municipal bodies whichwas unanimously approved by theChicago City Council. We recruitedJunior ROTC members to carry an“Operation Homefront” banner inChicago’s huge St. Patrick’s Day Parade.

Finally, in December 2002, the stateSenate approved the bill. Then, at anemotional departure ceremony for aNational Guard unit shipping out inFebruary, Gov. Rod Blagojevich signedthe bill into law, only the second bill hesigned as Illinois’ new chief executive.

A Bump in the Road

As the fund was being set up, wedecided we needed legislation to reduceany ambiguity about the fund’s mecha-nism. And since the deadline had passedto put the tax check-off box on the 2002tax return forms, there would be nomoney in the fund, so families wouldhave to wait until 2004. As the warintensified, I knew many NationalGuard and reservists’ families couldn’twait. So, we clarified the new law withSenate Bill 1069.

This bill did two things. First, fundallocation duties were specificallyassigned to the Illinois Department ofMilitary Affairs, which would receiveand distribute all donations. Second,

since the check-off box would notappear on income tax forms untilJanuary 2004, contributions by corpora-tions and citizens would be allowedbefore then so we could respondpromptly to families now experiencingdifficulties.

In Spring 2003, the bill passed unani-mously in both chambers. Further, Gov.Blagojevich authorized $5 million tostart-up the fund. My staff worked withthe Department of Military Affairs toestablish eligibility criteria:

The Illinois Adjutant General – ourstate’s highest-ranking military officer

— has final authority to disburse checksto those requesting aid. All grants areawarded on first-come, first-servedbasis. With no administrative overhead,every penny raised goes to the fund.

Promoting the Military Relief Fund

Now that contributions could beaccepted to meet immediate needs, wehad to promote the Illinois MilitaryFamily Relief Fund quickly. Again, weused free media, grassroots organizingand our Web site. Already, more than 2million hits have been registered on thesite, which a national military familyassistance called “best of its kind.”

We distributed a brochure at theIllinois State Fair and other events. Wetouted the fund at Presidents’ Day, FlagDay, Memorial Day, July 4th andVeterans’ Day events, as well as atdeparture and welcome home cere-monies for Illinois troops.

One successful event was at aMemorial Day Chicago Cubs game. Withhelp from corporate sponsors, we booked“Challenger” — a bald eagle who hasflown over the Super Bowl and otherevents — to circle over Wrigley Fieldduring the National Anthem. The fund

• “Amends the Illinois Income Tax Act to create the Illinois Military Family Relief Fund checkoff. Provides

that the Department of Revenue shall print on its standard individual income tax form a provision indi-

cating that if the taxpayer wishes to contribute to the Illinois Military Family Relief Fund, he or she may

do so by staing the amount of the contribution on the return and that the contribution will reduce

the taxpayer’s refund or increase the amount of payment to accompany the return.”

• “Amends the Military Code of Illinois. Provides that, subject to appropriation, the Department of Military

Affairs shall have the power to make grants from the Illinois Military Family Relief Fund to families of

persons who are members of the Illinois National Guard or Illinois residents who are members of the

reserves of the armed forces of the United States and who have been called to active duty as a result

of September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks”

• “Provides that the Department of Military Affairs shall establish eligibility criteria for the grants by rule.

Amends the State Finance Act to create the Illinois Military Family Relief Fund.”

Table 2 Illinois Military Family Relief Fund Grant Amounts and Criteria Grant Amount Criteria

Status-based grant $500 He/she is member of Illinois National Guard or

(Based solely on member’s Illinois resident serving in a U.S.Armed Forces

military status) Reserve component, or is family member of the

Guardsman/Reservist and enrolled in Defense

Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS);

Member on active duty for minimum of 30 days as

result of September 11, 2001; Member holds pay

grade no higher than O-3 or W-2.

Need-based grant $2,000 Same criteria as Status-based grant AND:

(Based on family’s financial Military salary (including BAH) at least 30% less

need) than civilian salary;

Financial assistance needed for clothing, food, rent

or mortgage, utilities, medical services and prescrip

tions, insurance or vehicle payments.

Casualty-based grants $1,000 Same criteria as Status-based grant AND:

(Based on injury, death, Member incurred service-connected injury, illness,

MIA, or POW) death, or is MIA/POW.


Table 1 Key Points of the Illinois Military Family Fund Legislation


Yvonne B. Miller

hatever ourother differ-ences may be,when it comesto transporta-tion, the statescomprising the

Southern Legislative Conference (SLC)have two very important things in com-mon: (1) all of us, to one degree oranother, are experiencing serious fiscalstress resulting, at least in part, from thenationwide economic downturn ofrecent years, and (2) most of us are“donor states” that contribute more tothe federal Transportation Trust Fundthan we receive from the federal gov-ernment under the soon-to-expireFederal-Aid Highway Program, knownto most of us as TEA 21 (theTransportation Equity Act for theTwenty-First Century). Of the 16 SLCmember states, only West Virginia,Alabama and Arkansas have been“recipient” states under TEA 21, receiv-ing, respectively $1.69, $1.02 and$1.02).1 At this point, about all we canreally claim to know with reasonableconfidence about the new federal high-way program legislation is its name (theSafe, Accountable, Flexible, andEfficient Transportation Equity Act, i.e.,SAFETEA2) and that it will govern thefederal-aid transportation programthrough fiscal years 2004–2009.

As far as Virginia is concerned, wewould like to see the new federal legisla-tion embody six key principles:

1. Retention of “firewalls” that ensurethat federal Transportation Trust Fundrevenues are (a) actually spent and (b)spent for transportation projects (notfor something else);

2. Continuation of a multi-modal focus(much as in present legislation), thatincludes aid to mass transit and notjust highway construction;

3. Enhancement of national security;

4. Avoidance of unfunded mandates;

5. Increased funding of rail and publictransit projects; and

6. Expanded transportation funding, gen-erally, with no cuts below the present“minimum return guarantee.”However, if evaluated on the basis of

these principles, the “administrationbill” has proven disappointing. If passedin its originals form, it would eliminateseveral key “firewalls;” include inade-quate guarantees for support of new-startpublic transit projects; eliminate the bus“discretionary” program; and its generalunderfunding of the entire federal-aidprogram would be widespread and sig-nificant. Unless the next few months seesignificant changes to the administrationbill, the SLC states can expect anincrease in the number of them that are

“donor states” and a decrease in the per-centage of the return on their “invest-ment” in the federal transportation trustfund. This is a continuation of the recenttrend of federal abandonment of finan-cial participation in transit programs.Regardless of what our disappointmentswill be as to the legislation itself, our sit-uation will almost certainly be furthercomplicated by the failure of theCongress to pass the new act on sched-ule. Whatever our present levels of “fis-cal stress,” there is little reason to hopethat SAFETEA will reduce our financialdiscomfort in any meaningful way.

In addition to “fiscal stress” at the statelevel, at least three metropolitan areas inVirginia (the Virginia suburbs ofWashington, D.C., greater Richmond, andthe cities of Hampton Roads) are con-fronting the simultaneous challenge ofincreased traffic congestion and the need tomeet the ever-more rigorous federal airquality standards. One can be sure thatthose who live in or represent urban con-stituencies in other SLC states are notunfamiliar with this difficulty. If theCongress continues to back away from sig-nificant federal financial participation inmass transit programs, the growing federalinsistence in air quality improvement mustinevitably result in greater and greaterfinancial burdens being placed on state andlocal governments —at a time when theyare least able to bear those burdens.

Emerging Issues in Transportationfor Southern States

Most Southern member states have two things in common: budget problems and “donor” status vis-à-vis the federal Highway Trust Fund.The expiration of TEA-21 at the end of September, 2003 presents both difficulties and opportunities, depending on when the follow-upfederal legislation is passed, and what it contains. Unless significant changes are made by Congress to the administration’s draft ofSAFETEA, additional burdens will be placed on the states to meet their transportation needs—particularly for mass transit and non-high-way transportation modes—and air quality is likely to suffer as well.

WW

By Sen. Yvonne B. Miller, Virginia


P E R S P E C T I V E S : TRANSPORTATION

Unfortunately, the federal govern-ment’s financial participation with stateand local governments has been less thengenerous in funding programs to getcommuters out of single-occupant vehi-cles and into mass transit, as well as inother areas. If we are to reduce highwaycongestion and improve air quality, moreattention and more funding needs to bedirected to non-highway modes. Itwould not be surprising if “intermodal-ism” has become a component of thestandard political vocabulary in the restof the SLC states, just as it has inVirginia. During Virginia’s 2003Session, the General Assembly passedlegislation4 to create the RailTransportation Development Authority.Its primary focus would be reducing traf-fic (and a high concentration of heavytrucks) through the Interstate Route 81Corridor by getting cargoes off of trucksand onto rail cars. Efforts are under wayin the Virginia Department of Rail andPublic Transportation to begin expandedpassenger rail service between Bristoland Richmond and Washington, D.C.,5and, in cooperation with the federal gov-ernment, to inaugurate high-speed pas-senger rail service between Washingtonand Richmond and, later, betweenRichmond and Hampton Roads.Members of the Virginia GeneralAssembly are also working with theircolleagues from the North Carolina leg-islature, through the mechanism of theVirginia-North Carolina High-SpeedRail Commission,6 to bring about similarhigh-speed passenger rail servicebetween Richmond and Raleigh, NC,with possible further expansion throughthe Carolinas and Georgia to Florida,and possibly west as far as New Orleansor even Texas.

Speaking of Hampton Roads and mul-timodalism, brings us to the next topic:ports, and again, the need for the federalgovernment to step up to the financialplate. This time, however, the issue is nothighway congestion or even air quality.The issue is homeland security. Theenormous amount of coal, general cargoand container tonnage that passes

through the ports of Hampton Roadsprovides any would-be terrorist anextensive array of potential targets. Theoperation of numerous cruise ships inand out of Hampton Roads and the veryextensive presence of the U.S. Navy fur-ther complicate the problem of providingthe kind and amount of security that willfrustrate, detect and prevent acts of ter-rorism. This presence of major containerand cruise ship ports in close proximityto extensive federal military facilities isby no means unique to Virginia. Any leg-islator whose constituency includesCharleston, Savannah, Jacksonville,Houston, New Orleans, or ports on theMississippi river and its tributaries willappreciate the need for more port-relatedsecurity in a post-September 11 world.Unfortunately, the federal governmenthas been much better at talking aboutincreased homeland security than in pro-viding resources (both financial and oth-erwise) to make that security — particu-larly port security from Baltimore toBrownsville — a reality and not just anempty “priority.”

While the “mixed blessing” of majorports and federal military installations isone that Virginia shares with a greatmany other SLC states, there is one thatVirginia shares only with Maryland: thepresence of the seat of the federal gov-ernment, Washington, D.C., on our bor-der. Yes, federal jobs provide good jobsfor our citizens, and their salaries con-tribute in no small way to our economicprosperity, but these same federalemployees’ vehicles contribute heavilyto air pollution and traffic congestion ina considerable radius aroundWashington, D.C. As in the case of theports and military installations,Washington’s government offices, muse-ums and other cultural centers, andnational monuments in the District ofColumbia and the suburbs providealmost irresistible targets for terrorists.Virginia, after all, has the unenviabledistinction of being the only SLC state to“host” one of the September 11 attacks:the crash of American Airlines Flight 77into the Pentagon. The experiences of

Virginia and Maryland in trying to evac-uate federal employees and others fromthe District that day can serve as a “wakeup call” on the serious need not only to“terror-proof” our cities and vulnerablefacilities, but also to make modificationsto our transportation infrastructure.

In conclusion, this article has tried tomake a case of the absolutely criticalnecessity of increased federal involve-ment (both with funding and, sometimes,with technical expertise) with the statesin dealing with their transportation chal-lenges.

Endnotes1 Rate of return based on state share of FY98–02 federal-aid highway program appor-tionments and allocations compared to stateshare of FY 98–02 contributions to theHighway Account of the Highway TrustFund. Source: FWHA Highway Statistics,2001, Table FE-221B.2 Apparently the people who wanted to beable to call the new program GREEN TEAbecause of its vigorous environmental com-ponent are going to be disappointed.3 An experience with which our colleagues inAtlanta are not unfamiliar.4 See Senate Bill No. 1279, offered by Sen.John S. Edwards of Roanoke City. Althoughpassed in 2003 and signed into law by Gov.Warner, this legislation will only becomeeffective if reenacted by the 2004 Session.5 Generally referred to as the Trans-Dominion Express.6 Initiatied on the Virginia side, under SenateJoint Resolution No. 296, offered during the2001 Session by Sen. John Watkins ofChesterfield County.

Sen. Yvonne B. Miller is on the Committee onTransportation in the Virginia Senate, whereshe has served since 1988 and has been recog-nized as the woman senator with longest leg-islative service. She holds a Ph.D. degree andis a professor emeritus, Norfolk StateUniversity. Sen. Miller is a former chair ofHuman Services and Public Safety Committeeof the Southern Legislative Conference. 2816Gate House Road, Norfolk, VA, 23504, (757)640-1530, [email protected].


Bio

ore than 1000Hispanic politi-cal leaders gath-ered in Phoenix,Arizona fromJune 26 to 28,2003 to discuss

issues facing their constituents. TheNational Association of Latino Electedand Appointed Officials (NALEO) con-ference was a historic event for manydifferent people and many different rea-sons. It marked the first time such a largenumber of Latino leaders gathered atonce, and eight Democratic presidentialcandidates addressed the conference.Representatives from the Bush adminis-tration also attended, and the presence ofboth parties signaled recognition of thepower now available to Hispanic voters,especially in light of the recentlyannounced 2000 Census numbers thatidentified Hispanics as the largest minor-ity in the United States. Latinos havearrived as a political force; their com-bined purchasing power is estimated atover $500 billion, and they will con-tribute 14 million new workers to theAmerican labor force over the next 20years. Traditionally based in states likeCalifornia, Texas and Florida, Hispanicshave begun to spread into states likeGeorgia, Connecticut, and Kansas, andthe latter is home to three Latino legisla-tors, including state Sen. Paul Feleciano,Jr., president of the National HispanicCaucus of State Legislators (NHCSL).

For Sen. Feleciano, who sat on a panelthat posed a variety of questions to theDemocratic presidential candidates,NALEO conference marked an excitingand important moment of recognition forNHCSL. Founded in 1989 as a non-profitorganization in Colorado by then stateSen. Larry Trujillo, NHCSL provides ameans of empowerment for the growingnumber of Hispanic state elected officialsand the rapidly expanding number of con-stituents for whom they work. ThoughSen. Feleciano – elected to the KansasState Senate 27 years ago – is a Democrat,the organization maintains a nonpartisanstance; Democrats and Republicans alikepopulate its executive board. In addition,the group’s diversity is not limited to partyaffiliation. A number of women serve onthe board, including Texas state Senatorand NHCSL President-Elect Leticia Vande Putte. Maryland state Delegate Ana SolGutierrez recently became the firstHispanic woman to occupy her office, andher appointment coincides with thegrowth of that state’s Hispanic population.

NHCSL seeks to advocate on behalfof Latino legislators from all states, com-monwealths, and territories of the UnitedStates and provides resources and tech-nical assistance. NHCSL’s third presi-dent, New York state Sen. EfrainGonzalez, realized that the caucus wouldfunction best if located in WashingtonD.C., at the heart of the country’s powerand seat of political opportunity.Gonzalez also recognized the need to

create business advisors; without capitalinfusion, the caucus would be unable tosupport the kinds of programs that wouldassist their members and the communi-ties where they operated. Aided in largepart by a state-level funding initiativestarted by Sen. Gonzalez, and corporatefunding from Pfizer, AT&T, Verizon and American Express, among others,NHCSL began to grow financially.Today, they have a board of over 30 cor-porate advisors.

NHCSL modeled itself after theNational Black Caucus of StateLegislators (NBCSL) and the Con-gressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) –“We didn’t need to reinvent the wheel,”says Sen. Feleciano – and sought to fos-ter relationships with both groups, aswell as several other national organiza-tions. Those collaborations have beenvitally important to NHCSL’s growthand effectiveness. In 2002 they collabo-rated with NALEO on a training sessionfor newly elected and appointed legisla-tors, and they continue to work closelywith NALEO’s Executive DirectorArturo Vargas, who represents electedand appointed officials at the state andlocal level. Sen. Feleciano is excitedabout the prospect of adding to the 300members already in his organization: “Ifwe’re going to be [even more] success-ful, we must aggressively pursue elec-tion of Hispanics to political office.”

NHCSL has also benefited from theirrelationship with the United States

Hispanic State Legislators:Building Political Momentum

The National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators (NHCSL) has existed since 1989 as aresource for state-level Hispanic legislators. With recently announced census numbers iden-tifying Hispanics as the largest U.S. minority and a presidential election on the horizon,NHCSL is working harder than ever to assure their constituents’ voices are heard.

MM

By Elizabeth Burgos National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators

P O L I C Y O P T I O N S : POLITICS


Elizabeth Burgos

Hispanic Chamber of Commerce(USHCC): “We’re privileged to haveformed an alliance with the USHCCand [President] George Herrera,” Sen.Feleciano says, “he has done someexciting things for us, and has been verygenerous.” In November of 2001,Herrera sent a film crew to Puerto Ricoto cover NHCSL’s 1st AnnualLegislative Summit, edited the cover-age, and broadcasted it nationwide on“Hispanics Today,” a weekly televisionshow broadcasted in more than 90 mar-kets across the United States. Thatbroadcast led to an increased interest inthe caucus, according to Sen. Feleciano:“Calls came in by the hundreds, peopleasking ‘How can we help, how can weparticipate?”

It was at that summit that NHCSLdeveloped the framework for a nationalagenda. A group of more than 75 legis-lators and representatives from the cor-porate, government, and non-profit sec-tors identified some of the primaryissues facing Hispanics in the UnitedStates. They include civic educationand voter registration, criminal justice(including prisoner rehabilitation),housing, immigration, health, educationand employment.

Closing Achievement Gaps: Improv-ing Educational Outcomes for HispanicChildren, a report recently released byNHCSL, represents the caucus’ commit-ment to improving the educational cli-mate in the country, especially forLatino youth. According to the report,produced in collaboration with theCenter for Latino EducationalExcellence (CLEE), an initiative of theTomás Rivera Policy Institute, Latinochildren in some states represent one outof every two pupils in first grade. Theywill enter the labor force sometimebetween the years 2015 and 2019. Thereport identifies the future economy as a“knowledge economy,” one that is“characterized by an ever-increasingrole of technology in products and mar-kets, tight networks of internationalbusiness partnering and trade relations.”

In discussing President George W.Bush’s education policies, Sen.Feleciano is critical of what he perceivesas a lip-service method of addressing thecountry’s problems. “He speaks in beau-tiful clichés, like ‘Leave No ChildBehind,’ but it’s a serious issue andyou’ve got to be serious about it, orHispanic and Black kids will be leftbehind.” Sen. Feleciano adds, “Althoughthe president lays out a promising plan,he neglected to add to the educationbudget, the $6 – 8 billion needed toimplement the plan nationwide. In addi-tion, President Bush proposes to changethe method of funding for Head Start, aprogram that many regard as vital to theeducational success of minority youth.“

Closing the Gaps stresses that there isnot one problem facing Hispanic stu-dents, but a number of trouble indicatorsthat are relevant to different stages of achild’s education. It also identifies thekey role that reading plays in the educa-tion of Latino children, and the impor-tance of bridging the “digital divide” thatexists between the families of someworking-class Hispanic students who donot have access to computers and theInternet, and more well-to-do familieswho do.

The report also ties parent involve-ment to student success, and anotherNHCSL initiative seeks to address theissue of two-parent households, or thelack thereof, in the Latino community.The “Fatherhood Initiative,” institutedby the caucus’ late President John S.Martinez, seeks to ameliorate the prob-lems represented by some single-parenthouseholds. The initiative examinesways to help fathers (and some mothers)overcome the difficulties some Latinomen have finding well-paying jobs andestablishing themselves as productivemembers of the community. The initia-tive provides anger management classes,parenting courses, and work release/jobtraining programs for incarceratedfathers. As Sen. Feleciano says, “itmakes more fiscal sense than simplylocking them up and forcing the other

parent to raise the child by themselves; itallows these men the opportunity to suc-ceed in a family setting.”

The right to cast a ballot in local andnational elections is unavailable to manyLatinos — a population that has morethan tripled since 1980, from 14 millionto 43 million (including Puerto Rico). Asignificant number of immigrants whoaccount for the population increase areunable to vote due to a backlog thatforces some people to wait years for theright to become a citizen.

Heading into 2004, the organizationwill also work with other politicalgroups on policy-related matters in anattempt to turn the continued courtshipLatino voters are likely to see fromDemocratic and Republican candidatesinto real change and improvements toexisting policies. “I think the time is per-fect, with the presidential election com-ing up,” Feleciano says. He stresses thatthe caucus will take an active role in pol-icy matters, and advocate strongly fortheir constituents: “We will not standidly by and take no for an answer.”

We as Hispanic/Latino elected offi-cials welcome the opportunity to helpshape and formulate the national agendathat will take America strongly into the21st century. The staggering numbers of43 million Hispanics will determinewho the next president will be in the2004 elections.

Elizabeth Burgos, executive director ofNHCSL since 2001, has a 30 plus year careerfocused on political empowerment and eco-nomic advancement in the Hispanic commu-nity. Prior to joining NHCSL in 2001, sheserved as CEO of Burgos & Associates, a 29-year enterprise in financial management andconsulting to small businesses in the north-eastern United States. 444 North CapitolStreet, NW, Suite 404, Washington, DC20001. (202) 434-8070. [email protected].


Bio


16 House Bill 2261, 2001.17 Barry Rabe, Greenhouse and Statehouse:The Evolving State Government Role inClimate Change (Pew Center on GlobalClimate Change, 2002), 7.18 Clive Thomas and Ronald Hrebnar,“Interest Groups in the States,” in VirginiaGray, Russell Hanson, and Herbert Jacob,Politics in the American States, 7th ed. (CQPress, 1999).19 Armenian National Institute, InternationalAffirmation of the Armenian Genocide,www.armenian-genocide.org.20 See Elizabeth Benjamin, “Activists AirPlans to Fight Warming,” TimesUnion.com,November 21, 2002; and Rabe, Greenhouseand Statehouse.21 “ID cards offer peace of mind,”CalifornianOnline.com, November 26,2002.22 California Senate Select Committee onInternational Trade Policy and StateLegislation and Washington State’s TaskForce on International Trade Agreementsand the Role of the State. 23 See, for example, Minnesota S.B 3468,“Memorializing the President, Congress and

the Governor to ensure that internationaltrade agreements respect the traditionalauthority of state and local governments toprotect the public interest,” which passed thestate Senate in 2002.24 See the appendix case study of theCalifornia legislature.25 Timothy J. Conlan and Michelle Sager,International Dimensions of AmericanFederalism: State Policy Responses to aChanging Global Environment (Washington:U.S.— Asia Environmental Partnership &Council of State Governments, 1997).

Timothy J. Conlan is a professor ofGovernment at George Mason University. Heis the author of From New Federalism toDevolution (Brookings, 1998), and two CSGresearch projects on the states and internation-al affairs: Going Global: The InternationalActivities of American State Legislatures(CSG/USAID, 2002) and InternationalDimensions of American Federalism: StatePolicy Responses to a Changing Global

Environment (CSG/USAEP, 1997). Dept. ofPublic & International Affairs, MSN 3F4,George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030.(703) 993-1427. [email protected].

Joel F. Clark directs Michigan StateUniversity’s Washington Semester program.In addition to U.S. state–federal relations, hisresearch interests include political reform andexperiential education. He recently publishedIntern to Success (Houghton Mifflin). His lat-est book, Careers in Political Science, wasreleased in fall 2003 by Longman. MichiganState University Washington Program, 1405N. Sycamore St., Arlington, VA. 22205. (703)536-0904. [email protected]

was promoted on the scoreboard and dur-ing the game, and Challenger’s thrillingflight inspired all who witnessed it in thepacked stadium or on TV.

One way we encouraged support wasto hold press conferences highlightingdonors’ generosity and some creativefundraising techniques. For example,one county official raised $1,600 fromher staff who paid to wear jeans to work.A minor league baseball team gave $1from each ticket sale. Student nurses for-warded $3,000 from a “graduation gift”fund. Union retirees passed the hat, arock band held a benefit, seventh gradersorganized a bake sale, a disk jockey helddance fundraisers, the maker of the Iraqi“Most Wanted” cards sent a check, asdid several utility companies.

A particularly poignant donation wasfrom Jim Frazier, father of Illinois AirNational Guard Staff Sgt. Jacob Frazier,a 24-year-old killed in Afghanistan. In avivid act of patriotism, the Frazier fam-ily raised $1,500 for the Military

Family Relief Fund at a reception inhonor of their son.

Conclusion

As of April 2004, 2,333 checks total-ing $1,231,000 have been issued toIllinois National Guard and reservists’families out of 1,342 applications. TheMilitary Family Relief Fund hasreceived more than $91,100 in privatedonations.

Enactment of the Illinois MilitaryFamily Relief Fund was a success story.Legislation was initiated by concernedcitizens, and approved thanks to freemedia, grassroots organizing and a web-site. A Military Family Relief Fund caneasily be created in any state. Our officehas been contacted by public officials andactivists from across the nation on how tocreate funds modeled on ours. Contact me(312-814-5220) for information.

Under state law, for the fund to remainon Illinois income tax forms it must gen-erate $100,000 through the check-off.We’re now developing a marketing planand hope to recruit a high-profile

spokesperson to remind taxpayers to lenda hand to these families, people who areour friends, neighbors, co-workers.

In 1865, Abraham Lincoln noted ourduty as citizens, “…to care for him whoshall have borne the battle.” The IllinoisMilitary Family Relief Fund is one mod-est way to do as President Lincoln urged.

Endnotes1 Department of Defense2 Ibid.

Elected lieutenant governor in 2002, Quinnserves as chairman of the Illinois RiverCoordinating Council, “Special Task Forceon the Condition and Future of Illinois’Energy Infrastructure” and Illinois RuralAffairs Council. Quinn is also a member ofthe Great Lakes Commission and is active inthe National Lieutenant GovernorsAssociation. Illinois Office of the LieutenantGovernor, 100 W. Randolph, 15th Floor,Chicago, IL 60601. (312) [email protected]

Bio

Pat Quinn (Continued from page 33)

Timothy J. Conlan and Joel F. Clark (Continued from page 31)


B O O K R E V I E W

t is within the boundariesof a haven, a classroom,where students ventureinto a world of words andnumbers—defined, organ-ized symbols that providea glimpse of the past and

keys to the future. Educators have thedaunting task to empower students tointegrate these symbols into usefulknowledge, providing a foundation forstudents to succeed as contributingmembers in society. However, we oftenfail to see that words and numbers musthave meaningful connections; and thewalls of the classroom that provide safe-ty, assurance and "knowledge" are notmuch less than prison bars.

At times, we hold our studentshostage, handcuffed by the very wordsand concepts that were intended to pro-vide a vehicle for self-fulfillment. Today,with the noble vision to educate everyindividual to levels of "proficiency," therecent charge of the No Child LeftBehind Act (NCLB) has often estab-lished a standard for how we should notimplement curricula, instruct and assessstudents. We have defined what youngexplorers should discover; we have inmany incidents barred the mind from thepurist ingredient for learning—curiosity.Futhermore, we've allowed teachers tobecome guards, drilling student-prison-ers with "appropriate" thoughts whileneglecting the affective mind.Administrators have assumed warden-like duties, controlled by state and feder-al officials. Have we taken away the veryessence of democracy within each class-room? Have we limited “creativity” anddifferentiated instruction to cater to asingle form of student expression? Arewe disregarding Maslow’s hierarchy ofneeds and its place in education? Whenwill we realize that those who step footinto a school that is not equipped withresources have been severely handi-

capped? Thus, a “gap” has been formedbefore any instruction takes place. Manyof these concerns have been passionate-ly expressed in a concerted effort tocommunicate with our next president.

Editor Carl Glickman, author ofHolding Sacred Ground, has thoughtful-ly compiled an extraordinary stack ofletters into a valuable educationalresource—Letters to the Next President:What We Can Do About the Real Crisisin Public Education. This book providesan opportunity for students, parents, edu-cators, researchers, honorary scholarsand lawmakers to challenge the presi-dent to implement real solutions andredefine NCLB. Many of them haveestablished themselves as leadingexperts in the field of learning, but astrong representation of young mindshave also been included to share thehopes and dreams of students alike; thatall schools will ensure individualizedattention for personal growth. More than40 letters, including those written by BillCosby, former U.S. Senator John Glenn,Thomas Sobol, Maxine Greene, PamSolo and the Navajo students, offer theirperspective on the “crisis” in public edu-cation and provide solutions to specificconsiderations. They come forward withsincere respect that this national concernis a monumental task that requires ourpresident’s fullest attention.

Glickman introduces: "The level offederal involvement in the local affairsof education is the greatest it has everbeen. ... Furthermore the response toconcerns about better educated citizenshas been to drive creativity and experi-mentation out of our schools by increas-ing federal requirements for more stan-dardized testing.”

Many former students at our schoolscored poorly on state testing; however,they have established themselves asrespected citizens in the community.Faced with neighborhood crime and vio-

lence as children, these accomplished stu-dents have learned skills necessary tomake positive contributions to society. Arethese accomplishments not measurable?

The letters include fresh commen-taries and solutions for: • Championing and improving public

education;• Providing policymakers real focus and

direction to make necessary changes;• Encouraging parents, local communi-

ty members to get involved;• Empowering the school districts;• Redefining the No Child Left Behind

Act;• Investing more funds for our “crum-

bling” schools;• Regaining the prestige and confidence

in Pedagogy; and• Supporting students and educators that

have been served with a less privi-leged environment.The letter writers challenge our presi-

dent to take a proactive stand, dedicatingfocused time, money and meaningfulefforts into empowering every school totruly accommodate the “needs” of alllearners. The letters also move readers toreflect upon their personal walk as itrelates to public education. After readinga few excerpts, an enormous sense ofurgency overcomes. Perhaps a well-intended leader will be inspired, reflect,and remove the "bars" that have againput the poor and disadvantaged into asuggested place—behind it. This oppor-tunity for open communication shoulddrive us as a nation to demand, withgreat respect, that the next presidentlevel the playing field for all of us.

Reviewed by Ronald H. Chi, a science teacherat Winburn Middle School and adjunct profes-sor at Midway College, Kentucky. He was arecipient of Mellon Fellowship graduate pro-gram and holds Masters degree from TeachersCollege, Columbia University.

Letters to the Next President: What We Can Do About the Real Crisis in Public EducationBy Carl Glickman, New York, Teachers College Press, 2004. ISBN 0-8077-4427-1. 272p. $14.95.

II

Spectrum: The Journal of State GovernmentThe Council of State Governments2760 Research Park DriveLexington, KY 40511

Nonprofit OrganizationU.S. Postage

PAIDLexington, KY 40578

Permit No. 355

To Be Released June 2004

Helping State Leaders Better Prepare for the FutureHelping State Leaders Better Prepare for the...

Documents

Transcript of Helping State Leaders Better Prepare for the FutureHelping State Leaders Better Prepare for the...