Legislative staff: the equalizer in State government: State legislative capacity-building through scientific and professional staff

              LEGISLATIVE STAlFF: 'THE ~QUALI[ZER IN STATE GOVERNMENT
,

LEGISLATIVE STAFF: THE EQUALIZER IN STATE GOVERNMENT State Legislative Capacity-Building Through Scientific and Professional Staff

Final Report Of The Human Resources Services Staffing Demonstration (HRSS) of the Arizona State Legislature Dr. Guy Dwight Spiesman, Ph.D.-Director Dr. Gary Dean Hulshoff, Ph.D.-Deputy Director Project Monitor Representative Sam A. McConnell, Jr.

Final Report Prepared

Under the Auspices of Speaker Stanley W. Akers Arizona House of Representatives

The Social & Rehabilitation Service U.S. DHEW, R&D 12-p-5557419

Copyright @ Guy Dwight Spiesman and Gary Dean Hulshoff 1976 All Rights Reserved

This research and demonstration project was wpported in part by the Social and Rehabilitation Service, United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C. (Capacity Building Grant to the Arizona State Legislature [S.R.S. 12-p-55574/9] ). The ideas expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Social and Rehabilitation Sewice or the Arizona State Legislature. The Social and Rehabilitation Service reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, translate, or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, all copyrightable and copyrighted material resulting from this grant-supported activity.

Printed and Produced by Goodwill Industries o f Central Arizona, 41 7 North 16th Street, Phoenix, Arizona.

CAPACITY - BUILDING IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE: PLUSES AND MINUSES

THE NATURE OF POLITICAL RULE "Who has not often felt the distaste with democratic politics which Salazar expressed when he said that he 'detested politics from the bottom of his heart; all those noisy and incoherent promises, the impossible demands, the hodgepodge of unfounded ideas and impractical plans . . . opportunism that cares neither for truth nor justice, the inglorious chase after unmerited fame, the unleashing of uncontrollable passions, the exploitation of the lowest instincts, the distortion of facts . . . all that feverish and sterile fuss?" From a leading article in The London Times, 16 November 1961

THE CHALLENGE OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE

". . . The legislature, in my view - about the last frontier for the adventurer - a sort of unrestrained, unbridled kind of atmosphere where you can move and you've got some room - you know - you can move around a bit - and you have the personnel and budget to do that - so if a person really wants to accomplish something t11(~ legislature offers him the chance to do that without going into environmental fiil~e studies and civil service code requirements and all the other things that go on [in the executive branch of government] . . ."
Charles Baldwin California State Senate Committee Staff Fall 1973 (interview)

FOREWORD
The Human Resources Services Staffing (HRSS) Grant (SRS 12-p-5557419) was awarded to the Arizona State Legislature as the first human resources capacity-building grant of its kind. It fit the Social & Rehabilitation Services' research strategy for 1972 in the following fashion (paraphrased from an SRS directive): 1. The research goal was to develop such capacity in the executive and legislative branches of the various states that maximum use might be made of Federal funds returned to the states for human services needs; 2. This project had one airn: to enable a State Legislature to effect program innovation and integration in human services; 3. By developing a legislative thrust into the area of dependency reduction, for example through Vocational Rehabilitation services; 4. Once staff were provided to legislative leadership and legislative committee chairmen in human resources, the project would be considered successful if the support of staff enabled the committees to assemble a wider range and a greater depth of information to consider in their deliberations. Too, success would be merited if the staff were responsive to requests for analysis of data and if these services were utilized by the committees and the legislators themselves to recommend changes which would improve the programs; 5. The rationale for supporting such a two-year grant would be to equalize the balance in policymaking ab&ty h the human resources area among the Congress, the state executive branch, the state administrative branch, and, particularly, the state kgislative branch re capacity-building via staff sepport. The Executive departments d most state governments have program planning and evaluation staff. Legislative committees in Congress generrtlly have large staffs to assist in this same function. There is a preoedmt well established for executive use of plannkg staff at d bat the smallest units at the local level. However, on the legkhtive side it is only at the national level that there is a well established practice to have available a continuous, permanent planning arm; 6 . Benefit Effects: Very difficult to measure. A more balanced and responsive state general government would result. Program reorganization by legislation may be more effective. Human sewices may make the lives of the citizens more productive and satisfying;

7. Cost Effects: This particular project is estimated to cost $236,000. (It actually cost $221,000 and received "inkind" match from both houses of the legislature, including personnel, supplies, space, MTST services, and so forth equal or over the two years expenditures by the federal government.") . . . Just one of its recommendations (said its Federal sponsors) could easily save that amount. If it is assumed that the total cost of Vocational Rehabilitation and Social Services in Arizona is $100 million, even if 3% of that amount is saved or more effectively administered, the grant would be a financial savings." These were the objectives and goals of the Federal U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare (Social & Rehabilitation Service) sponsor. In fact, it can be documented that the staffing grant led to the capacity of the legislative leadership of both houses in Arizona to accomplish the following end results through appropriate technical assistance from their own capacity-building staff:
1.

2.

3.

4. 5.

6.

A reorganization of human resources programs into two cabinet-level executive agencies directly under line authority from the Governor: Arizona Department of Economic Security (Employment Service, Welfare, Vocational Rehabilitation, Aging, Veterans' Services, Apprenticeship Council and Mental Retardation) and the Arizona Department of Health Services; The acceptance through enabling legislation of a decree for the implementation of the Developmental Disabilities and Facilities Construction Act. (Arizona was the last state to participate in this program.); The establishment of enabling legislation to permit the ultimate acceptance of the Social Security Act Title XIX Medicaid program. (Arizona was also t h e l a s t s t a t e t o participate in this program: further legislative modification is still required.); The legislative development of planning, referral, and advisory programs for the senior citizen, now in the Arizona Revised Statutes; A survey, conducted in ' concert with the state Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program assessing community resources available statewide to serve those with communications disorders (e.g., deafness) and the eventual implementation by the new human resources agency, the Department of Economic Security, of an active, client-represented, advisory council and program in this area of disability; T w o years of maximum state appropriations for Vocational Rehabilitation.

iii

Due to the unique characteristics of Arizona in terms of population and the particular legislative process inherent to it, it was considered necessary to compare HRSS against staffing patterns typical to other states. Consultation between the Arizona HRSS project and the senior Assembly staff of the California State Legislature occurred on a number of occasions. Too, a three state comparative survey of legislative committee research staff/legislative chairman relationships also occurred under the auspices of this grant. In light of the fact that HRSS emphasized a committee-like staffing pattern, such a three state legislative survey seemed most appropriate. Thus, a procedural description of HRSS will occur which should suggest how the above six legislative products were achieved. Since this report is quite late in being completed, certain information concerning the executive implementation of the two reorganization acts, mentioned in point No. 1, will be presented. Both the Project Director and its Deputy Director joined each of the two respective human resource agencies once the legislative grant was completed and remain with them through to the present.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, the Arizona State Legislative leadership, Speakers Stan Akers, Tim Barrow and Senate President Bill Jacquin, deserve credit and appreciation for their initiative in bringing the HRSS project into Arizona. Too, they uniquely matched every federal dollar - $235,000.00 - in services, space, printing, and in many other very tangible ways much over 100% on a one:one basis. They provided excellent guidance to the demonstration project in affording us a project monitor, with human services expertise, Representative Sam A. McConnell, Jr. and other legislative advisors as needed. They established the parameters in which we were to apply our point of view and made possible the kinds of working relationships with, for example, legislators, legislative staff, state agency executives which were necessary for us to effectively research their policy issues.
I

The cooperative environment which these legislative leaders made possible permitted us t o achieve whatever success can be attributed t o this project. It should be noted that many hours were spent during and after work, and during and between legislative sessions by Representative Sam McConnell in guiding us in the implementation of our assignments. Thus, did he demonstrate his obvious knowledge and sensitivity in how to apply our research endeavors to the legislative process. His personal assistance proved invaluable to us and was deeply appreciated. Others in the legislative arena in this state and elsewhere were simultaneously instrumental in affording us the perspective we required to introduce the concept of professional legislative staff in the human services discipline to state legislative decisionmaking. Among these were: Legislators: Senator Sandra O'Connor Senator Ernest Dean Representative Larry Fasbender Assemblyman Frank Lanterman Senator Ray Rottas Legislative Staff: Denzil Austin (deceased) Denny Amundson George Cunningham Harry Gutterman Arlyn Larson Frances Montgomery Louis Quihuis Jane Richards

Policy Specialists: John Ah1 Arthur Bolton Bruce Brunton (DHEW) John Burckhardt (DHEW) Paul Cherney Adolfo Echeveste Eugene Joublonc Larry Margolis Mrs. Norma McConnell Tom Purvis (DHEW) Dick Roberts Don Hinkle Richard Vick Dr. Irwin Feller, Ph.D. (Pennsylvania State University's Center for the Study of Science Policy) University of California's (Berkeley) Graduate School of Public Policy For their visionary efforts, as we humbly interpret this word, in initiating, funding, monitoring, advising and, generally supporting this controversial project, we are particularly grateful to: SRS Commissioner Philip Schafer (deceased) Nathan E. Acree (SRS-RSA) DHEW, Regional Director Fernando DeBaca RSA Commissioner Edward Newman Irwin Hoff (SRS) Richard Melia (RSA) Jerry Turem William E. Flanigan (SRS-RSA) The directors and staff of the two state agencies legislated partly as a result of HRSS were of personal assistance to us during their implementation stages including: Bill Mayo (Department of Economic Security) Harold Brown (Department of Economic Security) Henry Diaz (Department of Economic Security) Lloyd Brown (Department of Economic Security) Jack Bolin (Department of Economic Security) Chuck Smale (Department of Economic Security) Dr. James Schamadan, M.D. (Arizona Department of Health Services) Bill Mack (Arizona Department of Health Services) Dr. Suzanne Dandoy, M.D. (Arizona Department of Health Services)

Unique contributions were made in terms of special reports, consultation and survey research by: Arthur Bolton (Arthur Bolton Associates) Paul Cherney Dr. Lowell Bennion, Ph.D. (University of Utah) Dr. Robert Gray, Ph.D. (University of Utah) Moe, Ph.D. (University of Utah) Dr. Edward 0. Dr. Ted C. Smith, Ph.D. (University of Utah) Dr. David Wayne Smith, Ed.D. (University of Arizona) Technical assistance throughout the project itself and in the production of the final a report w s expedited through the personal efforts and commitment of: Mr. Harry Gutterman Dr. Steve Hora, Ph.D. (Arizona State University) Mrs. Mary McKivergan Mrs. Vivian M. Paracheck Mrs. Nancy Randl Ms. Rena Trost Mr. Gary Vercellino Mrs. Valerie Wilson --And to those noble creatures, our wives, Dorothy Hulshoff and Diane Spiesman, who "suffered through it all"!

Dr. Guy Dwight Spiesman, Ph.D. - Director

Dr. Gary Dean Hulshoff, Ph.D. - Deputy Director April 1976

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword

. 2. 3.
1

............................................ Role of Changing Legislatures in Setting Hwnan Resource Priorities . . Three State Comparative Legislative Committee Staffmg Survey .....
Introduction The Training of Policy Science Legislative Research Staff A Summary of HRSS Legislative Activities

1-11 13- 17 19- 67

. 6. 7.
5

..........

79- 86 87-114

.....................

Conclusions . Relevance of HRSS Demonstration to Legislators and Human Resource Specialists ................................ 115-124

.............. -Cherney . Social Services ............................. -DES . Overview . (Policy Notebook) ................ VR
-Bolton . Administrators . present their case HRSS proposed amendment (formation of Department of Economic Security)

135-141 143-159 160-178

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I
Introduction

The Human Resources Services Staffing (HRSS) project of the Arizona State Legislature has completed its two-year demonstration - January 1, 1972 through December 31, 1973. The HRSS experience was supported by the Social & Rehabilitation Service (SRS-RSA) of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW)*. (It was jointly co-authorized by the then SRS Administrator, John Twiname and the then Rehabilitation Services (RSA) Commissioner, Dr. Edward Newman.)

I
1

Problem o f Dependency Reduction
The underlying motivation, philosophy and concerns of the grant developer were to help the Arizona State Legislature gain the capacity to deal more effectively in developing the programs necessary to assist the disabled and disadvantaged at the community level. The reduction of dependency through the effective implementation of human services' programs has been a major theme of many reform-minded taxpayers and policy-makers at all levels of government . . . federal, state and community. The Arizona Legislature recognized the need for better coordinated human services' programs at the state level and decided to increase their policymaking capability in these areas. The concern of the legislature in working with these complex issues was not only to reduce the numbers of handicapped people within the state who required public assistance, but to ensure that quality human service programs were being provided to assist their citizens, so they might achieve economic and social independence.

I

I

I

History of The Human Resources Services Staffing Demonstration (HRSS)
In January, 1971 a pilot demonstration in legislative staffing began under the joint auspices of the National SRS Demonstration** of the University of Arizona and the Arizona State Legislature. This was a sub-demonstration effort of the University's Rehabilitation Center program. The purpose of the sub-demonstration was to determine the needs of a state legislature for technical information in the creation of legislation in health, rehabilitation and welfare or human service areas.

**The Uses of Community and State Resources for Vocational Rehabilitation (SRS R&D 12-p-5525919)

As a side effect of this effort, several legislators submitted a request to the Arizona Joint Appropriations Committee for $400,00O/year for the development of new solutions to the state welfare problem. (These monies were matched with federal Vocational Rehabilitation [VR] dollars 1:3.) These funds brought together, under the direction of the State Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, the Welfare, Employment and Vocational Education state programs to reduce dependency by encouraging in a more coordinated manner the employment of welfare recipients. (It took three years or $1.2 million state dollars for results to show up in the successful employment of welfare recipients who were capable of work.) The above mentioned pilot legislative staffing project in its first year was essentially the core around which the HRSS project proposal to the Social & Rehabilitation Service, DHEW began to develop. In October, 1971, a meeting was scheduled by members of the legislature, including then House Speaker Timothy A. Barrow*, and the University of Arizona with federal officials of SRS and the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) in Washington, D.C. on the progress and implications of this kind of legislative staffing project to the expansion of Vocational Rehabilitation Services. The first point of discussion at this meeting concerned how the pilot legislative staffing project via the University of Arizona led to the application of VR client services monies, matched with $400,000 state monies, to the rehabilitation of eligible welfare recipients. The second and primary purpose of the meeting was to suggest that a full-fledged capacity-building staffing demonstration project should be established in the Arizona State Legislature under the leadership of both houses. This proposed project would provide staff responsible for information-gathering and orientation of the legislature to health, welfare, rehabilitation, employment, vocational education and other related human-resource problem areas. From October to January, 1971-72, a f o d proposal was drafted and submitted to the Office of Research and Demonstrations of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare's (DHEW) Social and Rehabilitation Service (SRS) for such a staffing project.

The HRSS Objectives and Guidelines
In the proposal written for funding, an extensive and global set of research objectives were suggested. These are summarized:

*The application of University of Arizona expertise in the Rehabilitation sciences to the legislative process was initially suggested by Representative Sam A. McConneU, Jr., then Chairman of Health & Welfare, later Vice Chairman, House Appropriations Committee. He became the HRSS project monitor and was responsible to two Speakers and one Senate President for the application of HRSS information to the legislative process.

Planning and research assistance to the state legislature in the human resources' program areas; 2. Determination of the legislative climate for the assimilation of technical information on human resources including a: a. Study of the legislative process; b. Study of the characteristics of legislators pertaining to information use patterns; c. Study of the relationships among the legislature, federal, and state public agencies in human services development; d. Study of leadership and committee approaches to technical information generation and use. 3. Determination of administrative agency climate: a. How they provide services; How they interpret the needs of the client to the legislature; b. How they interpret service programs including their performance. c. Determination of federallstate legislative relationship re: 4. a. Planned utilization of federal funds for human services programming; b. Innovation of programs; c. Evaluation of programs; d. Continuation of programs. Assessment of the kinds of policy research staff required in state human 5. resources programming as exemplified by legislative leadership and committee staff and executive agency legislative intermediaries. After issuance of the legislative staffing grant by the federal government, these objectives then became the focus of the HRSS project in the ensuing two years of activity. The basic goal of HRSS re the above mentioned research objectives was to determine principles and guidelines for the development of capacity-building within a state legislature. Thus, would policymakiig better reflect the realities of program innovation and implementation of services to dependent and handicapped clients. The more specific purposes underlying this broad goal were to: 1. Demonstrate the value of specialized professional staff to a legislature on a full-time basis; Promote communication and understanding among federal, state executive 2. agencies, and the legislature so that each could become aware of the procedures and points of view of the others; Enable the agencies and the legislature to communicate their needs to each 3. other in an effective manner; Promote effective programs and the more efficient use of tax dollars in 4. human services' programs;
1.

Increase the awareness of the legislature and state agencies of the programs available to the state through SRS, DHEW and RSA, SRS, DHEW; 6 . Determine whether such specialized technically-oriented legislative and agency policy staff for the generation of relevant program information could be successfully developed; 7. Provide criteria to guide in training policy science professional research staff for state government. To accomplish these ends, the HRSS project experimentally provided technical staff to the legislative branch of Arizona state government to advise and research program and organizational matters concerning pending legislation and the implementation and development of enacted legislation. The HRS Staff also advised the legislature concerning planning for the appropriate use of available federal funds, as well as state funds, for the development of state human services.

5.

Legislative Capacity-Building
The HRSS project was unique in that it was an effort to increase the capacity of the Arizona State Legislature in the human services' area through the application of technical staff to this process. Capacity-building simply implies the development of a unit of government's potential for doing better the job that it is probably already in the process of accomplishing. This capacity-building approach was intentionally designed to evaluate the potential applicability of the concept to other state legislatures. Consequently, the basic question which confronted HRSS was whether the utilization of specialized staff within the legislative process would benefit the legislature in increasing its ability to accomplish previously-defined goals and objectives in human resources' programming and appropriations.

HRS Staff Commitment to Legislative Decision-Making Process
In defining the role of legislative staff, HRSS considered the technical support they could and did seem to provide to this policymaking body. There appeared definite boundaries within which the staff could work in a cooperative relationship with the legislative decision-maker. Much as a community organizer in carrying forth his efforts, the staff learned the limits of their activities and the roles they could legitimately assume as support to legislative decision-making. HRS Staff became aware of legislator values and the limitations of the staff support role through actually staffing projects for them. This was not a research study by outsiders; rather, it was a classical situational research demonstration. In establishing the parameters of the legislative staff role, HRSS has emphasized, in their own work, the processes by which they accomplished their housekeeping, program development and/or oversight monitoring functions. One of the keys to successful legislative staff work has been the development of positive, interpersonal

~

I

I

relationships with legislators representing the majority leadership, state agency program and management personnel, and other public and private groups interested in the legislative process. Those trained in community organization, community services' planning and development would quickly recognize the roles that the HRSS project staff have identified in carrying out their responsibilities. These roles could variously be classified as: analyst, planner, broker, advocate, organizer, enabler and "expert". To perform these functional roles, the HRSS project believes strongly that legislative staff should have primarily "generalist" capabilities as well as some speciality research and technical skills. If any one identifier could be assigned to HRSS, then "generalist researcher" would be an appropriate title. Several authors have ably described these process-oriented organizational change roles and, rather than highlight their comments, the reader is referred to Bardick (1972), Blum (1969), Ross (1955), Rothman (1964), Sanders (1964), and Grosser (1965). In developing and demonstrating the effect of information in the communication processes within the legislature, the HRS Staff have defined and disciplined themselves to perform certain functions designed to facilitate their effectiveness as legislative staff. These functions, familiar to community organizers and developers and especially legislators in their political roles were: timing of information presentation, establishment of strategies for acceptance of human services program concepts, anticipation of developing opposition to information flow and tactics designed to rebut these counter-moves; development of interpersonal information transmission relationships; and coordination between the generation of information and its subsequent utilization by the legislature. To be effective, the professional staff person had to demonstrate his competence, dependability, credibility and trustworthiness in order to be permitted to carry on the process of technical staff support in the legislature.

I

HRSS and the Legislative Climate for Technical Information Use
It became apparent from the beginning of the project that the manner by which staff were used within a legislative body and how they fit into its ongoing, everyday processes would make a difference in their ability to make information input into policymaking. The HRSS project was a "leadership" project, having been initiated by the former Speaker of the House of Representatives (Timothy Barrow) and the President of the State Senate (William Jacquin) and continued under the auspices of the current Speaker of the House (Stanley Akers). These leaders retained ultimate authority for major decisions and direction of the HRSS project; they delegated responsibility to specific members of the leadership, including complementary "sub-leadership," i.e., standing committee chairmen. The majority of work and everyday direction was derived from committee chairmen in the House of Representatives and Senate who represented their majority

leadership bodies. They supervised the HRS Staff. However, the House monitor (Representative Sam McConnell, Jr.), most responsible for the project's everyday direction and its growth for the two year research grant, happened to serve in an ideal, dual interrelationship between programmatic and appropriations' processes, in that he was, simultaneously, chairman of Health and Welfare and eventually vice-chairman of Appropriations. Obviously, his working relationships within the legislative structure made all the difference in the potential and actual impact this project has had within the Arizona State legislative process and state government in general. There is no question that the nature of the HRSS demonstration and its position within the legislature at a time of "across-the-board" agency reorganization predisposed it to having some kind of impact within this process; however, specialized staff were new to this particular legislature at the time that HRSS was initiated. Primarily, only university-sponsored interns and professional lobbyists ''served" simultaneously as staff when the HRSS project began operation in January 1972. HRSS personnel represented, in the main, university people coming into a legislative body and attempting to fit their ideas and style of research into the legislative process. There were natural, inherent objections and, consequent, self-imposed limitations as to the manner in which this kind of input could be and became acceptable to the policyrnakers. The legislative "defense mechanisms," for keeping staff in their place and establishing just who "made policy" had to be recognized and overcome during the two years of the project endeavor.

HRSS

-

A Focus for Communications' Development

A particular focus of HRSS was, as mentioned, on capacity-building which, if effective, could bring together state legislative bodies and the executive (administrative) branch of state government into interaction with federal agencies. These governmental elements would, hopefully, become aware of each other's existence and learn to recognize the potential advantage of working together towards mutual objectives. However, it had to be recognized that the traditional approach of such communications' development, among various units of government within the state and nationally, was usually derived from executive branch leadership, rather than the legislative branch and, in direction of initiative, from federal, to state, rather than the reverse process. The HRSS demonstration evidenced an attempt at breaking with human resource services development tradition. It attempted to assess and reinforce the legislature in such services implementation. It was early recognized by HRS Staff, not only in their own experience in Arizona but comparing notes with several other sophisticated state legislatures (including California), that the legislature, even a part-time legislature, can become a powerful policymaking body when it wishes to become a focal point for human

services policy formation. For example, the Offices of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President of the Senate are active nationally year-round. These offices, coupled with interim committee work, have considerable potential influence to initiate new programming, to carry out oversight functions on enacted legislation and appropriations, to aid state agencies in problem-solving, and to effect the kinds of working relationships with federal and state administrative agencies which are basically advantageous to the development of balanced human resource programming in the states. The historical constraint in this communication's process has been the way federal departments have become accustomed to working with their equals in state-federal categorical programs within state executive agencies. There is an inertial mind-set inherent in this precedent that is unfortunate and does not recognize the impact for change at the state policymaking level and what it takes to bring about such change within traditional federal-state agency programming. Those in state legislative policymaking have greater capacity, to effect dramatic, acute, but also long-term change. They have the power to bring about new relationships and new alignments of units of government and constituent groups. Neither, state executive agencies, nor the federal government, nor Congress are as likely to accomplish these changes as rapidly or as effectively as a Legislature; because, they are bound by historically-determined federal-state relationships and hamstrung by longer time frames for action.

The Risk o f Federal Agencies Working with the Legislature: Lower than Expected
There is, of course, an inherent risk in federal departments attempting to work simultaneously with the governor and his staff, state administrative agency directors and with the state legislature and its leadership. Federal departmental staff seem more fearful of the political implications of working with a politically-established legislative majority and minority, than they do with a governor (also a political animal), his staff, and the administrative agencies (with often politically appointed directors). Working with both the legislative and the executive branches of government in the state is like walking a tightrope; but the results are often well worth the risk inherent to this process. Sllarkansky (1972, p. 243) adequately enunciated the basic constraints and reinforcers to the development of working relationships between the executive and legislative branches of state government. The traditions affecting the separation-of-powersconcept are: . . . (1) The desire to maintain political accountability in public administration; (2) the desire to maintain an equilibrium among the three constitutional branches of government by preserving the system of separation of powers and checks and balances; (3) the desire to ensure that professional and technical skills are brought to bear on relevant matters of

policy formulation and implementation, and (4) the desire to maximize the efficient use of resources by means of a hierarchical form of organization. The experience of HRS Staff is that many of the traditional constraints to the development of working relationships are suspect and should be tested. Though one can argue the "separation-of-powers" issue, it is apparent that executive-legislative roles are overlapping, confused, and have always been ambiguous. Through establishing projects which require the mutual participation of members of both branches of state government, a natural, developmental method to clarify role differentiation between these branches can be developed. One can then determine the operational parameters which should actually limit the working relationships of these two branches of state government and the appropriate checks and balances required. It has generally become a matter of procedure for state and federal agencies to cite the separation of powers' "problem" as one which prevents various forms of interaction toward the achievement of mutually desirable objectives among the various units of state government. This is most unfortunate, since new directions in programming for the reduction of dependency in most states are quite necessarily dependent on the cooperative and constructive adversary involvement of both the legislative and executive branches acting as powerful change agents or brokers of change. State and federal levels of human services development are not identical. " Under current constraints of federal law, regulations and "policy statements , the state's power to redirect human service delivery systems is limited. The state's executive and legislative branches must take a more active role in this policymaking forum, so they can become effective leaders vs followers through utilizing their inherent constitutionally-defined power. New relationships between the state's executive and legislative branches and the federal agencies responsible for carrying out Congress' intent need to be initiated and negotiated. New directions in programming require every bit of insight and creativity which can be mustered toward this end to refocus the orientation and application of the use of limited state and federal resources toward affecting the employability of various handicapped population target groups. Such a change in traditional governmental direction will require the application of new kinds of technical expertise to the policymaking and implementation processes. This is the premise of the HRSS demonstration.

HRSS as Catalysts in Testing Legislative Constraints and Prerogatives
HRSS exploited the potential of the traditions inherent to the state legislative process: . . . The legislature has many opportunities to affect the structure, procedures, and programs of administration: review of new program proposals, periodic review of agency budgets, the approval of key personnel appointments, special legislative investigations into the

operation of certain programs, the legislature's ability to initiate (and to pass over the governor's veto) new programs or to make changes in existing programs, and informal arrangements in which administrators seek the approval of key legislators for certain kinds of decisions (Sharkansky, 1972, p. 245). The accomplishments of the HRSS project suggest the variety of ways traditions were tested in how the legislature can affect human services development. For example, the "oversight" function is a relatively new one both to the Congress and the state legislature. HRSS explored the legislature's potential in meeting legislative needs for accountability of agency programs through this means. As a consequence, the Arizona Legislature achieved a better understanding of what kinds of agency oversight are appropriate, feasible and fruitful. As another example, HRS Staff, as indicated, came on board at a time when "across-the-board" reorganization into eleven cabinet positions of approximately 121 state agencies arid programs became a matter of policy in the legislative leadership of both Legislative Houses. Also, both Houses and the Governor's office were controlled by the same majority party. These circumstances made the experience of HRSS somewhat unique, yet questionable as to its representative application to the legislative environments of other states. However, HRS Staff took considerable time and spent an authorized proportion of their allotted grant budget to compare their experiences with those of three other state legislatures. Two were extensively staffed with technical expertise at the standing committee level; yet, one state had very minimal staff, mostly from a central reference service. This three-state comparative survey of standing committee chairmen and senior committee staff will also be reported.

I

Summary
The majority of HRS Staff are presently still employed by the legislative and executive branches of state government in Arizona. Some of the legislators, who made the most significant contributions to the project's direction and the application of HRSS' approach within the legislative process, are also still active. Many accomplishments were achieved over the two years of this demonstration which have important consequences for short and long-range programming in dependency-reduction at the state level. But, the means by which these accomplishments were achieved cannot be reported in the manner in which they should be to effect a basic understanding of how the legislative process truly works. This is a matter of the reporting limitations due to professional social science research ethics. There is no question that effective policy formulation requires the active participation on the part of both legislative staff and key legislators to effect lasting organizational and program change within this consensual body. But, to report the actual interpersonal process in terms of staff and legislator manipulation or "influence" of one another is ethically inappropriate.

In any case, this kind of situational demonstration is most difficult to scientifically "track" and record as to the organizational problem-solving processes typified in a state legislature in the classical experimental model of controls framework. In Arizona there are 90 legislators and they act apparently very independently of one another. There are parties and party caucuses, but much individualistic independence in the way decisions are achieved. This is a "western" tradition. One can point, though, to basic benchmarks in achievement in a legislature of this sort. What the reader will, hopefully, gain by the end of this report is a limited set of guidelines to a working knowledge of the inherent nature of the state legislative process and the relationship of this governmental body to others. How technical staff can assist the legislature in its problem-solving is what is the significant focus. How such a democratic process can, in particular, lead to improvements in a state's human resources program is also most important. What is significant and well worth learning is the manner by which staff and legislators can work as a team to cooperatively achieve some very important new approaches to services' innovation, implementation and services' accountability. The primary focus of HRSS' efforts, to be described, was not only to bring more current, significant technical information on federal and state programming to bear in the arena of decision-making of the state legislature, but to effect a balance in decision-making potential between the executive and legislative branches of state government. In addition, HRSS senior staff spent much of their time in the experimental development of these decisional relationships among the legislature, federal agencies, the U.S. Congress and national professional organizations of human resource personnel. The fundamental conclusion of HRSS is that professional and technically-oriented legislative staff is an unrecognized, though potential resource, for the betterment of human resources services programming in the state and nationally. A secondary finding is that, though, more change is often possible through the availability of professional technical staff to policymakers, the development of staff support to a legislative body is no mean accomplishment. To attain a relationship of trust as staff with one's legislative "colleagues" is not simply a matter of establishing an employeremployee and colleague-like working relationship as is typical to research and development staff support units within many corporate organizations and business enterprises. The achievement of such a colleague-like working relationship with legislators seems to be most important for professional, specialized legislative staff to make impact, information-wise, within the legislative process. Third, policy impact within the legislative process depends upon the realistic recognition of the character of the legislative process by legislative staff. For example, making impact in the program-development area within the substantive standing committees of a legislature is quite different from the impact possible within the legislative appropriations' process. These two processes are basically unique and separate ones, established historically as functionally different within state's legislative

procedures. It is unfortunate that these are not related better than they are in most state legislatures; rarely, for example, do programmatically-based legislators have the impact they should or would like into the appropriations' process. Human services development would be more effective if this were the case. Another example, continuity of impact within specific areas of programmatic interest, is rare indeed within most state legislatures due to a variety of factors reported in other research into this subject. Taking the standing committee as an example, Rosenthal (U.S. Congress, 1973, p. 10) has emphasized one of the major problems in the development of continuity in policymaking: The experience of chairmen and members of standing committees also counts. If policies and programs are to be effectively formulated and effectively controlled, there has to be some memory, some continuity of service on each committee. Differences in membership continuity between committees in the states and those in the U.S. House are extreme indeed. State legislative committees seldom achieve anywhere near the expertness and influence of their congressional counterparts. A principal reason is the high turnover of committee members. Full-time, year-round staff capacity-building, as an adjunct to committee and leadership procedures, is one means of overcoming this discontinuity in the state legislative process. However, this example suggests limitations to the legislative role in human resources development. It has been variously reported by different observers of legislative decision-making that in every election there is a 40-60 percent turnover in most state legislative bodies. This is an extremely high turnover; one that very much affects the ability of the legislature to follow through on any particular decision over a long period of time. Most human resource problems, on the contrary, are long-term problems that require a basic understanding of the dynamics of how they are affected by state administrative agencies and by policymakers, as well. For the legislature to make impact in such areas, as represented by the ever-increasing population of dependent physically and severely handicapped, it must develop some form of "memory" device as Rosenthal suggests. New approaches must be based on previous ones. Permanent, specialized staff, though few in number, can contribute productively to such an objective, but only if properly supervised by legislative leaders. Many other examples of insight into the role of capacity-building, and its limitations, will be forthcoming in the report to follow. These are the most significant ones.

CHAPTER I1
The Role of Changing Legislatures in Setting Human Resource Priorities

Policymaking and the Role o f the State Legislature in Setting Resource Priorities which Affect the State, Communities, and the Nation
Sharkansky (1972) reported that state governments have been maligned over the years as not being responsive to the needs of their citizens; consequently, the federal and local governments have taken leadership in attempting to meet these needs as they pertain to domestic problems. Sanford in his book, Storm Over The States (1967), indicated that the legislature, in order to develop and maintain a record of responsiveness, needed to become more involved in policy issues affecting its citizens. In this respect, it is interesting to note that state legislatures have increased their funding for "domestic" programs more rapidly than any other level of government in the last twenty years (Sharkansky, 1972). The legislature as the primary policymaking body within the state has, generally-speaking, been working vigorously in the last few years to prepare itself to enact legislation that will provide the state with a leadership role among its citizenry. As examples of the growth of federal policy and programs in the domestic area, one need but look at the legislation that was passed in the 1960's with the Office of Economic Opportunity programs for those who were poverty-stricken; the Medicaid program in 1965; the Medicare program and its concern for health care for the aged; and the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968. The latter provided the states limited flexibility in organizationally structuring their service systems as they deemed appropriate. As the federal government has interpreted the needs of the American citizen, it has proceeded to pass legislation through the years which has had a tremendous impact on the citizens of each state. Thus, federal responses to local needs has resulted in the development of structures and procedures of governmental interaction which bypassed the states. It effected the creation of direct federal funding to meet urban and local needs . . . for example, the Demonstration Cities' Act (i.e., "Model Cities"). Since 1968, the Nixon Administration had been working Power t on its conc;:hh:ew federalism." Legislation which passed in 1968, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, initiated a new shift of power which pinpointed the responsibility on the states for planning and services and further defined their interrelationships with local and federal government. This Act, as implemented by the Federal Executive Office of Management and Budgets' Circulars' A-95 and A-98, has assisted in the development of the Council of Government structures ("COGS"). The implementation of the regional planning concept, one of its outcomes, has provided the opportunity for states and local communities to assume initiative in priority planning.

~

I

I

A second program sponsored by the Nixon Administration, the Revenue Sharing Act of 1972, is also shifting power back t o the states and local communities. The Revenue Sharing Act again called attention t o what role the states could play in independently determining those programs which seem t o best fit each one's needs. A third characteristic of new federalism is the development of the so-called Services' Integration program under the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW). The Services' Integration projects have, in essence, given strength to the states to reorganize their service systems. Also, state legislatures have undergone a period of streamlining and growth which has re-emphasized resource initiation and allocation at the state level. Many legislatures have been active in establishing the authorization for such modernizing activities as exemplified by agency reorganization and other streamlining efforts. States' response to complicated programs. The need to establish working relationships among various levels of government has never been more pronounced than it is now. The Arizona State Legislature, for example, increasingly demonstrated concern about the federal impact on the state's human-resource programs. It became aware of the requirements of federal law and regulations, especially pertaining to those laws that passed in the 1960's and early 1970's. The implication is that the state had to first learn to recognize the simultaneous demands and needs of various levels of government, both subordinate and superordinate in order to establish the parametcrs of its own initiatives. These changes have been fostered and promoted as exemplified by the councils of government mechanism and by the more vigorous municipal, city, and county governments. With the increased expenditures of state government and the thrust of the federal government to decentralize power to their regional offices, the states have been provided the opportunity to direct more programs from within state government*. The legislature is unique in that it can enact those laws and authorize and appropriate those monies which, in effect, establish statewide human-service priorities. It often complements (i.e., "matches") federal categorical programs. Consequently, the legislature is slowly realizing that it requires the tools necessary to develop an9 interpcet technical information which establishes the appropriate directions it should encourage in service delivery and relationships among the various branches of date government, and also among the local and federal governments.

*The exception is the "prime sponsor" concept inherent to the new Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973 (PL 92-203). This provides the municipalities the authority to deliver their own employment services.

The Legislature's Role Among Other Policymaking Organizations at the Local, State and Federal Levels; Its Isolated Status Compared to Other Organizations
The state legislature has become increasingly aware of the necessity to inform itself of the laws and regulations which exist at the federal level, their interpretation by the federal officials, and their implications for the state. As a result, legislators have recognized the need for legislative-initiated changes in the human-resources programs. The legislatures, thus, tended to develop greater initiatives to foster programs which provide for the needs of its citizens and, to meet the federal challenge to local initiatives; a trend toward evolving from part-time to full-time policymaking is occurring. Many states have turned to annual sessions and these sessions particularly in the case of Arizona, have increased from minimum duration of thirty, sixty or ninety days to a point where the legislature is meeting in combined session and interim approximately six months each year and has limited year-round staffing. Accompanying this effort has been the dramatic increase in interim legislative work where interim joint select committees and House and Senate committees take on vanous tasks which have tremendous significance for reorganizing state agencies and streamlining their procedures for the delivery of services to the citizenry. Unfortunately, most state legislatures have not usually had professional staff available to them to assist in reducing their ever increasing workload. As a result, the legislature has depended primarily upon its own capacity to gather information from lobbyists, administrative agencies and through neutral legislative research councils or central reference bureaus. With the present trend toward more complicated legislation, based upon laws enacted at the federal and the state level which have far-reaching implications, this limited capability of state legislatures is no longer an acceptable pattern of response to policy needs. (See references re Citizens' Conference on State Legislatures.) Also, many state legislatures across the country have not developed to the point where they have access to the data, research and recommendations pertaining to various federally-initiated programmatic and organizational matters. It is true that at the federal level, the Congress has had committee staff as well as general research staff and aides throughout much of its history. But, even here, the stress is on the appropriations' process. Federal administrative agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW), the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) historically have also had staff which were established to provide the Congress with information as it pertained to proposed legislation and program development. State legislatures do not typically have the same staffing capability as do these policy-setting organizations. The rebuttal process, which was developed at the federal level, has been used successfully to provide information from the executive to the legislative branches for many years. This is evident through the hearing process of Congress. However, only five or six states have developed sufficient professional staff to provide similar

information through similar adversary strategies at the state-legislative committee level. Nor are there sufficient staff within the state executive agencies to establish similar complementary executive-legislative relationships at the state level similar to those provided at the federal level of government. The committee hearings' process has provided an opportunity for many public interest pressure groups, administrative agencies, lobbyists and legislators . . . all who represent special interests . . . to make impact on the trends and direction that legislation takes. State lenislative sessions are usually marked by frustrating workloads, and insufficient time t o adequately research necessary information to provide each committee with sufficient grounds for making policy decisions. The interim has become the time period when the legislators can work at a more consistent pace to gather the necessary, in-depth information required to pass effective legislation. It is during these interim periods that legislatures develop proposed programs, provide oversight for agency functions, and begin to look at the impact of Congressional law on the states. For example, legislatures, during the interim, may now be studying those rules and regulations and guidelines that appear in the Federal Register, which, in fact, become the mechanisms and machinery by which federal laws are implemented. But until competent research staff become available on a full-time basis, most legislatures will remain in a reactive situation, limited in responding in a positive way to the needs of its citizens. As a result, most state legislatures are presently in a position whereby they find it impossible to establish their constitutionally provided initiatives to chart their own, independent course of action for human-resource services to the degree they deem necessary and appropriate. The day of settling resource distribution, through individual legislator influence and the use of personal power alone without adequate data is, hopefully, drawing to a close. The legislature, because of its increasingly greater accountability to the public, is beginning to conclude that it must now defend its policy decisions with more adquate, technically qualifiable information. Legislative staffing is one particular means to this end . . . a point of view stressed in the HRSS demonstration.

A Multidisciplinary Look at Capacity-Building Through Staffing
The purpose of the Legislative Capacity-Buildinggrant to Arizona by DHEW was
in essence to provide staff to assist the Arizona Legislature in the development of

policy decisions based on objective and technically quantifiable and qualifiable information. This was the first U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare staffing grant to a legislature for human resources capacity-building. Capacity can be defined in a variety of ways. Capacity-building can be defined quantitatively as just having more supportive staff time available to the legislator to assign to research and discover appropriate kinds of legislative options, and activities or to evaluate on-going programs. A second definition of capacity-building would be a qualitative definition whereby the professional staff, concerned with developing an understanding of quality

programmatic areas in specialized ways, acts not only as a resource person who is capable of reacting sensitively to the requests made of him, but as one who can take the initiative in formulating innovative approaches to legislation. His understanding in a subject-matter sense of the implications of agency programs for state action can prove invaluable in providing a legislator with options previously unavailable. The HRSS experience has focused on the national, state and local relationships and problems targeted at the specific subject matter of human services. Other technical staff could apply a similar focus to land-use planning, transportation, environmental protection and other areas. Staff should be prepared to suggest to the legislator information and options the legislator might require to initiate appropriate legislation. A third definition of capacity-building would be the focal point of continuity a legislative staff person could provide the legislature in becoming the liaison between the federal, local and state agencies and Congress in pulling together such resources. He would also provide the program data and other information necessary to effectively legislate more realistic policy decisions. Such legislative staff could bring to the legislature, especially if he is a senior staff person, with skills, experience and training in programmatic matters, the ability to evaluate such programs and, simultaneously, develop lines of communication among the state administrative agencies, the legislature, the federal, regional, and central offices in Washington and local communities. A fourth capacity-building definition could be the continuity staff could provide, in the sense of history and "corporate memory." Staff could, as a resource, suggest trends and directions in current programming, and develop future potential directions for new programming. Staff could be of unique importance . . . but only if properly supervised, i.e., "controlled;" by their legislators . . . in implementing legislative bills. The senior legislative staff person could assist the legislator in moving from the passive generation of information to assisting the legislator in the active phase of information utilization. By spending full time with the legislature, the legislative staff person could bring the perspective of the legislator to bear on problems and issues which could only be resolved by gathering appropriate data from a variety of extra-legislative sources. In essence, the legislative staff person could, thus, reduce the barriers, limitations and the isolation of the legislature from other bodies. It is true that the legislator has many constituents and is influenced by many interests; however, because of the press of legislative affairs and the fact that most legislators are part-time, he cannot generally spend the time that he would like studying programs and problems which exist within the state, or are initiated at the federal-national level. A legislative staff person could, under appropriate orientation from the legislator, spend his time at this kind of active research activity and fulfill the above-described functions.

CHAPTER I11
The Utilization of Technical Information in the Legislative Process - A Three State Legislative Study of Information User Styles at the Committee Level

A. Introduction
The theme of this chapter concerns the use of information in the legislative process and capacity-building through legislative staffing toward this end. The legislative process can assumedly be made more rational by improving the quality of its decision-making. This could be achieved in the sense of affording the legislative membership better and more accurate policy-relevant information and, thus, providing them greater discretion in the options they choose for making policy decisions. The Human Resources Services Staffing experience of the Arizona State Legislature has suggested that staff, if properly utilized and subjected to adequate legislative direction, can make a contribution to this process. Consequently, special emphasis has been placed upon a comparative assessment of how other states use staff within the standing committee process, since the committee seems t o be a setting most parallel to the Arizona experience.

Statement of the Research Problem
Background. How technical information generation and flow are affected in the legislative committee process should, in particular, be greatly dependent on the kind of relationship which exists between senior committee technical staff and their legislative chairmen. The following is a report of a three state comparative legislative survey of the standing committee process. The importance of technical information to an organization's problem-solving processes in the sense of policy determination has been underscored by a number of students of organization. Etzioni (1964:75) said: ". . . Probably the most important structural dilemma is the inevitable strain imposed on the organization by the use of knowledge . . ." Demestresou (as paraphrased by Huerta, 1972:40) believed: ". . . The basic problem the organization faces is to decide what information is necessary, in what form, and with what speed for its respective members [to make important decisions]. . ." Barnard (1938: 174) stressed the dilemma in the interaction of the managerial and adaptive subsystems is that: ". . . objective authority is only maintained if the positions of leaders continue to be adequately informed . . ." Information use, as Hopkfns (1964: 167) indicated, is ". . . an important property of office which Weber fails to mention." In this regard, Etzioni (1964), Blau and Scott (1962), and Merton (1964) have underscored the distinctive role strains of the creative, professional

information staffer in a supportive position within the organizational structure. This kind of staff provides the organization with specialized expertise in terms of the kinds of technical information most pertinent to the executive manager, who sets the organization's tenor and direction. Staff relationships at the managerial or executive policy-making level, as compared to the production level, are often more complex than suggested by the classical industria1 "line-staff" differentiation made by organizational sociologists. Management, i,e., supervision, of these roles at the executive managerial level, is characterized by more freedom, span of decision and autonomy. Yet, at the same time, it seems to require greater role clarity of both supervisor and staff. This is in the sense of how supervision is selectively applied, so as not to interrupt the creative and delicate aspects of information generation and flow. Summarv: The Focus of the Research Problem. In the legislature, the primary work setting wherein "production" occurs is at the committee level. This is the focal point of the empirical comparative survey study to follow. The production and refinement of legislation will be considered a direct resultant of the quality of the working relationship and, thus, the technical information exchange which occurs between the standing committee chairman and his senior committee staff. The legislative chairman will be symbolically representative of the managerial or authority-bearing subsystem and the senior legislative staff will be representative of the adaptive or information generation and transmission subsystem in this kind of organization.

B.

THE STUDY'S FOCUS: STANDING COMMITTEES

THE PERTINENCE OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES AS THE PRIMARY INFORMATION FILTER AND USER WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
The empirical research focus of this study will be a comparative examination of the state legislative committee system and the meaning of staff in the provision of information to the legislative process. The following perspectives were emphasized in the survey research design:
1.

2.

3.

the kinds of authority and communications systems required to effect information flow between committee chairmen and senior legislative committee staff; the forms of supervision required for information to flow and the kinds which actually exist; the parameters of the supervisory and work relationships which inhibit or facilitate overlapping roles of legislators as decision-makers and staff as supportive information "technicians";

4.

5.
6.

the degree of openness required in communication between chairmen and staff for information to flow effectively; the relevance of the formal subsystem of supervisory management over staff to legislative committee information flow processes; the relevance of the informal subsystem of communications to the facilitation of information flow between the chairmen and their staff.

The legislature can be considered a unique but legitimate model on the continuum from very complex organizational structures to very simple ones. The legislature has many characteristics in common with other kinds of service and manufacturing, i.e., bureaucratic organizations. However, it highlights several organizational characteristics of a developmental nature which emphasize the technical information process and "managerial" decision-making. (See Figure 1.) The characteristic directions legislative organizations take are a function of their programmatic objectives and the quality of information available to them:

. . . Each legislator in the course of his term must have access to information, evaluate it (even if no more than to accept the evaluations of others), and take definitive action as a member of a legislative body . . (Meller, 1952: 111).

.

A legislature has the following major functions: organization, research, deliberation and oversight (i.e., monitoring for agency accountability) (paraphrased from a definition by the Committee on Legislative Rules of the National Legislative Conference, 1970:8).
The legislative process could be rationalized by applying greater discretion to the decisional options available to each legislator throughout the many events which make up this problem-solving process. Rosenthal's definition of the legislative process is operational in nature. It establishes a baseline for considering the potential effect of the management of information on this process. It suggests the points at which staff can potentially, at least, apply their expertise - information generation and interpretation:

MANUFACTURING FIRM

BICAMERAL STATE LEGISLATURE Constituents Executive Structure; Legislative Leadership

Board Executive Structure; President of the Board, etc. Technical Support Staff

Management Subsystems Adaptive pbsystem">

Primitive Technical Support Staff

Committee Chairman Committees

Direct Management of the Manufacturing Process

Committees of the Whole

- - - - - -----LineIStaff Distinctions and Product-oriented Decision-making

-------- - - - General Support Staff: Bill Drafters

End Products

End Products: Legislation and Its Implementation

Figure 1. Comparison of two paradigms of organization.

- 22 -

First, a legislature must represent and help constituents. This means that members have to do errands for people, put them in touch with administrators, answer their requests, and express their interests. This is the constituent service role. Second, a legislature must participate in policy-making. It cannot merely ratify proposals - whether from the govenor, a department or agency, an interest group, or one of its own members. It should go further - examining, modifying, and even rejecting what is presented. I t should offer alternatives and fill in gaps. This is the policy and program formulation role. Third, a legislature must review the conduct of administration - exercising oversight, checking on dishonesty a n d waste, invigorating entrenched bureaucratic routine, ensuring compliance with legislative intent as embodied in law. It must also evaluate the effects of state policies and program - examining accomplishments in relation to objectives and costs, and anticipating whether past enactments need to be expanded (Rosenthal, U.S. Congress, 1972:2). Information and technical assistance can, thus, be applied throughout the legislative process in terms of the functions described in the above definitions. A number of observers of the legislative process, including Dye (1971) and the Council of State Governments (1972), have disagreed regarding which particular functions and structures have the most impact on the final legislative product, whether appropriations or program. Their experience suggests that technical information might make impact through the utilization of technical staff placed at a variety of positions within the legislature: in the Speaker's or Senate President's office, as administrative assistants to individual legislators, as staff to Standing Committees, or as central research and reference service staff (e.g., legislative councils). All of these patterns of staff utilization are followed to one degree or another in legislatures throughout the United States. A number of barriers are imposed on the potential and actual impact of staff no matter what pattern they follow. Among these might be listed: the limited period of time a legislature is in session in each year, the high turnover of legislators from election to election, the lack of continuity of legislative action in the interim process and the general unavailability of staff who are willing to make a career of the legislature. All of these limit the quality and quantity of legislation a legislature produces and, consequently, the kinds of use it can make of technical information staff. Staff, with specific kinds of expertise, can povide information, direction, and continuity to policy in the legislative process and in its implementation at the executive levels, and can adequately counteract some of the kinds of barriers described above. By no means are the in-house legislative processes and the staff participating in them the only source providing information which can and does affect legislative decision-making. For many years the role of the lobbyist in the legislative process has been recognized and generally accepted. Many lobbyists provide information beyond

their own immediate area of vested interest. Their information, in order to be competitive, has to be accurate, valid and useful to the legislator. In a sense they are "extra-legislative staff." They are known as the "Thlrd House" in certain legislatures. Some distinguished members of the press and media are also held in similar regard as resources by legislators. The application and utilization of technical information in the legislative process are, consequently, highly competitive in the sense of which resources exist or are actually used by the legislator. These various resources often limit the impact of in-house staffing expertise. Table 2 summarizes the kinds of information resources available to the innovative legislator. In one of the few recent studies of information resource preferences by legislators, Feller, et al. (1975), actually conducted a large survey of eight states, chosen f o r their representativeness as a result of a variety of criteria, including: "innovatedness," per capita income, "professionalism," and partisan competition. A number of i n t e ~ e w s were conducted with official and informal legislative leaders, chairmen of three relevant kinds of committees which were likely users of scientific and professional information, and others. They were asked to compare, by preference, a number of information input models, including:

. . . a science and technology standing committee; science and technology subcommittees within existing standing committees; a group of permanent scientific and technical consultants hired by the legislature; student interns trained in science and engineering; a permanent staff of professional scientists; a professional science advisor to the legislative leadership; a state science and technology information clearinghouse; a nationwide science and technology clearinghouse; and an ad hoc task force arrangement created to study specific issues and comprised of legislators, members of the community, scientists, and engineers. (Feller, 1975: p. 17)

TABLE 2 SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR LEGISLATIVE DECISION-MAKING
Model Reference Center for the Study of Science Policy (Pennsylvania State University, 1973:35) "Power to the States" (CSG, 1972: 122-123, 129-130) Legislator Expertise Personal Research Model Inhouse Expertise Professional Staff Model Intern Staff Model Committee Model Expert Consultant Model Technical Committee Staff Panels of Experts Central Service Technical Staff Capability Expertise from Outside the Legislature Expert Consultant Model Task Force Model

Personal "Homework"

Volunteered Expertise State University Faculty

Legislative Research State Academies of Science (placed selectively in legislative process) [adversary hearings] Inhouse Scientific and Technical Advisory Units Committee Technical Staff (loaned from Executive Departments) HRSS-ASL Survey Research & Demonstration Administrative Assistants Lobbyists (``3rd House") Media & Press Private Advisor Committee Staff Leadership Staff Caucus Staff Central Service Staff (Legislative Council) Administrative Assistants Legislators with Special Expertise Offices of Research Legislative Analyst Auditor General State Universities (limited) Constituents (affected by State services and political constituents) Specialists (contract consultants) Lobbyists Media and Press Executive Departments Congressional Staff Federal Department Staff National Resource Organizations

The two tables which follow summarize their results. TABLE 3 * Percentage of Legislators in All States Who Accepted, Rejected, or Had Mixed Reactions to the Proposed Models
h

B

I
*
& ,,

I
V1

4f

41

*

a**

.$

$**

E 8 a

Ti! .9
S 2

B

8

2

E

8

L

Acceptance Rejection

25.0% 63.0 120

40.8% 51.0 8.2

38.4% 42.4 19.2

47.0% 31.0 22.0

54.1% 32.7 13.3

18.2% 63.6 18.2

38.5% 41.7 19.8

51.6% 28.4 20.0

47.4% 40.0 12.6

Mixed
Responses

*Printed with permission by Irwin Feller et al. (1975), Sources and Users of Scientific and Technological Information in State Legislatures, Table 3 (Table 3, p. 20) and Table 4 (Table 6, p. 28)

**S&T - Committees devoted entirely to Scientific and Technological issues.

TABLE 4* Summary of Legislators' S&T Information System Preferences

Strong Optimal Sentiment

Staff or Liaison Preference

General or S&T-Specific Information

Proposed Models Receiving Acceptance by Leadership Majorities a

California Idaho Kansas Michigan New Jersey North Carolina South Carolina West Virginia

Yes Yes No Yes No No No No

Liaison Even Staff Even Staff Even Staff Even

Even Even Even S&T General Even S&T =.T

5 2,8,9 3,s 4,s None 5,9 3.4.9 2,3,4,5,7,8

1

.The Code for identifying the models is: 1-Scienceand Technology Committee 2-Science and Technology Subcommittee 3-Expert Consultant 4Intern 5-ProfessionalStaff CScience Advisor 7-State Clearinghouse 8-National Clearinghouse 9-Task Force

The table can be interpreted as showing, for example, that a majority of California leaders accepted the professional staff model and failed to accept any of the other eight models.

*Printed with permission by Irwin Feller et al. (1975), Sources and Users of Scientific and Technological Information in State Legislatures, Table 3 (Table 3, p. 20) and Table 4 (Table 6, p. 28)

In particular, comparison with the present study, is warranted in terms of Feller's interpretation of the survey results concerning the Professional Staff Model: The professional staff model (the employment of permanent staff personnel with scientific and teclinological backgrounds) met with some enthusiasm -- but with one crucial qualification. Most of the legislators agreed that they needed additional permanent staff as a source of information independent of lobbies and the governor's office, but many of these same legislators pointedly stipulated that they would prefer to hire generalists (lawyers, economists, political scientists, etc.) rather than individuals with backgrounds in science and technology. One reason given was that a large majority of the legislators themselves are lawyers or otherwise have nonscientific training. They believed, therefore, that individuals with legal and/or liberal arts backgrounds would be better able to understand the needs of the legislature, to communicate information in an understandable manner, and possibly to better understand the full spectrum of facets embodied in complex issues. As with the expert consultation model considered earlier, many of the legislators believed that hiring more professional staff was a "step in the right direction," but few of them saw it as an optimal solution. Despite the fact that the professional staff model was one of only two which elicited an affirmative response from a majority of all legislators polled, many legislators were clearly reacting favorably to the prospect of hiring "more staff," while the requirement that such staff have scientific and/or technolo~icalbackgrounds was obviously secondary. (Feller, et al., 1975:23-24)

Positio~zirzgof Stajy for Most Effect Witlzir~ Legislature: tlze the Stalzdiiig Cornmittee

A Focus o n

Legislative observers, as previously discussed, have also disagreed regarding the potential influence of Standing Committees in the legislative process. Some emphasize that floor actions of the "Committee of the Whole" are the most important legislative features; others suggest that these floor actions are simply "window dressing" (Council of State Governments, 1972; Dye, 197 1; Rosenthal, 1973). The Standing Committee, on the other hand, has much potential for putting legislation into a form that is manageable by the Committee of the Whole. It is, however, a potential source of legislative blocking, particularly if the committee's chairman has the power to determine which bills will and will not be heard within his

committee's jurisdiction. If a single committee is a recipient of legislative assignments from the leadership, this may well mean that legislation lives and dies within this committee's structure and procedures. The committee can hold hearings, but at the discretion of a committee chairman, to determine, in due deliberation, the implications of legislation for the public-at-large. Legislative options can be applied through the amendment process within the committee structure. In essence, the committee provides an environment in which adequate consideration of legislation is possible - particularly if a committee is not overloaded in its agenda through an attempt to hear too many bills in too short a period of time. Rosenthal (U.S. Congress, 1972:3) has described two functions which are typically within the range of responsibility of a Standing Committee: policy and program formulation and policy and program control. He suggested that if state legislators want to make their branch of government competitive in these functions to the Executive Branch of Government, and even to the federal agencies and Congress, they must become "independent" or "co-equal" with these other branches. This would be in terms of their ability to mobilize the information resources they require. This implies that major staff impact will have to occur within the legislature. But, it is unimaginable that legislatures will ever be able to justify the utilization of staff resources at the same proportion to their numbers as do other branches of state and federal government.

Ambiguity in Assessing a Legislature's Performance
It is quite difficult, if not impossible, to determine the "effectiveness" or importance to the overall decision-making process of any particular structure or sub-process in legislative policy-making regarding their singular impact on the product of this process: programmatic legislation and/or appropriations. In other words, legislative "success" can be interpreted in different ways. If, for example, a committee chairman, complemented by legislative staff who provide relevant information through their technical expertise, affects the passage of certain legislation within the committee, this might be described as a "proximate" objective. The "ultimate" objective could be the passage or stoppage of this legislation from leaving either or both Houses and/or being signed by the Governor into law. Or "ultimate" success might be gauged in terms of any measurable program or constituent-based change which results from the legislation. There are, consequently, many possible barriers to and opportunities for modification of legislation beyond the standing committee itself - the sole focus of this study. This knowledge makes it extremely difficult to place emphasis on a committee or individual legislator, or even an individual legislative House, regarding the

achievement of the ultimate goal of legislation. Rosenthal (1973:253), for example, summarized five determining dimensions of committee "effectiveness" (paraphrased):
1.

2. 3.
4.

5.

the extent to which committees receive legislation; the extent to which committees control the screening of legislation: the extent to which committees shape the nature of legislation; the extent to which committees affect the passage of legislation; the extent to which committees study problems and formulate legislation during interim periods when sufficient time and opportunity exist.

There is another perspective which bears on the importance of focusing on the standing committee in terms of its potential for effectively influencing legislation. It suggests that one cannot simply sum up the impact of each of the individual legislators who sit on a particular committee in order to dctermine its productivity. Rather, it would prove more valid and parsimonious to concentrate on the chairman of each standing committee and track his relationship to the legislative process as a whole. Legislative chairmen are often those with greater seniority who have the "eye" of the legislative leadership, often the respect of their colleagues, and, in certain specific instances, individual subject matter expertise. Over a period of years the chairmen, through a process of selection, master the development of effective legislative procedures, including how to "work" legislation through the process in both Houses with a certain degree of predictable success. In addition, chairmen generally sit on the Rules Committee of their respective House which is another potential checkpoint through which legislation must pass to get to the floor and be considered for ultimate passage. Seasoned chairmen, in their areas of substantive expertise, generally become consultants and advisors to their legislative colleagues and to the legislative leadership. Emphasis on the relationship between the chairman and his committee staff emanates from the author's experience and intuitive belief that the closer staff is to the actual legislative process, the more potential impact they will have upon the legislative product. HRSS focused upon the Standing Committee structure. The authors' findings are similar to those pertaining to the CSG study of the assignment of "scientific and technical" staff (i.e., physical and biological scientists) to a legislature: The potential advantages are that the technical staff is on the firing line and is close to political realities; legislators can choose their science advice; working directly with committees, the technical staff can be given guidelines and cues; the issues are more focused, and research can be used to resolve the problem (Council of State Governments, 1970: 129). The optimum generation of technical information and its utilization is considered much more likely between committee chairmen and staff than at any other decisional point in the legislative process.

Rosenthal (U.S. Congress, 1972: 10) also described effectiveness in terms of a committee maintaining some form of "memory" and some continuity of service in terms of such factors as seniority, duration of assignment, and so on. In most "part-time" state legislatures, this characteristic of continuity is impossible to achieve without the presence of staff to follow through on assignments initiated by legislators. For example, the legislative function of oversight is indicative of one such "staff-dependent" activity: Oversight: A more specific form of agency liaison in which there is an attempt by the legislature to determine whether an agency is effectively carrying out a specific program or using a specific appropriation in a way the legislature "approves." This would be a matter of "monitoring" legislation previously enacted (HRSS, 1974). Legislators are rarely interested in developing the relationships required for effective communications with administrative agencies; nor do they "have the time." Thus, they cannot be expected to be able to know these agencies thoroughly enough to correctly assess their performance or even their missions. Staff, if so directed, can, on the other hand, be expected to carry out such oversight functions. They must, however, demonstrate expertise in this regard. This implies the ability to simplify agency-derived technical performance information and translate it into terms meaningful to legislative decision-makers. In summary, the Standing Committee, its chairman and his unique working relationship with senior committee technical staff is the empirical focal point of this study. In what ways the chairmen inhibit or facilitate information flow between themselves and their senior committee staff will have ultimate significance. The working relationships between chairmen and staff will be differentiated into s u b functions, like "legislative oversight," "agency liaison," and so on. The expectations of legislative chairmen and staff in regard to these functions will be examined. The degree to which their role perceptions are congruent will be ascertained. The kinds of role interactions these subfunctions require will also be considered. It is believed that the state legislature and its committee structure and processes exemplify an organizational setting in which the managerial subsystem (authority) and an adaptive subsystem (expertise in the information generation and use processes) are particularly well enunciated. These are highlighted by their clearer definition in the legislative process than in many other kinds of organizations. Pragmatically-speaking, at least, tentative answers to the meaning of these subsystems and their interaction in the legislative environment should be forthcoming in this study. For example, insights may be afforded regarding the following questions:

Committee Chairmen (their point of view):
- How much control (supervision) do legislators believe they exert,

or, in fact do exert, over staff in carrying out their information functions? What kinds of supervision tend to inhibit or facilitate information flow?
- What kinds of staff work and technical information d o legislators

require?
- To what degree do legislators appear to use staff-generated information?

Committee Staff (their point of view):
-

What kinds of supervision from chairmen d o staff expect and actually receive from them?
- How inhibiting or helpful do they believe the supervision they receive is to vertical information flow?

- What kinds of staff working styles create the most likely access to legislative decision-making?

- Do staff believe they actually influence legislators in the kinds of information they seem to be using in making policy?
- How competitive are staff as compared to other resources in providing relevant information in the legislative process?

C.

METHODOLOGY: SURVEY DESIGN

Survey research is the primary means used in this study. Survey data were generated via long distance telephone, personal contact in the instance of two legislative houses and mailed biographical surveys. These means were used to meet the following research objectives:

1.

2.

3.

Definition of the patterns of reciprocity among legislative committee chairmen and their senior committee staff as these patterns pertain to task-oriented information exchange; Definition of the direction and nature of flow of the information specifically between legislative chairmen and key legislative committee staff as compared to similar exchanges which may occur with other legislator resources; Identification and analysis of factors, patterns, and practices between the committee chairman and his information resources which function to restrict the use of information by the former;

4.

Analysis of possible individual legislative chairmen and staff biographical factors relevant to information use; for example: age, legislative background, community service experience, education, training, prior supervisory experience, and other related factors.

The above kinds of questions have been translated into a survey research questionnaire, composed of open-ended and fixed choice questions; in addition, background information has been separately collected from both legislators and staff through written mailed questionnaires pertaining to each of three legislatures under study.

Selection of State Legislatures for Study
T h r e e legislatures were selected for study: two legislatures with a well-differentiated division of labor between policy-makers and staff, and one legislature with very limited differentiation in its division of labor (the control). Each legislature has its own unique, functional, i.e., workload, characteristics which assumedly had impact on the kinds of staffing patterns possible; but all three have similarities as the data will suggest. One concerns a "full-time" legislature (Legislature A) on a two-year legislative bill carryover program (i.e., a bill introduced in one session can be carried over into the next session without resubmission). This permits continuous staff work in the interim, between "annual" sessions. The second pertains to a "part-time" legislature (Legislature B), which meets approximately two months (60 calendar days) annually, but maintains a full complement of committee staff year-round. The last one (Legislature C), the control, meets on an annual session basis, but it does not maintain a full-time committee staffing component. Rather, it borrows staff generalists, when needed, from a central legislative reference service, i.e., a legislative council. Two of the three states were selected because they represented two out of ten of the most reform-minded and differentiated states in terms of the nature of the staff support inherent to their committee process. They ranked in the top one-fifth of the comparative study of the fifty states evaluated by the Citizens' Conference on State Legislatures (CCSL Study, 1971:73, Figure 3). The control state. Legislature C, ranked one out of ten of the states in this study in the bottom quintile or one-fifth. Ranking was based on a summation of criteria relating to indicators of "effectiveness." This was a "benchmark" study from which to assess future legislative progress and reform. The CCSL study attempted t o formulate indicators based on broad objectives the researchers considered states must meet to attain the minimum requirements of organizational and procedural capability. These included the ultimate complicated cross rankings of interview questions on the following guideline of pertinent variables. These variables or indicators resulted from an intensive review of similar prior efforts at comparison:

The Functional Legislature Time Staff Facilities Structure Procedures Management Decorum The Accountable Legislature Comprehensible Forms Public Access Internal Influence of Individual Members The Informed Legislature Adequate Time Standing Committees Interim Activities Bill Documents Professional Staff Fiscal Information The Independent Legislature Legislative Activities Independence from the Executive Branch Legislative Oversight Capabilities Registration of Lobbyists Conflicts of Interest The Representative Legislature Identification of Members and Constituents Diversity Membership Effectiveness (CCSL, 197 1) Detailed descriptions of the means of crossrankings which resulted in the final regional rankings in quintiles, from which the present states to be studied were selected, are available in the technical report: State Legislatures: An Evaluation of their Effectiveness (197 1) (see References). Another reason why the CCSL study was used as the basis for the selection of the states in this study is the emphasis placed by the researchers upon the technical information needs of a legislature. Behind the particular theme of the "Informed Legislature" were the following premises:

State legislatures function as institutions for the collection, analysis, and application of information. They are more than this, to be sure, but their information-processing functions are of great importance directly and of comparable importance indirectly, since information-handling capabilities affect many of the other legislative functions. These other functions include policy formulation and review, negotiation and compromise, oversight of government operations, and provision of a forum for minority viewpoints. A legislature dependent for information solely on interest group or executive agency representatives, for example, has compromised its vitality as an independent branch of government for purposes of review and oversight. (CCSL, 1971:19) There has been criticism concerning the basis on which these states were ranked; e.g., too much emphasis was said to have been placed on "indirect" measures of performance, such as physical variables like the kinds of legislative quarters available, the number and kinds of staff, and so on. Less emphasis, if any, was given to the quality of legislation produced. However, this is the only recent and comprehensive attempt at ranking all fifty legislatures simultaneously according to some form of "performance" capability measure. Consequently, the CCSL study seemed most appropriate to serve as the basis for selecting the three legislatures for this dissertation study. Other reasons why the particular three states were selected is that the author of this study had, as staff to both Houses of the Arizona legislative leadership in human resource subject areas, taken the opportunity to meet and become personally acquainted with leadership and staff of these particular legislatures over a period of several years. Even with this familiarity, it took considerable time and effort to obtain clearance from the same leadership groups for this survey. All three legislative leadership groups, and the specific legislators and staff interviewed in person and tape recorded via telephone, verbally agreed to be included in the survey as long as they and their state and particular legislative chamber would be concealed as to identity. There were no exceptions to the fact that they were professionally apprised of this matter. Permission was granted by all for the interviews per se and the manner in which they were conducted and tape recorded. Too, the leadership and their staff directly informed all potential participants of the importance of this study.

Selection of Legislative Committees
This study focused primarily on the standing committee process of six chambers, both upper and lower Houses, of the three legislatures described in the previous section. The subjects selected for interview were the chairman of each standing committee and the senior or key committee staff member, who was directly responsible to this chairman. In each state the total population of standing committees (their chairmen and key staff) was the intended objective of this research.

Table 5 indicates some general characteristics of each of the three legislatures included in this study. Some of these data have been falsified to disguise the states in question for purposes of anonymity. However, the number of standing committees in each House is valid; though total legislative membership is approximate:

TABLE 5 CHARACTERISTICS OF LEGISLATURES STUDIED

Legislature A

Legislature B

Legislature C

Upper Chamber:

50 members 4-year terms 17 committees 100 members 2-year terms 26 committees two-year "continuous" session

58 members 4-year terms 12 committees 138 members 2-year terms 20 committees three months

50 members 4-year terms 15 committees 100 members 2-year terms 14 committees three months

Lower Chamber:

Duration of Session:

Table 6 illustrates the personal contact survey results. It should be noted that the sample of legislators and staff in the lower House of Legislature B is too few to be statistically meaningful:

TABLE 6 LEGISLATIVE STANDING COMMITTEE SURVEY RESULTS Number of Person-to-Person Interviews Completed

State Legislature A B

C

Totals

Upper Chamber (Senate) Standing Committees Chaman Interviews Staff Interviews 17 13** 13 12 11 11 15 10 X*i;**

44 34 24

Lower Chamber Standing Committees Chairman Interviews Staff Interviews 26 25 25 20 4 7 14 10 X*** 60 39 32 129

GRAND TOTAL INTERVIEWS COLLECTED

**Only direct, personal contact interviews. ***No committee staff; only legislative chairmen.

(The mailed biographical data will be accounted for in Section E, Results.)

Techniques of Measurement
Other than descriptive information gathered on each of the three legislatures, the primary measure of comparison was, as indicated, a survey questionnaire. This instrument was administered predominantly by the author through personal contact and by telephone (WATS) line. The author had limited assistance in interviewing, but personally interviewed most chairmen and all but one staff of Legislature A, all but six staff in Legislature B, and the chairmen in the Control Legislature C.* The chairmen interviews in Legislature A only were held in person at the capitol of the state under study. Otherwise, all other interviews were carried out by long distance telephone. The chairmen interviews lasted approximately thirty to sixty minutes; the staff interviews lasted between forty-five minutes and one and one-half hours. All interviews as previously indicated were tape recorded with permission of the interviewees. Four survey forms were utilized: two primary survey instruments, plus the biographical forms (which were mailed), contain information pertinent to this dissertation, but also information items relevant only to the federally funded project upon which this study was based. One was intentionally shorter than the other. This decision occurred as a result of suggestions made to the author in consultation with legislative staff and leadership from a number of other states. Legislators tend to react better to limited, very structured interviews, so the trend of suggestions indicated. A second, more extensive form of the questionnaire was constructed for administration to senior legislative committee staff, who were more interested in the interview topic, so it was found from the author's prior experience. The two questionnaires actually only differ in terms of the extent to which certain questions were repeated in various ways for purposes of determining whether item meanings were fully comprehended by respondents. This was to gain a sense of check and balance in the "reliability" of the responses to specific areas of interest. Generally, the primary questions occur in both instruments in exactly the same form and order. The questionnaires and the biographical survey forms (for written, mail response) appear in Appendices A and B. The mailed biographical survey form was administered to both legislators and staff. Each questionnaire instrument was initiated by an identical list of possible staff committee-related functions. These evolved from the author's own legislative staff experience. (See Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 3, Sections C & D.) Each respondent was asked to accept, modify, reject, or substitute for each of the definitions described. The basic purpose was to determine whether the list of definitions was accurate and incIusive in terms of the role(s) expected of senior legislative committee staff and typical to the legislative setting in question. Consequently, the three legislatures and the substantively different committees could be compared in a uniform way as to expected staff functions.

* John Sievey and Gary Hulshoff assisted as interviewers in this survey.

Legislators in the Control State (C) were asked to respond "as if they had staff' (this does suggest a possible bias which cannot be evaluated). Consequently, parameters which would establish the nature and limits to the legislator-staff exchange could be established. It was predicted that the staff versus legislator roles, as perceived by both members of this dyad, should have a definite effect on the nature of the information flow possible. If the perceptions of both are not congruent, then role conflicts could be predicted. Too, such initial attention to staffing functions, early in the interview, would, it was thought, establish a respondent interview set which should effectively maintain the survey theme throughout the remainder of the questionnaire. The descriptive lists of functions were compared and the subjective data were treated by subjective means of analysis. A composite list of role functions was constructed. Then, an amalgamation of both legislator and staff responses was constructed subjectively by the author. This composite picture of staff and legislator modifications of the role functions are listed in Exhibit 3, Section D, results. There were, as is evident in a comparison of these two exhibits, very few modifications made and few additional functions added. Thus, this appeared to be a legitimate means of treatment of these subjective data.

A COMPARISON OF HYPOTHESES

Statistical Approaches Used for Survey Analysis
The statistical approaches used in the analysis of the quantifiable questions appearing in both legislative chairmen and staff survey instruments were twofold:
1.

Phase I: a test for chi-square interaction effects and comparison among responses t o specific survey questions by several categories of respondents: (a) between various subgroupings of legislative chairmen (within each legislative chamber and among all of them) - one control and two experimental legislatures; and (b) between various subgroupings of legislative staff (within each legislative chamber and among all of them) - two experimental legislatures. Phase 11: from the chi-square interaction analyses, it should be established whether or not it would be appropriate to combine all legislative responses and all staff responses separately for an ultimate comparison for significant interactions, on each specific question, and among all three classifications (legislature, staff and legislator).

2:

First, congruency in perception between legislative chairmen and staff was established, i.e., whether they agreed or disagreed on survey questions. Congruency was tested for significance in terms of a sampling of the infinite population of

legislator and staff respondent differences and similarities as well as legislative settings possible. However, only three legislatures were considered and the number of committees sampled as were described in Tables 5 and 6. Statistically, the limited number of standing committees available in each legislature only warranted small sample statistically comparative techniques. This was, as stated, due to the restrictions imposed on the numbers actually available for interview and the small size of the total population of standing committees, their chairmen and the staff which actually existed in each legislative chamber. (As stated, the total population of standing committees in each legislature was the intended objective of the survey.) As a result, several generic forms of the chi-square test were used to assess the premises of interaction and significance as described in analytical Phases I and II.*
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Combinations could be made concerning standing committees within each legislative chamber; Combinations could be made across the two chambers in the same legislature; Combinations, with considerable qualification, could be made across the three legislatures; Statistical comparisons for independence vs. significant interaction between legislators and staff within and across legislatures could then be considered; These particular statistical manipulations would, for purposes of generalization, be further limited by such considerations as: a. similarity in the longevity of each legislative session; similarity in the autonomy of staff within each chamber of each b. legislature; c. similarity in the experience each legislature has had with its committee staff process per se; d. similarity in the qualities of legislative staff regarding personal variables of experience, training, freedom of action, and so on.

State C, the control state, would represent a specific exception to this approach. It is supposedly typical of states with very limited, if any, committee staffing experience. These legislative chairmen should, hypothetically, differ from the chairmen of the other two states, A and B, with the most sophisticated staffing patterns.

*The statistical approaches used were recommended by Dr. Steve Hora, Assistant Professor, Department of Quantitative Systems, Arizona State University.

In summary, three forms of analysis of the survey results should prove useful: (a) a subjective analysis of the list of staffing functions; (b) an inferential statistical comparison of those questions which were quantifiable plus coding and translation into quantifiable ordinal data on continua of open-ended, subjective responses and similar statistical treatment; and (c) a descriptive statistical summary of the biographical survey questions to establish a "profile" of the representative committee chairman and senior committee staff person interviewed.

Biases Possible in the Survey Instrument and Its Application Validation o f the Subjective Items Descriptive of Staff Functions
As indicated, Exhibits 1 (this Section) and 3 (Section D) list the staff functions differentially broken down by the author and the subjective modifications made to each as a result of the application of hoth the chairman and staff surveys. The items in Exhibit 1 were created subjectively by the author, who had previous direct staff experience at the leadership and committee levels for three legislative sessions over a three-year period. (He had also spent considerable time studying a large Western legislature other than his own and had worked for five years prior to this experience with legislators in thirteen Western states and with the National Legislative Conference of the Council of State Governments.) The list of functions in Exhibit 1 was "pilot-tested" and modified through its administration to one Speaker of the House of Representatives, one Vice-Chairman of Appropriations (who was also Chairman of the Health and Welfare Standing Committee of the House), and one senior legislative committee staffer. This is in no way considered a sufficient sample, representatively speaking, for pilot-testing under ordinary circumstances. This study is actually a "case- study" from which, it has been accepted, very limited generalizations can be made to other states. This was an initial "given" when the author proposed this study. It was for reasons concerning the nature of the legislative project, which was under the direction of this author, not considered practical or acceptable to share the intent of such a comparative legislative survey with other members of the legislature for which the author worked. Too, it was impossible to contemplate limiting the very small sample of chairmen and staff in the three "experimental" legislatures by pilot-testing the survey items on their standing committee membership.

EXHIBIT 1

QUESTIONNAIRE DEFINITIONS OF STAFF COMMITTEE FUNCTIONS

LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH: Obtaining basic facts to support or refute appropriations and/or programmatic matters. LEGISLATIVE LIAISON: Establishing and maintaining some form of communications with state agencies to afford the legislature information concerning agency activities and performance. Also included is liaison with federal agencies and the voluntary sector for similar purposes; plus to gain an understanding of what federal programs are available and applicable to a state - and, where appropriate, to encourage their implementation. LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT: A more specific form of agency liaison where there is an attempt by the legislature to determine whether an agency is effectively carrying out a specific program or using a specific appropriation in a way the legislature "approves." This would be a matter of "monitoring" legislation previously enacted. LEGISLATOR "SOUNDING BOARD": Being available to provide a legislator with feedback and alternatives concerning his legislative program. LEGISLATIVE "HOUSEKEEPING": particular constituent requests. Assisting a legislator in responding to

LEGISLATIVE UPPER-LOWER CHAMBER COORDINATION: Working with upper and lower chambers to improve communications. LEGISLATIVE HEARING PROCESS: recruitment of expert witnesses. Preparation for such hearings, including the

Though the extremely limited sample utilized in pilot-testing all facets of the survey instruments represents an obvious bias, the two legislators represent among them approximately fourteen years of experience at the committee and leadership levels. Too, the ultimate consideration of the validity of any questionnaire items is dependent upon the homogeneity of responses, the limited variance actually demonstrated within the relevant respondent categories (e.g., Legislatures A, B, C; Staff of Upper vs. Lower Houses in Legislatures A, B, C; and Legislative Chairmen in the same differentiations). The actual empirical results represent the ultimate criterion of "face validity" or validity in terms of whether the items appear t o be testing what they are supposed to measure. The state legislature and its procedures are still in the phenotypical state of description research-wise. Case study designs are still appropriate means of addressing these kinds of descriptive research objectives; at least this is the studied opinion of the author in reviewing comparative studies in the legislative field.

Validation of the Objective Survey Instrument Question Items, Both Open and Fixed Alternative in Nature
These items, their order of presentation, and the standardization of item language in both the legislative chairman (short form) and senior legislative committee staff (long form) survey instruments were "pilot-tested" in the same manner as were the staff function items discussed in the preceding section. The rationale for this approach to item selection, order, comprehensiveness, and so forth are, thus, subject t o the same methodological limitations and bias previously indicated.

Method of Application of Survey Instruments: Personal Contact vs. Telephone
This would be another area for potential bias since 38 legislative chairmen interviews were conducted at the state capitol of Legislature A in person (see Table 6); while the remaining interviews were conducted by long distance telephone (WATS). Too, other than the author, one research assistant interviewed approximately one-third of the legislators in Legislature A and another assistant interviewed six staff in Legislature B and one in A. The only means of determining whether, in fact, bias actually occurred is to examine the data wherein chi-square response interactions within like classifications and tests of significance across apparently generically different classifications are examined in the technical report. If, as will become obvious, there appears much homogeneity within and across classifications and few significant differences on an item-by-item assessment basis, then one can make an abbreviated case for item-by-item and survey instrument "validity." But, in the final evaluation, this comparative study is still bound by "case study7' parameters and their inherent limitations in generalizability.

Nonresponden ts
The comparative survey, both personal contact and mail-oriented schedules, had as its stated objective the attainment of the total population of legislative chairmen and staff. Consequently, anything less, numerically-speaking, must be justified, even though generalizations will be limited as this is only a comparative case study. All personal interviews (whether at the state capitol or by telephone) and mailed survey attempts were coordinated through liaison with legislative leadership staff in each legislature. Through this means all potential respondents were contacted a minimum of two to three times each. Legislatures B and C were out of session, while Legislature A was in session during the survey period. In all cases, administrative assistants were, if they were available, asked to persuade their legislators to be interviewed. In the instance of the mailed biographical questionnaires, a follow-up letter, air-maillspecial delivery, served as the second formal means of contact. Personal reference to leadership support of the study and other forms of informal influence were utilized in an attempt to guarantee the highest number of responses to all survey procedures possible. Those possible respondents who did not wish to comply with the interview requests are, obviously, lost for eternity to this researcher. It was not even possible, nor considered politically feasible, to send out the mailed biographical schedules if the initial and secondary attempts at persuasion proved inadequate. This would have been ideal. But, very frankly, policy-makers are not prone to appreciating nonlegislative or even legislatively-inspired attempts at evaluating their inner recesses of procedure, that is, the legislative process.

D. RESULTS, PART 1: OVERVIEW*
Fundamentally, this study is an assessment of the potential impact of hierarchially-imposed authority on the vertical information flow patterns in organizations. What is emphasized is the vertical information flow which occurs between dyads of superiors and subordinates in policy making and upper management roles within organizations. This study attempts to assess, empirically, the effect of a legislative chairman's authority on the kinds of technical information transmitted upchannel to him by senior legislative committee staff.

Results of Subjective Analyses of Model List o f Staff Functions (Exhibit 1 Vs. Exhibit 3)
As previously indicated, a list of possible staff functions was presented in survey form to each respondent (see Exhibit 1). Exhibit 3 represents a subjective modification of Exhibit 1 taken from the notes made by the author as he verbally read each function taken one-by-one to all the respondents and requested: acceptance, modification, or rejection. As is evident, little change was made in each of the basic staff functions which were initially proposed in the survey (Exhibit 1). However, several seemingly unique ones were added by a few respondents and appear in the "Miscellaneous Function" subsection. Other survey questions and their responses from legislators and staff alike also have relevance to the same question posed: "What do legislative staff consider to be the staff information generation and use roles?" A summary of the implications of the subjective data is provided in Section E through anecdotal case study descriptions.

*For a detailed analysis of the statistical comparisons made through nonparametric techniques within and among the three legislatures, including an assessment of methodological bias, please see: Guy Spiesman, The Relationship Between the Managerial and Adaptive Organizational Subsystems Within a State Legislature (A comparative study of the effect of supervision on the generation and vertical flow of technical information within the standing committee process of three state legislatures), University of Utah, 1975 (Dissertation Abstracts; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1976).

EXHIBIT 3

RESULTS OF THREE-STATE COMPARATIVE SURVEY: LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE STAFF FUNCTIONS* (Responses to Exhibit 1)

Survey Results Legislative Research: A primary committee staff function is to obtain facts to support, refute or suggest ramifications of appropriations and/or programmatic matters; and suggest or initiate legislation on a limited basis and upon request. (This function would include bill analyses.) Legislative Liaison: Establishing and maintaining some form of communications with state agencies where appropriate to afford the legislature information concerning agency activities and performance. Also included is liaison with the congressional delegation and federal and local agencies, and the voluntary (private) sector where these apply to a committee's objectives, and for similar purposes as the above form of liaison. In addition, such liaison would provide information on what federal programs are available and applicable to a state. and, where appropriate, would encourage their implementation.

..

Legislative Oversight: A more specific form of agency liaison in which there is an attempt by the legislature to determine whether an agency is effectively carrying out a specific program or using a specific appropriation in a way the legislature approves." This would be a matter of "monitoring" legislation previously
6b

enacted Legislator Policy "Sounding Board": Being available to provide a legislator (particularly the committee chairman) with feedback and alternatives plus technical assistance concerning his legislative program as it relates to his committee. Assisting a legislator in responding to particular Legislative "Housekeepin$': constituent and general public requests (i.e., similar to congressional staff casework) . . particularly as such requests pertain to the specific subject matter of the committee in question.

.

EX HI B I T 3

-

continued

Survey Results Legislative Upper-Lower Chamber Coordination and Cooperation: opposite legislative house to improve communications.

Working with

Also involved would be intercommittee, "lateral" coordination within the same house, e.g., between Appropriations, Ways & Means and other subject-matter committees. These functions would be the responsibility of both staff and legislators. Legislative Hearing Process: Preparation for such hearings, including the recruitment of expert witnesses, the preparation of appropriate questions for committee members and limited testimony, only upon request by members.

Miscellaneous Functions: Senior Staff Administrative Functions: other committee staff. Recruitment and supervision of activities of

Legislative Committee Goal Setting: Upon request from and in consultation with the chairman, senior staff may have considerable input in cooperatively establishing and implementing committee objectives. (This may be more of an informal than formal procedure.) Legislative Committee B Draftinq: When these services are not otherwise available, i d committee staff will provide them. Staff will otherwise initiate and/or supervise the development of legislation (bills, amendments, etc.) upon request by the chairmen and/or committee members. Legislative Press and Media Relations: Staff would work with the press and media, e.g., writing news releases, when requested to do so by the chairman and/or committee members.
T h e above results represent a subjectively-derivedgeneral consensus of the majority of Committee Chaiien and Senior Committee Staff interviewed (N=126).

E. RESULTS, PART 2: A PROFILE OF THE CHAIRMAN-STAFF INFORMATION GENERATION RELATIONSHIP It should be noted that the descriptions to follow are a result of the nonparametric statistical comparisons for significance (see technical report) within and among legislatures, first by staff, then by legislative chairman, and finally between the staff and chairmen. Where statistical tests were nonsignificant, this was assumed to indicate homogeneity, congruency or likeness in response to each of the pertinent survey questions. Consequently, the interpretations to follow under each topic first represent a summary abstraction of the statistical results wherein respondent agreement exists. Next, in each instance, follows anecdotal interview data illustrating the nature of the subject and the range of responses possible on a case study basis. All information discussed is derived from the same onsite, telephone, and mail survey of the three state legislatures compared.

The Relationship
The information relationship between committee chairmen and committee senior staff seems to consist of one requiring very little supervision, order and structure. In States A and B, supervision was nearly nonexistent. The staff concerned were senior legislative staff, who, typically supervised the activities of several subordinate staff. In other words, staff had presumedly been "preselected" until the "cream of the crop" remain. The staff directors were encouraged to take "independent action," as proclaimed by over 90 percent of the respondents, both staff and legislators, of States A and B. The primary reason given was that "legislators trusted staff to represent them."

Examples of the Trust Relationship

. . . Trust is . . . obviously extremely important . . . you have to have total trust and confidence in your staff director and staff . . when you get leakage of information and trickling out of staff that you are doing in areas that you may not want people to know, or . . . when you get a feeling of a lack of confidence that they are not handling matters well . . . the [meaning of] your staff is destroyed . . . your committee work is destroyed . . . [trust] is one of the top priorities . . . (Legislature B senator, paraphrased)

.

. . . They [staff] are my alter egos . . . you have to have confidence in them and they also have to have confidence in you . . . you have to have a sort of respect for each other, a loyalty to each other. If you don't work well together, then it is terrible for everybody . . . if you do work well together . . . chairman and staff . . . it's very helpful. (Legislature A senator, paraphrased)

I am probably at the extreme unsupervised end. That's why I act for my boss . . . reasons just like that . . . he isn't around that much . . . he's busy . . . he doesn't care that much and very often I know much more about the subject than he and he will trust me . . . It is hard to say when you ask about legislators in general . . . I think that is probably true of my boss . . . it is not true of several members but even the members of whom it isn't true, just don't have the time to do very much research. (Legislature B staff, paraphrased)

Work Style
Regarding work style, both legislators and staff of States A and B agreed in the majority of instances that, though senior staff were expected to check with the legislator from time to time on the direction research should take, legislators preferred staff who "acted with minimum supervision," were "self-starters" who obtained information with the least suggestions, were "creative" and provided information in a form which included implications for the legislative process. Thus, legislators did not simply desire raw data, but wanted staff interpretations of its meaning. The technical information relationship was characterized by both parties as being preferably "informal." This meant that staff would contact legislators now and then for direction, submit minimal, usually verbal, reports to him as to the progress of research, and so on as the "need arose." The data was contradictory as to whether 5:0) legislators preferred staff to be "generalists" or "specialists" ( 0 5 % . This seemed a function of the subject matter of each committee technically-speaking.

Examples o f Limited Legislator Direction to Staff

. . . I supervise bill drafting . . . they [staff] initiate the drafting of the bill . . . I tell them what I want in the bill . . . . When we finally get down to the bill drafting point . . . when we have had our hearing . . . or when we are halfway through with the hearings so we know where we are going, I will say, look . . . draft the bill in this general area . . . this is what we want . . . for instance in the Criminal Justice package, the prison reform . . . this is what I would like to see . . . I want a series of bills on prison reform . . . six bills . . . one dealing with this, one with that, and so on . . . let them [the staff] draft it . . . and then I always get back and have a final input in the bill . . . as a matter of fact, I am kind of jealous about that . . . I feel that I have a pretty good bill drafting facility

myself and any bill that I have ever passed in the legislature . . . been about 55 or so major ones . . . I wrote them myself. (Legislature B senator, paraphrased)

A debate package: . . I tell [staff] I want every argument that will be given against this bill . . . I will give them some suggestions as to what I know will be given . . . and I want refuting arguments, facts, statistics, background information, cases which are necessary, other st