A performance audit of the Arizona Advisory Council on Aging

              STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT
of
I, THE ARIZONA ADVISORY COUNCIL ON AGING
MAY 1979
THE ARIZONA ADVISORY COUNCIL ON AGING
HAS BEEN ADVERSELY IMPACTED AND ITS EF-FECTIVENESS
IMPAIRED BY THE UNSTABLE
ORGANIZATION AND INCONSISTENT LEADER7
SHIP PROVIDED TO IT BY THE DESIGNATED
STATE AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR AD-MINISTERING
THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT IN
ARIZONA. IN ADDITION, WHEN COMPARED TO
TWO OTHER GOVERNOR'S ADVISORY COUNCILS,
THE ARIZONA ADVISORY COUNCIL ON AGING I$
SUBSTANDARD IN STAFF SUPPORT AND
BUDGET.
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 78- 2
DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
SUITE 600
112 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004
255- 4385
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
BILLIE J. ALLRED, CPA
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
SUITE 820
33 NORTH STONE AVENUE
TUCSON. ARIZONA 85701
882- 5465
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Governor
Members of the Arizona Legislature
Members of the Arizona Advisory Council on Aging
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of
the Arizona Advisory Council on Aging. This report is i n response t o a
September 19, 1978, resolution of the J o i n t Legislative Budget Committee and a
January 18, 1979, resolution of the J o i n t Legislative Oversight Committee.
A summary of t h i s report is found on the blue pages a t the front of t h e r e p o r t .
8 A response t o t h i s r e p o r t from the members of the Arizona Advisory Council on
Aging and the Department of Economic Security is found on the yellow pages
preceding the appendices of t h e r e p o r t .
My s t a f f and I w i l l be happy t o meet with the appropriate l e g i s l a t i v e
committees, individual l e g i s l a t o r s or other S t a t e o f f i c i a l s t o discuss or
c l a r i f y any items i n t h i s report or t o f a c i l i t a t e the implementations of the
recommendations.
Respectfully submitted,
Auditor General
S t a f f : Gerald A. S i l v a
Coni R. Good
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF
THE ARIZONA ADVISORY COUNCIL ON AGING
REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 79- 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
Page
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
SUNSET FACTORS
FINDINGS RELATED TO COUNCIL FUNCTIONS
FINDING I
The Arizona Advisory Council on Aging has been
adversely impacted and its effectiveness impaired
by the unstable organization and inconsistent
leadership provided t o it by the designated s t a t e
agencies responsible f o r administering the Older
Americans Act i n Arizona. I n addition, when
compared t o two other Governor's Advisory Councils,
the Arizona Advisory Council on Aging is substandard
i n s t a f f support and budget.
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATION
FINDING I1
There is a c o n f l i c t between Arizona s t a t e law
and federal regulation regarding the membership
of the Arizona Advisory Council on Aging. A s
a r e s u l t , the membership of the Council has not
been i n compliance with federal requirements.
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATION
? INDINGS RELATED TO COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES PERFORMED
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
FINDING I11
In 1977 a Department of Economic Security
o f f i c i a l awarded an i l l e g a l contract f o r t h e
development of a workplan f o r t h e Arizona
Advisory Council on Aging. The Department
of Economic Security has not established
s u f f i c i e n t contracting controls t o
prevent other i l l e g a l contracts from
being awarded.
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATION
FINDING I V
Page
40
Members of an Indian Advisory Council on
Aging were improperly reimbursed f o r
t r a v e l expenses.
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATION
WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I - Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s Sections 46- 183
and 184 and Federal Regulation 1321.50( c)
APPENDIX I1 - Senior Citizen Group Representation on
the Arizona Advisory Council on Aging
APPENDIX I11 - Comparison of Executive Orders
e s t a b l i s h i n g the Arizona Advisory
Council on Aging, Developmental
D i s a b i l i t i e s Planning and Advocacy
Council and the Governor's Council
on Childran, Youth and Families
APPEEIDIX I V - Government and Non- Government
Organization Recommendations from
1971 White House Conference
on Aging
APPENDIX V - Survey of S t a t e Advisory Councils
on Aging by the Office of the
Auditor General
APPENDIX V I - L e t t e r from the Attorney
General Regarding Role o f t h e
Attorney General i n Contract
Review - March 6, 1979
APPENDIX V I I - Memorandum from Legislative
Council Concerning E l i g i b i l i t y f o r
Travel Expenses - March 12, 1979
APPENDIX VIII- Letter from the Regional Program
Director, Administration on Aging
Concerning Council Membership
Compliance - April 10, 1979
SUMMARY
The Arizona Advisory Council on Aging was created i n 1966 t o advise the s t a t e
agency responsible for administering the Older Americans Act i n Arizona. Since
its inception, the duties and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the Arizona Advisory Council
on Aging have been expanded so that currently the Council a l s o functions as an
advisory council t o the Governor.
The Council now consists of 15 members appointed by the Director of the
Department of Economic Security ( DES) for three year terms, subject t o the
approval of the Governor. The Council receives 75 percent of its funds from
Federal T i t l e 111 monies of the Older Americans Act with a s t a t e match of 25
percent. S t a f f support t o the Council is provided by DES. The Council has
maintained high attendance at meetings, established a strong committee organi-zation,
maintained open communication with senior c i t i z e n s groups throughout
t h e s t a t e , sought extensive c i t i z e n input regarding its operations, and
p a r t i c i p a t e d i n planning for and resource a l l o c a t i o n o f Older Americans Act
monies. ( page 3)
Our review of the Arizona Advisory Council on Aging revealed t h a t the Council
has been adversely impacted by the unstable organizations, inconsistent
leadership and substandard s t a f f support and budget from the s t a t e agencies
t h a t have administered the Council. As a r e s u l t , the effectiveness of the
Council has been impaired. ( page 12)
Our review revealed t h a t the Council has been out of compliance with federal
regulations regarding Council membership. ( page 26)
In addition, our review also disclosed t h a t personnel i n DES i n the past
misused Council funds i n awarding a contract and t h a t s i m i l a r misuses i n DES
contracting could occur again. ( page 31)
Lastly, our review revealed t h a t members of an Indian Advisory Council on Aging
were improperly reimbursed for t r a v e l expenses. ( page 40)
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
In response t o a September 19, 1978, resolution of the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee and a January 18, 1979, resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight
Committee, the Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit
as a part of the sunset review of the Arizona Advisory Council on Aging i n
accordance with ARS 41- 2351 through 41- 2374.
The Advisory Council on Aging began in 1966 as an advisory group for the s t a t e
agency responsible for administering the Older Americans Act i n Arizona. The
Council, as well as the Older Americans Act, was i n i t i a l l y administered through
the Arizona Health Department u n t i l 1968, a t whi ? h time the Arizona Welfare
Department assumed t h i s responsibility. In 1973, responsibility for admin-i
s t e r i n g the Older Americans Act and its federally required advisory council
was transferred t o the newly formed Department of Economic Security ( DES) .
( ARS 46- 183 and 46- 184) s.
In December 1975, the Governor created a Task Force on Retirement and Aging
( Executive Order 75- 13). In 1976, the Task Force produced a report e n t i t l e d
The Elderly Arizonan which contained recommendations to improve the s t a t u s of
the elderly i n Arizona. In December 1976, the Governor forrued an Oversight
Committee on Aging t o monitor the implementation of the recommendations i n - The
- Elde rly Arizonan report and advise the Governor, Legislature and others on
t h e i r implementation. In May 1977, the Governor issued Executive Order 77- 4,
which merged the purposes and memberships of the Oversight Committee on Aging
and the Advisory Council on Aging and recognized the DES Council as a
Governor's Council on Aging.
The Council consists of f i f t e e n members who advise the Governor and DES on
matters, problems and programs that affect older persons. The Council is also
responsible for stimulating more effective use of existing resources for the
aged, including collaborating and coordinating with s t a t e agencies, commis-sions
and voluntary and professional associations for the aged.
* See Appendix I for f u l l text of these s t a t u t e s and applicable federal
regulations.
When the Governor recognized the Advisory Council on Aging as a Governor's
Council, he directed the Council t o work with him i n encouraging the develop-ment
of positive retirement and pre- retirement programs and i n planning for the
future of the s t a t e t o include the needs and c a p a b i l i t i e s of older persons.
Older persons ( 60 years or older) i n 1979 c o n s t i t u t e 15.3 percent ( 388,550) of
Arizona's population. Population projections for 1985 show older c i t i z e n s
increasing t o 16.91 percent ( 497,375); and to 18.24 percent ( 673,525) by 1995.
In addition, Arizona was second only t o the state of Nevada i n the percentage
increase since 1970 i n persons 65 or older ( 55.3 percent). Based upon past and
projected population trends, it appears t h a t the needs of older persons w i l l be
a matter o f continuing concern f o r t h e s t a t e of Arizona.
ARS 46- 184 states t h a t the Advisory Council on Aging s h a l l advise DES on a l l
matters or problems regarding the administration o r the state plan on aging.
The state plan is administered within DES through the Bureau on Aging*. The
state plan i d e n t i f i e s the uses and a l l o c a t i o n of Older Americans Act resources
i n Arizona. The Bureau is also responsible to:
1. Cooperate with the Federal Commissioner on Aging and provide infor-mation
t o the Administrator on Aging, Department of Health,
Education and Welfare;
2. Serve as a clearinghouse for information r t l a t e d t o state problems on
aging, gather and disseminate information and conduct hearings,
conferences and s p e c i a l s t u d i e s ;
3. Develop plans, conduct and arrange f o r research and demonstration
programs ;
4. Provide consultation t o counties with respect to l o c a l community
programs f o r the aged and aging. Develop, coordinate and assist
other public and private organizations which serve the aging;
* During the course of t h i s audit, DES merged the functions o f t h i s Bureau
with others i n t o an " Aging and Adult Administrationn.
5. Prepare, publish and disseminate educational materials dealing with
the health and welfare of aged persons. Stimulate public awareness
of the problems of the aging by conducting a program of public
education; and
6 . Stimulate more effective use of existing resources and available
services for the aged. ( ARS 46- 181)
ARS 46- 183 also s t a t e s that an executive secretary s h a l l be designated from
among DES s t a f f to serve the Council and that DES s h a l l provide necessary s t a f f
services to the Council. With the exception of f i s c a l year 1977- 78 DES has not
provided the A d v i s o r ~ n c i lo n Aging with any full- time support staff.*
Staff support, both professional and c l e r i c a l , has been provided to the Council
on a part- time basis primarily by the Bureau on Aging.
The Advisory Council on Aging is funded through the Older Americans Act, State
Administrative monies. These monies are available on a 25 percent s t a t e match
of Arizona's allocated federal funds. The funds used t o support the Arizona
Advisory Council on Aging are contained within the Social Services program
budget for DES. Council expenditures for f i s c a l year 1975- 76 through 1977- 78
are shown below:
Expenditures Fiscal Year
1975- 76 1976- 77 1977- 78, s
Personal services $ 3,958.00 $ 3,075.00
In- state t r a v e l ( S t a f f ) 36.25 $ 424.47
In- state travel ( Council) 1,844.27 1,772.60 6,689.84
Professional & outside services 1,242.75 17,500.00
Other operating expenditures 261.68 2.75 5,751 - 75
Training 756.44***
Total expenditures $ 6,063.95 $ 6,129.35 $ 31,122.50
* On March 12, 1979, Ms. Gloria Heller was appointed Executive Director of
the Council.
Time period is the federal f i s c a l year from October 1, 1977 t o September
30, 1978. During the quarter from July 1, 1977 t o September 30, 1977,
expenditures were $ 1,750.88. *** Source of funds, Older Americans Act, Title I V A 100 percent federal funds.
The Office of the Auditor General expresses its gratitude to present and former
members of the Arizona Advisory Council on Aging and employees throughout DES
for their cooperation, assistance and consideration during the course of our
audit .
SUNSET FACTORS
I n accordance with ARS 41- 2351 through 41- 2374, nine f a c t o r s were considered t o
determine, i n p a r t , whether the Arizona Advisory Council on Aging should be
continued or terminated.
These f a c t o r s are:
1. Objective and purpose i n e s t a b l i s h i n g the Council,
2. The degree t o which the Council has been able t o respond t o the needs of
the public and the efficiency with which it has operated,
3. The extent t o which the Council has operated within the public i n t e r e s t ,
4. The extent t o which rules and regulations promulgated by the Council are
consistent with the l e g i s l a t i v e mandate,
5. The extent t o which the Council has encouraged input from the public
before promulgating its rules and regulations and the extent t o which it
has informed the public a s t o its actions and t h e i r expected impact on the
public,
6. The extent t o which the Council has been able t o i n v e s t i g a t e and resolve
complaints t h a t are within its j u r i s d i c t i o n ,
7. The extent t o which the a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l or any other applicable agency of
state government has t h e a u t h o r i t y t o prosecute a c t i o n s under enabling
l e g i s l a t i o n ,
8. The extent t o which the Council has addressed d e f i c i e n c i e s i n t h e i r
enabling s t a t u t e s which prevent them from f u l f i l l i n g t h e i r s t a t u t o r y
mandate, and
9. The extent t o which changes a r e necessary i n the laws o f t h e Council t o
adequately comply with the f a c t o r s l i s t e d i n t h i s subsection.
SUNSET FACTOR: OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSE I N ESTABLISHING THE COUNCIL
The Arizona Advisory Council on Aging was codified i n 1972. ARS 46- 1848
states:
" The Advisory Council s h a l l advise the department on all
matters or problems with respect t o the administration of
the state plan on aging. In performing t h i s function, the
council s h a l l not be limited t o the provisions of the Older
Americans Act of 1965, as amended."
Executive Order 77- 4, dated and e f f e c t i v e on May 11, 1977, s t a t e s :
" It is desirable f o r t h e Governor t o have a Council who
w i l l advise him on a l l e x i s t i n g or proposed programs and
practices i n the governmental and private s e c t o r s t h a t
s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t older c i t i z e n s , and who w i l l
stimulate more e f f e c t i v e use of e x i s t i n g resources and
a v a i l a b l e s e r v i c e s f o r the aged and aging, including
coordination of the a c t i v i t i e s of other s t a t e departments,
and the collaboration with such departments, agencies or
commissions, with county o f f i c i a l s and voluntary agencies
and with s t a t e and l o c a l p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s and
s o c i e t i e s f o r the aged and aging.
Now, therefore, I... recognize the Arizona Advisory Council
on Aging t o be an advisory council t o the Governor i n
addition t o the c o u n c i l l s other d u t i e s and order and
d i r e c t :
1. The Council t o work with the Governor i n encmaging
e f f e c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n by older persons i n the
development and implementation of positive retirement
and pre- retirement programs.
2. Cooperate, consult and work closely with the Governor
in planning f o r Arizona's f u t u r e t o include the needs
and c a p a b i l i t i e s of older persons."
The Council i d e n t i f i e s its functions t o include the following:
- Provide information about a t t i t u d e s , needs and
opinions of older people; - Serve as a sounding board f o r preliminary ideas;
- Provide a medium f o r generating both planning insight
and consensus;
- Promote and support the r o l e o f t h e Bureau on Aging,
Department of Economic Security, and its programs i n
the community;
- Serve as a source of community education and as an
avenue for putting older people i n touch with service
providers; - Create a bridge t o s p e c i f i c constituencies;
- Foster two- way communications between the Bureau on
Aging and the public;
- Supplement s t a f f resources; and
- Serve as a p o l i t i c a l force i n lobbying for appro-p
r i a t e l e g i s l a t i o n supported and/ or proposed by DES.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE COUNCIL
HAS BEEN ABLE TO RESPOND TO THE NEEDS OF THE PUBLIC
AND THE EFFICIENCY WITH WHICH IT HAS OPERATED
The Arizona Advisory Council on Aging has been constrained i n its abi1it. g t o
respond t o the needs of the public by the unstable organization, inconsistent
leadership, and substandard s t a f f support from the state agency administering
the Older Americans Act. ( See page 12 for a discussion of t h i s i s s u e ) .
However, the Council has addressed the needs of aged persons and has attempted
t o obtain services or assistance t o meet those needs.
The Council has been less c o s t l y than two other Governor's Councils on buman
resources ( Developmental D i s a b i l i t i e s Planning and Advocacy Council and t h e
Governor's Council on Children, Youth and Families) whose functions are
s i m i l a r , but of a wider scope, than the Advisory Council on Aging ( See page 18
for a discussion o f t h i s i s s u e ) .
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE COUNCIL
HAS OPERATED WITHIN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
The Council's actions appear t o be c o n s i s t e n t l y within the i n t e r e s t o f t h e aged
population except for misuses of funds which occured i n 1977 ( see pages 31 and
40) and past non- compliance with f e d e r a l regulations ( see page 26). Notable
among the Council's actions a r e the 1978 Governor's Conference on Aging, the
publication i n 1978 of an updated version of The Elderly Arizonan, and regular
monitoring and advocacy f o r l e g i s l a t i o n a f f e c t i n g t h e aged.
Council members represent a l l planning d i s t r i c t s of the state and include
members from a number of senior c i t i z e n groups at the f e d e r a l , s t a t e and l o c a l
levels.* Compared t o other human resource c i t i z e n councils i n Arizona, the
Arizona Advisory Council on Aging has a high meeting frequency, maintained high
attendance at its meetings and established a strong committee organization.
* Appendix I1 is an a n a l y s i s o f s e n i o r c i t i z e n group representation of the
Council.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH RULES AND
REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE COUNCIL ARE
CONSISTENT WITH THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE
The Arizona Advisory Council on Aging has not promulgated any r u l e s and
regulations. Based upon a review of l e g i s l a t i o n ( ARS 46- 183 and 46- 184), it
appears the Council is not required t o promulgate rules and regulations.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE COUNCIL
HAS ENCOURAGED INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC BEFORE
PROMULGATING ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS AND THE
EXTENT TO WHICH IT HAS INFORMED THE PUBLIC AS TO
ITS ACTIONS AND THEIR EXPECTED IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC
The Council has made s u b s t a n t i a l e f f o r t s t o inform t h e p u b l i c of its actions.
Meetings are open t o the public. Agendas and minutes are mailed t o i n t e r e s t e d
p a r t i e s . Agendas of each meeting allow time f o r public comment. Council
members have been speakers a t community senior c i t i z e n meetings regarding the
Council and pertinent i s s u e s concerning the elderly. Liaisons t o and from
selected senior c i t i z e n organizations have been i d e n t i f i e d . Council meeting
dates and times are coordinated with regular meetings of DES Older Americans
Act s t a f f , area agency and s e r v i c e project representatives and s e r v i c e pro-viders,
c a l l e d the nAging Network." However, from March 25, 1976, t o April 27,
1979, the Council was not incompliance with ARS 38- 431.02 and DES Executive
Directive 34 regarding the posting of public meeting n o t i c e s o f Council
meetings .
On April 27, 1979, the DES Director f i l e d a statement with the Secretary of
S t a t e specifying where Council meeting notices w i l l be posted.
The Council, is not required t o promulgate r u l e s and regulations. Therefore,
t h i s aspect of the sunset f a c t o r is not applicable t o the Council.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE COUNCIL
HAS BEEN ABLE TO INVESTIGATE AND RESOLVE COMPLAINTS
THAT ARE WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION
This sunset factor is not applicable t o the Council. Legislative and Executive
mandates do not indicate t h a t the i n v e s t i g a t i o n and resolution of complaints
are within the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Arizona Advisory Council on Aging.
10
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE AGENCY OF STATE
GOVERNMENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE ACTIONS
UNDER ENABLING LEGISLATION
The enabling l e g i s l a t i o n and Executive Order concerning the Arizona Advisory
Council on Aging do not define any actions f o r prosecution by the Attorney
General or any other applicable agency.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE COUNCIL HAS
ADDRESSED DEFICIENCIES I N THEIR ENABLING STATUTES WHICH
PREVENT THEM FROM FULFILLING THEIR STATUTORY MANDATE
A conflict has existed between ARS 46- 183 and federal regulation concerning
membership of the Council. DES identified this problem for l e g i s l a t i v e action
i n 1978, but statutory change was not proposed by DES pending the issuance of
new federal regulations. ( For a discussion of t h i s , see page 26).
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH CHANGES ARE
NECESSARY I N THE LAWS OF THE COUNCIL TO ADEQUATELY
COMPLY WITH THE FACTORS LISTED I N THIS SUBSECTION
For a discussion of these issues, see pages 12 and 26.
FINDINGS RELATED TO COUNCIL FUNCTIONS
FINDING I
THE ARIZONA ADVISORY COUNCIL ON AGING HAS BEEN ADVERSELY IMPACTED AND ITS
EFFECTIVENESS IMPAIRED BY THE UNSTABLE ORGANIZATION AND INCONSISTENT
LEADERSHIP PROVIDED TO I T BY THE DESIGNATED STATE AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR
ADMINISTERING THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT I N ARIZONA. I N ADDITION, WHEN COMPARED
TO TWO OTHER GOVERNOR'S ADVISORY COUNCILS, THE ARIZONA ADVISORY COUNCIL ON
AGING IS SUBSTANDARD I N STAFF SUPPORT AND BUDGET.
Since its inception i n 1966, the Arizona Advisory Council on Aging and the
designated s t a t e agency responsible for administering the Older Americans Act
i n Arizona have been subjected to numerous organizational relocations and
changes i n leadership. Our review of the Advisory Council on Aging revealed
that these organizational relocations and changes in leadership have resulted
in disrupted communication and discontinuity i n the working relationship
between the Advisory Council and the s t a t e agency responsible for administering
the Older Americans Act. In addition, the Council is substandard when compared
to other Governor's Advisory Councils i n s t a f f support and budget. This lack
of resources has hindered the effectiveness of the Advisory Council on Aging.
PURPOSE OF THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT AND ADVISORY COUNCIL
The primary program for the aged i n Arizona has been the federal Older
Americans Act of 1965, as amended. The purpose of the Act is t o provide
assistance i n the development of new and improved programs to help older
persons through grants t o the s t a t e s for community planning and services and
for training; through research, development or training project grants.
In order for a state t o be e l i g i b l e t o participate in the federal program of
,.- p a n t s t o s t a t e s , a s t a t e must designate a State Agency as the sole s t a t e
rn agency to: ( 1 ) develop the State plan t o be submitted to the Commissioner;* ( 2)
administer the State plan; ( 3) be primarily responsible for the coordination of
a l l S t a t e a c t i v i t i e s ; ( 4) review and comment on, a t the request of any federal
department or agency, any application from any agency or organization to such
The nCommissionern r e f e r s t o the commissioner of the Administration on
Aging, Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
federal department or agency for assistance related to, meeting the needs of
older persons; ( 5) divide the s t a t e into d i s t i n c t areas and determine areas
where an area plan w i l l be developed; and ( 6) for each such area, designate a
public or non- profit agency on aging; and, ( 7) provide assurances satisfactory
t o the Commissioner that the s t a t e agency w i l l take into account in connection
with matters of general policy arising in the development and administration of
the s t a t e plan for any f i s c a l year, the views of recipients of social services
provided under such plan.
The role of and need for the Advisory Council on Aging is contained i n federal
regulation 1321.50( c) which s t a t e s :
" The State Plan s h a l l provide for the establishment of an
advisory committee t o the Governor, the s t a t e agency, and
the single organizational unit on the implementation of
the State Plan." (&$ hasis added)
In Arizona, the above federal requirements were s a t i s f i e d by the designation of
a s t a t e agency to administer the Older Americans Act and the creation of the 15
member Advisory Council on Aging.
UNSTABLE ORGANIZATION
From 1965 t o 1979, the designated single organizational unit responsible for
the Older Americans Act has been i n three s t a t e agencies and has had eleven
organizational locations within these agencies. In addition, the Advisory
Council on Aging has had four organizational locations since its inception i n
1966.
The designated s t a t e agency for the Older Americans Act was i n i t i a l l y the
Department of Health ( 1965- 681, then the Department of Public Welfare ( 1968- 73)
and f i n a l l y the Department of Economic Security ( 1973- 79). The single organi-zational
unit responsible for the Older Americans Act had two organizational
locations while i n the Department of Health, two locations while i n the
Department of Public Welfare and seven locations since being placed i n the
Department of Economic Security.
Table 1 summarizes the organizational locations of the single organizational
unit responsible for administering the Older Americans Act i n Arizona and the
Advisory Council on Aging from 1965 t o 1979.
TABLE 1
ORGANIZATIONAL LOCATIOllS OF THE DESIGNATED STATE AGENCY,
S INCLE ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT RESPONSIBLE FOR ADKINISTERING
THE OLDER AHERICANS ACT IN ARIZONA AND TtIE ADVISORY COWCIL
ON AGING
DepaLtment of
Economii Security
S t a t e ' ~ o a r d
of Health - r State board of
Public, Welfare
LkS Advisory Council
Directo- r -- - - - - - on Aging - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I
On Aging ( recognized as 6) Gov ernor's Council)
I
Cowissioner of Advisory Comaittee
I
Deputy L '
Director \ i +-
I I kssistm: Dtrectuc
Assistant Director Assis tant Director Assistant Director Assistant Director Rogkm Ope a t ions
Program Services Resource PLanning Program Services Program Operati- Dbeict M a ' S f ~ a t i o n Family and Children
1 . D V O . IL-. ins Bureau
~ ommis'sioner Advisory Council
of Health - - - on ~ roblema of I.@ Public Welfare --- on Aging
t Deputy I
Canais s ionar Ass f s tant
Conmiss ioner
Medical Services planding and
and F a c i l i t f c s Technical
Support Division
I
Chronic Illness
and Aging
I 1 I
Social Services Aging Aging
I
Aging and Adult
Bureau - B- ureor Bureau Bureau on Agf- I ' S
I Burcnu on i Admfnis t r a t i on
~ i v i s i o nfo r
the Aging
~ i r etco r f o r
Aging
I Section on
the Aging
Organizational Locations of the Designated Single
Unit Responsible f o r Administerir~ g The Older
Americans Act
1. 1965 to 1966 7. 9975 to1976
2. 1966 to 1968 8. 1976 to 1977
3. 1968 to 1972 9. $ 977 to 1978
4. 1972 to 1973 LO. 1978
5. 1973 11. 5,979
6. 1973 t o 1975
Organizational Locations
of the Advisory Council
on Aging
INCONSISTENT LEADERSHIP
From May 1, 1968, t o March 15, 1979, the Advisory Council on Aging has had t o
e s t a b l i s h working r e l a t i o n s h i p s with and provide information t o seven
individuals who were responsible for administering the Older Americans Act i n
Arizona. In a d d i t i o n , s i n c e 1973 when the organizational u n i t responsible f o r
administering the Older Americans Act was placed i n the Department of Economic
Security, the Directorship of t h a t Department has changed s i x times.
Table 2 summarizes the leadership changes t h a t have occurred i n t h e s i n g l e
organizational unit responsible for administering the Older Americans Act from
May 1, 1968, t o March 15, 1979. It should be noted t h a t no one individual was
assigned on a full- time basis t o administer the Older Americans Act while it
was located i n the Department of Health from 1965 t o 1968. A similar
s i t u t a t i o n has existed i n the Department of Economic Security since December 5,
1978,
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF LEADERSHIP CHANGES
I N THE SINGLE ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT RESPONSIBLE
FOR ADMINISTERING THE
OLDER AMERICANS ACT
Inclusive Dates Length
Department Administrator - From - To Of Service
Department of
Health Part- time
Department of
Public Welfare R. W. James 5/ 1 / 68 6/ 16/ 71 3 years, 2 months
T. N. Tracy 6/ 17/ 71 5/ 31/ 72 1 year
R. W. James* 6/ 1 / 72 1/ 31/ 73 8 months
Department of
Economic
Security Vacant
R. L. Bouvea
Vacant
L. L. Martin
R . G. Thomas
N. Miover
R. G. Thomas*
J. B. Fooks
Part- time*"
6/ 30/ 73
6/ 26/ 74 1 year
8/ 31 / 74
5/ 8/ 76 1 year, 8 months
11/ 18/ 76 ' 6 months
8/ 26/ 77 9 months
3/ 6/ 78 6 months
12/ 4/ 78 9 months
31 15/ 79
m Second Appointment ***** MThr. e ABosusvisetaa nont Ds iirteec tfroorm f o3r/ 1A/ g7i3n g, Family and Children Services has assumed
leadership for the Older Americans Act program while a new administrator
for " Aging and Adult Administrationn is recruited.
A s shown in Table 2, there were nine administrative appointments made from May
1, 1968, t o March 15, 1979, with two administrators serving two nonconsecutive
terms. This i n s t a b i l i t y of leadership is further aggravated by a similar
i n s t a b i l i t y in the important position of Director of the Department of Economic
Security. Since 1973, when the Advisory Council was located within the
Department of Economic Security, the Directorship of that Department has
changed s i x times. Table 3 summarizes these changes.
TABLE 3
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
DIRECTORS FROM JANUARY 15, 1973
TO MARCH 15, 1979
Department of Economic
Security
Director Start Date End Date Length of Service
William J. Mayo January 1973 March 1975 2 years, 2 months
James L. Schamadan, M. D. April 1975 May 1975 1 month
Henry G. Diaz May 1975 June 1975 1 month
John L. Huerta July 1975 November 1977 1 year, 4 months
Edward D. Crowley November 1977 May 1978 7 months
William S. Jamieson, Jr. May 1978
According t o past and present members of the Advisory Council on Aging the
unstable organization of the s t a t e agency responsible for the Older Americans
Act and the Advisory Council together with the inconsistent leadership at both
the Administrative and Department Director level have adversely impacted the
effectiveness of the Advisory Council on Aging.
Reverend Monsignor Robert J. Donohoe, past chairman of the Council, explained
the e f f e c t s of frequent organizational and leadership changes as follows:
" Frequent leadership changes i n the Bureau Chief on Aging
position as well as the DES Director and several DES
reorganizations have had an adverse, impact on the
Council... The Council in e f f e c t ' died' a f t e r each
reorganization or leadership change and had t o be
reactivated. Many times the Council operated ' i n a
vacuum' since the direction from DES leaders, and
especially from the Bureau on Aging, was unclear."
According to Reverend John Fooks, former Council member as well as former
Bureau Chief of the Bureau on Aging:
" Frequent personnel changes of Aging Bureau Chiefs and
Directors of the Department of Economic Security ( DES)
along with frequent reorganizations of DES have created
d i f f i c u l t i e s for and decreased the effectiveness of the
Advisory Council on Aging. Different philosophies and
directions were associated with each administrative change
and the Council had t o take time to establish rapport,
redirect e f f o r t s and educate new p e r s ~ n n e l . ~
Further, Mr. Abia Judd, present Chairman of the Council, noted that:
wThe DES Council was not functioning w e l l a t the time of
the merger ( with the Governorls Oversight Committee on
Retirement and Aging) - the Council was not meeting
regularly and repeated Bureau Chief on Aging changes were
adversely affecting it. Areas of Council operations
needing change include obtaining stable leadership so
Council time devoted t o adjusting t o a new Bureau Chief and
reactivating the Council a f t e r a change could be
eliminated."
One example of the detrimental e f f e c t s that continual organizational and
leadership changes have had on the Advisory Council, since being recognized as
a Governor's Council in 1977, is that means of communication with and direction
from the Governorls Office have been ill- defined. For example, during our
review it was revealed t h a t Advisory Council on Aging members and DES staff
were unaware that the Governor was not receiving copies of minutes from
Advisory Council meetings. In addition, the Advisory Council was unaware t h a t
no gubernatorial l i a i s o n s t a f f had been assigned to monitor Council meetings or
t h a t no other form of regular communication had been established t o provide the
Governor with reports of Council a c t i v i t i e s .
SUBSTANDARD STAFF SUPPORT AND BUDGET
The Advisory Council on Aging is substandard i n the s t a f f support and budget
provided t o it by its administering state agency, the Department of Economic
Security, when compared with two other Governorls Advisory Councils.
The Advisory Council on Aging was organizationally located within DES on
January 15, 1973. The level of s t a f f support provided to the Council by DES has
generally consisted of part- time s e c r e t a r i a l assistance and incidental profes-sional
support. With the exception of f i s c a l year 1977- 78*, the expenditures
of the Advisory Council have not exceeded $ 6,129.
The level of s t a f f support and budget provided t o the Council appears to be
i n s u f f i c i e n t , especially when contrasted with the level of DES staff support
provided t o other Governor's Advisory Councils -- the Developmental Disabil-i
t i e s Planning and Advocacy Council and the Governor's Council on Children,
Youth and Families.
Table 4 summarizes the annual expenditures and full- time equivalent positions
allocated t o the Advisory Council on Aging, Developmental D i s a b i l i t i e s
Planning and Advocacy Council and the Council on Children, Youth and Families
during f i s c a l years 1975- 76 through 1977- 78:
It should be noted t h a t during f i s c a l year 1977- 78, DES received a
supplemental allocation of federal T i t l e I11 funds. $ 17,500 of these and
25 percent s t a t e matched funds were used t o provide the Council with a
Council Coordinator. Fiscal year 1977- 78 was the only year supplemental
T i t l e I11 funds were available and the only f u l l year the Council had a
coordinator. On March 12, 1979, Ms. Gloria Heller w a s appointed t o an
exempt DES position and named Executive Director of the Council.
TABLE 4
SUHMARY OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURES AND FULL- TIME EQUIVALENT
POSITIONS ALLOCATED TO THE ARIZONA ADVISORY COUNCIL ON
AGING, DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES PLANNING AND ADVOCACY
COUNCIL, AND THE COUNCIL ON CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES.
FISCAL YEARS 1975- 76 THROUGH 1977- 78.
Arizona Developmental
Advisory D i s a b i l i t i e s Council on
Council Planning and Children,
On Aginq Advocacy Council - Y outh & Families
Annual Annual Annual
Fiscal Year Expenditures - FTE Expenditures - FTE Expenditures - FTE
1976- 77 $ 6,129 - $ 85, OOO* 5 ** 3
Expenditures for the Developmental D i s a b i l i t i e s Planning and Advocacy
Council were made i n the federal f i s c a l year from October 1, 1976, to
September 30, 1977. ** Expenditures are not h i s t o r i c a l l y identifiable. *** Expenditures for the Advisory Council on Aging and the Developmental
D i s a b i l i t i e s Planning and Advocacy Council were made i n t h e f e d e r a l
f i s c a l year from October 1, 1977, to September 30, 1978. * * Includes one- time federal Title I11 supplement of $ 23,067.
Expenditures r e f l e c t costs associated with one FTE. Expenditures for
the other three FTE are not h i s t o r i c a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e .
While a comparison of the Executive Orders that established the Advisory
Council on Aging, ( 77- 4), the Developmental D i s a b i l i t i e s Planning and Advocacy
Council ( 78- 4), and the Council on Children, Youth and Families ( 78- 2) as
Governor's Advisory Councils reveals that the Advisory Council on Aging has a
somewhat l e s s specific mandate, it appears that the intended purpose of the
three councils is similar overall.*
Inadequate s t a f f support and budget were identified by Council members and DES
s t a f f as having detrimental effects.
Reverend Monsignor Donohoe identified t h i s problem and stated:
" While a member of the Council, requests for s t a f f
assistance were frequently denied due to lack of funds."
Reverend Fooks explained the effect of substandard s t a f f i n g as:
" Prior t o the s t a f f support provided t o the Advisory
Council on Aging by M s . Altman ( Fiscal Year 1978 Council
Coordinator), council members would request information at
one quarterly meeting and then e i t h e r the Council member
or the s t a f f would forget about it by the next meeting.
Staff support is essential i f the Council is t o be an
effective advocate for the aged. Council members
represent all regions of the s t a t e and it is d i f f i c u l t f o r
them t o conduct well- documented research, much of which
has to be done i n Phoenix, the site of state agencies' main
offices, without regular s t a f f assistance.
Areas where additional s t a f f support would improve the
Council's effectiveness, include inter- departmental
coordination of services for the aged i n transportation,
home health care, education, nursing home standards and
the process for granting c e r t i f i c a t e s of need t o health
service providers.
The council's role is to unearth the needs of the aged, t o
be a ' sounding board' for the Governor and the Legislature
on senior citizen needs and to advocate on behalf of the
aged. Council members are constrained from performing
t h i s role effectively because of i n s u f f i c i e n t s t a f f
support. "
Appendix I11 is a detailed comparison of the Executive Orders.
Mr. Judd noted that:
" Regular professional s t a f f support ( as provided by M s .
Altman i n FY 1978) is crucial t o Council accomplishments
and only c l e r i c a l and incidental professional support have
been available i n past years.
When functioning only with part- time c l e r i c a l and
incidental professional staff prior t o FY1978, the Council
almost became non- functional. With professional staff
support i n f i s c a l year 1978, the Council was able t o hold a
Governor's Conference on Aging, publish an update of the
Elderly Arizonan and a c t i v e l y monitor proposed
l e g i s l a t i o n . When the Council Coordinator left, it became
impossible for the Council t o i n i t i a t e any actions and
instead it operated i n a ' holding pattern.'
During- t- he 1979 l e g i s l a t i v e s e s s i o n t h e Council has also
been impaired by lack of staff i n its a b i l i t y t o keep
abreast of proposed l e g i s l a t i o n a f f e c t i n g t h e aged."
A further example of the e f f e c t s of substandard and inadequate s t a f f i n g is
demonstrated by the Advisory Council sponsoring a state- wide Governor's
Conference on Aging i n 1978; the proceedings and recommendations of which still
have not been published because of i n s u f f i c i e n t staff and resources.
The Executive Orders t h a t established the Developmental D i s a b i l i t i e s Planning
and Advocacy Council and t h e Council on Children, Youth and Families as
Governor's Councils both provide for staff support.
Executive Order 78- 4 s t a t e s the Developmental D i s a b i l i t i e s Planning and
Advocacy Council shall:
" In accordance with DES and Division of Personnel
regulations i n conjunction with the DES Director, h i r e
appropriate s t a f f ( within available funds) t o f u l f i l l its
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , including a director. The s t a f f , i n
accordance with DD program guidelines, s h a l l be
responsible t o the s t a t e council but receive
administrative supervision from the Department of Economic
Security."
Executive Order 78- 2, which established the Governor's Council for Children,
Youth and Families s t a t e s :
" The council shall:
a. u t i l i z e s t a f f and resources within the Department
of Economic Security or within other departments
of s t a t e government as designated by the
Governor."
However, Executive Order 77- 4 which established the Advisory Council on Aging
as a Governor's Council makes no provision for s t a f f support.
The absence of an Executive Order provision regarding staff support for the
Advisory Council on Aging is further compounded by the absence of an
i d e n t i f i a b l e operating budget for the Council. Except for fiscal year 1977- 78,
when a one- time T i t l e I11 supplemental allocation was used for council opera-tions,
the Advisory Council on Aging has operated without a budget. Monies for
its operation are provided, when available, Prom T i t l e 111 administrative funds
which are used primarily t o operate the Older Americans Act program at the
s t a t e level.
In comparison, the Developmental D i s a b i l i t i e s Planning and Advocacy Council
has had an established budget since its inception and the Council on Children,
Youth and Families has had a partial or complete operational budget for three
of the past four years, including f i s c a l year 1978- 79.
NATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OTHER STATE OPERATIONS
In 1971 a White House Conference on Aging was held a t the c a l l of the President
t o develop recommendations for further research and action i n the f i e l d of
aging. Conference delegates included representatives from all levels of
government as well as people working i n the f i e l d of aging and the public a t
large. The delegates were organized i n t o fourteen sections, one of which was a
section on Government and Non- Government Organizations. This section w a s
primarily concerned with " the paramount problems of developing and sustaining
strong and effective organization for and by the aging." This section prepared
twelve recommendations*, the second of which addressed the organizational
placement in government of a c e n t r a l o f f i c e on aging to assess the needs of the
aged and s t a t e s , i n part:
n A t a l l levels of government, a central office on aging
should be established i n the Office of the Chief
Executive, with responsibility for coordinating a l l
programs and a c t i v i t i e s dealing with the aging, fostering
coordination between governmental and non- governmental
programs directly and indirectly engaged in the provision
of services and for planning, monitoring and evaluating
services and program^.^
A survey of other s t a t e s , conducted by the Office of the Auditor General**,
revealed t h a t the above recommendations have been implemented i n 22 s t a t e s
where an independent agency or commission on aging t o which an Advisory Council
or Committee provides advice has been established. In eight s t a t e s other
organizational configurations, such as independent Councils on Aging, have
been established. In 20 s t a t e s , including Arizona, the Advisory Council is
associated with an umbrella agency, such as the Department of Economic
Security .
Appendix I V contains a f u l l text of the recommendations of the Section on
Government and NonGovernment Organizations. ** Appendix V contains the r e s u l t s of the s t a t e survey by the Office of the
Auditor General on Advisory Councils on Aging.
CONCLUSION
Since its inception in 1966, the Advisory Council on Aging has been subjected
t o t h e e f f e c t s of three departmental relocations, eleven organizational
relocations and nine changes of leadership for the Older Americans Act program
i n Arizona. In addition, the Council is substandard i n s t a f f i n g and budget for
its operations when compared with two other Governor's Advisory Councils. This
has impaired the Council's effectiveness in providing advice t o the adminis-tering
s t a t e agency on problems and matters related t o the s t a t e plan on aging
and i n its functioning as a Governor's Advisory Council.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that consideration be given t o the following options:
The Governor c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h t h e purpose and
independence of the Advisory Council on Aging to
insulate it from organizational and leadership
changes in the administering s t a t e agency.
Consideration should also be given t o designating the
Department of Economic Security as only the
administering agency. In addition, the Governor and
Legislature need t o s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f y resources
and s t a f f t o support the Council.
2. A s recommended i n the 1971 White House Conference on
Aging, the Governor and Legislature should establish
an agency or office on aging reporting d i r e c t l y to
the Governor with an advisory council providing
citizen input.
Legislation must be enacted i n order t o implement e i t h e r of these
recommendations.
FINDING I1
THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN ARIZONA STATE LAW AND FEDERAL REGULATION
REGARDING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE ARIZONA ADVISORY COUNCIL ON AGING. AS A
RESULT, THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COUNCIL HAS NOT BEEN I N COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL
REQUIREMENTS.
Federal regulations require t h a t a t l e a s t half of the Advisory Council on Aging
members be actual consumers of services provided under the Older Americans Act.
Arizona law, however, only requires that a majority of the council members be
actual or potential consumers of services provided under the Older Americans
Act. This conflict between the Arizona law and federal regulation has, i n the
past, resulted i n a council membership not i n compliance with federal require-ments.
Federal regulation 1321.50 ( c) from the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, Office of Human Development, Administration on Aging s t a t e s i n part:
"... at l e a s t one- half of the committee ( t o advise the
Governor, s t a t e agency and single organizational unit on
the implementation of the s t a t e plan) s h a l l consist of
actual consumers of services under t h i s program, including
low income and minority older persons, a t l e a s t i n propor-tion
to the number of minority older persons i n the state."
( Emphasis added)*
However, Arizona Revised Statute Section 46- 183- B s t a t e s i n part:*
" the advisory council on aging s h a l l be composed of
f i f t e e n members, appointed by t h e d i r e c t o r , subject t o
approval by the governor. A t l e a s t eight of the members
shall be consumers or potential consumers of services
provided under the Older Americans Act of 1965, as
amended. Members appointed t o the council s h a l l . . . be
selected with due regard to geographic and other elements
of representation." ( Emphasis added)
A f u l l text of federal regulation 1321.50 ( c) and ARS Section 46- 183- B
is included i n Appendix I.
The use of the word llpotentialn i n ARS Section 46- 183- B has caused the Council
membership t o not be in compliance with federal regulations. This noncom-pliance
issue was pointed out to the Department of Economic Security by federal
evaluators on several occasions. For example:
In a March 23, 1976, federal assessment of the Arizona Advisory Council, it was
noted:
Itthat a t l e a s t one- half of the membership of the committee
( Council ) consists of consumers, including proportional
low- income and minority representation is questionable a t
the present time. . . Composition of the Advisory Committee
( Council) may not conform t o T i t l e I11 regulations. The
Governor of Arizona w i l l appoint five persons to the
f i f t e e n member advisory body. Hopefully, his appointments
w i l l be made with T i t l e I11 regulations pertaining to t h i s
issue i n mind. The matter should be brought t o his
attention."
In a January 20, 1978, assessment, federal o f f i c i a l s observed:
" The Advisory Committee ( Council) was not i n compliance
with the requirement s t i p u l a t i n g t h a t over 50% of its
membership be older persons who are a c t u a l service
consumers under the State Plan... In order to bring the
Advisory Committee ( Council) into compliance with
regulations guiding its creation and function, steps
should be taken immediately t o reorganize the Committee's
composition so t h a t a t l e a s t a simple majority of its
members be actual service c o n s ~ m e r s . ~
In a March 14, 1978, l e t t e r t o the Health, Education and Welfare ~ e g i o nI X
Director of Administration on Aging, the Acting Director of the Department of
Economic Security conceded t h a t the Council was not i n compliance with federal
requirements. The Acting Director stated:
" We are well versed on Federal Regulation 903.5*, and
share your concern regarding actual consumer
representation on t h i s Council. A s evidenced by Arizona
Revised Statute 46- 183 ( quoted i n your report), there has
been some d i f f i c u l t y in getting t h i s point across i n the
past. The d i f f i c u l t y is compounded by the f a c t that t h i s
is now a dual- purpose Council which also advises the
Governor. Furthermore, it is the Governor who makes the
f i n a l decision regarding membership appointments.
However, we do feel that great progress was made i n the
recent appointments t o the Council. O f the four new
members, three were actual consumers. This raised our
actual consumer representation from approximately 7% t o
27%. It should be noted that, of our current membership,
a l l but one ( the Native American) are 60 years of age or
over.
Although we now have an unexpired term to be f i l l e d on the
Council, due t o the resignation of Monsignor Donohoe, we
cannot assure t h a t the new appointee w i l r be an actual
consumer. Realistically, we w i l l be looking toward
December 31 and the expiration of five more terms before we
can make any further progress i n t h i s area."
The Region I X Director responded to the Acting Director of DES on March 28,
1978, that:
" A s i g n i f i c a n t i s s u e which remains is the consumer of
services issue. The Arizona s t a t u t e allowing potential
consumers of service is contrary t o present Federal
Regulations requiring the majority membership of the
Advisory Council t o be actual consumers of services. This
is defined as habitual recipients of services funded under
T i t l e I11 and VII of the Older Americans Act.
Presently, the Advisory Council is out of compliance with
the Federal Rules and Regulations. Please advise me of the
action which you intend t o take t o correct the situation."
On May 5, 1978, the Acting Director of DES advised the Region I X Director that:
" As indicated i n our previous l e t t e r , we have taken steps
to increase the number of consumer members on the Advisory
Council. We w i l l take the appropriate steps to remove from
the s t a t e s t a t u t e s the word potential regarding consumers,
and thereby bring the s t a t u t e s into conformity with the
federal regulations."
Federal regulation was renumbered t o 1321.50( c).
It should be noted that federal approval of the State Plan on Aging is required
before federal Older Americans Act monies w i l l be allocated t o Arizona. In
f i s c a l year 1978- 79, these funds amounted to $ 4,497,051. Any exceptions t o
standard procedures and regulations must be addressed and corrections or
assurances of future action provided to the federal government before approval
can be obtained.
This point was communicated t o the Director of DES i n a July 7, 1978,
memorandum from the Bureau Chief of the Bureau on Aging, which stated:
" It has been brought t o our attention, by the Admin-i
s t r a t i o n on Aging, that the composition of the Governor's
Advisory Council on Aging is out of compliance with
federal regulations with regard t o the number of actual
consumer representation on its 15- member board.
The Standard Assurances Section of the State Plan
i d e n t i f i e s t h a t the Advisory Council is not i n compliance
with the federal regulations; therefore, t o enable the
Governor t o sign the State Plan, it is necessary t o
indicate a plan to bring the composition of the advisory
council into federal compliance.
Our recommendation is that on December 31, 1978 when five
terms of appointment expire, that appointments be made
which w i l l bring the composition of the Governor's
Advisory Council i n t o compliance with the federal
regulations." ( Emphasis added)
In response the DES Director, i n a memorandum dated July 27, 1978, stated:
" 1 have discussed the Advisory Council with the Governor's
Office and can give assurance that we w i l l be i n compliance
a f t e r the new appointments are made."
In an attempt to address the issue of actual consumer representation on the
Council, the Council Coordinator a t the July 20, 1978, meeting stated:
" the Governor's Advisory Council is not i n compliance with
federal regulation as f a r as membership is concerned.
According t o the letter of the law 51% of Council
membership must consist of ' actual' consumers. The stated
definition of ' actual' consumer is: ' A person who
habitually participates i n programs funded under the Older
Americans Act'."
During the July 20, 1978, meeting, the Council members agreed t o declare i n
writing whether they considered themselves t o be " actual consumersw of services
under the Older Americans Act. In September 1978, the fourteen* Council
members responded or f a i l e d t o respond as follows regarding t h e i r s t a t u s as
consumers:
- 7 Members declared they did consider themselves consumers
- 3 Members declared they did not consider themselves consumers
- 2 Members declared they - did consider themselves consumers but
qualified t h e i r answer with t h e i r own d e f i n i t i o n s of consumer
- 2 Members did not reply
The Older Americans Act was amended by Congress during the 95th Congressional
session. New regulations are being developed t o implement the amendments.** It
cannot be determined at t h i s time i f t h e f e d e r a l requirements regarding council
membership w i l l be affected by the new regulations.***
CONCLUSION
Because of a wording difference between federal regulations and Arizona law,
the membership of the Advisory Council on Aging has not been i n compliance with
federal requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
To prevent any future problems with approval of the S t a t e Plan on Aging
concerning consumer representation on the Council, it is recommended t h a t ARS
Section 46- 183- B be reviewed when regulations related t o the Older Americans
Act amendments are promulgated. If necessary, this section should be amended
t o agree with federal requirements.
In addition, future appointments t o the Advisory Council on Aging should be i n
accordance with federal mandate.
D One member resigned on August 17, 1978.
Appendix V I I I is a l e t t e r from the Region I X Director concerning the
s t a t u s of the federal regulations. *** On March 20, 1979, the f i v e appointments for expired terms were made.
Three were reappointments of members whose terms were expired and two were
new members. New members have not declared t h e i r " consumerw s t a t u s so
representation cannot be determined at t h i s time.
FINDINGS RELATED TO COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES PERFORMED BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
FINDING I11
I N 1977, A DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY OFFICIAL AWARDED AN ILLEGAL CONTRACT
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A WORKPLAN FOR THE ARIZONA ADVISORY COUNCIL ON AGING.
THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY HAS NOT ESTABLISHED SUFFICIENT CONTRACTING
CONTROLS TO PREVENT OTHER ILLEGAL CONTRACTS FROM BEING AWARDED.
In June 1977, the head of the Bureau on Aging i n the Department of Economic
Security ( DES) issued a $ 1,200 contract t o Far- Mor Consultants,* a California
consulting firm, t o develop a workplan for the Advisory Council on Aging. T h i s
contract was i l l e g a l i n that s t a t e laws regarding competitive bidding and
conflict of i n t e r e s t were violated. The DES o f f i c i a l who issued the contract
subsequently resigxied and was prosecuted; however, as of March 15, 1979, DES --
has not established sufficient contracting controls t o prevent other i l l e g a l
contracts from being awarded. The absence of s u f f i c i e n t contracting controls
is particularly significant i n view of the millions of dollars i n contracts
awarded annually by DES.
ILLEGAL CONTRACT
Arizona Revised Statutes Sections 41- 1051 through 41- 1054 require t h a t
competitive bidding procedures be followed when awarding state contracts** and
state i n part:
" A s t a t e budget unit desiring t o contract for services
under the provisions of this a r t i c l e s h a l l issue a request
for proposals containing but not limited to:
1. The c r i t e r i a for qualifications required of persons
to be selected t o perform outside professional
services. The selection of such persons s h a l l be
determined on the basis of demonstrated competence
and qualifications t o perform the required type of
outside professional services a t f a i r and reasonable
compensation.
* The head of the Bureau on Aging awarded another contract to Far- Mor - -
Consultants for $ 2,000. This contract was for consulting services t o
develop legal services i n the community.
Competitive bidding is now required for contracts i n excess of $ 5,000. A t
the time of the Far- Mor contract, competitive bidding was required for
contracts over $ 1,000.
2. The information which is to be made publicly
available concerning each project under consideration
and the manner i n which such information s h a l l be
made available t o interested persons. Such
information s h a l l , as applicable, include but not be
limited to:
( a) The time and place where the proposals are to be
submitted.
( b) A description of the problem, or the purpose of
the study or project.
( c) The objectives of the study, including a general
statement of what is expected t o be
accomplished.
( d) The scope of the work t o be done, including:
( i ) Any desired approach t o the problem.
( ii) The p r a c t i c a l , policy, technological
and legal limitations.
( i i i ) Specific questions that need t o be
answered.
( iv) Items expected t o be delivered by a
person who submits such proposal.
( v) The format to be used for the completed
report .
( v i ) The extent to which assistance and
cooperation w i l l be available from the
s t a t e t o the person who submits such
proposal.
( e) A firm or estimated t i m e schedule including
dates for:
( i ) Award of contract.
( i i ) Commencement of performance.
( i i i ) Submission of progress reports, i f any.
( iv) Completion of work.
( f) Known or estimated budgetary limitations for the
study or project.
( g) Whether and t o what extent progress payments
w i l l be a l l o ~ a b l e . ~
Requirements for public notice are defined as:
" A s t a t e budget unit s h a l l give notice of a request for
proposals t o furnish such services by mailing notice t o
each person who has requested personal notice i n the
statement f i l e d pursuant t o Section 41- 1053 and by
publication i n a newspaper of general circulation within
I) the s t a t e for two publications not l e s s than s i x nor more
than ten days apart. The second publication and mailing of
personal notice s h a l l be not less than two weeks before the
deadline for submitting p r ~ p o s a l s . ~
I)
Arizona Revised S t a t u t e Section 38- 503 defines c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t for s t a t e
employees and states i n part:
" Any public o f f i c e r or employee of a public agency who has,
or whose r e l a t i v e has, a s u b s t a n t i a l i n t e r e s t i n any
contract, s a l e , purchase or service t o such public agency
s h a l l make known t h a t i n t e r e s t i n the o f f i c i a l records of
such public agency and s h a l l r e f r a i n from voting upon or
otherwise p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n any manner as an o f f i c e r or
employee i n such'contract, s a l e o r purchase."
The above s t a t u t e s were violated when the Far- Mor contract was awarded i n t h a t
1) no other consultants were contacted or given an opportunity t o bid on the
consulting c o n t r a c t ; and 2) the contract was awarded by the head of the Bureau
on Aging t o a company owned, i n p a r t , by her daughter.
Acoording t o o f f i c i a l s i n DES the " normaln contract dward procedures i n force,
at the time the Far- Mor contract was awarded, included:
- Develop a " Request for Proposaln - Advertise the " Request f o r Proposaln - Accept nProposalsn from consultants - Evaluate the " Proposalsn ---- DSOOebbrlatteaafctii nntt htAthheteet oc crBononuenrsyesu aulGutl itenaCnngeht ri caeolf n'astp r aapncrodt vtahl eo cf otnhter accotonrs'usl tsiniggn caotunrtreasc t format
However, the contract award procedures f o r the Far- Mor contract were as fol-lows
:
- The head of the Bureau on Aging discussed t h e contract with her
daughter - The head of the Bureau on Aging awarded the contract t o her
-- TTdahhuee ghhheetaaeddr ' oso ff c tothmheep BaBnuyur ereaauu o onn A Agignign ga nddr ahfetre dd atuhgeh tceor nstirgancet d the contract.
The contract with Far- Mor Consultants was signed on June 29, 1977. One day
l a t e r , on June 30, 1977, Far- Mor Consultants submitted three claims of $ 400
each or a t o t a l of $ 1,200, the e n t i r e contracted amount. These claims were
signed as approved by a DES s t a f f member who worked for the head of the Bureau
on Aging and was ordered by the Bureau Chief to sign the claims. These claims
were subsequently submitted to the Department of Administration and paid.
On August 24, 1977, the Attorney General's Office, Investigation Section,
i n i t i a t e d an investigation of conflict of i n t e r e s t allegations concerning the
Far- Mor contract. The Attorney General was informed of the i l l e g a l contract by
a DES employee. On August 26, 1977, the head of the Bureau on Aging resigned
from DES. On April 25, 1978, a plea of no contest was entered i n Superior
Court, Maricopa County, t o the crime of conflict of iniepest, a felony. This
plea was determined through a plea agreement between the State of Arizona and
the former head of the Bureau on Aging. The Court accepted the plea and made a
determination of g u i l t to the crime. On May 25, 1978, the former head of Bureau
on Aging was sentenced t o two years probation and payment of $ 500 i n r e s t i t u -
tion.
CURRENT DES CONTRACTING PROCEDURES
Currently, neither the State of Arizona nor DES have formal procedures or
manuals for the award of all contracts. In addition, DES does not have a
designated responsible o f f i c i a l t o review the development and award of a l l
contracts. It should be noted that DES is responsible for the awarding of and
payment on contracts for substantial amounts of public monies. For example,
for f i s c a l year 1978- 79, $ 4,137,100 i n state funds were appropriated t o the
Mental Retardation program to fund contractual arrangements with providers of
community mental retardation services.
A memorandum, dated August 9, 1978, from the DES Deputy Director to " Affected
Personneln ( including the Bureau Chief on Aging) stated a l l contracts, amend-ments
and terminations of contracts s h a l l be nproperly staffed and approved
prior t o signature on behalf of DES." A coordination sheet to obtain a s e r i e s
of approval signatures is mandatory llprior to authorized signature on behalf of
DES t o such d o c ~ m e n t s . ~ O ur review of DES contracting procedures, Department
of Administration claims payment procedures, and Attorney General contracting
procedures revealed that the controls outlined i n the above memorandum can be
completely circumvented and that other illegal contracts can be awarded by DES
personnel.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION CLAIMS PAYMENT PROCEDURES
According t o Department of Administration personnel i n the C l a i m s Section the
following procedwas are followed when paying claims for DES contracted
services :
- The claim is checked for proper authorization - The c l a i m i s compared t o a contract whichmust b e o n f i l e w i t h t h e
- DTheep acrtomnetnrat cot f iAs drmeviineiwsterda tfioonr proper DES authorization - A warrant is issued for the amount of the claim.
When reviewing a contract for proper authorization Department of Admin-i
s t r a t i o n personnel check for three signitures; 1) the contractors, 2) the
Attorney General's Office and 3) an authorized representative of DES. While
the presence of three independent signatures on a contract may appear t o
provide sufficient controls to prevent i l l e g a l contracts being awarded by DES,
our review disclosed t h a t 1) the r o l e of the Attorney General's Office i n
reviewing DES contracts is a perfunctory one, a t best; and 2) the number of DES
employees authorized t o execute contracts is too large for the presence of an
authorized signature to be an effective control measure.
THE ROLE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE I N REVIEWING DES CONTRACTS
The role of the Attorney General's Office i n reviewing DES contracts is
primarily a review for proper form and authority. A March 6, 1979, letter t o
the Office of the Auditor General from an Assistant Attorney General a t t e s t s t o
t h a t fact and s t a t e s , i n part:
Q
" This l e t t e r is i n response t o your l e t t e r to me dated
March 1, 1979, in which you purportedly described the role
of t h i s office i n the review of contracts entered into by
the State Department of Economic Security.
A t the outset, it should be pointed out t h a t , with one
exception, there is no legal requirement for any State
agency to submit contracts to t h i s office for our review;
rather, aside from the one exception, t h e S t a t e agencies
submit contracts for our review on a voluntary basis. The
only exception is for those contracts which constitute
intergovernmental agreements covered by A. R. S. Section 11-
951 e t seq.
The standard for our review of intergovernmental
agreements is s e t forth i n A. R. S. Section 11- 952. D which
provides that t h i s office s h a l l determine whether the
agreement is i n proper form and is within the powers and
authority granted under Arizona law t o the agency. Our
standard for review of other types of contracts is the
same. If it appears from the face of a contract o r a s a
r e s u l t of independent information which we may have that
the contract was entered i n t o i n violation of the conflict
of interest or bidding laws, then we do not approve it. We
do not, however, make any independent investigation t o
determine whether such laws are complied with unless
somebody brings a possible violation t o our
attention.. . ."* ( Emphasis Added)
It should be noted t h a t the Attorney General's review of DES contracts is not
designed to identify violations of the conflict of i n t e r e s t or bidding laws.
Thus, the Attorney General's review of DES contracts does not afford effective
protection against i l l e g a l contracts being awarded.
THE NUMBER OF DES EMPLOYEES AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS IS TOO LARGE
A s of March 15, 1979, there were 33 DES employees of varying levels of
responsibility authorized t o sign contracts i n l i e u of the Director of DES and
approve claims for payment. This delegation of authority is excessive and
represents a significant lack of control over the awarding of and payment on
DES contracts.
b
A f u l l text of t h i s l e t t e r is Appendix V I .
When Department of Administration personnel check f o r an authorized DES
signature on a contract p r i o r t o making a payment, they refer t o a f i l e of
Signature Authorization Forms ( A & C 3). Each form contains the following
information:
- The name and t i t l e of the DES employee authorized t o sign c e r t a i n
documents i n l i e u of the DES Director - Which documents t h a t employee is authorized t o sign i n l i e u of the
DES Director - The s i g n a t u r e of the DES employee authorized t o sign documents i n
- Tl iheeu s iogfn taht ue rDeE aSn dD itrietclteo ro f the DES o f f i c i a l approving the i d e n t i f i e d
DES employee as an authorized s i g n a t u r e - The number of signatures needed f o r each type o f document, if more
than one s i g n a t u r e is required.
Our review of the DES Authorized Signature Forms on f i l e with the Department of
Administration revealed t h a t as of March 15, 1979:
- There were 33 DES employees authorized t o sign contracts and approve
claims f o r payment on those c o n t r a c t s , including the head of the
Bureau on Aging - The titles of the 33 authorized signors include Accountant,
Secretary and Accounting Clerk - One of the authorized signors, no longer holds the p o s i t i o n shown on
the Signature Authorization Form - Three of the authorized s i g n o r s d i d not show any agency approval on
t h e i r Signature Authorization Form as required - Nineteen of the authorized signors were not approved by the agency
head as required - One DES employee approved h i s own Signature Authorization f o r
contracts.
A review of the Signature Authorization Forms on f i l e f o r s i x s i m i l a r s t a t e
s e r v i c e delivery agencies engaged i n awarding s i g n i f i c a n t contract amounts
revealed t h a t a l l , but the Department of Corrections, have r e s t r i c t e d t h e
s i g n i n g o f c o n t r a c t s and claims t o t e n or fewer departmental o f f i c i a l s . The
following chart displays the number of authorized signatures on f i l e with the
Department of Administration f o r the s i x s t a t e s e r v i c e delivery agencies
reviewed and DES as of March 15, 1979:
Department
Department of Public Safety
S t a t e Land Department
Department of Education
Department of Tranportation
Department o f Health Services
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
Department of Corrections
Authorized
Signatures
The above chart shows t h a t when compared t o other l i s t e d agencies, DES has an
inordinately high number of employees t h a t a r e authorized t o approve contracts
and sign claims on behalf o f DES.
In our opinion, the a u t h o r i t y t o contract and approve claims on behalf o f DES
has been delegated t o too many employees and t o too low a l e v e l i n the DES
organization. A s a r e s u l t , the presence of an authorized DES signature on a
contract does not insure s u f f i c i e n t o f f i c i a l sanction.
In a statement regarding the appropriate number of s t a t e employees t h a t should
be authorized t o approve c o n t r a c t s , M r . Don Spaulding, Manager of Accounts and
Controls, Department of Administration said:
" Contract approval should be r e s t r i c t e d t o a few high-l
e v e l departmental o f f i c i a l s i n each agency. This would
improve f i n a n c i a l controls within the agency and within
the Division of Finance."
CONCLUSION
In 1977, a DES o f f i c i a l awarded a contract t o develop a workplan f o r t h e
Advisory Council on Aging t h a t violated s t a t e laws regarding competitive
bidding and c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t . DES has not established s u f f i c i e n t
c o n t r a c t i n g c o n t r o l s t o prevent other i l l e g a l c o n t r a c t s from being issued and
the a u t h o r i t y t o contract and approve claims on behalf of DES has been
delegated t o too many lower l e v e l employees. This widespread delegation of
contracting a u t h o r i t y f o r s u b s t a n t i a l amounts of money coupled with the absence
of a designated DES o f f i c i a l t o review contracts and the l i m i t e d review of
contracts by the Attorney General's O f f i c e i n c r e a s e s t h e p o t e n t i a l for f u t u r e
contracting abuses.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Economic Security should e s t a b l i s h a d d i t i o n a l contracting
c o n t r o l s . Consideration should be given to:
- The development by DES of formal department- wide contract procedures
and manuals - The designation by DES of a responsible o f f i c i a l t o review all DES
contracts - A complete review by appropriate DES o f f i c i a l s of the Authorized
Signature Forms on f i l e with the Department of Administration - The issuance by DES of new Authorized Signature Forms ( Authorized
signatures f o r contract approval should be l i m i t e d t o a s few DES
o f f i c i a l s as p r a c t i c a l ) - DES o f f i c i a l s authorized t o approve contracts should not be
authorized t o approve claims f o r payment.
FINDING I V
MEMBERS OF AN INDIAN ADVISORY COUNCIL ON AGING WERE IMPROPERLY REIlYBURSED - FOR
TRAVEL EXPENSES
I n 1977, the head of the Bureau on Aging established an " Indian Advisory
Council on Aging" t o provide advice t o the Governor's Council on Aging and t o
address the needs of e l d e r l y Indians. The Council held t h r e e meetings and the
Council members were paid per diem and reimbursed for t r a v e l expenses.
According t o the Legislative Council; 1) the head o f t h e Bureau on Aging did
not have s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y t o e s t a b l i s h or appoint an advisory council and 2)
the members of the Indian Advisory Council on Aging were not public o f f i c e r s
and, t h e r e f o r e , were not e l i g i b l e for per diem or reimbursement of t r a v e l
expenses .
Lack of Authority t o Establish an Advisory Council
The Indian Advisory Council on Aging was established by the head of the Bureau
on Aging on July 7, 1977. The Council held t h r e e meetings on the dates and at
the locations shown i n the following schedule:
- DATE
July 7, 1977
LOCATION
Phoenix, Arizona
July 25, 1977 Phoenix, Arizona
August 18, 1977 Gila River Indian Reservation
The members of the Council were subsequently paid $ 906.80 f o r per diem and
t r a v e l expenses incurred while attending the above meetings.
The L e g i s l a t i v e Council, i n an opinion dated March 12, 1979*, s t a t e d t h a t the
head of the Bureau on Aging did not have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o e s t a b l i s h an advisory
council or appoint its members. The opinion states i n part:
"... In order f o r t h e Indian Advisory Council on Aging t o
be a v a l i d l y c o n s t i t u t e d s p e c i a l council, t h e r e must
e x i s t :
1. A finding t h a t it was required by state or federal law
or regulations or a s p e c i f i c finding by the d i r e c t o r
t h a t it was i n the public i n t e r e s t .
2. A record o f the d i r e c t o r ' s consulation with the
economic s e c u r i t y council.
* Appendix V I I is a f u l l t e x t of t h e L e g i s l a t i v e Council opinion.
3. A record of the governor's approval.
If these requirements had been met, members of the council
would seem t o have been properly appointed t o public
o f f i c e under the a u t h o r i t y of the departmental d i r e c t o r .
However, the power t o appoint is inherent t o c e r t a i n
executive positions. For example, persons employed i n the
o f f i c e of the governor could properly be assigned the
function of developing lists and screening q u a l i f i c a t i o n s
of p o t e n t i a l appointees, but the power t o make c e r t a i n
appointments unquestionably rests with the a c t u a l
incumbent of t h e o f f i c e of the governor. Since the
d i r e c t o r of a department has i n t h i s instance been given
s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y t o make c e r t a i n appointments, the
exercise of the function cannot properly be delegated.
Moreover, i n the i n s t a n t s i t u a t i o n a review of f e d e r a l and
state law and r e g u l a t i o n s i n d i c a t e d no requirement f o r a
council so t h e d i r e c t o r ' s appointment of a council could
l e g a l l y be based only on the d i r e c t o r ' s determination t h a t
such an advisory council was e s s e n t i a l to the public
i n t e r e s t . Thus we must conclude t h a t a bureau chief cannot
properly exercise the a u t h o r i t y t o make a determination o f
public i n t e r e s t and appoint an advisory council whose
membership would become e l i g i b l e f o r the subsistence and
t r a v e l expense reimbursement authorized by law f o r state
o f f i c e r s and employees under the a u t h o r i t y granted t o the
departmental d i r e c t o r under Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s ,
s e c t i o n 41- 1981. Additionally, we are unable t o find any
other a u t h o r i t y by which a department bureau chief could
v a l i d l y e s t a b l i s h positions as public o f f i c e r s f o r such
advisory council members." ( Emphasis added)
MEMBERS OF THE INDIAN ADVISORY COUNCIL WERE NOT PUBLIC OFFICERS
According t o the Legislative Council, the members of the Indian Advisory
Council d i d n o t q u a l i f y as public o f f i c e r s and were, t h e r e f o r e , not e l i g i b l e t o
receive per diem or reimbursement of t r a v e l expenses.
The L e g i s l a t i v e Council opinion s t a t e s i n part:
"... Per diem subsistence and the reimbursement of t r a v e l
expenses are payable by the s t a t e t o its public o f f i c e r s
and employees under t i t l e 38, chapter 4, a r t i c l e 2,
Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s . ' O f f i c e r f or ' public o f f i c e r '
is defined f o r the purposes of T i t l e 38, Arizona Revised
S t a t u t e s , as the ' incumbent of any o f f i c e , member of any
board of commission, or h i s deputy or a s s i s t a n t exercising
the powers and d u t i e s of t h e o f f i c e r , other than c l e r k s or
mere employees of the o f f i c e r . ' ( Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s
s e c t i o n 38- 1 0 1 , paragraph 3 ) . ' Office1 ' board' or
fcommission' means any o f f i c e , board or commission o f t h e
s t a t e or any p o l i t i c a l subdivision thereof, the s a l a r y or
compensation of the incumbent or members of which is paid
from a fund r a i s e d by taxation or by public revenue.'
( Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s s e c t i o n 38- 101, paragraph 1 ) .
The Arizona Supreme Court s t a t e s i n Tomaris v. S t a t e , 71
Ariz. 147 ( 1950) t h r e e r e q u i s i t e s f o r a position t o be a
public o f f i c e :
1) The s p e c i f i c position must be created by law.
2) There must be c e r t a i n d e f i n i t e d u t i e s imposed by
law on the incumbent.
3) The d u t i e s must involve some portion of the
sovereign power.
S p e c i f i c a l l y , the Indian Advisory Council on Aging appears
t o meet none of these requirements. Hence, Arizona case
law i n d i c a t e s t h a t members of boards created by a
department bureau chief a r e n o t p u b l i c o f f i c e r s ' who a r e
e l i g i b l e t o receive subsistance payments and
reimbursement f o r t r a v e l expenses." ( Emphasis added)
Our review of the Indian Advisory Council on Aging revealed t h a t t h e r e was
confusion among DES employees as t o the propriety of paying the t r a v e l claims
of council members. This confusion is evidenced i n the following excerpt from
the minutes of the November 17, 1977, meeting o f t h e Advisory Council on Aging:
" . . . t h e r e had been some question as t o whether or not
expenses of the members would be paid. . . ''
DES o f f i c i a l s s t a t e d t h a t the Indian Advisory Council on Aging t r a v e l claims
were eventually paid because it was assumed t h a t the Council members were
public o f f i c e r s . These DES o f f i c i a l s f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t : 1) the Council
members were e n t i t l e d t o receive per diem and reimbursement of t r a v e l expenses
-\ because they were providing a s e r v i c e t o the s t a t e ; and 2) such a p r a c t i c e was
not l i m i t e d t o the members of the Indian Advisory Council but was common f o r
o t h e r a r e a s within DES. - yey e , Z- ,,
' 5 ' 9 . . ( I
" - .* '
, f C _* *
i
According t o the L e g i s l a t i v e Council: ./-
:; ,;/ A/ ,
"... If the correct s t a t u t o r y procedures had been'followed
by the department d i r e c t o r t o e s t a b l i s h the Indian
Advisory Council on Aging as a s p e c i a l purpose council
under s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y with the proper assignment of
d e f i n i t e d u t i e s i n the excercise of some sovereign power,
members of the council would appear t o have been e l i g i b l e
t o receive reimbursement of t r a v e l and subsistence
expenses. I n t h i s case, since the Indian Advisory Council
on Aging was appointed by a bureau chief who lacked
a u t h o r i t y t o make such appointments, the members of the
council would not appear t o be e l i g i b l e t o receive payment
of per diem subsistence o r reimbursement of t r a v e l
expenses. . . . "
DES o f f i c i a l s conceded t h a t the s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n o f a public o f f i c e r and
its application is not c l e a r and t h a t s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a would be useful when
determining the propriety of f u t u r e t r a v e l claims.
CONCLUSION
The head of the Bureau on Aging, without proper a u t h o r i t y , e s t a b l i s h e d an
Indian Advisory Council on Aging and its members were improperly paid per diem
and reimbursed f o r t r a v e l expenses. This occured because DES o f f i c i a l s were
unaware of t h e s t a t u t o r y requirements f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g s p e c i a l purpose
councils and the standards t h a t must be met i n order t o be a " public o f f i c e r ."
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended t h a t the D i r e c t o r o f DES i s s u e a memorandum t o a l l department
employees who approve t r a v e l claims c l a r i f y i n g the process f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g
s p e c i a l purpose councils and appointing members. This would include:
1. Determination by the Director t h a t the council was i n the public
i n t e r e s t or it was required by state or f e d e r a l law.
2. Consultation by the Director with the Economic Security Advisory
Council.
3. Approval by the Governor.
I n a d d i t i o n , it is recommended t h a t such memorandum include a d e f i n i t i o n of a
" public o f f i c e r l l e l i g i b l e t o receive per diem subsistence and reimbursement of
t r a v e l expenses. Included would be the Tomaris v. S t a t e c r i t e r i a for a public
o f f i c e r of:
1. The s p e c i f i c p o s i t i o n must be created by law.
2. There must be c e r t a i n d e f i n i t e d u t i e s imposed by law on the
incumbent.
3. The d u t i e s must involve some portion of the sovereign power.
TO: Mr. Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
DATE: May 3, 1979
FROM : G1 ori a He1 1 er
SUBJECT: Response to Draft Report of Performance Audit of the Governor's
Advisory Council on Aging.
This is a response t o the draft reDort of " A Performance Audit
of the Governor's Advisory Council on Aging", as required by
the sunset review process.
The Council believes that the format of the draft report creates
some confusion. There are, in fact, ti~ o separate areas properly
included b u t not clearly identified as separate. The Governor's
Advisory Council on Aging has no control over, nor responsibility
for, the internal administrative functions of the Department of
Economic Szcurity. We, of course, recognize that there is a Con-nection
between the two, b u t in i t s presenE format, the two areas
are confused. We request that the final report consist of one
document containing two parts. Part I should consist of the ma-terial
concerning the Coiinci 1 , that i s , Findings I and I V Y and
that Part 2, clearly identified as such, should consist of iind-ings
I1 and 111, which are concerned with the functions of 3ES
and i t s subdivision, the Bureau on Aging, reconstituted as the
Aging & Adult Administration. *
The C~ uncil is i? total agreement with the analysis of the history
of and recommendations for changes as they appear in the draft re-port
( Finding I ) . I t is heartening to have recognition of the ac-complishments
of the Council in spite of the difficulties under
which i t has functioned in the past. We are very pleased t o re-port
that recent actions by the Executive Branch have begun the
process of dealing with the problems of the past. ( These changes
have been noted on specific pages.)
* * The Council believes that Finding 1V receives undue emphasis and
importance in the draft re? ort. Given the f a c t t h a t regulations
relating to the implemenxation of the amendments of the Older
Americans Act have yet to be issued, the qualifications for member-ship
on the Council may properly be continued in their present
* T3e report has been mended i n accordance with the Council's response. ** Ending IV has been ~ snunibered Finding 11.
Mr. Douglas R. Norton Page 2 May 3, 1979
form. The question of compliance with Federal requirements
will be relevant when the new regulations are issued.
The following is a 1 i s t of specific responses t o the draft
report and will be identified by page and paragraph numbers:
Page 8 - Last Line: The quotation " Serve as a political
force in lobbying for appropriate 1 egi sl ation supported
and/ or proposed by DES", is correctly quoted from the
manual for members of the Council. Tne Council goes on
record as wanting a change to read as follows: " Serve
as a political force in lobbying for appropriate legis-lation
for the elderly."
Page 10 - Paragraph 2: The sentence, " Liaisons to and
from selected senior citizen organizations have been
identified and council meeting dates and times are co-ordinated
with a regular meeting of representatives from
senior citizen groups, informally called the " Aging Net-work",
does not identify the Aging Network membership
accurately. They are representatives of service pro-viders,
not senior citizen groups.
Page 18 - Paragraph 3: The appointment of Gloria Weller
as Executive Director on March 12, 1373, establishes
direct reporting to the Governor and the mechznism for
submitting ntl'nutes of Counci 1 meetings to the Govert2or.
Page 19 - Paragraph I : The council emphasizes inadequate
staff support in the past. Since the appointment of the
Executive Director on March 12, 1979, an additional full-
" Lime appointment has been made of Mrs. Dorothy Fowler, as
secretary to the Counci 1 , effective Apri 1 23, 1979.
Page 21 - Paragraph 6: On April 2 , 1973, a permanent
Inter- Agency Committee t o coordinate programs for the
aging was established by Governor Babbitt. The Commit-tee
consists of senior staff persons from the Department
of Economic Securi ty , the ilepartment of Health Services,
and the Department of Transportation, with the Executive
Director of the Governor's Advisory Council on Aging as
the chairperson. Monthly neeti ngs have a1 ready been
scheduled and progress reports will be submitted regu-larly
to the Governor and the Counci 1.
Appendix TI - I t should be fioted that members of the
Council do hold membership i n the following national
Mr. Douglas R. Norton Page 3 May 3, 1979
organizations :
National Indian Counci 1 on Aging
Gerontological Society
National Counci 1 for Senior Citizens
American Association of Reti red Persons
We call attention to the citing of the name " The Governor's
Council on Children, Youth and Family". I t appears in two
different forms in the draft report and should, of course,
always appear in i t s correct form.
Pub1 ic posting of any regular, special or rescheduled reg-ular
meeting shall be accomplished as stated i n the Arizona
Department of Economi c Securi ty Executi ve Di recti ve P34.
NTERO C E ARIZONA O~ PARIMENT OF ECQNOMIC SECURITY
TO: Douglas R. Nort. on
Audi tor General
6
FROM: Grants Administration Manager
Aging & Adul t Admi ni s t r a t i on
DATE. May 4, 1979
REFERENCE:
SUBJECT: Response to Performance Audit of the Governor's Advisory Council on Aging
Conducted by the Auditor General, State of Arizona
A& AA Response t o Finding I:
The A& AA i s in total agreement with Finding I . Until recently, the Arizona
Advisory Council on Aging has been adversely impacted by the unstable organi-zation
and inconsistent leadership provided to i t by the designated state
agency responsible for adrni ni steri ng the Older Americans Act i n Arizona.
Since the completion of this audit, a significant event has taken place which
clearly establishes the purpose and independence of the Council: The Council
has a full- time Executive Di rector who works with the DES Director, and reports
directly to the Governor.
ASAA Response to Finding I1 : *
The DES has established necessary and sufficient controls to insure that
illegal contracts, such as the one identified in this audit finding, will
not be issued. Only the Director, Deputy Director, and Assistant Directors
have the authority to authorize the entering into of such contracts.
A& AA Response to Fi ndi ng I I I : **
The A& AA disagrees with this finding for the following reasons:
( 1 ) The Indian Advisory Council on Aging was never an official state advisory
council. I t was an advisory council in name only for the purposes of
assisting the Bureau on Aging ( presently the Aging & Adui t Administration)
i n planning and coordinating services for elderly Indian individuals, as
we1 1 as t o estabi ish equi tab1 e a1 location formulas for Indian reservations;
and,
( 2 ) Under the provisions of the Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended, and
the regulations and policies promulgated therein, i t is both a comon
practice and allowable cost to reimburse travel and per diem expenses
incurred by individuals and agencies who have come together to assist
in the planning process for Older Americans Act programs at the request
of the designated state agency on aging, the local Area Agencies on
Aging, and local service delivery providers.
* Finding II has been renumbered Finding 111.
*# Finding I11 has been renumbered Finding IV.
Douglas R. Norton May 4, 1979
A& AA Response to Finding I- V: *
The A& AA is in agreement with your recommendati on: When the regulations
related to the 1978 Amendments to the Older Americans Act are promulgated
and finalized, we will be in a position t o determine if ARS Section 46- 183- 8
will have to be amended to agree with the federal regulations.
Until such time, i t is a moot issue in that the 7978 Amendments t o the Old2r
Americans Act were signed into law by President Carter on October 18, 1978.
The signing of this document into law immediately created significant con-f
l i c t s between the existing regulations and the new law. To operate under
the existing regulations with regard t o this issue would he less than
appropriate in terms o f sound management practices at this time.
* Finding IV has been renunbered Finding 11.
APPENDIX I
ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES
SECTIONS 46- 183 AND
46- 184 AND FEDERAL
REGULATION 132 1.50 ( c)
5 46483. Advisory council on aging; rnernbart; appcintrnrat; terms; com-pensation;
officers
A. There shall . be an advisory council on aging.
6. The advisory council on aging shall be composed of fifteen members
appointed by the director, subject to the approral of the governor. At least
eight of the members shall be consumers or potential consumers of 8enices
provided under the Older - 4mericans Act of 1C65, as amended. 1 Members
appointed to the council shall hare a knowledge of, and an established basic
interest in, the problems affecting older citizens and members shall be se-lected
with due regard to geographic and other elements of representation h
order that as many divergent views as possible can be represented.
C. Each member of the council shall be appointed for a term of three
years. Of those persons first appointed, ffve shall be appointed for a term
of one year, five shall be appointed for a term of two years, and five shall
be appointed for a full term of three years. Vacancies occurring other than
by expiration of term shall be filled in the same manner for the balance of
the unexpired term.
D. A chairman, rice chairman and secretarf shall be designated each
calendar year from the council membership by the director, ~ i t hth e a p
proval of the governor. An executive secretary to serve the council shall be
designated from among the staff of the department of economic SC? Curit~.
The department shall provide necessary staff services to the advisory coun-cil
on aging. Added Laws 1972, Ch. 142, s 68.
1 42 U. S. C. A. 9 3001 et seq.
Terminatlon
The a d v i ~ w uco uncil on aging shall terminate on July 1, 1980, un-less
continued. See $ 3 .# l- 2261 and $ 1- 2263.
For effective date of Laws 1971, Ch. agencies and with State and local pm-
LC?, see note following section 41- 1951. fessional associations and societles for
Executive Order So. 77- 4 dated and the aged and aging;
effective May 11. 1977, provides: " SOW. THI4: REFORE. I. IUUL H.
" WHEREAS, under the provisions of CASTRO. GOVERSOR. of the State of
A. X. 9. 46- 183. there has been estab- Arizona, by virtue of the authority vest-lished
an Advisory Council on Aging. ed In me by the Constitution and by the
whose duties are to advise the Depart- Statutes of this State, do hereby recog-ment
of Economic Security on all mat- nize the Arizona ;\ dvisory Councll on
ters or problems wlth respect to the Ad- Aging to be an advisory council to the
ministration of the State plan on Aging: Governor in addltion to the coundl's
" WHEREAS. it is desirable for the other duties and order and direct:
Governor to have a Councll who a. ill ad- " 1. The Council to work wlth the
vise hlm on all existing or proposed pro- Governor In encouraging effective par-grams
and practices in the governmen- ticipation by older persons in the devel-tal
and private sectors that significantly opment and implementation of posltive
affect older citizens, and who will stim- refkement and preretirement programs.
ukte more effective use of existing re- 2. Coooerate. consult and work
sources and available services for the closely wlth the overn no; in planning
aged and aging. including coordination for Arizona's future to include the needs
of the activities of other State depart- and capabllltles of older persons.
ments, and the collaboration with such " 3. This qfder shall become effective
departments, agencies or commissions. immediately.
with county officials and voluntary
O 46- 184.. Advisory councll duties
A. The advisory council shall adsise the department on all matters or
problems with respect to the administration of the state plan on aging. In
performing this function, the council shall not be limited to provisions of the
Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended. 1
6. The council shall convene in formal meeting at the call of the chair-man,
but in no case less than two times each fiscal year. h quorum shall
consist of no less than nine members present. Recommendations to the d e
Partment by the council shall be represented by a simple majorlty rote of
members present of a quorum in formal meeting. llinorlty opinions with re-spect
to any council recommendation may be formally submitted in writing
to the department through the chairman of the council. Added Laws 1972.
Ch, 142.3 88.
1 43 C. S. C. A. f 3001 et s e ~ .
For effective date of Laws 1972. Ch.
142. see note following section 41- 1951.
Terminatlon
The adt3irlory council on aging shall terminate on dldly 1, 1980, un-lea8
continued. See 3) 41- 2261 and 41- 2263.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
and programs reiated to the purpmes of
the Act. To L! s end. the S h t e agency
seek to develop kid mantain e! Iec-tive
a'orking : elat. iorships '; c?! h those
public and private agencies having ? ro-grams
n b c h aEect the slderly, inc: udir, g
the folloxing activit! es:
( 1) D~ ssem: nahon of l n f ~ r ~ a t l oonn
the needs of the elderly;
( 2) Join: fy. d; ng and programming to
achleve tihe oojectives establtshed in the
State p! an to the r n & ~ - ~ u renx tent
feasible;
( 3 ) Deve! oprnent of interagency ac-tiors
concemng S t a k and u e a p! 3z
and objectives, and assessment of prog-ress
and problerrs ! n i m p l e ~ e n t a b o n of
the plans: and
( 4 ) RepofLlng of actib- lUes on Ming
under t b program throughout the
St3te:
( 5 ) The State plan shall protlde for
the fumshing of tec, i. alcal assistance to
public and prlvate agencies and organi-zaCons
engaged ! n activltles relahng to
the needs of older persons.
- ( c) The State plan shall provide L9at
the S h t e agency shall enter ! nto ag- ce-ments
~ t nhppro pnate Stak Or, nr.: i!
such time as area p13x are subrn! tkd
and approved. ! ocal subllc or pnvate
agencies and srgan! zatlons. ! or joint uti-
!: zatior, of their se. nices and faciiities in
the adrn: r, istration of t3e plan m d : n
the development of ", ograms and act! v-itles
for carrying out the purposes c! the
.4ct.
( 1) ??. le State plan shall arovide that
the State agency xi11 carry cut those
progrzms an<; activities designed to br: ng
sbout maximum possible coord! nat: on
between the resources avaAabie under
titles I. X and XTV, or old title XV?. or
titles 2nd S X of the Social Secu-nts'
Act. as appropriate and the 3pera-tion
of tne 2roarams under t h b ~ z r t
The State pian shall oescnbe the activl-t:
es to be undertaken by the State agen-cy
to accomplish such coordlr. a:! on.
( 2 ) The State plan shall provide that
?, he State ageccy, in conjunction with
the designated area agencies. snail tare
the ! nlt; atlre ' a endt? a'; ormg to 3 o r r o ~ t
krrangemenk whereby recipients of
grants or contracts for nc: r: tion pro.!-
pcts w d e r 5 : 314 of ' d1s subchapter, mu-tually
zgree x! th area a$ enc: es. tnat
sucr, nutr: t: on projects shzll Se nnde
part of the cornprehens! vt and ccordl-na:&
qervice syste. n for older persor. 2
under title 111.
5 132 1 .. 50 Administration.
-( a1 Tratnlng or. d monpoger d ~ c e i -
opment -( 1 I The State ; IJA snal! con-tain
3 tra: n~ cg and manpower de: e! op-mezt
plan ahich shall prov;: de ! or Lie
mitia:! on of a Frogran designed to
achieve ! he object:\ e of a t r a ~ l i n q2 nd
staf: de7ie! ozrr, ent grogran concErr. inq
: he . m?! e~, rntz:, on ol '. he Act, : ir all
prcfe.% lcna: stay of State 3nd xrea 16- n-c:
es and prnc: pal sta5 of ail ser'me pro-g
r m s ,?.:; a: rd Lncer lnis part. Aii PX-per.
d.: ures 11 Federa! resources under
( 2) ?" he State plan shall provide that
perscnnel work! ng on Older Ainericans
Acc progra. ns at : he State and area !: vels
will attend such tralnlng programs that
are spec:~ cally developec! ! or such Indf-viduas
by the A i m n ~ t r a t l o no n ; ig'ng.
in corsultatlon mith the State agencies,
at designated tn! nlng centers, and that
m ~ ! 1ti tle In awards, the State agency
will sssure that adequate funds are budg-e:
cd to pay the travel. per- diem ard tul-
Lon zests of such ! ndlviduais to a: tesd
su- ch- t r a h l n n -
( b) P a r t ~ c ~ p a t ~ co; f ? O lder Amer: cans
tn : m~ lzmeniot: on of the State plan -
The State plan zhall provide chat pro-cedares
w! 1 Se developed by the State
agency that will assure effective partlcl-patlon
of actual or pz~ tential consumers
of servlces under this program In the m-alementation
o! ! he State plan at the
State and iocal levels These procedures
s h d l prov: de for per: odlc public hear-ings
on concerns of the ~ lderlj. , n the
State with adequate publlc notice for
such hearings.
( c) Advrsory commlttte.-- The State
plan shs! l 2rov: de for ! he estaS-gi
L? a d v ~ o r vc cmmittee to ! h ~ CLQ S.-
e n o r . the State aser: cv. and the s: n~ le
oramizational ur. it on the !- ulementa-tfon
of the State plan. At, : e~^ sot ne- half
of tne merr, Strship of the comn; lttee
i5ZITFonslst of ?- c: usl c~ nsurnerso f s e n -
- ices unc er this program, inc! udlnz : our. income, and m: cor: t; i older rje- sons. 3t
lezst- in--~ roportion to the number of
mmority older cersons in the State. '+ iU
the remaincer oelna broadly r e 3 r P c u -
tive of the ino~ or ~ u t l i c and nrivate
agencies 3~ ld orzanizatlon in the State
who are exper~ enced in or have demon-strated
particdar inrerest : n the specla1
needs of : he eider!^. This comm! ttee
shn! l meet > referably bl- mozthiy,. but at
least quarttrlv
d ? no1: cd 1i2forrnatlon.-( 1) The
State plan shall provide for a contizulng
p r o v a n of public mformat: on specif!-
caily riesimed to assure that ulformation
about t?. e progrm- s and actlvltles car-rled
out under tnls p a r t a r e eflectivelg
and apprspr: aie! y promulgated througn-out
the Sta%.
( 21 The State plan shall provide that
the Skice lgency wzll ? un* Le 3 policy of
freedom of ~ niorrnacaon and that the
State plan, approved titie 111 program
appiications, aU perioo; c reporb made
by the State agency to the Cornrri~ ss: oner
in accordance %; th paragraph ig) of this
section. and all Federal and sfate poll-cles
governing the admxmtration of the
titie EI prop- n : n 9le % Ate % ill be
a. iallable a t reasor, aolc times znd ?! aces
L? the oSces of @, e Stzte agency for re-view
upon request kg interested persons
hcluding representatives o! Qie n e d ~ a .
ie) Reclew and cornme- t on appllca-t:
ons-- The State gian snag provide
: haL the Sta: e agency ~ t l ire vie7 and
c o . n ~ e n to n, at Lie r e ~ u e s to f any ? ed-erz!
departrrient or azency. any ~ pplica-section
2Cl a I : 01 : he Act for tra, n~ yg t; on ! r3m any aqenc:; or 0rgaIilZa: lOn
s n ~ 3le cons. s: ent TI:?, : nis prograrr,. 7 1 t h ~ su~ ch S: ak : o such Federal de-r;
ar,,? ler. t or agency lor assistance re-
! at* s. g to meet+>.& the needs oi older ; er-
SOPS.
: f ) Fisccl cdm~ nis! rction.- The State
olan shall provide for such accou; lt: nc:
s:* stems and procedures ss are seeded to
control and support a!! Ascnl ac~ iv! ties
under title iiI LI accordance ' v: th tide-lines
! sued by the .% dr?.: nistrat. on On
Aging The S t a t e pian shzil proviae for
the maintenance by the S t l t e agency
and ail rec: plenLs of au. 3r. l~ under tht. 5
pzrt, ol such accowts and supsorting
docurnens as wi; l s e n e to 9erm. t an ac-c
u r 3 ~ an d e. u? edit; ocs detem.! nat; on
to be made at a2y t ~ i oei t4, e sta:'& cf
the Feieral grants, inc1ud: ng tke cS-position
of all . mor. ies recei\ ed and : he
r. ature and ap. our, t of a!! charges
claimed to lie aqc- nst t2e 3lioVnents to
the States
( g) Reaorts- The State plan skail
provide that the State agency ' x:!: mnae'
snch reports to the Comr:: ss. cr. er ! n
sucn form and contai.? tr. g sucr, ! r.! orma-tion
as may reasonably se necessary to
ecable hi.= to perform his fur. cti0r. s un-der
t; tie 111 of the Act, and a: ll keep
sucn records and a5ord s ~ c h 3Cces. S
thereto as the C~ mmlssioner may find
necesnry io assure : S. e correctness cad
verUcation of such re9orts.
5 132 1.5 1 El nluntlon.
( a! The St. a: e plan sha! l provide thai
the State n g e ~ c y wdl CCE~ UL-: or. gomg
m0nitor: r. g. assessmen:, anc perlocic
evaiiiation ( mcludlng the c2ijtur: r. g and
recoraing of : nfornt2t, on reia: i7; e Lo
chznges in sub11c 2nd 2r: vate o~ xanizz-
Lions A? the Seld of ag: r, g ana cnar, ges
In the iises of oiaer -, erscr. s . of act.;. i-ties
and projects carried out under the
State plan, in accordnr. ce ~ : t hcr . ter: a
estaol! shed by ~ c eCo n: rn~+ s:,;', er T?. e
ope~ xt! or. s ol L! e area egsncy or. agng,
and the total p: og- rla ~ i eacn s! an:! ag
and serilce area for nhrch zn area ~ i a n
3 developed. and each :: t: e III pro: ect
outside such areas, shail be r-; 3ioated 7n-sire
by the State sgency at ! ex: -, nnual! y
> nor to h; e f~ nd> uiagr , nivers? ry s! the
3rogra~ m. s The reslLt. 3 31 these e7: a: da-tlors
shall bc in wr~ tizg. znd shai! be
scbrnitted to the Ccx: mm: or, er
3) T3e St?- te plan ikail p: sv: de that
the State ngpncy wril e7, a: uatf on ail sn-go1r.
g basis : he extent - XI wP.~ ch ex: sc! ng
pubiic and prlvate program L. fhe State
. meet the needs of older persons, esFe-clnlly
thcsc older 2erscr. s nho rtlll be
given pr: ority ! A the mpiemen% t. sn of
the programs under this part. As paZ of
this ; espons: bii: tj. the S: are agezcj. sh; il
undertake an analysu of t.-. c : er.: ces
and resotiices avalla3. e : cr ser; u'. g x d 2 i
perscx : n tr. e Sta: e. The cata res;! t: r, 7
Irom t h s a n s l j s u jha. 1 oe ~!> ds~ x3d6
least on an annual oasis 2nd shnil be
sirbmitted to ',? e Ccrrmissiozer
i c ~ T he State 5ian sP. a. 1 7rrjv. de ' hat
the State agenc:; and ail rec: 2! ents of
awards under t h s p l r t viil cogcerate ~ n
? he carr'jing 31it J[ e,, all: ar. o~ s of ' fie
title Lli program by ;,; c . ic, nin: strat~ on
on Ag: r, g or thcse orgar. zat. ors ha: nii?
FE3ZSAL REGISTEX, ' f3L. 42, NO 22& TUESDAY, NCVZM88R 15, 1977
- - 7
APPENDIX I1
SENIOR CITIZEN GROUP REPRESENTATION* ON THE
ARIZONA ADVISORY COUNCIL AGING
Senior Citizen Croups
Represented on the
Advisory Council on
Aging**
- Yes - N 0
National Organizations
Federal Council on Aging ( FCOA) X** Y
National Retired Teachers Association ( NRTA) X
American Association of Retired Persons ( AARP) X
National Association of Retired Federal Employees ( NARFE)
National Council for Senior Citizens ( NCSC) X
National Indian Council on Aging ( NICA)
Gray Panthers
National Association of State Units on Aging ( NASUA)
National Association of Area Agencies on Aging ( N4A)
Gerontological Society X
Mayorsf Task Force on Aging
National Conference on the Black Aged
Urban Elderly Coalition
State Organizations
Arizona Council for Senior Citizens
Arizona Retired Teachers Association ( ARTA)
Arizona Association of Retired Persons ( AARP)
Joint State Legislative Committee ( ARTA and AARP)
State Chapter, National Association of Retired Federal
Employees
Arizona Indian Council on Aging
Arizona Association of Area Agencies on Aging ( A4A)
Arizona Nurses Association, Division of Gerontological
Nursing
Arizona Community Action Association, ACAA Committee
on Aging
Senior Adult Education Committee of Arizona, Arizona
Community College System
Regional Organizations
Advisory Councils to Area Agencies X
Regional Joint State Legislative Committees
( ARTA and AARP) X
State Universities, Multi- Disciplinary Gerontological
Committees X
* Representation means a member of these groups is also a member of the
Council. O f f i c i a l o r elected representation is not necessarily implied. ** Based on Council membership as of 12/ 31/ 78 *** Ex- officio member Chairman Emeritus
Senior Citizen Groups
Represented on the
Advisory Council on
Aging
- Yes - No
County Organizations
County Advisory Councils and Project Councils on
Older Americans Act Services
County Councils for Senior Citizens
County Arizona Retired Teachers Associations
National Council for Senior Citizen a f f i l i a t e s
Gray Panther Groups
Tribal Councils ( Aging Committees or Groups)
Community Councils and Committees on Aging
( United Way and Others)
City/ Community Organizations
Project, Program and Nutrition S i t e Councils for
Older Americans Act Services
Individual chapters of:
Arizona. Association of Retired Persons
National Association of Retired Federal Employees
Arizona Retired Teachers Association
APPENDIX I11
COMPARISON OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS ESTABLISHING
THE ARIZONA ADVISORY COUNCIL ON AGING, THE
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES PLANNING AND ADVOCACY
COUNCIL, AND THE GOVERNOR'S COUNCIL ON CHILDREN,
YOUTH AND FAMILIES
Developmental Governor's Arizona
D i s a b i l i t i e s ( DD) Council on Advisory
Planning and Children, Council on
Advocacy Youth and Aging
Council Families
Executive Order Executive Order Executive Order
78- 4 78- 2 77- 4
1. Assist and advise 1. Assist and advise 1. Advise Governor on
Governor i n a l l matters Governor i n a l l matters a l l e x i s t i n g o r proposed
r e l a t i n g t o plans and r e l a t i n g to services to programs s i g n i f i c a n t l y
services for develop- children and t h e i r affecting older persons
mentally disabled families
c i t i z e n s
2. Develop and maintain 2. Develop and maintain
information regarding information regarding
the need for develop- need for services to
mental d i s a b i l i t y children and t h e i r
services families
3. Establish short and 3. Establish short and 2. Coordinate, consult and
long- term goals for long- term plans and goals work closely with Governor
meeting the service for meeting the need for i n planning Arizona's future
needs of the develop- services to children and to include needs and capabil-mentally
disabled t h e i r families i t i e s of older persons
4. Advise departments,
agencies, i n s t i t u t i o n s
of the s t a t e on program-matic
needs and coor-dination
of program
a c t i v i t i e s and t o
perform subsequent
follow- up t o establish
the manner i n which
recommendations have
been acted upon
4. Advise departments, 3. Stimulate more e f f e c t i v e
agencies and i n s t i t u t i o n s use of existing resources
of the s t a t e on program- and available services for
matic needs and coordi- the aged and aging including
nation of program coordination of a c t i v i t i e s
a c t i v i t i e s of other departments and
collaboration with agencies,
commissions, county o f f i c i a l s ,
voluntary agencies, profes-sional
associations and
s o c i e t i e s f o r the aged
5. Recommend Develop- 5. Recommend p r i o r i t i e s 4. See 2. above
mental Disability prior- for child and family
ities t o Governor and services to Governor and
other s t a t e departments DES
6. Organize community 6. Organize community
e f f o r t s on state- wide e f f o r t s on state- wide
level around major level around major
developmental d i s a b i l i t y child and family
issues issues
* Identified as function of Advisory Council on Aging i n its members1 handbook.
Developmental
D i s a b i l i t i e s ( DD)
Planning and
Advocacy
Council
Executive Order
7 8- 4
Governor's Arizona
Council on Advisory
Children, Council on
Youth and Aging
Families
Executive Order Executive Order
78- 2 77- 4
7. F a c i l i t a t e establish- 7. F a c i l i t a t e establish-ment
of local advisory ment of local advisory
committees for Develop- councils for child and
I) mental Disability i n family services i n areas
areas or d i s t r i c t s where or d i s t r i c t s where
requested requested
8. Make available 8. Make available
timely information t o timely information t o
rn all local advisory a l l local advisory
committees to allow councils to allow
them t o take advantage such councils to take
of appropriate services, advantage of appropriate
funding and public services, funding and
meetings public meetings
D
9. Actively f a c i l i t a t e 9. F a c i l i t a t e the 5. From 3. above, coordination
coordination of federal, coordination of federal, of a c t i v i t i e s of other depart-s
t a t e and local programs s t a t e and local policies ments and collaboration with
and policies concerning and programs concerning agencies, commissions, county
services t o the develop- services to children o f f i c i a l s , voluntary agencies,
mentally disabled and t h e i r families professional associations and
s o c i e t i e s for the aged
10. Serve as an informa- 10. Serve as an informa-t
i o n point i n f a c i l i t a t - tion point for children
ing the developmentally and t h e i r families to
disabled i n obtaining a s s i s t them i n obtaining
needed services provided needed services provided
i n s t a t e by t h i s s t a t e
11. Prepare and submit 11. Prepare and submit
D a report each January a report each January
t o the Governor on t o the Governor and DES
a c t i v i t i e s of Council on a c t i v i t i e s of Council
12. Direct development
of the approved s t a t e
13. Monitor and evaluate
implementation of s t a t e
plan
6. Advise DES on a l l matters
or problems with respect t o
administration of the s t a t e
plan on aging
7. See 6. above
* Identified as function of Advisory Council on Aging i n its members' handbook.
** Required i n Section 133 of PL 94- 103.
Developmental
D i s a b i l i t i e s ( DD)
Planning and
Advocacy
Council
Executive Order
78- 4
14, Submit revision of
s t a t e plan, through the
Governor, t o the Secretary
of State
15. To the extent feasible,
review and comment on
a l l s t a t e plans i n
Arizona which r e l a t e
I) t o programs affecting
persons with developmental
d i s a b i l i t i e s
Governor ' s
Council on
Children,
Youth and
Families
Executive Order
78- 2
Arizona
Advisory
Council on
Aging
Executive Order
77- 4
8. From 6. above, advise
DES on a l l matters or problems
with respect to administration
of the s t a t e plan on aging
9. Work with Governor i n
encouraging e f f e c t i v e
participation by older persons
i n developing and implementing
positive retirement and pre-retirement
programs
APPENDIX IV
Toward A
National Policy
On Aging
1971 WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON AGING
November 28 - Decetn ber 2
W; lshington, D. C
Volume I1
Conference Findings
and Recommendations
from the Sections and
Special Concerns Sessions
SECTION ON
GOVERNMENT AND NONGOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATION
INTRODUCTION
total of 221 Delegates was named ro
the Section on Government and Non-government
Organization. Information
available from their nomination forms
indicate that some 21 percent were retired, and
11 percent were members of one of the minoriry
groups.
The majority of Delegates represented orga-nizations
whose activities involve the aging di-rectly,
if not exciusively. Governmental units on
aging at the State and local levels were heavily
represented, as were higher level dpartments,
chief executive officers, and legislative bodies with
broad responsibilities for local and State programs
in aging. Other prominent participants in the
Section's work included leaders of national, State,
and community voluntary organizations, many of
them from aged membership groups. Serving
also as Delegates were business and labor officials,
educators, lawyers, and physicians.
In formulating a total of 12 policy recom-mendations,
the Delegates to the Section on Gov-ernment
and Nongovernmenr Organization were
oguided by the preferences expressed by State and
local White House Conferences on Aging, and
by the earlier Older American Forms. Discussion
centered on the paramount problems of develop-ing
and sustaining strong and effective organza-tion
for and by the aglng. Lacking this support
strucrure, policies to meet the needs of rhe Na-tion's
older people have little chance of adoption,
much less implementation. The following set of
recommendations are directed towzrd building the
organizational base for action, now and over the
coming decade.
SECTION REPORT
Co- chairman Timothy W. Costello opened the
Section meeting. He introduced the 06cials of
the Section and invited Co- chairman Fred W. Cot-rrell
to provide the Section Delegates with back-ground
and orientation for their work of the
ensuing three days.
In this Section we concentrate on means by
which older people can secure what they need.
We particularly deal with the kinds of organiza-tion
that are required, as contrasted with such
things as changes in the values of individual
older people. At times it seems as if we are faced
with the same dilemma that confronted a moun-taineer
who was asked the way to a place on a
neighboring mounrain; after several false starts
at giving the information, he finally said, " Mister,
you can't get there from here."
The multiplicity of organizations, the differ-ences
between the constituences they were set up
to serve, the differences in priority among values
assigned by different sets of clients, the relative
power older people have in determining what will
be done in different parts of government, and in
dlfferent nongovernmental agencies, make a
single rational or logical plan seem unattainable.
Perhaps the best we can do is to arrange things
so that more of the things that older people want
can be secured in an order that reflects their own
priorities than has been possible in the past.
The effort to do this required that we find out
something about their needs and their priorities,
and the way existing organizations work. As a
writer of the workbook used in this Section, I
had to sample what was going on in all the
States, at the national level, in county and local
governments, and among at least the leading
nongovernmental organizations. I was helped by
the fact that since the 176 1 Conference we have,
through research and demonstration, been learn-ing
more and more about the programs and there
are now many more knowledgeable people than
in any previous rimes. Later, as Chairman of the
Technical Committee, I was also made aware of
the fact that both older people and experts are
far from being in agreement as to what is wanted,
what is being done, how well it is being done, and
what changes in organization should be made. It
is no wonder then that you may find it hard to
discover clear lines to be recommended on the
basis of adequate evidence that one rather than
another cause will serve all older people better.
D In preparing for the Conference, we were tty-ing
to cite for you the evidence that led one
group to support one kind of organization and
that which would cause another to take a different
track. We wanted to focus your attention on a
limited number of issues so that we would be
B able to get some action, rather than make so many
statements that nobody who was trying to help
older people could find out what they most
wanted. Because we limited the topics we pre-sented
to you, some people suspected that by
D pointing to these proposals we were also trying
to prevent discussion of, or resolutions on, a num-ber
of other topics of greater interest to them.
This is not so. In the subsections it will be possible
for any of you to propose new topics. Dr. Cos-tello
has discussed the rules under which we will
operate. I am sure you will agree that they give
ample opportunity to anyone who wishes to pro-pose
new policies, and if supported in your sub-section
and at Section levels, these will go into
the Section report.
The most important thing to remember is that
if too many of our proposals conflict with one
another, or are contradictory to those which will
be coming out of other Sections, we are not likely
to be persuasive. What we must do is try to find
the greatest common ground on which we can all
stand. This may mean that a position held to be
of very great significance by a particular minority
will not be supported by enough roles to get into
the Section report. Those who lose on this issue
can take satisfaction in the gains they make on
others.
Organization is a difficult subject to deal with.
Those who think of it in terms of structure put
great emphasis on locating an agency that deals
with their concerns high up in the hierarchy of
authority. Another point of view holds that it is
political " clout" that gives power to any agency.
So if somebody in office doesn't have a strong
political support in our sociery at large he can't
get much done, no matter where he is located
on a chart, or what title he is given. Some of the
matters you will have to decide on relate to these
two somewhat different ideas about what makes
an organization work.
Most of the organizations that deal with the
problems of older people were developed to deal
with problems that the aging share with other
age groups. So, for example. health organizations
are built up around the means to prevent or cure
disease. Similarly, much public housing was
developed for low income people, without refer-ence
to whether they are young or old. Organi-zations
were not created so that one agency would
deal with the health of older people, housing
for older people, transportation for older people,
and all other concerns of older people. The struc-ture
of government in Washington became what
it is under the influence of these " functional"
organizations. Here we must decide whether to
devise means to increase emphasis on the needs
of older people in each of these organizations,
or try to create a special structure to coordinate
work for the aging independently of the existing
departments, divisions or offices.
While we are doing this in our Section, it
will undoubtedly be true that other Sections of
the Conference, dealing with substantive needs,
will also be recommending changes that they
think represent the best ways to solve the prob-lems
they are dealing with. So if you decide
on one approach, you are likely to be supported
by those who want " functional" autonomy, and
will be opposed by these groups if you try to
control all services for the aging in a single de-partment.
The conflict will show up not only in
the reports of the White House Conference, but
also at hearings before the Congress and in State
and local government. These are the kinds of
considerations we were trying to get you to think
about.
In the first White House Conference we were
divided over the degree to which older people
should demand that there should be a strong advo-cate
of their interests within government itself.
Everything that I learned from studies for the
workbook, from reactions of the Technical Com-mittees
and from Community and State Confer-ences,
supported almost unanimously the idea
that the time has come for Government to sup-ply
leadership and advocacy of the interests of
the aging. This is a position you may wish to sup-port
or to question. But the decision as to how
strongly government is to advocate the elderly's
concerns will have a bearing on all of the subse-
B
quent decisions that y