govt 2306 texas bureaucracy. in a previous section we looked at the bureaucracy and discussed its...

GOVT 2306

Texas Bureaucracy

In a previous section we looked at the bureaucracy and discussed its

relationship with the elected portions of the executive branch.

While the bureaucracy exists in the executive branch, it occupies a unique position within it, one

removed from the direct control of the upper, elected, levels.

This has lead some to argue that it constitutes a distinct,

fourth branch of government.

In this section we look at the actual bureaucracy in the state of Texas

and some of the specific controversies associated with it.

Recall that a large number of bureaucratic agencies – though not

all of them by any measure – are established in the Texas

Constitution. No executive agencies are established in the US

Constitution.

For supplemental reading:

Texas Politics: Bureaucracy

(I’ll pull some additional reading from that source here and there)

A reminder, the bureaucracy is composed of the individuals and institutions that

actually implement the laws.

They are the face of government – they are the people you are most likely to

interact with on a daily basis, the one’s who implement the policies established by

the legislative branch, as clarified by the members of the upper levels of the

executive branch.

People like me.

The entire public education system in Texas from Pre-K to Graduate

School is a great example of one of the largest bureaucratic entities in

the state.

We’ll be looking at it in an upcoming section.

The Texas bureaucracy is composed of people who perform a large variety of functions. Some of these involve providing certain services and products that might not otherwise be provided for by

the private sector.

It can also be composed of people and institutions that are intended to regulate certain aspects of the economy or individual behavior. This includes law enforcement.

The executive bureaucracy contains the largest number of people who work in the

government.

According to Texas Politics: as of 2002 about 1.16 million worked in the

bureaucracy in some executive branch on the national, state or local level.

Here’s the breakdown as of 2002:

165,000 Federal employees265,000 Texas employees

Nearly 1 million local employees

click here for some pretty slides with some content.

This doesn’t count the number of people who work part-time or who

work for private firms with government contracts.

From Texas Politics: “The annual payroll for state employees for

fiscal year 2003 was approximately $10.6 billion, out of total state expenditures of $60.27 billion,

making state payroll about 17.6 percent of total state spending.”

Texas has a lower state work force than most other states. “Data gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau show that Texas

ranked 44th among the fifty states in terms of numbers of full-time equivalent state employees as a percentage of the

total state population.” – TP

This makes sense given the state’s political culture.

For more detail on the structure, size and scope of the Texas

Bureaucracy, click here for that section in the Bureaucracy Chapter in Texas

Politics.

As is the case in all other states, more people work for the state and local bureaucracy than the national government. But it is

important to note that national laws tend to be enforced by

bureaucratic officials who reside in the state.

For background and additional data: US Census: Government Payroll

2010 Public Employment and Payroll Data State Governments TEXAS

To get an idea of the size and scope of the Texas Bureaucracy,

click on this link in the Texas State Directory:

Agencies, Boards and Commissions

Here’s a list of state agencies from Wikipedia.

Aside from increasing in size, the bureaucracy has also expended its

authority by acquiring quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial

functions.

This is a problem for those who believe the bureaucracy has grown

too powerful – both on the state and national level.

“Quasi – Legislative Functions” refer primarily to the ability of the bureaucracy to establish rules that

clarify how law is to be implemented.

Aside from the ability to implement the law, rulemaking grants the bureaucracy tremendous power, especially when the

legislature is somewhat vague in the legislation it passes. Sometime this is done purposefully so members of the legislature can avoid blame for any consequences of

bills that turnout to be unpopular.

“In many ways, Texans are ruled by rules. The legislature has endowed

169 Texas agencies with rulemaking authority. In 2001, agencies proposed or adopted 17,927 rules spanning 11,116

pages of the Texas Register.” – click here for the source.

An example of the rulemaking process in one Texas Agency:

- Rules and Rulemaking from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

(The TCEQ is one of the many agencies with boards the governor appoints)

The process is was established by the Texas Administrative Procedure Act (APA). See below for more detail:

Administrative Law Handbook - Texas Attorney General

Developments in the Law of Rulemaking - UTCLE

All records of state agency rulemaking is maintained in the

Texas Register, which is maintained by the

Texas Secretary of State.

Click here for past copies of the Texas Register.

“Quasi – Judicial Functions” refer to the ability of the bureaucracy to resolve disputes in a process that

resembles a judicial hearing.

Civil Service Protections

As also mentioned previously, those hired to work in the bureaucracy are given

protections from the political forces that tend to dominate those in higher office.

The hiring and firing of workers in the bureaucracy, in addition to their behavior, is supposed to be immune from political

pressure. The intent is to establish a bureaucracy that is neutral and

professional.

The requirement that the bureaucracy be neutral and professional stems from the

writings of Max Weber, a sociologist who studied, among others things, various ways that

governmental authority worked.

He analyzed three types, authority based on tradition, charisma and on a rational legal foundation.

The first two were based on, respectively, history and individual personality. In the

first, tasks and duties were not well defined, and not based on merit or

competence. In the second, authority was based on devotion to the individual.

In the rational – legal system, duties were well defined and

impersonal and the assignment of jobs was based on technical

competence.

Weber argued that societies with this type of authority worked best. This argument

helps explain the nature of the merit based system we have in the US.

The Texas Politics text argues that the rational-legal system has a

bureaucracy based on six principles:

1 - fixed division of labor, with specialization of workers

2 - positions organized into a chain of command, a hierarchy

3 - rules and regulations regarding work

4 - separation of personal and official property

5 - selection of personnel on the basis of technical qualifications

6 - employment that is career-oriented

The establishment of the civil service system on the national

level allowed for a competitive, non-partisan way for people to be

hired to bureaucratic positions primarily, but not exclusively in the

executive branch.

The governing system in Texas also designed to allow a degree of

insulation of the bureaucracy from political pressures.

The fact that many executive functions in the state are overseen by board and commissions

that are elected or appointed to six year terms is intended to insulate them from political

pressures, but this is not always successful.

When the governorship is held by one person or members of one party for long periods of time, it can allow for political control, but some argue

that this is what ought to happen in a democratic system.

This creates a huge issue.

Who ought the bureaucracy be accountable to? And how can that

accountability not be used to control the bureaucracy for

political purposes?

Types of accountability

ElectoralLegislative

Chief ExecutiveInterest Groups

A general note:

The decentralized nature of the bureaucracy means that no single

individual or entity has the power to influence all aspects of the

bureaucracy, or is responsible for what it does. Again, this is a consequence of

the plural executive.

Electoral accountability refers to the idea that the bureaucracy ought to be controlled by the

population, but there are questions about whether the

general population can effectively provide accountability over a large,

complex, relatively anonymous bureaucracy.

No lower lever bureaucrats are directly accountable to the

population, though upper level officials, as we know, can be

subject to elections – so they can be in theory.

Again, this is to reduce the possibility of corruption.

Legislative accountability exists in a variety of forms, but varies

depending upon whether the bureaucracy is affiliated with an agency that is established in the Constitution or by statutory law.

The legislative branch has control over the budget (the power of the

purse) and can audit legislative agencies. It also has oversight

authority over executive agencies and can use this power to develop legislation which can then be used

to change executive agencies.

Perhaps most importantly, the legislature has sunset review

authority which has been established in the

Sunset Advisory Commission.

Here’s the official description from the SAC’s website:

In 1977, the Texas Legislature created the Sunset Advisory Commission to identify and eliminate waste, duplication, and inefficiency in government agencies. The 12-member Commission is a legislative body that reviews the policies

and programs of more than 150 government agencies every 12 years. The Commission questions the need for

each agency, looks for potential duplication of other public services or programs, and considers new and innovative

changes to improve each agency's operations and activities. The Commission seeks public input through hearings on

every agency under Sunset review and recommends actions on each agency to the full Legislature. In most cases, agencies under Sunset review are automatically

abolished unless legislation is enacted to continue them.”

The process simply asks each agency to justify its existence.

The Sunset Review process was established – after the

Sharpstown Scandal – to institutionalize periodic oversight

of state agencies.

In the 2012-2013 cycle, the 83rd Legislature will review the

following agencies:

Architectural Examiners, Texas Board ofArts, Texas Commission on the

Correctional Managed Health Care CommitteeCriminal Justice, Texas Board and Department of

Education Agency, TexasEngineers, Texas Board of Professional

Ethics Commission, TexasFacilities Commission, Texas

Fire Fighters' Pension Commissioner, Office ofHigher Education Coordinating Board, Texas

Housing and Community Affairs, Texas Department of*Information Resources, Department of Judicial Conduct, State Commission on

Lottery Commission, TexasPardons and Paroles, Board ofPension Review Board, State

Port of Houston AuthorityPreservation Board, State

Procurement and Support Services Division of the Comptroller of Public Accounts* Public Utility Commission of Texas*

Railroad Commission of TexasSelf-Directed Semi-Independent Agency Project Act

State Employee Charitable Campaign Policy Committee Windham School District within Texas Department of Criminal Justice*

As mentioned before, accountability to the chief

executive (the governor) is limited in order to reduce the possibility

that bureaucratic powers are used for political ends.

The very concept of a plural executive limits the direct power of the governor and establishes a

degree of autonomy for each agency – at least in theory.

There have been attempts to increase the power of the

governor over time – including the expansion of the term of office

from 2 to 4 years and allowing the governor to appoint members to

newly created agencies.

The governor’s line item veto authority does allow the ability to

impact state agencies by cutting their budgets.

This also provides the governor leverage over the agency. They might

be more likely to bargain with the governor knowing he has this power.

The governor has no direct hiring power over lower level bureaucratic employees, so the governor only has

indirect control over the bureaucracy.

But the level of control can be considerable, the appointment power has increased the powers of the office.

It also creates opportunities for favors since appointments are

commonly influenced by political donations rather than expertise in

the field.

But the governor has far more direct power over agencies with board and commissions he can

appoint rather than those that are elected separately.

A large number of agencies, plus information about how to interact

with them, can be found at texas.gov.

It calls itself “The Official Website of the State of Texas.”

It also contains information about employment and jobs in state agencies

.

Why not allow the chief executive the ability to hire and fire civil

servants?

Here’s a fun little read: Where did civil service for

cops come from anyway, and why?

And more: The section in the Local Government Code that

attempts to “secure efficient fire and police departments composed of capable personnel who are free from political influence and who

have permanent employment tenure as public servants.”

While this is true for all executive agencies, it is especially vital for their to be no political influence

over the operations of law enforcement.

Problems with civil service protections on the local level: existing rules protect senior employees at the expense of

younger ones and termination can be very difficult.

Related story from The Daily News.

Is the bureaucracy most accountable to interest groups?

Do interest groups control the bureaucracy?

Bureaucratic agencies are generally tailored to the needs of a specific

interest, so its not unusual for interest groups (clientele groups) that benefit from the programs administered by

the group to be heavily involved in the political process in order to influence

how those programs are administered and who does the administering.

It is common for high level appointees to the bureaucracy to

be affiliated with the industry affected by the agency.

It is also common for high level appointees in agencies to return to

work in the industry after their terms are over.

If the agency becomes fully controlled by the affected interest group, then that agency is argued to have been “captured” by the interests it was

meant to regulate.

This effectively allows the interest group to regulate itself and use

regulatory power to limit competition.

Example: The Commissioner of the Texas Department of Insurance has a background in management with

insurance companies.

Here’s an article in the NYT that argues she is too closely tied to the industry, and

an argument in a Corpus Christi newspaper that the Insurance Commissioner should be elected

to office.

This leads to the development of what are called iron triangles and

sub-governments where the interests of various actors

concerned with a particular aspect of public policy.

See TP: - 4.3 Interest Groups and Bureaucracies

A typical iron triangle is composed of members of interest groups, the agency that oversees the issue important to the group, and the members of the legislative committee that has jurisdiction

over the subject.

Each has benefits they can offer the other, so relationship commonly grow. It is also common

for people to go from positions in one institution to another within the triangle.

Relationships in Texas can be further complicated by the relative powers of the presiding officers of both chambers of the

legislature and the governor. Instead of an iron triangle, it is the iron Texas star.

The former are heavily influential in the legislative process and the governor’s

appointment powers and line items veto make each central to this circle of influence.

These relationships are cemented by the fact that each provides lucrative

opportunities to the others. The specifics depend on their precise goals, but

altogether critics argue that this creates a “Pay to Play” culture in the state.

Here’s a related story, again involving the head of the Texas Insurance Commission.

Here’s an important caveat.

While there might be a great many interests that exist in the state, governing

officials – and the bureaucracy in general – is more likely to be influenced by

organized groups with concentrated strength rather than unorganized groups

or individuals.

Influencing the bureaucracy requires a great degree of

resources, concentrated power, and sustained effort.

Organized groups are far more able to do this than unorganized

groups and individuals.

The Federal Context of the Texas Bureaucracy.

Not all executive agencies in the state of Texas exist because the

state has chosen to establish them.

Some exist because of efforts of the federal government to entice all states to create agencies that

pursue nationally established goals.

Perhaps the best example is health policy, especially Medicare and the State Children’s Health Insurance

Program.

Other programs include unemployment insurance, and a

small handful of others.

Click here for a look at a list of the various types of federal aid to state

and local governments that are meant to entice states to

implement national policies that focus on defined national

standards.