OTHER AVENUES OF
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

Sub-State Districts

Most citizens are served and affected by at least four types of traditional local government: country, municipality or township, school district, and one or more special districts or public authorities. Increasingly, citizens are served and affected by newer instruments of governance -- generally called sub-state districts (SSDs).

Sub-state districts, usually operating semi-autonomously in county-wide or multi-county jurisdictions, are concerned with area-wide planning, development and administration -- concerns which cannot be met by local government. The development of the sub-state district generally has been the result of area-wide planning incentives provided under the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, the 1965 amendment to Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1934, area-wide review requirements under Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, and Title IV of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (implemented by OMB Circular A-95).

In most States, governors and legislators have created the sub-state district systems, either by building on previously identified program planning and operation districts (e.g., Economic Development Districts) or by creating new ones after studies and consultation with the appropriate units of general purpose government. While SSDs are essentially aggregates of local jurisdictions, the States play a critical role in boundary designation and technical assistance. As SSDs grow in experience and the concept grows in acceptance by the Congress and State legislators, it is possible that SSDs will be used increasingly as the coordinating unit for the planning and deliverance of Federal and State funded services.

SSDs are generally supported by multiple Federal program funds, many of which are specifically program oriented (e.g., HUD, LEAA, EPA). Many SSDs receive flexible administrative funds from the Economic Development Administration (EDA), while some Regional Commissions also provide flexible funds to SSDs in States they cover. Additionally, SSDs receive funds from State governments and from assessments of local member governments.

SSD governing bodies are usually composed of elected officials from those local governmental jurisdictions included in the SSD, but there may be provisions for more general citizen participation. For example, EDA requires minority representation, proportioned to the population, up to 25%, on the boards of EDArecognized SSDs. In addition, some States provide for broad citizen participation in their SSD governing bodies. Interested citizens should contact their State planning offices for more information on relevant statutes and regulations.

Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95

Another mechanism which may provide opportunity for citizen input into the planning and development of Federally supported programs derives from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-95. OMB Circular A-95 encourages the establishment of a project notification and review system at the State, sub-state and local levels, to facilitate coordinated planning on an intergovernmental basis. Such a review system also furnishes guidance to Federal agencies for achieving added cooperation with State and local governments in the evaluation, review and coordination of federally assisted programs. The review function is carried out by clearinghouses, usually established by the sub-state planning district (SSD).

With the exception of certain specifically identified programs, OMB Circular A-95 requires agencies of State or local governments and any organizations or individuals applying for Federal funds to initiate, modify, or renew a project to notify the State and area-wide clearinghouse in the jurisdiction in which the project is to be located, of their intent to apply for such assistance. These clearinghouses then are responsible for disseminating project notifications to appropriate State agencies for their review and for coordinating the comments received.

It is the policy of OMB to urge clearinghouses to give widespread circulation, within the area affected, of such notifications of intent to apply for Federal project assistance. Thus, opportunity for public comment and reaction to such applications is available in many SSDs through the advisory committee framework. In addition, many clearinghouses routinely distribute lists of such notifications to appropriate groups and adopt a policy of making copies of all applications available for review by interested persons in the clearinghouse office. The A-95 process also provides public agencies charged with enforcing or furthering the objectives of State and local civil rights laws with the opportunity to review project proposals for violations of those laws.

The intent of the A-95 review process is to reduce program duplication, provide for increased project effectiveness and efficiency, address the appropriateness of land uses, the wise development and conservation of natural resources, balanced transportation systems, etc. As a result, proper coordination and public comment is made possible at an early stage in the planning process.

Revenue Sharing

On October 13, 1976 the Congress passed the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Amendments of 1976, P.L. 94-488. This legislation extended the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, P.L. 92-512, which provides for a redistribution of tax monies to State and local units of government for the purpose of meeting locally established priorities. While these priorities are generally set by local officials, the 1976 Amendments provide for citizen involvement in the process of determining uses for their government's revenue sharing monies.

Recipient governments desiring to appropriate revenue sharing funds are required to conduct two public hearings prior to any such appropriation action. The first hearing is known as the "proposed use hearing." Its purpose is to provide the public with an opportunity to suggest or comment on possible uses of revenue sharing funds. The second public hearing is called the "budget hearing." At this time citizens are to be afforded an opportunity to comment and ask questions concerning the entire budget and the relationship of revenue sharing funds to the entire budget. Each recipient government is required to make special efforts to inform senior citizens and the news media (including minority and bilingual news media) within its geographic area of the public hearings.

Public notice announcing both the proposed use hearing and the budget hearing is to be published in a newspaper of general circulation serving the geographic area of the recipient government. Within thirty days of enactment the recipient government must also publish notice of the availability of the enacted budget for public inspection. A report indicating the specific amounts and purposes for which revenue sharing funds are spent must be submitted to the Secretary of the Treasury by each government. The availability of this information for public inspection must be published by the recipient government in a newspaper of general circulation within ten days of the submission to the Secretary.

The use of revenue sharing money must conform with provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under this law no person shall, on the ground of race, color, national origin, or sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity funded in whole or part with entitlement funds made available pursuant to the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act. Provision is made for complaint procedures and appeal rights. Recently several adjudications have been pronounced by the courts resulting in funds having been withheld from governments failing to conform to this legislation.

Protection from discrimination is also afforded by the provisions requiring compliance with guidelines issued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (29 CFR Part 1607). In addition, recipient governments are expected to conduct a continuing program of self evaluation of their employment recruitment

practices. Federal regulations require the scheduling of selective compliance reviews of these practices by the Office of General Revenue Sharing.

Freedom of Information Act

The Freedom of Information Act (P.L. 93-502) and amendments thereto require each Federal agency to make its records available to any member of the general public upon request except, of course, such records as may fall within the several categories specifically exempted from the provisions of this Act. An individual citizen requesting records need not show need or purpose but must "reasonably describe" such information.

The Amendments, enacted in November 1974, require, among other things that: agencies shall respond to requests for information within ten working days of receipt of such requests; an appeal procedure shall be instituted; should an Agency fail to respond to such a request, the requester may by-pass the Agency's administrative process and go directly into court to sue for production of the requested record. Disciplinary action can be taken against agency employees where appropriate. The name and title of each employee or officer denying records and/or information and the number of denials attributable to each shall be included in an annual report to the Congress.

Explicit guidance on obtaining information under the Freedom of Information Act is available both from the text of the amended Act and in the "Attorney General's Memorandum on the 1974 Amendments to the Freedom of Information Act," including the appendices.