Call for Proposals: State and Local Government Review -- Deadline Extension to May 1, 2015

DEADLINE EXTENSION UNTIL

MAY 1, 2015

CALL FOR PROPOSALS

State and Local Government Review

2015 Special Issue on Economic Polarization and Challenges to Subnational Governments

Michael J. Scicchitano, University of Florida, Editor

State and Local Government Review invites authors to submit proposals for the 2015 Special Issue on “Economic Polarization and Challenges to Subnational Governments.”  The focus of the Special Issue will be to examine how subnational governments have been affected by economic polarization and how they have responded to this phenomenon.  The Special Issue will be published as the last issue of State and Local Government Review in 2015.  This publication schedule requires a shorter than normal period for the process of selecting and completing papers for the Special Issue.  Manuscripts published in the Special Issue will be reviewed and considered refereed publications.

One of the challenges that seems to have a profound impact on subnational governments is the increasing economic polarization of the residents and possibly a related loss of the middle class.  This polarization may have consequences such as higher crime rates, issues of increased hunger (especially among school children) and the loss of businesses that mostly serve middle class residents. While subnational governments face ever greater policy challenges they may also have reduced revenues to address these problems.  The 2015 State and Local Government Review Special Issue will examine issues related to the impact of the increased economic polarization on subnational governments.  State and Local welcomes proposals from all disciplines for papers related to this theme.  Below are some specific topics that would be appropriate for the 2015 Special Issue:

·         From a governance perspective, what exactly does the term economic polarization mean?  Does this mean that there is both a decline of a “middle class” and a great divide between the lower and upper income classes?   What are the different manifestations of this phenomenon such as the degree of loss of the middle class as well as economic polarization?  What stage or level of economic polarization can result in policy or governance problems for subnational governments?

·         To what extent do taxing and spending policies at subnational levels redistribute burdens and benefits?

·         What are the specific ways/policy areas that polarization is evident (i.e., education, housing, stagnant wages, etc.)?

·         Has there been a change in the level of middle class loss or economic polarization? If so, when did these changes begin, are they increasing, or is it stable or declining? What are the best techniques to document or monitor these changes?

·         What factors contribute to increased economic polarization--actions by international, national, or subnational governments?

·         What are the implications of middle class loss and/ or economic polarization for subnational governance-i.e. what problems has this caused for subnational governments?

·         What actions have or could subnational governments take to reduce the loss of the middle class and economic polarization as well reduce the impact on their citizens?

·         Why hasn’t societal and economic information shown a capacity to scale effectively across jurisdictional, operational, and organizational boundaries?  Are we missing major policies and monitoring procedures that would identify this process more effectively, leading to more timely policy action?

Please submit a proposal that outlines a specific topic that conveys how subnational governments have been affected by economic polarization and how they have responded to this phenomenon.  Clearly outline the empirical basis for the manuscript, and if your paper is data driven, please indicate whether data has already been collected. Also, identify the current status of the research and writing and the extent to which the manuscript can be completed according to the schedule outlined below.

We encourage proposals from all disciplines including but not limited to public administration, political science, sociology, economics, planning, etc. and expect to publish papers where there is collaboration between academics and practitioners and authors both from inside and outside the U.S.

Note:  Acceptable topics are not limited to those listed above.

Proposals should be submitted between February 25, 2015 and May 1, 2015 to the following email address:  slgrspecial@gmail.com   

The proposals should be double-spaced and include no more than two pages of text.  There is no need to include tables or appendices and references do not count against the two page limit. All proposals will be subject to editorial review.  Please do not send complete papers—if you have a draft of your paper, please note that in the proposal.

Submissions will be evaluated with respect to the following criteria:

·         Relevance. The proposed manuscript should examine issues related to how subnational governments have been affected by economic polarization and how they have responded to this phenomenon.   

·         Viability. The proposal should represent an achievable manuscript project within the tight time constraints required. More detail on the timeline is provided below.

·         Scope of Interest. Papers of broad interest to scholars and professionals will be preferred.

·         Organization and Coherence. The proposal should follow a logical structure, read clearly, and thoroughly represent the available research.

·         Insight for Future Work. The proposal should convey important implications for both future research and practice related to local government.

Due to editorial constraints, it is vital for authors to adhere to the following strict timeline. We will not be able to consider late submissions. If you have any questions, please contact the Editor at mscicc@ufl.edu or by phone at (352) 846-2874.

Relevant dates* are as follows:

·         February 25- May 1, 2015: Proposals due to the State and Local Government Review to be sent to slgrspecial@gmail.com  

·         May 15, 2015: Final decision on proposals and initial feedback provided to authors.

·         August 1, 2015: Full draft of paper due to State and Local Government Review.

·         September 1, 2015: Review and feedback to authors on full paper.

·         October 1, 2015: Final paper submitted to State and Local Government Review.  Final manuscripts should be no longer than 18 pages of text with standard margins and font size.

*Please note that these are basic guidelines, each paper may require a different number of revisions or timing to make the October 1, 2015 deadline

Feel free to email or call the Editor at mscicc@ufl.edu or by phone at (352) 846-2874.if you have any questions regarding your proposal or manuscript.

SIAM Moves into the Future by Rick Feiock

At the ASPA annual meeting earlier this month SIAM’s membership adopted a new mission statement for the section.  This outcome reflects the thoughtful and tireless work over the last year of the mission and rebranding committee David Miller (co-chair), Jered Carr (co-chair) Barbara McCabe, and Paul Posner.  The adjustment of our mission, and the possibility of changing the section name engaged the membership and strong arguments were advance both for change and for the status quo.  We had the best attended membership meeting that I recall in the last 25 years. 

The proposal for changing the section name proved more controversial than the changes to the mission statement.  Rather than force a vote on the proposed name change at the annual meeting, I supported a motion that was introduced for this issue be taken up by a new committee that would make recommendations for changes to the bylaws consistent with the mission of the section including a possible change to the section name.  This motion passed without opposition. 

I have asked Eric Zeemering, the incoming SIAM executive committee chair to chair this committee.  The committee members that have generously agreed to serve on this committee are:

Eric Zeemering of Northern Illinois University (chair)

Ed Benton, University of South Florida

Benoy Jacob, University of Colorado Denver

Jack Meek, Laverne University and Complexity section liaison to SIAM

David Miller, University of Pittsburgh

Mike Pagano, University of Illinois at Chicago

Christine Kelleher Palus, Villanova University

Carl Stenberg, University of North Carolina

David Warm, Mid-America Regional Council

While this is quite a large committee, I believe that it is important that all of the various views expressed regarding the mission and direction of SIAM be heard and represented in this process.  I am charging the committee to recommend changes to the section bylaws to refine and implement the new mission statement in a manner that will encourage the continued support and attachment of all existing members while making the section more visible and attractive to many potential new members. This is an important task that will shape the future of our section.  

The committee will work closely with the ASPA leadership and National Committee to secure any necessary approvals.  I am requesting that the committee report back recommendations by August 15 to allow at least sixty days for member response and input prior to the executive committee midyear meeting.  The proposed changes will then be posted on the SIAM blog for member comments.  If the proposed changes are approved by the executive committee, they will need to be voted on by the membership at the 2016 membership meeting at ASPA.

Member News: Frances Berry

Prof. Frances Berry was appointed as the Reubin O'D Askew Eminent Scholar in November 2014. Prof. Berry is faculty member of the Askew School of Public Administration and Policy at Florida State University.

2015 Deil S. Wright Symposium Papers

Thank you to all who participated in the 2015 Deil S. Wright Symposium. Links for each of the papers are below.

An Exploration of Collaboration Risk in Joint Ventures:Perceptions of Risk by Local Economic Development Officials by Jered B. Carr, Christopher V. Hawkins, & Drew E. Westberg

Taking the High Road: Local Government Managers’ Perceptions on Implementing LocalOption Recreational Marijuana in Colorado by Bruce J. Perlman, Sara Shoemate, Nicholas Edwardson, Michael J. Scicchitano, & Tracy L. Johns

Is the Teaching of Federalism and Intergovernmental RelationsDead or Alive in American Public Administration? by Richard L. Cole & John Kincaid

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs:Energy Efficiency and Growth through State and Local Implementation by Benjamin H. Deitchman

Funding the Built and NaturalEnvironment (Infrastructure) inthe 21st CenturyAn Evolving Example of Deil Wright’sOverlapping Model of IGR by Mark Pisano

The Status of Home Rule in Illinois* by Heidi Koenig

* paper requested from author. When it is received, a link will be developed.

Midwest Public Affairs Conference: Call for Papers

The submittal deadline for the 2015 Midwest Public Affairs Conference is April 1st! This year’s conference is July 9-11, 2015 in Milwaukee, WI and is hosted by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Helen Bader Institute for Nonprofit Management. Additionally, we have recently released the first issue of the Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, which is available at the link below. 

We appreciate your interest, and look forward to meeting you in July!

 Midwest Public Affairs Conference 

 Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs

Best regards,

Stephen Kleinschmit, Ph.D.

President | Midwest Public Affairs Conference

http://midwestpac.com

MPAC is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization affiliated with the American Society for Public Administration

Congratulations to our Stone Award Recipients!

2015 Stone Award for Best Student Paper: Will Swann

(L-R: Rick Feiock, Will Swann, Chris Hawkins)

2015 Stone Practitioner Award: Peter Austin

(L-R: Rick Feiock, Ed Jennings, Peter Austin)

2015 Stone Scholar Award: Michael Pagano

(L-R: Rick Feiock, Michael Pagano, Ann Bowman)

SIAM General Membership Meeting agenda for Sunday, March 8, 2014

SIAM: General Membership Meeting

Sunday March 8, 2015  4:45 – 6:00 Cominsky room

Welcome (Rick Feiock)

Reports

            Announcements and Deil Wright Symposium (Rick Feiock/Carl Stenberg)

Election results (Ed Benton)

                                          i.    Announce election results

                                         ii.    Terms begin at the general membership meeting

Membership Report (Ed Benton)

SLGR report (Michael Scicchitano)

Treasurer’s Report (Susan Paddock)

Newsletter Website and Blog (Jered Carr)

Report on Engaging Junior Scholars (Benoy Jacob)

New Business

Proposed Changes of Bylaws

1. General Updates and Corrections (Eric Zeemering)

2. Proposed Change to the Mission Statement

3. Proposed Change of the Section Name

Adjournment 

Call for Information: SIAM Update

Call for Information - SIAM Update

Please help us provide exposure to your professional and academic achievements by contributing to the next issue of SIAM Update. We are seeking to include information on the following topics: 

·  Publication announcements for new reports, books and articles

·  Information on new research or outreach projects you are starting

·  Calls for papers for conference and workshops you are organizing

·  Invited lectures or other significant presentations you have given

·  Paper presentations or panel participation at conferences

·  Grants, fellowships, or awards you have received

·  Promotions or new positions you have accepted

·  Faculty additions, retirements, and other relevant news about your department or program

·  Election to an officer position in a local ASPA chapter

·  Students' professional accomplishments, including new jobs and promotions, involvement in major research projects, important public sector initiatives, and research publications.

If you are engaged in activities that will be of interest to your fellow members or students, please send materials for the email update to siam.uic.cuppa@gmail.com by end of the day on Monday, March 23, 2015.

Member News: Richard Feiock

Richard Feiock (Florida State University) has been appointed to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, HSC, Board of Scientific Counselors.

Richard Feiock (Florida State University) has received research grant awards of from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection through the Hinckley Center  to conduct longitudinal studies of local green job creation/ and recycling in Florida cities and counties.

Richard Feiock (Florida State University) has received a research grant award from the Lincoln Institute for Land Policy China Program International Fellowship to investigate institutional collective action among local governments in China. 

Feiock, Richard C., Christopher M. Weible, David P. Carter, Cali Curley, Aaron Deslatte, and Tanya Heikkila. "Capturing Structural and Functional Diversity Through Institutional Analysis The Mayor Position in City Charters." Urban Affairs Review (2014): 1078087414555999.

UAR Article

Member News: Ian Coyle

Ian Coyle (County Administrator, Livingston County, NY) presented an Introduction to County Budget & Finance Issues to newly elected officials at the 90th annual Legislative Conference of the New York State Association of Counties.

2015 Deil Wright Symposium: Friday, March 6

  2015 DEIL S. WRIGHT SYMPOSIUM

                           INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT: TENSIONS AND TRENDS

                        Sponsored by the Section on Intergovernmental Administration and Management

          Field Room, Hyatt Regency Chicago, March 6, 1:00 - 4:30 p.m. 

1:00-2:30 Teaching and Research Panel  

Moderator: Carl Stenberg, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Richard L. Cole, University of Texas at Arlington, and John Kincaid, Lafayette College, “Is the Teaching of Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations Dead or Alive in American Public Administration Programs?”

Bruce J. Perlman, Sara Shoemate, and Nicholas Edwardson, University of New Mexico, and Michael J. Scicchitano, University of Florida, “Taking the High Road: Local Government Managers’ Perceptions on Implementing Local Option Recreational Marijuana in Colorado”

Jered B. Carr, University of Illinois at Chicago, Christopher Hawkins, University of Central Florida, and Drew Westberg, University of Missouri-Kansas City, “Collaboration Risk in Joint Ventures among Governments: Understanding the Risk Perceptions of Economic Development Officials”

Benjamin H. Deitchman, Rochester Institute of Technology, “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: Energy Efficiency and Growth through State and Local Implementation.”

Heidi Koenig, Northern Illinois University, “The Status of Home Rule in Illinois”

2:30-3:30 Roundtable I: NAPA Perspectives on New Paradigms for Developing a National Infrastructure Agenda

Moderator: Paul Posner, George Mason University

            Mark Pisano, University of Southern California

            Peter J. Basso, Parsons Brinckerhoff

  

3:30-4:45 Roundtable II: New Approaches to the Study of Contemporary Intergovernmental Relationships

Moderator: David Hamilton, Texas Tech University

Robert A. Agranoff, Indiana University

Beryl A. Radin, Georgetown University

Ann O’M. Bowman, Texas A & M University

Michael Pagano, University of Illinois at Chicago

           

4:45 Concluding Comments

                        David C. Wright

                        Richard C. Feiock, Florida State University

*****

Roundtable I information: "This is the charter of a special working group on Infrastructure that the Board of NAPA has established. The purpose of the working group is to use the resources of NAPA to provide guidance to Congress and the Administration, on a subject chosen by the board.  I chair the working group and was the scribe of several sessions of the working group that developed the charter for our group, which is reflected in the paper.  We are currently developing the resources to flesh out the paper to be available later this year." -- Mark Pisano, Chair.

Developing a National Infrastructure Agenda

Introduction

The national consensus for building and regenerating existing infrastructure is broken.  Witness the debate on the transportation reauthorization: the highway, transit interest groups, automobile clubs and trucking associations-the users, business and labor organizations all unsuccessfully asked Congress to raise taxes to continue the program; the Corps of Engineers authorization by several orders of magnitude dwarfs the appropriation each year; FEMA insurance premiums where recently established to reflect actuarial costs were put in abeyance because of user pushback; users (voters) feel that they have already paid for expenditures; etc.. These actions reflect the changing priorities of the country, which focuses on personal issues of people, their health care, pensions and education.  All the while the looming debate over the national deficit clouds the issue, leaving the country adrift to deal with the issue at the state and local level, who are also facing long term budget stress.

A new approach, you might say a new paradigm is needed, to enable infrastructure to be built and regenerated and still deal with these contemporary realities.  Infrastructure enables growth and wealth creation to prosper.  Infrastructure creates many benefits that can be captured and generates a return on investment for those who invest in its development.  The nation has liquidity that that is seeking long-term returns. Jobs can be created for many who have been displaced and have the skills to perform them.  Infrastructure jobs are our best strategy to deal with our structural unemployment crisis.  If the nations has the money and we have unused people resources and we have a desperate need to regenerate and build our infrastructure, then we need to organize ourselves to so we can solve this dilemma.  

President Clinton at his Global Initiative Conference in Los Angeles, noted, “we are organized for the past and not to solve the issues of the future. The issue is not money, we have under utilized liquidity here and abroad, but how we organize ourselves and use our resources to build our future.” The issue is designing the rules of the game so that we deplore our resources, money and people to solve the infrastructure problem.

Purpose and Performance

Infrastructure of all types, are systems and serve multiple purposes and roles. The benefits of these systems are mostly experienced locally and regionally but have significant national implications.  Witness the current grain crisis of not being able to get the plentiful crop out of the nations breadbasket because of railroad logjams.  Goods movement blockages due to deficit infrastructure investments prevent the Interstate Commerce clause of our constitution from operating, and will put American businesses and consumers at risk from effectively participating in the global market place.  The same can be said about not developing energy transport, particularly renewable access to the urban market places and water systems that traverses multiple states.

Clarity of purpose for our infrastructure investments is the starting point of the new paradigm. How do we capture the regional and local benefits, using existing tools of benefit assessment and beneficial use arrangements and fees while capturing national benefits and responsibilities? While investments and benefits will be regional focused, the results will be advancing national goals; requiring a different set of intergovernmental financing arrangements that focuses on outcomes and results, so the purpose and benefits can be understood and transparent. If this is accomplished, then governmental and organizational assignments can be established and resources will follow.

A broader conception of public infrastructure that encompasses not only the built environment, but changes in the natural environment will lead to changes in how we approach our built environment, e.g., severe weather conditions, rising sea level, persistent increase in temperature, will require us to work with nature instead of fighting nature. Using natural systems may in fact be the only resolution to many of our current infrastructure challenges.

This regeneration of the existing built environment will enable us to rebuild cost effectively and deal with our extensive deferred maintenance.  

Focusing on Performance of investments- their outcomes/results and the lifecycle cost and the source of revenues -will enable the nation to rationalize the over $2 trillion infrastructure backlog estimate of the American Society of Civil Engineers, which if addressed would require a multifold level of increased of investment that runs into the changing priorities of the nation.

Strategies that focus on performance as opposed to programs would encourage investments that generate multiple outcomes and benefits that create multiple revenue streams that can be captured to increase funding sources from the beneficiaries.  Connecting beneficiaries to expenditures will enable the public to understand the purpose of these investments and the costs of the infrastructure challenge facing the country.  For the most part the current paradigm separates collections of revenues from their expenditures and diminishes the public understanding of the reasons and purposes for the investments.

Institutions

Getting the purpose clear, focusing on performance and structuring revenues by linking them to benefits so that our national liquidity can be put to work is an institutional challenge. Institutions and the rules of the game, so that we can organize ourselves for the future, is the key to the infrastructure dilemma facing the country. How do we get the purposes clear so that there is greater understanding of the reasons for the investments? How do we make decisions that focus on performance and link our beneficial revenue streams to the life-cycle expenditures and costs of the investment? How do we enable trillions of dollars of liquidity to find investments in infrastructure that will be paid back from beneficial use streams?  How do we enable the national government to participate in these investments?  How do we deal with market risk of revenue projections without creating a moral hazard for government? How do we jumpstart infrastructure without adding to the fiscal stress of the intergovernmental system?  

NAPA’s Response

The National Academy of Public Administration has undertaken development of a 21st Century Infrastructure Blueprint for the Nation. NAPA was chartered by Congress to provide advice and recommendations on addressing the nations governance problems. A working panel of NAPA Fellows that have experience at all levels of government, business and Universities has been assembled. The panel builds upon NAPA reports to Congress on the Corps of Engineers post Katrina experience, the Reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act, improvements of the Presidio Trust for the National Park Service, a recent “Memo to National Leaders: Partnerships as Fiscal Strategy.” The outcomes of the Blueprint are:

• The first outcome will be to collect the best practices and catalog what is working in the country, which could be used as building blocks for this emerging way of building the nation’s infrastructure. The historical pathway to developing governance innovations has been to start with experiments undertaken in the states and regions of the country. Twenty-eight states have enacted laws providing for tolls or fees to fund transportation and even more have laws that fund utilities; but now many states are also returning to directly capturing the economic benefits that infrastructure creates and capturing the revenue streams from people and property to fund these investments.  The working group members have participated in many of these experiments in states including: Virginia, Maryland, Texas and California.  Virginia used assessment financing to complement federal funding on the Metro Silverline. Maryland is doing the same on transit in the district. California has enacted legislation SB628 “Enhance Infrastructure Districts” that uses these principles.  The effort will encourage all states and regions to develop a legislative structure for financing infrastructure using the lessons and practices learned.

• The next outcome will be to develop policy options that Congress could enact that flesh out the national role in this framework and accelerate mobilization of this new national capacity to fund critically needed national infrastructure. Creating the federal role in linking benefits with revenues could accelerate the experiments in the country. Some of these options are identified in the “Memo to National Leaders:” developing risk assessment and mitigation capacity assistance for fiscal, environmental, institutional and technical issues that will be encountered in this approach.  Included in this work is the intergovernmental regulatory overlay that is frustrating and hindering the capacity of state and regions in making investment decisions, particularly in the natural environment. The working group is also exploring a national loan program that integrates many existing federal loan programs into a de-facto infrastructure bank loan program.  By bringing multiple loans together a diversified portfolio is created and the risks lowered.  The combination of combination of loan programs also creates a significant portfolio without increasing further federal financial exposure.

• The working group is exploring is new approaches for benefit payment approaches such as distance based charges for transportation, the bundling of fee and revenue sources used by states and regions so that nexus can be improved, and planning approaches that bring better nexus information to the decision making table.  Most importantly this beneficial use approach to funding creates the capacity to capture increasing amounts of private capital that is seeking longer term returns in our nations public goods where the risks are mitigated and shared  

Conclusion

The approach and work described above is aimed to provide recommendations to Congress: on the next re-authorization of the transportation program; approaches that can assist in resolving the dilemma of the COE authorization and appropriation mismatch; guidance to FEMA on the fiscal structure for natural hazard response and numerous other programs where a redefinition of the rules of the game – institutional change- will enable the country to bring private capital into a partnership with public organizations in addressing our pressing infrastructure crisis.

Roundtable II information: The focus of the second Roundtable will be an article by Robert Agranoff and Beryl Radin. Thank you.

Agranoff, R., & Radin, B. A. (2014). Deil Wright’s Overlapping Model of Intergovernmental Relations: The Basis for Contemporary Intergovernmental Relationships. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, pju036.

http://publius.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/09/09/publius.pju036.short