| OCR Text |
Show Opinion Divided On 1967 State Reorganization Consolidations of a number of major functions of Utah state government, effected by the 1967 Legislature in the interest of economy and efficiency, effi-ciency, have evoked divided opinions in their first year of operation, according to a research re-search report issued this week by Utah Foundation. The objectives of streamlining streamlin-ing government structure and providing the governor with more up-to-date and effective tools of management are almost al-most universally applauded, it is noted by the Foundation, a private, non-profit, public service agency.' However, there is considerable difference of opinion on some details of the 1967 reorganization. Almost a score of independent indepen-dent agencies and operations have been grouped into three combined departments. Departmental De-partmental divisions have re-tained re-tained their separate and autonomous policy boards, while coordinating councils have been placed over the combined departments in a structure similar to that of Utah's Coordinating Council of Higher Education, which has existed since 1959. Critics of the coordinating councils say they represent an "extra layer of government" govern-ment" which is unnecessary. They recommend either abolishing abol-ishing the boards of the individual in-dividual divisions and making mak-ing the coordinating councils policy boards for the entire departments, or else abolishing abolish-ing the councils and allowing a single coordinator on the staff of the governor to coordinate co-ordinate the divisional boards. Proponents of the present program see the coordinating councils as providing the governor, through his appointive ap-pointive powers, with manageable manage-able influence in policy direction direc-tion for major state functions without undue concentration of power to which objection has appeared evident in legislative leg-islative circles of both political politi-cal parties. Some problems appear inherent in-herent in the legislation. Di vision directors are appointed by their own boards, take their policy from them, and serve at the will of these boards. At the same time, directors of the coordinating councils are given "administrative "adminis-trative jurisdiction" over the divisional directors. Neither departmental coordinators nor divisional directors working in the program feel that lines of authority and responsibility responsibil-ity ane clearly defined. The program has been working work-ing through its first year of trial operation because of the willingness of people to cooperate co-operate without putting legal questions to test, the Foundation Foun-dation report noted. It is generally felt that substantially substan-tially more will be known concerning the authority of coordinating councils after they have tested their statutory statu-tory powers to review departmental depart-mental budgets. First budget-making budget-making operations under the new laws are currently getting get-ting under way. A number of economies have been effected to date, but they are minor in comparison com-parison with costs of operating the departments and divisions, t h a Foundation reported. However, it is generally recognized rec-ognized that more extensive economies must await the adoption of the new budgets and the physical grouping of many scattered divisions. Physical consolidation of divisions di-visions has already begun and additional moves are in the planning stage. |
