Government: County Government and Regional Planning

An effective state government; an intermediate level of government to solve regional problems, either through a revised county structure or an emerging regionalism; regional planning on a statewide basis; high visibility for county and/or regional government; and home rule for counties. (1984)

The League supports :

Redrawing county lines to form more natural and functional regions (1967).  A county financial year to coincide with the state fiscal year. Fiscal authority for local county advisory (financial) boards. Administrative structures that would deliver services in an accountable and effective manner.  Evaluation of existing and potential county services in relation to cost, need, effectiveness and appropriateness to that level of government. Adequate and equitable financial resources to deliver services. Optional forms of county or regional government.  Abolition of county government only at local discretion County government.

League action

Delegates to the 1981 state convention voted to re-open the position on County Government and Regional Planning for several reasons. Some believed that county government, as structured in Massachusetts, did not meet the needs of the late twentieth century; others felt that it was time to restructure counties; and others felt that services provided by local governments could better be provided on a regional basis. Two laws passed during the 1980s will have a lasting effect on country government. One, Ch. 807 of the Acts of 1985, permits home rule for counties. The other, passed in 1981 as an outside section of the budget, took fiscal authority from the Legislature and gave it to county advisory boards.

Home Rule Charters

LWVMA supported legislation (Ch. 807) that allows counties to establish charter commissions. This law permits county officials, advisory boards or voters in the county to submit a charter question to the voters of that county at a statewide election. At the same election, 15 commission members may be elected by districts. If the question is approved, the commission must study the present form of county government and may recommend to voters at the next statewide election one of three model charters, or it may write a special charter that must be approved by the Legislature. The commission must hold public hearings during its deliberations and, if it recommends adoption of a charter, the question must be on the ballot in that county in a statewide election, for voter approval.

Only three counties, Barnstable, Hampden and Hampshire, have adopted charters, all of which are special charters. It is too early to judge the new forms of government in these three counties. Barnstable County is being watched closely because its new government is, perhaps, the most radically changed.

League members encourage citizens to run for election to a study commission, inform voters about the charter process, observe charter commission meetings, have citizen information programs about the work of the commission and take positions on the commission’s recommendations.

Advisory (fiscal) boards

County advisory (fiscal) boards were established in 1973 with League support. Representatives from local communities would, for the first time, review county budgets. Attendance at advisory board meetings, however, was poor and the board’s role was purely advisory. Vested interests in the county continued to turn to the Legislature for budget increases, in return for which legislators continued to have influence on appointments to county jobs.

In 1981, a group of legislators from Middlesex County filed an initiative petition to abolish county government. Fearing the result of such a vote, the Legislature, without much debate and little public attention, relinquished its power and gave fiscal authority to the county advisory boards. The backers of the petition did not pursue it further.

Once the advisory boards had fiscal authority, they scrutinized budgets, discontinued programs and, in most counties, made deep cuts. An amendment to Proposition 2 1/2 limited county expenditures to 2 1/2 percent of the previous year’s expenditures, resulting in personnel cuts and reduction in or elimination of services. Most importantly, it raised questions about what services should and could be provided through county government. Criticism continues that attendance of many advisory board members is poor; some communities feel that the advisory boards are dominated by representatives from larger communities.

In 1990, there was a call, particularly in Middlesex County, to abolish county government. Critics focus on the cost as opposed to the benefits to those communities that must bear most of the cost of county government.

Court system

The enactment of court reform legislation, which removed the court system from the jurisdiction of county government and made it a state function, has resulted in disputes between the state and county government. The League supported legislation to have the state take over court facilities, which passed in 1988.

Other functions

The county system retains the registries of deeds and probate, the commissioner’s offices, prisons and, in some counties, hospitals and agricultural schools. Extension services are being assumed, gradually, by the University of Massachusetts. Legislation has been filed to put the registries of deeds under the jurisdiction of the state and to place two agricultural schools under the state Department of Agriculture. Recommendations have also been made to have the state pay for county correctional institutions. There is growing sentiment on the Committee on Counties and in the Legislature to take a more regional approach to services that might be provided by a middle level of government.

Background

•1967: Convention delegates voted a two-year study of county government as a follow-up to work done on civil service, executive and legislative branches of state government and home rule. The conclusion was that county government in Massachusetts was neither strong nor visible. There was agreement for change in structure, but only a few Leagues recommended abolition of county government. Members advocated that Massachusetts revise its county system to allow it to work as an intermediate level of government with regional responsibilities.

•1983: Delegates recommended that a state League task force be established to consider: abolition of county government, optional forms of government for counties and the effectiveness of services and programs offered. Members stressed that before any county could abolish its government, provisions would have to be made for the functions of the registries of deeds and probate, correctional facilities and court buildings. They reaffirmed the need for a middle level of government.

Regional government

League action

LWVMA supported 1963 legislation that established the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) for the Greater Boston area. Leagues outside the Boston area supported the formation of other regional planning districts or commissions under Ch. 40B of the General Laws or by special legislation, which provides that cities and towns may voluntarily become members of a planning district.

Almost every community is now a member of a planning district. The county study affirmed the need for regional structures with functions beyond the planning and advisory level. Members support a unified approach to regional problems.

Many communities realize that the complexity and cost of many programs make regional solutions attractive. As a result, they are entering into or exploring regional programs for dealing with public safety, housing, education, transportation, land use and environmental concerns.

Background

•1955: A group of local Leagues in the Boston area studied regional planning, resulting in the publication of "A Look at Planning in Metropolitan Boston."

•1961: Convention adopted a two-year study of regional planning.

•1963: Consensus was reached in support of the establishment of regional planning districts in the state.

•1983-84: Expansion of the County Government and Regional Planning positions reaffirmed member support of a middle level of government and the concept of regional solutions to shared problems. The expansion did not examine the regional service agencies in the state.

Previous Page: Citizen Rights

Back to Where We Stand Contents

Next Page: Courts