State & Local Government eJournal最新文献

{"title":"Despite Increasingly Formal Financial Management, Relatively Few Michigan Local Governments Have Adopted Recommended Policies","authors":"D. Horner, Michael Q. Crawford, Thomas M. Ivacko","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2540183","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2540183","url":null,"abstract":"This report presents findings on the presence and use of formal financial planning and management policies in Michigan local jurisdictions, based on statewide surveys of local government leaders in the Spring 2014 wave of the Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS). The survey asked a series of questions about policies that are recommended in order to foster best practices in financial management according to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), a leading non-profit organization that promotes professional management of governments.","PeriodicalId":368113,"journal":{"name":"State & Local Government eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129602410","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Homeowners, Renters and the Political Economy of Property Taxation","authors":"E. Brunner, Stephen L. Ross, Becky K. Simonsen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2534044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2534044","url":null,"abstract":"Studies find that renters are more supportive of public spending that is financed by the property tax than homeowners, a finding commonly referred to as the “renter effect.” The renter effect suggests that, all else equal, renters should prefer property taxation over other forms of taxation. We test that hypothesis using detailed micro-level survey data that contains voter responses to two key questions: their willingness to pay higher property taxes to fund public services and their willingness to pay higher sales taxes to fund those services. Using a difference-in-differences estimation strategy, we find first that renters are approximately 10 to 18 percentage points more likely than homeowners to favor a property tax increase over a sales tax increase, a finding consistent with the presence of a renter effect. However, these results are not driven by the survey responses of renters. Analysis based on separate regressions for renters and homeowners reveals that renters are indifferent between a property tax increase and either a sales tax or state income tax increase, while homeowners strongly oppose a property tax increase relative to either a sales tax or state income tax increase. Further, the strong opposition among homeowners to the property tax is not eroded by including controls for income and other demographics as might be expected if these differences were driven by economic incentives. Finally, an examination of the variation in tax burden created by Proposition 13 in California shows no evidence that homeowner aversion to the property tax increases with the homeowner's relative tax burden. These findings of homeowner aversion to property taxes are consistent with recent work suggesting that salience matters when voters evaluate taxes, but also suggest that increased salience does not necessarily lead to more careful consideration of individual tax burdens.","PeriodicalId":368113,"journal":{"name":"State & Local Government eJournal","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134263322","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Use and Abuse of Labor's Capital","authors":"David H. Webber","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2380661","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2380661","url":null,"abstract":"The recent financial crisis has jeopardized the retirement savings of twenty-seven million Americans who depend on public pension funds, leading to cuts in benefits, increased employee contributions, job losses, and the rollback of legal rights like collective bargaining. This Article examines ways in which public pension funds invest against the economic interests of their own participants and beneficiaries, and the legal implications of these investments. In particular, the Article focuses on the use of public pensions to fund privatization of public employee jobs. Under the ascendant — and flawed — interpretation of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, public pension trustees owe their allegiance to the fund itself, rather than to the fund’s participants and beneficiaries, notwithstanding the fact that the duty of loyalty commands trustees to invest “solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries” according to ERISA and similar state pension codes. I argue that this “fund-first” view distorts the duty of loyalty and turns the role of trustee on its head, leading to investments that undermine, rather than enhance, the economic interests of public employees. I turn to ERISA, trust law, agency law, and corporate law to argue that public pension trustees should consider the impact of the funds’ investments on the jobs and job security of the funds’ participants and beneficiaries, where relevant. I also adduce evidence that these controversial investments are widespread. I propose that public pension funds be governed by a “member-first” view of fiduciary duty focused on the economic interests of public employees in their retirement funds, which go beyond maximizing return to the funds. I argue that this view is more faithful to the original purpose of the duty of loyalty than is the fund-first view. I suggest ways to implement the member-first view, discuss potential extensions beyond the jobs impact of investments, and assess the proposed reform’s practical effects.","PeriodicalId":368113,"journal":{"name":"State & Local Government eJournal","volume":"100 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124159100","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How the West Was Bought: How a 'Simple' Payment to Compensate Local Governments Became an Uncontrollable Federal Subsidy","authors":"D. Kenney","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2497048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2497048","url":null,"abstract":"The federal government owns and administers more than 1/4 of the land in the United States, most of which is located in the Western half of the country and most of which is not subject to local taxation. To counterbalance the negative fiscal impact of nontaxable federal land in the United States, Congress created a Payment in Lieu of Taxes program, known as PILT, to compensate local governments for the government services they provide. The U.S. Department of the Interior distributes PILT as lump-sum payments directly to local governments. In order to prevent overcompensation, PILT payments are limited by the amount that the local government units receive under other federal revenue sharing programs, many of which are based directly on the extraction of natural resources like oil, gas, and timber. PILT has one major problem though: the deduction provision doesn’t work. This is because only funds received by the unit of local government are deducted from PILT. Therefore, if the funds are passed through to a smaller governing agency, known as a service district, there is no deduction.The U.S. Department of the Interior should, through notice-and-comment rulemaking, clarify its PILT regulations to discourage states and local governments from subdividing themselves into smaller and smaller entities in order to maximize the amount of federal monies they receive. Many interested parties, including the National Association of Counties, argue that PILT should be expanded to cover all federal lands and to remove the deduction provision, while others hew to the other extreme, arguing that PILT should be eliminated entirely. The first argument completely overlooks the very real abuses perpetrated under PILT today while potentially increasing overcompensation; the second ignores the reality that local communities foot the bill to provide government services on federal land.Administering PILT in a manner that adheres to the spirit of deducting double payments would remove the incentive for inefficient governance and create an incentive to manage, rather than exploit, public lands. The Article offers a tentative proposal for the form such reform could take, as well as explaining why other reforms, such as statutory amendment or stricter enforcement, might be complicated by political expediency.","PeriodicalId":368113,"journal":{"name":"State & Local Government eJournal","volume":"154 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128203310","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Federalism and the Treaty Power: Breaking the 'Bond(s)' Between Nations: The Treaty Power and Status of Forces Agreements","authors":"Dru Brenner-Beck","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2491979","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2491979","url":null,"abstract":"Federalism principles have long impacted the balance between state and federal authority, but today these principles are impacting the nation’s implementation of treaties regulating armed conflict. In 1920, the Supreme Court decided Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920). That seminal decision held that the nation’s treaty power was not limited by the federalism constraints of the Tenth amendment. Few treaties subsequently ratified by the nation symbolize the consequence of this decision more than the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), a treaty that operates to divest states of their traditional authority to prosecute violations of their criminal law. Ratified as a self-executing treaty while the Senate debated, and then ultimately defeated, Senator Bricker’s attempts to amend the Constitution to overrule Missouri v. Holland and limit the domestic applicability of treaties, the NATO SOFA represents the importance of the treaty power in realizing critical national policy goals. The jurisprudential foundation for this longstanding supremacy of treaty law over state law is, however, wobbling under the weight of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2077 (2014). Although that decision in no way considered the impact of SOFAs, it did create a demanding standard for assessing when a treaty preempts traditional state law making authority. This article will explore the debate over the scope of the Constitution’s treaty power seen in the Third Circuit’s and Supreme Court’s consideration of the Bond case, and place the NATO SOFA treaty in its historical context. After evaluating the Bond case itself and its clear indication rule, the article next explores its implications for the NATO SOFA treaty, and consequently, the nation’s treaty commitments. The first Bond decision, Bond v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2355 (2011), demonstrates that individual citizens will have standing to contest the validity of treaty-implementing legislation (and perhaps self-executing treaties) that circumscribes their behavior in areas traditionally reserved to the states. As a result of Bond, federal courts are now routinely hearing federalism challenges to federal prosecutions, even for violations of statutes grounded in the commerce clause or other enumerated powers far removed from the treaty power. The Supreme Court’s failure to clarify either the continued validity of Missouri v. Holland, or the scope of the constitutional treaty power in Bond, only postpones resolution of this important question. The NATO SOFA, because of its ratification amidst the Bricker Amendments attempts of the 1950s, is an important affirmation by the two political branches of the breadth and critical importance of a robust treaty power. The NATO SOFA, like many SOFAs implicates fundamental foreign policy, war powers, and national security interests of the nation, but also directly intrudes upon areas of traditional state responsibility in our federal system —","PeriodicalId":368113,"journal":{"name":"State & Local Government eJournal","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133660750","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Pensioners, Bondholders, and Unfair Discrimination in Municipal Bankruptcy","authors":"Andrew B. Dawson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2482608","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2482608","url":null,"abstract":"Detroit recently confirmed its plan of debt adjustment under which the city has endeavored to adjust its pension obligations. The court’s confirmation order and oral opinion on the record present what is perhaps the most significant decision regarding a key question facing any city attempting to adjust pensions in bankruptcy: can a city propose to pay its pension claimants significantly more than its other unsecured creditors? This question involves interpreting the Bankruptcy Code’s unfair discrimination rule.The Detroit bankruptcy court applied a novel interpretation of unfair discrimination, eschewing the relatively thin body of case law interpreting this rule, and suggesting that the rule should have a municipal bankruptcy-specific meaning.This article contends that there is no need for such a specialized interpretation of unfair discrimination. Many of the factors that motivated the court’s departure from the case law can actually be addressed more effectively under the case law developed for corporate reorganization. Adhering to the corporate reorganization statute has statutory and historical support. Further, such a rule would provide a more workable structure for determining when discrimination is unfair.","PeriodicalId":368113,"journal":{"name":"State & Local Government eJournal","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116529958","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Winning Safer Workplaces: A Manual for State and Local Policy Reform","authors":"R. Steinzor, James Goodwin, Michael Patoka, Matthew Shudtz, C. Monforton, Liz Borkowski","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2459538","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2459538","url":null,"abstract":"We set out to compile a list of rules and policies that could be implemented by state and local governments to provide better protections for U.S. workers. This manual includes more than two dozen such ideas, organized into thematic chapters: Chapter 1: Empowering Workers, with proposals designed to strengthen workers' individual and collective power to demand changes in their workplaces; Chapter 2: Making Sure Crime Doesn't Pay, with ideas for strong enforcement of workplace health and safety rules that will punish bad actors and deter similar behavior; Chapter 3: Strengthening Institutions, with recommendations intended to bolster government agencies' efforts to protect workers. The manual is drafted in clear and concise language and it presents each recommendation as a direct solution to an enduring problem in the workplace. The authors also helpfully provide examples when the recommendations are based on successfully implemented programs. Our hope is that this manual will be a starting point for discussion among our allies, especially groups that are new to the health-and-safety arena.","PeriodicalId":368113,"journal":{"name":"State & Local Government eJournal","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131900874","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Práticas De Transparência Digital Em Municípios Baianos: Um Estudo De Caso (Digital Transparency Practices in Bahian Municipalities: A Case Study)","authors":"Jurandir Santos Vieira, Francisco Marton Gleuson Pinheiro, Raimundo Nonato Lima Filho, R. Moreira","doi":"10.18227/rarr.v4i1.2094","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18227/rarr.v4i1.2094","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this study was to identify whether there are differences in the practices of transparency in implementation of revenue and municipal public expenditure on electronic means of access to the public, in the linked prefectures to the 13th Regional Inspectorate of External Control (IRCE) the Court of municipalities ( TCM - BA ) of Senhor do Bonfim - Bahia , in the light of Complementary Law n. 131 (2009). Studies have demonstrated the need for research regarding transparency in the public administration in Brazil. The type of research used was a case study, guided by qualitative assessments, characterized by the description of the facts. This procedure was performed with literature and documentary research in their websites. The research covered the period from May 2011 to November 2013, which noted the level of compliance with deadlines established by Law n. 131 (2009). The collection and analysis of data were performed by means of public information, available on the Internet through the portals of transparency of the ten municipalities jurisdictional by IRCE - Senhor do Bonfim, in the period from 1st to November 15th, 2013. As found, highlight the existence of differences between the practices of transparency adopted by municipalities; and that none of the ten municipalities analyzed complies fully with the provisions of Law n. 131 (2009). Therefore, we generated a reflection on the transparency of public revenue and expenditure, presenting opportunities for new research in the area.","PeriodicalId":368113,"journal":{"name":"State & Local Government eJournal","volume":"104 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127293475","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Penal and Revenue Rules, State Law, and Federal Preemption","authors":"William S. Dodge","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2392019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2392019","url":null,"abstract":"Under two longstanding rules, U.S. courts will not enforce the penal and revenue laws of foreign nations, nor the judgments of foreign courts based upon such laws. Both the penal and revenue rules are rules of common law. But are they rules of state common law or federal common law? Some federal courts have held that the revenue rule is federal common law and preempts inconsistent state law. This essay argues, to the contrary, that the penal and revenue rules — like other rules concerning the conflict of laws and the enforcement of foreign judgments — are rules of state law. Building on Justice Harlan’s concurrence in Zschernig v. Miller, I offer a narrower theory of preemption based on clear federal policies expressed in U.S. treaties. Under this theory, States would be precluded from enforcing foreign tax claims, for example, but could recognize foreign convictions as bars to subsequent prosecutions for the same offense, as some state double-jeopardy statutes have done.","PeriodicalId":368113,"journal":{"name":"State & Local Government eJournal","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115800624","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Some Reflections on the past, Present and State-Dependent Future of Lotteries in American Gaming Law","authors":"Stephen J. Leacock","doi":"10.1089/GLRE.2014.1836","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/GLRE.2014.1836","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the past, present, and possible future of lottery playing in the U.S. in the legal context. After the introduction in Part I, Part II examines the history and development of lottery playing in the U.S. Part III discusses the development of lottery playing in the U.S. and the role that public policy plays in court determinations of the legality of lotteries. Part IV discusses lottery legalization in the U.S., while Part V addresses an example of the financial success of lotteries and presents some criticisms of lotteries as tax vehicles in lieu of taxation by legislative mandate. Part VI defines lotteries as a type of gambling in the U.S., and Part VII assesses the legal impact on public policy of legislative changes in state lottery laws. Part VIII reflects upon some of the consequences of state legalization of lotteries; then Part IX is the conclusion.","PeriodicalId":368113,"journal":{"name":"State & Local Government eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124080754","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}