GOVT 2306
Texas Bureaucracy

In a previous section we looked at the bureaucracy and discussed its relationship with the elected portions of the executive branch.

While the bureaucracy exists in the executive branch, it occupies a unique position within it, one removed from the direct control of the upper, elected, levels.
This has lead some to argue that it constitutes a distinct, fourth branch of government .

In this section we look at the actual bureaucracy in the state of Texas and some of the specific controversies associated with it.

Recall that a large number of bureaucratic agencies – though not all of them by any measure – are established in the Texas
Constitution. No executive agencies are established in the US
Constitution.

For supplemental reading:
Texas Politics: Bureaucracy
(I’ll pull some additional reading from that source here and there)

A reminder, the bureaucracy is composed of the individuals and institutions that actually implement the laws.
They are the face of government – they are the people you are most likely to interact with on a daily basis, the one’s who implement the policies established by the legislative branch, as clarified by the members of the upper levels of the executive branch.

People like me.

The entire public education system in Texas from Pre-K to Graduate
School is a great example of one of the largest bureaucratic entities in the state.
We’ll be looking at it in an upcoming section.

The Texas bureaucracy is composed of people who perform a large variety of functions. Some of these involve providing certain services and products that might not otherwise be provided for by the private sector.

It can also be composed of people and institutions that are intended to regulate certain aspects of the economy or individual behavior.
This includes law enforcement.

The executive bureaucracy contains the largest number of people who work in the government.
According to Texas Politics: as of 2002 about 1.16 million worked in the bureaucracy in some executive branch on the national, state or local level.

Here’s the breakdown as of 2002:
165,000 Federal employees
265,000 Texas employees
Nearly 1 million local employees click here for some pretty slides with some content .

This doesn’t count the number of people who work part-time or who work for private firms with government contracts.

From Texas Politics : “The annual payroll for state employees for fiscal year 2003 was approximately
$10.6 billion, out of total state expenditures of $60.27 billion, making state payroll about 17.6 percent of total state spending.”

Texas has a lower state work force than most other states. “Data gathered from the
U.S. Census Bureau show that Texas ranked
44th among the fifty states in terms of numbers of full-time equivalent state employees as a percentage of the total state population.” – TP
This makes sense given the state’s political culture.

For more detail on the structure, size and scope of the Texas
Bureaucracy, click here for that section in the Bureaucracy Chapter in Texas Politics.

As is the case in all other states, more people work for the state and local bureaucracy than the national government. But it is important to note that national laws tend to be enforced by bureaucratic officials who reside in the state.

For background and additional data:
US Census: Government Payroll
2010 Public Employment and Payroll
Data State Governments TEXAS

To get an idea of the size and scope of the Texas Bureaucracy, click on this link in the Texas State
Directory:
Agencies, Boards and Commissions

Here’s a list of state agencies from
Wikipedia .

Aside from increasing in size, the bureaucracy has also expended its authority by acquiring quasilegislative and quasi-judicial functions.

This is a problem for those who believe the bureaucracy has grown too powerful – both on the state and national level.

“Quasi – Legislative Functions” refer primarily to the ability of the bureaucracy to establish rules that clarify how law is to be implemented.

Aside from the ability to implement the law, rulemaking grants the bureaucracy tremendous power, especially when the legislature is somewhat vague in the legislation it passes. Sometime this is done purposefully so members of the legislature can avoid blame for any consequences of bills that turnout to be unpopular.

“In many ways, Texans are ruled by rules. The legislature has endowed
169 Texas agencies with rulemaking authority. In 2001, agencies proposed or adopted
17,927 rules spanning 11,116 pages of the Texas Register.” – click here for the source .

An example of the rulemaking process in one Texas Agency:
Rules and Rulemaking from the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality.
(The TCEQ is one of the many agencies with boards the governor appoints)

The process is was established by the
Texas Administrative Procedure Act
(APA). See below for more detail:
Administrative Law Handbook - Texas
Attorney General
Developments in the Law of
Rulemaking - UTCLE

All records of state agency rulemaking is maintained in the
Texas Register, which is maintained by the Texas Secretary of Sta te.
Click here for past copies of the
Texas Register .

“Quasi – Judicial Functions” refer to the ability of the bureaucracy to resolve disputes in a process that resembles a judicial hearing.

Civil Service Protections

As also mentioned previously, those hired to work in the bureaucracy are given protections from the political forces that tend to dominate those in higher office.
The hiring and firing of workers in the bureaucracy, in addition to their behavior, is supposed to be immune from political pressure. The intent is to establish a bureaucracy that is neutral and professional.

The requirement that the bureaucracy be neutral and professional stems from the writings of Max Weber , a sociologist who studied, among others things, various ways that governmental authority worked.

He analyzed three types, authority based on tradition, charisma and on a rational legal foundation.
The first two were based on, respectively, history and individual personality. In the first, tasks and duties were not well defined, and not based on merit or competence. In the second, authority was based on devotion to the individual.

In the rational – legal system, duties were well defined and impersonal and the assignment of jobs was based on technical competence.
Weber argued that societies with this type of authority worked best. This argument helps explain the nature of the merit based system we have in the US.

The Texas Politics text argues that the rational-legal system has a bureaucracy based on six principles:

1 - fixed division of labor, with specialization of workers
2 - positions organized into a chain of command, a hierarchy
3 - rules and regulations regarding work
4 - separation of personal and official property
5 - selection of personnel on the basis of technical qualifications
6 - employment that is career-oriented

The establishment of the civil service system on the national level allowed for a competitive, non-partisan way for people to be hired to bureaucratic positions primarily, but not exclusively in the executive branch.

The governing system in Texas also designed to allow a degree of insulation of the bureaucracy from political pressures.

The fact that many executive functions in the state are overseen by board and commissions that are elected or appointed to six year terms is intended to insulate them from political pressures, but this is not always successful.
When the governorship is held by one person or members of one party for long periods of time, it can allow for political control, but some argue that this is what ought to happen in a democratic system.

This creates a huge issue.
Who ought the bureaucracy be accountable to? And how can that accountability not be used to control the bureaucracy for political purposes?

Types of accountability
Electoral
Legislative
Chief Executive
Interest Groups

A general note:
The decentralized nature of the bureaucracy means that no single individual or entity has the power to influence all aspects of the bureaucracy, or is responsible for what it does. Again, this is a consequence of the plural executive.

Electoral accountability refers to the idea that the bureaucracy ought to be controlled by the population, but there are questions about whether the general population can effectively provide accountability over a large, complex, relatively anonymous bureaucracy.

No lower lever bureaucrats are directly accountable to the population, though upper level officials, as we know, can be subject to elections – so they can be in theory.
Again, this is to reduce the possibility of corruption.

Legislative accountability exists in a variety of forms, but varies depending upon whether the bureaucracy is affiliated with an agency that is established in the
Constitution or by statutory law.

The legislative branch has control over the budget (the power of the purse) and can audit legislative agencies. It also has oversight authority over executive agencies and can use this power to develop legislation which can then be used to change executive agencies.

Perhaps most importantly, the legislature has sunset review authority which has been established in the Sunset Advisory
Commission .
Here’s the official description from the SAC’s website:

In 1977, the Texas Legislature created the Sunset Advisory
Commission to identify and eliminate waste, duplication, and inefficiency in government agencies. The 12-member
Commission is a legislative body that reviews the policies and programs of more than 150 government agencies every
12 years. The Commission questions the need for each agency, looks for potential duplication of other public services or programs, and considers new and innovative changes to improve each agency's operations and activities.
The Commission seeks public input through hearings on every agency under Sunset review and recommends actions on each agency to the full Legislature. In most cases, agencies under Sunset review are automatically abolished unless legislation is enacted to continue them.”

The process simply asks each agency to justify its existence.

The Sunset Review process was established – after the Sharpstown
Scandal – to institutionalize periodic oversight of state agencies.

In the 2012-2013 cycle, the 83 rd
Legislature will review the following agencies:

Architectural Examiners, Texas Board of
Arts, Texas Commission on the
Correctional Managed Health Care Committee
Criminal Justice, Texas Board and Department of
Education Agency, Texas
Engineers, Texas Board of Professional
Ethics Commission, Texas
Facilities Commission, Texas
Fire Fighters' Pension Commissioner, Office of
Higher Education Coordinating Board, Texas
Housing and Community Affairs, Texas Department of*
Information Resources, Department of
Judicial Conduct, State Commission on
Lottery Commission, Texas
Pardons and Paroles, Board of
Pension Review Board, State
Port of Houston Authority
Preservation Board, State
Procurement and Support Services Division of the Comptroller of Public Accounts*
Public Utility Commission of Texas*
Railroad Commission of Texas
Self-Directed Semi-Independent Agency Project Act
State Employee Charitable Campaign Policy Committee
Windham School District within Texas Department of Criminal Justice*

As mentioned before, accountability to the chief executive (the governor) is limited in order to reduce the possibility that bureaucratic powers are used for political ends.

The very concept of a plural executive limits the direct power of the governor and establishes a degree of autonomy for each agency – at least in theory.

There have been attempts to increase the power of the governor over time – including the expansion of the term of office from 2 to 4 years and allowing the governor to appoint members to newly created agencies.

The governor’s line item veto authority does allow the ability to impact state agencies by cutting their budgets.
This also provides the governor leverage over the agency. They might be more likely to bargain with the governor knowing he has this power.

The governor has no direct hiring power over lower level bureaucratic employees, so the governor only has indirect control over the bureaucracy.
But the level of control can be considerable, the appointment power has increased the powers of the office.

It also creates opportunities for favors since appointments are commonly influenced by political donations rather than expertise in the field.

But the governor has far more direct power over agencies with board and commissions he can appoint rather than those that are elected separately.

A large number of agencies, plus information about how to interact with them, can be found at texas.gov
.
It calls itself “The Official Website of the State of Texas.”

It also contains information about employment and jobs in state agencies .

Why not allow the chief executive the ability to hire and fire civil servants?
Here’s a fun little read: Where did civil service for cops come from anyway, and why?

And more: The section in the Local
Government Code that attempts to
“secure efficient fire and police departments composed of capable personnel who are free from political influence and who have permanent employment tenure as public servants.”

While this is true for all executive agencies, it is especially vital for their to be no political influence over the operations of law enforcement.

Problems with civil service protections on the local level: existing rules protect senior employees at the expense of younger ones and termination can be very difficult.
Related story from The Daily News .

Is the bureaucracy most accountable to interest groups?

Do interest groups control the bureaucracy?

Bureaucratic agencies are generally tailored to the needs of a specific interest, so its not unusual for interest groups (clientele groups) that benefit from the programs administered by the group to be heavily involved in the political process in order to influence how those programs are administered and who does the administering.

It is common for high level appointees to the bureaucracy to be affiliated with the industry affected by the agency.
It is also common for high level appointees in agencies to return to work in the industry after their terms are over.

If the agency becomes fully controlled by the affected interest group, then that agency is argued to have been
“captured” by the interests it was meant to regulate.
This effectively allows the interest group to regulate itself and use regulatory power to limit competition.

Example: The Commissioner of the
Texas Department of Insurance has a background in management with insurance companies.
Here’s an article in the NYT that argues she is too closely tied to the industry, and an argument in a Corpus Christi newspaper that the Insurance
Commissioner should be elected to office.

This leads to the development of what are called iron triangles and sub-governments where the interests of various actors concerned with a particular aspect of public policy.
See TP: 4.3 Interest Groups and Bureaucracies

A typical iron triangle is composed of members of interest groups, the agency that oversees the issue important to the group, and the members of the legislative committee that has jurisdiction over the subject.
Each has benefits they can offer the other, so relationship commonly grow. It is also common for people to go from positions in one institution to another within the triangle.

Relationships in Texas can be further complicated by the relative powers of the presiding officers of both chambers of the legislature and the governor. Instead of an iron triangle, it is the iron Texas star.
The former are heavily influential in the legislative process and the governor’s appointment powers and line items veto make each central to this circle of influence.

These relationships are cemented by the fact that each provides lucrative opportunities to the others. The specifics depend on their precise goals, but altogether critics argue that this creates a
“ Pay to Play ” culture in the state.
Here’s a related story , again involving the head of the Texas Insurance Commission.

Here’s an important caveat.
While there might be a great many interests that exist in the state, governing officials – and the bureaucracy in general – is more likely to be influenced by organized groups with concentrated strength rather than unorganized groups or individuals.

Influencing the bureaucracy requires a great degree of resources, concentrated power, and sustained effort.
Organized groups are far more able to do this than unorganized groups and individuals.

The Federal Context of the Texas
Bureaucracy.

Not all executive agencies in the state of Texas exist because the state has chosen to establish them.
Some exist because of efforts of the federal government to entice all states to create agencies that pursue nationally established goals.

Perhaps the best example is health policy, especially Medicare and the
State Children’s Health Insurance
Program.
Other programs include unemployment insurance, and a small handful of others.

Click here for a look at a list of the various types of federal aid to state and local governments that are meant to entice states to implement national policies that focus on defined national standards.