Governmental relations

Governmental relations

 Please type answers to the following essay questions (1.5 line spacing preferred).
 The answers must integrate and cite course readings (e.g., S&W chapters and
Publius/SLGR articles) as well as the lectures.
 When using chapters from the S&W text, please cite the author and the chapter
number in the text: According to S&W, Ch. 8 …
 When citing O’Toole and Christensen [O&C] reader articles, please cite by the
last name of the author of the particular chapter: According to Martha Derthick
(O&C, Ch. 3), ….
 When citing other academic articles listed on the syllabus, cite this way:
“According to Vogel and Nezelkewicz (2002), MPOs are an important way for
the federal government to promote regional governance in different parts of the
 When citing course lectures, please use the following format with last name of
instructor and Module # (and slide # for direct quotes): “According to Shock
(Mod. 4, slide 21), ….”
 Special note: I do not want you to simply re-type your notes. Please state your
main argument(s) early in your answer (first paragraph) and defend your
argument(s) with evidence from the class lectures and readings.


  1. CASE: “LARP and State-Aid Replaced With New Program.” [50 points]
    You have been hired as a policy analyst for the State of Georgia and tasked with finding
    better ways to distribute state funds to counties for local transportation projects and to
    recommend a method for implementing a potential new state ethics policy at the local
    level. The legislature of the State of Georgia is considering new ethics legislation that
    would require all county officials to publicly disclose possible conflicts of interest to the
    State Ethics Commission. The method of implementation has not yet been decided.
    In your analysis and recommendations, please address the following:
     a. Describe how you would address variations in the fiscal capacity of different
    counties. Should more money be granted to low-capacity jurisdictions? How
    should the local matching portion be determined?
     b. The current LMIG grant system is formula-based. Should this be revised?
    Should there be a project grant component?
     c. Should the state road grants to counties be in the form of categorical grants or
    block grants? Discuss how categorical and block grants differ and why the
    different grant types are used by governments.

 d. In terms of implementing the new ethics requirements, should the state road
grant program for counties be used to implement this policy? Please discuss and
analyze grant “strings,” pre-emption, and mandates, and make a recommendation
to the State of Georgia regarding the best mechanism(s) to use for the
intergovernmental implementation of the new ethics law.
Please be sure to integrate course lectures and readings, such as C&O/S&W chapters,
Ward and Dadayan & Richardson and Houston, etc., into your analysis.
Facts regarding the LMIG program are discussed below.
LARP and State-Aid Replaced With New Program
“Beginning July 1, 2010, the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Local Assistance
Road Program (LARP) and the State-Aid program were phased out. In their place is the
new Local Maintenance and Improvement Grant (LMIG) Program. DOT held a series of
workshops during the month of June to help local government officials understand the
new process of applying for funds under the LMIG program.
The following are some key points regarding the LMIG program:  
 The total amount available in the LMIG program for FY2011 is $96 million.
SB200 stipulated that LMIG must be funded at between 10%-20% of motor fuel
funds. The amount for FY2011 is approximately 13%. 
 While LARP funds were restricted to resurfacing projects, the LMIG program is
intended to provide more flexibility and can be used for a variety of transportation
improvement projects, including patching, widening, turn lanes, rehabilitation,
intersections, traffic signals, safety upgrades, culvert/bridge repair, and
sidewalk/bike lane improvements that are within the roadway right of way.
Parking lots are an eligible project, but priority will be given to road and bridge
 GDOT will use a formula based on 2/3 paved and unpaved centerline miles and
1/3 population.
 For FY11, there is no match for resurfacing projects and a 10% match for
construction projects. Money spent on preliminary engineering, right of way,
utilities, etc. are NOT counted toward the 10% match. 
 GDOT is encouraging every local government to develop a long-range
transportation plan to help with project prioritization. 
 All requests must be submitted between July 1, 2010 and April 30, 2011.
Requests for resurfacing must be submitted to GDOT by July 31, 2010, if you
want GDOT to let your project. If your city plans to contract its own project, you
do not have to submit your priority list by July 31.
 GDOT recommends submitting project requests to your GDOT District
Engineer’s office rather than to the Atlanta office. There will be NO online
submittals for LMIG. All submittals must be made in writing, and GDOT has
separate forms for city and county projects.

 For all new contracts, a completion date will be assigned. The clock starts ticking
when the contracts leave the general office in Atlanta. The recipient is expected to
expend 100% of all funds by the end of the completion date in the contract.
 LMIG guidelines allow a local government to bank up to three years of its
formula amount.
 GDOT has a backlog of projects going back to the 1990’s. The Department will
erase that list and start over as of July 1. If these projects are still a priority for
your city, you will need to resubmit these projects under LMIG. Please notify
your District Engineer’s office if this applies to your city and let them know if
these projects are priorities.”

  1. CASE: “To Privatize or Not to Privatize” (a copy of the case is available in
    Module 11). [50 points]
    Please assess the feasibility and desirability of a proposed public-private partnership for
    garbage collection in Centraltown for Mayor Nancy Martin based upon your knowledge
    of public-private and public-nonprofit partnerships. In particular, provide the following
    assessment details:
     a. Assess the criteria that should be used (in your expert opinion) to evaluate this
    instance of contracting out;
    o criteria include: effectiveness, efficiency, adequacy, equity
    o weigh the different criteria in terms of importance and relevance. Which
    criterion is the most important, second, etc.
    o see the “Criteria for Evaluating Contracting Out” file posted in the Exam 2
    module of D2L.

 b. Identify the key factors from the lectures and readings that contribute to the
success of private/nonprofit partnerships with governments as well as the factors
that can lead to failure. Apply the relevant factors to this case.
o note: you do not need to explain all the factors, just the ones you believe
are important and relevant to this case.

 c. Provide an overall recommendation to Mayor Martin regarding the proposed
partnership based on your criteria and application of success/failure factors:
o proceed with the proposed contracting out initiative?
o retain government (public) operation of the garbage collection service?
o recommend other service delivery alternatives?

1700 WORDS