Library Collections: Document: Full Text

There is certainly a very distinct difference between the functioning of an interdepartmental or inter-agency committee convened by the Governor (or mandated by the Legislature) on which all departments are represented, on the one hand, and on the other hand a situation in which one department makes the study, merely giving other departments a chance to voice their comments and recommendations.

The emphasis that has been placed in the foregoing comments on effective coordination of the State agencies should not convey that there is no need to involve public agencies on the local level and private associations and citizen groups. With regard to the former, the question arises from where such representation would come, from the county or from the municipality, and what safeguards will be prescribed in terms of number of representatives, voting rights, etc., to "assure full consideration" to these local interests. Similar questions need to be raised with regard to voluntary services (such as privately sponsored sheltered workshops, hospitals and hospital clinics, residential facilities, day care centers, etc.).

It is interesting that neither H.R. 3386 nor S.B. 1072 specifically name voluntary associations as participants in this planning activity. This is all the more surprising since S.B. 756 and H.R. 3689 also introduced at the request of the Administration in furtherance of the President's Mental Retardation Program and dealing with construction of mental retardation facilities, specifically prescribe a State Advisory Council (for the purpose of that particular program). It sets forth that such advisory council should include "representatives of consumers of the services provided by such facilities."

Still, it would seem obvious that in the field of mental retardation one could hardly have "full consideration of all aspects of services essential to planning for comprehensive State and community action to combat mental retardation" without adequate representation from the State and Local Associations for Retarded Children.

It is not mere coincidence that in many states the effort to establish Interdepartmental Committees on Mental Retardation has been spearheaded by the state Association for Retarded Children.

I realize that I may have proceeded contrary to the wishes of your Program Chairman when I decided to use the brief time alloted me this morning to present to you not a sweeping overview of the role of public and voluntary services in prevention and treatment of mental retardation but rather a detailed review of just one key problem - that of Statewide planning.

But even so, time did not suffice to cover this one problem completely. I hope you will ascribe this to the complexity of the subject matter rather than to redundancy as the speaker's part.

In the remaining few minutes, let me point up some additional problems that need to be covered in the context of State planning and to which perhaps some attention can be given in the discussion groups:

I have stressed here the importance of an interdepartmental or interagency committee on the state level. Membership, specifically voting membership on such a body, must be reserved to especially delegated officials of these state departments. Some States, such as New York for instance, provide a guest or consultant status for invited representatives of non-governmental groups, and the recent enactment in North Dakota specifically gives this privilege to the North Dakota Association for Retarded Children.

In any case, it should be obvious that an interdepartmental committee as such cannot by and of itself carry our the program of Statewide planning proposed in the new mental retardation legislation.

Certainly a long tradition in this country has taught us the value of citizen action -- the impetus which comes from a variety of civic and professional groups banding together for planning in areas of major concern, whether as a subgroup of an overall planning body or as a separately organized council on such a subject as mental retardation.

It would take far more time than is available here this morning to develop adequately this added dimension of Statewide planning: once there is established a soundly functioning interdepartmental committee (and I have pointed up earlier the reasons why in the specific area of mental retardation I consider this a number one priority), steps must be taken to bring together that committee and the citizen planning body plus - and here comes the third dimension -- appropriate representation from local governments.

I am fully aware of the impatience most people have with what appears to be a multiplicity of committees, but I also belong to that old-fashioned group of people who feel that short cuts across that cornerstone of our democracy -- the separation of powers of the executive, judiciary and legislature -- have never benefited us in the long run. I consider as equally important the need to differentiate within our context between the functioning of an interdepartmental committee as an arm of the executive branch of government (and thus responsible to the Governor) on the one hand, and the independent citizen planning and action body on the other, with its privilege to range freely, unhampered by the Bureau of the Budget.