Search results

A critical examination of the role of the independent regulatory commissions, attempting to develop a more realistic concept of the process of governmental regulation and to appraise the independent commission as an agent of governmental regulation at the national level. Originally published in 1955. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905

AbstractRundown of current problems for state and local government personnel and some steps which might be taken by those governments to produce guidelines to alert officials and employees to potential and actual ethical issues.

Since 1937, five major governmental studies have analyzed the problems of independent regulatory commissions in the government and have prescribed reforms. The Presi dent's Committee on Administrative Management (1937) pro posed the departmentalization of independent commissions. The First Hoover Commission (1949) relied heavily on vesting responsibility in the chairmen. The Second Hoover Commis sion (1955) dealt almost entirely with improving internal pro cedures and separating the functions of prosecuting and deci sion-making. The Landis Report (1960) stressed the need to appoint better qualified commissioners. In 1971, the Presi dent's Advisory Council on Executive Organization (Ash Coun cil) criticized their multiheaded direction, the judicial cast of their activities, and the misalignment of certain functional re sponsibilities. These several reports, however, failed to deal with regulatory programs in the departments. It is important to focus on such factors as soundness of objectives, quality of leadership and professional staffing, influence of regulated groups on agency regulation, relation of rulemaking to adjudi cation, and the experience of departmental programs. The greatest need is to focus attention on strategies likely to be useful in achieving public purposes.