OCR Text |
Show Hinckley Journal of Politics Autumn 1998 ing their retirement. This provides the condition for situations where critical decisions are made at the lower levels without the guidance of the upper levels. A second factor contributing to redevelopment agencies being placed in Cell III is that the legislature for several years has sent mixed signals to the redevelopment agencies. Bills that would have eliminated redevelopment agencies in Utah have failed narrowly. Some legislators under no circumstance will vote to give any additional power to the redevelopment agencies. At the same time there are legislators who would gladly support an increase of power and role in the redevelopment of Utah. Because both political parties are found on both sides of the matter, it would be nearly impossible to predict the attitudes of the legislature from year to year. This puts redevelopment agencies in a condition of uncertainty. There is always the question of how far policies can be pushed without engendering wrath expressed in further legislation. Even most directors of redevelopment agencies will readily admit that, while maybe not "their" agency, some of them have pushed their powers beyond the original intent of the law (Turpin 1998). If such changes in the implementation process are readily admitted to, the question then arises as to whether the agencies are still accountable. To answer this, one must deal with the question as to how to determine accountability. Testing the Typological Approach Determining whether Utah's redevelopment agencies are accountable, can be accomplished by applying Burke's typological approach. Because it has been established that redevelopment agencies fall under the scope of Cell III, it can then be studied as to what one can expect from the conditions found within this cell. It should be noted that the majority of research and press refers to redevelopment agencies in Salt Lake County. Also, due to the complexity of redevelopment agencies, it is entirely possible that one redevelopment agency can be deemed accountable while a neighboring agency is seen as unaccountable. As Burke has mentioned, of the four cells, Cell III is the particular cell in which the circumstances have "not been adequately examined" (142). In such cases Burke has called for additional thought and research. Because redevelopment agencies in Utah fall under Cell III, an opportunity is now presented for further "thought and research." To further research redevelopment agencies' accountability and their role in this cell, clear factors must be established to determine the level of accountability. Three determinants are presented here. The first determinant comes in the form of governmental audits and assessments. Legislators frequently rely on their auditors to identify the level of accountability and the way in which tax dollars are being spent. If the reports are highly critical of the agencies that were audited, then the agencies' accountability is in question. If such reports are relatively non-critical then it could be assumed that a higher accounta- bility exists. In fairness, it should be understood that virtually no agency undergoes an audit without some criticism or negative feedback. Every agency always will have problems that may or may not be due to its own creation. Therefore, the existence of criticisms in audits alone should not necessarily imply a lack in accountability. The second determinant comes in the area of court decisions. In the past few years the redevelopment agencies have been taken to court over several issues. As redevelopment agencies lose in court, more questions can be raised legitimately as to their level of accountability. Certainly if agencies have patterns of such judgements against them that raises such questions. The third and final determinant presented comes from other political figures. Only the Utah State Legislature can alter physically the laws that govern redevelopment agencies. There are, however, plenty of other elected officials who must deal with redevelopment agencies on a daily basis. This includes not only state legislators, but also county and city officials. Stories in the media and public perception also should be considered in this determinant. By considering each of these three determinants, we can draw a reasonable conclusion as to the level of accountability. If there is a consistent pattern of criticism from each of the three areas, then accountability is relatively low. If no such patterns of criticisms exist, then accountability could be considered high for an agency that operates in the third cell. If there is a mixture of the two, then if nothing else, specific points of contention can be established for further and future scrutiny. Governmental Assessments and Audits. The first determinant can be more fully explored by determining the nature of any audits that have been done on Utah's redevelopment agencies. In the last 10 years three such reports were made. The first report was done by the Salt Lake County Auditor's Office and entitled An Analysis of The Impact of Redevelopment Agencies on Governmental Revenues in Salt Lake County (Salt Lake County Auditor 1989; hereafter SLCA). The second report was issued two years later from the same office. This second report was entitled An Update of the Report on: The Impact of Redevelopment Agencies on Governmental Revenues in Salt Lake County (SLCA 1991). The final report presented came from the Office of Legislative Auditor General and was entitled A Performance Audit of Utah Redevelopment Agencies (Legislative Auditor General 1991; hereafter LAG). It should be noted that these audits are each seven to nine years old. No audits have been conducted since 1991. It is the opinion of the county auditors that while legislation has since corrected some of the problems addressed, many criticisms still contain validity today (Sorensen 1997). A question could be raised as to why no additional audits have been conducted if there are feelings that accountability is not as strong as it could or should be. There are two sug- 33 |