\doc\web\99\14\stwacts.txt Date sent: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 20:56:18 To: fredb001@dreamscape.com From: Lynn M Stuter Subject: The thought just occurred to me ... The thought just occurred to me, with respect to Executive Orders, that Clinton has only put on paper what is already a done deal by other means. With no disrespect to those who have raised the hue and cry over Executive Orders, particularly of the federalism kind, who among us has lately called the U.S. Government and asked for a copy of the discretionary grants given their particular state. One individual I know did that. What she received was a box -- yes, that's right -- a box of perforated continuous feed computer paper with line on line of grants to her state. She couldn't believe it!!! What about those grants? Every time a state receives a grant from the federal government there is a process that is followed. It goes something like this. Legislation is passed in which funds are appropriated to implement the law. Then a request for proposals (RFP) is published in the federal register and sent out by the federal agency overseeing the grant. The RFP doesn't receive much attention but is very crucial in the whole scheme of things because the RFP lays out what the state must do if the state wishes to receive the grant money. Now, a state can write the grant application any way it wants to. However, if the states wishes to have it's grant application considered, the state WILL ensure that the grant application incorporates ALL the requirements set down in the RFP. Technical assistance is usually provided by the granting agency to "prospective grantees" to help them get the grant application right. When the grant application is signed, as it must be, by a person of authority to do so at the state level, and that grant application is accepted and fund monies awarded by the federal agency overseeing the grant, the state and federal government have, in fact, entered into a de facto contract in which the state agrees to comply with federal mandates, effecting federal control over the state. The centralization of power to the federal level (federalism) has been effected. The obvious answer to the whole problem is to not apply for grant monies. But it doesn't quite work that way either. Under the systems approach of governnance, government granting programs are being integrated such that monies from one grant are intended to augment the implementation and focus of other grant programs. This quickly becomes a "spiderweb" effect wherein the unaware are quickly snared. It's like the fine print on a contract -- you are wise to read it before signing. How does the "spiderweb" effect work? Let's take, for instance, the School to Work Opportunties Act of 1994 (STWOA). In order to receive grant monies under the STWOA, your state plan must also show how you will integrate your plan with • the Adult Education Act, • the Carl D Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act, • the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, • the Higher Education Act of 1965, • part F of title IV of the Social Security Act, • the Goals 2000: Education American Act, • the National Skills Standards Act of 1994, • the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, • the Job Training Partnership Act, • the Act of August 16, 1937 (National Apprenticeship Act), • the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and • the National and Community Service Act of 1990. Undoubtedly, cursory review of each of these acts will reveal that they are also contingent on "integration" with other acts, building the spider web noted above. In every state, we have watched the power of the legislature be usurped by the descretionary granting process. We openly oppose executive orders on federalism. What about these grants that have given state power and authority over to the federal government in direction violation of the Tenth Amendment? LynnS