User:Orlady/County by state
 | This is not a Wikipedia article: This is a workpage, a collection of material and work in progress that may or may not be incorporated into an article. It should not necessarily be considered factual or authoritative. |
Notes on "County government by state"
| State | agency of state? (Gregbard's take) | comments |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | YES - 45 C.F.R. 95.4. | Nope! Misconstruing a primary source here. The Alabama agency appeals board was considering a Medicaid case. The question was whether the county was a state agency or a service provider for purposes of a rule related to Medicaid. It stated: A "state agency" for purposes of expenditures for support enforcement services under title IV-D means:
That specific interpretation of a state rule in a specific program in no way indicates that the county government is not a local government, but rather an arm of state government. Indeed, it hinged on the definition of "state agency" in a particular rule, in which "state agency" was defined to include "local government." |
| Arizona | YES | This is a very poor excuse for a source. It's an Election Questionnaire filled out by a candidate for Maricopa County Supervisor. In one of his responses, he says "Maricopa County is an agency of the state, a “bridge” between local governments and state government." Very nice, but it's hardly proof of anything in particular. |
| California | YES | Is this one a joke? This link is the CV of a woman who works as a GIS analyst at the University of Redlands. I haven't even bothered to try to figure out why Gregbard cites it as proof. |
| Colorado | YES - Colorado Constitution, Article XIV, Section 6 | |
| Delaware | YES: "...counties are an 'arm' of the state" | |
| Florida | YES | NOPE. This is a contractual agreement (hey, primary sources 'R us!). Early on it says "The Parties to this Agreement are the FAA and Broward County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida." Later it says "Notwithstanding the aforementioned, Broward County is a state agency or political subdivision as defined in Chapter 768.28, Florida Statutes, and agrees to be fully responsible for acts and omissions of its agents or employees to the extent permitted by law. Nothing herein is intended to serve as a waiver of sovereign immunity by any party to which sovereign immunity may be applicable. Nothing herein shall be construed as consent by a state agency or political subdivision of the State of Florida to be sued by third parties in any matter arising out of this Agreement or any other contract. These provisions shall survive the term of this Agreement."
This clearly identifies Broward County as a "political subdivision". You have to quote very selectively to make it into a "state agency". |
| Illinois | YES: County of Cook v. City of Chicago, 593 N.E.2d 928, 931 (Ill. Ct. App. 1992) | |
| Kentucky | YES: "It is well-settled law that counties are state agencies" | NOPE. First, this is not a good source for much of anything. Not only is this a primary source, but this particular primary source is a legal brief (not a court decision or even an attorney general's opinion), specifically a "Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint". Secondly, you need to consider this sentence in context. In context, it says: "It is well-settled law that counties are state agencies, and that, not only are they cloaked with sovereign immunity, but agencies which derive their genesis from county government likewise enjoy sovereign immunity from tort claims. See Caneyville Volunteer Fire Dept. v. Green’s Motorcycle Savage, Inc., 286 S.W.3d 790, 805 (Ky. 2009) (finding that fire departments are government agents engaging in governmental functions, and thus, “are cloaked in immunity from suit in tort”); Comair Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Airport Corporation, 295 S.W.3d 91 (Ky. 2009) (holding that a city-county airport board has sovereign immunity). The key to the inquiry is whether the entity is exercising a function that is integral to state government." The question of immunity from tort claims is an important one for a county. However, this legal argument regarding tort claims is not a basis for a broad statement that Kentucky counties are not local government. |
| Maryland | YES | Gregbard says: Specifially, the case states unequivocally that a BOE of the county is a state agency, and points to the law governing sovereign immunity, which the county board also enjoys.
Orlady's comments: This is a court decision document. It addresses the matter of "county vs. states" at some length. A county school board was sued for breach of contract. In response, the board (wihch didn't have the money to pay) contended that the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred the suit because the doctrine of sovereign immunity under Maryland law “prohibits suits against the State or its entities absent its consent.” The document says that the applicability of sovereign immunity to bar a claim depends upon three factors: (1) the applicability of the doctrine of sovereign immunity to the governmental entity; (2) a legislative waiver of sovereign immunity; (3) and means to satisfy a judgment. The court found that the doctrine applied to the county school board, saying a county board of education, is “a State agency entitled to governmental immunity.” One earlier case cited indicated that the Court of Appeals has “long considered” county school boards to be State agencies); another hald that county school boards are ‘creatures’ of the General Assembly and principally governed by state policies, although not “units” for the purposes of the State’s General Procurement Law). A footnote in the decision document states "At various times, county boards of education have asserted the predominance of either their “local” or “State” nature depending on their desired outcome." Regarding the second test, the school board had contended that the legislative waiver of sovereign immunity didn't apply because a county board of education is neither a State “unit,” nor a local government entity. The court rejected that argument, finding that the waiver did apply to the school board. The discussion of that claim contains some interesting passages from earlier decisions, including: "...Although county boards are generally regarded as State agencies because they are part of the State public education system, are subject to extensive supervision and control by the State Board of Education, and exercise a State function, from a budgetary and structural perspective, they are local in character. They are not divisions of or units within the State Department of Education. They are subject to the county, not the State, budget process and must justify their budget requests to the county government. Most of their operational funding comes from the county, not the State, government. When these factors are taken into account, it is clear that the general characterization of county boards of education as State agencies does not require a finding that they are entities “in the Executive Branch of the State government” for purposes of S.F.P. § 11-101(x)." The focus is on the narrow legal situation of sovereign immunity, but it appears to me that the court rejected the notion that a county school board is a state agency. |
| Michigan (or Wisconsin? -- you choose) | At User talk:Gregbard, he says "Please observe that in Wisconsin: " Counties are an arm of the state and are utilized by state government to locally provide state services."" | The reference is to a publication of the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. In context, it says: "When we talk local governments, we mean counties, cities and villages, townships, and schools... As the democracy closest to the people, local governments deliver services that are required by the state as well as nonrequired services that are demanded by residents. Counties are an arm of the state, providing services such as mental health on behalf of the state. Cities, villages, and townships provide more of the core services..."
In that context, it is clear that the "arm of the state" languages describes certain functions of county government in Michigan (not Wisconsin), but that counties are deemed a unit of local government. The "arm" language should not be construed as a legal description of county government. |
| Minnesota | YES | |
| Nevada | YES | NOPE! The passage Greg quotes in the reference that he says is about Nevada sheriffs is actually from a court case related to Cook County in Illinois and it is presented as an argument that the court rejected. In context, it says that the court found that a county is subject to the fire regulations of a municipality within the limits of which it erects a county building. The full quotation from the court decision says: "It is urged that the county is an arm of the state to which there has been committed the control of the county buildings, and that it is not, therefore, subject to the police power of the city. While the county is an agency of the state, it is likewise a creature of the state, vested with only the powers conferred upon it by the state. It is not correct, therefore, to say that the county is a part of the state in the exercise of police power." |
| New Jersey | YES | |
| New York | YES - Article 6 of the Public Officers Law | NOPE. This source is another legal brief. The statement that Gregbard apparently is relying on is "Respondent Erie County is a state agency subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL"), Article 6 of the Public Officers Law." Terminology like this that appears in a court filing often has a meaning different from what a reader might interpret in it. This is another primary source, taken out of context. All I see here is that the New York Civil Liberties Union is saying that the county is subject to the state FOI law. |
| North Carolina | YES - Lanvale Properties vs. Cabarrus County | Nope! This wisp of a source is an announcement of a public hearing. All it says is that a court found that a county has "no authority to levy a fee unless directly authorized by statute". This is an extension of Dillon's rule, which applies to pretty much all units of local government in the United States, but is not normally construed as indicating that local governments are in fact arms of state government. |
| Texas | YES | Gregbard says: According to the state attorney general |
| Virginia | Wikipedia article Political subdivisions of Virginia states "Under Virginia law, counties are an arm of the state itself" | |
| Washington | MOCHIZUKI v. KING COUNTY 15 Wn. App. 296 (1976) The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One. April 12, 1976. | NOPE! Primary source interpreted entirely out of context. In context, the decision says: "Although several Washington decisions refer to the county as an arm or agency of the state, a county is not generally considered an agency of the state in spite of the general language found in these cases. They are therefore of no precedential value in interpreting RCW 49.56.040. Counties are considered separate political subdivisions with particular powers conferred by constitution and statute." |
| Wisconsin | YES | Gregbard quotes: " Counties are an arm of the state and are utilized by state government to locally provide state services." My analysis: That sentence is from the Manitowoc County executive's 2003 report about Wisconsin state mandates on counties. It is one sentence from a cover page and it is quoted out of context -- my reading of that primary source indicates that he was talking about how the state requires counties to carry out certain state functions. That's hardly a basis for a firm statement that contradicts reliable secondary sources like the National Association of Counties. |
| Other | [1] - [2] |