services? (4) How should responsibility for develop- 
ment, regulation, and research be allocated to the 
new entity? 
Independent Agency or Cabinet-Level Department? 
The Stratton Commission strongly recommended 
the creation of an independent agency to manage 
the Nation’s ocean affairs. The National Advisory 
Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA), 
which recommended an ocean agency 5 years later, 
was less definite in its recommendations, concluding 
that, “the form is less crucial than the need to take 
action now.’** The Ash Council concentrated on 
building the natural resource functions (including 
the oceans) into an expanded Department of the 
Interior.*° 
The debate on the form that a new ocean organi- 
zation should take often turns on how much influ- 
ence or “clout” an independent agency could muster 
as compared to a Cabinet-level department. Often 
the influence depends less on the rank of the admin- 
istrator than on his personal influence in the Admin- 
istration. However, it is generally believed that 
Cabinet-level officers have greater access to and are 
more influential with the President and other Cabinet 
officers than are administrators of independent 
agencies or sub-Cabinet-level administrations. Ac- 
cording to some persons, the proliferation of inde- 
pendent agencies also has tended to weaken the 
impact that such agencies have on high-level policy, 
or has compounded the problem of interagency coor- 
dination. Generalities frequently break down, how- 
ever, and notable successes, such as the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the En- 
vironmental Protection Agency are cited to rebut 
the presumption of Cabinet-level superiority. 
The question of a Cabinet-level or sub-Cabinet- 
level agency borders on the esoteric because there 
is no explicit authority in the United States Constitu- 
tion or in the statutes for a “Cabinet.” It is a creation 
of the Presidency. Anyone whom the President may 
select—be it an administrator of .an independent 
agency or a White House aide—can be a member 
of the Cabinet by designation. What is implied by 
the advocates of Cabinet-level rank for an ocean 
administrator is the need for access to the President, 
influence in the White House, and the stature and 
visibility to ensure that ocean programs are given 
priority in the consideration of pending issues and 
in the budget process that they feel ocean matters 
merit. 
It is a matter of conjecture whether the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) and other centers 
of power exercise more control over the self-determi- 
% National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. 
Third Annual Report to the President and the Congress. Wash- 
ington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1974, p. 15. 
“U.S. Office of Management and Budget, op. cit. note 33. 
nation of an independent agency than over the in- 
ternal workings of a Cabinet-level department. 
Public accountability has always played an impor- 
tant part in the U.S. governmental system at all 
levels of administration from the President down. 
Administrators of independent agencies, as well as 
Cabinet officers, are equally accountable to the press 
and the public, and are subject to congressional 
oversight. 
Integration by Function or Resource? 
Whether Government organizations should be pre- 
dicated on functional lines, e.g., energy, food, trans- 
portation, and labor, or whether they should be 
organized on the basis of resources, e.g., land, water, 
people, and oceans is a fundamental question. To 
some extent this is merely another way to ask the 
question: Is the ocean a sensible theme for integrat- 
ing the functions of Government? 
Gulick recognized four basic organizational themes 
around which governmental activities can be classi- 
fied: Purpose (function), Process (discipline), Per- 
sons/Resources (clientele/materials), and Place (re- 
gional).*? The present governmental structure of 
ocean-related activities is a mixture of each of these 
organizational themes (table 9-3). To some extent, 
the classification of Government programs within this 
framework is arbitrary and the separations between 
functions and resources is contrived and artificial. 
Societal problems and organizational solutions do. 
not segregate as neatly as organizational theorists 
would presume. In the balance, however, it appears 
that present governmental organization favors the 
“functional” or “purpose” approach, although or- 
ganization around “resources” or ‘‘clientele” is pre- 
dominant in a number of ocean activities. 
Organization by Function 
Organization by purpose or function brings to- 
gether the programs, capabilities and services needed 
to achieve the objectives of identified societal goals. 
Functional organization, therefore, is structured 
around classes of governmental activities such as 
food, energy, health, housing, environment, science 
and technology, defense, and transportation. The 
functional classification of the ocean and coastal 
activities is shown in figure 9-3. The Council on Ex- 
ecutive Reorganization (The Ash Council) in 1971 
recommended that the Executive Branch be or- 
ganized around the “goals” of natural resources, 
communities, human resources, and economic affairs. 
This represented organization by function at a higher 
level of generality.** 
The advantages of functional organization are: (1) 
“Luther Gulick. ‘Notes on the Theory of Organization,” 
Papers on the Science of Administration, Luther Gulick and L. 
Urwick (eds.) New York: 1937, p. 15. 
“U.S. Office of Management and Budget, ‘op. cit. note 33. 
IX-24 
