Page images
PDF
EPUB

your criticism, where we have gone into the individual departments under the respective divisions.

MR. BLAUVELT-Do you have the same departments in both bills?

MR. SAXE--The same divisions.

MR. BLAUVELT-Eleven divisions?

MR. SAXE-The bills are virtually identical, except in one case we enumerate the departments and in the other we have the definitions from which the legislature will enumerate the depart

ments.

MR. STIMSON-You enumerate the functions?

MR. SAXE-In one. And in the other we go into the departments and enumerate those.

Mr. Cleveland says one is functions and the other is organization.

MR. STIMSON-Which is which?

MR. SAXE-The first one is the shorter one-that is, No. 510, on functions; and No. 555, the longer bill, is the one that goes into greater detail and shows the organization of the department. MR. BLAUVELT-All the administrative heads are appointed by the governor?

MR. SAXE-Yes, but that is entirely a matter of detail. I have my own views on it, but I hesitate to express them, so long as we have this administrative reform before us, which is one of the most important, or perhaps the most important, thing before the committee.

MR. STIMSON-You want to concentrate the attention of the committee on classification this afternoon?

MR. SAXE-On classification for all time, sir; not only this af

ternoon.

CHAPTER III

EXPOSITION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FOR REORGANIZATION OF THE

GOVERNMENT

BY DR. FREDERICK A. Cleveland

[On June 24, 1915, Dr. Frederick A. Cleveland, of the New York Bureau of Municipal Research, made the following exposition of the proposed constitutional amendment (above, Chapter I) before the Constitutional Convention Committee on the Governor and Other State Officers.]

THE CHAIRMAN (HON. FREDERICK C. TANNER)-Mr. Cleveland.

MR. CLEVELAND-Mr. Chairman, we have made a few copies of a graphic chart showing the proposal of the Saxe bill for the reorganization of the Executive Department. This brings out both the overhead organization (that is, the governor, his cabinet, and other central executive officers) and the eleven proposed administrative subdivisions of the executive branch of the government. I regret that we have not enough copies to go around here, but perhaps these few copies may assist members in asking questions about what is intended with reference to any detail of the proposed reorganization.

May I say at the outset that the method of drafting the bills has been to put into the bill all of Articles IV and V of the constitution, and then to bracket them out and rewrite both of them? This was done so as to bring into Article IV all of those measures having to do with the governor as chief executive, and into Article V all of the administrative divisions and subdivisions properly classified according to the kinds of work done by all of them.

Taking up this second part first, namely, the correlation of the different administrative units, I regret that we have not at hand the critical report which we have submitted here in proof without the charts. This report in completed form is going

through the press to-day. One of the charts prepared for the report, that I wish we had here, shows the organization of the various state departments, the administrative units, as they are to-day. There are 141 different departments, bureaus, offices and commissions, having more or less related administrative duties. There is no organic subordination or correlation among them, even though numbers of them are doing things which necessarily must be considered together if the officer in charge is to reach determinations consistent with good administration. There is no way of requiring that a question raised for discussion in any one of them shall also be considered by the others who are dealing with related questions. For example, what we may call public works problems are at present organized

THE CHAIRMAN (interrupting)-Does that report speak as of the present day?

MR. CLEVELAND-The report made with the Department of Efficiency and Economy was made as of about the first of the year. Since that time there has been important legislation affecting some of the departments.

THE CHAIRMAN-Will you let this committee have a copy of this amended report or report brought down to date?

MR. CLEVELAND-The only report made by us was to the Constitutional Convention Commission; this is the one that has been delayed in its final publication in order to get the reaction of different state officers to whom it was submitted, and it is now being run on the press in its final form. It will be available probably by Monday or Tuesday of next week.

THE CHAIRMAN-How many copies can you let me have? MR. CLEVELAND I understand that the commission has ordered 1,000, with the idea that it will be available for any purposes that the members or delegates care to make of it.

Continuing where I left off in explanation of the chart, we would group as the public works division of the executive branch, for example, ten of the present departments, bureaus and offices which have administrative functions.

The reorganized plan would bring all of that under one executive or subexecutive that we may call vice-governor, if the cabinet plan of central executive control were adopted, or an independent public works executive if the general theory of organization that now obtains were continued. All of these would

then be under one officer. Under the suggested plan of Senator Saxe, there would be eleven of these executive or subexecutive heads, of which public works would be one. All of the present works functions would be correlated in four departments: (1) a department of waterways, which would include both construction and operation of canals and other waterways in the state; (2) a department of highways, which would include all highway work; (3) a department of buildings, which would take over the operation and maintenance of public buildings in so far as these were not necessarily handled by the several other executive divisions wherein the buildings would be used; and (4) a department of engineering, which would embrace all engineering work not included in canals, highways and buildings departments—the various miscellaneous surveys made in the state.

Besides these four departments, we would have as overhead bureaus, under the executive or chief of the works division, a testing laboratory and a staff of inspectors which could be used for purposes of central executive contact-contact between the specialized vice-governor or works head of the government and the working forces under him all down the line. Besides these the heads of the four departments in the works group would constitute a board of line advisers or a division cabinet. The overhead machinery of the works division of the executive branch would thus be made up of the secretary of public works, or vicegovernor, his cabinet, the heads of the works departments and two administrative staff bureaus. Assuming that all public works were brought under one executive, under a secretary of public works, if we may so call him, any proposed or works plan originating in highways would first have to pass the scrutiny of the head of the highways department and his immediate advisers on highway development; it would then go to the works secretary, who would have it passed on by the works cabinet, with the advice of the central staff before them. Thus the works secretary or vicegovernor in charge would be fortified in his decisions or recommendations by the advice of a works cabinet, an advisory staff or consulting advisers, and have the benefit of full discussion of all issues raised before he went to the governor or the legislature if any matter was involved that required their attention.

MR. BALDWIN-Is the laboratory under a laboratory classification?

MR. CLEVELAND-The werks laboratory would be simply a central means for making tests which might be utilized by highways, canals or building heads; besides this there would be a central inspection staff, like that of the inspector-general of the army, we might say. So that there would be in the works group an autonomy, if I may so express it, which would give to the works executive and all other persons who must handle works problems the machinery for effectively reaching decisions based on adequate considerations.

Now, that is illustrative of our general plan, with this exception, that in an administrative division of the executive branch, such as public health, for example, which has just been discussed here before you, under bill No. 304, we would provide not only for administrative machinery similar in kind to works, but we would provide in addition for a public health council. This is a type of a department in which there would be what we might call an ordinance or rule-making body or a sub-legislature. This public health council would be charged with the preparation, and, subject to the approval of the governor, with the promulgation of a health code for the state, so that the health regulations of the state would be worked out as a matter of administrative detail under a general authority given to it by the legislature.

On page 24 of each of these bills there are illustrations of Senator Saxe's point as to the difference in the bills. Bill No. 510, paragraph 3, describes the health and safety division of the executive branch, as it is here called, in terms of the work which it would do, i. e., in terms of functions, as follows:

"The secretary of public health and safety shall have under his jurisdiction the activities of the state incident to the promotion and maintenance of public health, and the protection and regulation of such persons and property in such manner as may be determined by law."

THE CHAIRMAN-Where is that?

MR. CLEVELAND-That is on page 24 of No. 510.

Turning to page 24, paragraph 3, of No. 555, you will find the same division of the executive branch defined in terms of the departments of administration to be included.

MR. BALDWIN-Just one moment-555?

MR. CLEVELAND-Yes; you will find the same division of the executive branch defined as follows:

« PreviousContinue »