The business of government, municipal

Front matter

Google to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

Chapter II FORM OF GOVERNMENT

ITS EVOLUTION : THE PURE DEMOCRACY, THE REPRESENT- ATIVE SYSTEM, AND THE BOARD SYSTEM; ITS REVOLU- TION : THE COMMISSION FORM, THE CABINET FORM, THE GENERAL-MANAGER SYSTEM

THE business of government since its first organization in America has been undergoing the process of evolution. In its evolution it has made a complete revolution.

The pure democracy operated through the New England town meetings was the cornerstone upon which all the local government in the nation has been built.

Increased population and changing conditions brought the representative system. This was a little removed from direct government by the people. Increased demands, increased duties and responsibilities, gave us the board system. Desire for a centralization of responsibility, authority, and power gave us the commission form. Further centralization of responsibility brought the cabinet form. The demand for direct control of legislation by the people, coupled with a centralization of responsibility for administration, gave to American cities the initiative, referendum, and the general-manager system.

Thus was the business of government returned to the pure democracy of our forefathers. The principles of business were, at the same time, applied to the business of government. . The complete revolution was thus brought about.

FORM OF GOVERNMENT 7

One fundamental princi{de has always been recognized in all the several forms, in all the experimenting, in all the system building. All govenmient in America must be founded upon the principle of government by the people. All government in America must be by the stockholders for the customers. Since stockholder and customer is identical, the business of government must be cooperative.

The New England town meeting was a pure democracy, the ideal form of local government Every free man had an equal share in the business. The annual meeting was attended by all the people of the town. In mass meeting they determined what public works were to be built They enacted such laws as seemed necessary to their simple requirements. They determined the taxes. They elected the few officials necessary. They divided among themselves the work to be done.

Rapid growth of cities, together with the influx of a foreign population, made necessary a modification of the method of conducting the business. The population became so large and its demands so varied it became impossible for all the people to meet in a single place at a given time to conduct their governmental affairs. Following the lines of business, they adopted the plan of naming a board of directors. These men, as representatives of all the people, conducted the detail of the business for the whole body. This was the aldermanic system.

The unit of representation, under this form, was made smaller by the division of the city into wards. The number of representatives was large, on the theory that each small group should be represented on the aldermanic council,

The general form of the national government was followed in some New England cities. Two bodies formed the representative organization. One was the board of aldermen; the other was the common council. All matters must have the sanction of both bodies before becoming effective.

The business of government continued to grow. Cities increased in size. The number of customers became larger ; they demanded more products and a more varied assortment. Administrative duties were assumed by a body originally intended to have legislative f imctions only.

Following the lines of business again, departments were created. This was the board system. The administration of the business of government which had been previously delegated by the people to the aldermen was now delegated by the aldermen to these departments or boards. They took over the management and production of the various utiUties of the business of government. Board members were generally appointed by the mayor.

The reaction came. The people as stockholders complained that their officials and employees were not sufficiently responsive to their demands. They charged that their dividends were not satisfactory, that the output was costing too much, that they were not getting efficiency from their employees, that the responsibility for the waste and inefficiency was so scattered that they were unable to hold any individual to account.

The people as customers complained that prices were too high, that the products of the business of government were not as represented or as paid for, that they were unable to find the man directly responsible for the overcharge.

I

FORM OF GOVERNMENT 9

To centralize responsibility for all these defects and shortcomings the board of directors was made smaller and the unit of representation was made larger. Instead of electing one or two aldermen from each ward, they elected three or five commissioners from the city at large. This was the commission form of government. Commission government centralized in the five commissioners all the executive, legislative, and administrative power, authority, and responsibility. This was manifestly placing much in the hands of a few men. Abuses were possible.

Carrying the theory of centralization even farther, the cabinet form was tried. All responsibility for administration was, under this system, centralized in the mayor. The legislative fimction was separated in some degree, being left in the hands of a council but with the mayor having a veto power and perhaps presiding over the council.

The mayor was given the appointment of his department heads just as the president of the United States names the members of his cabinet. These department heads were expected to be experts, and were supposed to be hired because of their efficiency in their particular duties.

Manifestly this form, unless carefully safeguarded, was subject to even greater abuses than the commission form.

To overcome the defects in both forms, to safeguard them from abuses, the principles of the pure democracy were once more turned to. The end sought was gained through the initiative, referendum, and recall, and civil service. These principles, in theory at least, returned the business of government to the hands of the people. The revolution was made complete,

One step more was taken, however. This placed the business of government upon a strict business basis. It, at the same time, kept the affairs of government in the hands of the people. This was the general-manager system, supplemented by the initiative, referendum, and recall.

While many variations of this as of all other forms may be f oimd, the most approved form under this system provided for the hiring of a successful and experienced executive, not necessarily a resident of the city, paying him the necessary salary, however large, and making him the sole administrative head of the city. It was his duty to conduct the business of government just as he would conduct the business of a private corporation.

All legislation, under this system, was secured through a legislative commission or direct from the people through the initiative. Thus was the pure democracy restored to legislation, while business principles of administration were applied through the general manager.

k

Chapter III THE TOWN MEETING ITS ORIGIN - ITS OPERATION

CONDITIONS were responsible for the first forms of local government in America. Religion, climate, character of the settlers, the savages, all played their prominent part in determining what form the government should take.

The Virginia colonists found a rich soil, a mild climate, rather peaceable Indians. They settled upon large estates far removed from each other. They were aristocrats, accustomed to govern. They adopted immediately a representative form of government. Organized into counties rather than into towns and villages, they chose from among the aristocrats the men who should administer the few affairs the county had to deal with.

The Puritans, who landed in New England, encountered altogether different conditions. They were an altogether different sort of men. They were, for the most part, poor. They fled the old country because they were denied freedom of thought, freedom of religious belief, freedom in the affairs of government.

They were a hardy people, deeply religious, thrifty, accustomed to work. They found a bleak and rocky coast. The land itself was rocky and hard to work ; the climate was severe ; the natives were warlike. The Puritans, therefore, had every incentive to live close together, to organize the village and town. Only by so doing were

II they able to conduct their religious worship as they desired; only by so doing were they able to defend themselves against the Indians.

Their two first actions were to build a stockade for defense and a church in which to worship. They farmed the country upon which they settled, but always the stockaded village offered them protection when the Indians attacked. There was the meetinghouse; there was the schoolhouse which followed closely; there, in addition to the haven of refuge, was the place in which the Puritans met to transact the business of government.

It was the custom to pasture all the cows on a common pasture land. This was as much a safeguard against the Indians as anything else. When the Indians attacked, all the flocks and all the valuables, as well as the men, women, and children, were rushed to the stockade.

Each person pasturing on the common pasture land was required to pay a small fee. Tithes must also be paid to the church and for the support of the school. Money must be provided for. the purchase of gunpowder and lead. These necessities brought the people together in times of peace to determine the amounts to be paid and to make such laws governing their conduct as seemed necessary. From these factors was born the basis of the business of government in America. Here was made necessary the government of the people and by the people. Here pure democracy was first established. This was the beginning of the town meeting.

But few officials were needed in those days. They were chosen by the colonists assembled within the stockade and usually within the church. A leader of the military forces was a first necessity ; a tax collector was needed; a watchman was a necessity, and a cemetery

THE TOWN MEETING 13

committee and a school committee were among the first and most important to be named.

No man was a candidate for office, but each man took whatever office was assigned to him by the town meeting. It was his duty to do so, and some very famous men held very humble positions in the municipal organizations of the New England colonies.

The town, in this manner, became the unit of government in New England. The county and state are made up of towns rather than the town being merely a subdivision of the state or county.

The town meeting of to-day in the small New England village is conducted in just the same manner as when the Puritans went within the stockade to perform their duties in the business of government.

The annual town meeting is held in the spring. The people from all over the township come into the village to attend it. It must be remembered this is a rural population. Town-meeting day is the annual picnic day, and the whole family comes to the village to enjoy itself while the head of the family is attending to his duty as a citizen.

The horses are hitched around the town hall or church in which the meeting is held. The lunches are spread upon the grass in the park. The best collar and elbow wrestler of one section of the town challenges a similar champion from another section. A crowd watches a couple of husky country lads struggling with feet together and with both hands upon a broomstick, each trying to pull the other up from the ground. A baseball game or a quoits-pitching contest is on. The women discuss the best method of making jellies. Every man and every woman, every boy and every girl, knows everybody else in the town.

Within the hall, or perhaps in the open air if the weather is fine, the town meeting goes on in spirited fashion. The moderator presides. The title of this chairman takes us back to the days of the Puritans, for it was the moderator of the church who conducted its business affairs. The selectmen, who constitute the administrative body of the town, present their report of the accomplishments of the year and make their recommendations for the tax levy for the following year. The school committee, the cemetery committee, the highway commissioner, the drslin commissioner, the poor master, the assessor, the tax collector, the town clerk, the town treasurer, and what other officers may be required to run the business of that particular town, make their reports.

In this corporation all the stockholders are present to hear the details of the stewardship of their employees. Every man has a right to make a motion, to make a speech, to vote. Debates become spirited. Discussion is free and open. Thus is government taught. Thus does each man in the town have his share in the government. Thus is the business of government conducted.

The officers for the coming year are elected there in the town meeting. The tax levy is agreed upon. Moreover, the specific things for which money is to be spent are determined. The officials who are to administer the affairs of the town during the year receive their orders from all the people at the town meeting. They know they must render a detailed account of their administration at the next town meeting.

The officers elected are few. All the legislative business is transacted by the whole people in town meeting assembled. Three, five, or seven selectmen are chosen

THE TOWN MEETING 15

as the commission which will carry out the will of the people during the coming year. They are the administrative officers. A town clerk whose duties are to keep a record of the meetings, of the births, deaths, and marriages, and so on, is elected. The township treasurer is chosen. The other officers are usually a path master or highway commissioner, a poor master, a school committee, a cemetery committee, a town marshal or constable, an assessor, a tax collector, and such other officials as the requirements of each particular town demand.

Candidates for office, except perhaps for clerk, treasurer, and selectmen, are rare. In the early days there were no candidates, each man taking upon himself the duties assigned. Thus in the town meeting is the pure democracy enjoyed. The business of government is in fact operated by the stockholders. The officials must satisfy them, and in satisfying them they also satisfy the customers. They must render a detailed accounting to them in open meeting. Because everybody in the town knows everybody else, the chances are always that only the efficient men will be placed in office.

Chapter IV THE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM THE WAED - THE DUAL COUNCIL - THE ALDERMANIC

COUNCIL

PERFECT as was the town-meeting system for the Puritans, efficient as this system has proved for the small rural New England community, increased and changing population rendered the system less efficient. As the cities grew the town meeting passed.

Numbers made the system cumbersome; increased population, more public works, more money to spend, more offices, and more jobs made office more attractive. Candidates for office appeared. Men began to seek the offices which, heretofore, had been, thrust upon them. Fight for office brought political organization.

The influx of a foreign population to work in the mills and factories brought another element of discord into the town meeting. The foreigners rather generally settled in some one section of the village. There among themselves, with their own churches, their own language, and their own customs, they formed a village within a village. They had their own ideas, their own problems. Certain among them became their leaders. They aspired to honors in the land of their adoption. They constituted a large political element.

These conditions, plus the rapid growth in population, made necessary a modification of the town-meeting system. Instead of all the people meeting in one place

i6 i

THE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM 17

to transact the business of government, the town was divided into sections. The people of one section met and elected one or more of their number to represent them in a central body which, in turn, represented the whole town. This division of the town was the formation of the ward. The election to the central body of the representatives from the wards was the organization of the aldermanic-council system.

Just as the national Congress is composed of two branches modeled after the House of Lords and the House of Commons in the English Parliament, so, in the early days of the representative system of municipal government, the town or city council was organized.

A small imit of representation with a large representative body was the general theory upon which the council was organized. It was the belief that under this theory the government would still be kept close to the people.

Honesty and efficiency, it was believed, would best be conserved by two bodies, one checking against the other. The organization then, and in some cities even now, consisted of a board of aldermen composed of one alderman from each ward and conforming to the Senate of the United States and the House of Lords in the English Parliament, and a lower body, the council, consisting of two councilmen from each ward, conforming to the House of Representatives of the United States and the Commons in the English Parliament.

Certain legislation, such as taxation, must originate in the lower body. The upper body served as a check against radical or ill-advised measures. The upper body also had some other duties when sitting as the " municipal officers." Then they investigated and committed insane persons, granted certain licenses, and performed such other duties as were especially delegated to them by their charters. No matter of legislation became effective until passed by both branches of the council.

It was soon recognized that the checks which seemed desirable in the Congress were unnecessary and needlessly cumbersome in a city government. Further growth in population, the necessary addition to the number of wards, increased the size of the council. This added to the cumbersomeness of the system. Most of the eastern cities have, therefore, abolished the dual system. A common council, consisting of a board of aldermen only, became the more general system of government.

Concentration of responsibility was therefore carried forward a step. The time had not yet arrived when the idea of a large representative body and a small unit of representation could be cast aside. The wards were made small enough to permit of the gathering of the entire voting population for the election of two or more representatives to the common council.

The common council now became all-powerful in the community. All the various governmental activities were placed in the hands of this organization; it was both the legislative and the administrative body. Administrative functions were conducted through committees of the council. One committee had as its duty the care of streets ; another had the sewers to look after; another was in charge of parks. Each department of the government was thus parceled out to a committee. Every department of the city was administered by the aldermen. In some instances the aldermen delegated certain duties to commissioners, but they named the commissioners, so the departments were still under the control of the aldermen.

The duties of the aldermen were numerous under tliis k

THE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM 19

form of government They had police duties, for instance ; they let contracts for public improvements ; they audited the accounts of the city; they were highway commissioners in their respective wards ; they were poor masters, selected jurors, and had many other official functions within their own representative districts.

Imperfections in this system became manifest. The rapid growth of cities increased the responsibilities and the duties of the aldermen. Merely nominal, if any, salaries were paid. No man could afford to give his time to the city. The business of government therefore became merely a side issue to private business. Not one tenth of the time or thought was given to the business of government that each alderman gave to his own affairs.

Inefficient business methods must and did, therefore, obtain. The cost of production necessarily increased. The general welfare of the community became the third consideration with each alderman. He gave his first attention to his own business ; second in his mind was the welfare of the ward from which he was elected; the business of the whole city was his last consideration.

To keep the taxes as low as possible, to get for his ward what the people of that ward wanted, regardless of the will of the whole community, was the one consideration. He became the alderman for his ward alone, and the business of the city at large suffered. In business terms, the business of government was conducted by directors, each representing but one faction of the stockholders. The whole business had no board of directors.

Such a system could lead to nothing but inefficiency, .•Wfkt^ulness, and to corruption if an alderman were dishonest.

Chapter V THE BOARD SYSTEM ITS THEORY -ITS WEAKNESS

GROWTH of cities and the constant demand for more public works made greater attention to the business of government imperative. This greater attention to business low-paid aldermen were unable and justly unwilling to give. It became apparent that some strictly administrative body was necessary to carry forward the great amount of work.

Delegation of these administrative functions came about in the process of evolution. It also moved the conduct of municipal affairs one step farther from the pure democracy of the town meeting.

Boards and commissions became the medium through which the various administrative functions were exercised. The number and functions of these organizations varied in different cities.

One of the first boards of consequence to be established was the water board. It had control of the municipal waterworks system. As other municipal utilities, such as electric lighting, were acquired, they were generally turned over to the water board. The sewer systems and construction, care, and maintenance of streets and bridges were placed in the hands of this board, which soon assumed the name of the Board of Public Works, or some similar title. Some cities turned over to this organization garbage collection and disposal

THE BOARD SYSTEM 21

and other functions until it became the most important board in the business of government.

The police and fire departments seemed naturally capable of joint administration. Many cities therefore formed the board of police and tire, which became a great factor in the business of government. This organization was frequently styled the " Department of Public Safety.''

Parks and cemeteries, and later playgrounds, offered similar opportunity for joint administration, although the playgrounds have now in many instances been placed under the administration of public welfare commissions.

Public health and sanitation have in comparatively recent years assumed a prominent place in municipal government. Under a board of health, therefore, was generally grouped all matters pertaining to sanitation, quarantine, municipal hospitals, plumbing, ventilation, and collection and disposal of garbage. In many instances the department of the poor, one of the oldest, was placed under the board of health. Later thought, however, has rather generally placed this department under a public-welfare commission. Many other boards and commissions for specific purposes were named. Among these were franchise commissions, boards of estimates, sinking-fund commissions, housing commissions, public-welfare commissions, and such other organizations as the problems of the particular city seemed to justify.

Board members were generally appointed by the mayor, and sometimes confirmation by the council was required. They usually served without pay, or with a small per diem when actually engaged in the city's business. Their duties were purely administrative. They hired their employees, let contracts, and assumed the general directorate of their respective departments.

This system generally proved an improvement over the aldermanic plan. It gave a responsible organization to each department of the business of government. Objection arose to it chiefly because the mayor had the appointing power. It was charged it gave him opportunity to build up a personal political machine. Through his appointees on the boards he gained more or less control over the vast number of employees of the mtmicipality.

Numerous plans to guard against this evil were worked out, the most general plan being what was known as the " blocks of five." This system provided simply that each board should consist of five members, each appointed for five years, the term of but one expiring each year. It was impossible, therefore, for a mayor to gain control of a board imtil his third year in office. Few mayoralty terms exceeded two years.

Still another safeguard was sometimes thrown aroimd the appointing power. It was provided that not more than three members of any given board should belong to any one political party. A more or less non-partisan aspect to the board was therefore theoretically maintained. It might happen, too, that when a mayor was ready to make his third appointment to a board he would be forced to name a man of a different political faith, and therefore fail to gain possession of the organization even in his third year in office.

Several fallacies in the theory of the board system are manifest. The first and greatest fallacy was that of attempting to restrict the powers of the mayor. The mayor was generally elected upon an issue. If he were

THE BOARD SYSTEM 23

unable to secure control of his boards he could not make good his pledges.

Take a very common example. A candidate for mayor might pledge himself to close the saloons at a given hour. On the strength of this pledge, backed by the moral wave sweeping the city, he was elected. A majority of the people declared they wanted the saloons closed at that given hour. The police board controlled the department which could close tihem, make good the mayor's campaign pledges, and carry out the expressed will of the people. The mayor could name but one of the five members of the police board in the first year of his administration. If the board left over by the preceding administration stood for the " wide-open town," the mayor's appointee would be helpless. In the second year of the mayor's administration he could appoint one more member of the board. Still he was outvoted three to two ; still his pledge remained unfulfilled through no fault of his. The wish of the people was not realized. The mayor's unfulfilled pledge was used against him in the forthcoming campaign. He was the man held responsible by the people. They had no control whatever over the board members. If the mayor was fortunate enough to weather the storm and be reelected he might secure control of the board in his third year in office. Only then could he give to the people what they had expected when they first elected him.

Another fallacy in the theory of the board system was that a mayor desiring control of a board for political purposes might secure that control by political means. Suppose he desired control of that board having to do witfi the enforcement of the liquor laws or some other issue over which the people had become aroused. It was usually provided that the mayor might remove a board member for cause. It would be easy for the executive to bring such charges against a board member that the man would prefer to resign rather than continually face the accusations.

Members of a board of any kind might resign in disgust under methods which a mayor desiring control of the pay roll might employ. By limiting appropriations so as to cripple the work of the department, by bringing about through the legislative body ordinances distasteful to the department, by refusing cooperation, by insisting upon the employment of political appointees, the mayor might force the disruption of a hitherto competent and efficient department.

Still another weakness in the system was that two members out of harmony with the other three might be able to effectually block the progress of that department.

The greatest weakness of all, however, and the one which finally brought the board system into disrepute, was that responsibility was scattered. No man could justly be held responsible for the failure of a department. The mayor, as shown, could not justly be held to account. The board members could not be removed except for corruption difficult to prove. The stockholders lost control of the administration of their own business.

The trend of thought was toward centralization of responsibility. The people wanted the servant where they could put their finger upon him; they wanted to know which servant the finger should be put upon. That spelled the fall of the board system.

Chapter VI THE COMMISSION FORM ITS ESSENTIALS - ITS OPERATION

jP\ESIRE to centralize responsibility, to make the ^^ business of government conform more nearly to methods pursued in private enterprises, led certain cities to adopt the commission form of government. The commissioners under this plan corresponded to a board of directors. The idea was primarily to center all responsibility in a small group of men. These men could be held accountable for inefficient or dishonest administration.

Two cities, Galveston, Texas, and Des Moines, Iowa, the first to adopt the plan, became the leading exponents of it. Immediately following the dis^^^trous flood, Galveston found itself confronted with a condition demanding strong business methods. A vast sum of money must be spent in reconstruction; wastefulness and inefficiency must not be tolerated.

Prior to the flood, governmental conditions had been highly unsatisfactory, government had been inefficient. New men and new methods were necessary now. Then it was that the business men, after years of characteristic apathy toward government, offered their services. They organized the government as their private enterprises were organized. They constituted themselves a board of directors under the commission form. Then they set about rebuilding the city. They employed experts to reconstruct their streets, their sewers, their other public works. They' administered affairs along business lines. Galveston, under the commission form, enjoyed a real business administration, conducted in a business manner by business men.