The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-05-22
ECONOMY IN CITY FINANCES.

The efforts of the joint committee APP
pointed by the city council to consider
means of retrenchment in the city ex-
penditures are thwarted by two difficulties
which erect their stubborn heads every
time the attempt to economic is renewed.
One arises from the natural objection of
Office holders either to submit to a reduc-
ton or relinquish their positions. The
other is due to the failure of any supreme
authority to adjust the city's business to
the machinery of the new charter. The
only power which could regulate the mat
ter is the city council, but unfortunately
the offices settled themselves down before
the legislative body became familiar with
the conditions, and so they drift along.
The first of these difficulties is caused
by conflicting legal opinions as to the
status of employees. 1t was very decidedly
the intention of the charter-makers to
divide the office-holding organization into
three ciasses-elective. appointive and
subjective. To the first belong the mayor,
corporation counsel, city clerk, city
treasurer and others; to the second, the
board of public works, park commits
sioners, etc.; to the third, all deputies
and other employees whose tenure and
remuneration could be made variable and
subject to changing necessities.
!. If it were not so it would be impossible
to remove any subordinate official, and
that is not only directly contrary to fire.
quent declarations in the charter that all
employees shall be removed at pleasure of
the heads of departments, but it would be
absurd. If "at pleasure" is the maximum
of term, that also must be the minimum.
The argument urged against this view is
that if salaried employees could be changed
at will the heads of departments would
have little power, as their subordinates
could be legislated out of Office by reduc-
ton of salary TO a nominal sum. This.
however, was the intention of the charter
trainers They assumed that the good
sense of so large body as the city council
could be relied upon not to abuse the
power vested in it, and that it was better
TO retain that power in the hands of the
popular representative body than to
depute il TO boards
The other difficulty arises through the
want of symmetry in the new apportion-
ment of offices. For instance, it was never
supposed that the water-works, the street
department, the city engineers Office or
the superintendent of buildings would all
have separate offices and clerks. twas
assumed that the board of public works
would do all the clerical work of these
branches; and that the superintendent
would merely attend to the mechanical
work A striking example of the neglect
OF this is found in the Office of the suner-
intendent of buildings. He has an assist.
/ ant whose sole duty seems to be TO make
out ten or twelve permits a day, a task
which could be performed by q Junior
clerk in the Office of the .ecretsrv
OF the Board in an hour a dav
Then, too, the supposition was that when
the water-works system was turned over
to the municipality, the city treasurer
would receive the water taxes as he doe.
all others, and the receipts be duplicated
with the city comptroller as all other rsva-
nues of the city are kept. The sunerip.
tendent of water-works was expecfed m \.
such man as the present official who's.
duty. under the Board of Public WORKS
would be limited to the mechanical and
executive department.
The theory was excellent, and the faDl.s
found in the charter are mainly due ~
oversight IN reducing that theory IN
practire