The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1914-02-18
WEDNESDAY. FEBRUARY is, 1918.
THE NATTER OF HESrONSI-
BlLITY.

ono of tho arguments advanced III
favor OF the commission form of
government is that under II there is
ii concentration of authority and re-
sponsibility in fewer hands than UNI
der the council systcl1, and that be
cause it is possihio for tho people t"
know exactly who is governing tho
city and operating its various depart
ments, IT is possible for them to keep
track of their municipal affairs, and
those in charge. knowing that their
acts are subjected tn closer scrutiny,
"ill he moro careful of tho city's in
forests. Let lis sec how this will work
out. not in Galveston, or Dayton, or
some other distant city, where the
council systems were different, and
where tho commission systems arc
different in many particulars from
ur which may be adopted by Grand
Forks.
The North Dakota commission Law
provides Tor 4 certain division Of
work among the five commissioners.
One shall have charge of finance. an-
either of police, and so on. There is
r rather widespread popular belief
that his means that each commits
sioner has assigned TO him certain
specific duties. which he performs rli
his own responsibility, and that in
this work he is independent of all the
other commissioners. and is RESPONSE
bile absolutely for tho expenditure of
his department., for the work per-
formed in il. and for the personnel
OF his working force. This is not true.
Tf it. were true il would he fatal to
the system. for a city government so
divided wonld be five separate GOV
ernnents rather than Que. and ii
would not be long before they would
hs at sizes and sevens.
Under tho commission system pro-
vidcd in the North Dakota law no
commissioner has n independent
Jurisdiction whatevbr. He cannot
employ a man or spend a dollar eX-
cept by authority Of the board acting
ss a unit. The police commissioner,
for instance, cannot select his own
chief Of police or his own patrol
men against the wishes ot his COL
leagues. He may suggest names 10
the board, and the board may select
the men named il it chooses. or it
may decline to select them. 1t ma
go further. IT ma select for the de-
partlnent of a commissioners men to
whom he is utterly opposed. in whom
he has 10 confidence. ard with whom
ne cannot work in harmony. In at
least n case in North Dakota this
was done. and the result Was. as
might be expected, tho utter democrat
ization of the force OF that depart
ment.
Imagine what would be the condi-
ton if. for instance. the police COM
missioner We're mt OF harmony with
the other members, and they should
appoint az members Of his force a.
chief of police and a set of patrol
men of whom he d~isapproved. The
position of the Commissioners would
oc . W S1l0L VI ~ lSldSllLSis VI
whom Pharaoh demanded the usual
tale OF bricks, but who were denied
the straw with which TO bind the
ebay together. The police commits
.ioner would be expected by the PEG.
Pile to make = good showing in his
department, ia maintain discipline in
his force and order in the city. Ills
force might he SO small that efficient
work would be Impossible. 1t might
he SO large az to be an Unnecessary
expense. The men might be shiftless
spd d%issolute, and yet, knowing that
their !iobs depended on the good will
of the other commissioners. and not
on that OF the head OF their own de-
partment. could defy his authority
and laugh al his instructions. And
In all Of this the commissioner would
be powerless. His work would have
been cut out for him by others, and
yet the blame for ineMciency would
he placed OH him. This condition
could exist in any department. IT.
might exist in two departments at