The Winslow mail., 1926-04-23

employed. The result was that
these officers were Independent of
each other and were usually inde-
pendent of the chief executive Of
ficer, the mayor. There was little
or no general administrative sup
/ ervisiOn over them and no means
OF cO-ordinating their activities, the
i idea being that the careful handling
of public funds required a number
OF separate and independent Off
c1als to watch each other and
check up each others accounts.
f., Duplication of effort or unneces-
sary division of work meant moth
ing as long as the public treasury
was apparently safeguarded. Many
cities even today have not advanc-
ed beyond this point in the matter
this class until a few weeks ago
when the first steps were taken to-
ward reorganization Of the city
government along modern and
scientific lines.
The first real attempt to organize
and systematic city administration
came with the establishment of the
commission form of government in
1901. Under this plan there are
usually five commissioners who
control both the legislative and ad
ministrative affairs of the city. The
administrative functions of the city
government are grouped under five
ono 1~f m ont 1J01I ice on or
is assigned to act as the head of
each one of these departments. The
general financial functions are
brought together and constitute one
Of the five departments and in
cludes the treasury, the collecting
and accounting and often the audit
ing work. The estimates for bud
get making are in most instances
collected and assembled by the de-
partment of finace.
Budget planning makes more ap-
parent than anything else the main
weakness Of the commission form
of government. 1t emphasizes the
lack of centralized responsibility.
Instead of one directing head there
are five, the commissioners being
equal in authority and having the
same source of power. Under this
division of executive responsibility
the department of finance cannot
become a department for budget
planning and general financial sup
ervision. Naturally, the commits
sioners of other departments will
not permit their departmental work
to be curtailed or supervised in
the expenditure of funds by fell
low commissioners department.
This usually results in each COM
missioner administering his depart
ment free from any interferences
by the other commissioners. While
the administrative machinery has
been greatly simplified by the COM
mission form, it lacks a RESPONSE
BILE head to direct the work, to view
the needs Of the city as whole,
and to plan the expenditures of
the departments upon basis of
relative Importance of the activi-
ties.
Starting in 1923 the manager plan
began to displace the commission
an outgrowth of the commission
form and is designed to correct the
outstanding weakness of that
scheme One of the main ideas be-
hind the plan is to establish uni
ty in the administration. While all
powers of the city government are
vested in a small body of elective
officials, called the council, the adj
ministrative powers and duties are
delegated by this council to the city
manager. The city manager is ap-
pointed by the council and is direct
Iy responsible to it. The whole, or
a large part, Of the city administra-
tion is placed directly under the
manager While the departmental
arrangement of the work closely
resembles that under the commits
sion form, the manager plan, how
ever, gives more flexibility to the
scheme organization. In most
cases, the manager is permitted to
regroup the activities along mar
rover functional lines with closer
coordination. The department of
finance is not only retained under
the manager plan, but it is more
effectively organized than under the
commission form and it is placed
in a more commanding position
among the other departments. This
department is, therefore, able to
enforce all fiscal regulations, gath
er all the facts necessary for bud
/ get making, and prepare the city
budget for the manager to present
to the council. In fact it is now,
in most cities, the most important
department under the manager.
Several cities have retained the
old mayor-council form of govern
ment, and have strengthened it by
fcentralizing the administration un-
der the mayor In these cities, the
mayor is in much the same posi-
ttion as the manager but he is di-
rectly responsible to the people
rather than to the council. This,
Of course, still perpetuates in the
| city government the idea of the
separation of the legislative and
the executive as established in our
national and state governments. NO
such division exists under the man
ager plan; for there the policy de-
| termining and the policy eXecut-