The Waterbury Democrat., 1932-02-17
To the Senate and House
 of Representatives:

Because of it's direct relation to the cost of Government, desire again to bring to the attention of the congress the necessity of more effective organization of the execu- tive branch of the government, the importance of which have refer red to in previous messages. This subject has been considered many times by the executive and by the congress, but without substantial results. Various projects are now before the congress. The need for reorganization is obvious. There has been with the years gradual growth of the gov ernment by the accretion in it's de- partments and by independent ex- ecutive establishments, boards. and missions as problems requiring solution confront the president and congress. To-day the government embraces from 150 to 200 separate units, dependent on the method of notation used. Governmental units when once set up have g. tendency to grow independently of other units. This leads to overlapping and waste. Moreover, there IS 6 marked tendency to find new oc- WhC1l ShC AbAeAhh NesASS are completed. The overlap and the number of agencies can be reduced.
 A few consultations, notably in law enforcement and the veterans services, have been effected. Both of these re-organized agencies have been able to discharge the very greatly increased burdens imposed upon them without such an in- crease in administrative expense as would otherwise have been the case.
 In the present crisis the absolute necessity for the most drastic econ omy makes the problem of govern- mental reorganization one of para mount importance. The amount of saving in public funds to be effect ed by a thoroughgoing re-organ- ization, while difficult to estimate accurately, will be material, amounting to many millions of dol lars annually. Not only will the governments business be conducted more efficiently and economically but the great body of citizens who have business relations with their government will be relieved of the burden and expense of dealing with a multitude of unnecessary and sometimes widely separated public agencies.
 We may frankly admit the prac- tical difficulties of such re-organiz- ation. Not only do different frac- tions of the government fear such reorganization, but many associa- tions and agencies throughout the country will be alarmed that the particular function to which they are devoted may in some fashion be curtailed. Proposals to the con- gross of detailed plans for the re- organization of the many different bureaus and independent agencies have always proved in the past to be a signal for the mobilization of opposition from all quarters which has destroyed the possibility of con- structive action.
 There is little hope for success in this task unless 1t is placed in the hands of some one responsible for it, with authority and direction to act. Moreover, the consummation of a comprehensive reorganization at one moment is not in the best pub- lie interest. Such reorganization should be undertaken gradually and systematically, predicted on a sound and definite theory of gov- ernment and effectuated as the re- suit of study and experience gain- ed in the actual processes of re- organizatio
 I recommend, therefore, that the congress provide for
 (a) Consolidation and grouping