The Washington times., 1933-12-11
By JOHN E. TAYLOR

: BY JOHN E. TAYLOR
Numbers of Virginians have
been agitating county government
consolidation for a number OF
years, and they were spurred in
their efforts by the report OF the
New York Bureau of Municipal
One Of these is DR.. William H
economist of the Depart
ment Of Taxation. Here is what
be has to say:
@The principal weakness Of
county governments in Virginia
is found in their structural or
ganiZatiOn. There is . complete
lack of coordination among the
several administrative agencies
within the counties.
"The boards of supervisors,
which constitute the governing
bodies in the counties, are not
suited to direct the administra-
tive agencies.
TIE-UP NEEDED
"The great need is to tie TO-
gether under responsible man.
agement of one form or another
the entire administrative ma
Chinery Of the counties. The
Virginia GenerI Assembly Of
1882 opened the way for reOr-
ganizatien Of county govern
ments in Virginia and set up
two alternative devices t.
achieve this purpose; one the
sO-calIed county manager form;
the other the county executive
form.
"TheSe plans are optional,
and neither can be adopted un-
less approved by q majority of
the voters within the county
seeking to change from the
present fOrvr to one of the Op-
GOnal forms.
cit should be noted that while
these possibilities are open to
each count of the State, it is
questionable whether the advan-
tages claimed through the adOp-
ton of one of these forms would
be applicable to even q majority
Of the counties of the State.
There are many counties Ose
area, population and economic
health do not justify the con.
SideratiOn of either of these
optional forms.
"In order to justify the adOp-
dOn Of efficient management
among certain Of the counties
It would be necessary to merge
the administrative agencies Of
several counties into one gen.
eraI administrative unit, which
might embrace two or three or
even more counties.
SMALL COUNTIES
Fifty per cent If the cOun-
ties in Virginia have a land
area Of less than 400 square
miles, and nearly twO-thirds
have q land area of less than
300 square miles, while IL per
cent have an area of less than
200 square miles.
"MOre than one fourth of
the counties have q population
Of less than 10000.
These bare facts indicate
thai in order to achieve ideal
economies there is need for
consolidation of functions as be-
tween numerous of these small
and poor Virginia counties.
'In small counties, where
there is great density of pOpu-
latiOn, this need for cOnSOlida-
ton does not arise, because
the problems tend to become
urban in nature, and taxpay-
ing ability in respect of the
area dominated by the admins
Erative authority is relatively
high.
"But in areas where the
population is relatively sparse,
Gaxpaying ability is very low in
respect of the area dominated
by the administrative author
ity, and hence the Set-up of a
highly developed administrative
agency might prove more costly
thar continuance under the
present inefficient form of
county government.
"The fee syst m, with its at
tendant iniquitOuS repercus-
SiOnS, constitutes another weak
ness of local government ad-
miniStratiOn in Virginia. A
part u this method of cOmpen-
sating local officials was done
away with in 1882 by an act of
the general assembly providing
for the compensation by means
of salaries for the county com.
miSSiOnerS of the revenue and
treaSurerS.
while it cannot be said that
thia change was productive of
any great economies in gov
ernmental costs. it must he ad-
mitted that it wa a move in
the right direction.
However, it would have been
much better to have made the
officers whose compensation
status was shifted from q fee
basis to a salary basis sub
sect to administrative appoint
ment rather than to popular
election.
"The fee system, in spite Of
Us many defects, does offer an
(cOntinued on PGss 10, Col. T.