The 20th century was rich in changes to the institutions and processes that together comprise theAmerican administrative state. This very richness of subject matter, however, calls for somegeneralizations to help explain the events and trends that occupied the attention of successiveCongresses, scholars, and generations of practitioners. In its effort to develop such statements ofgenerality this report will study the work and results of a number of commissions and other similarbodies that have had executive organization and reorganization as part of their mandate. Forpurposes of this report, these reorganization exercises are referred to collectively as "landmarkcommissions." Viewing landmark commissions sequentially and exploring the philosophical norms andvalues guiding their work is only one of several possible approaches to the extensive subject ofexecutive branch organization in the recently completed century. The landmark commissionapproach clearly emphasizes institutional issues and will concentrate on structural changes resultingfrom the commissions' recommendations and subsequent implementation. It is recognized, however,that the term "reorganization" covers much more than structural changes. Laws may be passed toachieve policy or enforcement objectives and indirectly reorganize internal department and agencystructure in the process. This was certainly the case when Congress passed the Inspectors GeneralAct of 1978, an act that altered the internal structure of agencies and the behavior of agency officials. This broad definition of the term reorganization, however, will be largely avoided to facilitateattention to the successive landmark commissions as guideposts through this century ofadministrative management. Context for discussion of landmark commissions in the 20th century is provided by a reviewand analysis of six crucial periods in the evolution of the organization of the executive branch ofgovernment: the Founders and the political theory that informed their organizationaldecisions in 1789; the interplay of the President and Congress in executive organizationalmanagement during the 19th century; the Progressive Movement of the 20th century's first decades and its continuinglegacy; the rise and decline of "orthodoxy" in organizational management of theexecutive branch; the interregnum period (1972-1992) with its doctrinal heterodoxy;and the emergence of a New Public Management paradigm and itscritics. The selected landmark commissions of the recently completed century, beginning with theKeep Commission in 1905, are described and analyzed in chronological order. (1) In tracing the history of thesecommissions, the interplay of conflicting values appear with regularity. Should the principalsupervisor of the administrative agencies be the President, or Congress, or should the President andCongress be co-managers? Should commission recommendations serve to encourage administrativeintegration and centralization or the values of agency particularity and decentralization? Shouldcommission recommendations seek to give a greater or lesser role for government in the social andeconomic life of the Nation? Successive commission reports and recommendations provideevidence of the recurring nature of these and other related value issues. With the advent of the 21st century, the question reasonably arises: Has the age ofreorganizational commissions passed? Or, is there a continuing need for periodic reviews andrealignments of the basic organizational structure of government? In nearly every Congress, legislation is introduced to establish a commission with a broadmandate. The 106th Congress, the last Congress of the 20st century, proved to be no exception in thisrespect. Senator Fred Thompson, then chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee,introduced the "Government for the 21st Century Act" ( S. 2306 ). The legislation, whichdid not receive congressional action, sought to establish a nine-member Commission on GovernmentRestructuring and Reform appointed jointly by the President and congressional leadership. Thepurpose of the Commission was to study the entire government and make recommendations "toreduce the cost and increase the effectiveness of the Executive Branch." The Commission was tosubmit its recommendations on restructuring by December 1, 2002. A period of public commentwas to follow. Then, the Commission was to prepare a final report to Congress in a form that wouldpermit its recommendations to have been included in a single implementation bill and referred to theappropriate committees for consideration. An "expedited procedures" process for floor considerationand mandatory voting was included. As indicated, Congress chose not to act on the proposal. Are reorganization panels now passÃ©? Or, is the time approaching when a newcomprehensive commission will be viewed as essential? Have the events since September 11, 2001changed the playing field for government organization and management? Is organizationalmanagement a separate field of study and endeavor, or should it be viewed as properly tied andsubordinate to the budgetary process, as some argue is presently the case? To what degree shoulddepartments and agencies be able to initiate organizational changes on their own authority or takethe lead with their oversight committees in Congress? Should organizational management beultimately placed under the purview of a central management agency which applies certain principles and general management laws across the board, with the burden of proof for exception resting onthe appealing agency? In short, what political, legal, and administrative values should prevail in the21st century? What can the experience of the landmark commissions of the 20th century tell us aboutwhat to expect as the nation continues down the path of democratic governance in the new century? The commissions studied in this report contributed to the evolution of the executive branchof the federal government. Each was concerned principally, if not exclusively, with the organizationand management of the executive branch. The commissions were temporary bodies, normallyunassociated with the legislative institutions of government. They did not conduct their proceedingsin an apolitical environment, however, nor were they able to ignore the work and ideas of those whohad trod this path before. Most especially, these commissions were beholden to the Framers of theConstitution and to an early 20th century political movement, Progressivism. It is therefore necessaryto begin by studying the evolving theoretical foundations of the executive branch to fully understandthe role of landmark commissions. While the classical works on political theory and government were useful to the Framers indeveloping a coherent political philosophy upon which to construct a "democratic republic," (2) the reading of Montesquieu,Locke, and Blackstone was of little assistance or guidance in the weighty matters of organizing andadministering the executive powers of a new government. The Founders turned away from thebooks for guidance in organizational matters, and reflected instead upon their own experience intrying to wage the Revolutionary War against a global power, and in attempting to manage thenational confederation of states after the close of hostilities in 1781. (3) Their personal experiencesbecame the crucible for political thought. This was particularly true for Alexander Hamilton, whohad found his administrative experiences during the Confederational period to be extremelyfrustrating. (4) It should be noted that while questions regarding how best to organize the executive branchwere raised at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the Constitution itself is nearly silent onorganizational matters. (5) The paucity of language in the Constitution respecting organizational matters should not beinterpreted, however, as either lack of interest or concern. Quite the contrary, there was a livelyconcern for organizational matters. There was recognition that the new government would fail if itwas unable to generate energy in the executive branch. In Federalist #70, Hamilton asserted: Energy in the Executive is a leading character...of good government.... A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of government. A feebleexecution is but another phrase for a bad execution.... All men of sense will agree in the necessityof an energetic Executive. The Framers, in defending the Constitution, emphasized both its innovative character and itsinstitutional continuity. Pre-eminent among the many innovative provisions of the Constitution wasthe creation of an independent presidency, the term independent meaning in this instance not beingdependent for selection or maintenance upon the legislature. The President was given a differentelectoral base from Congress and also several specific powers, such as the power to veto legislation,to protect itself from an overbearing Congress. It should not be forgotten that their fear was lessabout a too powerful President than about a too-dependent President, one who would be dominatedby Congress which controlled the money. As for continuity, not only were the states kept intact geographically, but their authoritiesremained in large part unaltered. Even most laws of the Confederation, such as the NorthwestOrdinance of 1787, were retained. As one student of early administrative history observed: "Thecontinuity between the old and new systems was made plain by the fact both [John] Jay and [Henry]Knox, secretaries of Foreign Affairs and War, respectively, continued in their offices, withmodifications, under the new government." (6) Reflecting upon the writings and decisions of the Framers with respect to the administrativeelements of the new government, one is struck by their willingness to break new ground. (7) Rarely in their discourse isthere reference to the prevailing administrative systems in Great Britain or France, the two majornation-states of the period. This is explained in part because the new government of the UnitedStates was created before (although just before) the French Revolution, and thus tended to reflectthe values of the 18th century Enlightenment, rather than the values of the 19th century socialrevolutionaries. More to the point, however, neither Great Britain nor France had "modern"administrative systems at the time. For the most part, their administrative systems were poorlyorganized and managed, and to a large extent corrupted by the widespread selling of offices ofstate. (8) In the case ofFrance, the largely feudal administrative structure would be swept away by the Revolution. (9) Enlightenment philosophy stressed reason, and reason embraced scientific methodology. Alexander Hamilton, held by many to be the "father of public administration," was articulate in hisarguments that public administration was a "science" and that the United States could organize agovernment that was at once efficient and representative.