The administration of the health laws is divided between boards and commissions, with no effective means of coordination. Our educational agencies are not harmonious. Over one hundred officers, boards, agencies, commissions, institutions and departments are charged with the administration of our laws. No systematic organization exists, and no adequate control can be exercised … Under the present system the governor cannot exercise the supervision and control which the people have a right to demand. [Footnote: Charles E. Woodward, "The Illinois Civil Administrative Code," reprinted from Proceedings, Academy of Political Science, July, 1918.]
GOVERNOR LACKS POWER TO MEET HIS RESPONSIBILITY
This condition of affairs is characteristic of state governments generally. Some of the numerous officers are appointed by the governor, but many of them are elected by the people or appointed by the legislature. Their terms of office do not coincide with that of the governor, so that he finds in office many persons whom he did not appoint, and whom he cannot remove. Often they may be of an opposite political party. Thus the very organization of the state executive department is such as to make it impossible for the governor to perform the duty, imposed upon him by the constitution, of seeing to it that the laws are faithfully executed. It must be remembered, moreover, that the execution of the laws is also dependent largely upon a multitude of local officers over whom the state exercises little control. It is apparent how imperfect must be the teamwork of the people through this organization.
UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS AT POPULAR CONTROL
Why have the people put up with this sort of thing? For one thing, they have not understood where the trouble lies. There is also seen the influence of the political "boss," who thrives under this confusion. But among the causes is the desire of the people to maintain control over government. They have attempted, in their constitutions, not only to say just what services should be performed for them, but also to specify just what machinery should be used for their performance. For every new service, they have created a new and independent piece of machinery. Then, to make their control complete, as they thought, they have made most of their new officers elective. Experience has shown that control of this kind has been gained only at the sacrifice of efficient service, through failure to provide trained leadership and effective organization. Moreover, experience has also shown that control of this kind is largely a delusion; for the people cannot keep in touch with their multitude of officers, and in many cases yield their control, often unknowingly, to the political "boss."
EXPERIMENT NECESSARY TO PROGRESS
In noting these defects, it is not to be concluded that our state governments have been a failure in all respects. Far from it. Notable progress has been made toward the ideals toward which we have been striving. We have tried one experiment after another, some of which have been highly successful, but others of which have not met the test of new conditions. It is important, however, that we should face our failures squarely and profit by them.
REORGANIZATION OF EXECUTIVE
At the present time there is a marked effort to overcome the defects that we have just noted, and a good deal of progress toward it has been made in some states. One of the most progressive states in this particular is Illinois, which has recently enacted a law for the reorganization of its executive branch of government.
Under the new "Civil Administrative Code" of Illinois, the executive branch of government is organized in nine departments: the departments of finance, of agriculture, of labor, of mines and minerals, of public works and buildings, of public welfare, of public health, of trade and commerce, and of registration and education.