INEFFICIENT BUSINESS METHODS OF STATE GOVERNMENTS
Some of the greatest abuses of governing power have been in connection with the appropriation of money. They have been due not so much to dishonesty as to bad organization and loose business methods, both in the executive and legislative branches of government. When the executive branch consists of a large number of more or less independent parts, each trying to make the best showing possible, it is quite to be expected that each will seek to get from the public treasury all the money possible without reference to the needs of other parts or to the resources of the state. When, in addition, there is no central executive authority with power to hold the heads of the various parts responsible for their acts, and no uniform or businesslike system of keeping accounts, either of money expended or of work accomplished, it is easy to see the opportunity for wastefulness and inefficiency.
WASTEFUL METHODS OF MAKING APPROPRIATIONS
On the other hand, the methods of making appropriations in the legislature have been equally conducive to wastefulness. Appropriation bills pass through the same legislative machinery as all other bills and are subject to the same dangers. Moreover, they are handled by different committees that act as independently of one another as do the various executive departments. In Illinois, for example, until recently "requests for appropriations were submitted informally by each office, department, or board; and separate bills were prepared by the several departments and institutions, and introduced by individual members of the General Assembly," l[Footnote: John A. Fairlie, Budget Methods in Illinois, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, November, 1915; quoted by W. F. Willoughby, in The Movement for Budgetary Reform in the States, p. 45.] then being referred to different committees according to the subjects to which they related. At the session of 1913, 94 separate appropriation acts were passed.
THE BUDGET SYSTEM
A number of the states have sought to remedy this defect in government by the adoption of a budget system (see Chapter XIII). Illinois has perhaps made the complete reform in this matter. We have already seen how that state has reorganized its executive branch of government, which is the first necessary step. In this reorganization there was created a finance department, to which all the administrative departments submit a careful estimate of the money needed for their various lines of work, together with a detailed statement of work done and money spent during the two preceding years. The finance department considers all these statements and estimates in their relation to one another and to the financial resources available for the next two years, and submits to the governor a comprehensive and detailed budget. On the basis of this, a single appropriation bill is prepared by a single committee of the legislature. Public hearings are held, the people are given opportunity to know just what the government has done and intends to do, and the governor and his finance department may be held responsible.
No single change would add so largely to both democracy and efficiency as the introduction of proper budget methods. [Footnote: Foreword to Public Budgets, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, November, 1915; quoted by W. F. Willoughby, The Movement for Budgetary Reform in the States, p. 2.]
Investigate and report on:
Method of making appropriations in your state.
Movement for a budget system in your state.