B. THE REORGANIZATION OF STATE ADMINISTRATION
456. DEFECTS IN STATE ADMINISTRATION.—Originally the state administration consisted of the Governor and a few elective officers, notably a Secretary of State, a Treasurer, and an Attorney-General. With the rapid development of the country, education, health, dependency, corporations, and similar matters have required more and more attention from state governments. To perform a host of new functions the state administration has expanded to include numerous commissioners, boards, and departments, some of them elected by the people, and some of them appointed by the Governor.
This development has been haphazard, rather than orderly and planned. As a result, the administrative department is in most states a confused and tangled mass of boards and commissions, departments and single offices, often duplicating the work of one another, and largely working without any appreciable degree of co÷rdination. In most states numerous administrative officers are elective, rather than appointive. This situation has two drawbacks: In the first place elective officials are responsible to no one but the people at large, and therefore these officials cannot be efficiently directed or supervised by the Governor. In the second place, no definite person or persons can be held responsible for the conduct of this numerous body of elective administrative officials.
457. THE REFORM OF STATE ADMINISTRATION.—The reorganization and consolidation of state administrative offices is attracting an increasing amount of attention. In New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, and several other states, administration has been notably simplified and systematized. The Illinois Administrative Code of 1917, for example, consolidated the work of more than a hundred administrative offices into nine main departments. Each department is in charge of a director, appointed by the Governor, and each department is responsible to the Governor. Co÷rdination of this type economizes time and energy, and saves the state's money by reducing the number of salaried officials. The centralization of the entire administration under the Governor not only allows efficient supervision, but permits the people to hold this official strictly accountable for the administration.
The need of reform in state administration is recognized throughout the Union, but in most states the reorganization of administrative offices is retarded in two ways: First, the movement is opposed by officeholders who fear that their positions will be abolished by a consolidation of departments; second, in many states the consolidation of administrative offices is impossible without substantial amendments to the state constitution.
C. BUDGET REFORM
458. THE QUESTION OF A BUDGET.—In contrast to the leading countries of Europe, our National government until very recently had no budget system. Some of the estimates were prepared by the administrative departments, under the direction of the President, while other estimates were prepared by various committees in the House of Representatives. In Congress there was little or no co÷rdination between the various committees considering different appropriations. Nor were these committees properly co÷rdinated with the administrative departments which were responsible for the original estimates.
After appropriations had been granted, Congress had no scrutiny over the actual expenditure of the money. Thus the administrative departments might waste their appropriations, and then secure the passage of deficiency bills to make up the shortage. At no time did the various departments and committees considering appropriations take into careful account the amount of government revenue. For this reason it was purely an accident if appropriations kept within the limits set by available revenue.
A similar situation formerly prevailed in many of the states. The various administrative departments transmitted to the legislature an estimate of what each required for the coming year. These estimates, together with an unlimited number of appropriation bills introduced by individual members, were referred to various committees. Whether particular appropriations were granted depended, not upon the amount of state revenue, but upon the political pressure brought to bear in favor of those measures. As in Congress, neither the executive nor legislative branch of government, neither particular committees nor individual legislators, could be held wholly responsible for any appropriation measure. Excessive waste of public funds was the result.
459. BUDGET REFORM.—The last two decades have witnessed a growing demand for a national budget. Under the direction of President Taft a commission investigated the general question of responsibility in the handling of Federal finances. The report of the committee favored a national budget, but the unfriendly attitude of Congress checked the movement. Interest in a national budget increased during the two terms of President Wilson, stimulated, especially, by the wave of postwar economy which swept the country after the signing of the armistice in November, 1918. In the spring of 1921, a bill establishing a budget system for the National government passed both houses of Congress, and on June 10, 1921, the bill became law by the signature of President Harding. This system is expected markedly to improve Federal finances.