589. THE OLDER GROUP OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS.—Aside from the Governor, the administrative officers of the state fall into two groups: First, the older officers, who are relatively few, and who are almost always elective; and second, the newer officers, boards, and commissions, who are relatively numerous, and who may be either elective or appointive.
The first group comprises such officers as the Lieutenant Governor, the Secretary of State, the State Treasurer, the Auditor or Comptroller, and the Attorney-General. These older officers are usually elected at the general state election for a term varying from state to state. These officers are not under the control of the Governor, but fulfill duties prescribed by the constitution, and are responsible only to the people and to the courts. They may be, and often are, of a different political party than the Governor, and since they are not under the control of that official, they often work at cross-purposes with him. This lack of co÷rdination is in striking contrast to the harmony of action existing between the President of the United States and the heads of the Federal Executive Departments.
590. THE NEWER GROUP OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS.—As state government has increased in complexity, the older group of administrative officers has been supplemented by the addition of a large number of new officers.
These newer administrative officials are quite numerous, but their general character may be indicated by dividing them into two classes:
The first class includes individual officers, such as, for example, a superintendent of prisons, a state architect, a state historian, a commissioner of health, a food inspector, a geologist, a commissioner of corporations, a commissioner of banking, a superintendent of public works, and a state surveyor.
Besides individual officers, the newer group of administrative officials includes a large number of boards and commissions which have been created by the state legislature and endowed with large powers for the study and control of specific matters. The following boards and commissions are examples of this second class: A state civil service commission, a tax commission, a board of charities and correction, a water supply commission, a tax equalization board, a quarantine commission, a voting machine commission, a board of pharmacy, a highway commission, and a public service commission.
591. DEFECTS OF STATE ADMINISTRATION. [Footnote: For a fuller discussion of this problem, see Chapter XXXVI.]—The enlargement of the state administration by this creation of numerous individual offices, boards, and commissions indicates an attempt on the part of state governments to grapple with the problems of democracy. Nevertheless, this rapid growth of the state administration has had serious consequences. Once created, many of the newer officers have attempted to perpetuate themselves. State legislatures have been harassed by boards and commissions seeking unnecessary appropriations. Politicians without expert training or ability are often placed on boards and commissions dealing with technical matters.
Responsible and efficient state government is rendered difficult by the inability of the Governor effectively to control the few elective officials who constitute the older group of administrative officers; an even greater difficulty arises from the creation and expansion of the newer group of officers. The excessive number of individual officers, boards, and commissions makes for inefficient and irresponsible government. Some of these officials are elected by the people, others are appointed by the Governor. Their terms vary so widely that, as Professor Beard has pointed out, the appointing power never has an opportunity to make a clean sweep and introduce more efficient administrative methods. There is little or no co÷rdination between the various administrative offices, and very little centralization of responsibility.
592. THE STATE OF CIVIL SERVICE.—The spoils system has long constituted a defect, not only in the Federal government but in American state government as well. [Footnote: This problem is further discussed in Chapter XXXIV.] And as in the case of the National government, this evil has been attacked primarily through the merit system. New York state led the way in 1883 by passing a comprehensive Civil Service Act. This law provided for a commission authorized to co÷perate with the Governor in preparing rules, classifying the state civil service, and conducting the examinations for the positions to be filled. Since then, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Colorado, New Jersey, California, Ohio, Illinois, and other states have adopted some type of civil service system.
State civil service laws are largely modelled after the national Civil Service Act of 1883. In most of the legislating states laws of this type provide for competitive examinations of a practical nature; they prohibit political and religious interrogatives; and they forbid the assessment of holders of civil service positions for political purposes. Appointment and promotion are upon the basis of merit, although as in the case of the Federal civil service, the standards for judging the character and capacity of individual officeholders have not yet been perfected.