University of Texas Bulletin No. 2507: February 15, 1925 THE REORGANIZATION OF STATE ADMINISTRATION IN TEXAS _By FRANK MANN STEWART Adjunct Professor of Government PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN Publications of the University of Texas Publications Committee: FREDERIC DUNCALF J. L. HENDERSON KILLIS CAMPBELL E. J. MATHEWS F. W. GRAFF H.J. MULLER C. G. HAINES HAL C. WEAVER The University publishes . bulletins four times a month, so numbered that the first two digits of the number show the year of issue, the last two the position in the yearly series. (For example, No. 2201 is the first bulletin of the year 1922.) These comprise the official publications of the University, publications on humanistic and scientific sub­jects, bulletins prepared by the Bureau of Extension, by the Bureau of Economic Geology, and other bulletins of general educational interest. With the exception of special num­bers, any bulletin will be sent to a citizen of Texas free on request. All communications about University publications should be addressed to University Publications, University of Texas, Austin. UNIVERSITY O,TEXAI PRiii, AUITI• University of Texas Bulletin No. 2507: February 15, 1925 THE REORGANIZATION OF ST A TE ADMINISTRATION IN TEXAS By FRANK MANN STEWART Adjunct Professor of Government PUBLISHBD BY THE UNIVERSITY FOUR TIMES A MONTH, AND ENTERED AS SECOND-CLASS MATTER AT THE POSTOFFICE AT AUSTIN. TBXAS, UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1912 The benefits of education and of useful knowledge, generally diffused through a community, are euential to the preservation of a free govern-. ment. Sam Houston Cultivated mind is the guardian genius of democracy. . It is the only dictator that freemen acknowl­edge and the only security that free­men desire. Mirabeau B. Lamar PREFACE This bulletin is an attempt to apply to the Texas State Administration the principles of reorganization which are the product of the recent movement to reconstruct State Government. Studies made and plans adopted in other states afford the basis for the conclusions. It is prepared primarily for public officials and citizens interested in the improvement of governmental organization and service. Chapter IV of Part I appeared in the Southwestern Political and Social Science Quarterly of December, 1924. Grateful acknowledgement is made to the editor for per­mission to reprint this material. The author is deeply indebted for valuable criticisms and suggestions in the preparation and revision of the manu­script to Professor Charles G. Haines, University of Texas, and to Professor Leonard D. White, University of Chicago. F. M.S. CONTENTS PART I PRESENT ORGANIZATION OF STATE ADMINISTRATION Chapter I: Introduction_________________ ________________ __ ____ ____________________________ 7 The Need for Administrative Reorganization____________________________ 7 Scope of This Study__________________________________ ____ ------------------------8 Chapter II: Present Organization of State Government... 9 Chapter III: An Appraisal of the Administrative System 14 Limitations on the Appointing Power_ _____________ ___ ___ ·----·---__ 14 Cumbersome Methods of Removal..______________ __ __________ _______ 15 Ineffective Supervision Over The Administration_____ _______ ___ __ __ 18 Unscientific Budget System -----------------------------------------------------------19 Inadequate Machinery of Financial Control..______________________________ 22 Duplication of Work and Overlapping of Functions__ __ ________ _____ 23 Unsatisfactory Reporting System ------------------------------------------------24 Long Ballot________________ -------------------------------________ ____ ------------------------____ 25 No Merit System·------------------------------------·---------------------------------___ ·-----26 Short Terms _____ --------··--------------------------------------------------------------------27 Low Standards of Compensation ---------------------------------------------------28 Chapter IV: The Movement for the Reorganization of State Administration ____ ____. __ _ __________ ------------------------------------------_______ 31 Central Investigating Committees of Thirty-Fifth Legislature 32 Reorganization in the Thirty-Fifth and Thirty-Sixth Legis­latures ________ .__ ..--------_____ ..---------------------________ ._____________ ..___ _ ___ __ _ __ 38 Reorganization in the Thirty-Seventh Legislature _______ _____ _______ 41 Reorganization in the Thirty-Eighth Legislature ____-----------·----44 Summary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------45 PART II PROPOSED REORGANIZATION OF STATE ADMINISTRATION Chapter I: Principles of Administrative Reorganization ____ _ __ 49 Chapter II: Outline of the Reorganization Proposed, Requir­ing Constitutional Changes _________ ------------------------------______ _________ 57 Chapter III: The Legislative Department____________________________________ 62 Comptroller of Public Accounts ..--------- --------------_·-------------------------c;2 Chapter IV: The Executive Department____________ ___ ___ ____ __ ___ __________ _ 67 The Governor --------------------------------------------------------------------------------67 The Lieutenant Governor----------------------------------------------------------70 The Administrative Council -------------------------------------------------------72 Chapter V: The Proposed Administrative Departments ___ _ 75 Finance -------------· ·--------------------------------------------------------------------------------76 Taxation and Revenue ---------------------------------------------------------------------79 Contents State ------------------------------------_______ ._____ .------·. ---------·_·----··____ -··----··------.. 81 Law -------------------------------------------------·----------------------------------------------·-----82 Military Affairs·----------------------··---------------------·-------------------------------84 Education -----·-------------------·--·-------------------------------------------------------------85 Health --------------------··-----------·----··--------·-·--------------------------------------------89 Public Welfare -·--------------------·------···-----·-------------------·-·---··-----· -----·----91 Agriculture --------------------··----------------------------·-----··___________ ___ ·-_ ._ 94 Labor ________ _______ ----------------------------------------------------·------------------··-·-··----96 Commerce ---------------------------------·-------------------------·------------------------·-----97 Public Works and Buildings__________________________________________________________ 99 Conservation ------------------·-·----·--------·-------------------------------·---------------·---101 Employment and Registration ---··---------------·---··----·-------·---·-·-··---102 Council of Education ·-· ·-·-· ------------------------------­Chapter VI : Proposed Reorganization of Without Constitutional Changes ___ _ ___ __ PART III CONCLUSION Chapter I: Results to Be Expected _______ _ ------------------------------105 Administration, ______ ·-----______________ 109 ---·-115 Economy and Efficiency in The Administration ___ __ _____ _ ____ 115 Results in Other States_ ____ __ _ __ ------·-·-------------------------____ 116 Bibliography _ ________________ --------------------·-------------------------------------------------121 Part I PRESENT ORGANIZATION OF STATE ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION THE NEED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION The increasing cost of State Government in Texas and the recurring difficulty of providing revenue to meet constantly growing expenditures emphasize the urgent necessity of a reorganization of the State's administrative machinery to the end that expenditures may be curtailed and efficiency promoted. Government costs, as shown by official reports, have mounted steadily within the last thirty years. In 1891 the biennial appropriations for the support of the State Govern­ment amounted to $5,399,966.90 and the per capita cost was $2.41; in 1901 the Twenty-seventh Legislature appropriated $7,396,953.37, the per capita cost being $2.42; in 1911 appropriations totaled $10,610,371.60 and the per capita cost increased to $2.72; in 1919-1920 approximately $37,318,000 was appropriated, making the per capita cost more than S7. In the period from 1891-1920 popula­tion increased from 2,235,523 to 4,661,027 and assessed valuations rose from $856,200,283 to $3,200.295,205.1 The growth of the State in population and resources, and the gradual trend from a purely agricultural State toward an urban and industrial State are responsible for a part of the increased public expenditures. Another reason, as expressed by Governor Neff, is that the State Government "is acting as guardian for too many private enterprises."2 This is reflected in the creation of seventy State agencies since 1876, fifty-seven having been created since 1900, and thirty-one within the last decade. The multiplication of administrative agencies is the result of the lack of effective planning in the State's business. In 1Report of the State Tax Commissioner, 1920, pp. 15-16. 2House Journal, 37th Leg., 1st and 2d called sess. (1921), p. 83. Vni1:ersity· of Texas Bulletin many cases, in the confusion of legislative sessions, new boards and offices have been created without any attempt being made to ascertain if existing agencies could handle the new functions. As a result of this haphazard method of organizing the administration, the State is, according to Governor Neff, "burdened with governmental agencies. It is top heavy. We have too much machinery .... too much overhead expense," and too much "duplication and triplication of work."3 The simplification and reorganization of the State admin­ istration in the interest of efficiency and economy is a matter of the highest importance to the State. SCOPE OF THIS STUDY It is necessary here to state definitely the scope of the reorganization plan which will be proposed. In the first place, the plan deals only with the administrative branch of the State Government, omitting consideration of the Legis­lature and the courts. Moreover, the plan is limited to changes in the machinery of government; changes in substantive law are not proposed. Only administrative departments and officials whose duties are statewide are included in the proposed plan. This excludes officials whose duties are outside the State or are confined to some local unit, even though they receive State appointments. Such officials are: Commissioner of Deeds, Notary Public, Public Weigher, and Branch Pilot. Temporary boards and commissions have also been omitted, e.g., the Educational Survey Commission, Codifica­tion Commission, Eleemosynary Commission, and Forestry Committee. Finally, several agencies which have ceased to function are not considered, e.g., the Naval Board and Bureau of Child and Animal Protection. "Ibid., p. 82. CHAPTER II PRESENT ORGANIZATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT1 Texas Government is divided into three parts by the Constitution of 1876. The Legislature consists of a Senate and House of Representatives. ·The Judiciary is composed of a Supreme Court and other courts provided by the Constitution and statutes.2 The organization of the executive department is outlined in the Constitution as follows: "The executive depart­ment of the State shall consist of a Governor, who shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the State, a Lieutenant­Governor, Secretary of State, Comptroller of Public Accounts, Treasurer, Commissioner of the General Land Office, and the Attorney General."3 State administration now consists of ninety-one officers, boards and commissions, eleven owing their origin to the Constitution and eighty to statutes.4 The following table gives the names of these State agencies with the dates of their creation: STATE OFFICERS, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND INSTITUTIONS (In chronological order of their creation.) 5 1824 Governor State of Coahuila Lieutenant Governor (Vice-Governor) and Texas 1825 Secretary of State 1827 Attorney-General (Fiscal) iFrank Mann Stewart, Officf(rs, Boards, and Commissions of Texas (Univ. of Tex. Bull. No. 1854); and Laws, 36th, 37th, and 38th Legs., regular and called sess. ( 1919, 1921, 1923). 2constitution, art. 2; art. 3, sec. 1; art. 5, sec. 1. 3/bid., art. 4, sec. 1. 4See chart, p. 13. SThis list does not include minor and temporary agencies created from time to time, nor does it include agencies abolished or consoli­dated with existing departments. The date of creation is the time University of Texas Bulletin 1835 Comptroller of Public Accounts Provisional Govern­Treasurer ment of Texas Ranger Forcer, 1836 Adjutant General Republic of Texas Commissioner of the General Land Office 1839 State Library7 1842 State Penitentiary 1846 Commissioner of Deeds State of Texas Commissioners of P;Jots Prison Commissioners~ 1852 Auditor for the Prison System 1854 State Cemetery Supreme Court L:brary 1856 Supreme Court Librarian Deaf and Dumb Institute State Lunatic Ayslum'a Texas School for Blind 1858 Board of Regents of University of Texas.9 1866 State Librarian State Board of Education State Superintendent of Public Instruct:on fixed by the statute for the establishment of the first office, or a related one, and is not always the date of the organization of the office in its present form. Statutory dates for the establishment of institutions are not always the same as dates of actual establishment. "A ranger force for the protection of the frontier and the sup­pression of lawlessness has been maintained almost continuously since 1835. In 1870 a State police was organized, but was abolished a few years later. The present organization of the ranger force dates from a law of 1901. •The State Library was placed under the control of the Secretary of State in 1848; in 1866 the office of State librarian was created; from 1876 to 1909 it was under the Department of Insurance, Statistics, and History; in 1909 the Library and Historical Commission was established. 8The law for the present organization of the Commission was passed in 1910. ~aName changed to Austin State Hospital by H.B. no. 249, 39th Leg., 1925. Names of other institutions for the insane were changed to Rusk State Hospital, Wichita Falls State Hospital, Terrell State Hos­pital, and San Antonio State Hospital. The name of the State Farm Colony for the Feeble Minded was· changed to the Austin State School, and the State Epileptic Colony to the Abilene State Hospital. 0A second Jaw for the establishment of the University was passed in 1881 and the University was opened in 1883. The Reorganization of State Administration in Te:ras 11 1871 Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas 1875 Board of Direcb.ors of Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas Assistant Attorney-General in Court of Criminal Appeals 1876 Insurance Commissioner''' Board to Approve Contracts for Fuel and Public Printing State Election Board 1879 State Health Officer Sam Houston State Teachers' College Prairie View State Normal and Industrial College Game, Fish and Oyster Commissioner1 1 1883 North Texas Hospital for the Insane 1887 Commissioner of Agriculture12 Deaf, Dumb and Blind Institute for Colored Youths State Juvenile Training School Orphans' Home 1889 Agricultural Experiment Station Southwestern Insane Asylum 1891 Railroad Commission Confederate Home State Text Book Commission 1893 Live Stock Sanitary Commission State Board of Examiners for Teachers Board of Pardon Advisers 1897 San Jacinto State Park Commissioners State Board of Dental Examiners1 s 1899 State Expert Entomologist Epileptic Colony North Texas State Teachers' College Southwest Texas State Teachers' College 1901 Board of Regents of the College of Industrial Arts Board of Medical Examiners14 1ooriginally the Department of Insurance, Statistics, and History. 11The office of Fish Commissioner was created in 1879 and abolished shortly afterwards. In 1895 a Fish and Oyster Commissioner was created; in 1907 the title was .changed to Game, Fish, and Oyster Commissioner. 1~ In 1887 a Bureau of Agriculture was organized as a part of the Department of Insurance, Statistics, and History, and the name of the Department was changed to the Department of Agriculture, Insur­ance, Statistics, and History. A separate Department of Agriculture was established in 1907. isDistrict boards had been created in 1889. 14A Board of Medical Censors was created in 1837, but abolished a few years later. Licensing of physicians was done by county boards (1873) and by district boards (1876) . Three boards for the separate schools of practitioners were established in 1901. A single board was provided in 1907. Unive1·sitY' of Texas Bulletin 1903 Pasteur Institute State Board of Embalming Board of Legal Examiners15 1905 State Tax Commissioner State Intangible Tax Board State Depository Board Banking Commissioner'" 1807 State Board of Pharmacy17 State Mining Board State Inspector of M;nes ·State Board to Calculate Tax Rate State Anatomical Board l!i09 Commissioner of Labor Statistics State Board of Health State Reclamation Engineerts State Board of Nurse Examiners Legislative Reference Librarian State Fire Insurance Commission Texas Library and Historical Commission State Banking Board West Texas State Teachers' College 1910 State Fire Marshal State Board to Select Auditor for Prison System 1911 State Chemist State Normal School Board of Regents State Board of Veter:nary Medical Examiners Confederate Woman's Home Tuberculosis Sanatorium'" 1913 Industrial Accident Board State Veterinarian Board of Water Engineers Gonzales State Park Commissioners State Bureau of Child and Animal Protection G;rls' Training School ''Before 1903 the licensing of attorneys was conducted by the courts. In 1903 a Board of Legal Examiners was established in each Supreme Judicial District. In 191~ a single board was established. "'The Commissioner of Insurance was made ex-officio Superintend­ent of Banking in 1905. In 1909 the Department became the Depart­ment of Insurance and Banking. In 1923 a separate Department of Banking was created. "District boards were created in 1889. '"A State Levee and Drainage Commissioner was created in 1909; in 1913 the name was changed. in Two tuberculosis colonies were established in 1911. In 1913 the law provided for one institution. PU~SENT ADM\Nl5TRATIVE.. 00.(1.ANIZATION OF T.E.XAS STATE. -~OVE.U.NME.NT ~01\llO PLANT U. AL L:JC.AMINH.S GAME. f\E.A.LTH AND OFFIC..E.\t i.·· 51 N '4-.L E. 0 n IC. l AL AP-P OINT~D BY f>(;)A\1.D (:lit COMM155HlN FI ll t D'\!.'C.D!i PF.NITE.NTIAUY TE.)\ T BOO'l 50AR.'D or: 1<.A T ~ lNDUST"R.IAL HtSTOll\CAL BOAQ.D SUPHVISOI2.Y BOAllD C. 0 MM \ $5 \ 0 N PAllDOH ADVl5U0 MAk'.\N~ BCA'RD C0MMlS5lOH ·5· SUP i Q. I NTE.N DE.NT ·5· 'E>OA'R.D Fl)Q OF \VE.l~HT5 AND MLl.$Ul1~) Voe.AT\ONA.L lDUO.Tl ON + CGNml.11\A.T\ON BY T!'IF. 5E.NAU, \V!l!Lt Nt1T l1F.QU!t2W lW me. :mrn1ns IN Si.VE.UAL CASF.S, 15, AS A MATTE.ti. OJi INTF.UPUTATWN AND 1'l1Ac.TIC.E., '\H.. QUIUD lN ALL Jl.PPOINTMlNTS: • • · ·.5· IN1AN~!J)Lli. ·5· P>OAD.D OF ·2· APPOINHD lW THE. C.~1MMIS510tH.R 0l1 A<:j.'t!.IC.ULTUUll. AND THI!.. 'PRt!:>\DE.NT ~W A·4 M· C.OLLE. limited that he cannot reasonably be held responsible for the acts of State officials. His appointive power is restricted by the practice of popular election of the heads of several important departments, and by the requirement of con­firmation by the Senate; his removal power is limited by the Constitution and statutes; his control over the acts of administrative subordinates is too qualified to be effective; and he has practically no positive power in making the budget or in exercising financial control over the admin­ istration. Limitations on the appointing pO\ver, cumbersome methods of removal, ineffective powers of supervision, an unscientific budget system, inadequate machinery of finan­ cial control,-all hamper effective control over tbe adminis­ tration by the chief executive. Other defects of the Texas administrative system are: unsatisfactory reporting system, duplication and overlapping of work, no merit system, the long ballot, short terms, and low standards of com­ pensation. LIMITATIONS ON THE APPOINTING POWER Heads of seven State departments are made eiective, five by the Constitution and two by statute. The vesting of the selection of these officials in the electorate seriously restricts the appointing power of the Governor. Outside of these elective State officials, others secure their position through appointment by the Governor. The statutes require many appointments to be made bv and with the advice and consent of the Senate; in some. cases The Reorganization of State Administration in Te;ws 15 appointments a·re to be made by the Governor alone. Under the Constitution appointments made by the Governor to fill vacancies in State offices must be confirmed by the Senate.1 As a matter of custom practically all appointments of the Governor are sent to the Senate for confirmation. On February 19, 1917, the Attorney-General ruled, in reply to a communication from the Governor, that the reappointment of the same person to a second term was an appointment to fill a vacancy and therefore had to be submitted to the Senate for confirmation.2 This would seem to require the submission of all appointments to the Senate, as technically, all appointments are made to fill vacancies. The Governor alone should be responsible for the appoint­ment of the principal officers of the State Government. A leading authority on State Government has declared that it would be wise . . .. to vest complete power to appoint the heads of departments in the Governor, without the advice and consent of the Senate. The responsibility for administration is thus more definitely vested in the Governor; and should an occasion present itself when the State Senate is out of political harmony with the Governor, no confusion results from an impossibility of making the appointments, which the Governor thinks should be made for the conduct of the work of the Government, for which he, the Governor, is responsible.~ CUMBERSOME METHODS OF REMOVAL Removal of executive officers by impeachment, by the Governor on address of two-thirds of the Legislature, by quo warranto proceedings, and by the Governor alone are the four methods of removal provided by the Constitution and statutes. The elective constitutional officers are remov­able by impeachment, and the Legislature is given authority to establish the procedure of removal for all State offices where the method of removal has not been provided in the Constitution.' 1Constitution, art. 4, sec. 12. 2Biennial Report of the Attorney-General, 1916-1918, p. 392. 3\V. F. Dodd, State Government (The Century Co., 1922), p. 265. •Constitution, art. 15, sec. 7. University of Texas Bulletin By statute several officials have been added to the list of those removable by impeachment-Secretary of State, Commissioner of Agriculture, Commissioner of Insurance and Banking, and "all other State officers and heads of State departments or institutions of any kind, and all members, regents, trustees, commissioners having the control of the management of any State institution or enterprise. . . ."" On address of two-thirds of each house of the Legislature the Governor shall remove the Commissioner of Agriculture and the Commissioner of Insurance and Banking for "wilful neglect of duty, incompetency, habitual drunkenness, oppression in office, breach of trust, or other reasonable cause which shall not be sufficient ground for impeach­ment."" Another section of the statutes provides for the trial and removal of any public officer by quo 1can·anto proceedings in the following instances : In case any person shall usurp, intrude in':o or unlawfully hold or execute or is now intruded into, or now unlawfully holds or executes any office. or franchise ... or any public officer shall have dont 9r suffered any act which by the pro­visions of law works a forfeiture of his office . ...7 T.ke Governor's power to remove State officials is given in the following section of the statutes: "All State officers appointed by the Governor or elected by the Legislature, where the mode of their removal is not otherwise provided by law, may be removed by him for good and sufficient cause, to be spread on the records of his office and to be reported by him to the next session of the Legislature thereafter."~ It is very doubtful whether the Governor, under the authority of this statute, has any independent power of removal of State officials. T"\vo recent cases may be cited. '·Complete Texa.~ S tatutes (Vernon Law Book Co., 1920), art. 6017. r,lbid., art. 6018. ' I bid., art. 6398. >Ib id., art. 6027. The Reorganization of State Administration in Te:rns 17 In September, 1917, the Senate requested Acting Gov­ernor Hobby to remove a Regent of the University for deception used to secure confirmation of his appointment. On September 15, 1917, the Attorney-General ruled that the Governor had no power to remove a University Regent from office under authority of Article 6027 of the statutes. Although the statutes provided no specific method of re­moval for such officials, the Attorney-General held that a Regent could only be removed from office for ':!auses provided by the Legislature under quo ioananto proceed­ings. The Attorney-General expressed his doubt as to the validity of Article 6027, because the Constitution, Article 15, Section 7, requires the Legislature to provide by law "for the trial and removal from office of all officers of this State, the modes for which have not been provided in this Constitution." Any method of removal, therefore, which does not make provision for a trial does not comply with the Constitution. As to what constitutes trial, before removal, the Attorney­General referred to the opinion of the Texas Supreme Court in the case of Honey v. Graham. In that decision the court said: The right to hold and exercise the functions of an office to which the individul:\l may have been duly elected may be r~garded as property and privileges, and, therefore, the incum­be"Ilt can only be deprived of his office in the manner pointed out in the above quoted section of the Constitution. [Art. 1, Sec. 19, on due process.] To forfeit his right to an office, the incumbent must have done something sufficient in law to deprive him of the office; and the Constitution and laws secure to the person so accused the right of traverse-right of trial-and no power on earth can lawfully deprive him of these rights. The power of the Governor to fill a vacancy, when one exists, is not disputed. The power to create a vacancy is denied by every authority, except where the office is filled by the Gov­ernor's choice of an incumbent without concurrence of the Senate or election by the people, and th2 term of office i< Unirersity of Te.ras Bulletin undefined by Jaw. In such case the incumbent holds at the pleasure of the executiYe and may be at any time remoYed from the office.; The second instance was in 1921 when the Governor sought to remove a Prison Commissioner. Acting under authority of a special article of the statutes prodding for the removal of Prison Commissioners by the Go\·ernor for certain causes, the Governor demanded the resignation of the Commissioner, which was twice refused. Resort was made to the Legislature, which passed an act supplementing existing methods of removal of Prison Commissioners by providing for trial in a district court on suit brought by the Attorney-General on the relation of the Governor. After a trial and appeal to the Supreme Court, the Commissioner was removed.''' From this review of the methods of removal of public officials in Texas it will be seen that the Governor's power of removal is practically in no case capable of independent exercise. The power of appointment does not imply the right to remove. Hence the power of removal is not an effective instrument of administrative control. INEFFECTIVE SUPERVISION OVER THE ADMINISTRATION The Legislature controls the organization and functions of most of the offices of the administration and has added to the duties of constitutional officials. Yet legislative super­vision of the administration is ineffectual, because the Legislature is only in session a few months every two years, and occasional investigations of the administration by legislative committees have not furnished a continuou::, effective control. Supervision by the Governor is the only other source of control over the administration The Constitution ; Report, op. cit., pp. 444-448. For early decisions on the removal power, cf. Keenan v. Pen-y, 24 Tex., 253 (1859) and Honey v. Graham , 39 Tex., 1 (1873). 10Southwestern Political Science Qucuterly, Yo!. II (December, 1921), pp. 270-271. The Reorganization of State Administration in Texas 19 makes it the duty of the Governor to cause the laws to be faithfully executed,n yet nowhere does it give him power to enfor~e this duty, nor has such power been conferred by statute. Control of the administration is supposed to be exercised by the Governor through his powern 0f appoint­ment and removal, but, as has been seen, these powers are only nominal. The very number of administrative agencies renders real supervision impossible. Over the elective heads of departments the Governor has little c0ntrol; they are independent of him and of each other. While the Governor receives regularly many reports from administrative departments and can require special reports at any time, and while many administrative details require his approval, these instruments of control, due to the absence of sifting by intermediate officials, burden the Governor with a mass of unnecessary details, and bke his time from more important questions of state policy.12 UNSCIENTIFIC BUDGET SYSTEM The Governor is not the budget making authority in Texas, although the Constitution would seem to make him such. Article IV, Section 9, states: "And at the com­mencement of each regular session he [the Governor] shall present estimates of the amount of money required to be raised by taxation for all purposes." But no Governor has, under this provision, attempted to present a budget to the Legislature. Before 1921, Texas had th~ "le"gislative budget" system. In 1919 an act was passed making it the duty of the Board of Control, through its division of estimates and appropri­ations, to collect the budget estimates and submit a printed budget to each regular session of the Legislature.1 3 uconstitution, art. 4, sec. 10. 12Cf. article by Governor Alfred E. Smith of New York on "How We Ruin Our Governors," in National Municipal Review, Vol. X (May, 1921)' pp. 277-280. 13£aws, 36th Leg., reg. sess. (1919), p. 327. Unive1'sity· of Texas Bulletin The appropriations made by the Thirty-eighth Legisla­ ture exceeded the available revenues by several million dollars. Estimates of the deficit in the Treasury at the end of the fiscal year 1923-1924 range from $4,000,000 to $5,000,000. This situation evidences serious defects in our budget and appropriation system. There are three major objections to the Texas budget system. These relate to : ( 1) The character of the budget making authority; (2) special appropriations and "log­rolling;" and (3) lack of responsibility. 1. The Governor is the head of the administration and is held responsible for its extravagances, yet his influence in the making of the budget is negative-he has only the veto power of individual items in appropriation bills. The estimates are not collected under his supervision; he does not review them before they go to the Legislature ; in a word, he is not the responsible budget making authority. Twenty-eight States make the Governor the budget making authority.14 The budget is prepared under his supervision and sent to the Legislature with his recom­mendations. These States believe that the responsibility and accountability to the people and their representatives for financial planning should be vested in the elected head nf the State administration, the Governor. 2. Not since 1907 have the appropriation bills been passed at the regular session of the Legislature.14a They have been delayed for a special session or sessions, while special appropriations have been passed in the regular sessions. In recent years such special appropriations have been increasing. In 1921, over $12,000,000 of special ap­propriations were passed at the regular session, and the Governor was compelled to veto items amounting to over $5,000,000.15 In 1923, special appropriations amounting to 14A. E. Buck, "Progress in State Budget Making," in National Municipal Review, Vol. XIII (January, 1924), pp. 19-25. HaThe 39th Leg. (1925) passed all of the major appropriation bills at the regular session. 10Southwestern Political Science Quarterly, Vol. II (Sept., 1921), p. 191. The Reorganization of State Administration in Texas 21 almost $7,000,000 were passed at the regular session. This practice causes confusion, disrupts the budget plan, causes reductions in the regular appropriations and often produces a deficit. No special appropriations should be made until the regular bills have been passed, unless such special meas­ures contain provisions to raise the required revenue. "Log-rolling" or the "pork barrel system" is responsible for much waste of State funds every two years. Governor Hobby condemned this system in his message to the Thirty­sixth Legislature: Under our present system each member of the Legislature has unlimited power to appropriate the public funds if he can persuade a sufficient number of his fellow members to support his bills. As a great many members are anxious to establ:sh public institutions or branches of the State's service in their districts, the temptation is always present to "swap work" by supporing each others' bills. Experience everywhere shows that in a very large number of cases members yield to the temptation, and in their eagerness to serve their ind:vidual localities, forget the paramount interest of the State as a whole.'6 As a result of special appropriations and "log-rolling" the Legislature works in the dark. The result is confusion and a condition where no committee of either house or member can know how much is being appropriated by the various bills in the process of enactment. Uncertainty often exists as to the amount of revenue the State will receive under existing and proposed tax laws. The Comptroller, Tax Commissioner, Board of Control, as well as many individual members, all have their estimates, which vary widely in many cases. Under these conditions the Legislature appropriates blindly and in most cases beyond the constitutional limit. Speaking of this situation, in 1919, Governor Hobby said: "No private business in the world would succeed under such a blind, haphazard system of finance." 3. Responsibility for this confusion in financial pro­cedure cannot be located under the present system. The 16 House Journal, 36th Leg., reg. sess. (1919), p. 93. University· of Texas Bulletin Governor cannot be held responsible, for he has little part in the budget making process. The responsibility of the Board of Control ends with the preparation of the budget and its submission to the Legislature. In the Legislature, the finance committees and their chairmen cannot be held accountable, so long as the system of individual and special appropriations continues. It is idle to try to locate respon­sibility in a body of 181 members. The Governor should be the responsible budget officer. The budget law should provide that special appropriation bills should not be passed until the regular bills have been disposed of. To increase the recommendations of the Governor should require a special majority of votes. The Governor should have the right to address the Legislature, or committees, on the budget plan. There are signs that the Legislature itself realizes that the system is bad. In a statement given to the press on May 16, 1923, at the close of the second called session, the chairman of the House farm bloc said : We do most emphatically denounce the system under which our State Government is run and managed, and pray for the day to come when at least the business end of our State Gov­ ernment .... be divorced from politics and put upon a business basis. The Legislature .. .. should manage it [the State] just as they would a private enterprise. We do not believe there is a fourth-class business man anywhere who would manage his business as the State's business is managed under the present "system" in the matter of appropriations.11 INADEQUATE MACHINERY OF FINANCIAL CONTROL A complete audit of State departments and institutions made by the central investigating committees of 1917 re­vealed the fact that the accounting and bookkeeping systems of most of the departments were entirely inadequate. The Comptroller's Department was being conducted in an effi­cient and business-like manner, but the auditing duties of 17 Dallas Morning News, May 16, 1923. The Reorganization of State Administration in Texas 23 that department were confined to examining and approving claims drawn against appropriation accounts.15 The central investigating committees recommended the installation of a uniform system of accounting for all State departments and institutions under the supervision of the Board of Control and establishment of a correct and com­prehensive auditing system for an audit three times a year of the books and accounts of all departments and institu­tions. The Board's auditors should be available, upon request, to the Governor for the investigation of the finan­cial records of any department or institution. The sum of $100,000 was the estimated annual saving from a correct auditing and accounting system.19 Auditing duties were conferred upon the Board of Control when it was created in 1919 ;:!0 but the Attorney-General has held that such powers could be exercised only with reference to those departments and institutions under its control.2 1 The Constitution requires all heads of State institutions and departments to keep an account of all funds received and disbursed frorri all sources, and to make a semi-annual report to the Governor. The Governor may require a writ­ ten report from such officers "upon any subject relating to the duties, condition, management and expenses of their respective offices and institutions ... and may also inspect their books, accounts, vouchers and public funds ""2 Only nominal control is conferred on the Gov­ ernor by these provisions and they amount to little in practice. DUPLICATION OF WORK AND OVERLAPPING OF FUNCTIONS State administration in Texas has developed without sys­tematic planning. The establishment of new fields of State 1BReports of Subcommittees, p. 134. 19/bid., pp. 931-932. 20£aws, 36th Leg., reg. sess. (1919), p. 325. 21Biennial Report of the Attorney-General, 1918-1920, pp. 641-644. 22constitution, art. 4, sec. 24. Unirersity· of Texas Bulletin activity has been paralleled by the creation of new agencies to administer them. Few surveys have been made to deter­mine whether existing agencies could handle the new function. As a result of this policy admillistrntive agencies have multiplied until they now number nearly one hundred. Instances of duplication and overlapping of functions are to be found in all principal lines of work. The general condi­tion was concisely stated by Governor Neff in his message of .July 26, 1921: We have too many boards, bureaus and commissions. The State is burdened with governmental agencies. It is top heavy. We have too much machinery and consequently too much over­head expense. The Government should be simplified. There is no excu~e for duplication and triplication of work.23 UNSATISFACTORY REPORTING SYSTEM Accurate and prompt reporting is an essential element of responsible government. Neither the Governor, Legisla­ture, nor the public receives prompt and definite informa­tion regarding the conduct of the State's affairs. Practi­cally every department of the State Government issues a printed report, but reports are irregular, slow in publica­tion and fail to furnish, in many instances, definite informa­tion on administration. Most reports are made to the Governor, for transmission by him to the Legislature. and they may be quarterly, annual, or biennial, for the fiscal year, the calendar year, or for the fiscal biennium. Reports of some important departments are not available in printed form-the Prison Commission has not issued a printed report since 1911.2"a The only information available abou~ this important State enterprise has come from periodic investigations by the Legislature. The law requires public officers to deliver their reports to the Governor in time for them to be delivered to the printing contractor one month before the assembling of the 23House Journal, 37th Leg., 1st and 2d called sess. (1921), p. 82. 23aA printed report was issued in 1924. The Reorganization of State Administration in Texas 25 Legislature, and all reports so delivered shall be printed and sent to the Secretary of State not later than the first week of the legislation session.24 This provision regarding the delivery of printed reports is disregarded in practice. Rarely are departmental reports ready for the regular ses­sion. Not infrequently reports are seven and eight months late. The contents and methods of presentation of most reports make them practically useless to the average citizen or legislator. Only a few are indexed. Some are without a table of contents. Bound volumes of reports are not issued. Separate reports are issued for each State agency. In 1917 the investigating committees found an accumulation of old departmental reports in the basement of the Capitol and recommended that the number of reports be reduced by statute at least one-third, and for some departments, at least one-half.25 LONG BALLOT Every two years the people of Texas are called upon to elect, in addition to local, district, national, legislative and judicial officers, nine officials of the State administration. The "long ballot" was inflicted on ·Texas by a constitutional amendment adopted in 1850. The first State Constitution of i845 provided for the election only of a Governor and Lieutenant Governor; the other officers were appointive or elected by the Legislature.26 In 1850 the Attorney-General, Comptroller, Treasurer, and Commissioner of the General Land Office were made elective by the people,21 and have been elective since that time, with the exception of the Attorney-General under the 2•Complete Texas Statutes, art. 6370 ii. 2°Reports of Subcommittees, p. 920. 26Constitution, 1845, art. 4, sec. 12; art. 5, sec. 2, 12, 16,,and 23. 27John Sayles, Constitution of the State of Texas, 4th ed. (West Publishing Co., 1893), p. 222. University· of Texas Bulletin Constitution of 1869, who was appointed by the Governor and Senate.28 The office of Superintendent of Public Instruction was created by the Constitution of 1866, and was to be filled by appointment by the Governor and Senate ;29 in 1869 the Constitution provided that the office should be filled by elec­tion after the first term.30 At present the office is statutory and filled by popular election.3 ' The Commissioner of Agriculture was made elective when that office was created by law in 1907."2 Railroad Commis­sioners were made elective by constitutional amendment adopted in 1894.3 " Constitutional provisions are, then, responsible for the "long ballot" in Texas. Seven of the nine elective officials are constitutional and two are statutory. The Constitution should be amended to make only the Governor elected by the people. No MERIT SYSTEM Texas has no merit system in the civil service. Appoint­ments and removals in the State offices are made according to the rules and practices of the "spoils system." Rotation in office is the accepted rule. Demand for civil service reform has been made in several democratic platforms from 1882-1912. Governor Colquitt in 1913 and Governor Hobby in 1919, recommended the adoption of the merit system in messages to the Legislature. The central investigating committees of 1917 recommended the enactment of a civil service law to test the efficiency of employees and to protect them from dismissal for politi. cal reasons. 28 Constitution, 1869, art. 4, sec. 23. 2°/bi d., 1866, art. 10, sec. 10. 30fbid., 1869, art. 9, sec. 2. 31Complete Texas Statutes, art. 4509. 3'fbid., art. 4435. 33Constitution, art. 16, sec. 30. The Reorganization of State Administration in Texas 27 Proposals for a State civil service law have been made during each Legislature from 1911-1919, but no bill reached the voting stage.34 The Legislature and the public have seemed indifferent to this much needed reform. SHORT TERMS Popular election, short terms, and rotation in office are features of the constitutional administrative system of Texas. Seven constitutional officials are elective, and six have terms of two years. Rotation in office, while not re­quired by the Constitution, is the general practice after two terms. The terms of all offices not fixed by the Consti­tution are limited to two years.3" Executive officers were limited to a two-year term under the Constitutions of 1845 and 1861 and were given a four­year term under the Constitutions of 1866 and 1869. Under all of the early ConstitUtions of Texas terms not fixed in the Constitution could extend to four years.~a An amendment to the Constitution adopted in 1894 gave Railroad Commissioners· a six-year term . In 1912 amendments were adopted extending the term of members of the Board of Prison Commissioners to six years, and the Legislature was given authority to provide a six-year term, with biennial renewals, for the members of the Board of Regents or directors of the "educational, eleemosynary, and penal institutfons of the State, and such boards as have been or may hereafter be established by law...."37 Under this provision of the Constitution the Legislature has given a six-year term to several boards and commissions, but the terms of single officials are still limited to two years. 34B. F . Wright, Jr., The Merit System in American States With Special Reference to Texas (Univ. of Tex. Bull. No. 2305, 1923), pp. 96-104. 3°Constitution, art. 4, secs. 4, 16, 22, 23; art. 16, sec. 30. ~GSayles, op. cit., pp. 199, 201-206, 236, 238-242, 311, 314-318, 415­420, 208, 245, 320, 466. 37Constitution, art. 16, secs. 30, 30a, 58. Unfrersity of Texas Bulletin Short terms and biennial elections hamper effective ad­ministration. By the time an official has become thoroughly acquainted with his work he is compelled to enter a primary for renomination, and perhaps a second primary. While reelection for a second term is the rule, opposition for renomination is not infrequent. ExecutiYe terms begin in January following nomination in July and election in NoYember. The Governor is in­augurated on "the first Tuesday after the organization of the Legislature or as soon thereafter as practicable...."3' The terms of the other electiYe officials begin at this time, as well as most of the appointive positions. This arrangement results in considerable confusion every four years with the assembling of a new Legislature and the inauguration of a new administration. The GoY­ernor is not in a position to get competent advice on administration and legislative needs, for transmission to the Legislature in performance of his constitutional duty.39 Since nomination in July practically amounts to election the Governor does not take office until six months after his election. The Constitution should be amended so as to allow official terms to begin the first week in December following the general election in No,·ember. The Governor and all administratiYe officials should haYe a four-year term. Low STANDARDS OF COMPENSATION A survey of the last biennial appropriation acts shows that the compensation standards of the State are low. "There are few, if any, 'fat salaries' being paid by the State . . .. The State is notoriously cheap when it comes to paying for the \\·ork clone in its behalf."•'• Salaries of heads of departments are fixed by the Consti­tution or by statute. Salaries for subordinate positions are generally fixed by the appropriation committees. ~'!hid., art. 4, sec. 4. 3••/b id., art. 4, sec. 9. 4 '1Dallcis Jforniny .Ye11:s, June 7. 1923. The Reorganization of State Administration in Te:ras 29 Constitutional salaries are entirely inadequate-Gov­ernor, 84,000; Attorney-General, $4,000; Secretary of State, $2,000; Comptroller, Treasurer, and Commissioner of the General Land Office, 82,500.41 The Constitution of 1876 fixed the salary of the Governor at $4,000 "and no more, and . . . . the use and occupation of the Governor's Mansion, fixtures and furniture."•" All efforts to amend the Consti­tution to raise the salaries of executive officials have failed.4 3 Under the Constitution of 1866, the Governor's salary was $4,000, until otherwise provided by law4 ' and the Con­stitution of 1869 fixed it at $5,000 until othenvise provided for by law, exclusive of the use and occupation of the Governor's Mansion.4 " Several statutory officials receive higher salaries than the Governor-members of the Board of Control, Chairman of the Industrial Accident Board, Banking Commissioner, and Highway Engineer.4" Illinois pays her Governor $12,000; California, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania, $10,000; Nebraska, $7,500.47 Other constitutional officials also have inadequate salaries. In four departments, Comptroller, Treasurer, Secretary of State, and Land Commissioner, the chief clerk receives a higher salary, fixed by the appropriation committees, than the head of the department.4 8 Salaries fixed by statute are, on the whole, better, but many positions are underpaid-the State Librarian receives 41Constitution, art. 4, secs. 21, 22, 23. 4~/bid., art. 4, sec. 5. 4"Cf. Irvin Stewart, "Constitutional Amendments in Texas," in Southwestern Political Science Quartel'ly, Vol. III (Sept., 1922) , pp. 145-158. HConstitution, 1866, art. 5, sec. 5. 4;/bid., 1869, art. 4, sec. 5. 4»Laws, 38th Leg., 1st, 2d, and 3d called sess. (1923), pp. 235-282. • 7 E. Kimball, State and Municipal Government in the United States (Ginn & Co., 1922), p. 134. 4'Laws, 38th Leg., 1st, 2d, and 3d called sess. ( 1923), pp. 235-282. University· of Texas Bulletin $2,000, and Tax Commissioner, $2,500. There are only three statutory heads of departments receiving salaries of $5,000 or more.49 The same low standards and lack of uniformity prevail in the salaries for subordinate positions. "'Ibid., pp. 235-282. CHAPTER IV THE MOVEMENT FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF STATE ADMINISTRATION Until 1907 no real survey of the State Government to determine whether its organization, business methods and procedure were economical and efficient had been made. In 1901, however, notice had been taken of ~he increasing cost of government in a resolution adopted by the Twenty­seventh Legislature: The constantly increasing cost of government demands a rigid investigation of the method of expending the public money in the different institutions and departments to the envernor should be ·the only elective executive officer. He should be the chief adminis­trative officer of the State charged with the duty of super­vision, direction, coordination, planning, and controlling the administrative activities of the State. All lines of executive authority should run from the departments to the Governor. It is proposed that the Governor shall have powers commen­surate with this responsibility. In the first place, the Governor should . have the power to appoint and remove the heads of the administrative departments. Only in this way can the Governor be respon­~ible for the work of the administration. All appointments should be made by the Governor without the confirmati.on of the Senate, provided that in the appointment of heads 1Supra, pp. 14-23. University· of Texas Bulletin of departments and their removal a statement of reasons must be recorded by the Governor in the office of the Secre~ary of State. In case of removal such statemem; must also be furnished to the officer removed. The Governor should be chairman of the administrative council, and in consultation with it, work out the plans and policies of the administration, revise the budget and pre­pare methods of coordinating the work of the different administrative departments. Through the power of financial control the Governor should be able to keep a constant check upon the financial operations of the Government. The Department of Finance will act as the staff agency for this purpose and will assist the Governor in the control of the budget, expenditures, audit, accounts and reporting, contingent funds. travel, purchases and printing. At the beginning of each regular session of the Legisla­ture the Governor shall submit to the Legislature a budget, outlining a plan of proposed expenditures and anticipated revenues of all branches of the State Government for the next two years. He shall accompany his budget with a general appropriation bill covering all of the proposed expenditures outlined in the budget.2 The detailed work of receiving and compiling the estimates of revenues and expenditures will be done by the Department of Finance, and in this department controlling accounts will be set up to supervise the operation of the budget plan, after appro­priations have been enacted by the Legislature. Wide powers in prescribing the organizat10n within de­partments and in distributing administrative duties should be given to the Governor by the Legislature. Many matters, once the subject of regulation by statutes, should be left to the Governor to regulate through the power of admin­istrative ordinances. To assist the Governor in the gathering of information and in the preparation of plans and policies there should be established in the executive office a trained technical ' "A Model State Constitution, sec. 49. The Reorganization of State Administration in Te::cas 69 staff, an expert corps of administrative assistants, with a high degree of training in government, carefully selected by the executive, after strict examination. This body should constitute a permanent staff of trained officials and should not change with different administrations. In order to provide a closer relationship between the executive and Legislature, the Governor and the heads of administrative departments should be given a seat in the Legislature with the right to introduce bills and to take part in debate, but with no vote." Removal of the Governor by recall and by the Legislature, in addition to impeachment, should furnish adequate means of preventing an abuse of powers. The recall provisions should insure a fairly large per cent on the petition and should prohibit the entry of other candidates in the recall election. In case of the recall of the Governor, the vacancy should be filled as provided by law. The Legislature should have the power, after notice and hearing, to remove the Governor from office by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to the Legislature.4 Constitutional changes would be necessary to increase the salary of the Governor, lengthen his term, induct him into office in December, give him ;:in independent power of appointment and removal, provide him with a seat in the Legislature, and allow the Legislature to remove him by vote. Opponents of administrative reorganization attack this concentration of power in the hands of the Governor as dangerous. Dodd believes there is little weight to the objection: The proposal to organize the State Administration into a small group of departments, each responsible to the Governor, arouses wme fear that such a plan will set up a despotism. Such a plan is in theory that of the National Government, and there is nothing to be feared from organizing a responsible State Administration under the control of a popularly elected qbid., sec. 47. 4/bid., sec. 48. University of Texas Bulletin Governor chosen at most for a period of four years. A good deal of progress has been made toward the simplifica­tion of State administrative organization, but in the main the State plan is still that of hiding responsibiLty in hundreds of little separate compartments. Improvements may be ex­pected from the concentration of power in the Governor, and from knowledge, on the part of the people as to whom they may hold responsible for the proper conduct of State affairs. Of course the possibility of abuse of political power goes with the opportunity of improving State administration. Shall we as­sume that our State Governments are bad, and seek to prevent their doing anything effectively, while at the same time impos­ing upon them constantly greater and more important tasks; or shall we loosen the hands of State Government and give it a chance to do its work effectively, recognizing at the same time that increased power to work effectively means an increased possibility of danger as well? The increased possibility of danger carries with it, however, an effective means of discover­ ing the danger, because the executive organization and the Governor as its responsible head will under such a plan be so conspicuous that inefficiency or corruption cannot hide itself.r. Ex-Governor Frank 0. Lowden of Illinois has said that too much has been made of this fear of concentrated execu­tive power: Democracy has been afra:d of itself and of its own chosen officials, and has hedged them about with so many restrictions that genuine effic:ency has been well-nigh impossible. We have framed our laws as though they were to execute themselves, providing in detail for every contingency, leaving no means by which the head could meet unforseen contingencies. We have gone on the theory that we could tie men's hands for evil, but, at the same time, leave them free for good. It is as if we sent men into battle w:thout arms, because those arms might be used against our friends. What we need is not more but fewer agencies of government, with power concen­trated in the responsible heads.r. THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR The Lieutenant Governor is next in rank to the Governor. His principal duties are to succeed the Governor in case '·W. F. Dodd, State Government, pp. 264-265. 6"Problems of Civil Administration," in North American Review, Vol. CCX (August, 1919), p. 189. The Reorganization of State Administration in Texas 71 of his death, resignation, removal from office, inability or refusal to serve, impeachment or absence from the State, and to serve as President of the Senate. Following the Lieutenant Governor succession is vested by the Constitu­tion in the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, an official chosen by the Senate from its own membership at the beginning and close of each session and at such other times as may be necessary. The House of Representatives elects its Speaker from its own members.' It is recommended that the office of Lieutenant Governor be abolished. There is no real need for such an office. The duty of presiding over the Senate could be given to an officer elected by the Senate. The election of an officer whose principal function is to fill a vacancy seems an unnecessary procedure. Thirteen states seem to get along successfully without such an official., Quite often Lieuten­ant Governors have represented a different element or policy from that of the Governor. In case of death, impeachment, or other disability of the Governor, it is recommended that the powers and duties of the office shall devolve upon the presiding officer of the Senate, and after him, the presiding officer of the House of Representatives. Abolition of the office of Lieutenant Governor would require a change in the Constitution. Succession by the presiding officer of the Legislature is provided for in the Model State Constitution, prepared by the National Municipal League.9 Dr. W. F. Dodd, a member of the Committee on State Government, which prepared the Model State Constitution, maintains that The office of Lieutenant Governor is of little value and could be abolished without loss. The person chosen Lieutenant 1constit11tion, art. 3, sec. 9; art. 4, secs. 1, 2, 16, 17, 18. BArizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, New Hamp­shire, New J ersey, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. 9A Moc/,e/ State Constitution, sec. 45. University of Texas Bulletin Gvernor is usually not one whom the voters of the State would desire to have as Governor, and this condition is not likely to change.10 THE ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL Writers on state government have often pointed out, in comparing state and national administration, the lack of anything in state government resembling the President's Cabinet in the National Administration. Executive coun­cils did exist in a few states in colonial times, and a few have survived for some time, but these were more for the purpose of checking the Governor than to advise, aid and assist him in the formulation of the policies of the administration. The lack of a state cabinet is just another illustration of the weakness of the Governor's powers in administration. The fundamental reason for the absence of a cabinet is that the heads of a number of important state departments are elective-and not responsible to the Governor-and responsibility to the chief executive is the main principle of the cabinet system in the National Gov­ernment. Informal conferences of the Governor and the heads of administrative departments are often held to discuss some departmental problem, but regular meetings of the heads of the principal administrative departments with the Gov­ernor for the discussion of general problems of adminis­tration are never held. Proposed organization.-An Administrative Council is proposed to be composed of the Governor, Chairman, and the heads of the fourteen administrative departments of State, Law, Military Affairs, Education, Public Welfare, Health, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Conservation, Pub­lic Works and Buildings, Taxation and Revenue, Finance, and Employment and Registration. The Secretary of State should serve as secretary of the Council. Meetings should be held at the call of the Governor. 10Dodd, op. cit., pp. 235-236. The Reorganization of State Administration in Te.ras 73 The Council should assist the Governor in the formula­tion of the general policies of the administration, in pre­paring a program of legislation, in the revision of the budget and in coordinating the work of the different branches of the administration, so as to eliminate duplica­ tion, etc. The Council could be organized by statute. Organization in other states.-In practically all of the states that have adopted administrative reorganization codes, the cabinet system has been adopted as an integral part of the reorganization. Governors in these states have deciared that much of the success in the operation of the code system has been due to these informal conferences. In most states such a body has been organized by adminis­trative practice. In two states, howe\·er, such bodies are provided in the administrative code. The Governor's Ad­visory Council of Maryland was created "for the purpose of promoting coordination and effective supervision over the conduct of the State Government." "The said Advisory Council shall meet with the Governor, from time to time, for the consideration of general State policies, finances, departmental and institutional work and conditions." It is composed of the State Comptroller, State Treasurer, Attorney General, Chairman of the State Board of £duca­tion, President of the StatG Board of Agriculture, and of the University of Maryland, the Directors of the Depart­ments of Welfare, Charities, Health, Public Works, Public Safety, Police Commissioner of Baltimore City, Conserva­tion Commissioner, and Commissioner of State Employ­ment and Registration.11 Under the Washington reorganization act an adminis­trative board is created to consist of the Governor, chair­man and the directors of the ten departments created by the code: Public Works, Business Control, Efficiency, Taxation and Examination, Health, Conservation and Development, Labor and Industries, Agriculture, Licenses, 11Laws of ;uaryland, 1922, p. 73. University· of Texas Bulletin and Fisheries and Game. The general function of the board is to "advise as to questions of policy in the administration of any of the departments of the State Government." The board meets at the call of the Governor.12 '~Compiled Statutes of Washington, 1922, Vol. III, pp. 3003-3004. CHAPTER V THE PROPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS The first plan of reorganization proposed is a complete one and will require amendment of the Constitution in order to change the status of a number of constitutional agencies. The ninety-one officers, boards and commissions are consolidated into fourteen major departments and an independent council of education. Each department will be headed by a: single officer, who is to be. called a Commissioner, except in the case of the Departments of Law, State and Military Affairs, which will be headed by the Attorney-General, Secretary of State, and Adjutant General, respectively. Associate commissioners should be provided for wherever needed. The Governor is to appoint the heads of all departments, except the Department of Education, the head of which will be appointed by the Board of Education. Terms of depart­ment heads will be at the pleasure of the Governor, but not for a longer term than that of the Governor. Salaries of commissioners should be adequate to secure trained people and should range from $5,000 to $7,500 a year. No full time boards will be employed, but a supervisory board will be provided for the Department of Education. Advisory boards will be attached to several departments. Wherever the State service will be benefited, local advisory boards will be created. All of the present professional examining boards will be retained. All boards should be appointed by the Governor for overlapping terms of six years, one third of the membership being appointed every two years. Some departments will constitute boards of their own· officials, for quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative work. The Commissioner of the department will be re­sponsible for all decisions. Civil service regulations will determine the selection and promotion of the subordinate employees, including heads of divisions and directors of bureaus. University of Texas Bulletin Each department will assume the duties of a number of separate independent agencies, all of which will be abolished. Bureaus, each under a director, will be organ­ized in the new department to take over the work of the agency abolished. Bureaus may be divided into divisions. In some cases agencies are abolished as no longer necessary. A majority of the proposed departments can be estab­lished by statutory changes, but several will require amend­ment of the Constitution. These proposals for reorganization are based on recom­mendations made by official Texas agencies and on plans proposed and adopted in other states. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Responsibility for financial control in Texas is divided between the Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Board of Control, with slight supervision vested in the Governor. The unsatisfactory machinery of financial control and the movement for the establishment of a budget system and better methods of accounting control, culminating in the creation of the Board of Control in 1919 have already been described. Likewise the limitations and inadequacy of the budget and auditing system established by the Board of Control Act have been analyzed elsewhere.' A Department of Finance is proposed, whose primary function shall be fiscal control of revenues and expenditures and of all of the financial operations of the State Govern­ment. This department would act as the staff agency of the Governor in the exercise of his powers of financial controI.1a :S1qn-a, pp. 19-23 ; 36-40. 1aOn fiscal control in the States, see George Shiras Call, "Fiscal Control of State Expenditures"; F. F. Blachly and M. E. Oatman, "Fiscal Control in Oklahoma"; :.\iorris B. Lambie, "Administrative Cont rol in the Commonwealth of :.\iassachusetts"; R. E. Miles, "Fiscal Control in Ohio," in The Annals of the A mel"ican Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. CXII! (May, 1924), pp. 75-112; Harry A. Barth, Financial Control in the States With Special Reference to the The Reorganization of State Administration in Texas 77 The Department would be divided into three bureaus: l. Administration-secretary of the department. 2. A ccounts and budget-to have the duties of Auditing Division and Division of Estimates and Appropriation of the Board of Control, and bookkeeping division, sheriff's division, warrant division, pension division, bond division, and financial statistics division of the Comptroller of Public Accounts. 3. Purchases and printing-to assume the duties of the Purchasing and Printing Divisions of the Board of ControV In the exercise of its duty of financial control it is pro­posed that the department shall have powers of the same character as the Illinois Department of Finance: 1. To prescribe and require the installation of a uniform system of bookkeeping, accounting and reporting fou the several departments; 2. To prescribe forms for accounts and financial reports and statements for the several departments; 3. To superv;se and examine the accounts and expenditures of the several departments; 4. To examine, at any and all times, into the accuracy and legality of the accounts, receipts and expenditures of the public moneys and the disposition and use of the public property by the several departments. 5. To keep such summary and controlling accounts as may be necessary to determine the accuracy of the detail acounts and reports from the several departments, and to prescribe the manner and method of certifying that funds are available and adequate to meet all contracts and obligations; 6. To prescribe uniform rules governing specifications for purchase of supplies, the advertisement for proposals, the open­ing of bids and the making of awards, to keep a catalogue of prices current and to analyze and tabulate prices paid and quantities purchased; Governor (Univ. of Pa. Studies, 1923); L. D. White, An Eraluation of the System of Central Financial Control of Research in State Govern­ments (National Research Council, 1D24). 2The remaining two divisions of the Board of Control would be transferred to other departments and the board would be abolished as a separate agency. l nfrn, pp, 91, 99. Unirersity of Texas Bulletin 7. To examine, at any and all times, the accounts of every private corporation, institution, association or board receiving appropriations from the General Assembly; 8. To report to the Attorney General for such action civil or criminal, as the Attorney General may deem necessary, all facts showing illegal expenditures of the public money or misappropriation of public property; 9. To examine and approve, or disapprove, vouchers, bills, and claims of the several departments and such as are by law made subject to the approval of the Governor and referred to it by the Governor, and no voucher, bill or claim of any depart­ment shall be allowed without its approval and certificate; 10. To prescribe the form of receipt, voucher bill or claim to be filed by the seYeral departments with it; 11. In settling accounts of the several departments, to in­qu;re into and make an inspection of articles and materials furnished or work and labor performed for the purpose of ascertaining that the prices, quality and amount of such articles or labor, are fair, just and reasonable, and that all the require­ments, expressed, or implied, pertaining thereto have been com­plied with, and to reject and disallow any excess; 12. To prepare and report to the Governor when requested, estimates of the income and revenues of the State; 13. To prepare and submit to the Governor biennially, not later than the first day of January preceding the convening of the General Assembly, a State budget; 14. To publish, from time to time, for the information of the several departments and for the general public, bulletins of the work of the Government; 15. To investigate duplication of work of departments, and the efficiency of the organization and administration of depart­ments, and to formulate plans for the better coordination of departments.3 All of the changes proposed could be made by statute. Organization in other states.-Departments of finance with extensive powers of financial control have been estab­lished by the civil administrative codes of Illinois, Idaho, Nebraska, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. Massa­ 4 '1llinois Revised Statutes, 1921, Vol. I, pp. 696-697. •For the complete texts of the principal civil administrative codes, f:ee Illinois Revised Statutes, 1921, Vol. I, pp. 686-712; Idaho Com­piicd Statutes, 1919, Vol. I, pp. 83-115; Compiled Statutes of Nebraska, The Reorganization of State Administration in Terns 79 chusetts has established a Commission on Finance and Administration.4a DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND REVENUE The various existing State agencies whose work should fall in the proposed Department of Taxation and Revenue are the following: Comptroller of Public Accounts Administration of all Tax Laws Treasurer, Depository Board Rate Making Board Tax Commissioner Intangible Tax Board Board to Calculate Tax Rate Highway Department Registration Division Secretary of State Collection of Franchise Taxes The proposed Department of Taxation and Revenue would have supervision over the assessment and levy of taxes, and the collection, accrual, custody and disburse­ment of State revenue. Bureaus of the Department would be created as follows: L Administration-secretary of foe Department. 2. Taxation and equalization-to have supervision over the collection and accrual of State revenue and the admin­istration of tax laws-now performed by the receiving divi­sion, tax division, gross receipts and auditing division, inheritance tax division, and redemption division in the 1922, pp. 2245-2629; Lene.~ Qf Ohio, 1921, pp. 105-135; Laws of Pennsylvania, Hi23 pp. 498-G76; P11blic Acts of Tennessee, 1923, pp. 8-44; Laws Qf Mw·y/o.nd. 1922, pp. 39-73; General Laws of Massach11 setts, 1921, Vol. I , pp. 30-105; Compiled Statutes of Wash­ington, 1922, Vol. III, pp. 3001-3039. 4aActs, Massachusetts, 1922. ch. 545; Acts, 1923 ch. 362. Univusity of Texas Bulletin office of Comptroller of Public Accounts, the Tax Commis­sioner, Intangible Tax Board, and Secretary of State in the collection of franchise taxeL 3. Motor 'Vehicle 1·egistration-to assume the duties of the Registration Division of the Highway Department. 4. Treasury~to exercise the duties of the State Treas­urer, Depository Board, and Rate Making Board. The Commissioner of the Department of Taxation and Revenue, the Director of the Bureau of Taxation and Equal­ization, and the Head of the General Property Tax Division should constitute a Board of Taxation and Equalization­whenever necessary to act in the administration of the tax laws. The Commissioner should be responsible for all decisions. A board to be composed of the Governor, Commissioner of Taxation and Revenue and the Comptroller of Public Accounts should fix annually the State general property tax rate. A constitutional amendment would be necessary to change the status of the Treasurer. All other changes could be made by statute. Texas recommendations.-The Central Investigating Committees of the Thirty-fifth Legislature recommended that the offices of Tax Commissioner and Intangible Tax Board should be abolished, and the duties of the Tax Board be distributed between the Railroad Commission and the Comptroller's Department." Organization in other states.-Massachusetts created a Department of Corporations and Taxation; Washington has a Department of Taxation and Examination; Tennessee combines Finance and Taxation into one department; while in Illinois, Ohio, and Maryland the Tax Commission is united with the Department of Finance for administrative purposes." ""Joint Report of the Central Investigating Committee," in House Journal, 35th Leg., 4th called sess. (1918), p. 230. "Civil Administrative Codes, supra, p. 78. The Reorganization of State Administration in Texas 81 DEPARTMENT OF STATE The proposed Department of State will be headed by the Secretary of State, appointed by the Governor to serve at his will. The Secretary of State will be the chief recording and election official of the State, and the Department will be divided into two bureaus as follows: 1. Records-to have charge of the State archives and legislative records, register of State officers, distribution of laws and reports; register of proceedings of Governor, cus­tody and use of State seal; municipal charters and amend­ments, and administrative detail of the Department. 2. Elections-to receive returns of elections of all State, district and national officers, constitutional amendments and presidential electors. The Governor, Attorney-General, and Secretary of State will constitute a board of elections to canvass such returns on the fortieth day after the election. The corporation duties of the Secretary of State should be transferred to other departments as follows: Collection of the corporation franchise tax to the proposed Depart­ment of Taxation and Revenue; granting charters of incor­porations, receiving reports from municipal public utilities, and administration of the blue sky law to the proposed Department of Commerce. It is logical to place the regulation and superivsion of all corporations in the same department. It is believed such a consolidation will be more economical and give better service to the public. A constitutional amendment would be necessary to change the status of the Secretary of State. Organization in other states.-In all states except five the Secretary of State is an elective official.7 However, a number of efficiency and conomy commissions have recom­mended that this official should be appointed by the Gov­ernor. In most of the states that have adopted administra­tive codes the constitutional officers have not been included on account of the difficulty of amending the Constitution. 7J. M. Mathews, Principles of American Sta·te Administratimi (D. Appleton & Co., 1917), p. 138. University of Texas Bulletin The Secretary of State has been appointed by the Gov­ernor in Texas since 1825. DEPARTMENT OF LAW A Department of Law with the Attorney-General at the head is proposed. The Governor would appoint the Attor­ney-General to serve during his pleasure. Appointment by the Governor guarantees that this important legal office will work in harmony with the Governor and the State officers. Proper legal advice is indispensable to administra­tive officers, and it is a necessity that it must come from a competent and sympathetic legal counsel. It has happened in Texas that the elected Attorney-General was not on cordial terms with the Governor. Such a condition hampers effective administration. The office of Assistant Attorney-General in the Court of Criminal Appeals would be abolished and the duties transferred to the Attorney-General's Department. This was recommended by the central investigating committees of the Thirty-fifth Legislature.8 The Department would be organized into the following bureaus: 1. Administration.-Secretary, office management, etc. 2. Legal information.-Legal service to all State depart­ments. 3. Law enforcement.-To have supervision over local law enforcement officials. All legal service to State officers would be furnished by this Department. Employment of special attorneys by de­partments would be prohibited. When necessary, special attorneys should be assigned to departments from the Department of Law. Additional powers of supervision over district and county attorneys should be given to the Attorney-General. He should have greater powers to direct their work, and, on direction of the Governor, to bring quo-warranto proceed­ ' Joint Report, op. cit., p. 232. The Reorganization of State Administration in Te xas 83 ini;;;; for their removal. Enactment of such a law has been recommended by Governor Neff to two legislatures.'' A constitutional amendment would be necessary to make the Attorney-General an appointive official. Organization in other states.-In more than forty states the Attorney-General is elected by the people.10 However, in Pennsylvania and New Jersey he is appointed by the Governor. In the national administration, the Attorney­General is appointed by the President, with confirmation of the Senate, is a member of the President's cabinet, and head of the Department of Justice. His duties are similar to the duties of Attorney-General of a state. The plan of appoint­ment has worked satisfactorily in the national administra­ tion. As to special attorneys employed by departments, the weight of opinion is that the Attorney-General should furnish all of the legal service of the State, and that if special attorneys are needed, they 5hould be appointed by the Attorney-General with the approval of the Governor.1 1 Regarding the supervision of local attorneys by the Attor­ney-General, a recent writer on state government says: Various somewhat half-hearted attempts are made to bring the prosecuting attorneys under central control. It is fre­quently provided that they shall be under the direction of the Attorney-General, who may exercise supervision over them as to the manner of discharging their duties, and it is made their duty to assist him in the prosecution of important cases arising in their localities. There is usually, however, no means provided for enforcing the power of direction, and friction and differ­ences of opinion have frequently arisen ... . A partial remedy for this condition of affairs has been found in some states, either by the removal of the local attorney, as in New York Minnesota, Nebraska, Indiana, and Iowa, or by practical super­ uHouse Journal, 37th Leg., reg. sess. (1921), p. 316; 38th Leg., reg. sess. (1923), p. 95. i11Mathews, op. cit., p. 140. 11 Report of the Efficiency and Economy Committee of Illinois (1915), pp.957-960. University of Texas Bulletin session of the local prosecuting officers by officers of central appointment and control, as in Pennsy1vania, Oregon and Kansas.12 DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS A Department of Military Affairs is proposed with the Adjutant General as the administrative head, to have charge of the military affairs of the State, under the direc­tion of the Governor. The Department should be organized !nto bureaus as follows: 1. Records.-Department administration; custody of departmental records and files. 2. Finances.-Pay, transportation, subsistence, and all other expenses of military forces of state. 3. Maintenance and supplies.-Assistant quartermaster general-custody of military stores and property. 4. Ranqer force.-Border patrol and internal police. The rangerforce has been attached to the Adjutant Gen­ erals' Department since 1836. These recommendations require only statutory changes. Organization in other states.-Military departments are found in all states, and "in almost every state the Governor appoints the Adjutant General."13 A number of states have state constabularies.14 The Massachusetts police force, established in 1865, is a division of the Department of Public Safety under the immediate charge of the Commissioner. Connecticut has a State police department, established in 1903, under a superin­tendent appointed by five Commissioners of State Police selected by the judges of the superior court. The Pennsyl­vania State police, created in 1905, is headed by a Superin­tendent appointed by the Governor and Senate. New York 1 2Mathews, op. cit., pp. 144-145. 13A. C. McLaughlin and A. B. Hart, Cyclopedia of American Gov­ernment (D. Appleton & Co., 1914) , Vol. I, p. 8. 14Milton Conover, "State Police Developments: 1921-1924," in American Political Science Review, Vol. XVIII (Nov., 1924), pp. 773-781. The Reo1·ganization of State Administration in Texas 85 established a Department of State Police in 1917. At the head is a Superintendent appointed by the Governor and Senate."· DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION It is proposed to consolidate into a Department of Educa­tion the various agencies in the educational field-State Board of Education, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Textbook Commission, Vocational Education Board, and the several library and historical agencies, ·Texas Library and Historical Commission, State Librarian, and Historical Board. It is also proposed that the management of the Texas School for the Blind, the School for the Deaf, and the Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Institute for Colored Youths shall be vested in this Department. A State Board of Education of nine members will be appointed by the Governor for terms of nine years, one member being appointed every year. Women should be represented on the board and the members should be repre­ sentative of different educational interests. Members should serve without compensation. This board would have general supervision over the Department of Education and over the whole system of public schools, with power to form the general public school policies for the State, to hear appeals, make rulings, and to fix the boundaries of school districts. Its powers should not be administrative, but those of supervision and policy determination. A Commissioner of Education, to be appointed by the Board of Education, would be the administrative head of the Department. He should hold office during good behavior and efficiency and should be removed only for cause. The objections to popular election of the head of the Department of Education and the advantages of appoint- 1''General Laws, Ma8sach1rnetts, 1921, pp. 89-91 ; Connecticut, Gen­eral Statutes, HHS, pp. 705-715; Laws, Pennsylvania, 1923, p. 517; Consolidated Laws of New York, Vol. I, 1917, pp. 297-299. University· of Texas Bulletin ment are well summed up by a former Superintendent of Public Instruction: The same arguments that apply to the appointment of a county superintendent by a county board apply with almost equal cogency to the appointment of a state superintendent by a state board. While it is true that a person without scholar­ship or experience is less likely to be chosen for the State office than for the county office, still it is also a fact that the constant intrusions of attempts at political influence, the tem­porary nature of the pc·siLon, and the expense of pol.tical campaigns, make the place less likely to be sought by those who have the education, the personal characteristics, and the special training essential to efficiency in a position requiring the exer­cise of the highest intellectual abilty, the sanest common sense, the clearest and most logical faculties of judgment, and the most unbendable integrity and honor. 1'; Bureaus of the Department would be created as follows: 1. Administration.-Office management, statistics. 2. High school supervision.-Classiffication of high schools and elementary schools; college entrance examina­tions. 3. Ruml Schools.-Apportionment of the special funds for ai"d to rural schools; fostering rural education. 4. l'ocational education.-Administration of the Smith­Hughes law. 5. State board of examiners.-Examination of papers for applicants for teachers' certificates. 6. Textbook administrntion.-Administration of the free textbook law. 7. State Library.-To exercise the duties of the Library and Historical Commission, State Librarian, and Historical Board. The Supreme Court Library would continue under the control of the Supreme Court. 8. Special education.-To have control of the Texas School for the B'ind, the School for the Deaf and the Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Institute for Colored Youths. "'A. W. Blanton, A Hand Book of Information as to Education in Texas, 1918-1922 (Dept. of Education Bull. no. 157, 1923), p. 7. The Reorganization of State Administration in Texas 87 The State Board of Education would act as a State Board of Vocational Education and as a Textbook Board. A constitutional amendment would be necessary to change the organization of the State Board of Education, and to give members a nine-year term; the other recommendations could be effected by statute. Texas recommendations.-In the report of the Governor's committee on education, January 7, 1921, it was recom­mended that there should be established "a State board in charge of the State Department of Education and of the public schools, who shall appoint the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and who shall determine and carry out the policies of public education for the public schools of the State . .. . "" A similar recommendation has been made several times by the Superintendent of Public Instruc­tion.18 The Governor's committee also recommended that the Texas School for the Blind and the School for the Deaf should be considered educational institutions. Organization in other states.-The educational organiza­tion in other states usually consists of a State Board of Education and a State Superintendent or Commissioner of Education. State boards of education are found in forty states. Members are ex-officio or secure their positions through appointment by the Governor or Legislature, or by popular election in one state. The State Superintendent of Public Instruction is elected by the people in thirty-three states, appointed by the Governor in seven states, and in eight states he is elected by the State Board of Education.'" Authorities agree that the best form of administration is that of a single administrative official assisted by an advis­ory board. Professor J. T. Young, of the University of Pennsylvania, says: i;"Report of Governor's Committee on Education," in A. \V. Blanton, Report on Education. in Texa~ and Recommendations Made to the Governor and Thirty-SeFenth Legislature, 1921, pp. 32-36. " Blanton, op. cit., p. 7. 1vMathews, op. cit., pp. 305-314. Unin:rsity· of Te~ras Bulletin A single-headed authority, the superintendents, possesses the advantage~ which arise from any centering of authority at a definite point, ,·iz., quickne~s ?.nd efficiency of action, greater wi!Lngness to accept new ideas and to keep abreast of the times, and definiteness of responsibility and power. A board is more conservative and gives greater deliberation to disputed question of policy, but is less capable of drafting and executing a strong, constructive program. The board should therefore be an advisory body to aid the superintendent.20 Serious objections are made to the prevailing method of selecting the Superintendent of Public Instruction by popu­lar vote. This method of election, according to a recent writer on state government, is the poorest method of selection, since it practically always necessitates choosing a resident of the state not so much by the wish of the people as by the operation of political parties .... The Superintendent of Education should certainly be removed from politics and political influence; his qualifications should be high and carefully scrutinized by the appointing authorty; and, while subject to removal, he should be given a sufficiently long term to enable him to put policies into effect. On the whole, election by a board is perhaps the best method of choice.21 The New York system may be taken as an example of the best type of state educational administration. There is a central board of regents, known as the Regents of the University of the State of New York, created in 1784, and composed of twelve members, one member being elected annually by the Legislature for a twelve-year term. The board has wide powers over both secondary and higher education. It appoints an executive officer known as the Commissioner of Education, who serves during the pleasure of the board.22 "''J. T. Young, The .Ve1i· Ame1·ican Goi·ernment and Its Work, 2d rev. ed. (The :\1acMillan Co., 1923), p. 431. " 1E. Kimball, State and ."vlunicipa/ Government in the United States p . 174. ' 22Report of Recrmstruction Commission, pp. 129-130. The Reorganization of State Administration in Texas 89 Successful operation has been obtained with ·this system in New York. The New York Reconstruction Commission of 1919, while stating its opinion that a single head for the educational system appointed and removable by the Gov­ernor, was the ultimate organization toward which the State should aim, said: However, we have had to take into consideration the fact that there is throughout the State a very stropg conviction that the present administration of the department by the Board of Regents is successful and that a high type of citizen has been elected to membership in the Board.23 Writers on state government unite in praising the New York system. "The system adopted by New York has had excellent results," says Professor Young. Professor J. M. Mathews, of the University of Illinois, says, "A state board of education with large powers, such as that of New York, tends to add dignity and strength to the management of school affairs of the state."24 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH The proposed Department of Health will take over ftie functions of the State Board of Health, Health Officer, and Anatomical Board. A State Board of Health of seven members will be ap­pointed by the Governor. Women should be represented on the board. One of the members should be an experienced sanitary engineer. Members should receive only actual expenses. The State Board of Health should have no administrative functions. Its powers should be those of consultant and advisor; it should consider plans and policies, and submit annually a report to the Governor containing recommenda­tions as to needed legislation. A Commissioner of Health, to be appointed by the Gov­ernor, would be the administrative head of the department. ~'Ibid., p. 133. 2•You ng, op. cit., p. 431; Mathews, op cit., p. 307. University· of Texas Bulletin It is suggested that the proposed Department of Health be divided into nine bureaus, as follows: 1. Administration.-Secretary of the department. 2. Rural sanitation.-To supervise organization and work of county health units dealing with problems of rural sanitation. 3. Communicable diseases.-To have control of educa­tional work and enforcement of laws regarding reportable and quarantineable diseases. 4. Child hygiene.-To cooperate with the Federal Chil­dren's Bureau in administration of Sheppard-Towner Act. 5. Vital statistics.-To keep the State records of all vital statistics. 6. Laboratories.-To make examination of specimens of blood, water, etc., sent in. 7. Venereal diseases.-·To have administration of law for treatment and repression of venereal diseases. 8. Sanitary engineering.-To have supervision over sewerage, water, garbage, street cleaning, mosquito control, dairies and slaughter houses, sanitation of public build­inws, etc. ,. 9. Foods and Drugs.-To have enforcement of law against the fraudulent adulteration of foods and drugs. The Commissioner of Health should be authorized to create eight or more sanitary districts, each to be in charge of a District Health Officer appointed by the Commissioner. Such District Health Officers should assist the Department in the enforcement of the public health laws and the sanitary code.2 " These recommendations would require only statutory changes. Texas recommendations.-The Central Investigating Committees of the Thirty-fifth Legislature recommended that interstate and maritime quarantine should be relin­quished to the Federal Government, that the Pasteur Insti­tute should be placed under the State Board of Health, and 20Report of Public Health Commission to Governor W. P. Hobby on the Health Conditions in Texas, 1919, p. 10. The Reorganization of State Administration in Texas 91 that the Pure Food and Drug Department should be made a bureau of the Board of Health.2•; In the report of the Texas Public Health Commission on the health conditions in Texas, in 1919, five recommenda­tions were made : (1) That members of the State Board of Health should be appointed for a term of six years, one­third being appointed every two years; (2) That bureaus of Communicable Diseases, Sanitary Engineering, Rural Sanitation, Child Hygiene and Public Health Nursing, Lab­oratories, and Health Instruction be established; (3) ·That eight or more sanitary districts be created, each to be in charge of a full time District Health Officer; ( 4) That the State Health Officer should appoint, with the approval of the State Board of Health, bureau directors and district health officers ; and (5) That adequate appropriations should be made for health work." Organization in other states.-In a number of states. by recent administrative consolidation acts, all health agencies have been united under a Department of Health. Among such states are Illinois, Massachusetts, Ohio, Washington, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee."8 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE A Department of Public Welfare is proposed, to include the State agencies dealing with prisons, reform schools, pardons, and eleemosynary institutions-the Prison Com­mission, Penitentiary Supervisory Board, Auditor for Prison System, Board to Select Auditor for Prison System, Board of Pardon Advisers and Board of Control, Division of Eleemosynary Institutions. A State Public Welfare Commission of nine members will be appointed by the Governor. Women should be repre­sented on the board. and the members should be represent­ative of the different welfare interests. Members should ~"Joint Report, op. cit., pp. 247-249. 21 Report, op. cit., pp. G-6. ~~civil Admini5trative Codes, suvra, p. 78. University· of Texas Bulletin serve without remuneration, but should be allowed actual expenses. The Commission should have, with reference to the De­partment of Public Welfare, powers of inspection, investi­gation, referee and consultant. It should not have administrative powers, but should confine itself to questions of policy and general administration. A Commissioner of Public Welfare will be appointed by the Governor to be the administrative head of the depart­ment. The department would be divided into bureaus as follows: 1. Administration.-Secretary of the Department. 2. Mental hygiene.-To have supervision over the Epi­leptic Colony, the Feeble-Minded Colony, and the five asylums for the insane. 3. Hospitals.-To control the Tuberculosis Sanatorium; Pasteur Institute, Hospital for Crippled and Deformed Children, and the American Legion Memorial Sanatorium. 4. Confedera.te 1.:eterans.-To have charge of the two homes for Confederate Veterans and their wives. 5. Reform schools.-To have supervision over the Girls' Training School, Training School for Boys, and county institutions of a similar character. 6. Dependents.-To control the Orphans' Home and Home for Dependent and Neglected Children. This bureau should also supervise county homes for aged and county homes for dependents, private, sectarian, and fraternal orphanages, home finding and child placing individuals and societies, and all other institutions, individuals and agencies that perform any service in behalf of dependents. It should also supervise the administration of the widows' pension law. 7. Prisons.-To have the duties of the Prison Commis­sion, Penitentiary Supervisory Board, Auditor for Prison System, and board to select auditor for prison system. Names of all insane ayslums should be changed to "State Hospitals." More appropriate names might be found for other institutions in this group also. The R eo rganization of State Administration in Te;-cas 93 The three institutions for the instruction of the deaf and dumb-the Texas School for the Blind, the School for the Deaf, and the Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Institute for Colored Youths will be placed under the supervision of the State Board of Education. Local Advisory Boards would be created for each institu­tion under the jurisdiction of this department. Each board should consist of five members appointed by the Governor. Women should be represented on these boards. Members should reside . in the district in which the institution is located. Service should be unsalaried. These boards should have no administrative duties. Their function should be to advise and assist the Commissioner of Public Welfare and the superintendent of the institution in the manage­ment of the institution and the welfare of its inmates. They should have the right to make inspections and investi­gations at any time, to give advice, and to report annually their recommendations to the Governor and to the Commis­sioner of Public Welfare. Such boards existed prior to the passage of the Board of Control Act in 1920, but they were boards of managers with respect to their institutions. It is not contemplated that these advisory boards will have administrative control of the institution. Management will be centralized in the Department of Public Welfare. These local boards should meet at least monthly. Conferences of all welfare workers should be held an­nually. There should be a semi-annual meeting of the Com­missioner of Public \Velfare, the directors of all bureaus, and the superintendents of all institutions, to be held at the Capitol. An annual meeting should be held of the State Public Welfare Commission, the local advisory boards, and the administrative officers of the department and institu­ tions. A Board of Pardons and Paroles should be constituted within the Department, to consist of the Commissioner of the Department and the Director of the Bureau of Reform Schools and Bureau of Prisons. University· of Texas Bulletin A constitutional amendment would be needed to abolish the Prison Commission ; all other changes could be made by statute. Texas recommendations.-The central investigating com­mittees of the Thirty-fifth Legislature recommended that the management of the prison system be placed under one man. The committees also recommended that all local boards of managers of eleemosnary institutions be abolished and the management of all institutions be placed under a central authority. This was done by the Board of Control Act.2~ Organization in other states.-By recent reorganization acts, departments of public welfare have been established in Illinois, Idaho, Nebraska, Massachusetts, Ohio, Penn­sylvania, Maryland, and Tennessee.30 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE The proposed Department of Agriculture will take over the powers and duties of the following officers and boards: Commissioner of Agriculture Live Stock Sanitary Commission State Veterinarian Commissioner of Markets and Warehouses Superintendent of Weights and Measures Board to Select Commissioner Board to Review Ginning Regulations Agricultural Experiment Station State Chemist State Entomologist The Department will be organized into five bureaus, as follows: 1. Adrninistration.-Secretary of the Department, Divi­sion of Statistics. ""Reports of Subcommittees, pp. 242, 928-932. ""Civil Administrative Codes, supra, p. 78. The Reo1·uanization of State Administration in Texas 95 2. Plunt industry.-..:To include the present divisions of Entomology, Plant Pathology and Seeds, Orchards and · Nursery Inspection, and the work of the State Chemist and Entomologist in the administration of the foul brood, fertilizer and pure feed laws, now under the Agricultural Experiment Station. 3. Animal industry.-To exercise the duties of the Live Stock Sanitary Commission and the State Veterinarian. 4. Ma1·kets .-To have the duties of the present Bureau of Markets and the Markets and Warehouse Department. 5. Weights and measures.-To have the duties of the Weights and Measures Division of the Markets and Ware­house Department. The division of edible nuts would be transferred to the Agricultural Experiment Station. A board to consist of the Commissioner and two bureau directors to be designated by him, would be organized when­ ever questions of a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial nature should arise in connection with the administration of the Department. The Commissioner would be responsible for all decisions. An Advisory Board of Agriculture of five members, to be appointed by the Governor, would be attached to the Depart­ ment, with powers of advice, investigation, and recom­ mendation. All of the changes recommended could be made by statute. Texas recommendations.-The central investigating com­mittees of the Thirty-fifth Legislature recommended that all agricultural work that was educational in nature should be handled by the Agricultural and Mechanical College, and work that was administrative should be handled by the Department of Agriculture. On this basis the committees recommended that the divisions of plant.pathology, edible nuts, live stock, and institute work of the Department of Agriculture to be transferred to the Agricultural and Me­chanical College, and that administration of the foul brood, pure feed, and fertilizer laws be transferred to the University of Texas Bulletin Department of Agriculture. The committees also recom­mended that the Live Stock Sanitary Commission and Mar­kets and Warehouse Department be transferred to the Department of Agriculture and operated as bureaus under it. ". Coordination and reorganization of the several agri­cultural agencies was recommended in the State Democratic platform of 1922."" Similar recommendations were. made by Governor Neff to the Thirty-seventh Legislature.33 Organization in other states-The Department of Agri­culture as outlined above, will be organized along the same general lines as the Departments of Agriculture, which have been established under reorganization codes in Illinois, Idaho, Nebraska, Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wash­ington, and Tennessee."·1 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR The proposed Department of Labor will take over the duties of the Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Industrial Accident Board, Industrial Commission, Mining Board and Inspector of Mines. Administration of all of the labor laws of the State would be the function of this department, which would be divided into the following bureaus: 1. Administration.-Secretary, office management, sta­tistical work. 2. Employment control.-To enforce all labor laws ex­cept the Workmen's Compensation Act, and to assume the duties of the Mining Board and Inspector of Mines. 3. Workmen's Compensation.-To administer the Work­men's Compensation law now under the Industrial Accident Board. The Industrial Commission has never been used and its function would be abolished. ' The Commissioper of the Department of Labor, the Direc­tor of the Bureau of Employment Control, and the Director ·''Reports of Subcommittees, p. 596. ::·'House Journal, 38th Leg., reg. sess. (1923, p. 276. '''S enate Journal, 37th Leg., reg. sess. (1921), pp. 172-173. ::•Civil Administrative Codes, s11pra, p. 78. The Reorganization of State Administration in Texas 97 of the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation would constitute a_ board whenever work of a quasi-legislative or quasi-judi­cial nature arose in connection with the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act or other labor laws. The Commissioner would be responsible for all decisions. Only statutory changes would be necessary to put these recommendations into effect. Texas recommendations.-The Central Investigating Committees of the Thirty-fifth Legislature recommended that the Industrial Accident Board, State Mining Board and Mining Inspector be consolidated with the Bureau of Labor Statistics to form a Department of Labor, and that the Industrial Accident Board should consist of the Labor Commissioner, Insurance Commissioner and the Attorney­General.30 Similar recommendations were made to the Thirty­ seventh Legislature by Governor Neff.36 Organization in other states.-The Department of Labor as outlined above, is very similar to Departments of Labor which have been established in the following states, which have reorganized their administrations: Illinois, Idaho, Nebraska, Massachusetts, Ohio, Washington, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.'i7 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Under this department would be grouped the State agencies dealing with corporations-Commissioner of Bank­ ing, Banking Board, Commissioner of Insurance, Fire In­ surance Commission, Fire Marshal, Railroad Commission, and Gas Utilities Division, and the work of the Secretary of State in the administration of corporation laws. It is proposed to establish a Department of Commerce for the administration of the duties of these various agen cies. Bureaus would be organized as follows : '"•R eports of S 11bcommittees, pp. 524, 535. ~i;seuate .foi1 r1in l, 37th Leg., reg. sess. (1921) , p. 174. '"Civil Admini:-;trative Codes, supra , p. 78. Unii•ersity of Texas Bulletin 1. Administmtion.-Secretary of the department. 2. Banking.-To have charge of the administration of the banking laws and the duties of the Commissioner of Banking and Banking Board. 3. Insurance.-Taking over the duties of the Commis­sioner of Insurance, Insurance Commission and Fire Marshal. , 4. Public utilities.-To have duties of Railroad Commis­sion; of Gas Utilities Division of Railroad Commission; and supervision over pipe line companies. 5. Corporations._:To have all corporation duties of the Secretary of State, including administration of the blue sky law. The Oil and Gas Division of the Railroad Commission, since it is enforcing the conservation laws of the State relat­ing to oil and gas, should be transferred to the proposed Department of Conservation. The Commissioner of tne Department of Commerce and the directors of two bureaus or divisions, to be designated by the Commissioner, would constitute a board when neces­sary to perform quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative duties in connection with the work of the Department. The Com­missioner would be responsible for all decisions. A constitutional amendment would be necessary to change the organization of the Railroad Commission. All other changes could be made by statute. Texas recommendations.-The central investigating com­mittees of the Thirty-fifth Legislature recommended that the Insurance Commission should be consolidated with the Department of Insurance and Banking."8 The committees' investigation of the Railroad Commission developed the fact "That the powers of this body have been materially reduced by the Interstate Commerce Commi~sion assuming increased jurisdiction."39 "The Department is not kept very busy, and if the decision in the Shreveport rate case ""Reports o.f Subcommittees, p. 70. 30Joint Report, op. cit., pp. 253-254. The Reorganization of State Administration in Texas 99 is permitted to stand it is probable that the Railroad Com­mission of Texas, as a rate making body, has outlived its usefulness." The committees also recommended that in the future public utilities that needed regulation should be placed under this department.40 Organization in other states.-Departments of Commerce have been established in Idaho, Nebraska, Illinois and Ohio. In Illinois and Ohio the Public Utilities Commission is a part of the Department of Commerce for administrative purposes.41 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS The agencies that would be consolidated into the pro­posed Department of Public Works and Buildings are: Highway Commission, Highway Engineer, Division of Design, Construction and Maintenance of the Board of Control, Board of Managers of the State Railroad, Parks Board, Commissioners for Gonzales State Park, Commis­sioners for San Jacinto State Park, and Washington State Park Commission. It is proposed that the Department be divided into three bureaus, as follows: 1. Administration.-Secretary of the Department. 2. Highways._:To take over the duties of the High\vay Commission, Highway Engineer and Board of Managers of State Railroad. 3. Pilblic buildings and parks.-To conduct the work of the Division of Design, Construction and Maintenance of the Board of Control and the Parks Board. The Registration Division of the Highway Department in charge of motor vehicle registration would be trans­ferred to the proposed Department of Taxation and Reve­nue. The purpose of this transfer is to bring this division within that department which is chiefly concerned with revenue matters. The Registration Division is primarily ~ 40Report.q of S11bco1nmittees, pp. 603-604. 41Civil Administrative Codes, supra, p. 78. Unit'e;·sity of Te:cas Bulletin revenue producing agency and is concerned only secondarily with the regulation of motor vehicle traffic. For the performance of quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial work in connection with any bureau of the department, a board would be constituted of the Commissioner of the Department and two bureau directors to be selected by him. The Commissioner would be responsible for all decisions. Local boards of Commissioners for the different State parks would be retained to assist the Department in the management of these parks. An unpaid Board of Public Works Advisors, to be com­posed of five persons appointed by the Governor, should be attached to this Department. This board would ha\·e, with reference to the Department, powers of ackice, investiga­tion, and recommendation. All of the changes recommended could be effected by statute. Texas recommendations.-The Central Investigating Committees of the Thirty-fifth Legislature recommended the abolition of the Highway Commission and the placing of the department under one man selected by the Railroad Commission and confirmed by the Senate. Regarding the effectiveness of Commission control of the Department. the committees said: "\Ve believe that the policy of three ap­pointive heads of equal powers for the management of a department, such as is that of the Highway Department, at present, is a failure and a bad policy. It results in most cases in political appointments and favor, incompetency, bi!J'her taxes, and lack of service to the people of the State ...."42 Organization in other states.-Departments of Public \Vorks are provided for in the reorganized administrations of Illinois, Nebraska, Idaho, :Massachusetts, Washington, Ohio, Maryland, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania.•3 '"Reports of Subcommittees, p. 411. ,"Civil Administrative Cedes, s1iprn, p. 78. The Reorganization of State Administration in Texas 101 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION Agencies dealing with the conservation of the natural resources of the State include the Commissioner of the General Land Office, Game, Fish and Oyster Commissioner, Oil and Gas Division of the Railroad Commission, Board of Water Engineers, Reclamation Engineer, and State For­ester, who is under the Agricultural and Mechanical College. It is proposed to create a Department of Conservation to take over the work of these separate departments and bureaus. While the nature of the work of this Depart­ment is closely related to the Department of Public Works and Buildings, and there is precedent in other states for combining Conservation with Public Works into one depart­ment, it is thought best, on account of the magnitude and importance of the conservation problem in this State, to create a separate department. Bureaus would be organized in the proposed department as follows: 1. Administration.-Secretary of the department. 2. Public lands.-To exercise the duties of the Commis­sioner of the General Land Office. 3. Game and fish.-To exercise the duties of the Game, Fish and Oyster Commissioner. 4. Forestry.-To conduct the work of the State For­ester. 5. Oil and gas.-To assume the duties of the Oil and Gas Division of the Railroad Commission. 6. Irrigation and reclamation.-To exercise the duties of the Board of Water Engineers and Reclamation Engineer. For the hearing and determination of questions of a quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative nature that might arise in the conduct of any bureau, a board should be organized to be composed of the Commissioner of the Department of Conservation, and two bureau directors to be designated by him. The Commissioner would be responsible for all decisions. Unive1·sity· of Texas Bulletin 102 An Advisory Conservation Commission of five members would be appointed by the Governor, to serve without com­ pensation and to have powers of advice, investigation and recommendation. All of the changes recommended could be made by statute, except the abolition of the office of Commissioner of the General Land Office, which would require a constitutional amendment. Texas recommendations.-The Central Investigating C0mm.tl.ees of the Thirty-fifth Legislature recommendeu . consolidation of the Reclamation Department and the Board of Water Engineers into an Irrigation and Reclamation De­ partment.... Organization in other states.-Departments of Conserva­ tion have been established in the reorganized administra­ tions of Massachusetts, Washington, and Maryland•·· DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND REGISTRATION Under this department would be grouped the examining boards and commissions for the different professions, fifteen in number, and the administration of the civil service system. The function of all the professional exammmg boards is the same-to examine applicants for licenses to practice the profession and to issue licenses to those passing a sati­ factory examination. Following is a list of the examining boards a!ld commissions: Board of Public Accountancy Board of Chiropody Examiners Board of Examiners of Cotton Classers Board of Dental Eexaminers Board of Embalming Board of Examiners of Land Surveyors Board of Legal Examiners Board of Library Examiners ••Rep ort.o: of S11bco111111iftec.~, p. 52!). ·•-·Civil Administrative Cor!es, ·"'Jn·a, p. 78. The Reorganization of St_ate Administration in Texas 103 Board of Medical Examiners Board of Nurse Examiners Board of Examiners in Optometry Board of Pharmacy Commissioners of Pilots Board of Plant Breeder Examiners Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners At present there is no centralization of the work or of the records of these examining boards. Each board conducts its work separately, collects fees from applicants out of which it expenses are paid, and keeps its records, usually in the office of the secretary. Examinations are held from Cme to time in different parts of the State. The Secretary of State has a list of the names of the members of the differ­ent boards, but he has no record or other information about their work. This system often results in delay and other inconvenience to applicants. Greater convenience to people doing business with these boards would result if they all had a central headquarters and a single person in charge of the records there. This would eliminate duplication and expense and result in in­creased efficiency. Nothing should be done to disturb or lessen the interest of the members of the professions in the work of these boards. No changes are recommended in their organization. They should continue their present work of preparing ex­amination questions, conducting the examination and rating the papers. The responsibility for determining the stand­ards and qualifications of the profession are placed upon these boards. It is believed improvement can be made in the work of these boards if they all be located in one department, which will keep their records, hold the examinations, and perform the necessary administrative work involved in correspond­ence, printing, advertising, compiling, certifying, licensing, and recording. A distinct service to the professions and to the public will be rendered by this department, '''lhich will be accessible at all times for information desired. University of Texas Bulletin The other function of this department should be the ad­ministration of the State civil service law. It should be the employment service of the State. The State does not have a civil service system or a scientific employment policy. It is recommended that all appointments and promotions in the civil service, including bureau directors, be made according to fitness, which should be determined, as far as practicable, by competitive examination. Heads of departments and one or two deputies should not be under the civil service system. Administration of a civil service law involves quasi-legis­lative, quasi-judicial and administrative work. However, the major part of the work is administrative. Experience of other states has demonstrated the failure of placing administrative work in a Commission of three coordinate members. The latest tendency in civil service administra­tion is to make the chairman responsible for administrative work and provide two associate commissioners to assist him in quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial work. A Commission of Employment and Registration is pro­posed,to be composed of a Commissioner and two Associate Commissioners appointed by the Governor for a term of six years, one member being appointed every two years. The Commissioner should be the head of the Department, give full time to his duties and be responsible for all admin­istrative work. The Associate Commissioners should be paid only a nominal salary and traveling expenses. They should meet with the Commissioner once a week for the performance of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial work. The Department should be organized into three bureaus: 1. Administration.--Secretary of the Department. 2. Employment.-Administration of the civil service law. 3. Registration.-Supervision of the work of the several boards of registration and examination. Organization in other states.-The Department of Em­ployment and Registration, as outlined above, is very similar in organization to the Massachusetts Department of Civil The Reorganization of State Administration in Texas 105 Service and Registration,••; and to departments which have been proposed in Ohio and New York.47 Maryland in 1920 provided for a single Employment Commissioner.'> STATE COUNCIL OF EDUCATION The governing boards for the institutions of higher edu­cation in Texas are: the Board of Regents of the UniYer­sity of Texas, with control of the Main University at Austin the Medical Branch at Galveston ond the College of Mine~ and Metallurgy at El Paso; the Board of Directors of the Agricultural and Mechanical College, who also have control over the Prairie View State Normal and Industrial College for Colored Teachers, the John Tarleton Agricultural Col­lege, the Main Experiment Station and substations, and supervision of the Board of Managers of the North Texas Junior Agricultural College; the Board of Regents of the College of Industrial Arts; the Board of Directors of Texas Technological College ; and the Normal School Board of Regents with control over eight State teachers' colleges. Each board manages its institution independent of any central supervision, except through the appointment of members by the Governor and the supervision of the Board of Control through its power to prepare the educational budgets, and control over purchases and public buildings. Complaints of unnecessary duplication in the curricula and other activities of the institutions of higher education and dissatisfaction with the present method of preparing the educational budget by the Board of Control led in 1921 to the appointment by the Legislature of a non-salaried committee to make a survey of the State institutior~s of higher education. The committee reported to the regular session of the Thirty-eighth Legislature. •oGeneral Laws, Massachusetts, 1921, Vol. I, pp. 65-71. •1Don c. Sowers, Repo1·t on Swnnwry of Recommendations for the Administratire Reorganization of Ohio's State Government, p. 38; Revort of Reconstruction Commission, p. 217. " Luws of Maryland, 1922, pp. 70-72. Uniuel'sity of Te.ms Bulletin The committee recommended the creation of an unpaid State· Board of Higher Education to be composed of seven members to be appointed by the Governor by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to serve for six years, one-third of the membership being appointed every two years. The Board should have authority to employ an executive secretary and fix his salary. The Board should be given powers to (1) make adjustments in the curricular and extension activities as may be necessary to eliminate duplication and confusion, (2) to advise with boards of the different institutions about matters of man­agement and instruction, ( 3) to pass upon the budget esti­mates of all institutions before submission to the Board of Control, ( 4) to pass upon the establishment and location of all new institutions of higher education, and ( 5) to report to the Governor and to the Legislature its findings and recommendations as to the improvement and development of higher education in Texas. The report of the commit­tee included letters from the heads of the various educa­tional institutions and a valuable digest of the constitutional and statutory provisions for the organization and support of higher education in other states.•0 No specific action was taken by the Legislature on this report, but a survey of the entire educational system of the State was authorized and $50,000 appropriated for its ex­penses.50 Proposed organization.-A State Council of Education is proposed to be composed of fifteen members to be ap­pointed by the Governor. Nine of these members should be non-salaried laymen, some of whom should be women, not connected with any school oi: institution, appointed for a term of nine years, one member being appointed every year. The other six members should be the Commissioner of Education, and the Chairman of the Board of Regents of the University, Agricultural and Mechanical College, Texas '~"Report of the Committee on the Survev of the State Institutions oi Higher Education," in Senate Journal, 3Sth Leg., reg. sess. (1923), pp. 203-2fJJ. 00Laws, 38th Leg., reg. sess. (1923), pp. 258-260. The Re01·ganization of State Administration in Texas 107 Technological College, College of Industrial Arts, and the Normal Schools. The board should employ a full time research secretary and fix his salary. This board should have power: (1) To visit the different institutions, as a whole, or by committee, and to confer with the governing boards and presidents; (2) To coordinate the curricular and extension activities, eliminating unnecessary duplications; (3) To pass upon the establishment and location of all new institutions of higher education; ( 4) To supervise the finances of the institutions and to revise the budgets of the institutions and the Department of Education before submission to the Governor; (5) To convene annually a conference of the members of the governing board and heads of the different institutions, and State Board of Education; (6) To report annually to the Governor its progress to­ward harmonizing the educational interests of the State and molding the institutions into one effective system. A constitutional amendment would be necessary to give appointive members of the board a nine-year term. Organization in other states.-Thirty-one states main­tain separate governing boards for the different institutions of higher education. Eighteen states have adopted some plan of coordination of the work of the different institutions into a system of higher education. The tendency in all states is away from separate or decentralized control toward centralized control. The plan outlined for this State is very similar to the system found in Alabama, Oregon and Washington.51 01 Report, op. cit., pp. 267-291. University of Texas Bulletin P11.0D05lD Orl