The Trend of Reorganization in City Government
| Author | Edward T. Paxton |
| Published date | 01 May 1924 |
| Date | 01 May 1924 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/000271622411300126 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
195
The
Trend
of
Reorganization
in
City
Government
By
EDWARD
T.
PAXTON
Philadelphia
Bureau
of
Municipal
Research
AN
examination
of
the
trend
of
re-
organization
in
city
governments,
in
the
expectancy
that
its
results
will
parallel
those
in
state
governments,
may
lead
to
the
fate
of
the
Texas
stu-
dent
who
elected
to
report
on
the
ap-
plication
of
the
merit
system
in
the
civil
service
of
his
commonwealth.
After
several
trips
to
the
state
capitol,
the
student
returned
with
the
report
that
there
was
no
such
thing.
His
findings,
however,
had
the
undoubted
merit
of
confirming
fact.
The
significant
and
recurrent
changes
which
have
taken
place
in
city
government
do
not
follow
the
course
of
those
which
may
be
observed
in
the
states.
Reexamining
a
fairly
large
number
of
reports
of
extensive
changes
and
proposals
for
change
in
American
city
organization
reveals,
in
fact,
but
one
instance
in
which
reduction
in
number
of
administrative
departments,
so
familiar
in
the
reorganization
plans
of
state
governments,
was
cited
as
of
importance.
That
was
the
proposed
Los
Angeles
charter
of
1916,
which
held
out
the
promise
of
reducing
the
admin-
istrative
departments
from
40
to
12;
and
that
proposed
charter
was
de-
feated.
Yet
in
a
very
real
sense
the trend
of
reorganization
in
city
governments
may
be
even
more
significant
than
in
the
states,
for
it
has
gone
beyond
a
re-
duction
of
administrative
departments
to
an
alteration
of
basic
relationships.
Cities
are
free,
for
the
most
part,
of
limitations
imposed
by
the
exercise of
sovereignty.
They
are
free
from
the
states’
obligation
to
protect
individuals
against
arbitrary
acts
of
government.
Whatever
consequent
need
there
may
be
in
the
states
for
departmental
sepa-
ration
of
legislative,
executive
and
judicial
powers,
no
corresponding
need
exists
in
the
cities.
Furthermore,
bodies
of
people
homogeneous.
and
geographically
compact
can
provide
themselves
with
legislative
agencies
which
might
not
satisfy
the
widely
distributed
population
and
diverse
in-
terests
of
a
state.
The
cities,
there-
fore,
have
been
able
to
disturb
govern-
mental
arrangements
which
the
states
have
not.
In
the
reorganization
of
government,
the
city
has
been
able
to
improve
the
effectiveness
of
citizen
control,
while
the
state
has
been
limited
to
the
more
technical
process
of
securing
adminis-
trative
simplicity
and
departmental
responsiveness.
The
departments
un-
der the
governors
are
more
logically
constructed
and
grouped.
The
states
have
gone
farther
in
establishing
well-
organized
administrative
machinery.
The
cities,
however,
have
builded
deeper,
and
in
the
past
quarter
century
have
written
a
new
vocabulary
for
municipal
government.
Twenty-one
of
our
cities
of
more
than
one
hundred
thousand
population
are
operating
under
commission
government,
and
four
are
operating
under
the
city-
manager
plan.
In
the
late
1890’s
the
terms,
&dquo;commission
government&dquo;
and
&dquo;city
manager,&dquo;
were
unknown.
EARLY
INSTANCES
OF
MUNICIPAL
GOVERNMENT
IN
CITIES
Representative
of
municipal
govern-
ment
at
the
beginning
of
the
twentieth
century
were
Minneapolis,
Richmond
and
Wilmington.
The
Minneapolis
charter
of
1881
(still
in
effect)
divided
To continue reading
Request your trial