Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:59:18.557Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

County Managerial Tendencies in Missouri1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

William R. Bradshaw
William R. Bradshaw*
Affiliation:
University of Missouri
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During recent years, the county manager plan has been growing steadily in popularity. This is shown by the literature on the subject, and, to a lesser degree, by the adoption of the system in a number of counties. Where the plan has been tried, the duties of manager have generally been conferred upon some existing county officer. In North Carolina and Virginia, for instance, different counties have experimented with (1) a member of the county board, generally the chairman, as manager, (2) a financial clerk, auditor, or accountant as manager, and (3) an engineer-manager. While the duties of the office have varied somewhat in the different types, each conforms in certain essential principles to the plan as outlined in the “model county manager law.”

In Missouri, the presiding judge of the county court, the county clerk, and the highway engineer correspond to the above officers; and should the state adopt a county-manager law, the duties of manager would probably be conferred upon one of these three officials. In fact, first-hand information secured in 1929 by interviewing county officials in thirty-three of the 114 counties, attending sessions of the county court, and studying official records shows that the county clerk and highway engineer have already, in some instances, developed general executive powers of some importance. This is true, for example, in awarding contracts, purchasing supplies, auditing claims, reports, and settlements, and determining the county tax rate. Before discussing these functions, the legal status of the county clerk and the engineer should be explained.

Type
Rural Local Government
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , November 1931 , pp. 1008 - 1013
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1931

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

Based on a study of thiry-three rual counties.

References

2 Kilpatrick, Wylie, County Management (Charlottesville, Va., 1929)Google Scholar; Wager, Paul W. and Jones, Howard P., “Signs of Progress in County Government,” Nat. Munic. Rev., Aug., 1930Google Scholar.

3 Supplement, Nat. Munic. Rev., Aug., 1930.

4 Constitution (1875), VI, 36 and 39Google Scholar. The county court is primarily an administrative and supervisory body, its functions corresponding to those of the county board of commissioners or supervisors in other states. Its name is a hold-over from earlier days when the court also exercised important judicial functions. It is composed of three members: a presiding judge elected from the county at large for four years, and two associate judges elected from districts for two years. The president, however, has little more authority than an associate member. Eighty-nine per cent of the county judges in the thirty-three counties visited were farmers or retired farmers.

5 R. S. Mo. (1919), Secs. 293, 729, 2110, 2541, 2569, 5916, 9528, 9597, 10,560, 11,344, 11,629, 12,709, 12,759, and 12,875.

6 Optional laws are very common in Missouri. If this particular law is suspended, the elective surveyor becomes ex-offioio engineer. At present, the surveyor is engineer in ninety-two counties, either by appointment of the county court or because the law has been suspended, in the other twenty-two counties, there is a separate county highway engineer. See Official Manual, Mo. (1929–1930), pp. 168–197Google Scholar, and R. S. Mo. (1919), Secs. 10,782–10,799 (especially 10,787–10,796).

7 R. S. Mo. (1919), Secs. 738, 9465, 9503–9508, and 9582–9589.

8 “Authority of county court to constitute itself purchasing agent for the county … denied.” Opinions of Attorney-General, February 21, 1928. Also see Opinion of August 26, 1927, “County is liable for office supplies of county collector.”

9 R. S. Mo. (1919), Secs. 735, 2574, 9509, 9547–9560, 9606–9617, 10,591, 12,910–12,924, and 12,982–12,990; and Constitution (1875), IX, 13Google Scholar.

10 R. S. Mo. (1919), Sec. 12,863.

11 Ibid., Secs. 12,866 and 12,876.

12 Ibid., Secs. 9563–9564.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.