No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2014
The recurring problem of executive reorganization once again has become a major issue. One reason is the recognition in all quarters of the desirability of a thorough overhauling of the vast federal administrative structure which mushroomed necessarily under pressure of the war emergency, and of the necessity for a reconversion of the executive organization to a peacetime basis. Another incentive to renewed concern is the urgency of assuring organizational efficiency for the translation into effective action of national policies undertaken as the result of our enlarged domestic and international responsibilities in the postwar period. Furthermore, the particular interest shown by the present Congress in the reduction of governmental expenditures has helped focus attention on the question of economy in governmental operations. The fact that a decade has passed since the last frontal attack on the problem lends support to the demand for a new drive toward reform.
Unfortunately, the revival of interest in a comprehensive reorganization movement comes at a time when the prospect for success in such an undertaking seems, on the surface at least, to be unusually dim. Even under the most favorable circumstances, large-scale executive reorganization involves formidable difficulties. However initiated, a reorganization program must be sanctioned by the enactment of authorizing legislation. This is a hazardous task, demanding mutual confidence and an acceptable working relationship between the legislature and the executive.
1 For discussions of the postwar conversion problem, see Macmahon, Arthur W.. “The Future Organizational Pattern of the Executive Branch,” in this Review, Vol. 38 (1944), pp. 1179–1191 Google Scholar; and Brownlow, Louis, “Reconversion of the Federal Administrative Machinery from War to Peace,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 4 (1944), pp. 309–326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 For a statement as to the legislative history and principal provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1945, and an account of congressional reaction to the 1946 reorganization plans, see Harris, Joseph P., “Wartime Currents and Peacetime Trends,” in this Review, Vol. 40 (1946), pp. 1146–1149 Google Scholar.
3 A concise review of reorganization attempts from World War I through 1946 is contained in Short, Lloyd M., “Adjusting the Departmental System,” in this Review, Vol. 41 (1947), pp. 48–55 Google Scholar.
4 H. R. 775, introduced January 10, 1947; S. 164, introduced January 13, 1947
5 Cong. Record, Vol. 93, No. 122, pp. 7918–7921, June 26, 1947 Google Scholar.
6 Senate Hearing before Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments on S. 164, Mar. 13, 1947; Senate Report No. 344 by Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments to accompany S. 164, June 24, 1947.
7 Cong. Record, Vol. 93, No. 8, pp. 282–283, Jan 13, 1947 Google Scholar, and Cong. Record, Vol. 93, No. 40, pp. 1639–42, Mar 3, 1947 Google Scholar.
8 Cong. Record, Vol. 93, No. 123, pp. 7969–7970, June 27, 1947 Google Scholar.
9 Public Law 162—80th Cong., 1st Sess.
10 Sect. 3.
11 Sect. 10(a).
12 Sect. 11(a).
13 Sect. 11(b).
14 Sect. 4.
15 Sect. 5.
16 Sect. 6.
17 Second Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1948, Public Law 299—80th Cong., 1st Sess., approved July 31, 1947. The House of Representatives approved an appropriation of $500,000 for the Commission to begin operations. In the Senate, the sum was raised to $1,000,000. A conference committee compromised on $750,000, which was the figure originally recommended by the Senate Committee in its report on S. 164.
18 Senate Report No. 344, p. 3.
19 Sect. 7. In order to broaden this power of the Commission somewhat, Representative Brown has introduced a bill to amend Section 7 by authorizing the Commission to pay expert consultants at rates not to exceed $50 per day, and to employ organizations or firms on a temporary or intermittent basis. H.R. 4469, introduced November 17, 1947. Cong. Record, Vol. 93, No. 148, p. 10720 Google Scholar.
20 Sect. 10(b).
21 Sect. 9.
22 The letter is reprinted in Cong. Record, Vol. 93, No. 122, pp. 7918–7920, June 26, 1947 Google Scholar.
23 This letter is reprinted in the report of the Senate Hearing on S. 164, op. cit., at p. 3.
24 The Commission, holding its first meeting at the White House on September 29, 1947, elected former President Hoover chairman and Mr. Acheson vice-chairman. An official of the U. S. Civil Service Commission was designated as acting secretary, and preliminary arrangements were made for the procurement of required office space, supplies, and equipment. At a second meeting in Washington on October 20, the Commission discussed its program of operations and authorized the appointment of temporary administrative aides.
25 See Senate Report No. 344, p. 6. Following a third meeting of the Commission, on November 18, Chairman Hoover announced that the Commission had decided to organize its projects along functional lines, and that the following “task force leaders” had already been named to direct particular studies: John W. Hanes, Fiscal, Budgetary, and Accounting Methods and Control; Robert Moses, Public Works; and Franklin D'Oher, Veterans Affairs. Mr. Hoover himself, with the cooperation of the Bureau of the Budget, is to undertake a study of the presidency and its relations with executive agencies.
26 For a discussion of some of these major problems and constructive suggestions as to how to cope with them, see Macmahon, “The Future Organizational Pattern of the Executive Branch,” op. cit.
27 See Senate Report No. 344, p. 7.
28 For an excellent brief discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of mixed commissions for use in the United States, see “Analysis and Appraisal of S. 164,” by George B. Galloway, Advanced Research Section, Library of Congress, reprinted in Senate Hearing on S. 164, op. cit., pp. 4–6.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.