increased charge should be a source of embarrassment. The City has a debt incurring capacity of more than a billion dollars, a taxing capacity of more than two hundred million dollars, and an unencumbered income of more than sixty millions. But by reason of the course of past and present administrations, the City has been for some years past near its debt limit, if it has not exceeded it, and grave question exists as to its having exceeded its tax limit in the last two annual assessments. In preparing the budget for 1921, the City under claim of necessity, omitted $27,000,000 from the school appropriation, and met it afterwards by special revenue bonds, and other devices, throwing most of the charge over on to the year 1922. The Comptroller advised striking ten million dollars from the 1922 budget for education on the ground that otherwise the tax imposed would exceed the constitutional limit. It is unadvisable at present to increase charges upon the City and it would seem to be desirable for the State to establish a plan of appropriations increasing annually until it is sufficient to meet the additional charge for education it has created since 1920. While this report is confined to matters relating to the City of New York, there is a like situation in other parts of the State, and the problem of providing for the cost of education under these laws will require solution in other important muncipalities. It is therefore a State as well as a City issue. The legislature has from time to time fixed a mandatory tax for school purposes in the City. It fixed the tax at four mills in 1898, three mills in 1903, and 4.9 mills in 1917. These charges were made in the exercise of State authority to insure the maintenance of schools, but they may be regarded as representing a minimum below which the cost of education may not be reduced rather than as an attempt to increase the expenditure. For the most part the City has made considerable and in many instances large appropriations for schools in excess of the mandatory tax. NON-POLITICAL BOARD OF EDUCATION. The problem of securing a Board of Education for the City which shall stand for education free from political considerations, is the fundamental one. As the University of the State is the State-wide instrument of control in education the members of the University of the State resident in the City, now four in number, can with the Mayor who should be chairman of the Commission, be drafted into service as a Commission to appoint members of the City Board of Education. This will give local recognition by requiring all members of the Commission to reside in the city. By taking over as members of the Commission residents of the city who are members of the Board of Regents it will insure the performance of the State's obligation and duty in education, now greatly increased by the added burden of cost which the State assumes. But more important than all else, it will take politics out of schools. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Committee recommends that the Board of Education of the City of New York consist of members appointed by the Commission as provided in this report. 2. That the Board of Education be granted complete independence from all municipal control in the acquisition of real property for school purposes, by purchase, condemnation, lease or otherwise, within the limit of the funds available therefor. 3. That the Board of Education be granted complete inde pendence from all municipal control in the construction, alteration and repair of school buildings, provided that its superintendent of school buildings, before starting work, certify in writing that the plans and specifications comply with the building and electrical codes and the laws of the State; and provided further that occupancy shall not be permitted until the superintendent of school buildings shall have certified that the building as completed complies with the building and electrical codes and the laws of the State, but without disturbing the City's jurisdiction as to fire prevention. 4. That the Board of Education be granted complete independence from all municipal control in the administration and expenditure of all school moneys, subject only to audit by the Comptroller of the City for the purpose of preventing fraud or error. 5. That the City be required to appropriate in its annual budget amount which together with the school moneys which are apportioned to the City by the State, will equal the budget appropriation for schools in the City for the year 1922 ($88,798,546.81) plus an annual increase of two million dollars as representing the normal increase of cost; that the present authorization for building school houses be not revoked and that at least $6,000,000 be authorized annually for this purpose. 6. That the State provide for a graduated increased appropriation for schools until the amount apportioned for the City of New York shall be increased fifteen million dollars over the amount apportioned in 1922. 7. That sections of the greater New York Charter inconsistent with the provisions of the education law be repealed. And the Committee further recommends that as soon as the Board of Education is reconstituted under the foregoing recommendations that the powers of the Board be increased as follows: 8. That the Board of Education be constituted the fiscal and policy determining head of the school system with power to delegate authority to the Superintendent of Schools, as it may deem wise. 9. That the Board of Education be granted power to establish, abolish or consolidate such boards, bureaus and divisions as it may deem necessary excepting only the Board of Examiners. 10. That the Superintendent of Schools and all other officers and employees derive their power and authority from the by-laws of the Board of Education, subject only to the provisions of the Education Law. Respectfully submitted, ELON R. BROWN, Counsel. SCHUYLER M. MEYER, Chairman. MAXWELL S. HARRIS, SIMON L. ADLER. SOL ULLMAN. JOHN R. YALE. WALTER W. WESTALL. I subscribe to the Committee's recommendations except that I do not believe that the power of appointment of members of the Board of Education should be exercised by officials elected or appointed outside of the City of New York. Irrespective of their residence, the Regents are elected by the Legislature. I favor confirmation of appointments by the Mayor to the Board of Education by either the Board of Aldermen or by the Board of Finance suggested in the Committee's first report. THEODORE STITT. APPENDIX EDUCATION UNDER THE GREATER NEW YORK CHARTER. The union into one municipality under the corporate name of the City of New York of "the various communities lying in and about New York harbor, including the City and County of New York, the City of Brooklyn and the County of Kings, the County of Richmond and part of the County of Queens," effected by Chapter 378 of the Laws of 1897, brought together into one fabric the various different threads of educational policy which had been spun by the separate statutory provisions enacted by the State Legislature for the benefit of the several communities. These had been and were of the most diverse character, and the recognition in the new charter of many of these local peculiarities, in response doubtless to strong local pressure to perpetuate a time-honored custom or to assure a continuance in office to some local officer, made the educational sections of the new instrument complex and not simple affairs. At the time of consolidation, for example, the old City of New York had a Board of Education of 21 members appointed by the Mayor. The City of Brooklyn had a Board of Education of 45 members appointed by the Mayor. In what became the Boroughs of Queens and Richmond, there were many independent school organizations based on town or school district lines. The new charter sought to recognize local sentiment. It continued the Board of Education of the former City of New York as the School Board for the Boroughs of Manhattan and The Bronx. It continued the Board of Education of the former City of Brooklyn as the School Board for the Borough of Brooklyn, and it substituted in each of the new Boroughs of Queens and Richmond, a Borough School Board of 9 members for the various pre-existing local school organizations. This arrangement gave each borough a School Board with very considerable powers over the schools of the borough. In addition, provision was made for a Board of Education of 19 members, consisting of the 4 Chairmen of the 4 Borough School Boards, 10 delegates elected from |