has given itself over almost entirely to the executive supervision of the building construction ordered by the various state departments. Department of Buildings One of the most conspicuous examples of the failure of ex-officio board administrations is to be found in the department of buildings. This department is ostensibly under the supervision of the governor, the lieutenant governor and the speaker of the assembly, who constitute the trustees of buildings. In immediate supervision of the force is a superintendent of buildings who, being responsible to an ex-officio board composed of elected officials having many other and more important duties, is in fact responsible to no one. The department of buildings is notoriously the stronghold of the most questionable kind of political administration. The condition of the public buildings in Albany over which the department has jurisdiction is indicative of its inefficiency. Unless something be done to establish executive responsibility for this very important work, little improvement can be expected and executive responsibility cannot be obtained by means of an ex-officio board. Not a little of the delay experienced in handling the contracts for the repair and maintenance of the public buildings in Albany may be charged directly to the fact that the trustees of public buildings must sign all official papers in connection therewith. During the summer months the state architect has found it necessary to employ a special messenger to obtain the signatures of the members of the board to official papers. Engineering Service in the Conservation Commission There are two divisions in the Conservation Department which are engaged on work similar if not identical with that carried on by the state engineer or the department of public works, i. e., the division of inland waters and the division charged with the inspection of docks and dams. The personnel of these two divisions is made up of engineers and is concerned chiefly with the conservation of the water power of the state and the apportionment of water power and water supply to various cities, towns, villages and private corporations. The inspection of state dams not connected with the barge canal system is under the jurisdiction of this department. There are only two dams in this category and the inspection of these requires the services of special inspectors. In the department of public works and the state engineer's department at the present time there are more than one thousand employees engaged in the construction, maintenance and operation of the barge canal system, of which the construction and maintenance of dams and retaining walls are very important factors. It would seem to be inevitable duplication of service to provide for special inspectors of other dams in the conservation department where the engineering and supervision must either be duplicated or neglected. The work of the engineering corps of the division of inland waters parallels much of the work of the state engineer in the provision of adequate water supply for the barge canal. Moreover, the various services maintained by the state engineer through the hydrographic corps parallels much of the routine work of the engineering corps of the division of inland waters. Such a decentralization of the engineering supervision of the state's water sheds and water supply is obviously improper and one which prevents the securing of ultimate efficiency in the carrying on of the public works and engineering functions of the state. PART III.-ORGANIZATION FOR ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC EDUCATION Responsibility for the administration of the educational functions of the State of New York is laid upon the regents of the University of the State of New York by the constitution and legislation organizing them as a separate corporate entity. This body is composed of twelve members, each elected by the legislature for a term of twelve years, one regent being elected each year. Acting as a separate entity, the regents have the legislative direction of the department of education. This department is "charged with the general management and supervision of all public schools and all the educational work of the state, including the operations of the University of the State of New York."* The objects of the University of the State of New York, as described by law, are "to encourage and promote education, to visit and inspect its several institutions and departments, to distribute or expend or administer for them such property and funds as the state may appropriate therefor, or as the university may own or hold in trust or otherwise, and to perform such other duties as may be entrusted to it."† Executive Functions of Department of Education. The executive functions of the department are carried out by the commissioner of education, who is appointed by the board of regents to "serve during the pleasure of the board." This officer is also the president of the University of the State of New York-i. e., of the whole. educational and regulative system that comes under the jurisdiction of the regents. With the approval of the regents the commissioner appoints assistant commissioners, directors and chiefs of divisions within the department. Associated with him in the administration of this department are three assistant commissioners assigned respectively to "elementary" education, secondary" education, and "higher" education. These 66 *See educational law, paragraph 20. † See educational law, paragraph 40. commissioners, while performing advisory functions to the commissioner and board, are also the heads of their respective activities in the department. Over collateral functions there are two directors, one of the state library and one of the state science work and museum. The details of this educational work are administered under thirteen chiefs of divisions in charge of, respectively, administration, attendance, educational extension, examination, history, inspections, law, library school, public records, school libraries, statistics, visual instruction and vocational schools. Conditions Unfavorable to Localization and Enforcement of Responsibility When viewed from the standpoint of establishing responsibility to the electorate and within the department there are several features of the present organization which deserve consideration. Method of Selecting the Board of Regents The existing provision that the members of the board of regents shall be chosen one each year by the state legislature makes impossible the enforcement of responsibility for board functions by appeal to the electorate, except when an issue is raised of sufficient importance to cause the electorate to enforce their will through many successive years of legislative action. That is, it is made difficult to get a definite issue before the legislature, or the people, unless such an issue is presented by the commissioner after a division in which the board fails to support him. This might work quite effectively if there were any way of impressing the will of a majority on the board except by making the issue a partisan measure which could be successful only after a period of not less than six years, the period required to reconstitute the board so that a majority would represent the policy desired. Experience has shown that of all methods for selecting public officers election by such a numerous body as the legislature and one whose membership represents local interests only, is the least successful in securing popular scrutiny and attracting state wide interest. Under such a system no one feels any responsibility at all. Whatever may be said in favor of legislative ratification, the desirability of locating responsibility for nomination is generally agreed to by educational authorities as well as administrative experts. But assuming that it is thought desirable for historic or other reasons to retain the legislative appointment of the board of regents as a legislative, reviewing and approving body, then in this case the question may be raised whether the commissioner of education, as the head of the administration of the department, should not be appointed by the governor with an indefinite tenure, but removable at will-thereby putting the governor in a position to enforce responsiveness to public will, and making the commissioner a member of the cabinet. This conclusion, of course, rests on the assumption that the constitution will provide for a responsible chief executive. If it does not there will be no cabinet, and it would not be wise to select the commissioner of education merely for central executive control. Multiplicity of Lines of Control in the Department of Education Considered as a separate corporation, there is within the department no well defined grouping of functions. The principle of grouping by school grades (elementary, secondary and higher) is applied. There are at the present time eighteen heads of organization units, i. e., assistant commissioners, directors, and chiefs of divisions, who are theoretically responsible to the commissioner of education. A number of the organization units have double responsibility, that is, to the commissioner and to an assistant commissioner. It would appear that as new functions have been undertaken from time to time, no adequate effort has been made to adjust them accurately to the work previously carried on. Nevertheless it is fair to say that since the publication of the report on organization and functions several changes have been made looking to a somewhat higher centralization of work. While it is not easy to determine just how many deputy or assistant commissioners immediately responsible to the commissioner there should be, or to delimit exactly the field assigned to each, it is clear that efficient administration requires the drawing together of lines of control at the top. Some of the leading states in the Union have established five great divisions of work immediately under the supervision of the commissioner: one for elementary education, one for secondary education, one for higher education, one for vocational education, and one for research and statistics. Where this is done in a systematic manner, the subdivisions of work are grouped under the proper deputies according to functional relations. Experience would seem to show however that the organization of the department should not be too rigid, but that the commissioner of education should be allowed to assign to each of the deputy commissioners responsibility for such things as may seem to him to make for the efficiency of the whole department. Lack of Centralization of Collateral Educational Functions Turning to the broader principle of correlation of all educational functions under state control and especially those which are in whole or in part supported by the state, there are a number of institutions and activities of the state which are properly denominated as educational that are not subject to effective control by the department of education. These are administered by independent boards or commissioners appointed according to varying methods which establish no responsibility anywhere. Such institutions and activities are as follows: Agricultural colleges and schools. New York State Nautical School Instruction of children in the state institutions for the delinquent Board of Law Examiners Board of Embalming Examiners State School for Ceramics and Clay Working-Alfred Uni versity It would seem reasonable to assume that for the sake of efficient administration and control, all educational functions which are supported by public funds should be under the supervision of the Department of Education or at least be subject to the inspection of that Department. This is especially true in view of the provisions within the department to take care of these additional functions and activities. Lack of Machinery for the Development of Work and Efficiency Programs Where an executive officer, like the commissioner of education, is charged with such administrative responsibilities for activities, under his control, the absence of a free office staff for investigation, report, and the preparation of constructive programs cripples the efficiency of the head. The need for co-operation and advice which an executive of broad responsibility feels, can be supplied only when provision is made for an executive board on the one hand, made up of heads of branches of work, and for an independent staff on the other. The executive board advisers could be made most effective only by a regrouping of functions under a few deputies or assistant commissioners who in turn would be able to have reasonable freedom in the assignment of duties and a perspective of related experience gained through direction and contact within their divisions. The machinery for making investigations, analyzing departmental policies, and defining programs of work within the department might thus be at the commissioner's command and the consequent tendency to bring debatable questions to the chief executive would secure the combined and specialized talent of the staff as well as of line advisers. Problems of State Educational Policy In addition to the problems of central educational administration there are a number of questions which, though local in their character, |