USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston > Fifty years of Boston; a memorial volume issued in commemoration of the tercentenary of 1930; 1880-1930, Pt. 1 > Part 15
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50
The main object of the Finance Commission was not political but finan- cial. It was empowered to investigate and to report on the entire financial problem of the City of Boston. When it began its work, the question of charter revision was not on its program. In 190S, Chairman Nathan Matthews replied in a letter to Mr. Frederick P. Fish, who had apparently- recommended the draft of a new charter, that until the Commission's original investigation had been completed, it could not deal intelligently with any other subject and that, whereas it would be willing to submit minor recommendations, the Commis- sion considered that the framing of a new charter at that time would be pre- mature. Inevitably the investigations of the Commission led, however, to this "premature" consideration, and before the end of 1909 the General Court had amended the charter of the City of Boston largely as a result of its recom- mendations.
The most important findings of the Finance Commission in regard to the conduct of administration were, (1) that the executive business of the city was divided among too many departments, which in turn were subject to various methods of control; f (2) that the appointments of heads of departments and members of boards were too often made for political reasons; (3) that
* Wilcox, Deles F., Great Cities in America, page 398.
t "When the Commission was appointed in July, 1907, the city government consisted of a Mayor, two legislative bodies, and some 50 departments in charge of 158 heads of departments and members of boards. There were in all 24S officials elected or appointed as follows: 97 elected at the polls, viz., a Mayor, 13 Alder- men, 75 members of the Common Council. 3 Street Commissioners, and 5 members of the School Committee: 4 persons elected by the City Council or the Common Council, viz., the City Clerk, City Messenger, Clerk of Committees, and Clerk of the Common Council; 141 heads of departments appointed by the Mayor - 33 with- out confirmation, 99 subject to confirmation by the Board of Aldermen, and 9 upon the recommendation of outside bodies; 6 persons appointed by the Governor. Of these 248 persons, 137 received a salary for their services." (Boston Finance Commission, 1907-09, page 193.)
101
THE CITY GOVERNMENT
the pay roll of the city was heavily padded, the number of city employees having increased fifty-nine per cent, or over two and a half times more rapidly than the population, between 1895 and 1907; (4) that "the efficiency of the labor employed directly by the city had steadily decreased until in 1907 it reached a point when the amount of work done for the city per man per day was only half as much as it had been prior to 1895"; (5) "an outrageous waste of public money in the letting of contracts"; (6) the failure of the City Council to give serious consideration to its duties, its work on the annual appropria- tion bill consisting "generally of attempting to raise the Mayor's estimates to the maximum allowed by law, with a preference for those departments where the patronage is largest"; (7) the logrolling of loan bills through the Council "with more regard for the demands of interested constituents and the possi- bility of jobs than for the needs of the city as a whole"; (8) the general inter- ference by the City Council with administrative affairs in spite of the intention of the charter amendments of 1885 to prohibit such interference; (9) an increase in expenditures and debt, already described, out of all proportion to the growth of population, and (10) the unwholesome influence of politics and the spoils system.
The investigations and reports of the Commission also emphasized certain serious defects in the City Charter, especially (1) the structure of the City Council with its division into two chambers; (2) the ineffectiveness of the provision which had aimed to prevent interference by the Council or its com- mittees with the conduct of administration; (3) the division of responsibility for appointments between the Mayor and the Board of Aldermen or Council; (4) partisan nominations and elections, and (5) the one-year term of office for most salaried heads of departments. "These defects," stated the Finance Commission, "have enabled the Board of Aldermen and Common Council to usc their power over appointments, salaries, appropriations and loans to extort patronage of one kind or another from the Mayor and heads of departments, and to interfere in various ways with the executive business of the city, although the main object of the charter was to prevent that very thing." In fact, the chief weaknesses of the charter of 1885 in operation were its failure to apply strictly the principles of executive responsibility and the separation of adminis- stration from legislation which had been the aim of its framers.
The Finance Commission began its active work in July, 1907, and "during the next eighteen months Boston's government got such an overhauling as has seldom, if ever, been witnessed in any other American city." * Numerous public hearings were held and every phase of the city government and adminis- tration was investigated by the accountants, engineers, lawyers and other experts employed by the Commission, while the Commission itself "not only passed with great care on all work done for it, but the members were divided into subcommittees which studied the various departments of the city." t Altogether, the Commission issued 127 reports and communications, which filled four large-sized volumes. In the course of its investigations it brought
* Wilcox, Delos F., Great Cities in America, page 398.
t Shepard, Harvey N., "The Boston Finance Commission," Proceedings of Cincinnati Conference on Good City Government, 1909, pages 208, 210.
102
FIFTY YEARS OF BOSTON
to light as never before the defects of the city government under the charter of 1885 "and disclosed a state of extravagance and waste that stirred the cominunity."*
The Finance Commission finally concluded that the only remedy for conditions was a thoroughgoing revision of the political and administrative laws relating to Boston. It therefore drafted a new charter, to be submitted to the Legislature, which provided that the whole framework of government should be simplified and that the principle of executive responsibility and the complete divorce of the Council from executive functions which had been intended by the amendments of 1885, but imperfectly worked out, should be carried to their logical conclusion. The General Court in 1909 passed an act (chapter 486, Acts of 1909) embodying the recommendations of the Finance Commission, together with certain other alterations, thus providing what was virtually a
1
new charter for the city. The bulk of the charter amendments went into effect without reference to the voters, but two alternative proposals of a political nature, for the organization of the City Council and fixing the term of the Mayor, were submitted to a popular referendum. One of these plans con- tained the recommendation of the Finance Commission for a single legislative chamber of nine members elected from the city at large, with the Mayor chosen for four years subject to recall at the end of two years; the other plan proposed a single legislative chamber, consisting of one member from each ward to be elected for two years and nine members to be elected at large for terms of three years each, and left the Mayor's term of office at two years. The voters adopted the former proposal.
THE CHARTER OF 1909
The so-called new charter of 1909 changed completely the organization of the city government and was regarded by students of municipal government throughout the country as one of the most interesting and progressive charters adopted in any large city up to that date. The provisions for concentrating responsibility in the hands of the Mayor, for a small single-chambered council elected at large and for a permanent Finance Commission were especially commented upon.
As already indicated, the new charter abolished the bicameral City Council and substituted therefor a council of nine members chosen at large for a term of three years, with only three members to be elected each year. The salary of the councilors was fixed at $1,500 per year and the charter expressly pro- hibited the payment from the city treasury of any sum "for or on account of any personal expenses directly or indirectly incurred by or in behalf" of any councilor. Furthermore, members of the Council were prohibited under penalty of law from taking part in the employment of city laborers; in the appointment or removal of municipal employees; in the conduct of the executive or administrative business of the city; in the construction, alteration or repair of buildings or public works; in the making of contracts; in the purchase of real estate, materials or supplies; or in the expenditure of public funds except
* Nutter, George R., "The Boston City Charter," The National Municipal Review, Volume 2, 1913, page 584.
I
103
THE CITY GOVERNMENT
such as might be necessary for the contingent and incidental expenses of the Council itself. The approval of the Council was required, however, for any contract regarding street lighting or for the collection and disposal of refuse. The various prohibitions were placed upon the Council to eliminate abuses already noted which had become so serious, especially after 1895. The net result of these provisions of the charter was to relegate the Council to a position of relative unimportance, confining its powers to the enactment of ordinances, the making of appropriations upon recommendation of the Mayor, with author- ity merely to decrease such recommendations, and the approval of loans, the purchase of land and certain long-term contracts.
Perhaps the most important feature of the charter was the complete concentration of responsibility for municipal adininistration in the hands of the Mayor, who was given certain unusual powers. His term of office was lengthened to four years, with the provision that he might be recalled at the end of two years by a majority of the registered voters. The heads of depart- ments were made appointive and removable by the Mayor except in the case of officials appointed by the Governor, such as the Police Commissioner, the members of the Licensing Board, and of the newly created Finance Com- mission; and the School Committee, which remained popularly elected. The Mayor was no longer required to obtain the confirmation of the Council for his appointments, but a check was established in the provision that in nominating a head of a department or a member of a board he should transmit the name of his nominec to the State Civil Service Commisson with a statement certifying that the appointee was qualified "by education, training or experience" for the position. If within thirty days the Civil Service Commission found the Mayor's nominee to be qualified it was to so certify and the appointment became effective. Inaction by the Commission within thirty days implied that the appointment was not approved. Heads of departments were to be appointed without regard to party affiliation or residence and for terms of four years unless otherwise provided by law, as in the case of certain boards.
The concentration of responsibility in the hands of the Mayor was further increased by giving him an absolute veto over all acts, resolutions or ordinances of the City Council. This veto was decisive and could not be overridden by a vote of the Council. Moreover, his veto power was extended by giving him authority to veto any item in an ordinance appropriating money or any part of an item. The Mayor's powers were still further increased by provision for an executive budget. All proposals to expend money (except for school pur- poses and from the proceeds of loans) were to originate henceforth from the Mayor and the Mayor alone, and no appropriation proposed by him could be increased by the Council nor could the Council insert any new item. The power of that body was limited to striking out or reducing items in the Mayor's budget, while, as explained above, the final action of the Council was further subject to the item veto of the chief executive. The principle of concentration of responsibility for finance and administration was thus thoroughly applicd by giving the Mayor an almost complete control of expenditures.
In an attempt to reduce national party influence the charter of 1909 pro- vided for nomination by petition. Any registered voter could have his name
i
104
FIFTY YEARS OF BOSTON
placed on the ballot by filing, twenty-five days before election, nomination papers signed by not less than 5,000 registered voters. The names of the candidates who were thus nominated appeared on the final ballot without party designations. Dr. Delos F. Wilcox wrote in "Great Cities in Ainerica" in 1910, "Boston is the only great city in America that has done away with the party system in the nomination and election of city officials."
So far as the administrative departments were concerned, the charter of 1909 did not include any provisions for a reduction in number or any definite plan of reorganization other than the abolition of a few offices which had formerly existed as agencies to assist the Council. The departments, therefore, remained as numerous as they had been prior to 1909, and as divergent in their duties and organization. Authority was given, however, to the City Council to reorganize, abolish or consolidate departments and in this manner the way was left open for improvements and readjustment of the administrative machinery. Certain of the more important departments, however, were exempted from abolition or change by ordinance, such as the School Committee, the Police and the Fire Departments, the Assessing Department, Building Department, Children's Institutions Department, Election Department, Library, Overseers of the Poor, etc., which could be changed only by legislative act. As a result Boston had at that time and has today a larger number of administrative departments than many other larger cities, including New York, which has only about twenty-nine departments.
The charter of 1909 also contained numerous provisions which had for their purpose the elimination or reduction of the various causes for corruption and extravagance which had been discovered by the Finance Commission and which were also intended to supplement or strengthen the principle of rigid financial control. In the first place, public bids were required for all contracts amounting to $1,000 or more, unless the Mayor "gives written authority to do otherwise." Such authority, moreover, could not be given by the Mayor with- out a written statement from the department or board in charge of the work, setting forth in full the reason for not inviting public bidding, which statement should be published in the City Record. This provision was supplemented by another which made it unlawful for any member of the City Council or any city official or employee to make any contract with the city or to have any interest in or share in any of the proceeds or profits from such a contract unless upon learning of the existence of a contract in which he had an interest he notified the Mayor, City Council, and Finance Commission in writing of the nature of his interest and refrained from any official act pertaining to the subject. The violation of this provision rendered the contract voidable if the city so desired and also made the guilty official liable to a fine of $1,000 and imprisonment for a year.
A second important provision looking toward more rigid financial control and the removal of former abuses was the requirement that no municipal official should intentionally exceed the appropriation made for his work "except in case of extreme emergency involving the health or safety of the people or their property." Transfers of appropriations for current expenses could be made only by the City Auditor with the Mayor's approval, but no transfer whatever was to be permitted from a bond account to a current expense account.
-
L2
YOF GEORGE ROBERT WHITE +1847- 1922
-
MEMORIAL TO GEORGE ROBERT WHITE, PUBLIC GARDEN
PANCO TALLNUT ----
MEMORIAL TO FRANCIS PARKMAN. OLMSTEAD PARK
106
FIFTY YEARS OF BOSTON
In the third place, the establishment of sinking funds was definitely prohibited and all borrowing in the future was to be by serial bonds.
A unique feature of the charter of 1909 was a provision for the establish- ment of a permanent Finance Commission. The usefulness of an investigating body which would throw the "light of pitiless publicity" on municipal affairs and serve as a check to future inefficiency and extravagance had been demon- strated by the Finance Commission of 1907-09, out of whose exhaustive reports and recommendations had grown the charter changes of 1909. The permanent Finance Commission established by that charter consisted of five members chosen by the Governor for terms of five years each, one member retiring each year. The chairman, who was expected to devote most of his time to his duties, was given a salary of $5,000, while the other four members served without com- pensation. The duties of the Commission were to investigate as it should deem necessary all matters regarding municipal appropriations, expenditures, loans, accounts and methods of administration, and to make reports to the Mayor, the City Council, the Governor and the State Legislature. It was also made the duty of the Finance Commission to investigate and report upon any pay roll, bill or other claim presented to the Mayor, treasurer or auditor which appeared to be of doubtful validity. In order to aid the body in its work it was authorized to employ expert assistants and counsel and was given power to summon witnesses and to require the production of documents. The Com- mission was given no authority, however, to enforce its findings or recommenda- tions; it was to be merely an investigating body. As stated by Professor W. B. Munro in "The Government of American Cities" (1926), "On the whole the Finance Commission has proved a vigilant guardian of the taxpayers' interests."
The outstanding features of the new government set up under the charter revision of 1909 were, therefore, (1) the complete concentration of responsibility for the affairs of the city in the hands of the Mayor; (2) the lengthening of the Mayor's term of office to four years; (3) the small Council elected at large with its power confined purely to legislative functions; (4) non-partisan nominations and elections; (5) provision for an executive budget; (6) the requirement of special qualifications as a basis for the appointment of heads of departments; (7) the establishment of an investigating body in the form of the Finance Com- mission, and (S) various limitations regarding contracts, expenditures, inter- ference by the Council with administrative matters, methods of borrowing, etc., which were aimed at the elimination of former abuses and the setting up of a more rigid local control over finances. The reorganization, as already explained, was regarded by authorities throughout the country as one of the most advanced and promising reforms in municipal government. It also served as an example for other cities that were revising their charters and were interested in the strong mayor type of government rather than in the commission or city manager plans which attracted so much attention during the last quarter-century.
CHARTER CHANGES SINCE 1909
It is the charter of 1909 under which the city government operates today, with a few important changes. It was soon discovered, for example, that 5,000 signatures was too burdensome a requirement for nomination of the Mayor and councilors, so in 1914 the Legislature passed an act, which was accepted by the
107
THE CITY GOVERNMENT
voters, requiring only 3,000 signatures for nomination of the Mayor and 2,000 for a member of the City Council or School Committee. (Chapter 730, section +, Acts of 1914.) Four years later, in 1918, the charter provision for a popular recall of the Mayor was repealed, since it had been found impracticable, and as a substitute for this check the Mayor was made ineligible for immediate re-elec- tion. (Chapter 94, Special Acts of 1918.) The third change, perhaps the most important of all, affected the composition of the City Council. Although the small City Council at first attracted to its membership a number who were leaders in the public and business life of the community, there was a feeling after a time that its quality had deteriorated and that it had become unrepresentative. Following several years of discussion the movement for return to a larger Coun- cil, elected from districts, culminated in the enactment by the Legislature in 1924 of a statute (chapter 479 of the Acts of 1924), offering to the voters two plans. The first of these provided for a Council of fifteen members, three to be elected for a term of two years from each of five boroughs, at an annual salary of $1,500 each, nominations to be by petition of five hundred voters of the same borough as the nominee. The second plan recommended a City Council con- sisting of one member elected from each of the city wards for a term of two years at a similar annual salary, nominations to be by petition of one hundred voters of the same ward as the nominee .* The voters chose the second plan. Whether this provision will be permanent remains a matter of doubt, for frequency of change in the basis of representation has characterized the history of the Boston City Council. For the moment election by wards is in vogue and appears to be working satisfactorily. After twice changing the date of municipal elections, in 1914 and 1921, so as to avoid coincidence with the day of the state election, the General Court finally provided for biennial elections in the City of Boston by chapter 479 of the Acts of 1924, a provision which has benefited the voters and strengthened official responsibility by reducing the number of municipal elections.
The fifth and last important change in the 1909 charter provisions was an amendment enacted by the Legislature in 1930 relieving the Mayor of the necessity of submitting the names of his appointees as heads of departments to the State Civil Service Commission and giving him the sole responsibility in the matter. (Chapter 167, Acts of 1930.) This change was made because of the friction which the original plan naturally produced between the city administra- tion and the state government, because of the violation of the principle of local autonomy and also because of the feeling that if the Mayor was to be held accountable for the administrative work of the city, as intended by the charter of 1909, he should be given powers commensurate with that responsibility. The alteration was also welcomed by the State Civil Service Commission itself because this extraordinary duty dragged the Commission into partisan and personal controversies and interfered with its more important functions.
ADOPTION OF SEGREGATED BUDGET
Of even greater importance than the above-mentioned changes in the charter of 1909, was the working out of a plan for a segregated budget. As already explained, the charter provided that all appropriations should be
* Chapter 136 of the Acts of 1925 increased the number of certified signatures to 300.
108
FIFTY YEARS OF BOSTON
initiated by the Mayor and limited the Council to striking out or reducing items in the Mayor's recommendations, but it left the details of the budget system to be worked out by subsequent action. Up to 1902 there had been occasional use of an itemized budget in certain departments, but after 1902, though detailed estimates were often submitted, the lump sum appropriation prevailed in all departments.
The movement for budget reform after 1909 started with an exhaustive investigation made in 1913-14 by the Committee on Municipal and Metro- politan Affairs of the Boston Chamber of Commerce, which recommended that a segregated budget system be adopted. As a result of this recommendation the City Council in 1914 requested the Finance Commission to study and make a report on budget systems in other cities. The Finance Commission not only filed a report with the Council, but submitted as a test a segregated budget for the Sewer Service, which was twice enacted by the Council but vetoed by the Mayor on the ground that under the charter all appropriations should be originated by hiin. The deadlock was finally broken by the appointment of a Budget Commission of seven members to investigate and report upon budgetary procedure. This Commission reported in the fall of 1915 to the Mayor and Council, that it considered it expedient for the city to adopt a segre- gated budget and also recommended a definite "forin of estimates and appro- priations" for adoption. The report of the Commission was accepted and the first segregated budget was presented to the Council in February, 1916 .* In order to provide the Mayor with a staff agency to supervise the detailed prep- aration of the annual budget and the accumulation of the vast amount of data which is necessary for effective budgetary procedure, a Budget Department, in charge of a Budget Cominissioner appointed by the Mayor, was created by chapter 3 of the Ordinances of 1917-18. The Boston budget system has been regarded as one of the most practicable systems from an administrative point of view in effect in any American city. Although the appropriations are item- ized in sufficient detail to establish an effective control over expenditures and to enforce responsibility, segregation is not carried so far as to interfere with the work of the various departments.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.