A Survey of State Executive Organization and a Plan of Reorganization (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1916 Excerpt: ...important questions of general policy."55 All four of the general charges against the State executive seem to be levelled at the relation of the Governor to State boards. The Governor's Power of Appointment too Limited So impartial an observer as Bryce suggests that the Governor's range of appointing power is too restricted: "In the opinion of some judicious publicists the State executive arrangements might be improved by vesting the appointment of the chief officials in the governor, instead of leaving it to direct popular election. This would tend to give more unity of purpose and action to the administration."56 Any lack of appointing power is naturally felt most keenly by the Governor himself: "If you take an office like the office of Governor of North Carolina, he has little appointive power. That deprives him of the responsibility to the public which the average man in the State puts upon him."57 This same criticism, however, is offered by a bureau of expert investigators: "The appointment of subordinates is an essential of executive responsibility"; the Governor should have the power to determine the fitness of his assistants.58 The present organization of the State executive is defective to the degree that it does not allow the Governor this power. The Governor's Power of Removal Negligible If the Governor's appointing power is limited, his power of removal is negligible.59 The comparative effect of these strictures is set forth in an opinion by Professor Fairlie: "To the limited power of removal possessed by the State Governor more even than to the restrictions and limitations on his appointing power, is due the lack of an effective control by the Governor over the State administration as a whole. The removal...