The Movement for Responsible County Government

Abstract

County government in every state, except Rhode Island and Connecticut (which have troubles of their own), whether it be under the town system or under the commissioner system, is organized on the plan of making as many officers as possible directly responsible to the The people elect their board of supervisors or commissioners, as the case may be, and undertake to hold them responsible for the financial affairs of the county. They are to control, if they can, the expenditures, among others, of the sheriff. But always the sheriff is no subordinate of theirs; the people selected him! In the course of his work he collects sundry fees which so far as the supervisors are concerned he may account for or not as he pleases. They may reach him in some slow roundabout way but never by the direct power of summary removal which a private business concern may exercise. The supervisors may set out upon a program of economy and efficiency including, let us say, the standardization of supplies. But the county clerk will not recognize their superior authority; he will run his office to suit his personal convenience; and if the supervisors undertake to check him he may find some way of appealing to the people. The superintendent of the poor, the treasurer and the auditor may likewise go their respective gaits, and the county will be blessed not with one government, but with several. This is the particular form which the ancient and revered theory of the separation of powers has taken in this branch of government. No one officer or board is entrusted with power enough to do serious wrong; let the people be the boss! Noble sentiment. But there is a reverse side to it. Division of power carries with it division of responsibility. It is as though the board of directors were charged with the control of a private enterprise, but were expressly denied the power to select the manager and heads of departments wherewith to execute their trust. So 116