REORGANIZATION of Illinois state government is a lively possibility under the next state administration, whether Democrat Michael J. Hewlett or Republican James R. Thompson is elected governor. Hewlett reorganized the secretary of state's office when he took charge there in 1973, and if he were governor, might not his inclination be the same? There's no guessing about Thompson. He has appointed a three-member group to form a "task force to undertake a massive review of state government" (see Names, p. 33).
81 separate agencies
A chart of state government, now
available to subscribers to Illinois Issues,
shows how complex state government
has become. There are now 81 separate
agencies in the executive branch, including the elected constitutional officers and educational institutions and boards. The first reorganization of state
government in Illinois and in the nation
took place in 1917 during the administration of Gov. Frank O. Lowden. The
Civil Administrative Code, enacted at
that time, combined more than 100
largely independent boards and commissions into nine code departments. Now there are 22 code departments. The other 59 executive agencies include the 6 offices of the elected executives; 40 more or less independent miscellaneous agencies; 10 agencies in the field of education, including the elected board
of trustees of the University of Illinois; plus the Bureau of the Budget, the State
Board of Elections, and the Military and Naval Department.
Weakened control
Traditionally this type of organization has been criticized because so many
agencies report to the chief executive
that his control over them is weakened.
The chief executive is elected and responsible to the people, and if he can't
find time to deal with all the agencies,
some say this weakens popular control
of the bureaucracies. But almost everyone who is familiar with the way
government operates agrees that this is
too simple an explanation of how
control over the agencies is maintained.
Public agencies are controlled and
restricted not only by the chief executive
and his Bureau of the Budget but also by
laws, federal as well as state; by the
courts; by the legislature and its committees and commissions; by federal
agencies when spending of federal funds
is involved; by the Department of
Personnel or an equivalent bureau; by
the Department of General Services or
other central procurement agency; by
the state comptroller; by the auditor
general; in many cases by the influence
of the clientele which is served, and
finally to some degree by political party
functionaries.
Less red tape
Another goal of reorganization might be to reduce public confusion over
where to go to obtain a particular kind
of governmental service — or even to
obtain information. For example,
elsewhere in this magazine an article
describes the various services available
to the handicapped {see pp. 12-15). Services of this kind, it turns out, are provided by six different agencies. Grouping these services together in a single Department of the Disabled might be advantageous to those needing such services. But there would be disadvantages too. One disadvantage of any reshuffling is that, for a time, people in and out of government have to learn the ropes
all over again. Employees of the merged
agencies are uncertain about their jobs.
There is no guarantee that the best qualified will rise to the top. Indeed, the opposite may happen. The fellow who
knows his job may spend too much time
at his desk — and not playing the game
of office politics that may be necessary
to survive a reorganization.
Unfortunately, some of the central
agencies which exercise controls over
operating agencies are not responsible
for achieving the operating objective of
providing the best possible service at the
lowest possible cost. This, of course, is a
point that will be hotly argued — but
ask any administrator about his problems with central supply agencies, budget offices, personnel agencies and the like. Instead, they are concerned with enforcing the controls entrusted to them — necessary controls, it may be — but the outcome may be that nobody is clearly responsible for effective administration. One of the reasons advanced
for regrouping state agencies into fewer
but larger departments is that some of
these controls might be internalized so
as to enable the agency to cut the red
tape and achieve its mission.
Successes and failures
Arvid Hammers, who wrote the
article on reorganization referred to
above, gives two reasons for Lowden's
remarkable success in achieving a
comprehensive reorganization in 1917: (1) Lowden pressed for reorganization
at the beginning of his term, and (2) he is
said to have used patronage to get
results. Stevenson and Kerner, on the
other hand, did not get around to
attempting reorganization until they
had been in office for some time. If this
analysis is correct, Thompson is right in
starting now to look into the possibilities. Hewlett, with his long familiarity with state government, is probably developing his own plans, too. / W.L.D.
28 / June 1976 / Illinois Issues
Three comprehensive reorganization
efforts have taken place in Illinois (see
March 1975, p. 85ff), the 1917 effort
already mentioned, the effort during the
Adlai Stevenson administration in 1951,
and a third effort in 1967 during the
Otto Kerner administration. Gov. Dan
Walker served on the staff of the
commission which brought forth the
1951 proposal. Neither the 1951 nor
1967 efforts resulted in major changes
— a factor which may explain why
Walker has been cool to any major
reorganization. The new Constitution
permits the governor to reorganize by
executive order, subject to a legislative
veto (Article V, section 11), but Walker
has not used that power.