THE INEFFICIENCY OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION.
OUR English Municipalities are singularly free from corruption, no instance of the direct bribery of 'popular representatives ever occurring. But if not corrupt, ',they are often the next worst thing,—that is, hopelessly negligent and inefficient. Our readers will not have forgotten the gas scandals in a Northern borough, where a permanent official's misconduct had become apparent to the whole town before the Council enter- tained the slightest suspicion of his honesty. The person in question, if we remember rightly, gave out the contracts for supplying the borough gasworks with coal, not to the lowest bidders, but to the firms which promised him the largest " commissions,"—the modern euphemism for a direct pecuniary bribe. Yet, in spite of the fact that it had long been notorious in the coal-trade that no self-respecting house could do business at the borough works, the Municipality Implicitly believed in their servant till the very moment of exposure. By sitting in a body. the town's repre- sentatives appeared to lose the power of telling an honest man from a dishonest one. Each Councillor and Alderman no doubt knew well enough how to manage his own affairs, but when the town's business had to be carried on by a committee of the very same men, it was utterly neglected. In the same way, the scandals connected with the Metro- politan Board of Works chiefly arose from the inability of the members to keep the slightest check on their officials, or to display the most ordinary forethought in the control of their affairs. When their servants were upright, all went well ; but when they were dishonest, or were inclined to scamp their work, the public interest was left without any sufficient protection.
Yet another example of gross administrative inefficiency by a great public body has just come to light, and has drawn from one of the least easily moved Judges on the Bench a protest of unusual vigour. The London School Board this week brought an action against a builder for stamping his work in the building of a school at Kilburn, and for not keeping to his contract, and won their action. In giving judgment for the School Board, Mr. Justice Day, however, found it necessary to impose his censure not so much upon the offending contractor as upon the public body which employed him. A consideration of the facts will show that the remarks of the Judge were amply justified. The School Board seems to have made a contract with the firm in question, and then let them carry it out exactly as they liked, and without any super- vision. For instance, the late architect of the Board admitted that he never inspected the buildings at all, and when he visited them, did so, not with any notion of seeing how the work was being carried on, but merely for his own edification, and " to gather ideas for future schools." Again, the person who was supposed to be occupying the position of clerk of the works declared that he had some seven other schools to look after at the same time, and that the building was therefore practically built without supervision of any kind. Mr. Justice Day remarked upon this evidence that " the defendants would indeed have to be proof against every human temptation builders are subject to if they did not occasionally take a somewhat liberal view of the true construction of the specifi- cations ;" and we think that our readers will agree with him. Contractors, like other people, move along the line of least resistance. It is much less trouble and worry to put two inches of "clay ashes and burnt ballast " under a playground, than to insert " a 6-in. layer of hard, dry, well-rammed debris,"—to put in drain- pipes that do not fit, than to get all the joints to meet exactly. When, then, it is evident that no one will pro- test if the quick and easy thing is done rather than the slow and troublesome one, we may be quite certain that the work will be scamped. There are a few saints who sweep under the mats in bachelors' houses, and use seasoned oak when it is practically certain that the em- ployment of green deal boards will never be noticed; but they are the minority. The ordinary builder, when he sees that no inspection or supervision is going to be exercised, regards it as an admission that he need not trouble to supply good material or to exact good work of his men. He observes that some good genius has relieved him during the job in hand from the vexation of having to see that everything is in accordance with the specifications, and he accepts the boon without further criticism. But if it is not difficult to account for the builder's conduct, it is by no means easy to understand at first sight how the School Board could have let its affairs be neglected, as it is evident that they were neglected. If the Board had been merely a scholastic body, which for once in its life had undertaken to put up a building, it might have been pardoned a mistake in regard to bad debris or soft concrete. But bricks and mortar are the constant business of those who are chosen to preside over the educational needs of London. They build more continually than even the Post Office, and hardly a month passes without some considerable work being undertaker. Their architect's department is on a huge scale, and if any Corporation in the world ought to have an efficient staff of supervisors, inspectors, and clerks of the works, that Cor- poration should be the London School Board. Again, the men who constitute the Board are perfectly honourable men. Many of them, too, are shrewd and businesslike, and even the least capable and least practical would probably be able in private life to see that a contractor who agreed to such-and-such a style of building, carried out his agreement.
How, then, are we to account for the gross inefficiency in a simple piece of administrative work which was shown by the Board in the matter of the Kilburn Schools ? We suspect that the solution of the mystery is to be found in the system which the Board, like many other municipal bodies, adopts for doing its work. When, during the eighteenth century, the modern system of administration was being substituted for the feudal and mediaeval, it was at one period fashionable for political philosophers to de- clare that "the Collegiate system," as it was called, was the only perfect method of government. Under it, instead of a single man being put to carry out a particular thing, a board or committee was appointed to do the work, and to take responsibilities which had hitherto been regarded as essentially personal and individual. Every department of State was, in fact, put into commission, under the belief that four or five heads were better than one, and that the metaphysical man compounded out of several natural ones, would be wiser, better, and more far-seeing than an ordinary human being. In the great public offices, however, this theoretically perfect and actually inefficient arrangement had soon to be given up. The Treasury Board and the Boards of Admiralty and Trade survive in name, but the offices are no longer in commission. In each case, a First Lord or a President was introduced who became in reality a departmental autocrat, while the Board sank into the position of a mere council of advisers. Individual responsibility has, in fact, become the rule in the Imperial government, and the opposing scheme is only remembered in the titles of certain Cabinet Ministers. Unfortunately, however, the Collegiate system is still maintained in our provincial administration, with very great detriment to the public interest. For example, when the London County Council met for the first time, it did not appoint a certain person to be re- sponsible for each of its departments, but a number of small sub-committees. In the same way, the School Board has its affairs governed by a series of committees. But as every human being who has ever sat on a committee knows, this arrangement means that the sense of responsi- bility is practically lost. Like a contingent remainder, responsibility needs a particular person to support it ; and when that person is not to be found, it usually ceases altogether. No doubt committees sometimes appear to do well enough in administrative work, but that is, we believe, always due to the fact that the committee is " run " by one man. When there is no person willing or able to assume such a position, the affairs to be administered have to look after themselves. What is wanted, then, is the introduction of the Imperial system into local government. Let the representative local body place the various departments in the hands of individuals, and let those men form a Cabinet in which each member is responsible for the conduct and management of his own office. In this way, and in this way only, can we be sure of getting efficient local government. Imagine the departments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Home Secretary managed by committees of seven persons, each with an equal voice. One has only to state the notion to expose its folly. Yet when we endeavour to conduct the highly complicated. affairs of the London School Board on a similar plan, we are surprised that the practical ad- ministration of that body, in at least one important par- ticular, becomes a by-word and a scandal so great as to call forth protests from the Judicial Bench.
Previous page
