Park Department Organization 



By Frederick Law Olmstead. 



There arc tliree sound principles of administrative or- 

 ganization which need to be more strongly emphasized 

 and more effectivel}- enforced in many Park Departments. 

 These principles are : ( 1) To fix clearlx the duties and 

 responsibilities of each agent; (2) to make it unmistak- 

 able to whom he is responsible for the satisfactory per- 

 forn.ance of his duties, and ( 3 ) to give him enough dis- 

 cretionary authority to de\elop his own sense of personal 

 responsibility for getting the desired results. 



These principles are. of course, truisms. Xo admin- 

 istrative organization which ignored them could do busi- 

 ness at all, and I do not mean to suggest that thev are not 

 more or less generally recognized in the work of our 

 ])ark departments : but certainly the\- are n.ot always ap- 

 plied with the thoroughness and consistency characteristic 

 of a first-class organizatinn. In many park managements, 

 the difificidt and somewhat chaotic conditions incident to 

 the beginning of organization and construction have 

 doubtless led to the adoption of emergency measures for 

 getting necessary work done bv anv means available, 

 regardless of the requirements for permanently efficient 

 organization. What is now often greatly needed is a 

 steady insistence on these principle> all akjng the line 

 from the commissioners down. 



A-- regards the commission itself. I believe that the 

 prime function and duty of a park commission, indeed 

 the only adeijuate justification for the existence of a 

 multiple commission instead of a single-headed park 

 executive, is to provide that broader and sounder wisdom 

 in regard to the large problems and general policies which 

 is to be had from the united delih.eration of several 

 nninds brought to bear from different ])oints of view. .\s 

 an executive, one man unham|)ered by fellow commis- 

 sioners but provided with adequate assistants is un- 

 doubtedly more efficient than a commission of five men, 

 and the only valid reason for not putting a park system 

 under the charge of a single-headed executive is that 

 there is serious danger of his doing, no matter how 

 efficiently, some very unwise things. The purposes to 

 lie accomplished in park work are so difficult of definition, 

 so varied in character, and sometimes so conflicting, as ti' 

 be very debatable matters of judgment, in regard to 

 which anv one man's views are more likely to be mis- 

 taken than is the joint opinion of five men of e(|ual or 

 even of inferior ability. 



T feel very strongly, therefore, that what a park ci^nn- 

 mission chieflv exists for is the joint exercise of deliberate 

 judgment, controlling in wise directions the executive 

 activity of its employees ; and that the individual activities 

 of the commissioners should be directed, not to the doing 

 of anv chores w'hich employees could be hired to do for 

 them, but mainly toward equipping themselves, iper- 

 sonallv, in knowledge of the conditions and otherwise, for 

 taking the most effective possible part in the joint de- 

 liberations of the board. It almost inevitably happens 

 that each commissioner is most familiar with conditions 

 affecting the parks in that part of the city where he lives. 

 and such familiarity is a useful part of his equipment. 

 But the natural tendency to regard each commissioner 

 as a representative of his own district, in the sense of a 

 special pleader for the interests as against those of the 

 rest of the citv, is most deplorable. And, even though 

 the character of the commissioners be such as to prevent 

 anvthing like log-rolling, there is grave danger in per- 

 mitting each commissioner to specialize as an authority 

 upon the parks of his own district. In so doing, he is 



apt to remain rather superficially mformed about the 

 other districts, and, \\ hen a matter comes up that does 

 not affect his own district, he is disposed to w'aive his 

 <jwn personal judgment and courteously to accept without 

 question the authoritative opinion of the commissioner 

 representing the district particularly atfected. This atti- 

 tride vitiates the essential deliberative function of the 

 board, and imperils the unified develnpment of the park 

 system as a whole. 



These dangers are not in the least fanciful. I have seen 

 the work of many park boards sufTering severely as a 

 result of them. I am convinced, therefore, that, so far 

 as practicable, the division of committee work among 

 the members of the board should be made not on the 

 basis of locality, but of kind of work. There may well 

 be a standing committee upon music and amusements ; 

 a committee on playground work, presumably including 

 the subjects of bathing, neighborhood recreation build- 

 ings, and kindred social services. Other groups of func- 

 tions which suggest themselves as appropriate for stand- 

 ing committees are : finance, accounting, and acquire- 

 irents of land : Iniildings and engineering structures ; 

 grounds. Different functional groupings of the subject 

 matter might fit the personal interests and capacities of 

 the several niembers of a given commission better than 

 tlie above, but the principle would remain the same, each 

 committeeman gaining a familiarity with and a sense of 

 responsibilitv for the entire jjark system, and being in a 

 position til contribute authoritatively from his special 

 jtoint of view to the discussion of nearly every problem, 

 regardless of locality. 



Because the board needs all the time and energy which 

 its members can s];are for keeping itself thoroughly in- 

 formed, and for reaching wise, deliberate, unhurried de- 

 cisions upon questions of policy, no executive responsi- 

 liilities ought to be placed upon the individual members 

 which can jiossibly be avoided. 



Unpaid commissioners can hardly be expected to give 

 enough time to the work of the board or to acquire 

 ^ufficient training in technical details to make it fair to 

 l)lace upon tliem as individuals the entire and absolute 

 personal responsibility for executing the decisions of the 

 board, even though each be provided with competent 

 paid assi>tants, and even though each be relieved of 

 ])ersonal executive responsibility for those parts of the 

 work assigned to other commissioners. Commissioners 

 in charge of a city government occupy a dififerent posi- 

 tion in relation to that work from the normal position 

 of unpaid park commissioners in respect to park work. 

 The city commissioners are expected to give substantially 

 their whole time to the w'ork, they are paid for their 

 services, and each of them is required not only to take 

 part in the deliberations of the commission as a unified 

 controlling body, but to assume personal responsibility, 

 as the executive head of his own department, for the 

 efficient performance in the minutest detail of every duty 

 assigned to that department. It is. of course, possible 

 to organize the work of a park commission on the same 

 theory ; but my experience leads me to believe that it is 

 seldom expedient, not only because it makes an unfair 

 demand upon officers who are asked to serve without any 

 pay, and is therefore likely to break down in practice 

 and result in more or less shirking of duties and ineffi- 

 ciencv, but still more because the pressure of executive 

 routine and of personal responsibilitv for innumerable 

 details makes it exceedinglv difficult for a park commis- 



