EDITORIAL 



EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY IN OREGON 



F)R several years prior to 1911, the state of Oregon 

 managed its forest fire protection under a state official 

 who combined the functions of forest fire warden 

 with those of fish and game protection. His field force 

 was supposed to fight fire, and at the same time to enforce 

 the game laws. This plan has met with enthusiastic ad- 

 vocacy of efficiency and economy commissions and others 

 in many states, but has been universally opposed by for- 

 esters on the ground that it is inefficient, and that men 

 burdened with both of these lines are neither good fire 

 wardens nor good game wardens. 



But for the time being, consolidation won, and one man 

 managed two departments, thus saving the state at least 

 $2000 in overhead expense. But, unfortunately, the for- 

 est fires continued to burn despite the alleged advantages of 

 combinations. In the final year of this disastrous period 

 of 1910, Oregon lost timber valued at $1,640,997 on the 

 stump a loss which must be multiplied by five when we 

 consider its value in wages and products for manufacture. 

 The average annual loss for the three years 1908, 1909 

 and 1910 was $663,935, and the total $1,991,806. 



In that year, the people of Oregon, having for the time 

 being had enough of combination commissions as a means 

 of fighting fires, decided to specialize. A separate forestry 

 board of seven unpaid members was created, the Agri- 

 cultural College, the State Grange, the State Forest Fire 

 Association, the Wool Growers' Association, the Lumber 

 Manufacturers' Association, and the United States Forest 

 Service being represented. The Governor was a member 

 of the Board. This Board was given power to appoint its 

 own executive agent, who should be the state forest fire 

 warden, free from political pressure and with no duties 

 other than to see that forest fires in Oregon were 

 suppressed. 



During the six years following, under this system, with 

 conditions fully as hazardous, the annual loss from fire has 

 been but $16,254, which is 2yi per cent of the average for 

 the three previous years, an increase in efficiency of 4000 

 per cent. This state work is conducted at an expense to 

 the state of about $17,000 per year, out of a total of 

 $93,000, the remainder being furnished by land owners, 

 and by Federal cooperation, in the knowledge that it is well 

 spent and efficiently administered. The losses in 1915 were 

 but $9333, and in 1916, $905. In spite of this fact, the 

 legislature two years ago again endeavored to combine 

 this department with others under one of the familiar 

 efficiency and economy programs, and only the desperate 

 resistance of those whose interests lay in securing actual 

 protection of state timber from fire secured the defeat of 

 the measure. 



But neither Oregon nor any other state in which for- 

 estry, under the Board system, has by the employment of 

 technical men reached a condition of true efficiency, need 

 176 



hope to avoid further well-meaning but misguided efforts 

 at improving the machinery of government, until the whole 

 matter is threshed out and the public at large recognizes 

 the serious flaws which cause this theory of combination 

 to fail in practice. That this leaven of education is 

 working in Oregon is evident. In the Oregon Voter of 

 January 27th appears the following: 



Consolidation 



" In this mania for consolidation of state officers 

 and commissions, would it not be well for thought- 

 ful people to consider whether the interests of true 

 economy and efficiency will be advanced by whole- 

 sale bunching? 



"Is one paid political appointee or a paid com- 

 mission likely to be more economical in the conduct 

 of a lot of state work with which he or it is entirely 

 unfamiliar than would be separate unpaid commis- 

 sions, the members of which are devoting time, 

 energy and judgment to doing public work well for 

 the sake of the public weal? 



"Many of the commissions which it is proposed 

 to consolidate are doing splendid, efficient work, 

 because the members of those commissions under- 

 stand what they are doing and have their hearts in 

 the work. Will there be economy in centralizing 

 this work in the hands of a few who have no enthu- 

 siasm for it or interest in it beyond that which is 

 hoped for from paid appointees? ' ' 



On this basis, backed by observations of the actual 

 experiences in the thirty or more states which have for- 

 estry departments, the American Forestry Association is 

 vigorously opposing the proposed consolidation of for- 

 estry with other state departments, especially in Min- 

 nesota, Indiana and Vermont, which are now before the 

 legislatures of those states. True economy and efficiency 

 in state departments does not consist of eliminating the 

 boards of directors for important state enterprises, boards 

 of men carefully selected and appointed without salary 

 to supervise the work in the public interest and to sub- 

 stitute therefor a single high-salaried appointee, who, 

 unless all precedents fail, must inevitably be more or less 

 influenced by the system of party spoils to which he owes 

 his office. * 



If what we have is good, let us hold fast to it, and by 

 demanding cause for every change proposed, force the 

 movement for consolidation to proceed along lines which 

 will safeguard and improve the public welfare, instead of 

 plunging the entire fabric of the state machinery into a 

 political abyss from which it may take a generation to 

 recover. 



