38 



Indiana University Studies 



is given no executive or administrative powers which can 

 bring it into conflict with the administrative board. 



VI. Personnel of State Boards 



By far the most important feature in any system of super- 

 vision of charities is the personal character and qualifications 

 of the members of State boardsJ^ Almost without exception, 

 it would seem, where any system of charity supervision or 

 administration is working particularly well in practice, this 

 result is due to the character of the men on the board rather 

 than to the merits of the particular system. This is clearly 

 shown by the fact that all three types of systems are working 

 well in practice, for the success of each of the three different 

 systems can hardly be due to the superlative merit of any 

 one particular system. Unfortunately, good men cannot be 

 ensured by legislative enactment, and while several States do 

 make certain requirements as essential for membership, most 

 States leave rather full discretion of appointment with the 

 appointing power. 



As the ''spoils system" has been almost universally blamed 

 for the inefficiency of State supervision and administration, 

 some States have attempted to prevent ''politics" in State 

 boards by inserting in the law certain political requirements 

 or limitations.^^ However, the great responsibility for the 

 efficiency or inefficiency of State boards seems to rest pri- 

 marily upon the one possessing the appointing power, usually 

 the governor. In Indiana, Iowa, and Illinois, credit for the 

 excellent membership of the boards has been laid at the door 

 of progressive and independent governors who have insisted 

 on appointing men of training and experience in charity work. 



Nearly half the States make some definite mention of 

 special qualifications for membership on their boards.^* Of 



''^Survey, 26:314; National Conference of Charities and Corrections Proceedings, 1903, 

 pp. 504-506 : 1905. p. 500 ; also 1902, discussion by Alexander Johnson, p. 373, and by J. R. 

 Brackett, pp. 367-370. 



'^^ See National Conference of Charities and Corrections Proceedings, 1893, p. 49, for 

 comment typical of most charity workers ; also report of Committee on Politics in Chari- 

 table and Correctional Institutions, in Proceedings, 1899, pp. 233-254 ; 1900, pp. 34-43 ; 

 1898, pp. 241, 242, 247-255, "The Spoils System". 



There are in fact twenty-two States with some such provision : Arizona, California, 

 Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minne- 

 sota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, 

 West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Such provision, may, however, apply to only 

 one board in a State with no provision for the other boards. 



