STATE LEGISLATIVE ml 1^11
M
COUNTY GOVERNMENT, AN ANALYSIS
Report of
Constitutional Survey Committee
Constitutional Study No. 12 October, 194-8
CONSTITUTIONAL STUDIES No. 12
Prepared for
THE OKLAHOMA STATS LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
COUNTY OOVERMMEWT — AN ANALYSIS
by
John Paul Duncan, Asst. Prof, of Government, University of Oklahoma Norman
July, 19k8
Studies Directed by K, V. Thornton, Professor of Governmentsrnment, and Research ConsConsultanti , State Legislative Council
L. D. Helton, Director, State Legislative Council Room I4.3I State Capitol Bldg., Oklahoma City, Okla. Jack A, Rhodes, Assist.ant Director STATE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
J. C, Nance, Chairman, Purcell C. R, Board, Vice Chairman, Boise City J. William Cordell, Secretary
A. E, Anderson, Elk City D. L, Jones, Eldorado
J. H. Arrington, Stillwater A. R. Larason, Fargo
Paul Ballinger, Holdenville Bill Logan, Lawton
Walter Billingsley, Wewoka Phil H, Lowery, Loco
James M, Bullard, Duncan Lloyd H, McGuire, Tulsa
Floyd E. Carrier, Carrier Joe E, Musgrave, Tulsa
Everett S, Collins, Sapulpa Perry Porter, Miami
E, T, Dunlap, Red Oak Theodore Pruett, Anadarko
R. Rhys Evans, Ardmore James A. Rinehart, El Reno
Thomas D, Finne3r, Idabel John W, Russell, Okmulgee
Raymond Gary, Madill Streeter Speakman, Sapulpa
Paul Harkey, Idabel Claud Thompson, Antlers
John H. Jarman, Jr., Oklahoma City
L, D. Melton, Director Jack A, Rhodes, Assistant Director Senator Bill Logan Constitutional Survey Committee T xhis is the first of several studies on local government in Oklahoma, Professor Duncan has provided in this instance an analysis of county government in this State, and where possible he has relied upon the experience of other states as a basis of comparison. Atten tion is called to the advantages of county home rule, and optional forms of county government, a matter which is given more extensive treatment in Study No, 14. Perhaps county government can be considerably modernized with out recourse to constitutional change. Optional forms or home rule might be extended to counties by legislative act. There is, however, room for doubt. Furthermore, wide experience with home rule for cities sustains the belief that this principle serves well only when incorporated in the fundamental law.
H, V, Thornton, Research Consultant State Legislative Council Norman, August, 194$
Other Studies in This Serie:
1. What a Constitution Should Contain 2. Handbook on Executive and Administrative Agencies 2a. Institutions and Institutional Control 3. Administrative Organization in Oklahoma 4. The Chief Executive 5. financial Organization in Oklahoma 6. Personnel Administration in the States 7. Legislative Organization and Procedures (Part A: Statistical Study) So Legislative Organization and Procedures (Part B: Bicameralism v. Unicameralism) 9. Legislative Organization and Procedures (Part C: Annual Sessions, Committee Organizations, etc 10. Legislative Apportionment in Oklahoma. 11. Constitutional Amendment and Revision, CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY
The following is a summary of the weaknesses of Oklahoma county government
as learned by the ensuing study. It is also a summary of the particular points in the present system which need to be remedied:
First, certain changes in the area of counties are necessary in order to secure a more rational governmental base. These changes call for a program of:
A. Some county consolidation
B. Possible city-county consolidation
C. Inter-county consolidation of some functions
Second, certain changes in the form of county government are necessary in order for counties to come of age in terms of their relationship to the changing life and needs of the new community — in order to function more efficiently and democratically. These changes call for:
A. More home rule for counties to enable them to set up:
1, A more responsible and integrated administrative system such as,
for example, the County Manager Plan,
B„ New legislation setting up optional charters for counties to adopt
which charters will follow such newer plans as the County Manager
or Ehcecutive Plan.
C. Classification legislation for counties which will take into account
differences in counties pertaining to the form of government.
Third, improvements need to be made with regard to the functioning of coun ties. Such improvements would include:
A. The necessary changes in form noted above.
B. Provisions for City-County consolidation and for consolidation of
functions in two or more counties. C« Increase in a comity's authority to tax itself and to borrow for
local needs,
D. Transfer to the state of certain functions now performed unsatisfac
torily by the county, or creation of improved state control over
these functions.
E, Consolidation of functions and offices within each county.
In order to accomplish these improvements certain barriers in the present
Oklahoma constitution will have to be removed,, or to stimulate needed change ought to be removed. On the other hand, certain new provisions should be inserted in order to encourage or permit improvements. In suggesting these changes the point should be made that the proposals are not based merely upon theory but upon the situation prevailing in certain other states which have improved their constitu tions with respect to caring for county government. The provisions in the dif ferent state constitutions may be found in Study. No. 135 together with summaries of the various states having each type of provision. Provisions in the Oklahoma
Constitution which should be omitted or changed are cited, below„
Coming specifically to the proposals this study makes for change in Oklahoma^ the following suggestions are in order:
First: To secure needed change in the areas of counties, including county consolidation and city-county consolidation the following provisions ought to be removed, changed, or included:
A. Those constitutional provisions which now require a 60% referendum vote of the people in a county (l) to change the county seat (Article XVII, Section
6)3 (2) to secure division of counties (Article XVII, Section 4), and (3) to put into effect a general law providing for changes in boundaries (Article XVII,, Sec tion 4)> merger of unorganized counties (Article XVII, Section 5)> creation of new counties (Article XVII, Section 4) ought to be modified or perhaps left out of a new constitution. ii 1, On the other hand, the legislature should be given the general power
to effect changes in county area and such chocks on its power as provision for
referendum should be merely by law. At the most, this law should, require no more
than a simple maj oritur referendum of the voters for area changes to be effected.
B. The description of the present boundaries of the counties (Article XVII,
Section 8) ought to be removed in order not to raise possible legal barriers to
change. Such description could be passed in statutory form.
C. The limitations on the size of the old area and size of the new area, and on the size of population and the taxable wealth in new and old areas ought to be removed (Article XVII, Section 4).
D. Provision for county consolidation effected on a basis of general law, and/or on the initiative of the local voter's ought to be included,
E. Provision for consolidation of functions of two or more counties ought to be included.
F. Provision for city-county consolidation ought to be included.
Second, in order to secure changes or to stimulate improvements in the form of county government, including the abolition of the long ballot, the possible establishment of the manager or executive plan, the establishment of modern per sonnel systems, purchasing systems, etc., the following provisions ought to be re moved from the present constitution or certainly left out of a new one:
A. The constitutional listing of specific county offices ought to be removed or omitted (Article XVII, Sections 2, 11, 12).
B. Especially the provision for a County Board system ought to be omitted in order to permit counties to select their own type of government (Article XVII,
Section 2),
C. Any mention of how county offices are to be filled ought to be omitted and the method left to the legislature (Article XVII, Sections 2, 11, 12).
in The following new provisions ought to be included:
A. Provision ought to be made for county citizens to frame their ox^rn
charters, selecting the type of government they choose in accordance with such
conditions as the legislature lays down by general law or on a basis of classifi
cation legislation,
B. Provision ought to be made for the legislature to propose optional
charters and from time to time optional laws for counties which the citizens of
the county by majority vote may accept or reject.
C. Provision ought to be made for counties to transfer by local vote
their powers and functions to a city located in the county or to another county and
to revoke the same transfer.
Finally, the counties should be granted their powers only at the sufferance
of the legislature which may modify, change, or amend such powers by general law.
Third, in order further to improve democracy and efficiency in county govern
ment functioning the following provisions in the present Constitution ought to be
removed or omitted from a new one, and the following other provisions ought to be
included,
A. The various debt and tax limitations ought to be reexamined and per
haps removedj actually such limitations as are to be imposed — being of doubtful
constructive value any way — ought to be left to the legislature (Art. X, Section
10 , amend. 1933* and Section 26).
Finally, in order to achieve the above improvements in area, form and function
ing a legislative program should be passed which would stimulate counties to attempt
the more business-like forms, which would bring about well planned changes in the
area of certain counties, which would help the counties consolidate functions both within and between counties, and between counties and cities, which would help or
stimulate counties to establish centralized purchasing systems, and modern person nel systems, and which would relieve counties of certain functions which they now are unable satisfactorily to perform by transferring such functions to the state or
Iv putting them under increased state control.
In order best to effect the necessary changes in the present Oklahoma Consti
tution, it is suggested that the provisions in the model state constitution relat
ing to counties be adopted as a part of a new state constitution.
In order to explain the manner in which these provisions will solve the prob
lems analyzed in this study, the provisions of the model state constitution are
here presented in conclusion with a brief comment following each provision. This
appears more scientific and worthwhile than to close with a plea for better
government but to conceal the model of needed changes in an appendix.
Local Government Provisions of the Model State Constitution — Those Particularly Pertaining to Counties
Article VIII
Local Government
Section $00, Organization of Local Government. Provision shall be made by general law for the incorporation of counties, cities, and other civil divisions; and for the alteration of boundaries, the consolidation of neighboring civil divisions and the dissolution of any such civil divisions.
Comment: This provision together with Section 802 (see below) will help to
care for the constitutional problem involved in improving the area of counties.
True, legislation will still have to be passed to provide for county consolidation,
city-county consolidation, abolition and merger of counties, etc., but, by removing
restrictive provisions from the Constitution such changes can easily be taken care
of by legislation. The important feature of this provision is to secure consti
tutional and legal flexibility so that changes can bo made more easily when needs are recognized and the desirability of change understood.
The provision for the incorporation of counties by general law supported by
the provisions in the second paragrpah of Section 800 following next and various
v parts of Sections 301, 302, 801 will aid in creating a more flexible constitutional
framework for changes in form and functioning of county government.
(Section 800, continued - paragraph 2). Provision shall also be made by general law (which may provide optional plans of organization and government) for the organization and government of counties, cities and other civil divisions which do not adopt locally framed and adopted charters in accordance with the provisions of Section 801, but no such law hereafter enacted shall become oper ative in any county, city, or other civil division until submitted to the quali fied voters thereof and approved by a majority of those voting thereon.
Comment: This provision aids in setting up the proper constitutional back
ground for the establishment of new and improved forms of county government.
First, it makes it possible for the legislature itself to write optional charters
for counties, containing the newest and most approved form and function features,
and to submit these charters to the counties in lieu of action by the counties
themselves. Thus it may be possible not only for those counties which care to do
so to devise a special type of government (within the framework of the general
state laws) suiting their local needs but also for the state to secure a modicum
of uniformity among those counties which do not desire special and differentiated
charters. At the same time, it assures democratic action through giving the
voters of the counties themselves the final word of approval in accepting or re
jecting such legislatively proposed forms of government.
Section 801. Home Rule for Local Units. Any county or city may adopt or amend a charter for its own government in accordance with such conditions as the legislature shall by law prescribe. Any charter framed, as herein provided*, or any amendments to a charter so framed, shall be submitted, to the qualified voters of the county or city at any election to be held at a time to be determined by law, but not less than thirty da3^s nor more than six months subsequent to the publi cation of the charter and its distribution among the qualified voters.
Comment: Obviously it is this provision which makes it possible for counties to initiate and establish their own forms of county government, subject, of course, to conditions laid down by legislation. Thus it is possible constitutionally for a county to set up one of the newer forms of countjr government and, further aided by Section 803 (see below), to cause that government to function in the most
VI efficient modern manner using the most scientific political and administrative
devices thus far learned: short ballot, executive budget, integrated departments,
centralized purchasing, merit system, etc. At the same time democracy is provided
for through local approval of the charter and its amendments.
Section 802. Powers of Local Units. Counties shall have such powers as- shall be provided by general or optional law. Any city or other civil division may, by agreement, subject to a local referendum and the approval of a majoritjr of the qualified voters voting on any such question, transfer to the county in which it is located any of its function or powers and may revoke the transfer of any such- function or power, under regulations provided by general law, and any county may, in like manner, transfer to another county or to-a city within its boundaries or adjacent thereto any of its functions or powers, and may revoke the transfer of any such function or power.
Comment: This provision supports Section 800 providing for changes in area
(county consolidation, etc.) and further, supplements it by providing the consti tutional background for consolidation of functions between counties, and/or between counties and cities. This makes it possible for certain counties to take care of regional problems jointly without going to the extent of full county consolidation where the latter is not desired or desirable. The same thing is provided for with regard to city and county relationships.
Section 803. County Government0 Any county charter shall provide the form of government of the county and shall determine which of its officers sha,ll be elected and the manner of their election* It shall provide for the exercise of all powers vested in, and the performance of all duties imposed upon counties and county officers by law. Such charter may provide for the concurrent or exclusive exercise by the county, in all or in part of its area, of all or of any designated powers vested by the constitution or laws of this state In cities and other civil subdivisions; it may provide for the succession by the county to the rights, pro perties, and obligations of cities and other civil divisions therein incident to the powers so vested in the county, and for the division of,the counoy into districts for purposes of administration or taxation cr of both. No provision of any charter or amendment vesting in the county any powers of a city or oilier civil division shall become effective unless it shall have been approved by a majority of those voting thereon (l) in the county , (2) in any city containing more than 25 per cent of the total population of the county, and. (3) in the county outside of such city or cities.
Comment: This provision supplements Section 801 providing for Home Rule through charters drawn by the voters of the county, and Section 800, paragraph 2f
Vll providing for optional charters approved by them, by designating the general contents of such charters but leaving the charter framers free to choose their form through omitting restrictions on the manner of setting up and filling pub lic offices.
It further supplements Section 800, paragraph one, and Section 803> provi ding for city-county consolidation or transfer of functions, by permitting a distribution of charter powers and the division and accession of property between the units involved.
Again, it assures democracy in such action as is taken by providing for a referendum of the local voters who are most concerned.
Vlll Chart 1. OKLAHOMA COUNTY GOVERNMENT Bureau of Government Research Norman, Oklahoma
1 1 I ' '- i V:', T t
1 i 1
v COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY COURT j j COUNTY I COUNTY COUNTY ATT'Y. CLERK CLERK I j SUPT, ASSESSOR I I TREAS SHER} WEEH SURVEYOR JU% Si Mi (aI Si
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (3) (elected by district) \i/ EXCISE COUNTY EQUALIZATION BOARD PHYSIC (3) 2&J (b)j .1 _ ~J\ /\ /\ COUNTY HOME COUNTY i SUPT. OF DEMONSTRATOR ENGINEER • POOR FARM
DISTRICT| ! TAX I STATE BOARD JUDGE : i COMM. ELECTIVE OFFICERS ! OF HEALTH APPOINTIVE OFFICERS
(a) Constitutional offices (b) Declared by the suprern 5 court to be a state agency (c) Subject to appointment and removal by state superin- tendent of public health. Appointment is customerily subject to approval by commissioners. (d) Not elected in all counties. An example ox the Bureau of Government Research COUNTY MANAGER PLAN Norman, Oklahoma
r~ SUPT OF 5 OR ? COMMISSIONERS EDUCATION (elected at large)
\ i
AUDITOR COUNTY MANAGER
v\ A A A FINANCE RECORDS AH) PUBLIC WKS. PUBLIC SAFETY LAW WELFARE ASSESSMENTS BUDGET HIGHWAYS POLICE LEGAL ADVICE RELIEF REGISTER OF PRE-AUDIT DEEDS BRIDGES INSPECTION ENGORGEMENT HEALTH
TREASURY ASSESSMENT PUBLIC BLDGS CO. AGENT
PURCHASING HOME DEMONSTRATOR ELECTIVE OFFICERS APPOINTIVE OFFICERS
Note; All of these officials should be charter or legislative in character and not constitutional. COUNTY GOVERNMENT — AN ANALYSIS
Introduction: -The Importance of County Government
Most discussions of county government begin with the now much used state ment that American counties constitute the "dark continent of American politics/' This is because governmental reforms — not to mention plain, practical, solid citizens — have so often ignored local government problems while seeking to make the rest of the world a better place to live in. In fact, to emphasize the situation one might say a good many citizens and reformers have acted like the man who rushed wildly out of his farm house to help his neighbors shoo away a chicken hawk but never arrived because he fell through a moldy, rotten board on his doorstep and broke his leg. This is not to plead for localism and isolation ism, but it is to say that it is quite as important to"create efficient democratic government at home as in foreign capitals and villages..
County Expenditures
American counties ARE important. Despite the belief on the part of some prognosticators a few years ago that counties were on the way out, the following .figures indicate that counties certainly did not decrease their governmental functions between 1932 and 1943 if spending of money in various fields is a valid criteria.1
•~Et is true that expenditure of money may in some cases merely be an in dication of "wasteful" government. Indeed as we will note below, many counties are spending more money than necessary because of the present improper form and functioning of such county governments. However, the above figures plainly reflect other than an increase in bad government. They represent an increase in government cost in practically all United States counties. And the increase is due mainly to extensions of present functions or to the addition of new functions. Table I. Expenditures of Counties, 1932 and 1942' (in thousands)
Function 1932 1942
iotal .••••oot.oo. $981,192 31,344,514
251,150 256,284 Public Safety ...... 44,231 59,496 Highways .....o 236,350 304,830 Welfare, Hospitals and Correction ... 182,120 524,488 Health and Sanitation 32,778 22,404 178,406 104,265 Libraries 3,772 5,254 Recreation 7,618 8,844 Natural Resources ... . <«.. 15,927 Miscellaneous .., 9 „.. 44,767 42,722
Growth of Functions
In fact, counties actually have increased the number of their functions and activities in recent years.
In some cases this resulted from increased grants of power. Thus from 1941 to 1944 twelve states authorized county zoning and planning agencies; three states gave counties power to spend money for advertising their work; two states permitted full time health units; and four increased county powers over conser vation and three over recreation. Counties in many other states have been em powered to operate the schools on a" county-wide basis, to establish libraries, and to erect and maintain memorials, armories, etc.3
In other cases counties have become more active because the national govern ment has stimulated and aided them in different fields; for example, in rural housing programs, agriculture and natural resources and protection, full time health departments, and electric ownership, and welfare work.
Counties have made impressive use of these powers and aids.
0 ^Edward W, Weidner, The American County — Patchwork of Boards, (New York: National Municipal League, 194-6), p. 15,
3Ibid. , p, 16, "Of 3,050 counties, full time health departments increased from 762 in 1935 to 1,577 in 1941 and since that time many other states have authorized such units. Over twenty counties have been reported as establishing county planning boards or agencies in the last three years and the actual number is undoubtedly well in excess of this figure. Hardly a month goes by that sev eral counties are not reported as building hospitals."4
Increasing Expenditures in Oklahoma
Oklahoma, counties are no exception in this national trend. As a basic unit of government the county is not dying in this state.
Thus, when the Oklahoma Public Expenditures Council issued its report in 1947 covering the fiscal period between 1939-1946 inclusive, it stated the following facts:
"When expenditures for 1946 are compared with the pre-war year of 1939 it is found that total county expenditures have increased by $2.5 million or 13$. The increase would have been greater had not the amount spent for debt decreased $1,1 million or 27$, The amounts spent for roads increased $3.2 million or 47P. The amount spent for county office increased about $0.4 million or 5$,"5
The Council went on to explain: "The average increase of 5% in the ex penditure for general government may appear mild in these days of increasing prices. But it will be remembered that during 1946 prices had not reached their present level. Since that time the Legislature has granted increases in county salaries. Therefore, while expenditures for general county govern ment increased but slightly from 1939 to 1946, it would seem certain that when / the figures for later years become available they will show decided increases."
This latter prediction has been borne out by the figures released in April 1948 and covering the year 1947.
Says the Council, "Total expenditures of county governments in Oklahoma increased more during fiscal 1947 than they did during the entire preceding eight years,
"Cost of county government during 1947 was more than $24.9 million. This was an increase of $3.6 million in one year,..,"
%eidner, Op, Cit., p. 16.
•^Oklahoma Public Expenditures Council, Cost of County Government in Oklahoma, September, 1947, p, 2.
6lbid., p. 3e Table II. Summary of Expenditures for County Government State of Oklahoma — 1946 and 19397
Year Total County County Debt Offices Roads Service
1946 $21,357,237 $8,358,558 $10,069,110 $2,929,569 1939 18,826,181 7,960,235 6,853,006 4,012,940
Increase 2,531,056 398,323 3,216,104 (-)1,083,371 $ Increase 13% 5$ 47$ (-)27$
As Per Cent of Tc)ta l
1946 100$ 39$ 47$ 14/o 1939 100$ 42$ 37$ 21$
Source: Budgets filed with the State Board of Equalization, The comparable figures showing the actual sums spent make this clear: Table III
Year Total General County Debt Government Roads Service
1939 $18,826,161 • $7,960,235 $6,853,006 $4,012-,940 1946 21,357,237 8',358,558 10,069^110 2,929,569 1947 24,937,355 9,187,279 11,690,873 4,059,203
The per capita cost increases are equally striking:
Table IV
Year Total General County Debt Government Roads Service
1939 $ 8.06 $3.41 $2.93 $1.72 1946 9.14 3.58 4.31 1.25 1947 10.67 3.93 5.00 1.74
'Okla. Public Expenditures Council, Op. Cit., p. 3. (It perhaps should be suggested here that Oklahoma counties appear to be spending more on roads and less on other county functions than are counties generally over the'country (cf. Tables I-IV). This does not indicate in any way, however, that Oklahoma counties are less important than counties elsewhere where proportionately more money is spent on other functions. In the first place the local road program is being more aggressively pushed here than in many "older" states where improved roads are already in existence. Second, the expenditures by the counties of such huge sums for road building is quite as large a "good government" problem as if the same amount of money were spent on other activities. So much spending needs in each instance to be wise and efficient spending. In fact, if wise and efficient spending exists, expendi tures may in some cases actually be considerably reduced,)
At any rate, these statistics indicate the importance of Oklahoma county government even in this day of so called state centralization. The prob lem is to enable the county which is still important to do its job as well as it possibly can.
NATURE AND WEAKNESS OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT — A GENERAL VIM
This brings us at once to the essence of our problem — the nature of county government in the United States- and in Oklahoma, the weaknesses, proposed corrections and barriers to correction, especially constitutional barriers.
In Study 13 of. this series will be found the detailed data of the provisions in the different state constitutions concerning county government in the United States. Reference will be made to this material inhere necessary during the course of the following analysis. Further, this material should prove of value to anyone seriously concerned with the work of constructing constitutional provisions for county government for Oklahoma.
At this point, however, it is pertinent to present a general picture of county government in the United States as provided for by our state consti tutions, and to point out the most fundamental criticisms which have been usually leveled at the present structure and functioning. This £s true because as one can see by reference to the data in Study No. X3, Oklahoma county govern ment follows in many ways the pattern of that in a large number of other-states.^ In certain aspects it is not so good as county government in some states, but in other respects it is better than in some other states. There may be those therefore who, prone to believe that as long as one keeps up with the Joneses one is doing all right, will tend to brush aside the critical portions of an analysis of Oklahoma county government with the rationalization that as long as we follow the trend we need not worry. It is thus necessary at this point to indicate the very sad plight in which county government throughout the United States exists at the present time. The point ought to be placed in this record right away and very plainly that although the Oklahoma constitutional provisions are not the worst in the nation, "this may not be saying very much" since even many of the better state constitutional structures have helped bring county government in this country to a very low level indeed.
^However, as may be seen from the data In Study 13, the majoritjr of Ameri can county governments are only similar concerning a few matters such as the County Board system. Thus the argument that'Oklahoma county governments should not differ from the norm is not too valid either. Legal Status of the County
Thus, it should be noted at once that counties everywhere are in a legal position subordinate to the states and that it is state constitutions, judicial decisions, and state laws which place them there.
"This is in contrast with the ancient Anglo-Saxon shire which enjoyed large local autonomy prior to the governmental centralization which followed the Norman conquest, but has since become largely an administrative district of the general government."9
Practically, as well as legally, the county has come to be merely a sub division of the state, created to render services to rural areas; it derives its existence from the very state constitution on which the state government itself rests; and it has no detailed charter of privileges such as cities secure in specific legislative form.
So it must be repeated, if American county government is weak, it is be cause of the direct or indirect effect of state constitutions.
For example, as we will discuss in detail later, nearly one half of the state constitutions either specifically or by implication crystallize the status quo of existing county boundaries recognizing them as the legal subdivisions. Further, most provisions for changing county lines, moving'county seats, dis solution and merger of counties, consolidation of counties, consolidation of functions, city-county consolidation, are either absent or so drawn as to make needed changes difficult. Requirements are often established, too, that new or old counties must contain minimum amounts of land, property values, and/or population.
The geographical unit is thus embedded in the constitution with strictures on change*
Again, and perhaps more important, the form of the county government is likewise often cemented in the constitution, with possible, change being provided for only by amendments. Only six states provide for alternate or optional forms of county governments and only three authorize the voters to frame their own ' charter. In twelve states township organization is provided for, and in twelve,, uniformity in form of government is required.
The specific form set forth is generally the county board and decentralized administrative system. Thirty-three states provide for either a board of com missioners, supervisors or "judges" to "supervise" the administration of state laws governing counties and make the limited amount of policy which they are authorized to make.
In twenty-eight states most of the administrative offices are provided for in the constitution and required to be filled by election. In perhaps eleven
'Raymond Pinchbeck, Chairman, Virginia Commission of Local Government, "The State Commission of Local Government", National Municipal Review, Vol, 28 (Feb., 1939), p. 80. additional states less than a majority but at least some of the administrative offices arc set forth in the constitutions and are required to be filled by election. (In a number of states thsfce are even detailed residence and other qualifications for these county officers set forth in the constitution.)
Still other provisions in state constitutions which often restrict the form and functioning of county government are limitations placed on the state legislature in passing special or local legislation or the imposing of taxes (a limitation, of course, favorable to the county if a legislature is of low calibre), limitation on the county incurring debts for other than specified purposes, or the requirement that a referendum of the voters be held on a proposition to incur debt, and the limiting of the amount of debt and/or amount of taxes which may be incurred or levied by a county.
The general picture of county government in the United States is there fore plain. The county is a subordinate administrative unit of the state with little will of its own. Even its boundaries are often minutely set forth in state constitutions. Its geographical limits are fixed there. It is "governed" by a board of administrators of state law and by two to eleven other single ad ministrators heading other departments and elected to positions which are in dependent of the county board. It is often limited in how far it may go in incurring debt, how much tax it may levy, and certainly the general form of government it may have.
CRITICISM OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT — GENERAL VIEW
In a day of rapidly changing economic and social life, such a form and condition of county government has often been unable to meet the demands made upon it. Numerous criticisms have been levied against the situation. These have been ably set forth-by different commissions composed of both students and "practical" men: farmers, business men, government officials, and sometimes housewives. Thus the present reporter neither claims nor assumes responsibility for these criticisms being his own.
Summarized, the criticisms and suggestions for improvement fall into five categories:
One: Change needed in the form of county government. Two: Change needed in the area. Three: Change needed in the functions. Four: Improvements needed in the administrative methods. Five: Abolition of the county.
Form of Government (l)
Criticisms with regard to the present form of county government have been largely as follows:
In the first place, as Raymond B. Pinchbeck, Chairman of the Virginia Commission on County Government, wrote in 1939, "County government is not & organized as a county unit with a legislative policy-making board, elected by all the voters of the county, responsible for the administration of all county government affairs. Instead, responsibility is diffused among a large number of independently elected or appointed-^gfficers and boards. County government as a result has no responsible head." A further comment should be added to Mr, Pinchbeck's thought. Increasingly counties have developed certain policy- determining functions and county boards have naturally been given more power because of this fact. It is also true (l) that the boards still are mainly considered to be administrative bodies; and (2) that the regular county ad ministrative departments with elected officers have also been given power to make policy in their areas of activity. That is, instead of the board being considered as the chief policy-making body and the administrators either in dividually or through a central executive being responsible to it for the carry ing out of policy, both policy making and administrative authority have been spread among commissioners and regular administrators on a catch-as-catch-can basis, and to create still further diffusion of policy-making authority and to add to the general -confusion, numerous special boards have gradually been set up, as Professor Edward V/eidner, University of Minnesota, has so ably pointed out in "The American County — Patchwork o£ Boards."H Some of these special boards, it is true, are responsible to the regular county board but some of them "have such a tenuous relationship to the general governing body that they are almost independent special units of government."12 This is in addition to the other numerous ad hoc special units operating within many counties which are entirely independent of the county commissioners or board.13
A second criticism of the prevailing form of county government is that the diffusion of official responsibility causes the government to be undemo cratic and non-responsive to popular control since it is difficult to fix re sponsibility. That is, it is easier for government officers to "pass the buck" when a large number of them have authority over a problem than when only one or a very few may finally be responsible for a solution. The long ballot resulting from the present system also enables bosses to control the government more easily since the bosses are better able to get their men into office. They are able to do this because under the long ballot they are better able to tell the
10 Raymond B, Pinchbeck, Op. Cit,, p. 83. 11 Weidner, Op. Cit., p. 9 ff.
12Ibid.
-^The above discussion, of course, does not mean to imply that counties as such have too much or too little discretionary or policy-making authority at the present time. It refers merely to the fact that the discretion which they do have (be it too much or too little) is too diffused at the county level. The problem of how much discretion counties as government units should have will be commented upon later in the discussion of functions of counties. people who to vote for since the people are confused by the long list of names. The people are in a much better position to know what they are doing when they have to choose only a few officers and these officers are charged with final responsibility for the doing of a job. Thus the people have actually exper ienced more democracy rather than less under the city manager form of government — where the administrative structure is centralized and integrated around one man, a business manager, who is responsible to a relatively small elected coun cil in turn responsible to the people — than they have under the decentralized municipal systems built on the principle of diffused authority and responsibility.
Still a third fault considered by most authorities is that too many techni cal and professional administrative officials are popularly elected or secure' their positions by appointment from other than the central policy making body. The technician is usually not a good political campaigner and vice versa. Therefore, we too often find the American county offices staffed with affable gladhanders or creators of a machine rather than with men trained and exper ienced in their professional activity.
Fourth, not only are the heads of major county departments not responsible to the central county board, but also the minor employees are normally hot re sponsible, and neither are they generally selected under a merit system. This mixes still further diffusion of responsibility with the elements of mere chance or political ability in administrative effort.
Fifth, the monthly or less frequent meetings of county boards do not pro vide round-the-clock service required in a good many urbanized counties. Besides it has long been known on a basis of city governments' experience that the legis lative body should not also serve as the administrative body.
Sixth, the county board lacks a trained and experienced central administrator to execute its policies and ordinances on a continuing basis.
Finally, there is usually inadequate state statutory provison for the removal of corrupt and plainly inefficient local officers and since the county is consti tutionally restricted from taking action itself except through long legal process or refusal to re-elect, incompetent men and even dishonest men remain in office for longer periods than need be the case.
County Area (2)
A second major weakness of the present day county set up has been stated as pertaining to the size of the area. The plain fact seems to be that most counties are too small. They do not conform to the trade area. They lack sufficient tax able wealth. They constitute in large degree mere duplication of governments; they are the luxuries of local pride. In many counties which are small in population and property value but which maintain county court houses and the other parapher nalia of government, more than one citizen can well look at the court house and its inmates and remark, "There goes my breakfast" or "my new suit"; and unneces sarily, too. As one writer has explained, "Counties of today are many times smaller than those of the past when computed in terms of time-distance. The Tennessee Taxpayers Association, for example, claims that that state could be divided into twelve counties (there are now 97) and still place 93 per cent of the people within two hours of their respective county seats,"14
-*Aj. Thomas Askew, "Will Counties Merge?", National Municipal Review, Vol. 23, 1934, pp. 520-521. 10
Functions of County Government (3)
The third major criticism of present county government structure has to do with its functions. The point here is that if counties are to retain their value as government units within the American system they must perform that work which they can do most successfully but not do work which could be done better by other government units.
The real weakness with the present situation probably lies not so much at the door of the county governments themselves but in the erroneous attitude now held about how states governments should function and the consequent activity of the latter.
"States governments are unique in an important respect — law is made on the state level, but enforced largely on a local level; that is, by adminis trative officers locally elected. The state is the only important governing unit which does not place its enforcement agencies on the same level with its law making authorities.3-5
"Obviously it is the intent of the legislative body that law shall apply uniformly, but this characteristic of law, in the practical sense, rests upon the manner of its administration. Administrators accountable politically to 77 distinct electorates (Oklahoma) will fall far short of applying laws uniformly in all parts of the states. Voters must forgive one weakness, if weakness it be, in the office holder — he tends ordinarily to conduct himself in a manner which will assure his re-election."16
"The weakness of this administrative scheme is evident, most obviously perhaps, in the assessment of property for tax purposes. If any assessor in Oklahoma would assess property according to the standard established by the Con stitution or perhaps by the legislature:, he probably would be socially as well as politically ostracized. The result is approximately 77 varieties of assess ment under assessment laws presumed to be uniform in their operation.
"It is at least debatable whether state law can ever be satisfactorily ad ministered while responsibility for its administration rests in large degree upon locally elected administrators. The proper basis for local government, and popular choice of local officials, is local problems which demand for their so lution the exercise of discretionary or law-making powers....
"If local'and state governments are to meet demands for public services satisfactorily, any attempt to revise the Constitution should consider the possi bilities in a reshifting of local and state functions. In some respects local units act in fields where they are poorly equipped to serve. In others, counties in particular are hampered because their discretionary or ordinance making powers are negligible if they exist at all. They cannot serve uniquely local needs which genuine local governments are designed to serve."17
^H, V, Thornton, Affairs of the State", Sooner Magazine, February, 1945, p. 20.
l6Ibid. 11
This criticism is well taken.
On the one hand the counties need to be given real discretionary power in order to justify their existence. Thus, for one thing, many authorities are agreed that the county should certainly have the power of determining its own structure of government — home rule in selection of a charter; and many are also agreed that that county discretion over various line services and regu latory functions should be strengthened. For example, many believe that the county is the natural unit for public health work.l^ There are also those who think that the county schools should not be separate from the supervision of the county government, i'^e., independent governments in themselves as they are now. ' In fact an excellent case may be made for giving the counties considerable dis cretionary powers with regard to those newer functions which they have recently been'authorized to undertake such as zoning and planning, recreation, conserva- tion, libraries, memorials, rural, sanitation, etc.
On the other hand counties certaiiiLy are performing functions now as mere administrative units of the state which ought to be performed by regular state level administrative agencies. Assessment is a function mentioned by Professor Thornton which might well be tied in more closely with the state authority. Another outstanding example is the matter of policing. More and more people are coming to see the need for strengthening the state constabulary to make it an agency which will more strong^ supplement the locally elected sheriff in safety work. That is, the present thought is that the city police may well continue to take care of safety needs in the areas of concentrated population while the ' state police, stationed advantageously throughout the less well populated areas, should take care of highway and the more important rural safety needs. Thus the state would secure more uniform enforcement of the law and a more efficient enforcement backed by a central intelligence and command.
However it should finally be pointed out in connection with the criticism of county functions that changes need not only be made through transfer of authority from the state to counties and vice versa, but that provision ought to be made in any constitutional revision for the establishment of inter-county agencies which may better perform certain functions now performed by individual counties or cared for by one county and ignored by the other surrounding ones. Health and welfare work, including hospital work are outstanding examples here. Consolidation of functions within counties, too, certainly ought to be one of the foremost considerations. And finally city-county consolidation ought to be made possible with a minimum of legal obstacles.
18See National Municipal Review (1932), Vol. 21, p. 499, M-, E. Barnes, M.D.
'"The county schools are governed and administered by boards and officials largely beyond the control of county voters. Frequently these school boards and officials are actually separate governments apart from the general county govern ment, with levying powers and little or no responsibility to the central legis lative policy-making board of the county at large. The county schools should be a department of the general government of the county, subject, of course, to state department of education standards of performance and supervision." Pinchbeck, Op, Cit., p. 84.
20See p. 2 of this study. 12
Improvement of Administrative Methods (4)
The fourth criticism of counties which involves the weakness of prevalent administrative structure and functioning stresses the fact that county functions are often not properly departmentalized (with the heads of the administrative departments being appointed by and responsible to the central policy-making body). Although this is merely the previous criticism of the prevailing county form, it is proper to restate it in this connection especially in view of the extended effect of the general form in terms of particular details of the administrative structure and functioning. Thus, county government accounting, auditing, budget ing, and reporting activities are often left with individual departments; there is no responsibility or only partial responsibility for them to the central policy body and consequently they are often thoroughly inadequate to give proper fiscal control of the county's financial life. Also, a great many counties lack modern centralized purchasing offices responsible and equipped for making purchases under competitive bids for the county departments including the schools. Again, most counties lack an adequate system for the assessment of properties and other tax- ables and for tax equalization. The result is that striking discrimination arises, between different citizens owning real estate, tangible and intangible per sonal property, etc. Also the salaries of all or even most of the county officers and employees are not always under the central policy/ body. All revenues and fees are not always centrally paid to the county treasurer and numerous expenditures are permitted to be made under authority other than the board'and outside the county budget. Finally there is often no adequate program for the proper recruit ment, selection, pay, placement, promotion, training, recreation, supervision, separation or retirement of officials and employees for service in the county government. All in all, if businesses were organized like most counties are in terms of the mere machinery of the business the results might be calamitous to their solvency.
The fifth thought of some of the criticism of present county government, that the county ought to be abolished, need not be summarized in detail here. Such action is entirely too remote if it be considered as meaning complete abo lition of the county and the erection of entirely new state subdivisions of rural or metropolitan government. However, since even the most serious critics do not call for more than a 60 per cent reduction in present counties the sug gestion may be considered (as we already have done) as meaning that certain counties shall be abolished through consolidations with each other or with cities, or through consolidation of functions or transference of certain functions to the state. That the future is going to see considerable reduction in number of counties take place is certain. Despite political and financial special in terest pressures, the people are not going to continue to pay for duplicate governments indefinitely.
However this may be, the foregoing is the general picture of American county government and the criticisms which have been made of it, and by impli cation at least the suggestions for its improvement (the experience with those suggestions will be discussed in some detail later in this paper and in the next two;studies of this series.) 13
As we now come, therefore, to the discussion of Oklahoma county government it should be plain that although Oklahoma county government follows the general pattern in structure and functioning this does not mean that it is beyond the pale of criticism. In some respects it partakes of the same weaknesses as county government in the United States generally does.
COUNTY GOVERNMENT IN OKLAHOMA — DESCRIPTION
(The immediately ensuing material is intended as merely the con stitutional and legal description of county government in Oklahoma. Following this is a discussion of the weaknesses resulting from this present constitutional and legal situation. Some duplication of material was therefore found to be necessary for the sake of clarity. For the most part, however, the later discussion constitutes a consi derable elaboration upon the problem, and will be found to contain additional material.)
Most descriptions of county government in Oklahoma begin by stating that the formation and existence of the Oklahoma county depend upon the state. Thus Article 17, section 1 of the Constitution is cited as providing that counties are bodies politic and corporate. Furthermore, Supreme Court decisions such as Herndon v. Anderson21 are cited as stating that a county is an involuntary political subdivision of the state without inherent powers, and it is merely a quasi-municipal corporation charged by law with certain governmental and ad ministrative functions as are other state agencies.
Such a statement stresses the dependency of the county on the state. It suggests to those who see weaknesses in present county government resulting from poor state laws governing counties that if counties were relieved of cer tain state restrictions their governmental functioning would be vastly improved. (This is the argument of the Home Rule advocates.)
However, this fact of the constitutional provisions (and the consequent legal and judicial actions of the state) making the county dependent upon the state should likewise be considered in reverse perspective in judging'the result ing effect upon county government structure and functioning. That is, looked at from the other side it may be seen that county government is not weak merely because of the constitutional subordination of the county to the state but be cause its character is so constitutionally determined that the state govern ment is restricted to considerable degree in attempting to improve it. The very provisions which make it a mere subdivision of the state crystallize its present character so that the legislature is unable to bring its government up to date.
Restriction on Area
In the first place its very territorial existence is not only determined by constitutional description but its present boundaries are thereby practically guaranteed from change by the legislature.
21165 Oklahoma 104, 25 Pacific (2d) 326. 14
Thus, the county is recognized as a legal subdivision of the state22 and the boundaries of the different counties are set forth in detail in the Consti tution from fence post to running brook.23 It must be repeated the very areas of present Oklahoma counties are cemented or at least heavily glued in the Constitution.
It is true that the Constitution provides that the legislature may pass laws creating new counties or altering existing counties but it goes on to bind the hands of the state by requiring that before such law may be effective an election must be held in the territory concerned and the law approved by sixty per cent of those voting.2^ It is further provided that any new county must contain at least four hundred' square miles of taxable area, a population of at least 15,000 and at least $2,500,000 of taxable wealth as shown by the current tax rolls. No territory can be taken from an existing county if it would place the newly created county line within ten miles of the county seat of the established county. Nor may any territory be taken from a county if the taxable area, population, or taxable wealth would be reduced below the minimum requirements for a new county or if the reduced county would then be smaller in area than the county to which the addition was made. If an addition is made to an existing county, a majority of the electors of that county must approve the transfer in addition to the sixty per cent approval of the electors residing within the territory to be transferred.25 If the transfer be to a new county a 60 per cent vote of the electors in the territory to be transferred alone is necessary, no vote being needed in the new county,
Disorganizing the County. - Even if the value of the taxable property of a county becomes less than $2,500,000 the county may only be disorganized upon petition of twenty-five per cent of the qualified voters of the county and a favorable majority vote of those voting on the question at the next general election after the petition has been filed. A county which is disorganized in such way is attached to and becomes a part of the adjoining county having the lowest valuation of taxable property. It remains in this state until its voters by a similar petition and vote favor a separate organized county existence. A county which is disorganized is to be in all respects a part of the county to which it is united. An unorganized county is entitled to four terms of the county court at its ^county seat each year and the county judge is to appoint a clerk of the county court who is a qualified elector of the unorganized county and is to maintain an office at the county seat of the unorganized county,2 °
Thus the state is unable to disorganize a county no matter the smallness to which the valuation may fall, or no matter how sensible this may be in the light of growing government costs and low assets. Local private interests may not only check action on the part of the state in this regard; it is local interests alone which may initiate action.
22Article XVII, section 1. 22Article XVII, section 8.
^Article XVII, section 4- 25lbid.
^Article XVII, section 5, 15
But further, county seats may be relocated only upon petition of twenty- five per cent of the voters of the county and a favorable two-thirds vote of the voters of the county.2' This, too, aids in guaranteeing the existing county character.
County Consolidation in Oklahoma. There is no provision in the Oklahoma Constitution for consolidation of counties other than through the substantive and procedural provisions just described (i.e., referendum, size of area, popu lation, valuation, etc.). There is no provision for city-county consolidation or separation nor for consolidation of the county functions of two or more counties (a plan which we shall see sometimes aids greatly in caring for grow ing necessities which counties are unable to meet by themselves).
It is provided however that where changes in county areas do take place there must be a just (i.e., judicially determined) division of property, assets, and liability between old and new areas.
Restrictions on Form
With regard to form and functions, Oklahoma has not bound itself so em barrassingly in its Constitution as it has in terms of territory. A large part of the blame for weakness in structure and function lies directly at the door of the people and their representatives unless there has been a misapprehension on the part of the voters and legislators. This does not mean that the consti tutional provisions concerning county government are the best possible and that the constitution does not need revision in certain particulars to improve the form and function of county government,28
However, due to "excepting clauses" plus conspicuous omissions the legis lature seems to be relatively free in determining the form of government which counties shall have.
The statement "seems to be" is used because attempts have not been made actually to modify the "regular" structure, nor for example to provide by law for optional forms, and the courts have not judicially determined the degree of restriction which the constitution does place upon the legislature in this regard.
However, the following description "seems", as we say, to hold true with regard to the form of county government.29 The constitution provides', subject to statutory change, for the following county officers: County Judge, County
2?Article XVII, section 6.
2yFor example, as we shall note, change should be made in restrictive clauses in regard to debts and taxes. Also provision should be made for the legislature to set up optional forms of county government which counties may adopt.
2'The author is indebted to Marvin Hambrick for aid in legal research con cerning the form of Oklahoma county government. 16
Attorney, District Court Clerk,30 County Clerk,31 Sheriff, County Treasurer, Registrar of Deeds,3 County Surveyor, Superintendent of Public Instruction, three County Commissioners, and the municipal township officers provided for by the laws of the territory.33 The establishment of these county officers is limited by the clause, "except as in this Constitution otherwise provided. "J>* In accordance with this limitation the Supreme Court held in Nichols v. Levy-^ that the legislature could not provide for two county judges by statutory change because the office of the county judge was created by Article Til, Section 11, of the Constitution and was not subject to statutory change. With the exception of county judge, the other officers enumerated above are not created elsewhere in the Constitution^ and they are, therefore, as far as we know, subject to statutory change. For example, the offices may be enlarged or diminished or transferred to district and state officers, as the legislature sees fit,37 Justices of the peace are township and not county officers and have constitutional jurisdiction within their townships only. 3°
Salary Changes. Article XXIII, Section 10, prohibits any change in salary or emoluments of any public official after his election or appointment, or during his term of office, unless it is by operation of law enacted prior to his election or appointment. This section further provides that all public officers within the state shall continue to perform their duties until their successors have been duly qualified. This section applies to the county officers listed above.^"
30oklahoma Statutes 1941, Title 19, Section 221. "The office of clerk of the district court, clerk of the county court in all counties and clerk of the superior court in a county in which a superior court is located are hereby consolidated and the successor to the clerks of the different courts herein referred to shall be designated and known as the 'bourt clerk" and shall per form all duties now provided by laws to be performed by the district clerk, clerk of the county court, and clerk of the superior court." Laws 1913, Oh, l6l, p. 330, Section 1; Laws 1915, Ch. 6, Section 1, Act held not a delegation of legislature. Bennett v. State, 47 Okl. 503, 150 Pacific 198. Construction and application. Ratliff v. Fleener, 43 Okl. 652, 143 Pacific 1051; Board of Com? missioners of Oklahoma County v. Beaty, 53 Okl. 393, 156 P. 1181.
33-Ibid.
320klahoma Statutes, 1941, Title 19, Section 228. The office of Registrar of Deeds has been consolidated with office of County Clerk in all counties of the State. Laws 1913, Ch. 161, p. 332, Section 5; Laws 1915, Ch. 6, Section 2, Validity, Bennett v. State, 47 Okl, 503, 150 P. 198; Ratliff v. Fleener, 43 okl. 652, 143 P. 1051.
33Article XVII, Section 2. 34Article XVII, Section 2.
35l5i Okla. 245, 1 Pac. (2d) 766. 36Njch0is v. Levy, op cit. 3?Childs v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 474, 113 Pac. 545, 33 L.R.A,-N.S. 563. 3#Leiber v, Argenbright, 25 Okla. 177, 105 Pac. 341; Hart v. Grove, 76 Okla. 179; 184 Pac. t72. 39carrico v. Couch, 45 Okla. 472; 146 Pac. 447, applies Article XXIII, Sec tion 10 to an attempted increase in salary for the County Supt. of Public Instr, County courts, justice of the peace courts and municipal courts are estab lished by Article VII, Section 1 of the Constitution. A county court is estab lished as a court of record and the county judge, who must be a qualified voter, resident of the county and an attorney, is elected for a two-year term,40 The jurisdiction of the county courts is also defined in considerable measure by the Constitution,41
Restrictions on Functions
With regard to functions of counties the Constitution requires that counties provide for inhabitants who by reason of age, infirmity, or misfortune, have "claims upon the sympathy and aid of the county," the method of providing such aid to be prescribed by law. 42 in a related provision43 the state is required to establish and maintain institutions for the benefit of the insane, blind, deaf and mute. However the Supreme Court has held that this provision does not operate as a limitation on either the authority or duty of the county to provide the aid required of it.44 But the state cannot impose expenses of maintaining public patients in state hospitals on the county of comniitment or residence.45 (The state legislature may, of course, add other functions to those listed in the Constitution and has done so. The above are merely those required of counties by the Constitution.)
Financial Limitations - Debt. There are also several important constitu tional provisions restrictively controlling the financial life of counties. Li the first place there are limitations with regard to incurring debt. Thus counties as well as other political subdivisions are not allowed to become in debted in any manner nor for any purpose to an amount exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided for such year (i.e., incur other than current, floating debts) unless the question of incurring the debt be submitted to the voters of the county at any election and three-fifths of such voters voting at the election favor the debt.46 Further, even then the amount of debt that may be incurred is limited to five per cent of the assessed valuation of the taxable property in the county as determined by the last state assessment of such property.^-' Still further, previously or at the time of the incurring of this
40Article VII, Section 11,
4lArticle VII, Sections 12-14, Also see Nance v. State,, 41 Okla. Cr. 383, 203 Pac. 484.
42Article XVII, Section 3. 43Article XXI, Section 1.
44Excise Board of Ottawa County v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., I76 Okla. 641, 57 "Pac. (2d) 261.
4.^Board of Commissioners of Logan County v. State, 122 Okla. 268, 254 Pac.710
46Article X, Section 26.
47Ibid. For the specific legal discussion of constitutional debt limits see pp. 35-37 of this study. For example, counties are unable to exceed debt limit to purchase public utilities: Faught Case, debt provision must be made for a tax levy to cover interest on the debt as it falls due and to establish a sinking fund for the payment of the principal within twenty-five years from the time the debt is incurred.48
Financial Limitations on Counties — Taxes. The legislature is forbidden to levy taxes for county purposes but is to confer on the proper county authorities theL power to ley;/ and collect such taxes as may be needed for county purposes.49 The total amount of taxes on an'ad valorem basis that may be levied for all govern mental purposes including state, county, city, town and school district is 15 mills (with exceptions noted below) to be divided among the different governments as provided by law.5°
An additional five mills may be levied for public buildings in the different local government units.^ A final provision with regard to finance bars the legis lature from authorizing counties (or other local government units) from becoming stockholders in any company, association, or corporation or to obtain or appro priate money for or levy any tax, or to loan or give credit to any corporation, association, or individual.?2
Bans on Special and Local Legislation. Generally the legislature is prohibited from passing any legislation (except as otherwise provided in the constitution) regulating the .affairs of counties, or creating offices or prescribing the powers and duties of officers in counties.53 (There seems to be an inconsistency between this last provision and Article XVII, Section 2, which apparently letsthe legis lature change county officers.)
Legal Description of County Government
The above constitutional provisions created a county government following the form described below and based upon the ensuing legal situation.
The Officers; The county government is headed by a board of three elected commissioners plus ten other elected officers precisely named in the constitution. The only one of these officers whose election is constitutionally provided for is the county judge. The election of all the other officers is provided for by law. Also unless the provisions of Article V, Section 46, supersede Article XVII, Section 2, the legislature may change any of the county offices except that of judge and justice of the peace,54 By being able to do this it could change the actual struc ture and function of the present governments to a considerable degree.
4&Ibid. . 49Article X, Section 20.
50The law establishes a county excise board which apportions the millage among the governmental units. Five mills must be allocated to schools.
2 ^Article X, Section 10. 5 Article x? Section 17.
-^Article V, Section 46. 54 „ . Of course, the latter are in a sense township rather than county officers. 19
Powers, Duties, and Functioning. Further, the constitution does not pre scribe the powers and duties- of the different county officers except that of judge. As far as the Constitution is concerned the whole group of officers could sit as a county board; or the functions of the different officers named, other than the commissioners, or the function of all the officers except that of one commissioner could be transferred to the one commissioner, or no function be given to anyone to do anything.
Apparently, of course, it .was the intention of the writers of the Constitution as indicated in large degree by the laws which have been passed in pursuance of the Constitution that some of the state laws would be administered by the county com missioners, and some would be administered by the different other constitutionally named officers. Precisely what the "fathers" had in mind is a guess, but a good guess would be that they intended the division of function to be like it is in other states having a similar c'ounty set up. Precisely where the line should be drawn between the powers of the different county officers performing supposedly "local" or "purely county" functions is also not clear. There is simply nothing in the Constitution about it.
Acting on a legal basis, therefore, the commissioners presumably sit as direct ing heads of the county government. Of course, by the very nature of the county government structure they do so act only within a limited scope. They exercise direct control over the county highway system. They have some power of appoint ment.- However, this is limited to selecting the county Home Demonstrator, the Farm Agent, County Engineer, and Superintendent of the Poor Farm, plus immediate office personnel.
Although it is their responsibility to make finaneia.l plans for the county their discretionary authority in this regard and relative to control of county finances generally is considerably limited by other units of government.
Limitations on Functions of Commissioners. In the first place, the state it-' self directly circumscribes the authority of the commissioners in the constitution, by statute, and by various state officers such as the State Equalization Board and the County Excise and County Equalization Boards, The latter two agencies are particularly important in county financial activity. These agencies which are of statutory origin are the so-called "watchdogs" on the budgeting and spending of local governments,' Both boards are made up of the same individuals; they are com posed of three men, one of whom is appointed by the County Commissioners, one by the District Judge and one by the State Tax Commission; When they sit as the County Board of Equalization they act as agents of the County, correcting, adjusting, and equalizing the assessment rolls of the county. When they sit as the County Excise Board they act as a state agency examining the budgets of the various local govern ment units, including the county, to see that the budgets will not require a tax levy greater than the constitutional limit of 15 mills, and to levy additional mills to take care of county debts falling due for the current year.
Other statutory limitations upon the commissioners are exerted more directly through provisions defining the salaries of the various other county officers and defining the amounts of money which may be expended for certain purposes. Needless to say, the very fact that these other officers are selected independently of the commissioners also removes them from as close financial administrative control by the commission as would otherwise be the case. 20
Subject, however, to the above limitations on the commissioners and to certain legal rules laid down for their guidance in regard to the following, the purchase, maintenance, and sale of county property is vested in them.
Other County Officers. The functions of the other county officers are also defined by law and are indicated by the names given to the different officials. There is the Treasurer, in charge of the custody of funds and administration of financial affairs (except for the overlapping authority of the commissioner, etc.); the Superintendent of Schools in charge of education, the Assessor in charge of the assessment of property, County Clerk supervising the-recording of records, the Sheriff charged with protection of life and property, etc.
The provisions governing the qualification and terms of county officers are purely legal and need not be discussed in detail in this analysis. The term of county officers is two years. A candidate for county judge must be a lawyer. He must also hold a license to practice in any court of record of the State. The County Attorney must hold a state license. The County Treasurer must be bonded in the sum of at least $50,000. He cannot hold office more than two successive terms. A candidate for County Superintendent of Public Instruction must meet certain educational standards to be eligible for office. All candidates must be citizens and qualified voters of the county.
The above, then, is a legal and practical survey of the structure of Oklahoma County Government. It has attempted to make clear that a part of that structure is defined by the actual wording of the Constitution and that other parts are described purely by law and has attempted to set forth the line between these two sources of existence as clearly as it is possible to do.
As already suggested, the general structure and functioning of this government has brought considerable criticism from regular voting citizens, practicing poli tical leaders, and governmental administrators, as well as students and so-called "theorists." Too often it is true, however, that the line of criticism has not been clearly directed at the source of the trouble, namely whether it be the Con stitution or the law, but just generally at the way "the thing works," It is the purpose of the following analysis therefore not only to set forth the criticisms which are generally leveled at our county government but to distinguish the real object of complaint as clearly as possible.
CRITICISMS — A SUMMARY STATEMENT OF THE SAME
We have already outlined the criticisms which have been made of American counties. Insofar as Oklahoma counties follow the typical pattern (and generally' they do) the same criticisms apply here. Broadly they fall into three categories. First, county government costs too much — that it, more than it needs to cost. Second, county government is inefficient as now established in structure and in function. Third, real, effective democracy is lacking despite the pretense to "democracy" made by defenders of the present system.
Applying these charges to the specific situation, the following conclusions seem pertinent. 21
First: The area of county government in Oklahoma is subject to criticism, ^here appear to be too many counties in Oklahoma, Although the county as a local unit of government is not obsolete, there are some counties which are too small in area proportionate to their population. That is, there are too few people in the present areas and too small property valuation to support a government. There might, therefore, well be consolidation of counties and/or consolidation of func tions now performed separately by adjoining counties. In certain cases there might even be city-county consolidation. And here it should be noted that although change in county boundaries, including county consolidation, is already provided for in the present constitution, the procedure is discouraging to such change and therefor the constitution needs to be changed to permit change to take place more easily. Further city-county consolidation needs to be provided for constitution ally which it is not at the present time,
^he above statements are not made on a basis of pure theory. On the other hand, there is considerable evidence to support these beliefs.
The Specific Evidence -~(l) County Consolidation
One of the most conclusive pieces of evidence that considerable saving in the cost of Oklahoma county government could be made through decreasing the number of counties is to"be found in data prepared several years ago under the direction of Professor H, V, Thornton and published by the Bureau of Government Research of the Department of Government, University of Oklahoma.
This data is a per capita cost study of government in the different Oklahoma counties.55
Before presenting the actual statistics and conclusions of the report . certain explanations are necessary concerning the procedure and nomenclature used in it.
In the first place, in order to overcome the limitations imposed by such a study the costs were organized into three classes or categories; (l) Total Costs; (2) Total Costs less Highways and Capital Outlays; and (3) Operation and Maintenance of General Government.
"'Operation and Maintenance of General Government' is a classification regularly used in the reports of the Oklahoma Tax Commission. It includes costs of the following county offices:- attorney, treasurer, commissioners, clerk, assessor, surveyor, county clerk, justices of the peace, district court, county court, and additional items including expenditures for general (county) govern ment, biennial audit and cemeteries. It does not include costs for the offices of the sheriff and the superintendent of education.
"'Total Costs' are calculated by the Tax Commission. But 'Total Costs less Highways and Capital Outlays' will not be found in this agency's studies as a distinct classification. It is used here because there is the widespread conviction that counties, under modern conditions and as now organized, are no longer able to build roads with due regard for economy.
55H. V. Thornton, Comparative Costs of County Government in Oklahoma (unpublished report), 1940. 22
"Road building today calls for large scale organization, central purchasing of tools, machines, fuel, lubricants and other essential materials, as well as skilled engineers in direct control of road building operations, and free from the impact of political removal. Few, if any, of these conditions are met in the building of local highways in this state,
"Capital outlays are represented in expenditures for court houses, jails, and other permanent structures. They have been deducted from the total costs, along with highway construction and maintenance, because in important respects they are not of the nature of continuous or current costs."5°
A second explanation of the procedure used which should be noted is that average costs over a period of three years 1937-1939 were used instead of costs for a single year. Also the final population returns for 1940 were used to re duce costs to a per capita basis.
Finally, the counties were arranged in terms of (l) population; (2) density of population (people per square mile); and (3) area. Each classification of counties recognized eight groups, as indicated in the following tables.
In the first of the several tables, counties are classified on the basis of population, and per capita costs are calculated for each group. Table V.57
POPULATION
Groups Population Range No. of Counties
I 10,000 or less 5 II 10,001 to 20,000 28 III 20,001 to 30,000 20 IV 30,001 to 40,000 8 V 40,001 to 50,000 9 VI 50,001 to 60,000 3 VII 60,001 to 70,000 2 VIII over 100,000 2
Average per capita costs, 1937-1939
Total less (a) Gen. Gov't Population Population Group Total Hwys:C. 0. 0. & M. (b) Group Cumulative
I $20.03 $7.23 $3.93 37,118 37,118 II 9.25 4.44 2;i3 415,673 455,791 III 8.07 3.92 1.67 481,188 -933,979 IV 7.53 3.46 1.57 281,623 1,215,60a V 5.03 3.51 1.41 396,214 1)611;816 VI 8.02 3.71 1.50 159,981 1,771,797 VII 7.82 3.69 1.70 127,115 1,898,912 VIII 7.57 4.78 2.11 437,522 2,336,434
(a) Total less Highways and Capital Outlays, (b) Operation and Maintenance of general government. 56 57 Thornton, pp. 4-5. Thornton, p. 6. 23
The above table shows that there is a general decline in the cost of county government until the group of counties having between fifty and sixty thousand in population is reached. The counties having the lowest per capita cost fall in the forty to fifty thousand population class. After this costs increase in marked degree. Some of the more obvious reasons for this fact are explained below,^8
As a matter of fact, it is plain that even in the group (VIII) having the largest population the total costs are well below those in the average county (those between 10,000 and 30,000 population). It is the cost of operation and maintenance of general government and total costs minus highways and capital outlays which show such a marked increase. "These increases are accounted for to a considerable extent by the greater per capita expenditure in Oklahoma and Tulsa for relief and welfare,"5°
It is not so easy to explain the fact that total costs in groups VI and VII (including the counties of Creek, Okmulgee, Pottawatomie, Muskogee and Seminole) exceed in most respects the average per capita cost in Tulsa and Oklahoma counties. However, "A part of the increase is explained by the provisions of the gross pro duction tax law. A percentage of such revenues is returned to the counties, in which the mineral wealth is produced, for the construction and maintenance of roads. All of these counties participate in this arrangement, particularly Pottawatomie and Seminole, the latter receiving (1939) more than two dollars and fifty cents per capita. By way of comparison, Oklahoma County received in the same year less than ninety-five cents per capita, while the amount returned to Tulsa was negligible."60
A second method of attempting to learn the best possible size of counties in terms of unit costs was found to be that of classifying counties according to density of population. The calculations arrived at in following this proce dure are presented in Table VI,
58 The fact that such an increase takes place in the case of those counties having the largest number of persons, the metropolitan counties, is not difficult to comprehend. As urban life increases, citizens demand more services and con- sequentljr the overall total cost of government increases in urban counties. If there were accurate measurements made per unit cost, the latter would probably still show a decline even in the urban counties, although it is true that a point is reached (similar to diminishing returns in economics) where the very compli- - cations in administrative servicing, in turn created by such an increased system, force a large unit cost into being.
^"Thornton, Op. Cit., p. 9.
Ibid, p, 7. It is worth observing, also, that some of these counties lost considerable population, according to the latest census, and for several years past have probably been paying county salaries at a higher rate than they will hereafter. A reduction of the salary scale of a dozen or more officers in each count}?- will have some effect on per capita costs in these groups." 24
Table VI6 1
DENSITY
Group Density Range Counties
I 00.0 - 10 6 II 10.1 - 20 13 III 20.1 - 30 24 IV 30.1 - 40 17 V 40.1 - 50 4 VI 50.1 - 60 5 VII 60,1 - 70 1 VIII 70.1 - above 7
Average per capita costs, 1937-1939
Total less 0. &. M. Population Population Total Hwys. C.Q, Gen. Govt Group Cumulative
$18,19 $6,78 $3.67 47,854 47,854 10.58 4,95 2.77 218,598 266,452 8.08 3.90 1.74 478,965 745,417 6,99 3.37 1.44 496,137 1,241,554 6.82 3.80 1.47 3.37,629 1,379,183 8.53 3.75 1.51 221,728 1,600,911 7.61 3.35 1.52 54,377 1,655,288 7.60 4c45 1.99 681,146 2,366,434
Here it is apparent that per capita costs follow closely the range of per capita costs derived from Table V. Again, up to a point, costs decrease as popu lation density increases. The lowest total unit cost being again in Group 5 (density 40.1-50 per square mile).
However, Group VII shows the lowest degree of unit cost in terms of Total Cost Less Highways and Capital Outlay and Group IV shows the lowest unit cost in operation and maintenance of general government. The degrees of difference though are not large enough to indicate substantial change in the conclusion reached on a basis of Table V. What Table VI does indicate is that if counties are to be reorganized on a basis of costs alone, density of population must definitely be considered. Up to a given point increasing density decreases costs. After this point is reached increased density decreases costs. This means that county lines can not be drawn in order simply to include a certain sized pop ulation. The density of the population must be considered since this factor does not permit as arbitrary lines to be drawn as might otherwise be the case. This in turn is true because density of population is caused to such a degree by social and economic forces.
61Thornton , p. 8, 25
The preceding conclusions lead immediately to another question.' That question is whether the area of the county, as an independent factor, influences the cost of county government. That is, supposing the density of the population of an area to be approxi mately the same throughout the area, might not that area receive the same quality of services at proportionately less cost if it were constituted as one county than if it were divided into two or more?
An attempt was made to answer this question In the report by classifying counties according to area those whose densities varied between ten persons per square mile and forty persons per square mile (that is, the largest number of counties In the state as can be seen by reference to Tables V and Vl). Thus, in Table VII which follows there is shown the costs of fifty-one counties whose densities fall within these limits. Nineteen of these counties have areas exceeding nine hundred miles; thirty-five have areas which fall below this figure. Table VII6 2 Average Per Capita Costs, 1937-1939
Area Costs Total less 0. & M. Total Average Counties Sq. Miles Total Hwys. C.O, Gen. Govt. Pop. Density
19 917 -2277 $8.19 $3.82 $1.62 521,087 22.1 35 419 - 897 8.13 3.87 1.84 672,613 27.6
The results indicate that total costs are slightly less, on the per capita basis, for the smaller counties. However when highway costs, which are cared for almost entirely out of state collected revenues, are deducted from the total costs, the larger counties obviously conducted government at a cheaper rate. Furthermore, it is important to see that the average density of population of the smaller counties is considerably greater than that of the larger counties and this fact works to their advantage as is indicated by Table VI where it was found that county costs continued to decline as density increased up to sixty persons per square mile. Thus Table VIII shows the result when the average den sity of a group of counties of a large area is substantially the same as a group of counties of a small area. ff. Table VIII * Average Per Capita Costs, 1937-1939
Area Costs Total less' 0. & M. Total Average Counties Sq. Miles Total Hwys. C. 0. Gen. Govt, Pop. Density
10 710-1897 $7.71 $3.78 stl.oo 332,695 24.4 14 419- 658 8.83 4.18 1.96 146,270 25.5
62 Thornton, Op.Cit.. p. 10. 63 Ibid 26
"On a basis of these calculations, there seems to be good ground for con- ,, eluding that our larger counties are more economical units of local government," In fact, the figures do not indicate so great a saving as would actually take place if the present number of counties were reduced to twenty-four or twent3^- five for it is plain that the greatest reduction of costs will occur in the operation and maintenance of general government and these are costs which involve mainly the ordinary operation of the county court houses.
"There is reason for believing, however, that a very considerable reduction of costs would follow in other respects.. County roads, as already pointed out, are financed almost entirely from state collected funds. Counties, as now or ganized, are poorly equipped to build roads. The enlarged county could continue this function on a much more economical basis because it would permit the estab lishment of a larger organization which might take advantage of purchasing in larger order, the systematic testing of materials the employment of scientific skills necessary in the construction of modern roads and highways,
"Furthermore, fewer counties, in the long run, will reduce outlays for capital structures. There will be fewer county court houses, jails and other permanent structures to maintain and, in numerous instances, to rebuild,"65
The preceding data surely furnishes considerable evidence of the financial value of reducing the number of present counties in Oklahoma., creating fewer counties and of larger size. It indicates that counties comprising at least 40,000 persons and with a population density of 30 to 50 persons per square mile, constitute the most advantageous size. While the lines cannot be arbi trarily drawn in terms of density, this factor can be considered in terms of area,.
Still another piece of evidence to the same point — that county conso lidation or redrawing of county lines would be advantageous to the citizen is to be found in data taken from the Brookings Institute's Report66 0n Oklahoma Government, This gives a comparison in cost of county government as related to assessed valuation. Thus the following Table shows that the cost of county government per dollar of assessed valuation is higher in counties of low valu ation and it indicates that consolidation of several counties might bring an equalization of tax rates in poorer counties.
^Thornton, p. 11. Ibid. 66 The Brookings Institution, Organization and Administration of Oklahoma (1935), P. 372 27
67 Table IX
County 1932 1932-33 Tax Rate Valuation Govt. Costs in Mills
$14,747,131 $143,723 9.75 14,676^489 137,700 9.3S 6,271^113 78,647 12.54 24,258,116 303,273 12.50 6,250,171 90,437 14.47 4,771,011 71,639 15.02 5,792,644 76,852 13.27
7 .$76,766,675 $902,271 Avg. 11.75
Note: This Table is based on actual records of costs of county government 1932-33 and includes all expenditures for county offices not including payments for nongovernmental costs such as principal on debt, transfers between funds, etc.
As this table shows, if the total government cost of all seven counties be spread over the total valuations there results a decreased tax rate for five of the seven counties. "Thus, consolidation by causing tax levies to be spread over a larger area than that of the present sized county, tends to offset the differen ces between localities in the value of taxable wealth." This is true despite the fact that in two of the counties noted above the tax rates would be increased thus providing opposition on the part of a portion of the community to a program of consolidation.
In any case the foregoing evidence does indicate that consolidation of some counties, carried through with careful study and judicial consideration of all possible factors, may result in an improved financial status for the local govern ments concerned and consequently for the citizens' pocketbook and/or the services he receives.
At least the evidence indicates that the legal procedure for consolidation should be made as simple and attractive as is possible. In this regard we shall note later how provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution might be revised or might be omitted'entirely in order to encourage the various types of consolidation to take place.
67Ibid,, p. 372.
68Ibid. 28
Other Types of Consolidation.
As the Brookings Report points out, "County consolidation proposes to achieve its purpose by increasing the size of the county."69 However, " .,, an increase in the geographic size of the county may not be desirable in all cases in which the conoslidation of administrative agencies is needed,"'0
"In a county which contains a large city, for example, the differences between city and farm will not be overcome by increasing the size of the county. If the farmers do not object to such a move, the city-dwellers are sure to. The latter are perhaps less anxious to share in the administrative expenses of higher cost areas than the former are to lose control of elections. In such cases it may be preferable to retain the present size of the urban county, or even to reduce its size so that it may be more uniformly urban, and to effect consolida tions between city and county governments. There appears to be a good opportunity in selected cases in Oklahoma for consolidations of this type."71
Thus does the Brookings Institution introduce one reason for believing that the present duplication of governments in urban counties ought to be abolished. Numerous other authorities have for many years suggested other reasons — particu larly those which have to do with potential savings to the taxpayer through elimination of a double set of officials.
The most important point that should be considered in viewing the possibili ties for improvement in the situation in Oklahoma is that county-city consolidation or separation has been effected in a number of states either because the consti tution specifically permitted the same to be done or left the legislature in a position to work out the plan. And the consolidations which have been tried have been considered generally successful.
As one may see in Study 13, thirteen states have constitutional provisions specifically pertaining to consolidation or separation of cities and counties. The important consolidations or separations which have been effected are in the following cities: New York City, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Baltimore, Boston, San Francisco, Washington, New Orleans, and Denver. In addition there are now twenty-four cities in Virginia (which state makes systematic use of the principle on a statewide basis) that are politically independent of the counties in which they are located.
69Ibid., p. 374. 7°Ibid.
71Ibid. 29
With regard to results, R, B, Pinchbeck reporting on the situation in Virginia, states that the plan has "proved to be a wise-policy," that it has eliminated "duplicated offices, services, and equipment, and completely avoids overlapping of political authority .... It has placed responsibility for the efficient administration of Virginia city government squarely on the city offi cials who can not allege county official interference in municipal affairs or costs."72
Mayo Fesler has written of the situation in Denver, "The advantages (of city-county unification) are apparent in the city of Denver in many ways; in the organization of the government for administrative purposes, the generally high quality of her administration, the relatively low cost of her city-county government, the ease with which the voters can have a full understanding of their government and the settled satisfaction of her people with the economical and efficient administration of local affairs in the city-county.'"^ He adds that city-county unification in Denver is so satisfactory that it is "the ideal toward which the people of a metropolitan community should ultimately aim."74
Continuing, Mr. Fesler writes, "But after all, the test of the quality of any form of government is found in its practical operation. And the first question propounded by the taxpayer is, 'does it operate economically?1 This is always a relative question, and can never be answered categorically..... However, business men and active members of civic and commercial organizations consulted were all agreed that, relatively speaking, Denver's city-county govern ment is economically administered. The chairman of the Chamber of Commerce Tax Expenditure Committee, R. B. Mayo, president of a prominent auditing firm, ex pressed it this way:
"'It is impossible to make an accurate statement of the savings resulting from consolidation, because we are too far away from the time when city and county were separate. But if we were to go back to the old separate city and county governments and place another government on top of our present city government, we would add, in my opinion, to our present costs just about the cost of that additional layer of' government. Our present form is so much better that an additional layer of government would be sheer waste.'.
"Mr. Mayo's statement was confirmed by similar statements from a score of officials and informed citizens.
"An attempt was made in 1917, one year after the Speer Charter went into • effect, by Professor William B. Guthrie of the College of the City of New York, to estimate 'Relative Expenses Before and After Consolidation.' His figures showed a total operating expenditure of the county administrative offices to have been $676,100 in 1911, when consolidation first took effect; and the 1917 appropriations for the administration of those same functions under the Speer yc charter to be $476,600 or a reduction of about one-third in the cost of operation,."
72National Municipal Review, Vol, 29 (July, 1940), p. 467.
73National Municipal Review, Vol. 29 (June, 1940), p. 380.
7ifIbid, 75Ibid., pp. 383-3^4. 30
Alfred F. Smith, San Francisco Bureau of Government Research, writing on "San Francisco: Consolidation Pioneer",76 sayS that consolidation of city and county government in San Francisco immediately resulted in a reduction in the costs of government beyond the best hopes of those who sponsored it. For ex ample, "The expenses of the newly established city and county in the first full year after adoption of the consolidation act and election of new officials were 77 recorded as amounting to $353>000, in comparison with $2,646,000 expense in 1854." And again, "Comparative tax rates, compiled annually by the Detroit Bureau of Governmental Research, disclose the fact that San Francisco has, for many years, enjoyed a lower tax rate than most cities with a population of 500,000 or over. The tax rates, which have been published annually in the National Municipal Review for eighteen years, reveal this city as having enjoyed more often than not the lowest combined tax rate adjusted to a 100 per cent basis of assessment "78
"Starting with the actual saving of §2,293,000 in 1857, the initial year of the consolidated city-county government, the result, capitalized over the eighty- four years that have elapsed, would prove to be too fantastic for acceptance."79
Constitutional Problem of City-County Consolidation in Oklahoma.
The difficulty with regard to city-county consolidation in Oklahoma is not, however, entirely the question of whether it ought to be effected. Such a ques tion is a matter for careful study of the governmental situation existing in those particular areas such as Oklahoma County and Tulsa and a report specifically dealing therewith. Such a report is beyond the scope of this study. The diffi culty — the weakness with which this report is concerned — pertains to the con stitutional limitation upon the carrying out of such a program if it were deter mined to be proper public policy.
For example, one method of securing city-county consolidation is to create the city into a county and then to consolidate city and county functions under one set of officers. Suppose under the existing Constitution in such a case the courts should hold that all of the limitations applying to counties or even cer tain of the limitations should hold with regard to this procedure — let alone with regard to the newly created government I Even if the new government retained the precise boundaries of the old county it is difficult to understand how a county could be dissolved before reaching the minimum population and property valuation prescribed by the present constitution.80
And if on the other hand the boundaries of the new government were made less than the boundaries of the old county the situation would appear even more compli cated. How could the city-county creature be created with less than the consti tutional minimum area for "new counties"?^ What would happen to the "left over"
76National Municipal Review, Vol. 30 (March, 1941), p. 152.
77 Ibid., p. 154. 78rbid., p# 3^ 7?ibjd,
80Article XVII, Section 5.
oxArticle XVII, Section 4. 31
area of the old county? For it to be merged with surrounding counties a referen dum of the voters would be necessary in each area with sixty per cent of those voting on the question favorable to the change.82 Or suppose the process of changing county lines might be relied on — a doubtful constitutional procedure for such a purpose. The 60 per cent referendum would still be necessary.83
Any way it may be considered the constitutional barriers appear either in surmountable or at best to make the legality of particular procedures doubtful.
And, as indicated above, the constitutional provisions might be considered to apply not alone to procedure in bringing the new government into being but also to cover the new government itself. For unless the city and county conso lidated were held to be a city rather than a county — the latter having been done in a few states — all of the laws governing counties would be applicable to the new government. And home rule charters for counties do not exist in Oklahoma, Even counties are not classified at the present time and are not governed by laws particularly applicable to their different needs. All in all, city-county consolidation, even if considered advisable or proper public policy by those most concerned, the people of a locality, or agreed upon by the members of the legislature, does not seem possible in Oklahoma without changing the Con stitution.
The Specific Evidence - (2) Criticisms of Administrative and Operational'Form
A second major criticism of Oklahoma county government concerns its ad ministrative form.
As we have seen in describing its constitutional structure there is some possibility that a considerable amount of reorganization to improve the form might be done by statute. This may be true because of "excepting" provisions in the constitution which apparently make it possible for the legislature to abolish most of the present county offices and establish others. .Also the present constitution fortunately omits any detailed description of counter govern ment and generally leaves a great deal of leeway tp the legislature providing for county government. In this regard the point should be made at once that whatever changes are made in the present constitution certainly no more limiting ' details concerning structure than those already there should be included; in fact, as is pointed out below, the removal of a number of limiting provisions would improve the present situation for counties considerably.
82 83 Article XVII, Section 4. Ibid. 32
In the light of the above statement, it might seem unnecessary to some to go into considerable detail concerning the present weaknesses in the operational form of counties. However, as we have indicated, the constitutional picture is not entirely clear. Although the present structure does rest upon a legal basis yet this in turn is based upon current constitutional provisions. Therefore it seems only logical the criticisms should be surveyed. Further, the lack of pro vision for the more modern forms of county government plus specific limitations particularly relating to finance form a good case. Finally, while it is the principal object of this study to deal with the problem of constitutional change, well considered comments upon the weaknesses of the present legal structure are pertinent.
With regard to specific criticisms of the form and operation, most of those made of American counties in general are applicable to Oklahoma,
State Dictation in Form; Lack of Home Rule; Outmoded Form
In the first place, while it is a logical derivative of our governmental system that the state, constitutionally and legally, should be the final authority in describing the form and structure of county government, a poor governmental situation develops when the state makes no provision for a county to have that degree of Home Rule which will enable it to adopt the particular form and structure most suitable for its own particular needs. Such is the case in Oklahoma where there is neither provision constitutionally nor lega3.1y for counties to erect their own type of government nor even to choose from a series of optional forms the one which might be most suitable to fulfill their peculiar needs while retain ing the proper county character as a subdivision of the state. What we are say ing, in plain language, is that newer and better forms of county government have been learned than that type provided for by the present Oklahoma Constitution and laws, but Oklahoma counties are neither in a constitutional nor a legal position to adopt such forms nor any other form which they might devise themselves in order to meet particular local needs varying from those of another county. Indeed the legislature has not even classified counties and established varying types of county government to meet the different needs of the counties in the different classes.
Long Ballot: Resulting Diffusion of Authority and Responsibility
In the second place, there are thirteen county offices and all of them are filled by direct election. Twelve of these are specifically named in the Consti tution and although it appears possible for the legislature to change some of 8 these offices by law, 4 at least the office of judge may not be changed, and the naming of these officers apparently has stimulated the legislature to retain by law the present decentralized county government system prevalent throughout the country.
T'he provision for these thirteen elected officers by Constitution and/or by law insures a long ballot, encourages a condition of voting ignorance in the electorate and, of course, destroys central responsibilit--- in administration. Each elected official is largely independent of the others and the more special ized administrators are largely- independent of the commissioner administrators.
°^In fact, as noted on page 15^16 of this study, it has done so in a few cases. -n.ort rerm OJ. Jiij.oex-s Third, although of purely statutory origin, there is provision for all of the county officers to be chosen merely for two year terms, thus not only insuring that the people shall have to fill the offices calling for technician-experts such as in finance, education, etc., but forcing these officials to be candidates during a considerable portion of the time they are in office. Precisely how much time the people expect a man to give to an office, both doing the job he is paid to do and running for office as he is bound to do in order to have the job, is an unanswered question. It is just one of those sacrifices which we hope expert citizens will make in order to retain a so-called democratic but efficient con dition in government. The fear of dictatorship and monopoly in office, being greater than the fear of sloppy administration and service (even at the stage of local government), it is more adequately served at present.
Lack of Merit Selection
In the fourth place, except for certain offices filled by state appointment the superior-elected officials largely choose their own clerks and deputies sub ject only to confirmation by the commission and the latter being mainly a for mality. There is no pretense of a merit system to insure a degree of expertness and proficiency in the work. The fact that a considerable number of present county officials are efficient or trained individuals is «lue to the good for tune of the people, not to the system which they have established for insuring the same. The commissioners themselves do fill a number of minor county offices but again without benefit of a merit system.
Alternatives to Weak Form
The criticisms just reviewed, pertaining particularly to the administrative structure of counties, it should be noted at this point, are not supported merely by negative general analysis but by the actual experience with different county government structures, tried and proven through practice. That is, one of the most important evidences of advantageous change from the present system we have in Oklahoma is to be found in the results of different systems tried elsewhere.
Reference should be made particularly to the County Manager type of govern ment or the County Executive type of government. Although it would be in order to discuss these plans and the experience with them at this point, yet for the sake of simplicity in outline such description is contained in Study 14 and it should be stressed here that any constitutional revision which occurs should make due allowance for such plans to be instituted by any Oklahoma county so choosing.
Briefly, both the manager plan and the executive plan accept the doctrine that counties are something more than purely administrative subdivisions of the state, but instead have certain functions to perform involving discretionary activity on the part of certain county officials. Related to this belief is its corollary that the policy functions should belong to a group of officials meeting for such purpose while more purely administrative functions and organization should be integrated and centralized in the hands of a single official who is responsible to the policy group as in the case of the manager plan, or to the voters directly as in the case of the county executive plan. In a word, these plans suppose that the general principles of the city manager plan or the strong mayor plan which have been so satisfactory in cities are applicable to counties as well. 34
A number of state constitutions make provision for these plans. A number of states have counties where those plans have been used and are being used. In practically every case (See Study 14) the experience has been overwhelmingly good.
The Specific Evidence - (3) Criticism of Proprietary Functioning
A third criticism of our county government concerns its functions and^func tioning in particular the proprietary functions of the county or those activities in which the county operates as a business organization, such as levying taxes, making assessments, or the collection, care, and custody of money.
Assessment of Property
Relative to the assessment of property there is considerable evidence8? that the law requiring all property to be assessed at fair cash value has been con sistently and deliberately ignored, thus creating a good deal of discrimination in the assessment process. And, in this connection, there is also evidence that this is due to the fact that the assessment of property has been placed in the hands of a person elected on a political basis every two years rather than in the hands of a technician appointed on a merit basis.
Excise Board Control
Again relative to financial control there have long been those who believed that the county excise board which must finally approve the county and city budgets and also divide tax revenues is more a detriment than a benefit in "policing" local finance.86 This is true not only because of the fact that the excise board has historically favored counties over cities in the distribution of tax revenue but also because it has served to restrict counties in the for mation of their financial plans. At the best, some of these critics believe it merely duplicates the work, authority and responsibility of the supposedly central policy making board of the county, the commission, and that state con trol of local finance could better be secured through a real state agency.
The weakness of Constitutional Limitations on Local Finance
But besides the weaknesses in the administrative structure devised to carry out the proprietary function of the county there are the several constitutional and legal limitations upon these functions themselves, particularly related to the matter of taxation and debt.
The practices of other states in connection with debt and taxes may be noted by reference to the material in Study 13. In this connection it will be seen that there are other states which limit their county governments just as does Oklahoma — some more so, others not so much — yet it should be pointed out, too, that criticism has often been leveled at such restrictions. Thus it
5Jack W. Strain, The Assessment of Real Estate for Ad Valorem Tax .Purposes in Oklahoma (a thesis), 1947,
ouMaurice H. Merrill, "County Government in Oklahoma," University of Oklahoma Bulletin - Studies in Government and Administration No, 2, pp. 10, 18-19, 21, (1920). 35
has been argued that if local self-government means anything at all it means that the people of a community should be given the authority to determine their expenditures for their local government. There is, of course, a contrary argu ment which might well be noted and that is that since the state (and national government) have increasingly aided states with money grants to care for their local needs, the state should have some control over local finance. However, the answer usually given to such an argument is that the necessary control to be exerted by the state should be left in the hands of a state administrative body acting on a basis of broader standards set by law than particular limi tation figures cemented into the constitution or defined by law. Such proce dures as North Carolina or Indiana have erected to care for that matter are indicated as being more advisable.87
For,: related to this suggestion a further important argument declares that particularized legal or constitutional debt and/or tax limits are much too rigid, can not be modified to meet changing needs or emergencies which may be considered less than acts of God (tornadoes, etc.) or while fitting the needs of one locality may not fit the needs of another.
Debt Limitation
Thus, considering the matter of debt limitation first, it is plain that the per capita debt needs of a heavily populated county may be larger than those of a more sparsely settled region. Or again,, two counties might fall within the same population range and have the same c.ebt needs but widely dif ferent total property valuations, thus having varying debt-incurring capacities. Finally, these facts create a bad enough situation, but to place the different types of units of local government under the same specific debt limit as is done in Oklahoma is even more impractical. In fact, it is so impractical that a number of devices have had to be resorted to in order to overcome the barriers.
Thus, although cities as well as counties fall under the five per cent debt limit set in the Oklahoma Constitution, ^section 27 permits incorporated cities and towns, to exceed the limits, if necessary, to purchase or construct a public utility .89
But since this exception does not apply to counties or school districts means have had to be found to aid them in overcoming the limitation. Here the courts have stepped in to help through judicial interpretation.
8 'See Austin F, HacDohald, American City Government and Administration9 (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1946), pp. 90-91; and E. Blythe Stason, Cases and Materials on Municipal Corporations (St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1946), pp. 574-576.
^Article X, Section 26.
89 All kinds of problems naturally arise in the course of interpreting this provision, a matter which will be discussed in a later study on municipal govern ment in Oklahoma, 36
For instance, the Supreme Court has held that the 5 per cent limit applies only to net debt, not gross debt,90 This enables a county which has reached the 5 per cent limit to issue additional bonds up to the amount of the assets which it has in its sinking fund. This means that the-total bonds outstanding may exceed 5 per cent. This is a device, by the way, resorted to in some other states with similar constitutional limitations.
Again, a county may circumvent the debt limit by issuing special assess ment bonds when they are to be used to finance projects such as street, side walks, etc., inasmuch as these bonds have been excluded from the limit partially on a basis of law, partially by judicial decision. Thus the Oklahoma statutes have provided that such bonds are not secured by all the property within the unit concerned but only by the abutting property which is subject to special assess 1 ment r° and the Supreme Court has indicated that the local unit of government is merely acting as the collecting agent for the holders of the special assessment bonds and can in no way be held liable for their payment.92
This practice has been severely criticized by Professor Robert K. Carr in his careful study, State Control of Local Finance in Oklahoma, wherein he writes: "This total exclusion of all special assessment debt from the operation of the general debt limit is unfortunate. The Oklahoma thesis that special assessments have nothing to do with public finance is utterly fallacious. Any serious attempt to control local finance can not ignore the special assessment tax, even though it is supposed to tax the special increment in property values resulting from improvement by local government,"93
Professor Carr at this point also explains well the legal snarl in which Oklahoma has become involved through attempts legally and judicially to help counties and other local units around constitutional barriers. Thus in discussing the famous Faught decision94 0f 1930 which attempted to outline the answers to the question of constitutional debt limitation he writes:
"It (the court) excluded public utility debt, floating debt incurred during the current fiscal year not in excess of the anticipated revenue for the year, and floating debt of prior years which did not at the time it was incurred, exceed the revenue originally provided for those years, as long as this debt is evidenc ed by outstanding warrants rather than by judgments or funding bonds. The court included within the limit all debt requiring the approval of the voters, includ ing funding bonds and judgments but not public utility debt.95
90 ' , Kirk v. School District No. 24 of Greer County, 108 0vla. 81 (1925). 91 O.S. 1931, Sees. 6209, 6268, 6307, 6313» 92 City of Beggs v. Kelley, 110 Okla. 274 (1925). 93 Robert H. Carr, State Control of Local Finance in Oklahoma, p. 26 (1937) <. 94 Faught v. City of Sapulpa, 145 Okla. 164 (1930), 95 Robert H. Carr, State Control of Local Finance in Oklahoma, p. 26 (1937). 37
"The situation as to funding bonds was not made clear in all respects. In the first place, the Oklahoma Legislature and Supreme Court have not always clearly distinguished between funding bonds and refunding bonds, and the two are often confused. At one time the court held that unpaid warrants frollback years were to be included as debt within the 5 per cent limit.'1 That being so, then the converting of the warrants into judgments or funding bonds would not increase the debt. But in the Faught case, the court drew the line between an unpaid warrant and a judgment or funding bond; holding that the latter but not the former are within the 5 per cent limit. Apparently whenever a local government takes up floating debt in the form of warrants and replaces such evi dence of debt with judgments or bonds it increases its debt subject to the 5 per cent limit by the amount in question. On the other hand, court decisions seem to imply that there is nothing to prevent, the funding of such floating debt if the floating debt has resulted from tax delinquency and other valid causes, even though this pushes the total debt over the 5 Per cent mark. As- to refunding bonds, which are presumably bonds issued to take up other bonds, the court has clearly ruled that when they are issued, no new debt subject to the 5 per cent limit has been created, and even though the-5 per cent limit has been otherwise exceeded for some reason, legal or illegal, that does not prevent the issuance of further refunding bonds. But once issued, such refunding bonds take the place of the bonds retired by the refunding process and are to figure as part of the debt in determining whether still more debt may be incurred within the 5 per cent limit.97"98
It is plain, therefore, that the constitutional debt limitations noted above are not only to be criticized as restrictive upon the desire of local communities to undertake governmental improvements but they have led to a cir- cunvention of their own purposes which leaves their very meaning vague and con fused.
Tax Limitations
But not only are the debt limitations in the constitution subject to criti cism. The taxation provisions likewise are subjects of needed study and possible change.
Particularly is this true of those sections which prescribe maximum Units. It was in 1933 that Article X, Section 9, was amended under the influence of de pression conditions to reduce the'maximum ad valoren tax that may be levied on any one piece of property from 31*5 to 15 millsa This provision was subject to two exceptions carried over from the older requirements, namely-, that the county might levy an additional tax of 2 mills for separate schools and also that the school district might increase its levy \yv 10 mills if a majority of the quali fied voters participating in an election held for this purpose would give their consent. A further exception contained within the amendment itself is to the effect that sinking fund levies may be made in addition to the 15 mill levy in order to take care of the needs of all state and local debt existing at the time the amendment was adopted. Although this latter provision appears to mean that
96school District No. 2 v. Gossett, 140 Okla. 243 (1929). 97 Faught v. Sapulpa.
'°Carr, Op, Cit», pp. 26-27. 3$
such sinking fund levy could only cover debt existing when the amendment was adopted, the Supreme Court has held99 that the sinking fund levy for public utility indebtedness incurred after the adoption of the amendment also was not affected by the 15 mill limitation and as Professor Carr has written100 "pre sumably the same is true of other types of indebtedness as well."
Other provisions of the 1933 amendment abolished the state ad valorem tax. The division of the 15 mill tax levy between the various divisions of local government devolved upon the county excise board through legislative action.
Relative to the 1933 amendment and the system thereby established, Pro fessor Carr writes, "From whatever angle examined this constitutional amendment cannot very well appear in anything but an unfortunate light. The unwise and unscientific aspects of such a method of limiting the local taxing power are too well known to require comment. About the only scientific argument that can be marshaled by those who favor these limitations is that the results will be so disastrous to local financial programs as to hasten a complete revision of the entire tax structure of a state and force the creation of new sources of revenue for local government to take the place of the ad valorem tax. But even this process will be slow and runs a good chance of resulting in nothing better than the adoption of the inequitable sales tax, as the experience of both Ohio and Oklahoma indicates. And in the meantime, local governments can only mark time."101
The years since Carr wrote the above, despite wartime prosperity, have done little to betra*y any error in his conclusion. The increasingly necessitous fi nancial situation in which Oklahoma localities find themselves, despite'state and federal grants, is illustrative of the seriousness of the condition.
The chief result of the 1933 amendment seems to have been that the counties and school districts have had, through the action of the county excise board, to receive the lion's share or total sum of the 15 mill levy, while cities have either been forced to rely upon public utility receipts where the public utili ties were municipally owned or simply do without some of the most basic municipal services. In addition, school districts have in most cases had to make full use of their power to vote an additional 10 mill levy by means of popular election.
That there is need therefore for a restudy of the financial provisions in state constitutions in relationship to control over local financing is evident. Suggestions for other provisions than now exist will be made in a later part of this report.
The Specific Evidence - (4) Criticism of the County as an Administrative Unit for State Laws
Leaving aside those criticisms of financial restrictions on counties, con sidered' as part of the general problem of form and functioning of counties, we may turn to a final cricitism. This observation, it may at once be seen, differs
99Adams v. City.of Hobart, 166 Okla, 267 (1933). 100Carr, Qp.Cit., p. 42. Carr also writes, p. 42, n, 42, "The words 'except as herein otherwise provided' also excludes the 5 mill building levy authorized by article 10, section 10, from the 15 mill limitation," lOlCarr, p. 42. 39
from all others in that whereas previously we have been noting weaknesses in county governments due to restrictive constitutional and/or legislative provisions here we face the paradox that in certain instances counties are now performing certain functions perhaps better performed by the state or under tighter state supervision. It should be admitted at once in commenting upon these instances that in most, if not all, cases they are due not directly to constitutional pro vision but to legislative conditioning.
Thus again we emphasize: That change in the status quo can be achieved by legislative action is true; it is doubtful, however, whether such changes will be made without specific study of the whole problem of the relationship of the county to the state and it appears that the latter will only be done in the course of a consideration of constitutional changes. Therefore, we inject the following observations into this study with the comment that they are intended merely to round out a picture of the current county-state relationship, not with the thought that they are in any sense conclusions reached after a complete sur- vey of the matter, which needs to be made in a separate and special study.
Administration of Justice
But to specify the problem at hand: For one thing it should be apparent by now that the administration of justice and enforcement of the law are increas ingly state matters in terms of practical need. The delegation of power to en force the penal law to subdivisions of government such as counties may seem to be necessary/- to some extent from the standpoint of erecting the subdivisions usually necessary in any administrative structure. But to allow the subdivisions to have as much self-control as now exists in such matters is quite another thing-. The latter is achieved, of course, through the election of sheriffs by the people of the county and the appointment of the deputies by the sheriff. This situation amounts in fact in some instances to a local veto over state legislation. This is not to say that everywhere nor in most cases sheriffs acting under pressure of local opinion refuse to enforce the law of the state but it does suggest that the way is more easily open for such to occur and in more cases than would other wise be if sheriffs were state appointed.
It is true that there does exist the "Attorney General's" law by which the latter officer may institute judicial proceedings against local law enforcement officers who fail or refuse to enforce the gambling law, prohibitory law or other penal statutes. This measure, however, merely enables the state to act after the laws have been violated; certainly it does not insure the incumbence of officers who will be apt to enforce the state law in spite of local sentiment because they are chosen by the state itself. More uniform and effective enforcement of state laws can be secured better by entrusting the enforcement to state officers.
Education
Another function which requires increased control is that of education, Al though many changes have come in recent years which have increased the ability of the state to improve local primary and secondary education there are those who believe that further changes along this-line are advisable. The whole prob lem is, of course, now related to state aid, and needs thorough study in this light. For one thing, the report of the Brookings Institution should be re-read and further legal implementation be made of many of its recommendations. 40
Professor Maurice Merrill put the question well many years ago when he wrote, "Do not conditions call for a still more centralized and unified organization' of education, state wide in character, whereby the curriculum, length of term, qualification of teachers and other matters.of general policy would be determined by the state educational department, and the actual administration of education within the county would be placed in charge of an officer appointed by this de partment and subject to its control? The shifting character of our population, which results in the frequent transfer of pupils from one district to another, and the necessity of an enlightened citizenship in order that democracy may be successful, demand that our schools be maintained upon uniformly high standard throughout the state, and that in no locality shall children be deprived of proper educational facilities because of the inability or reluctance of tax payers to provide them,"102
Highways
Highways constitute a similar problem. Increasingly the state has assumed responsibility for Improvement in building and maintaining roads, especially through the grant system, and in this activity it has been aided by the federal government. However, the care of county roads still lies with the county com missioners and this local government unit. This basic division of authority over the roads and highways in the state, while resting upon certain political realities difficult to overcome (such as traditional and deep seated belief in local political control), has partially been .responsible for the poor condition of the roads themselves. While it is true that the conditions which have created this division of authority are so positive as to prohibit anything like complete state centralization, yet it is plain that improvement could be made in the situ ation both by improving the local organization itself and also by establishing by law more definite administrative relationships between the state and local officers. Here again the Brooking's Institution report might well be reviewed with this in mind.
10% errill, Og^.Cit., pp. 22-23. Ill 1I2LI2££APHY
PAMPHLETS - PERIODICALS "Affairs of the State", by H. V. Thornton, Sooner Magazine, (February 1945).
"American County - Patchwork of Boards", by Edward W. Weidner, National Municipal League (1946), New York, New York.
"An Outline of County Reorganization in the United States", Bureau of Munic ipal Research and Service, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, (19U5>).
"A Review of the Controversy over County Executives", by Edward W. Weidner, Public Administration Review, Vol. VIII, No. 1, (Winter 1948).
"Cost of County Government in Oklahoma", Oklahoma Public Expenditures Council, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, (September 1£47).
"Cost of County Government in Oklahoma-19if7", Your Report on Government, Oklahoma Expenditures Council, Inc., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, (April 1948).
"County Government in Oklahoma", Studies in Government and Administration No. 2, (May 15, 1920), The University of Oklahoma Bulletin, Issued by Bureau of Government Research, The University of Oklahoma, Norman.
"County Government Manual" for the Missouri Constitutional Convention of 1943, by William L. Bradshaw, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, (August 1943).
"County Government Organization in California", Bureau of Public Administration,, University of California, Berkely, (1947).
"County Manager Quiz", prepared by Extension Division of the University of Virginia, Charlottsville, Virginia.
"Home Rule", by Henry W. Connor, the Governors Committee on Preparatory Research for the New Jersey Constitutional Convention, State Capitol, State of New Jersey, (May 19u7).
"In Brief-Why Simpler Forms of County Government Should Be Provided for Fourth Class Counties", Missouri Public Expenditure Survey, Jefferson City, Missouri, (January 194^).
"Oregon Legislation Authorizing the County Manager Plan", Bureau of Municipal Research and Service, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, (December 19U5).
"Papers on Constitutional Revision, Volume I, The University of Tennessee, Record, Extension Series, Vol. XXIII, No. 1, Published by the Division of University Extension for the Bureau of Public Administration, The University of Tennessee,'Knoxville (April 19U7).
"Principles of Model County Manager Government", Oregon League of Women Voters, December 19kk* h2
"Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Southern Institute of Local Government", November 29, 30, 1946, published by the Division of University Extension for the Bureau of Public Administration, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, (January 1947).
"Proposed County Manager Charter for Clackamas County, Oregon", Bureau of Municipal Research and Service, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, (December 1945).
"Reorganization of Michigan's County Government", Michigan Pamphlets No. 19, Bureau of Government, University of Michigan, (1946).
"Report of the Joint Interim Committee to Study County Government", The State Capitol, Madison, Wisconsin,: (1947).
"Ten Years of County Manager Government in Virginia", by George W. Spicer, The University of Virginia Extension, Vol. XXIII, No. 3, (September 1, 1945), Charlottsville, Virginia.
"The County Manager Movement in Oklahoma", J. W. Errant, Oklahoma Municipal Review, Vol. V, May 1931, Number 5, Published by the Oklahoma Municipal League, Norman, Oklahoma,
"The County Manager Plan", National Municipal League, 299 Broadway, New York, N.Y. (1945).
"The Need for Constitutional Revision in Oklahoma", Margret Galley, Published by The League of Women Voters of Oklahoma, reprinted by The Citizens' Committee for calling a Constitutional Convention, (1946).
"Toward Better County Government", Missouri Public Expenditures Survey, Jefferson City, Missouri, (December 1947).
"What would a County Manager Government Mean for your County?" prepared by Extension Division of the University of Virginia, Charlottsville, Virginia.
The following articles from the National Municipal Review, published by the National Municipal League, New York, New York:
County Government issue of August 1932, (The entire issue is devoted to Excellent County Government Articles), No. 8, Vol. XXI.
County Government issue of October, 1934, (The entire issue is on County Government), No. 10, Vol. XXIII.
"Counties in a Strait-jacket", M. H. Satterfield, February 19)48, Vol. XXXVII, No. 2.
"County Pattern for the Future", Elwyn A. Mauck, February 1947, Vol. XXXVI, No, 2.
"Neighboring Areas Join Hands", Judith Jamison, March 1946, Vol. XXXV. No. 3.
"Too Small to Be Efficient?" R. R. Renne, February 1947, Vol, XXXVI, No. 2. 1*3 BOOKS
Andrews, C,, "Administrative County Government in South Carolina", Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press (1933).
Baker, M. R., "County Administration in Oklahoma", unpublished M.A. Thesis, The University of Oklahoma, Norman (1931).
Brookings Institute "Organization and Administration of Oklahoma", Harlow Publishing Company, Oklahoma City, (1935).
Carr, R. K., "State Control of Local Finance in Oklahoma", University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, (1937).
Fairlie, J. A. and "County Government and Administration, Century Company, Kneier, C. M., New York, (1930).
Lancaster, Jane W., "Government in Rural America", D. Van Nostrand Co, Inc., New York, (1937).
Reed, T. H., "Twenty Years of Government in Essex County, New Jersey", D. Appleton-Century Company, New York, (1938).
Rush, J. A., "The City-County Consolidated", published by the author, Los Angeles, (I94l).
MISCELLANEOUS
Constitutions of the States of the United States.
Oklahoma Statutes, Annotated, West Publishing Company and Lawyer's Co-operative Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, (1938).