Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 4.djvu/235

 POLITICS IN PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS 2*7

OHIO. An administrative officer of a state institution writes : There are no rules governing promotions, but it has been the aim of the present management to advance in position those whose services have been highly satisfactory in lower positions, when opportunity offers. Teachers, matrons, and attendants are selected from a list of applicants without regard to party affiliations. But I can easily see how a board of trustees can be so constituted as to make these intentions of a superintendent, who is respon- sible for an institution, null and void, and I can also easily understand how the service in an institution could be greatly impaired by an organization made up independent of the wishes of the superintendent. No examina- tions or tests have ever been held as a basis of selecting persons to serve in

the institution It is my opinion that the theory of party leaders and

societies is to the effect that the institutiod should be managed independent of

party politics but when a party is once in power, the pressure for

place becomes so great that this theory is often thwarted and the practical spoils system instituted in its place.

The following letter from an experienced superintendent of a county infirmary throws strong light on the forces at work :

The laws of Ohio relating to infirmaries provide for the election of three directors, one being elected each year, and each serving a term of three years. These directors have charge of the county infirmary, and, in certain cases, dispense relief to persons outside of the infirmary. They also appoint a superintendent of the infirmary.

Their authority in these matters is absolute, and unconditional ; they are responsible to no one, and not subject to censure or removal, public opinion and their own sense of duty being the only restraining influence over them. They adopt no rules of administration.

Custom grants to each infirmary director at least one reelection, provided he has not done something to incur the displeasure of the public.

No one at all conversant with American politics need be told that, under these circumstances, the party having a majority controls the election of infirmary directors, that party fealty is the first condition of success, and that their official acts must be iu conformity with the wishes of their party. In granting relief to the poor, however, party lines are entirely ignored, the poor are all treated alike, regardless of their party affiliations. So far as I know, the infirmary directors never inquire, nor do they know, what the party preferences of those who receive relief at their hands are. It is only in dispensing the patronage of the infirmary, which includes purchasing sup- plies therefor, that favoritism appears, and it is not party favoritism so much as the personal favor of the directors that is manifested.

The management of the infirmary is mainly through a superintendent