In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

54 7 d-mInus rePort Card, the “kIng of roads,” and a new Courthouse (1913–1922) the Progressive era of nationwide social activism and political reform included the formation of new citizen-powered groups aimed at improving the efficiency of state and local governments. One of the first and most notable private organizations of this type was the New York bureau of Municipal research, founded in 1907 and funded at the outset by major business figures such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. rockefeller. Its staff combined social reformers as well as highly trained business experts, including accountants, engineers, statisticians, and administrators. the bureau hired out its personnel as consultants to cities and states around the nation, hoping to promote efficient and economical government. they were leaders in trying to bring the new field of “scientific management” to bear on government. Nearly a century later, scholars would find that “the bureau was utilizing reasonably sophisticated performance measurements in the early decades of the twentieth century.”1 eight years after the Lewis and Clark exposition, the taxpayers League of Portland commissioned the New York bureau to evaluate Multnomah County’s organization and business methods. the results were released in a 54-page document in September 1913.2 Four months earlier, the same experts had issued a scathing report itemizing inefficiencies and disorganization in Portland city government. the city was stuck in the dark ages, the experts said, “still managing its affairs in much the same manner” as it had in 1891 when the city was less than a quarter its present size. the New Yorkers’ commentary, along with an earlier vice-committee report, paved the way for passage of a city charter amendment in May 1913 that revolutionized Portland’s government. Only six elected officials—a mayor, four commissioners, and an auditor—would henceforth run the city, instead of the twenty elected officials whose task it had been previously.3 d-mInus report card, the “kIng of roads,” a new courthouse 55 the Multnomah County survey by the New York professionals failed to engender the same degree of reforming zeal as the city report, because no change in county structure was at stake. And the county commissioners at the time— D.v. hart, William Lightner, and thomas J. Cleeton—thought the study was unnecessary. When the taxpayers League asked the county to pay for the study, the county court refused. they noted that the state insurance commissioner had been given a $7,500 appropriation by the state legislature to install uniform accounting systems in all Oregon counties. “the court took the view that it would be duplication of effort and useless expense to employ the bureau,” the Oregonian reported.4 the taxpayers League agreed to pay for the study. the visiting experts combed through many departments of Multnomah County government. One idea the New York bureau studied was that of combining services and administrative functions between local governments. Citycounty consolidation had been raised as a possibility since the county’s first decade. No consolidations occurred as a result of this outside review in 1913, but the subject would continue to surface in the years ahead. If one were to think of the final report as a report card, perhaps the overall grade would have been a D-minus. the bureau found a need for reform almost everywhere it looked, but many of the changes would require action by the Oregon legislature. the report cited both “commendable” and “defective” practices, albeit mostly the latter. Some highlights of their conclusions may be summarized as follows: • Accounting. the elected auditor’s methods and systems are inadequate to “secure accuracy, economy and protection of the county’s interests,” as required by state law. As far as the incumbent county auditor, S. b. Martin, is concerned, that law is almost a “dead letter.” the survey included twelve pages of recommendations and added, “Notwithstanding the existence of the unbusinesslike and inefficient conditions enumerated in this report, both the county auditor and the state insurance commissioner, who has supervision over all county accounts in the state, have refused to approve our suggestions for correcting the defects.”5 • Assessor. Only one deputy is responsible for assessing all 162,500 land parcels in the county, even though leading national authorities advise that 10,000 properties per year should be the maximum assigned to any one person . the assessor is elected, so every election year that brings to office a new assessor and triggers an almost complete changeover of personnel, resulting...

Share