Political scientists believe that the gov-
ernor should be the political leader and
chief administrator of the state. It is im-
portant that he be the key figure in the
administrative process. His leadership will
be effective only if administrative officials
must reckon with the possibility of a
continuing influence from him. Powers
to appoint and remove are necessary for
the governor's effectiveness in his role as
administrator. Where the governor lacks
these powers, central leadership and con-
cern about general administrative im-
provement cannot be expected.2
The model state constitution sup-
ports this point of view. It provides as
follows :
"Section 5.07. Executive Officers;
Appointment. The governor shall ap-
point and may remove the heads of
all administrative departments. All
other officers in the administrative
service of the state shall be appointed
and may be removed as provided by
law."3
The comment to this section points out
that department heads are not only ad-
ministrators but also policy makers, and
should be directly and personally respon-
sible to the governor. They must be part
of the chief executive's administrative
team, and must be ready to serve as his
1 This article was prepared for the Commis-
sion by Frank T. Ralabate, research assistant
to the Constitutional Convention Commission;
B.S., 1964, Canisius College; LL.B., 1967,
Eastern College, Mount Vernon School of
Law.
2 the american assembly of columbia
graduate school of business, the forty-
eight states 122 (1955) [hereinafter cited
as the forty-eight states].
3 national municipal league, model
state constitution 72 (6th ed. 1963).
|
advisors and be subject to his direction,
as is the case in the national government
or in any large industrial or business cor-
poration.
A state superintendent of schools is
chosen in one of four different ways: he .
is elected directly by the voters; he is
appointed by an elected boardf he is ap-
pointed by a board appointed by the
governor; or he is directly appointed by
the governor.
The first and second methods are
strongly separatistic in that the superin-
tendent enjoys much independence; how-
ever, the trend is away from the direct
election for several reasons. Advocates of
this movement oppose integrating the
office of superintendent into the main
political stream of the state government,
but rather support professionalism in the
departments of education.4 "Students of
school administration unanimously agree
that superintendents should be selected by
school boards, not by popular vote. . . ."5
Election of superintendents places the
position on a political basis rather than
on the more defensible plane of selection
solely for professional qualifications. The
elected superintendent has the advantage
of close touch with the people of the state
and can make his appeal to them in the
face of legislative or executive disap-
proval or educational interference.6 This,
however, is a double-edged sword in that
he must frequently modify his educa-
4 the forty-eight states, supra note 2,
at 123.
5 W. reeder, school boards and super-
intendents 46 (1954).
6 12 department of superintendent of
the national education association of
the united states, critical problems in
school administration 116 (1934).
185
|
