GIFT OF
ADMINISTRATION
OF THE OFFICE OF
CORONER of COOK COUNT ILLINOIS
REPORT PREPARED FOR TH
JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COUR1
BY THE CHICAGO BUREAU OF PUBLIC EFFICIENC
DECEMBER, 191
(Out
LICA'
'stering the Budget of nary, 1911.
ting Machines by the Board of ers of the City of Chicago. May,
the City of Chicago: An Inquiry s, Methods and Results. June,
i the City of Chicago. July,
Oct<
The
n Whic
co of Recorder of Cook County, 1911.
the Office of County Treasurer.
Work done for the City of October, 1911.
Two Related Propositions
of Chicago Will Be Asked to
Election of November 7 —
•'lystem of the City of Chicago. By Dab- H. M December, 1911.
il Service Commission; and Special Accounting System of the City of Chicago.
ADMINISTRATION
OF THE OFFICE OF
CORONER of COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS
REPORT PREPARED FOR THE
JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
BY THE CHICAGO BUREAU OF PUBLIC EFFICIENCY
315 PLYMOUTH COURT
THE JUDGES
AND THE
COUNTY FEE OFFICES
STATEMENT TO THE TAXPAYERS OF COOK COUM
BY THE
CHICAGO BUREAU OF PUBLIC EFFICIEr
DECEMBER 19, 191!
PRIOR PUBLICATIONS
Method of Preparing and Administering the Budget of Cook County, Illinois. January, 1911.
2 Proposed Purchase of Voting Machines by the Board of
Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago. May, 1911.
3 Street Pavement Laid in the City of Chicago : An Inquiry
Into Paving Materials, Methods and Results. June, 1911. (Out of print,)
4 Electrolysis of Water Pipes in the City of Chicago, July,
1911. (Out of print,)
5 Administration of the Office of Recorder of Cook County,
Illinois, September, 1911.
6 A Plea for Publicity in the Office of County Treasurer.
October, 1911.
7 Repairing Asphalt Pavement: Work done for the City of
Chicago Under Contract in 1911. October, 1911.
8 The Municipal Court Acts: Two Related Propositions
Upon Which the Voters of Chicago Will Be Asked to Pass Judgment at the Election of November 7— Vote No, October 31, 1911.
9 The Water Works System of the City of Chicago. By Dab-
ney H. Maury. December, 1911,
10 Bureau of Streets; Civil Service Commission; and Special
Assessment Accounting System of the City of Chicago. December, 1911.
11 Administration of the Office of Coroner of Cook County,
Illinois. December, 1911.
12 Administration of the Office of Sheriff of Cook County,
Illinois. December, 1911.
13 Administration of the Office of Clerk of the Circuit Court
and of the Office of Clerk of the Superior Court of Cook County, Illinois. December, 1911.
THE JUDGES
AND THE
COUNTY FEE OFFICES
STATEMENT TO THE TAXPAYERS OF COOK COUNTY
BY THE CHICAGO BUREAU OF PUBLIC EFFICIENCY
315 PLYMOUTH COURT
CHICAGO BUREAU
OF
PUBLIC EFFICIENCY
TRUSTEES
JULIUS ROSENWALD, Chairman. ALFRED L. BAKER, Treasurer.
ONWARD BATES. CHARLES R. CRANE.
CLYDE M. CARR. HENRY B. FAVILL.
GEORGE G. TUNELL. WALTER L. FISHER.
CHARLES E. MERRIAM.
HERBERT R. SANDS, Director. GEORGE C. SIKES, Secretary.
PETER WHITE, Fiscal and Organisation Counsel. HARRIS S. KEELER, Legal Counsel.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGE
Statement to the Taxpayers of Cook County by the Chi- cago Bureau of Public Efficiency 1
Report of Committee of Judges to the Circuit Court of Cook County 5
STATEMENT TO THE TAXPAYERS OF COOK COUNTY
BY THE
CHICAGO BUREAU OF PUBLIC EFFICIENCY.
To the Taxpayers of Cook County:
Public revenues are being wasted on useless officials. The Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County, upon whom is im- posed by the constitution the duty of fixing the number of em- ployes in the county fee offices, have failed in their duty. They are consenting to further unnecessary additions to the county pay- rolls.
For several months the Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency, supported solely by the voluntary contributions of public spirited citizens, has been engaged in the study of the so-called fee offices. A report on the recorder's office was submitted to the judges last September. The study of the county treasurer's office had to be abandoned temporarily, because of the hostile attitude of Treas- urer O'Connell. The judges took no steps whatever to assist the Bureau in overcoming Treasurer O'Connell's opposition to the in- quiry, notwithstanding the fact that it was undertaken in accord- ance with formal action of the judges accepting the offer of the Bureau to make these investigations for their use and informa- tion. Last week the judges allowed Treasurer O'Connell eight additional employes, despite indications that his office is waste- fully managed, and in face of the obvious inference to be drawn from the fact that he had prevented the making of a report on his
2 Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency
office in time to be of use in fixing the number of employes for 1912.
Advance sheets of the reports on the offices of coroner, sheriff and clerks of the circuit and superior courts were in the hands of the committee of judges — consisting of Judges Baldwin, Smith and Walker — before the order fixing the number of employes for 1912 was approved by the court, which was on Friday last. The report on the coroner's office was submitted to the committee of judges on Tuesday, December 12, and was given to the public the next day. A typewritten copy of the report on the sheriff's office was submitted to the committee on Wednesday, with the explanation that copies were not then available for the press or for public distribution. The report on the offices of clerk of the circuit court and clerk of the superior court was submitted in like manner Thursday morning. The sheriff and the court clerks each had been supplied with a copy of the report dealing with his particular office.
The Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency recommended a reduction of fifteen in the staff of the circuit court clerk. No reductions were ordered by the judges.
The Bureau recommended a reduction of 13 in the staff of the superior court clerk. This recommendation took into account the fact of the increase in the number of judges. In the face of this recommendation, the judges actually increased the number of employes by 10.
The Bureau recommended that the sheriff's staff be reduced by the elimination of the assistant sheriff and four deputy sheriffs. It took the position that no additional bailiffs were needed to take care of the additional work caused by the increase in the number of judges. The judges ordered no reductions, but on the con- trary gave the sheriff ten additional bailiffs.
The Bureau recommended one additional employe for the coroner. The judges gave him four.
The Judges and the County Fee Offices 3
In its report on the recorder's office, the Bureau pointed out that two additional employes were required for certain work, but there need be no net increase in the number, because there were two unnecessary men in other divisions of the office. The re- corder asked for one additional employe. A group of citizens came forward with a request that the recorder be given seven more employes than he had asked for. At the hearing before the judges, the recorder gave perfunctory support to this plea. The judges ordered the number of employes in the recorder's office increased by six. There were special reasons why the recorder hesitated to antagonize on this proposition the group of citizens that urged the increase in his staff. The Bureau is satisfied that neither the recorder nor his chief deputy believes the increase to be necessary.
In the report submitted to the court by the committee of judges, the Bureau of Public Efficiency was complimented on its painstaking work in the study of the fee offices and the prepara- tion of reports thereon. But no attention whatever was paid by the judges to the recommendations made, in so far as they affected the number of employes. It was said the re- ports came in too late to influence action this year, but that state- ment could not possibly apply to the report on the recorder's office, for it was submitted to the judges three months ago. Pos- sibly the judges were justified in hesitating to put into immediate operation all the reductions that involve reorganization, and the substitution of modern for antiquated methods, such as the use of typewriters in place of longhand writing in record work. But why should they authorize further, and in some cases large, in- creases in the absence of better proof than was forthcoming as to the need for the additional employes ? Why should the judges listen to the plea of interested office-holders only, and pay no heed to representatives of tax-paying citizens?
It is time for the people of Cook county to wake up and de- mand that the waste of public funds be stopped.
4 Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency
If they can legally do so, the Judges of the Circuit Court ought to reconsider their order of December I5th fixing the num- ber of employes in the fee offices subject to their control and eliminate practically all of the increases that have been allowed.
CHICAGO BUREAU OF PUBLIC EFFICIENCY,
By the Executive Committee :
JULIUS ROSENWALD,
GEORGE G. TUNELL, ALFRED L. BAKER,
CHARLES E. MERRIAM. Chicago, Dec. 19, 1911.
REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF JUDGES
TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY.
STATE OF ILLINOIS, COOK COUNTY.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OP COOK COUNTY.
In the Matter of the Application of Certain County Officers for Assignment of Help.
REPOBT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE,
to which was referred the matter of the application of certain county officials for the assignment of help in their respective offices for the ensuing year.
To the Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County:
The undersigned, the committee heretofore appointed by you to receive and consider the application of certain county officials for the assignment of help in their respective offices, and to report to you our conclusions thereon, beg leave to submit the following report.
That on November 1, 1911, an order was entered in the Circuit Court, signed by the Chief Justice thereof, directing the several county officials affected by Section 9 of Article 10 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, to file with the clerk of said court their several applications for help on or before November 20, 1911, and to deliver a copy thereof to each judge of said court.
Owing to the fact that the judges of the Circuit Court accepted, under date of March 3, 1911, an offer made to them by the Chicago* Bureau of Public Efficiency to prepare reports on the fee offices of Cook County, which reports, it was believed, would be available for their use by December 1, 1911, and from the fact that the Bureau was continually conducting a very exhaustive examination in furtherance of their offer, we have made no personal inspection of the offices cov- ered by this report. Such an inspection, if made by us, without an appropriation, without facilities, or the necessary time, would, at best, be perfunctory in its nature, — and of little value.
The painstaking and carefully prepared initial report compiled by the Bureau, covering the office of Recorder, which was submitted to the judges in September, led us to believe that the often discussed question as to the amount of help needed by the different county fee- offices each year, would at last find a basis for proper settlement.
6 Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency
But the task undertaken was enormous, and the fact that reports of only five of the nine fee offices are at hand — that of the Recorder, the Coroner, the Sheriff, the clerk of the Circuit Court, and the clerk of the Superior Court — the last four received by us since Monday, and only in rough draft, while not reflecting discredit on the Bureau, makes more apparent the magnitude of their work.
However, the work done by the Bureau of Efficiency will not be wasted, but will afford a basis for discussion and adjustment of the necessary help for the county offices in the future. Many of the recom- mendations of these five reports, which we have received, have been conveyed to the different officials affected, and in most cases, when these officials were before us, they expressed their approval of the conscientious work done by the Bureau of Efficiency, and its undoubted value to them and the public at large. Indeed, the Coroner stated unequivocally to the Committee that he intended to carry into effect the various recommendations made by the Bureau, and the help we have allotted him has been with reference to his doing so.
The recommendations of the Bureau, especially as to changes in the Sheriff's office, and as to those of the clerks of the Superior and Circuit Courts, contemplate quite a radical reorganization of the pres- ent methods of doing business, and make suggestions which we do not feel at liberty at this time to adopt.
It should be remembered that these various county officials are elected by and are accountable to the people for the administration of their offices, so long as they are conducted within the law. The duty of passing upon the number of employes necessary to perform the work devolving upon these respective offices rests upon the judges of the Circuit Court, but it may be doubted whether that duty or right extends to the length of permitting us to require these elective officials to adopt entirely new methods of doing the business of their offices, or to reorganize their forces in accordance with the suggestions made by the Bureau of Efficiency. In any event, these suggestions have been received by us too late to allow the necessary time to fully dis- cuss their merits by ,the representatives of the Bureau and the various officials to be affected, and to sufficiently inform the judges as to the practicability of enforcing the recommendations of the Bureau, even If the Committee had the power. In fact, none of the judges, other than the members of this Committee, have even seen the last four reports of the Bureau. We feel confident that much good is to come from these painstaking and efficient investigations by the Bureau; that during the year to come, before the judges have again to pass upon the matter of methods for the various county offices, these recom- mendations can be thoroughly discussed with all the parties ipter- ested, full publicity being given to them and to investigations and discussions, so that by another year such recommendations may be made as will incorporate the final and best judgment of the judges.
It is not impossible that if any county official should decline to follow recommendations of the character indicated, after they had been fully discussed, and such recommendations were so clearly in the interest of the public, and the proper administration of the various offices, in that the work of the office could be as well performed with a much less number of employes, that the judges might decide to recommend only the smaller number of employes that would be neces- sary to adequately discharge the duties of the office under the most approved methods.
The Judges and the County Fee Offices 7
We, therefore, express the hope that this Bureau of Public Effi- ciency will continue and complete the work so efficiently begun.
In the present inquiry, we have carefully compared the work of the office as reported during the past three years, and have studied the recommendations of the two previous committees — which work we have supplemented by the taking of personal testimony in public of each separate official affected, and in most cases also by that of his chief clerk. For the lack of a report such as that contemplated by the Bureau, we have taken this testimony as the best evidence obtainable — directly from the persons most vitally concerned, and although we are unable to concur in some of their deductions, great weight must be given their testimony, more especially as some of the officials report that the work of their office is at present behind in various particulars. Another matter which we have considered is the fact that the personnel of the majority of the offices with which we have to deal changed during the past year, and that much of the help in these offices is therefore comparatively inexperienced.
An inspection of the reports and applications show a gradual, though varying, increase in the amount of business transacted in the several offices, and a request for assignment of help for the ensuing year as follows:
Clerk of the Circuit Court:
From the fact that the report of the clerk of the Circuit Court shows a gradual increase in business, we recommend that his request for the same amount of help as allowed him last year be granted; but that, as ex ojftcio clerk of the Juvenile Court, he be allowed one efficient and capable stenographer (to be assigned to the exclusive service of the judge of the Juvenile Court), in addition to the help granted him for that branch of his work last year.
We commend his practice of reporting a return to the county of the interest on "Trust Fund" and daily receipts of his office, as set out in his report.
Clerk of the Superior Court:
The report of the clerk of the Superior Court shows a gradual increase in the amount of business transacted, and presents a request for an allowance of fifteen clerks in addition to the present staff, on account of the election of the six new judges whose places were created by statute last spring.
Basing our observations upon the testimony of the clerk and his chief deputy — upon a comparison of the business transacted in the Superior and Circuit Courts during the past three years, upon the fact that about two of the newly elected judges will take the places of country judges, who sat 607 days in the Superior Court during the past year, and upon the further fact that a portion of their time may be spent in the Criminal or Appellate Courts, we believe that the in- creased business of the office can be well cared for by a smaller num- ber than requested, and therefore recommend that ten instead of fifteen clerks in addition to the present staff be granted.
Clerk of the County Court:
Inasmuch as the report of the clerk of the County Court shows a perceptible increase in the amount of business done, we recommend that his request for the same amount of help that he has at present
8 Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency
be granted (which includes, in addition to those allowed him last year, two additional clerks allowed in June, 1911).
Clerk of the Probate Court:
The report of the clerk of the Probate Court shows a small increase in the business transacted and requests three additional clerks or accountants for work upon the numerous fee books of the office, and one confidential clerk, who shall be exempt from civil service.
After carefully considering the very exhaustive report made by an expert accountant in regard to these fee books in 1909, and taking into account the fact that additional clerks were granted partly to take care of this matter last year, and that the business of the office shows no such increase in itself as to warrant placing more men upon these books, we do not feel justified in recommending but one addi- tional clerk for the use of the clerk.
We have before us a request made by the Hon. Charles S. Cutting, Judge of the Probate Court, for a confidential clerk or private secre- tary at a salary not exceeding $1,500 per year, who understands probate procedure, so as to answer letters, questions, and advise in regard to court matters parties who insist upon seeing the judge. Adequate reasons are presented for this request, among others, that it would save the time of a clerk of the Probate Court who is now helping to do such work, but particularly in the saving of Judge Cutting's time for the county, and we recommend that the clerk of the Probate Court be allowed one additional capable clerk, who may be a stenographer, and who shall be satisfactory to and assigned to the exclusive service of the judge of the Probate Court.
Clerk of the Criminal Court:
The report of the clerk of the Criminal Court shows a very slight increase in the amount of business transacted and requests two addi- tional indictment record writers for emergency and general office work and a private secretary, in lieu of the two to six extra men (averaging three), which are now granted him. In view of the new law providing for a system of probation for persons found guilty of certain defined crimes, etc., which necessitates the keeping of a number of extra records in his office and the fact that this request does not really involve additional help, we recommend that the allowance of two ta six extra men (averaging three) be discontinued, and that he be allowed the two indictment record writers and an additional clerk
in addition to the remainder of his present force.
i
Coroner:
The report of the Coroner shows a gradual increase in the amount of work done by his office, and requests one additional court reporter and one additional typist, so as to enable him to cease accepting transcripts of testimony in personal injury cases from stenographers in the pay of public service corporations, who are parties in interest, and also an additional physician, so as to properly care for the large amount of work which his present force of three physicians are unable to handle.
From the facts and figures presented by the Coroner's report and his testimony before the Committee, we believe that the additional physician is needed, and that the evil practice above named, which was
The Judges and the County Fee Offices 9
fully gone into and reported by your 1909 Committee, can only be discontinued by the stenographer and typist asked for, and we, there- fore, recommend that a stenographer, a typist and a physician, be granted the Coroner, in addition to his present allowance.
A subsequent letter submitted to the Committee by the Coroner emphasizes the fact that in order to be able to follow a number of the suggestions of the report upon his office of the Bureau of Public Efficiency he must needs be allowed an additional clerk to enable him to perform the matters set out, and we recommend, therefore, that besides the recommendations made above one additional clerk be granted.
The Committee further approves and adopts the following recom- mendations made by the Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency and fur- ther recommends:
1. That the Coroner requests the County Board for an appropria- tion for transportation for his own use and for that of his deputies in the discharge of their respective official duties.
2. That the use of passes by the deputy coroners and attaches of the office be prohibited.
3. That the use of "unofficial clerks" by the deputy coroners be discontinued.
4. That the use of "professional" jurors be discontinued as far as possible.
5. That the pay checks of jurors be changed to a form which will be acceptable at any bank.
6. That the scalping of jurors' checks or certificates be prohibited the deputy coroners and attaches of the office.
7. That an "investigation record," accurately showing the work of the office, somewhat similar to that kept by Dr. Hektoen, while coroner's physician in 1890-94, be resumed.
The Recorder:
The report of the Recorder, whose office is divided into three departments, — the Recording Department, the Abstract Department, and the Torrens Department — shows a gradual increase in the amount of business transacted.
One additional clerk is asked for in the Recording Department as draftsman, and from the testimony, showing that the returning of plats has been delayed by the lack of help for the past two years, we recommend that a clerk, to be employed as draftsman, be granted, in addition to the number of employes allowed last year.
In the Abstract Department the same number of employes as were allowed for the past year is requested, and we recommend that they be granted.
A supplemental report by the Recorder, in which was incorporated a letter from the Cook County Real Estate Board Torrens Committee, requested an addition of seven to the force at present employed in the Torrens Division. The testimony of the Recorder, as well as that of two members of the Committee named above, in regard to the need for the additional number asked, showed that the value of this depart- ment lay in the expedition with which the work could be done. The fact that the receipts had increased nearly 100 per cent, during the past four years, and over 20 per cent, during the last year, with every prospect of a corresponding increase during the coming year, together with the fact that one of those requested will more than earn his
10 Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency
wages from the fees of work now waiting, tends to justify the granting of a portion of the Recorder's request. We therefore recommend that the two lady typists asked for be not allowed, and that one examiner of titles, one investigator, one counter clerk, one typist, and one mes- senger boy, be granted the Recorder in this department, in addition to the number allowed last year.
Sheriff:
The report of the Sheriff shows a small increase in the business transacted and asks for ten bailiffs and six janitresses on account of the election of seven additional judges, and one marble finisher's helper for the County Building, as well as one female clerk and matron at the jail. He also asks that the jail physician be transferred from the pay-roll of the County Agent to that of the Sheriff, and he stated to us that this arrangement would be satisfactory to the County Agent.
After considering the representations made by the Sheriff and his chief deputy as to the need for the increase in help requested, after comparing the data of the last three years, and after considering the fact that seven new judges have lately been elected, some of whose time can be saved for the county by the use of a personal bailiff, we are of the opinion that the granting of his request will better subserve the county's interests, and, therefore, recommend that ten bailiffs, six janitresses and one marble finisher's helper for the County Building, as well as one female clerk and matron at the jail, be granted in addi- tion to his present allowance of help. We also recommend that the present jail physician be transferred to the pay-roll of the Sheriff, as requested, if it can be done by a satisfactory agreement with the County Agent.
County Treasurer:
The report of the County Treasurer shows a fair increase in the amount of business transacted, and asks for eighteen additional clerks and a private secretary, but suggests that the allowance of five clerks for six months and of six clerks for four months, which has been allowed for the past year, be discontinued. As a basis for his request he points to the increase in business, and suggests that it is his policy to place the highest grade of men on his regular pay-roll; that it is impossible to obtain the class of help necessary in his office for either four or six months' periods, and that he will better be able to serve the county by retaining the best men upon his regular pay-roll continu- ously than by hiring mediocre men for such short periods.
Taking into consideration the number of men whose short jtime service he wishes to dispense with, whose work approximates that of five men working full time, the net increase asked is fourteen men, including a private secretary. Although we recognize the force of his contentions, we are unable to say that the increase in business justifies the whole number asked for, and we therefore recommend that the allowance of the five clerks for six months and six clerks for four months be discontinued, and that the County Treasurer be granted thirteen additional clerks, in addition to the remainder of his present allowance.
Juvenile Court:
Pursuant to the provisions of the Juvenile Court Act, we recom- mend that a rule be entered of record providing for thirteen assistant
The Judges and the County Fee Offices 11
probation officers (three of whom shall be heads of divisions) and one probation stenographer, in addition to the force heretofore allowed. Your Committee has made no personal investigation in this matter, but has consulted with Judge Pinckney and has adopted his suggestions in the premises.
We have received a request from Judge Pinckney for the allowance of a confidential clerk or private secretary, at a salary not exceeding $1,500 per year, for use in his work in connection with the Juvenile Court, because of the large detail incident to the work which devolves upon him. We have heretofore recommended that the clerk be allowed to supply the additional help.
Judge Pinckney suggests that the judges of the Circuit Court join in a recommendation to the County Board that they increase the salaries of the adult probation officers from $100 to $110 per month, the increase being intended to cover traveling expenses. There being no provisions under the adult probation law whereby such expenses can be allowed in any other way. And, further, the chief probation officer reports that the Municipal Court judges have already taken affirmative action on a like request by the City Council. We recom- mend the adoption of Judge Pinckney's suggestion that we join in such a recommendation to the County Board.
Jury Commissioners:
The Jury Commissioners request the addition of one clerk to the force allowed them last year by the courts of record of Cook County. We recommend that the staff of the Jury Commissioners be increased by the addition of one clerk named, because of the increase in the amount of work done in this office, and this recommendation is also approved by the judges of the Superior, Probate and County Courts of Cook County, who share with us the duty of fixing the number of these employes. We further recommend that the allowance made for four assistants for a period of six months for certain special work which has been completed, be discontinued.
The several requests for private secretaries or confidential clerks have not been allowed because the law does not provide for them.
RECAPITULATION.
Based upon the foregoing we accordingly recommend the following; lists of employes for the various county officials for the year 1912:
Cleric of the Circuit Court:
1 Chief Clerk 1 Book-keeper
1 Cashier
2 Execution Clerks 11 Record Writers
9 Minute Clerks 25 Clerks
1 Stenographer and Typewriter 1 Stenographer for use of Judges
12 Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency
Juvenile Court Cleric Ex Officio:
1 Chief Clerk 1 Minute Clerk 3 Record Writers
5 Clerks
1 Stenographer for the exclusive use of the Judge of the Juvenile Court
Clerk of the Superior Court:
1 Chief Clerk 1 Book-keeper
1 Cashier
2 Execution Clerks 8 Record Writers
8 Minute Clerks 38 Clerks
1 Stenographer and Typewriter 1 Stenographer for use of Judges
Clerk of the County Court:
1 Chief Clerk
1 Clerk, Assistant County Judge
1 Cashier and Book-keeper
6 Clerks
2 Record Writers
3 Minute Clerks
1 Stenographer for correspondence, certified copies, Insane
Court, etc.
11 extra men on special assessment work, making certified copies, etc.
Clerk of the Probate Court:
1 Clerk-Stenographer for the exclusive use of the Judge of
the Probate Court 3 Assistants to Probate Judge
1 Chief Clerk
8 Record Writers 3 Minute Clerks 41 Clerks
2 Stenographers and Typewriters
1 Cashier and Book-keeper ,
Clerk of the Criminal Court:
1 Chief Clerk
1 Cashier and Book-keeper
6 Record Writers 22 Clerks
7 Minute Clerks
2 Indictment Record Writers 1 Stenographer
1 Messenger
The Judges and the County Fee Offices 13
Coroner:
1 Chief Deputy Coroner 4 Physicians and Deputies
11 Deputies 6 Clerks
4 Shorthand Reporters
4 Typists, Graphaphone Operators
Recorder:
A. RECORDING DEPABTMENT:
1 Chief Deputy
1 Chief Clerk 76 Clerks
2 Stenographers
100 to 140 Folio Typewriters to be employed as required, aver- aging 135 for the year
B. ABSTBACT DEPABTMENT:
1 Superintendent 31 Clerks
C. TOBBENS DEPABTMENT:
1 Examiner of Titles
2 Attorneys
1 Investigator 1 Counter Clerk
3 Stenographers 1 Typist
1 Messenger
12 Clerks
Sheriff's Office:
1 Assistant Sheriff
1 Chief Deputy
2 Chief Bailiffs
2 Assistant Chief Bailiffs
1 Real Estate and Bond Clerk 1 Cashier 1 Summons Clerk 1 Assistant Summons Clerk 1 Execution Clerk 6 Clerks 1 Stenographer 1 Messenger 28 Deputy Sheriffs 114 Bailiffs 1 Bailiff, Chicago Heights
County Building:
1 Custodian 1 Assistant Custodian 1 Chief Engineer 1 General Mechanic 1 Elevator Caretaker
3 Oilers
14 Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency
1 Clerk
2 Elevator Starters 18 Elevator Men
1 Head Window Washer
14 Window Washers 8 Watchmen
2 Chief Janitors 40 Janitors
96 Janitresses 2 Wood Finishers 1 Steamfitter 1 Steamfitter's Helper
1 Plumber
2 Electricians
1 Marble Caretaker 1 Marble Caretaker's Helper 1 Marble Finisher's Helper 1 Iron Caretaker
3 Bronze Caretakers 1 Store Room Keeper 3 Firemen
3 Coal Passers
3 Engineers
Criminal Court Building:
1 Custodian
4 Elevator Men 8 Watchmen
10 Janitors
2 Window Washers
15 Janitresses
1 Chief Engineer
3 Engineers 6 Firemen
1 Pump Engineer
1 Coal Passer
1 Electrician
1 Plumber
1 Chambermaid
1 Steamfitter
1 Steamfitter's Helper
Jail:
1 Jailor
3 Assistant Jailors
2 Clerks
1 Female Clerk and Matron
3 Matrons 1 Engineer 1 Laundress 1 Teacher
4 Elevator Men 53 Jail Guards
1 Nurse for Jail Hospital 1 Chief Cook
The Judges and the County Fee Offices 15
2 Assistant Cooks 4 Kitchen Helpers 1 Baker ,
1 Store Keeper
1 Jail Physician (provided he be transferred from County Agent)
County Treasurer:
1 Assistant Treasurer
1 Chief Clerk
2 Cashiers 1 Auditor
4 Book-keepers 1 Draftsman
1 Stenographer
2 Messengers 98 Clerks
Extra men by the day, including night and Sunday work, 50 to 250 men to be employed as required. Average, 150 men.
Juvenile Court Probation Officers:
1 Chief Probation Officer 1 Assistant Chief Probation Officer
. 3 Assistant Probation Officers who shall be heads of divisions 43 Assistant Probation Officers
1 Court Stenographer
2 Probation Stenographers 2 Probation Clerks
1 Assistant Probation Officer (Nurse)
2 Assistant Probation Officers (Interpreters)
Jury Commissioners:
1 Clerk (allowed by statute) 11 Assistants
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Dated, DECEMBER 15, 1911.
(Signed) JESSE A. BALDWIN.
(Signed) CHABLES M. WALKER, (Signed) FREDERICK A. SMITH.
THE PARK GOV
OF CHICAGO
AN INQUIRY INTO THEIR ORGANIZE AND METHODS OF ADMINISTRATK
REPORT PREPARED BY T H E CHICAGO BUREAU OF PUBLIC EFFICIENCY
DECEMBER, 191
>RIOR PUBLICATIONS
t Preparing and Administering the Budget of Cook >unty, Illinois. January, 1911,
sed Purchase of Voting Machines by the Board of Election ^Commissioners of the City of Chicago. May, 1911. (Out of Prir ' i
reet Pavement Laid in the City of Chicago: An Inquiry Into ials, Methods and Results. June, 1911. (Out of
oi V Uer Pipes in the City of Chicago. July, 1911. (Out of Prim
niniatrati i the Office of Recorder of Cook County, Illinois. S< tember, 1911. Plea for Publicity in the Office of County Treasurer. October,
1911.
..pairing Asphalt Pavement: Work Done for the City of Chi- go Under Contract in 1911. October, 1911. (Out of Print.) ic Municipal Court Acts: Two Related Propositions Upon Which the Voters of Chicago Will Be Asked to Pass Judg- : Election of November 7-— Vote No. October 31, 0 f Print).
:. v: i; •<,:;.;;: System of tb e City of Chicago. By Dabney H, Maun/, December, 1912.
eets; Civil Service Commission; and Special Assess- « Bunting System of the City of Chicago. December,
ion of the Office of Coroner of Cook County, Illinois. Deo .••• '911. Adir; • atioii <>i -.lie Office of Sheriii of Cook County, Illinois.
Det< tnb<
Adn i the OfB< of Clerk oi the Circuit Court and of
Court cf Cook County, ... tceml er, I I]
he County :. ces December 19, 1911.
Gem. : ' - ; Report on the Park Gov-
nents C licago .( ' ser, • 311,
THE PARK GOVERNMENTS OF CHICAGO
AN INQUIRY INTO THEIR ORGANIZATION AND METHODS OF ADMINISTRATION
REPORT PREPARED BY THE CHICAGO BUREAU OF PUBLIC EFFICIENCY
315 PLYMOUTH COURT
CHICAGO BUREAU
OF
PUBLIC EFFICIENCY
TRUSTEES
JULIUS ROSENWALD, Chairman ALFRED L. BAKER, Treasurer
ONWARD BATES CHARLES R. CRANE
CLYDE M. CARR HENRY B. FAVILL
GEORGE G. TUNELL WALTER L. FISHER
CHARLES E. MERRIAM
HERBERT R. SANDS, Director
GEORGE C. SIKES, Secretary
PETER WHITE, Fiscal and Organization Counsel
HARRIS S. KEELER, Legal Counsel
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 9
HISTORICAL 11
GENERAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 15
I. Waste and Inefficiency the Natural Consequences of
Lack of Unity 15
II. General Characterizations of the Separate Park Systems. 17
1. The South Park System 17
2. The West Park System 18
3. The Lincoln Park System 21
4. The Smaller Park Districts 21
III. Publicity for Park Board Affairs 22
IV. Financial Matters 23
V. Improvements Pending Unification 24
TEXT OF REPORT 27
Part One 27
I. Board Meetings 27
Time and Place of Meetings 27
Executive Sessions 28
Recording and Publishing Board Proceedings 29
Methods of Passing Ordinances 30
II. General Financial Methods 31
Receipts 31
Expenditures 31
Bonded Debt 34
Treasurers' Sureties 36
Interest on Deposits 37
Special Funds 40
III. Taxes for Park Purposes 42
Power of Park Boards to Levy Taxes 42
Increase of Park Taxes Due to Change in Assessed
Values 43
Inequity of Tax Distribution 46
South Park Board Specially Benefited in 1909 Levy 47
South Park Board Asking Further Increase in 1911... 48
Levying Special Assessments 49
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued
IV. Central Accounting and Auditing Control 49
South Park Commissioners 49
West Chicago Park Commissioners 49
Receipts 50
Expenditures 51
Materials and Supplies 51
Contracts 52
Payrolls 52
Cost Accounting 53
Auditing 53
In General 55
Lincoln Park Commissioners 56
Receipts 56
Expenditures 56
Materials and Supplies 56
Contracts 57
Expense Accounting 58
Payrolls 58
Auditing 58
Summary and Conclusions of Part One 59
Board Meetings 59
General Financial Methods 60
Taxes for Park Purposes 63
Central Accounting and Auditing Control 65
Part Two 67
I. Methods of Purchase (exclusive of coal) 67
Need for Centralization 67
Need for Standardization 70
Purchase of Soil 74
A $100,000 Annual Saving 75
II. Purchase of Coal '. 76
Defects in Specifications 77
South Park Commissioners 77
West Chicago Park Commissioners 78
Lincoln Park Commissioners 78
Methods Actually Employed in Weighing, Sampling
and Testing 79
South Park Commissioners 79
West Chicago Park Commissioners 79
Lincoln Park Commissioners 79
Savings Possible by Proper Selection of Coals 80
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued
III. Small Parks and Playgrounds 83
South Park Commissioners 84
West Chicago Park Commissioners 85
Lincoln Park Commissioners 86
In General 86
IV. Special Privileges 87
South Park Commissioners 87
West Chicago Park Commissioners 88
Lincoln Park Commissioners 89
V. Refectories and Lunch Rooms 90
South Park Commissioners 90
West Chicago Park Commissioners 93
Lincoln Park Commissioners 95
VI. Boats 97
South Park Commissioners 97
West Chicago Park Commissioners 99
Lincoln Park Commissioners 99
Summary and Conclusions of Part Two 100
Methods of Purchase (exclusive of coal) 100
Purchase of Coal 102
Small Parks and Playgrounds 103
Special Privileges 104
Refectories and Lunch Rooms 105
Boats 107
Part Three 109
I. Police Service 109
Appointment and Discharge 109
Increasing Cost of Park Police 110
Duplication of Police Work Ill
Other Conditions Contributing to Excessive Cost and Inefficiency 1 12
II. Automobile Service 114
South Park Commissioners 114
Original Outlay 114
Maintenance and Operation 1 14
Service Records 116
West Chicago Park Commissioners 117
Original Outlay 117
Maintenance and Operation 117
Service Records 1 19
Lincoln Park Commissioners 119
Original Outlay 119
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued
Maintenance and Operation ......................... 120
Service Records .................................... 121
A Specific Case of Wasteful Methods ................. 121
III. Horse Service .......................................... 123
South Park Commissioners . .......................... 123
Methods of Purchase and Sale ...................... 123
Accounting for Horses ....................... ...... 124
Foraging of Horses ................................. 124
Management of Stables ............................ 124
West Chicago Park Commissioners ................... 125
Methods of Purchase and Sale ...................... 125
Accounting for Horses ............................. 125
Foraging of Horses ................................. 126
Management of Stables ............................. 126
Lincoln Park Commissioners .......................... 126
Methods of Purchase and Sale .., ................... 126
Accounting for Horses .............................. 126
Foraging of Horses ............................... . 127
Management of Stables ............................. 127
IV. Repair Shops .......................................... 127
South Park Commissioners ............................ 127
Organization and Equipment ........................ 127
Shop Costs ........................................ 127
West Chicago Park Commissioners ................... 128
Organization and Equipment ........................ 128
Shop Costs ......................................... 129
Lincoln Park Commissioners ......................... 129
Organization and Equipment ........................ 129
Shop Costs ......................................... 130
V. Laundries .............................................. 130
South Park Commissioners ............................ 130
West Chicago Park Commissioners ................... '131
Lincoln Park Commissioners .......................... 132
Summary and Conclusions of Part Three ............... 132
Police Service ....................................... 132
Automobile Service .................................. 134
Horse Service ....................................... 137
Repair Shops ................................ ......... 139
Laundries ............................................ 139
Part Four
I. Electric Lighting and Heating Plants ................... 141
South Park Commissioners ........................... 141
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued
West Chicago Park Commissioners 143
Lincoln Park Commissioners 145
Boulevard Lamps 146
II. Lincoln Park Extension 148
III. Marquette Park 149
IV. South Park Administration Building 151
The Old B-uilding 151
The New Building Project 152
New Building Erected at a Total Cost of $173,418 153
How $145,000 Might Have Been Saved 155
V. Insurance of Park Structures 157
VI. Park and Boulevard Pavements 162
VII. Need for Reorganization 165
Need for Reorganization of Existing Park Boards.... 165 Need for a Consolidated Park Organization 173
Summary and Conclusions of Part Four 175
Electric Lighting and Heating Plants 175
Lincoln Park Extension 177
Marquette Park 177
South Park Administration Building 177
Insurance of Park Structures 178
Park and Boulevard Pavements 179
Need for Reorganization 180
APPENDIX 183 ff.
Tables:
Table A Showing Amounts of General Fund of West Chicago Park Commissioners Available for Deposit in Bank During 1909 and 1910; Amounts Deposited and Amounts Not De- posited.
Table B Showing the Kinds of Coal Used by the Several Park Boards and the Approximate Cost Thereof; Also Substitutes Suggested and the Estimated Annual Savings in Cost.
Table C Showing Assessed Value in Each Park District and Town for 1910, the Amount of Tax Levies Certified to the County Clerk, and the Rate and Amount Extended on the Tax Rolls.
Table D Showing Receipts and Expenditures for Each Park Board During the Fiscal Year 1910; Also the Bonded Debt Outstanding and Sinking Funds Provided.
TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued
Table E Showing Fieldhouses, Playgrounds, Swimming Pools and Bathing Beaches Maintained by the South, West and Lin- coln Park Boards and the City Government.
Table F Showing Names and Areas of Parks Under Control of Independent Park Governments and of the City Government Respectively in Each Town and Ward of the City.
Table G Showing the Authority, Purpose, and 1910 Rate of Each Park Levy Within the City Limits; Also the Amount of In- crease Made Possible in the 1910 Levy by Changing from a One-Fifth to a One-Third Valuation; Also the Amount of Each Levy as Certified to the County Clerk.
Charts:
South Park Commissioners — A — Chart of Organization as of January 1, 1911. B — Chart of Reorganization as Suggested by the Chicago Bu- reau of Public Efficiency.
West Chicago Park Commissioners —
C — Chart of Organization as of January 1, 1911. D — Chart of Reorganization as Suggested by the Chicago Bu- reau of Public Efficiency.
Lincoln Park Commissioners —
E — Chart of Organization as of January 1, 1911. F — Chart of Reorganization as Suggested by the Chicago Bu- reau of Public Efficiency.
Chart G Showing Organization Under Consolidation as Sug- gested by the Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency.
Map Showing Park Districts and Parks Within City of Chicago.
INTRODUCTION
There are ten separate park governments within the City of Chicago, nine of which are independent taxing authorities. Moreover, there is a general statute under which additional park governments may be established. The existing park boards now expend approximately six million dollars annually. While the public has appreciated the excellent park facilities which have been made available, it has known comparatively little as to the organization and business methods of the park boards.
The Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency was organized to furnish the public with information regarding public revenues and expenditures and to assist public officials in securing better methods of administering public affairs in Chicago. The Bureau, therefore, in the fall of 1910 sought the co-operation of the South, West Chicago, and Lincoln Park Boards, respectively, for the purpose of making a study of their organizations and methods of administration.
On August 15, 1910, the South Park Board formally ex- tended to the Bureau "an invitation to examine the South Park Commissioners' system and methods of business." The Bureau was apprised of the Board's action in a letter from the President, Henry G. Foreman, dated August 20, 1910.
The West Chicago Park Board took similar action September 6, 1910, of which fact the Bureau was apprised in a letter from the Secretary, George A. Mugler, dated September 8, 1910.
Also, Francis T. Simmons, President of the Lincoln Park Board, wrote a letter to the Bureau September 26, 1910, in which he offered facilities for making an audit "as well as a thorough inquiry into the methods of the Lincoln Park Board with special reference toward its economic side."
Since receipt of the above mentioned communications, the Bureau has conducted an extensive inquiry into various phases of the park problem in Chicago. It should be noted, however, that the inquiry did not include a study of the expenditures
9
10 Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency
for outdoor labor. Neither did the Bureau make an audit of the accounts of the park boards. The inquiry was directed rather to the fundamental features of organization and to the methods of business administration.
Chicago's splendid parks and boulevards constitute a fea- ture of the city's growth of which its people may be justly proud, and it must be recognized that much credit is due to a number of public spirited citizens, who, in their capacity as park com- missioners, have contributed their time and efforts to the devel- opment of the system.
Allowing full credit, however, for what has been accom- plished, the problem presented is: How may better results be obtained with the large amounts of money expended annually for park purposes? The proportions which these amounts have attained, the inefficiency and waste due to lack of unity in park government and the rapidly increasing demand for park facil- ities, particularly those of the character afforded by the small parks and playgrounds, make the solution of this problem a matter of first importance.
This report undertakes to set forth in detail the weak places in the present scheme of park government and to suggest remedies.
HISTORICAL
The present multiplicity of park governments began about 1869, at which time the South, West and Lincoln Park Boards were established. Prior to that time the public parks of Chicago were under the control of the department of public works of the city government. The entire park area was approximately 125 acres, of which only one-third was then improved. Today the park area within the city is 3,220 acres, as shown in detail in Table F of the Appendix.
The first attempt to found the South Park system was made in 1866. Two park bills were prepared; one providing that a park area be selected as an addition to the city and the other that the park area selected be both inside and outside of the city limits, and providing also for government by a commis- sion of five members to be appointed by the Governor. The latter plan which provided also for taxing for park purposes only that portion of the city to be benefited by the parks, was adopted by the promoters and the bill passed the Legislature in 1867. It was defeated, however, when submitted to a vote of the people of the towns of South Chicago, Hyde Park and Lake at the general election the next spring. Another bill con- taining practically the same provisions was introduced in the next Legislature (1869) and passed. It provided that the act should be submitted to the people at a special election. A special election for the purpose of voting upon this act was therefore called soon after and the measure was approved.
The bill which resulted in the establishment of the West Park district, as originally drafted, provided for a system of parks and boulevards throughout the entire city. When the committee from the City Council which was sent to Springfield to urge its passage found that representatives from the South and North sides of the city had arranged for the passage of bills to establish separate park systems in those portions of the city, they modified their bill so as to include only the West
11
12 Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency
side. The bill as modified provided for government by a com- mission of seven members to be appointed by the Governor and that the taxes therefor should be raised within the limits of the park district described in the act. It was passed by the Legislature and on March 23, 1869, was approved by a vote of the town of West Chicago and those parts of the towns of Lake View and Cicero which were entitled to vote under the act. The West Chicago Park Commissioners are appointed for terms of seven years.
Lincoln Park originally contained about sixty acres and was set off for a public park from lands of the Chicago ceme- tery by an ordinance of the City Council passed October 21, 1864. At that time it bore the name Lake Park. This was afterwards changed to Lincoln Park. Beginning with the next year, annual appropriations were made by the City Council for its maintenance, the money being derived from a general tax levy of the entire city. In February, 1869, the Legislature passed an act fixing the boundaries of the park, providing for condemning of remaining cemetery lots and also that the gov- ernment of the park be vested in a commission of five persons named in the act. They were to serve five years, after which their successors were to be appointed by the Governor. A ques- tion having arisen as to the power of the Legislature to name commissioners in the law, another act was passed in June, 1871, providing for the appointment of a new Board. In November of that year the Governor appointed five commissioners to suc- ceed the old Board and subsequent governors have appointed the Lincoln Park Boards under the same authority. The number was subsequently changed to seven and they have been appointed for five year terms.
A number of acts have been passed which are amendatory to the acts establishing the South, West and Lincoln Park Boards. These amendatory acts have given the Boards more taxing and bonding power and provided for extending and developing their facilities. The Lincoln Park Board is unfor- tunate in that the creative acts were ambiguous in some features and silent upon others. They were never submitted to a vote
The Park Governments of Chicago 13
of the people of the towns of North Chicago and Lake View, and the Board is therefore not clothed with corporate authority such as is vested in the South and West Park Boards.
On July 1, 1895, there went into force a general enabling act under which many additional park districts might be estab- lished. Any one hundred legal voters resident within a pro- posed park district may petition the County Judge to order an election for the purpose of deciding whether the district described in the petition shall be organized and also for the purpose of selecting five commissioners. The term of one of these commissioners expires each year and the vacancy is filled by election.
Seven park districts have already been organized under this act within the City of Chicago. The names thereof and dates of organization (election) are as follows:
Ridge Avenue, April 14, 1896. North Shore, May 10, 1900. Calumet, September 12, 1903. Fern wood, May 16, 1908. Ridge, October 24, 1908. Irving Park, April 12, 1910. Northwest, June 30, 1911.
GENERAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
I. WASTE AND INEFFICIENCY THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCES OF LACK OF UNITY
Under separate management, each of the three large park systems of Chicago has points of excellence — the South Park and Lincoln Park systems more than the West Park system. From the viewpoint of the community as a whole, however, there is not only much waste and inefficiency in connection with expen- ditures of park funds, but the needs of the people for park facili- ties are not properly met, nor can they be, so long as the present lack of unified management continues.
There are ten separate park boards within the City of Chi- cago— not counting the Special Park Commission, which is an arm of the city government, nor the Forest Preserve Commission, intended to have taxing authority over the entire County of Cook, the act creating which has been declared unconstitutional. There are portions of the City of Chicago that are not within any of the ten separate park districts. The names of these ten boards, the amount of the outstanding bonded indebt- edness and of the annual tax levy of each are giv°n in the follow- ing tabular statement : Total Bonded Taxes Extended
Indebtedness at End by County
Park District of Fiscal Year 1910 Clerk for 1910
South $ 5,920,000.00 $2,601,159
West 2,763,166.66 1,437,263
Lincoln *1,790,000.00 990,239
Calumet 112
Fernwood *13,000.00 3,867
Irving 9,256
North Shore 32,000.00 10,506
North West **
Ridge 32,500.00 6,542
Ridge Avenue 3,544
$10,550,666.66 $5,062,488 Special Park Commission — Appropria- tion by City Council for 1910 130,102
$10,550,666.66 $5,192,590
Less : Sinking Fund (See below) .... 470,458.81
Net Indebtedness . ..$10,080,207.85
*Sinkingr funds held against these bonds as follows:
Lincoln $470,000.00. Fernwood f458.81.
**Thls park district was not organized until 1911.
15
RETURN TO the circulation desk of any University of California Library
or to the
NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY Bldg. 400, Richmond Field Station University of California Richmond, CA 94804-4698
ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS
• 2-month loans may be renewed by calling (510)642-6753
• 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing books to NRLF
• Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days prior to due date.
DUE AS STAMPED BELOW
SEP 2 1 1998
12,000(11/95)
24396?