So, I just found this information, which sheds lights on “what time of day it is,” [and where due process went].   No way am I going to keep it to myself!

It’s said, we should kick ass and take names.  Well, these four men, like FDR, are no longer alive, but I have kicked the archives and unearthed some some names, and have identified their institutions, which have a way of outliving their founders through the miracle of incorporation.

To see this is to see oligarchy in action (in my opinion) how people with influence over the President, having determined (after being appointed by him to study the issue) that the basic concept is to expand and centralize government for efficiency — increased centralization of power, so we can provide democracy to ourselves and of course, other countries…

I had no idea who Brownlow, Merriam (though I guess “Merriam is  a familiar name if you read dictionaries), Gulick or Ruml were.

But I wanted to know why when we look for justice, or rule of law, or due process in the “family” or any other courts, we get social science administration instead.  Why when I go into a courtroom, its air and atmosphere should be drenched with Rockefeller and Ford-funded administrative policies on how to organize the place.  If the courts are “problem-solving” courts, then are not the litigants the “problem”?  And if the litigants (who are people seeking exercise of legal, or protection of human/civil rights they thought they had) are the “problem” when what, pray tell, is the “Final Solution” to the “problem” of human conflict, and human struggles for survival, or for what they believe anachronistically to be their perceived rights???

Is it getting rid of due process in favor of administrative management of the masses, or culling the masses (getting rid of some of them), chasing them out of the courtrooms where they might reasonably expect some rules and principles to apply (which are becoming anachronisms) and is, or is not, this eventually leading to simply getting rid of the masses, per se?  The current proliferation of “Collaborative Law” outfits around the country (AFCC personnel I’ll bet many of them) would seem to be, YES  Because there are too many of us, the courts are too crowded, the country is broke (lie #1: it’s not….), y’all should forfeit basic human rights (potentially life itself) for the good of the collective state.

Oh, should we??  Well, “shoulds” and other ideals aside, this may fill in some history blanks for many readers.

[next para. repeated below…with  minor word variations by me.]

This of course exhibits the PLANNED centralization of power, and that centralization of power of course relates to money – the tax system, the Federal Reserve system, and things hat happened now about 80-90  years ago.  I’m talking between the wars.  In fact another search on Gulick, says “Under Gulick’s new Nationalist Progressive creed, the President was the chief political leader AND the chief administrator, and as such was the elected official most likely to revitalize the American system of government [what, it was having problems, was it insipid or anemic??] through more centralized power.  Found in “Bureaucracy and Self-Government:  Reconsidering the Role of Public Administration in American Politics” by Brian J. Cook.

I have people trying to do this to my life (as we speak) and they just “don’t get” that it’s not about practicality from their point of view, when major legal, civil and human rights have been repeatedly violated.  My point of view is, get the justice basis rightside up, then the practical elements will handle themselves better.

While three of the men involved:  Brownlow, Merriam and Gulick were on a certain FDR appointed “Committee on Administrative Management,”  the side-reference in Brownlow materials at the University of Chicago archives to his friend “Beardsley Ruml” led me  (OK, my curiosity was involved as a catalyst) to look that up — and discover that Beardsley, bless his heart, a UChicago major in psychology and education (seem to be great prep. for a career in government these days — I guess then also), is known as the father of the pay-as-you-go income tax, which means, the Federal (USA, Inc.) government gets ITS revenues earlier (and can then use them to provide a nice ROI and bear interest, while those who coughed them up, in their own individual bank accounts, obviously could not) and prioritized government over the individuals, hardly something new, while saying this is in the individuals’ best interest (“obviousy”) because government (“obviously…”??) has individual rights and lives at the heart of all its policies.   And that was done after World War II.

The collaboration of these men around the University of Chicago at that time ,and its “1313 organizations” included, probably the onset of what Walter Burien has been reporting since the late 1980s, about how the GFOA (Government Financial Officers Association) organized and standardized the fiscal reporting of ALL subsidiary (to the federal) US governments into similar format, so the powers that be could assess their assets — while segmenting the reporting and (helped by a media blackout) keep those assets (and the returns from them) OFF the public radar, while clubbing them repeatedly over the head with talk of budget, debt, duty to society, the need to consistently cut services, and our collective duty to support this mess.  Most of which is, more closely examined, propaganda or in a word, bullshit.

THE GFOA is an Association (corporation) of both the USA and Canada — with it looks like, an associated “foundation.”  This “Mission” statement doesn’t tell the readers (not intended to be your average person) that they are an incorporation, probably nonprofit, and tax-exempt (at least USA) group for persuasion and training purposes of aligning accounting practices between (at least) two countries — one of which has a constitutional presidency and is a republic, I think (the US) and the other one which is a Commonwealth, and part of the Queen’s dominion in more ways than one.  It appears the Queen wants to know the extent of her assets in both countries which is better done of accounting practices are standardized?

Here’s a page from their recent “combined” (with their underlying? Research Foundation) consolidating financial report 2012-2013, identifying themselves corporately.  For quick reading only, please don’t get lost in the detail.    This is just one page of several.  The main thing is to be aware, they exist (“from 1906” says the main website).  They say, approximately 17,800 members (meaning, that’s not all the governments in even the US, let alone in both countries).

Also, I can’t but help note Rockefeller involvement in much of this.

Quick summary of Burien (after that, look things up yourself; I did! I have recently laced most posts with reference to him, and started even a separate blog, “Cold Hard Facts”  While some people I know involved in working for system change in the FAMILY court venue have looked at these, SOME, most don’t see to grasp the significance.  It will probably just take more time and exposure — but it’s a game-changer to understand this.  I’m pasting a good chunk of this quote here.  Please accept it’s in your best interest to actually read it! (How’s that ADHD coming these days?).  This may relate also to a stolen election of 2000, a faith-based initiative of 2001, Homeland security (9/11) and quite a bit more.  Would you like to still be missing or dismissing major pieces of the puzzle still in 2013?  Have you been brainwashed to give up, or trust the experts, because not doing so is too frightening?    I’ll admit is frightening, if not overwhelming, but I have to also face that this is evidence… and evidence leads to truth which, ideally, we want.  RIGHT??  (see my username….)

If not yet completely overcome by media and induced distraction, then read and consider, please!!  He’s going to mention 1946, and this post is dealing with 1936-1939 and ff…..

Walter Burien’s open Letter to Al Gore – Ending Taxation!

By Walter Burien – CAFR1 Research

10-07-04

What the Media will not tell you about the Democrat’s Al Gore

The mind behind Mr. Bill Clinton towards financial direction of this country come 1999 was Al Gore. Mr. Gore believed in open disclosure as to the true finances of government wealth. Mr. Gore put forward the establishment of http://www.financenet.gov what I considered to be a full disclosure site.

Myself being a strong critic of government’s nondisclosure, when I looked at and reviewed financenet.gov in 1998, it broke all the rules in the behalf of the people.  It gave a listing of local government CAFRs (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports), government’s Annual Financial Report that showed “Gross” income as well as total “Investments.” [Trillions in composite totals] It listed the original transmittal letters from GFOA (Government Financial Officers Association) a private group originally located in Chicago, Illinois who started the CAFR accounting structure in 1946.

In 1979 at GFOA’s request they had the Feds mandate to the few local governments who were not in compliance with producing a CAFR to do so at that time if they wished to continue receiving Federal funding. That was Transmittal Letter #1 issued in 1979 by what has now become GASB Government Accounting Standards Board (a Federal Agency) Transmittal Letter #1 and the correspondences that led up to it were there on Financenet.gov to be viewed.

What was being hand spoon feed to the public across the country up until that point were Selectively created budget reports which excluded “substantial” portions of the gross income and in almost all cases did not list the investment / future funding accounts as was shown in the CAFRs.

CAFRs when digested and gross income is totaled showed in most cases that government had evolved into a corporate for profit business in which as of the year 2000 only 1/3rd of governments “Gross” income came from Tax income. Budget reports mislead the public into believing government’s primary income was tax income, it was not. Tax income was only 1/3rd of the gross as shown in the CAFR once digested. 

In many a case after careful review of a CAFR, it was shown that government in many a case was indirectly funding their own debt with the use of their own investment funds. A debt as would be shown on the selectively created budget reports and that the public was being tagged to repay.

Most people from the private sector would think that the majority of that ever-growing debt of their local government for bond issuance’s, insurance coverage, etc., or even the mortgage on their own house was being funded by the private sector. Well, come the year 2000, it was not. Government enterprise investment groups and government Pension operations were the primary investors in that debt, and did so using the government’s own investment funds. The public was being locked into repayment of the debt and by doing so accomplished a return (Non-Tax income) for the government. If a private corporation did the same to its shareholders without full and open disclosure of doing so, the directors involved would be sitting in the federal pen after a multiple count SEC indictment.   [=/= a link, just for emphasis…]

But then due to the money involved, government starting in 1946 evolved into what gives a new definition to the expression of letting the “Foxes guard the Hen house” and by definition of circumstance and reality of the current structure, has now given government the true title and has redefined the meaning of the words “Organized Crime.” Or as the definition of RICO goes, “Extortion of money from the public through criminal enterprise.”

In 1999, I after reviewing Mr. Gores actions and intent as I read it, he appeared to want a change in this new definition of government as shown above.

So I’ve included his (RUML’s) bio blurbs (informal, web-searched) to keep the issue of the function of income taxes on individuals on the map here.

So this page then fleshes out and accompanies my still-recent (spring/summer 2013)  post “Abolishment of Representative Government through Presidential Executive Orders…”   Chronologically, THIS post  belongs right about the time of the “Reorganization Act of 1939, which is to say, we’re talking New Deal, and Roosevelt.”  I was reminded of the Brownlow report, and thought it appropriate to bring up and found enough for a separate post, which  you have right here.

Summary of the Report of the Committee on Administrative Management

Summary of the Report of the Committee on Administrative Management

Louis Brownlow

Luther Gulick

Charles E. Merriam

The American Presidency Project

January 12, 1937

The Brownlow committee was created by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1936 in order to explore administration procedures for the White House. The expansion of the President’s office followed shortly thereafter and continues to grow to this day. This document describes the committee’s recommendations for the President, including information on the type and number of assistants he should have.

Library Topic

Library Topic: The President’s Tsars, Czars, and Tzars

For a quick reminder, (from “monkeycage.com,” a random find):

This of course dovetails with the centralization of power, and that centralization of power of course relates to money – the tax system, the Federal Reserve system, and things hat happened now about 80-90  years ago.  I’m talking between the wars.

In fact another search on Gulick, says “Under Gulick’s new Nationalist Progressive creed, the President was the chief political leader AND the chief administrator, and as such was the elected official most likely to revitalize the American system of government [what, it was having problems, was it insipid or anemic??] through more centralized power.

Found in “Bureaucracy and Self-Government:  Reconsidering the Role of Public Administration in American Politics” by Brian J. Cook.

So, I just found this information, and now way am I going to keep it to myself!

ALL THAT FOLLOWS ARE QUICK LOOK-UPS (PARTLY, NOT ONLY, WIKIPEDIA) ON THE THREE MEN OF THIS COMMITTEE, AND, BECAUSE THERE WAS A REFERENCE IN BROWNLOW’S UCHICAGO PAPERS TO “BEARDSLEY RUML” (FATHER OF THE PAY-AS-YOU-GO ASPECT OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX), HE’S IN THERE TOO.

NO  ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE PAGE VISUALLY CONSISTENT OR APPEALING WAS MADE. I’M JUST PUTTING OUT THE INFORMATION AS AN ADJUNCT TO THE PAGE ON THE CENTRALIZATION OF AMERICA AND ABOLISHMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.

IF THE WHOLE THING IS CENTRALIZED, THEN WHOVER CONTROLS THE CENTRALIZED APPARATUS, FROM THE TOP, CONTROLS THE COUNTRY.  HOW WISE, OR “CONSTITUTIONAL” IS THAT?

Before many Acts of Congress [Even Reorganization Acts] there are going to be Commissions. From 1936-1939 (Hmm right before another World War was about to start), there was a 3-member, Roosevelt-appointed Committee on Administrative Management, the” Brownlow “Committee.

So a few paragraphs on that Committee (from two different decades and authors), and a bit about its three members, Brownlow, Merriam and Gulick. Why relevant? Well, if we are going to have states courts based on social science (including marriage, fatherhood, family, abstinence, etc. theories) and influenced by federal grants as much as by law — might it be interesting to find out how this all got started?

Here’s  “Reorganization the Federal Executive Branch:  The limits of Regionalization“

by Harvey C. Mansfield, Prof. of Government at Columbia.

I don’t see a date, possibly late 1970s…  from it,  For future reference.  On page 1, he thanks “Brookings”:

Scanning it, I notice there’s a section on the Brownlow Committee.  The 3-person “Brownlow Committee” (Committee on Administrative Management) led to the Reorganization Act of 1939, and from their to the establishment of the Executive Office of the President.

2. The Brownlow Committee,1936-1939

The President’s Committee on Administrative Management, set up in 1936, is included here in the category of commissions because it made a public report, to the Congress as well as to the President. In other respects it resembled the presidential  task forces considered below. More than the Taft Commission, it was a presidential enterprise, created by a letter to its chairman and announced in parallel letters from the President to the Speaker and Vice President. It had only the minimum congressional sanction of a line in a deficiency appropriation act, without a congressional mandate other than submission of its report

2.8 Roosevelt appointed its three members.  [… discussion of his attempt to put a Republican on there, for bipartisanship, however his choice ex-Governor Lowden was in ill health..]]…

When he declined, other names were canvassed but Roosevelt decided to settle for a snug group, knowledgeable and congenial, with a minimum of uncertainties. He had talked with two of them a number of times earlier, in the preliminary planning, but when the work got under way he cut off further com- munication with the committee until after the November elections. When he saw the draft report he found little to alter and much to his liking.

The congressional leaders, on the other hand, although cordially invited at the beginning to set up select committees to cover the same ground, got no advance inkling of the contents of the Brownlow report until the very eve of its publication and transmittal. Nor, with one or two exceptions, did anyone in the executive branch outside the White House.

Neither did Senator Byrd, who found in that fact evidence of bad faith and another ground for his opposition to the recommendations after he learned what these were. In the House the leadership was friendly in the beginning, by reason of personal ties between Brownlow and the speaker, but the Appropriations Committee chairman balked. In the Senate the leadership was in- different until the report appeared.

Yep,

Why the Brownlow Committee Failed: Neutrality and Partisanship in the Early Years of Public Administration  Alasdair S. Roberts  Suffolk University Law School   July 19, 1994

Administration and Society, 28.1 (May 1996), pp. 3-38.

Abstract: 

In 1938, Congress rejected a package of administrative reforms that had been developed by a committee of academics headed by Louis Brownlow. The defeat was the worst that President Roosevelt would suffer in three terms as President. This article suggests that the Brownlow Committee contributed to the debacle in Congress by ignoring evidence that its recommendations would prove contentious. It is argued that the committee members were caught in a dilemma: On the one hand, they wanted to obtain immediate reforms for a president to whom they felt a personal loyalty; on the other, they needed to maintain a demonstration of neutrality, which made it difficult to undertake the tasks of political management that were essential to craft a viable reform program. The demonstration of neutrality was a combination of arguments and routines that the academic community had invented to allay public skepticism about its members’ trustworthiness as advisers on contentious issues.

Who were Brownlow, Merriam and Gulick? (Wikipedia, minus active links.  See actual article for active links)

(that’s Merriam, left, Brownlow — right):

BROWNLOW:

Louis Brownlow (August 29, 1879 – September 27, 1963) was anAmerican author, political scientist, and consultant in

the area of public administration. As chairman of the Committee on Administrative Management (better known as the Brownlow Committee) in 1937, he co-authored a report which led to passage of the Reorganization Act of 1939and the creation of the Executive Office of the President.^[1] While chairing the Committee on Administrative Management, Brownlow called several of PresidentFranklin D. Roosevelt‘s advisors men with “a passion for anonymity”—which later became a popular phrase.^{[2][3] . . . . . .}

Brownlow came to Washington, D.C., as a reporter for two Tennessee newspapers, and made the acquaintance of President Theodore Roosevelt.^[10]He caught the attention of President Woodrow Wilson in 1914 after being one of the few newspaper reporters to correctly predict that the German Empire would go to war with Serbia over the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (which caused the start of World War I).^[4]Expressing a desire to put into practice many of the administrative practices he had reported on from Europe,^[10] Brownlow sought and won from President Wilson appointment in 1915 as a commissioner of the District of Columbia, serving until 1920.^{[4][5][6][11]}

. . . .[much government experience….]]

Brownlow began teaching political science at the University of Chicago in 1931, and later that year was appointed director of the Public Administration Clearing House (which he had helped organize in 1930) at the university.^{[4][6][15][16]}He remained the Clearing House’s director until 1945.^[4][15][17] Brownlow became chairman of the Committee for Public Administration of the Social Science Research Council in 1933, where he worked to bridge the gap between academics and practitioners.^[10] He was also chairman of the National Institute of Public Affairs from 1934 to 1949.^[17]

On January 10, 1937, the Committee released its report.^[21] Famously declaring “The President needs help,”^[20][22][23]the Committee’s report advocated a strong chief executive, including among its 37 recommendations significant expansion of the presidential staff, integration of managerial agencies into a single presidential office, expansion of the merit system, integration of all independent agencies into existing Cabinet departments, and modernization of federal accounting and financial practices.^[23][24]

[[INTERJECTION — DIFFERENT BACKGROUND COLOR ]]  See quote on CAFRs, above… and from below, note:

“From Brownlow’s position as head of PACH the reader can witness the formulation of new professional associations and groups. The collection reveals the interrelationship of the groups composing the clearinghouse and their methods of policy determination. Among the groups served by PACH were the American Legislator’s Association, the American Municipal Association, the Governmental Research Association, and the International City Managers Association. The diaries are replete with original newsletters, conference documents, and reports distributed by these organizations. Brownlow allows the reader, who it will be remembered was a trustee of the clearing house, to share his observations with respect to policy differences among the member organizations.

PACH, which functioned until 1955, was a center for organizations of public officials the field of administration.

ALL roads lead to Chicago??

]]

Brownlow Wiki, cont’d…

While he was a member of the Committee on Administrative Management, Brownlow was named an official delegate to the Sixth International Congress of Administrative Sciences [hover cursor, see logo below.  Interesting!!]] in Warsaw, Poland.^[10] Although he left government service after the termination of the Committee, Brownlow continued to be an advisor to presidents Franklin Roosevelt andHarry S. Truman.^[10] He left that position in 1939.^[17]

Brownlow received an honorary Doctor of Law degree from American University in 1938.^[4] He suffered a heart attack in December of that year.^[25]

Post-Brownlow Committee[edit]

Brownlow helped co-found the American Society for Public Administration in 1940, serving in various executive and advisory capacities to it until 1945.^[26]

Yep, still around.   Notice the one-world logo:

So they were both active in Chicago:

Brownlow, Louis. Diaries, 1933-1936***

Louis Brownlow, Director of the Public Administration Clearing House. Louis Brownlow’s diaries consist of seven typewritten volumes totaling 1428 pages, which cover the period from November 12, 1933 to December 14, 1936

Merriam, Charles E. Papers, 1893-1957

Charles E. Merriam, professor of Political Science and politician. Candidate for mayor of Chicago, 1911 and 1919. Founder, Social Science Research Council, 1924. Contains personal and professional correspondence; manuscripts; class notes Merriam took as a student; memoranda; election campaign material; minutes; reports; scholarly and political speeches; articles; diaries; book …

From the BROWNLOW DIARIES LINK — notice that he was at Chicago, was adept at channeling foundation funds into research, and notice the listing of multiple public service associations, the “1313 Organizations”

When quoting material from this collection, the preferred citation is: Brownlow, Louis. Diaries, [Box #, Folder #], Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library

Biographical Note

Louis Brownlow was born the son of a postmaster in rural Buffalo, Missouri on August 29, 1879, his entire life, which ended on September 27, 1963, was dedicated to a resolution of urban problems. After a career as a syndicated journalist, he was appointed by President Woodrow Wilson Commissioner for the District of Columbia in 1915. In 1920 he became City Manager of Petersburg, Virginia, and in 1923 he assumed the same position in Knoxville, Tennessee. From 1931 until he retired in 1945, Brownlow served as Director ofPublic Administration Clearing House (PACH) with his headquarters on the campus of the University of Chicago. This strategic, yet somewhat detached position provided Brownlow with an almost unique view of the internal operation, of the early New Deal, the Hutchins administration of the University of Chicago, and the activities of the affiliates of the Public Administration Clearing House.

Brownlow reported his observations on these subjects as well as his personal experiences and travels in the form of a diary which was recorded daily for the benefit of the trustees of the Clearing House until a heart attack forced him to curtail many of his activities. PACH, which functioned until 1955, was a center for organizations of public officials the field of administration.

PACH was not in competition with member agencies. Rather it served to have participating bodies gain advantage from the immediate interchange of information and experience that derived from being housed under one roof. In addition PACH provided extensive research facilities and library services in the field of public administration. The character as well as the content of the diaries are a reflection of Brownlow’s a personality, his experience in the field of public administration and the development of PACH the commonly used acronym for the clearing house.

Brownlow was instrumental in channeling foundation money for research in public affairs. His widespread contacts and conciliatory manner made him an invaluable liaison not only among opposing professional factions but between governmental officials and members of the public service. A clear indication of his talent as a mediator at conferences is revealed in a discussion of a housing conclave which he chaired, found in Volume III, pp. 522-27. All of these qualities made Brownlow an important figure in the first administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. With the expansion of government in order to meet the crisis of the depression, Brownlow was consulted on a number of appointments, as well as with respect to the institutionalization of the prolific bureaus. The culmination of this activity was his selection by President Roosevelt to head the President’s Committee on Administrative Management in order to recognize the executive branch of the federal government. The formulation of the PACM and Brownlow’s role in it may be traced in the last several volumes of the diary.

Pardon me, but I’m going to include some more, particularly the references to the “1313” building in Chicago and the organizations under its roof, and what they represented:

Besides being indexed according to specific agencies, certain projects dealing with important matters of public policy, such as housing, planning, and social welfare, are cross-referenced by subject. Aware of its future significance, the author was careful to trace the progress of social security legislation.

From Brownlow’s position as head of PACH the reader can witness the formulation of new professional associations and groups. The collection reveals the interrelationship of the groups composing the clearinghouse and their methods of policy determination. Among the groups served by PACH were the American Legislator’s Association, the American Municipal Association, the Governmental Research Association, and the International City Managers Association. The diaries are replete with original newsletters, conference documents, and reports distributed by these organizations. Brownlow allows the reader, who it will be remembered was a trustee of the clearing house, to share his observations with respect to policy differences among the member organizations.

These professional associations became known as the “1313 Organizations” because of their location at 1313 E. 60th Street. The diaries provide an interesting and complete description of the negotiations that led to the construction of that building by the University of Chicago. Furthermore, the journal enables one to gain some perspective on the relationship of the 1313 organizations to the university of Chicago in general and the Department of Political Science in particular. Brownlow, who was the intimate friend of Charles E. Merriam, the Chairman of the Department of Political Science, also served as a lecturer in public administration. Some discussion is devoted to the author’s duties at the University of Chicago and as a guest lecturer at several other institutions.

The Public Administration Clearing House‘s dependence on the Spelman Fund and other foundations provides yet another focus for the diary. Here the importance of Brownlow’s connections with Beardsley Ruml can be ascertained. An understanding of the author’s connections with the Social Science Research Council is also revealed by the diaries.

Brownlow’s wide assortment of duties assured him of a great degree of travel outside his home base in Chicago. His contacts were not limited to the United States. He was constantly attending or presiding over international conferences in the field of public administration.

YEP  Beardsley Ruml (I just learned) is the father of “PAY AS YOU GO INCOME TAXES…”  Here’s the reference from UChicago Library to its archives on Ruml:

Guide to the Beardsley Ruml Papers, 1917-1960

When quoting material from this collection, the preferred citation is: Ruml, Beardsley. Papers, [Box #, Folder #], Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library

Biographical Note

Beardsley Ruml (1894-1960), probably best know for his “Pay – As – You – Go” income tax plan, also achieved distinction as an educator, trust administrator, business executive, and advisor to commerce, industry, education, and government, particularly in the field of financial and fiscal policy. In addition, he was a prolific writer and much in demand as a speaker, both on general subjects of social and economic interest and on his fields of specialization.

Educator and businessman. A.B., Dartmouth College, 1915. Ph.D., University of Chicago, 1917. Director, Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, 1922-1929. Dean of Social Sciences, University of Chicago, 1931-1933; professor of education, 1931-1933. Treasurer, R.H. Macy and Company, 1934-1945; Chairman of the Board, 1945-1951.

By Maury Klein Feb 23, 2012 5:17 AM PT in Bllomberg.com

Chances are you’ve never heard of Beardsley Ruml. But if you pay income taxes, he has exerted a significant influence on your life. He’s the man who conceived what he called the “pay-as-you-go” method, now better known as estimated tax payments. In the process, he transformed the American way of income taxes. 

Before 1940, only about 7 percent of Americans even paid income taxes. World War II changed that drastically. The unprecedented costs of the war meant two things to American leaders: People would have to pay much higher taxes and, more important, far more people would have to pay them. . . .

(Maury Klein is a professor of history emeritus at the University ofRhode Islandand the author of 16 books on American history. The opinions expressed are his own.)

DON’T FORGET TO READ THE REST OF THAT VERY INFORMATIVE ARTICLE, ABOVE.  WHEN YOU PAY AS YOU GO, REMEMBER RUML AND SAY “THANKS A LOT, DUDE….”

here’s WIKIPEDIA on the guy.  This is most of the article.  You can see how influential.  What I’m seeing is that too few people are having too much influence fairly early in the 20th century.  Hardly accidental; there seems a systematic plan to control the entire nation according to a centralized bureaucracy– down to even how to disproportionately make sure the public at large has been fleeced of what it needs, fiscally, to be able to resist…. (in my opinion, that is).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beardsley_Ruml

Beardsley Ruml (5 November 1894 – 19 April 1960), was an American statistician, economist, philanthropist, planner, businessman and man of affairs in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. He was born in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. His father, Wentzle Ruml, was a country doctor. His mother, Salome Beardsley Ruml, was a hospital superintendent. He received a BA from Dartmouth College in 1915^[1] and a Ph.D. in psychology and education from the University of Chicago in 1917.

Psychology wasn’t that old as a field at this time.  It was getting a nice heads-up from William James and others, through conferences.  William James was from an affluent family, with author Henry James as a brother, he wanted to be a painter.  Dad said no — go for science or philosophy:

1894 and 1904 APA President

 BACK TO BEARDSLEY RUML’S WIKI:

On August 28, 1917 he married Lois Treadwell; they had three children. A pioneer statistician, in 1918 he helped design aptitude and intelligence tests for the U.S. Army. Ruml viewed society as composed of groups whose traits could be measured and ranked on a scale of normality and deviance.

From 1922-29 he directed the fellowship program of the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Fund, focusing on support for quantitative social and behavioral science. He was an advisor to President Herbert Hoover especially on farm issues. In 1931 he became dean of the Division of Social Sciences at the University of Chicago—a center for quantitative research. He was not popular with the faculty and in 1934 Ruml became an executive of R. H. Macy & Company, parent company of the department store, rising to chairman in 1945. He also served as a director of the New York Federal Reserve Bank (1937–1947), and was its chairman from 1941 until 1946;^[2] he was active at the Bretton Woods Conference (1944) that established the international monetary system. He was active in New Deal planning agencies but their plans never saw fruition.

In the summer of 1942 Ruml proposed that the U.S. Treasury start collecting income taxes through a withholding, pay-as-you-go, system. He proposed an abatement on the previous year’s taxes, making up the revenue by immediately collecting on the current year’s taxes. In 1943 Congress adopted the withholding system.

In 1945, Ruml made a famous speech to the ABA, asserting that since the end of the gold standard, “Taxes for Revenue are Obsolete”. The real purposes of taxes were: to “stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar”, to “express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of income”, “in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups” and to “isolate and assess directly the costs of certain national benefits, such as highways and social security”. This is seen as a forerunner of functional finance or chartalism.

Keeping in mind the Ruml was also at one point “Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,” here  he is in 1946 talking about “Taxes for revenue are Obsolete,” and address to the American Bar Association.  Sure they are…  Then he goes on to say that the corporate income tax is bad… it must go.  Sure yo’ right.  The year is 1946.  Or you can read it from this site (search for “Ruml”)

http://mises.org/journals/aa/AA1946_VIII_1.pdf

TAXES FOR REVENUE ARE OBSOLETE

by Beardsley Ruml,
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Mr. Ruml read this paper before the American Bar Association during the last year of the war [World War II]. It attracted then less attention than it deserved and is even more timely now, with the tax structure undergoing change for peacetime. His thesis is that given (1) control of a central banking system and (2) an inconvertible currency, a sovereign national government is finally free of money worries and need no longer levy taxes for the purpose of providing itself with revenue. All taxation, therefore, should be regarded from the point of view of social and economic consequences. The paragraph that embodies this idea will be found italicized in the text. Mr. Ruml does not say precisely how in that case the government would pay its own bills. One may assume that it would either shave its expenses out of the proceeds of taxes levied for social and economic ends or print the money it needs. The point may be academic. The latter end of his paper is devoted to an argument against taxing corporation profits. — Editor.

The superior position of public government over private business is nowhere more clearly evident than in government’s power to tax business. Business gets its many rule-making powers from public government. Public government sets the limits to the exercise of these rule-making powers of business, and protects the freedom of business operations within this area of authority. Taxation is one of the limitations placed by government on the power of business to do what it pleases.

There is nothing reprehensible about this procedure. The business that is taxed is not a creature of flesh and blood, it is not a citizen. It has no voice in how it shall be governed — nor should it. The issues in the taxation of business are not moral issues, but are questions of practical effect: What will get the best results? How should business be taxed so that business will make its greatest contribution to the common good?

It is sometimes instructive when faced with alternatives to ask the underlying question. If we are to understand the problems involved in the taxation of business, we must first ask: “Why does the government need to tax at all?” This seems to be a simple question, but, as is the case with simple questions, the obvious answer is likely to be a superficial one. The obvious answer is, of course, that taxes provide the revenue which the government needs in order to pay its bills.

A government which depends on loans and on the refunding of its loans to get the money it requires for its operations is necessarily dependent on the sources from which the money can be obtained. In the past, if a government persisted in borrowing heavily to cover its expenditures, interest rates would get higher and higher, and greater and greater inducements would have to be offered by the government to the lenders. These governments finally found that the only way they could maintain both their sovereign independence and their solvency was to tax heavily enough to meet a substantial part of their financial needs, and to be prepared —if placed under undue pressure — to tax to meet them all.

The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government. Two changes of the greatest consequence have occurred in the last twenty-five years which have substantially altered the position of the national state with respect to the financing of its current requirements.

The first of these changes is the gaining of vast new experience in the management of central banks.

The second change is the elimination, for domestic purposes, of the convertibility of the currency into gold.

The United States is a national state which has a central banking system, the Federal Reserve System, and whose currency, for domestic purposes, is not convertible into any commodity. It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements. Accordingly, the inevitable social and economic consequences of any and all taxes have now become the prime consideration in the imposition of taxes. In general, it may be said that since all taxes have consequences of a social and economic character, the government should look to these consequences in formulating its tax policy. All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose which is served should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue.

Merriam:  (Notice towards the end, repeated references to Rockefeller foundation, and the art of persuasion (propaganda), and the ability for the chief executive to exert influence for a desired end, as though neutral,  through referring to “academic expertise”)

(<=<=link.  These are excerpts only):

Charles Edward Merriam, Jr. (November 15, 1874 – January 8, 1953) was a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, founder of the behavioralistic approach to political science,^[3] and an advisor to several U.S. Presidents.^[4] Upon his death, The New York Times called him “one of the outstanding political scientists in the country”.^{[2]   [Progressive]}

Merriam joined the faculty at the University of Chicago in 1900.^[2][6][16]He was the first member of the political science faculty.^[6] 

. . . Noted political scientist Gabriel Almond concluded, “The Chicago school is generally acknowledged to have been the founding influence in the history of modern political science, and Charles E. Merriam is generally recognized as the founder and shaper of the Chicago school.”^[20]

Merriam was a firm believer in the use of data and quantitative analysis in the practice of political science^[21] (even though he himself had almost no mathematical training),^[22] and he founded the behavioralistic approach to political science.^[3][23] Merriam “denied the utility of theory” and advocated instead a “practical” political science aimed at creating a more harmonious, democratic, and pluralistic society.^[24][25] A corollary to this thinking was his “vision of social scientists as technical advisors to society’s political leaders.”^[26] Subsequently, Merriam successfully pushed American political scientists to be politically progressive.^[27][28]

…Charles E. Merriam was an advisor to several presidents, and had a lengthy career in federal service. In 1911, President William Howard Taft offered him a seat on the Commission on Economy and Efficiency, (he declined)….

During World War I, the 43-year-old Merriam joined the U.S. Army Signal Corps, was commissioned a captain, and served on the federal government’s Aviation Examining Board for the Chicago region.^{[2][40][41] [   SOUNDS LIKE HE WASN’T IN COMBAT ZONES…]]}

He was also on the federal government’s Committee on Public Information,^[40]an independent government agency created to influence U.S. public opinion and encourage American participation in World War I.^[42] From April to September 1918, he was American High Commissioner for Public Information in Rome, Italy, where he developed propaganda designed to sway Italian public opinion.^{[1][40][43][44]} His mission was not only to encourage the Italian public to keep Italy in the war on theAllied side but also to undermine support for socialist and communist political parties.^[40][45

. . .

Back in Chicago, Merriam coordinated and edited a series of comparative studies by political scientists on the use of expertise in policy making, civic education, and public opinion.^[47] 

Merriam’s contribution to the series, The Making of Citizens (1934), was highly laudatory of Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and Fascist Italy‘s use of these tools to strengthen the sense of national purpose and achieve policy goals.^[48] Merriam was highly critical of these regimes, though, and felt that a more scientific approach would avoid the messianism on which these governments relied and strengthen democratic and pluralistic norms.^[48]

Wow.  He didn’t like Nazis, Fascists, or Soviet Russia, but sure did admire their persuasive techniques….  So the means was OK, just find a better end???

He co-founded the Local Community Research Committee (LCRC) in 1923 with money from the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Foundation, a research institute dedicated to promoting research, collecting data on urban problems, and disseminating current policy ideas.^[49] He also helped organize the Social Science Research Council (an outgrowth of the LCRC) in 1923 with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation, and served as its first president in 1924.^{[1][2][6][50]} In 1929, he co-founded (again, with a grant from the Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Foundation) the Public Administration Clearing House, an umbrella group which fostered collaboration and communication among associations in the field of public administration.^[51]

His relationship with Ickes allowed him to continue his service in the nation’s capital under President Franklin D. Roosevelt.^[2] During the Great Depression, he was considered the country’s most influential political scientist.^[50][58]

In July 1933, Harold Ickes (now United States Secretary of the Interior) appointed Merriam to serve on the National Planning Board (and its successors, the National Resources Board and the National Resources Planning Board)^{[1][59][60][61]} Merriam was the body’s most influential member.^[61][62]In this capacity, he helped draft proposals for an expansive welfare state.^[6][63] Although President Roosevelt approved of the plans and proposed implementing them in his “Four Freedoms” speech of January 6, 1941, the proposals were politically not viable and were never adopted.^[6][64]

In 1934, Merriam served on the Commission of Inquiry on Public Service Personnel, a research group established by the Social Science Research Council to research, analyze, and make proposals regarding the federal civil service and civil service reform (with an eye to the innovations made by the Tennessee Valley Authority).^[1] The body was funded by the Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Foundation,^[65] and Luther Gulick was the Commission’s research director.^[66]

---

Merriam assured the president that if he established a committee to review the administration of the executive branch, the committee’s report could be written in such a way as to justify the president’s reorganization goals while couching them in the neutral language of academic research.^[71] On March 22, 1936, Roosevelt established the Committee on Administrative Management (commonly known as the Brownlow Committee) and charged it with developing proposals for reorganizing the executive branch.^[72] Besides himself, the three-person committee consisted of Louis Brownlow, and Luther Gulick.^[73][74] On January 10, 1937, the Committee released its report.^[75] Famously declaring “The President needs help,”^[74][76][77] the Committee’s report advocated a strong chief executive, including among its 37 recommendations significant expansion of the presidential staff, integration of managerial agencies into a single presidential office, expansion of the merit system, integration of all independent agencies into existing Cabinet departments, and modernization of federal accounting and financial practices.^[77][78]

Retirement and death[edit]

Charles Merriam retired from the University of Chicago in 1940, at the age of 66.^[79]

He was the last director of the Lucy Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Fund,^[2] acting in that capacity from 1940 until its merger with the Rockefeller Foundation in 1949.^[80]

OK, now, GULICK, again, my “PhD” reference is just Wikipedia.  I just want a sense of who the guy was and what he did:

Luther Halsey Gulick was born January 17, 1892 in Osaka, Japan. His father was congregationalist missionary Sidney Lewis Gulick (1860–1945) and his mother was Clara May (Fisher) Gulick. He shared his name with his grandfather, missionary Luther Halsey Gulick Sr. (1828–1891), and uncle physician Luther Halsey Gulick Jr. (1865–1918). His great-grandfather was an even earlier missionary to the Kingdom of Hawaii,Peter Johnson Gulick (1796–1877).

Luther Gulick graduated from Oberlin College in 1914 and received his Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1920. He taught at Columbia from 1931-1942. In 1921 he became president of the Institute of Public Administration and served until 1962. He then became its chairman and served until 1982. From 1936-1938 he served on the three member Committee on Administrative Management (better known as the Brownlow Committee) in 1937 appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to reorganize the executive branch of the federal government. From 1954 to 1956, he served as city administrator of New York City.^[1]

Among many other accomplishments in the field of public administration, Gulick is perhaps best known for the functions of the executive represented in the acronym PODSCORB (or POSDCORB depending on the source). Each letter stands for Planning, Organizing, Directing, Staffing, Coordinating, Reporting and Budgeting.^[2]

Gulick’s advocacy (with Alvin Hansen) during World War II of Keynesian policies to promote full employment post-war helped to persuade John Maynard Keynes to help develop post-war plans for the international economy that included considerable emphasis on free trade.^[3]

In a time where the prevalent theme was the separation of politics and administration, Gulick advocated that it was impossible to separate the two.

. . . .Gulick emphasizes that the main function of the state should be human welfare, survival and improvement to meet the challenges of every changing environment and not war. But unfortunately, the structure of the modern state is specifically designed for war.

As a result, the structure of the modern state is distinctly military. It is authoritative, with all authority, concentrated at the top, and all the work, but not the authority, assigned to subordinate echelons and field commanders. He emphasizes the need for a new approach to the fundamental organization of the state introducing greater decentralization in place of present centralized, hierarchical, military structure. He also suggests that the Public Administration should forget the non-existing economic man, deal realistically with the non-existing free market and include human welfare and compassion in its embrace.

Forget the economic man?  Excuse me???

to understand how influential Gulick may have been — not to mention that he planned the reorganization of the City of New York in 1934! (see towards bottom of this quote) — he raises the issue of “nomenclature” (I call it Rhetoric) to define functions.  see what you think.  Again, these are google search results– I’m not a public administrator.  I’m a blogger noticing that we’ve become a nation of social scientists and that with the increase of defining government under previously allocated grants available — means that functions that don’t fit the program (like JUSTICE) aren’t met.   The whole place has begun to feel like a beehive (or, a corporation)…

I may add some paragraphing.  This was a cached find….

POSDCORB: Core Patterns of Administration

Paul Chalekian

(775) 220-3174

pmc@unr.edu

First Draft –June 1, 2013

The documentation of patterns allows for purposeful action. This manuscript develops core patterns of administration. Utilizing POSDCORB, this mature and seasoned acronym stands for: Planning, Organizing, Staffing, Directing, Coordinating, Reporting, and Budgeting.

Luther Gulick, a seasoned scholar and executive practitioner, first discussed this word [[that’s a “word” how’s it pronounced?]] among colleagues, and it was subsequently acknowledged in their collaboration (Commission of Inquiry on Public Service Personnel, 1935).

He continued to refine his concept with executive-level experience—including a reorganization of the office of a United States president.

Gulick dictated the need for POSDCORB within his Memorandum Prepared as a Member of the President’s Committee on Administrative Management in 1936.

A year later, he formally published his word and the associated elements in a piece titled “Notes on the Theory of Administration” (Gulick, 1937b). That document was widely read, and since then, the applicability of POSDCORB has been discussed (in sources too numerous to cite) up to the present (Raadschelders and Lee, 2011).

POSDCORB can be found in modern models of public administration (Agranoff, 2007, Agranoff and McGuire, 2001, Chalekian, 2013, Fairholm, 2004), and it has been suggested as a framework (Chalekian, 2013; Graham and Hays, 1993). The approach that follows is interdisciplinary–to bridge the studies done by scholars of administration with the concepts and techniques of the patterns community. Using their methods within a social science domain, these core patterns of administration could become more apparent.  

. . . [[several paragraphs later, he is talking about how fundamental POSDCORB is, and is about to get into the naming]]

What “class” is POSDCORB that could make it enduring? A class can be defined as a template for the creation of instances (Goldberg & Rubin, 1995). A “base class” is the most generalized class in a class structure (Booch, 1994). Others have documented instances (Chalekian, 2013; Fairholm, 2004) and positioned POSDCORB within their focal core (Agranoff, 2007, p. 194). Being a “base class,” a POSDCORB framework cannot be functionally specific. Social science scholars may be slow in coming to this realization. For instance, a “base game” of one framework showed only a physical world, and thus emptiness and nothing (Crawford & Ostrom, 2000). Empty classes or categories also appear in linguistics (Chomsky, 1996).

Organizational theorist James Thompson (1967/2003) found “alternate ways of homogenizing positions or components” (p. 57). And he attributed these directly to Gulick’s work.

He noted–while paraphrasing Gulick–how organizations could be grouped or separated “on four different bases:

(1) common purpose or contribution to the larger organization,

(2) common process,

(3) a particular clientele, or

(4) a particular geographic area…” (Thompson, 1967/2003, p, 57).

Yet, he also warned of real-life, organizational difficulties: homogenizing on one dimension does not homogenize on all. Thompson went on to extend numerous scenarios and propositions. He thought it was essential to “find universals, but equally essential to find patterns in variations (Thompson, 1967/2003, p. 161). But just as the work of Thompson endures (1967/2003), so does the work of Gulick (Meier, 2010).

Gulick (1937b) gave voice to POSDCORB subsequent to his discussion of organizational patterns. An analysis, if it is to be of value in future years, “must be brought within a single system of definition and nomenclature” (Gulick, 1937c, p. 195). Gulick employed a sequence to his list (Fitch, 1996), as do other pattern scholars (e.g., Alexander, Ishikawa, & Silverstein, 1968; Alexander, Ishikawa, & Silverstein, 1977; Kerievsky, 2005). Accordingly, he made up the word POSDCORB, “designed to call attention to the various functional elements of the work of a chief executive” (Gulick, 1937b, p. 13).

YES, the importance of controlling language is important for controlling any operation.  And to control language, one controls the tools for propaganda, PR, publicity (media) — and to control that, one needs to have the finances to support those controlling languages.  I am thinking of the organization AFCC’s determination to propagate system change through language change — to substitute the “new” language of the behavioral scientists to solve society’s problems — versus the “old” language of criminal law!  (Go look it up on their About us/History page).  

Most people don’t enter courts, as litigants, thinking of it as a behavioral health dispensary, and behavioral health services as helping their legal problem.  Maybe their ex, they want put under psychiatric control — but for what has the word “court” attached and somebody in (presumably) a black robe up front with a mallet signing orders and making declarations — historically that’s associated with the concept of law, and orders.  Someone forgot to notify the litigants that their cheese (justice) had been administratively removed….

Having a domain for patterns is important (Alexander, 1964). Design is concerned with how things ought to be, and “with devising artifacts to attain goals” (Simon, 1981, p. 133). A framework serves to codify a language, and the resulting structures can be defined as being “a kind of microarchitecture that codifies a particular domain” (Booch, 1996, p. 274). Finding the fundamental elements is important for frameworks (Ostrom, 1999). Public administrators indicated that the traditional activities summarized by POSDCORB “fully explain the purpose and processes of their work” (Fairholm, 2004, p. 586). Noting the possibility of other domains and frameworks, the domain of this representation may be considered established.

So the framework defines the language.  However, what about the language of the laws themselves??   I hope you will enjoy reading the next section, noticing the reference to language, and to how Gulick reorganized New York City! and because there were too many functions for one mayor to handle, had assistant mayors (“inheritance” of function) division of labor (I guess ‘Encapsulation’) and then when the CEO had to address multiple sectors at once with a homogenous (Homogenized?) concept — that might be polymorhpism.  Poly  = many, morhs = forms.  Many, of the same form.

I guess a similarity might be when George W. Bush established (alas) by Executive Order, the “Office of Faith-based and Community Poo-bahs” in 2001 (the term “faith-based organization” is an oxymoron anyhow!)  Or Bill Clinton in 1995 sent out an Executive Memo on Fatherhood.  Both wanted (patriarchy, to be more precise) spread throughout multiple agencies (or in the case of Clinton, throughout the EOP) which had various functions.  They were essentially homogenizing and “seeding” (saturating) several functions under their authority with an ideology.

And “we, the people” get to deal with the results of having a CEO of the USA which has the ability and clout to do this — through the centralization of government.  Get it?   Suppose they seed a lousy idea and it saturates the marketplace (and nation)??   Well, case in point!!!!

THAT, my friends, is exactly what I’m objecting to, and what is contrary to the human spirit, the concept behind the Bill of Rights, and much more that would otherwise typify a great country.  We’re not great because of power, but, where we were or are great — it’s through “LIBERTY” and “JUSTICE” for ALL.   Whatever happened to that concept, huh?

So here’s the rest of that section on Gulick’s influential ideas.  Did you remember he was the son of a Congregationalist minister who’d spent time in Hawaii, got college education at Oberlin College [Ohio.  I wonder in what…] and Columbia University, etc.?

Continuing, from this piece:

POSDCORB: Core Patterns of Administration

Paul Chalekian (775) 220-3174 pmc@unr.edu

First Draft –June 1, 2013

Patterns and Frameworks

      Having POSDCORB evidence finally suggested, a section of Gulick’s “Notes…” is titled “Organizational Patterns” (1937b). Careful reading reveals the common design elements of encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism. Gulick provided examples of these techniques (below) while planning for the reorganization of New York City (1937b). Encapsulation has been defined as having attributes whereby “the language supports the representation of information and information processing as a single unit that combines behavior with the information needed to carry out the behavior” (Goldberg & Rubin, 1995, p. 46).  Per Gulick:

The Charter Commission of 1934 approached the problem with the determination to cut down the number of departments and separate activities from some 60 to a manageable number. It was equally convinced after conferences with officials from the various city departments that the number could not be brought below 25 without bringing together as “departments” activities which had nothing in common or were in actual conflict. This was still too many for effective supervision by the chief executive (1937, p. 12).

Certainly, the needs of New York constituents did not go away. Thus, it appears Gulick was responsible for encapsulating much of that city’s operation of services. 

Inheritance was apparently used wherein “the language supports the definition of a new entity as an extension of one or more existing entities, such that the new entity inherits existing behavior and information” (Goldberg & Rubin, 1995, p. 46). With our addition, he continued:

As a solution it was suggested by the author [Gulick] that the charter provide for the subdividing of the executive by the appointment of three to four assistant mayors to whom the mayor might assign parts of his task of broad supervision and co-ordination. Under the plan the assistant mayors would bring all novel and important matters to the mayor for decision, and through continual intimate relationship know the temper of his mind on all matters, and thus be able to relieve him of great masses of detail without in any way injecting themselves into the determination of policy (Gulick, 1937, p. 12).

As indicated above, the mayor’s assistants were passing on the mayor’s behavior, as well as providing information about the mayor’s values and policies.

Polymorphism can be characterized by “the language make[ing] it possible to send the same message to different objects and elicit a distinct but semantically similar response from each” (Goldberg & Rubin, 1995, p. 46).  Again, Gulick continued:

Under such a plan one assistant mayor might be assigned to give general direction to agencies as diverse as police, parks, hospitals, and docks without violating the principle of homogeneity any more than is the case by bringing these activities under the mayor himself, which is after all a paramount necessity under a democratically controlled government”(1937, p. 12).

General direction supports polymorphism, and further, some contexts were given. Returning to Inheritance, and possiblymultiple inheritance, Gulick continued:

This is not a violation of the principle of homogeneity provided the assistant mayors keep out of the technology of the services and devote themselves to the broad aspects of administration and co-ordination, as would the mayor himself. The assistants were conceived of as parts of the mayoralty, not as parts of the service departments (1937, p. 12).

From Gulick’s single paragraph (split sentence-by-sentence above), we can see how he envisioned layers.  He continued: “though on a different plane, other phases of the job of the chief executive may be organized (Gulick, 1937, p. 13). And as Gulick planned New York City’s reorganization, he did it based on his experiences. Further, his 1934 charter produced “the basic framework of the city government of New York as it is known today (Viteritti, 1989, p. 25).

In one page and paragraph, the “Notes…” entry (above) revealed elements of polymorphism, inheritance and encapsulation (PIE). Modern engineers also use these techniques (cf. Gamma et al., 1995; Goldberg & Rubin, 1995; Kerievsky, 2005; van der Linden, 2002, to name a few). Thus, it would not be stretching to align the attributes of POSDCORB with the techniques of PIE. 

Here’s  a webpage from this person.  Thanks, sir for the outline.  This guy has conferenced and published a LOT:

Paul M. Chalekian, PhD, CGFM

Lifetime Member: American Society for Public Administration

Ph.D. Political Science. University of Nevada, Reno (May 2002)

Major: Public Administration   Minor: Public Policy

M.A. Cal. St. University-Stanislaus (May 1985)

B.S. University of Wisconsin-Madison (May 1981)

 Positions

Consultant, Secretary of State’s Office, State of Nevada

Senior Program Assessment Analyst, City of Baltimore, Department of Finance

[[I wonder when.  Baltimore couldn’t get its CAFRs done on time recently…]]

Executive Branch Auditor, State of Nevada, Department of Administration

Adjunct Professor, University of Nevada-Reno, Department of Political Science

Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Maryland University College, Management and Technology

Publications and Performance Audits

P. Chalekian. Instantiations of POSDCORB: A Framework-Theory-Model Approach. Accepted for publication inAdministration & Society OnlineFirst (2013).

Gulick’s Notes on the Theory of Organization: More than Meets the Eye. At “Redefining Public Service through Civic Engagement,” American Society for Public Administration, Las Vegas, NV, March 2, 2012.

. . . .Object-Oriented Government: As Easy as PIE. Submitted for presentation at “Public Administration without Borders,” American Society for Public Administration, Baltimore, MD, March 12-15, 2011.

ANOTHER SAMPLE OF “GULICKIAN” thought, and showing its permanence in organizational theory to our day and time….

Same Gulick being quoted in 2011 by an MPA student to a South Korean Professor of Public Adminstration.  Just for the flavor — now, is it appropriate for the county to be run this way, too?  They’re just notes, but still interesting:

“Notes on the theory of Organization” (Luther Gulick)[1]

Presented by J. B Nangpuhan II (MPA Student) to Dr. C. G. Song, Professor of Public Administration at Chonnam National University, South Korea under ‘introduction to public administration’. Date presented: 06Oct2010.

 

NOTES ON THE THEORY OF ORGANIZATION[1](LUTHER GULICK)

 

SUMMARY

 

I.        THE DIVISION OF WORK

Luther Gulick considers division of work as the foundation of the organization and the reason to form it. Other compelling reasons of work division are the following:

a.       Human nature – Men differ in nature, capacity and skill, and gain greatly in dexterity by specialization;

b.      Time – The same man cannot be at two places at the same time; and 

c.       Space – The range of knowledge and skill is so great that a man cannot within his life-span know more than a small fraction of it.

To illustrate further, a shoe factory having 1,000 men working on shoe-making have to do these procedures: leather cutting, eyelets stamping, sewing the tops, sewing the soles, nailing the heels, inserting the laces, and packing the shoes. If each man will do all the procedures alone, there will be 500 pairs of shoes to be produced in one day. But if the men will be divided to work on each procedure, the number of production will be twice as many in a day. This is because it makes possible the better utilization of the varying skills and aptitudes of the different workmen and encourages the development of specialization. It also eliminates the time that is lost when a workman turns from a knife, to a punch, to a needle and awl, to a hammer, and moves from table to bench, to anvil to stool.

The introduction of machinery accentuates the division of work. Specialized skills are developed not only in connection with machines and tools but also on the nature of materials handled (e.g. wood). They also arise in activities which center in a complicated series of interrelated concepts, principles, and techniques. These are most clearly recognized in the professions involving application of scientific knowledge like engineering, medicine, chemistry, law, ministry, teaching, and other fields.

COORDINATION THROUGH ORGANIZATION

Organization as a way of co-ordination requires the establishment of authority with an objective of enterprise is translated into reality through the combined efforts of many specialists, each working in his own field at a particular time and space. There is a need to establish a single executive authority in the organization. Here are some steps in building up between the executive at the center and the subdivisions of work on the periphery:

1.                   Define the job to be done, such as the furnishing of pure water to all of the people and industries within a given area at the lowest possible cost;

2.                   Provide a director to see that the objective is realized;

3.                   Determine the nature and number of individualized and specialized work units into which the job will have to be divided based on the organization’s size and status of technological and social development at a given time; and

4.       Establish and perfect the structure of authority between the director and the ultimate work subdivisions.

The fourth step is the central concern of the theory of organization. It is the function of the organization to enable the director to co-ordinate and energize all of the sub-divisions of work so that the major objective may be achieved efficiently.

THE SPAN OF CONTROL

The span of control depends on the element of diversification of function, element of time, and element of space. Based on previous research studies, the chief executive of an organization can deal with only a few immediate subordinates. The number of subordinates is determined by the nature of the work, the nature of the executive, and the size and function of the organization.

ONE MASTER

“A man cannot serve two masters” is considered a theological argument because it was already accepted as a principle of human relation in everyday life. In administration, the principle of “unity of command” will prove that a workman subject to order from several superiors will be confused, inefficient, and irresponsible; but a workman subject to orders from one superior may be methodical, efficient, and responsible. Unity of command refers to those who are commanded, not to those who issue the commands.

TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY

One efficient concept for this is the principle of homogeneity (similarity). The group must be unified by the work they perform, the processes they utilize, and should have the same purpose. In single unit work divisions which are non-homogeneous in work, in technology, or in purpose will encounter danger of friction and inefficiency. In the same manner, a unit based on a given specialization cannot be given technical direction by a layman.

CAVEMUS EXPERTUM

This means that technical experts, sometimes, assume knowledge and authority in fields where they have no competence. Professionals consider themselves as having the profound sense of omniscience but they have their limitations. The true place of experts is “on tap, not on top.” The essential validity of democracy rests upon this philosophy, the common man is the final judge of what is good for him. Efficiency makes life of a man richer and safer. That efficiency will be secured more through the use of technical specialists to establish control but not to do supervisory control. A government which ignores the conditions of efficiency cannot expect to achieve efficiency.

III.    ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERNS

ORGANIZATION UP OR DOWN?

In any practical situation, the problem of organization must be approached from both top (system of subdividing the enterprise under the chief executive) andbottom (system of combining individual units into aggregates). In planning the first subdivisions under the chief executive, the principle of the limitation of the span of control must apply. In building up the first aggregates of specialized functions, the principle of homogeneity must apply. This process is illustrated by the reorganization plan of the City of New York through the Charter Commission of 1934 with the help of the author. The plan was to reduce the number of departments from 60 to 25 with three or four assistant mayors to organize and rationalize the executive function as such that it may be more adequate in a complicated situation.

ORGANIZING THE EXECUTIVE

The work of the executive is POSDCORB.

Planning – working out in broad outline the things that need to be done and the methods for doing them to accomplish the purpose set for the enterprise;

Organizing – establishment of the formal structure of authority through which the work subdivisions are arranged, define, and coordinated for the defined objective;

Staffing – the whole personnel function of bringing in and training the staff and maintaining favorable conditions of work;

Directing – continuous task of making decisions and embodying them in specific and general orders and instructions and serving as the leader of the enterprise;

Co-ordinating – all important duty of interrelating the various parts of the work;

Reporting – keeping the executive informed as to what is going on through records, research, and inspection;

Budgeting – this is in the form of fiscal planning, accounting and control.

If these seven elements may be accepted as the major duties of the chief executive, it follows that they may be separately organized as subdivisions of the executive. The need for such division depends entirely on the size and complexity of the enterprise. In large enterprises, if the chief executive is unable to do all the work, one or more parts of the POSDCORB may be suborganized.