Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T16:17:08.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reorganization of the General Accounting Office

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

John McDiarmid
John McDiarmid
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

President Roosevelt's message of January 12 urging a thorough reorganization of the administrative branch of the federal government was greeted by a Congress undoubtedly astounded at the number and revolutionary character of the reforms advocated. Among the suggestions around which opposition has crystallized is the proposed redistribution of the General Accounting Office's functions relating to accounting, expenditure control, and auditing between a more circumscribed “General Auditing Office” and the Treasury Department. It is unfortunate that the benefits to be derived from this reorganization are not widely recognized. On the contrary, the move easily lends itself to characterization as an arrogation of further power on the part of the Chief Executive and an attempted removal of the administrative branch of the government from any effective control by Congress. In the words of Senator Vandenberg, "it would put a muzzle on the only watch-dog that's left around here.” Publicity is given to the “proposed abolition of the Comptroller-General's office,” as though this independent critic of Administration expenditures were to be done away with entirely. Actually, under the President's plan provision is made for an independent audit which could be made more effective than the confused control exercised by the Comptroller-General under the present arrangement. In addition, the recognition of accounting and expenditure control as fundamental elements of management would bring into the federal system an increased efficiency in administration which is sadly needed.

Type
Public Administration
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , June 1937 , pp. 508 - 516
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1937

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Report of January, 1937, p. 20.

2 These included Governor Lowden of Illinois, then Secretary of the Treasury Carter Glass, President Goodnow of Johns Hopkins University, President Butler of Columbia University, Mr. Henry L. Stimson, and Dr. Frederick A. Cleveland. See ibid., p. 21.

3 See Benson, G. C. S., Financial Control and Integration (1934)Google Scholar, Chaps. 3–4.

4 Dr. W. P. Willoughby, who was largely responsible for the Budget Act of 1921, has been disappointed in the way General Accounting Office control has developed. He recently told the writer that he believed a separation of “controlling” and “auditing” functions is now desirable.

5 3 Comp. Gen. Dec. 545.

6 Hearings before House Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments on H.R. 12180, 70th Cong., 1st sess., March 28 and 31, 1928.

7 Mr. McCarl has recognized only the authority of the Supreme Court in such matters. See Mansfield, Harvey, “Judicial Review of the Comptroller-General,” Cornell Law Quarterly, Vol. 20, p. 459 (June, 1935)Google Scholar.

8 39 Stat. 742.

9 2 Comp. Gen. Dec. 784.

10 43 Stat. 389.

11 See 34 Op. Att'y Gen. 346; cf. New York Times, March 9, 1935.

12 Hearings before the Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives, “Tennessee Valley Authority,” 74th Cong., 1st sess., May, 1935, p. 571Google Scholar.

13 2 Comp. Gen. Dec. 301.

14 House Document 321, 72nd Cong., pp. 6ff.

15 Hearings (supra n. 12), p. 572.

16 See “Report of Audit of the Transactions of the Tennessee Valley Authority from June 16, 1933, to June 30, 1934, made by personnel of the General Accounting Office,” p. 134.

17 Unpublished decision, May 2, 1936.

18 14 Comp. Gen. Dec. 169.

19 Unpublished decision, April 14, 1936.

20 Revised Statutes, sec. 3733.

21 See 8 Comp. Gen. Dec. 633.

22 See Dimock, M. E., Government-Operated Enterprises in the Panama Canal Zone (1934), Chap. 9Google Scholar; also VanDorn, H., Government-Owned Corporations (1926)Google Scholar.

23 See his Annual Report, 1932, pp. 13ff.

24 E.g., 78 Cong. Record, 10423–24.

25 House Document 111, 71st Cong., and House Document 217, 72nd Cong.

26 Buck, A. E., Public Budgeting (1929), p. 560Google Scholar.