governor alone, in large part, it would seem, for political reasons. Its reasoning was
expressed as follows:

We have felt that to make use of the Board of Public Works as a Budget Commission would
have the disadvantage of dissipating personal responsibility for financial propositions, and
would also run the risk of not securing party responsibility. For it is by no means certain
under the conditions which exist in the state that the political party to which the Governor
belonged would be in control also of the Board of Public Works. If such lack of political
harmony should exist, the Commission believe that a budget system based upon the Board
of Public Works would lose much in effectiveness.³

A draft of a proposed constitutional amendment to implement the commission's
recommendations for an executive budget system accompanied the report. It was
adopted without significant change by the General Assembly and ratified by the elec-
torate.⁴ The board thus came close to achieving a most substantial measure of fiscal
control over all of state government; had the alternative mentioned in the party plat-
form been accepted, the board would have enjoyed the awesome budgetary powers
vested in the governor.

About this time a number of states began to restructure their administrative
apparatus in order to meet more effectively the increasing demands made upon them,
and a trend of sorts developed in that regard. Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts, Wash-
ington, Nebraska, and several other states adopted reorganization schemes of one kind
or another. The need was clear in Maryland as well, and so, shortly after his election
in 1920, Governor Ritchie employed the Chicago engineering firm of Griffenhagen
and Associates to undertake a survey of the state administrative structure and make
appropriate recommendations for improvements. Why Ritchie chose an out-of-state
consultant is not entirely clear; it was a decision he came to regret.

The consultant went about looking into all the various state agencies, including
the governor's office. On 10 March 1921, in response to Ritchie's request (relayed
through his secretary of state, Philip Perlman), Griffenhagen sent the governor an
advance draft of that part of the report dealing with the executive office—primarily
the governor's office, the secretary of state, and the Board of Public Works.⁵

The report dealt in great detail with the most routine matters—filing systems,
office procedures, correspondence, and the like. But intermixed with this were some
comments and suggestions to which Governor Ritchie took great exception. Some of
these involved the Board of Public Works, which the consultant said should be abol-
ished. The report stated that "the routine work of the Board of Public Works is a minor
item in the work of the force [i.e., the executive office—the governor and the secretary
of state] as a whole. The secretary of state as secretary of the board is at present
handling its correspondence and other routine matters."⁶

Upon that premise the consultant suggested that the board be abolished by con-
stitutional amendment, that its "functions with regard to public works, rent, leases,
and insurance" be turned over to a new Department of Public Works, and that its
"financial functions" be transferred to a proposed treasury council. This council was
to consist of five persons—the governor, who would have two votes, the comptroller,
who would be elected by the legislature, the director of finance (a gubernatorial ap-
pointee), and the chairmen of the House and Senate appropriations committees. The
idea was an equal division of power between the executive and legislative branches,
each having three votes.⁷

3. Ibid., p. 131.

4. Ibid., pp. 135-39; Acts of 1916, ch. 159.

5. Griffennagen and Associates, "Advance Draft of Memorandum in re Organization of the Executive De-
partment," 9 March 1921, Governor (Subject File), MdHR 8070.

6. Ibid., p. 1.

7. Ibid., p. 15; Griffenhagen and Associates, "Report on the Organization and Administration of the State
Government," 15 April 1921, pt. 1, p. 20, Governor (Subject File), MdHR 8070 (hereafter Griffenhagen
Report).