358                                           Vetoes

agement of these schools in the Department of Public Welfare. The
four separate managerial boards would be replaced by a single ad-
visory board of ten persons, seven of whom would represent desig-
nated interests, and three of whom would represent the public at
large. This advisory board would have no power, but would be
charged generally with advising the Department of Public Welfare
on policy matters and with frequent visits to the training schools.

There is considerable logic in the position that the State Depart-
ment of Public Welfare, charged with responsibility for general ad-
ministration of these schools, should also have the authority and re-
sponsibility of day-to-day management, including personnel selection.
Considered surveys of the problem on at least five occasions in recent
years have all made such a recommendation. The study groups have,
however, differed as to retention of the present separate boards of
managers for each school in an advisory capacity, as compared with
one central advisory board. The advocates on each side of this ques-
tion are sincere, well-intentioned, public spirited citizens who have
given considerable time and effort to the problem. I am particularly-
familiar with the intensive application of the Legislative Council
Sub-Committee, whose studies in this field inspired the present Bill.

I believe, however, that the possible advantages in retaining separ-
ate boards of managers has not received adequate consideration.
These unpaid boards number among their members some of our finest
citizens, whose personal and devoted attention to the affairs of the
particular schools under their respective management is well known
to me. Most of the members of these boards have communicated with
me concerning House Bill 100. They complain that because of the
lack of time in the recent thirty day session, with consequent inability
to marshal their members for a convenient hearing date they were
unable to present the complete case against the revisions sought to be
accomplished by the Bill. They furthermore feel, and I concur, that
the abolition of these separate public boards, in even an advisory
capacity, reflects unjustly, although probably unintentionally, on their
work. Retention of separate boards for each school, even if restricted
to an advisory capacity could well provide more adequate and efficient
visitation and correspondingly, more effective and intelligent con-
sultation with and advice to officials of the Department of Welfare.

In addition, existing authority permits wide selection from the best
available people to serve on these boards and imposes no limitation
that they represent any particular interest or agency. House Bill 100,
in specifying the sources from which seven of the ten members of
the new advisory board must be selected, imposes an unnecessary and
unwise restriction on unhampered executive action, now and for the
future. It would not assure a completely independent board, nor one
whose full membership would necessarily be available. At least one
of the State agencies from which a selection would have to be made
has advised me that it could not very well afford to spare the necessary
time for this service of one of its employees of the desired calibre.
Further, the inclusion of a Welfare Department representative to
act as one of the advisors to the Department itself would appear to
serve no beneficial purpose.

I am sending a copy of this message to the Legislative Council with
the thought that either the Council, or one of its committees, will
again address itself to the problem and secure the benefit of an ade-
quate expression of the opposing viewpoints from the various boards
of managers. Such further study will be coupled with the more ade-