Working of Boards, Commissions and Field Organizations
Chapter – 8
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
- Governmental functions are carried out by departments, but boards and commissions are also integral to the administration.
- Organizations with a plural chief executive have been preferred for certain governmental activities.
- Since 1983, executive authority in India was vested in the executive council of the viceroy, which evolved into the Cabinet after independence in 1947.
- The plural executive has become a common feature in administrative institutions in India.
- Boards and commissions are set up alongside departments to perform specialized functions.
- There is ongoing discussion about the merits of a single executive vs. the board and commission type of plural executive.
- The single chief executive system is the more widely used form in government organizations.
- The advantages of the plural executive system will be discussed after evaluating the merits of the single chief executive.
SINGLE CHIEF EXECUTIVE SYSTEM
- Vesting administrative authority in an individual has several advantages.
- Responsibility is clearly placed on one person, making them accountable for results. In a board or commission, responsibility is shared, leading to diffusion of accountability.
- A single executive system is less expensive as there are no costs for meetings, travel allowances (TA), and daily allowances (DA) that are needed in a commission system.
- In the individual system, decisions can be quickly taken. Board decisions are delayed due to meetings, scheduling issues, and differences of opinion.
- The individual chief executive system promotes greater involvement, energy, and interest in work. In a commission system, individual effort is diluted since credit goes to the board, not to one person.
- The line of authority is clearer in a single chief executive system, eliminating confusion about whose orders to follow. In a commission or board, authority can be unclear, causing potential conflicts.
PLURAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE SYSTEM
- The board/commission system has advantages in decision making.
- In a government department, decision-making is time-consuming due to multiple levels and stages. In the plural executive system, consultation happens across the table in board meetings, speeding up decisions compared to a single executive system.
- An individual is more likely to succumb to pressures than a plural body like a board, making the plural system more conducive to administrative integrity.
- Boards/commissions are not purely expert or representative bodies but a mix of both, providing a balance between specialized public administration needs and democratic representation.
- These bodies sometimes perform quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions better than a single individual. Collective wisdom reduces the possibility of collusion and personal bias.
- A board/commission helps relieve central/state governments from day-to-day management, ensuring autonomy for the agency while allowing government control mechanisms to monitor progress.
- The single chief executive system is the most logical, but in many cases, the plural system may be more suitable.
- Even when a board or commission is preferred, the day-to-day administration is usually handled by a single chief executive under the supervision of the board/commission.
- In private companies, boards of directors set policy, but the managing director handles day-to-day operations with a team of executives.
- According to Willoughby, the board/commission system is more suitable for:
- Quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial services like public utility boards (e.g., improvement trusts, development authorities).
- Services needing discretionary powers or general control, such as public service commissions.
- Services where various interests are affected, like arbitration or conciliation boards.
- Cases under political pressures and group rivalries, where a board/commission balances competing interests (e.g., tariff commission in India).
- The single head is best when:
- Major policies and objectives are well defined.
- Activities are routine and require promptness and vigour (e.g., public security and law and order).
- The board/commission system is more suitable for planning new undertakings with constantly changing situations and ongoing consultations for policy decisions.