should relinquish control over financial and business affairs, but that the details of management should be delegated to a business or financial officer especially trained and qualified for the work.

In the early history of the land-grant college, it was the custom to distribute to a large degree the handling of business matters among the governing, executive, and academic branches. The institutions were small. Funds received for their support were limited and no necessity existed for a separate business office. But with the growth in the size of the land-grant institutions, the great capital investments in physical plants, the added responsibilities of property management and accountability, the increase in annual revenues, the multiplication of academic divisions and subject-matter fields, and with the development of many auxiliary enterprises and service departments, it became imperative that attention be given to the creation of central organizations to control the expanding business and fiscal activities. The reports show that 39 of the 43 institutions filing returns in the survey have established central business or fiscal offices, that 2 institutions handle their business and finances in the president's office, and that 1 institution conducts its business and financial affairs through a State business office. No return was made by one institution.

Among the institutions which have established separate business or fiscal offices a diversity of practices is found. Some of the universities and colleges have segregated the management of their business from their fiscal affairs by the creation of both business and fiscal offices, while others have made still further subdivisions into coordinate units. The variety of arrangements is illustrated by the names applied to the central office.

In 11 institutions it is called the business office, in 7 the comptroller's office, in 7 the office of the secretary, in 4 the treasurer's office, in 2 the business manager's office, in 2 the bursar's office, and in 2 the office of the financial secretary. In one institution the office is designated as the office of business agent and secretary, in a second as the fiscal department, in a third as the State business manager, and in a fourth as the regent's office. Four colleges failed to report on the name given their central business or fiscal office. A similar situation is revealed by examination of the official titles conferred upon the chief business or fiscal officer. The title of the officer is comptroller in 10 institutions, business manager in 9, bursar in 4, treasurer and business manager in 2, and secretary-treasurer in 2 cases. The titles applied by the remaining institutions are business agent, financial secretary, secretary and business manager, finance secretary, treasurer and business manager, comptroller and treasurer, manager, business-agent secretary, comptroller of accounts, and secretary-treasurer and purchasing agent.

The name of the central business office and the title conferred upon the officer in charge are of little significance except to illustrate the lack of uniformity in institutional practices. Of vital importance, however, are the questions of power of appointment of the business or fiscal officer and the authority to which he is responsible. The returns indicate that the president recommends his appointment in

31 institutions and the chancellor of the university in 2 others. One university reported that the appointment is recommended by the institutional treasurer, who is the chief fiscal officer, while in another case the recommendation is made by a committee of the university trustees. Seven colleges furnished no information on the question. In the case of one university it was stated that no recommendation was required. As the business officer should serve directly under the president, who is the responsible administrative head of the institution in all its phases, the practice in the majority of institutions is sound.

The power of appointment of the business or fiscal officer should be vested in the governing body of the institution. This is the practice in 32 universities and colleges. In the remaining institutions different policies are in effect.

In the case of one institution the business manager is appointed by the board of regents of education, in a second by the board of supervisors, in a third by the State board of agriculture, in a fourth by the board of administration, in a fifth by the chancellor, and in a sixth by the governor of the State. One university reported that the appointment is made by the board of visitors and another that the appointive power is vested in the corporation governing the institution. Three colleges did not submit information.

Considerable confusion in the relationships of the business office is found in a number of the colleges. Instead of the business officer being directly responsible to the president, the returns show that in five institutions he is directly responsible to the board of trustees. A similar situation exists in two other universities where the business officer is responsible to the State board of agriculture and to the governor as chairman of the State board of administration. Such an arrangement is not in accordance with orderly and systematic administration of educational activities. In both of these groups the authority of the president seems to be superseded. The business officer is under the supervision of the treasurer in another institution and is under the jurisdiction of both the chancellor and the regents in a second case. Thirty-two of the universities and colleges report that the business of fiscal officer is directly responsible to the president. Two institutions did not reply on this point.

If an effective centralized financial organization is to be established, if financial administration is to be placed on a sound basis, and if a systematic plan of procedure is to be enforced, it is essential that the chief business officer should have direct control over all business and fiscal affairs of the institution. In his office should be concentrated the receipt of money, handling of expenditures, purchasing, accounting, supervision of physical plant, management of business enterprises, and any other services on the campus involving the collection and disbursement of funds,

The survey made a special effort to ascertain the responsibilities of the chief business officer, the duties assigned to him in the institutional establishment, and the functions and activities of his office in the different land-grant universities and colleges. Table 1 gives a general analysis of the responsibilities and duties of the chief business officer in the 39 institutions furnishing information on this matter in the survey.

TABLE 1.-Duties assigned to chief business officer

XXXX

XXXXX XX X X XX XX

XXXXX Xxxxx xxxx X XX XXX XXXXX XX XXX XXX XX

XXXXX XXXXX XXXX X XX XXX XXXXX XX XXX XXX XX

XXXX

XXXXX XXXXX XXXX X XX X X XXXXX XX XXX XXX XX

XX

XX

XXXX

XX

As revealed in the table there is considerable variation in the duties assigned to the chief business officer. In a number of cases the responsibilities of the central business office are limited to the receipt of money, handling of expenditures, and accounting, while in others the authority of the office includes practically every business and fiscal activity of the institution.

Purchasing and disbursing are interrelated. The buying of an article and the payment of its cost are part of the same transaction. Sound business principles dictate that the officer having responsibility for disbursing funds should also have jurisdiction over purchasing made from such funds. It is found by an examination of the table that of the 39 land-grant colleges having a business officer charged with the handling of expenditures, 31 center control and supervision over institutional purchasing in his office. The question of whether a separate purchasing agency shall be set up under his supervision depends upon the size of the institution and the volume of purchasing.

According to the returns, there are 21 institutions where the business officer does the institutional purchasing. In 10 others where the purchases of equip. ment, supplies, and materials constitute large annual expenditures demanding the personal supervision of a single officer, the office of purchasing agent has been established directly responsible to the chief business office. A State central purchasing agency exercises partial control in 9 cases; the records indicate, however, that this arrangement does not relieve the institutional business officer of his responsibilities but frequently leads to duplication of work in the two offices. There are also four States where all the purchasing of the institution is done through a State purchasing agency. In two of these instances the local business officer functions in the same manner as if no central agency existed, while in the other two States the entire detail of purchasing is handled in the central State office.

Several practices prevail in the seven land-grant colleges which have not assigned the duty of purchasing to their chief business officer but conduct it through channels independent of his office. The purchasing is handled by the directors, deans, or heads of subject-matter departments with the approval of the president in two colleges. Such an arrangement is antiquated and is a survival of the old period when no business or fiscal officer existed in the institutions. Two other institutions have established separate purchasing agents who function independently of the chief business officer. In the case of the Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College, the purchasing agent is responsible to the president, State board of agriculture, and the business manager, while in the University of Wyoming he is responsible to the president and the board of trustees. A similar arrangement is found in three other universities, the institutional purchasing agent being under the direct control of the

president in one case, the treasurer in a second, and the chancellor in a third. In one of these institutions the purchasing agent also serves as manager of the student supply store, an auxiliary enterprise which should be under the jurisdiction of the chief business officer.

General supervision and management of the physical plants comprise the duty of the chief business officer in only 18 of the 29 institutions. Since the upkeep of property, taking of annual inventories, preparation of pay rolls, employment of skilled and unskilled workers, payment of salaries, and operation of power plants are clearly either business or fiscal functions, it is difficult to understand why they have not been assigned to the central business office in more of the land-grant colleges. An explanation is probably found in the reluctance of chief executives to relinquish supervision over the physical plants; the returns disclose that the officer in charge of buildings and grounds is responsible directly to the president rather than the business officer in 19 universities and colleges. It is recognized, of course, that local conditions sometimes necessarily determine the type of organization, but in general all business and operating functions will be best managed through their consolidation in the business office.

It is in the management of business services and auxiliary enterprises, more than in any other institutional activity, that complexity of practice exists in the land-grant colleges. So diverse are the procedures that most of the institutions, except those that have adopted the definite policy of assigning this duty to the chief business officer, manage nearly every individual auxiliary or service enterprise in a different way. Practices not only vary as between different institutions, but also within the same institution. In many cases academic administrative officers as well as members of the teaching staff have been assigned business and financial responsibility over the auxiliary enterprises and services. The duty of managing auxiliary services has been assigned to the chief business officer in 24 out of the 44 institutions submitting reports.

The business or financial officer serves as secretary of the board of trustees or regents at 12 institutions. An obvious advantage to this arrangement is that the business officer attends all sessions of the governing body and is immediately at hand to furnish data regarding the financial and business affairs when information is desired by the members.

That the offices of the institutional treasurer and business manager are closely related is recognized by most of the institutions. The chief business officer is the treasurer in 15 universities and colleges, while in three others the treasurer is a subordinate official in his office. Seventeen of the institutions, however, have created a sepa