Library Collections: Document: Full Text

Relations to Each Other and to the Commission

I understand that the division superintendents are appointed and may be removed from office by the Commission, but that they are directly responsible to the General Superintendent. There seems here to be a division of responsibility or accountability that is incompatible with the highest' efficiency. Experience has established beyond question the fact that the best results are obtained where the entire responsibility of an organization is placed in the hands of one individual, who is held responsible for results. There is no question in my mind that all the division superintendents should be chosen by the General Superintendent, subject to the approval of the Commission. And in order that there be no possible misunderstanding among the division superintendents or any of the officers of the Commission, this policy should be clearly announced.

In my investigations I learned that there is a slight misunderstanding on the part of one, possibly of two, of the division superintendents on this question of accountability. One expressed the feeling that the General Superintendent has gradually assumed authority which she did not originally have and which, as he understood it, it was not the intention of the Commission that she should possess. So far as I could learn, all the others understood that they were directly responsible to the General Superintendent and the plan was wholly satisfactory.

I realize that the present General Superintendent was not appointed immediately to succeed her predecessor; that the organization continued without change for some time; and that she has gradually acquired substantially all the powers and duties of General Superintendent. Inquiry from members of the Commission, from the one division superintendent most pronounced in his dissatisfaction with the present arrangement, and from the General Superintendent herself, led me to the conclusion that, with these exceptions, there is now a fairly clear understanding that the General Superintendent has entire charge under the Commission of all its activities, and that the division superintendents are responsible to the Commission through the General Superintendent. The requirements by the Executive Council Committee on Standardization of Salaries that in answering the inquiries concerning "each permanent or regularly established position in the State service" each employee of the Commission in his "official record" shall describe his work in detail, indicating as clearly as possible the scope and character of his duties, whether office, traveling, or field work, and whether he supervises or directs the work of other employees, coupled with the discriminating manner in which these records have been "approved" and signed, should, and I believe will, be of distinct value in clarifying this whole matter of the relations of the entire staff to each other and to the Commission.

I would particularly commend the method pursued at the meetings of the Commission, whereby the division superintendents are present while their recommendations are being considered. This plan should result in better acquainting the Commission with the problems these superintendents have to meet and in enabling the Commission to know its employees better, with the resulting ability to judge with greater fairness their qualifications for their positions and the degree of success being attained in their work. If the General Superintendent is always present at these meetings and her opinion is frequently asked, no division superintendent can get the wrong notion of his relation to the General Superintendent and to the Commission.

V. DEFINITION OF BLINDNESS

A visit to any one of our residential or day schools for the blind will furnish concrete evidence of the difficulty of formulating a workable definition of blindness. "Border line" cases, whether of sight or mentality, furnish a large proportion of the most difficult problems in all work for the blind. After several years' study of the problem, the oculist at the Pennsylvania Institution for the Instruction of the Blind, Dr. T. B. Holloway, has determined that as a general rule a boy or girl who possesses only one-tenth or less of normal vision is eligible as a pupil of the school. Substantially the same view has been expressed by the oculists of several other schools for the blind. All information available seems to substantiate view that the Commission's statement in their sixth annual report lovers the ground admirably, and that it would be difficult to formulate it better statement of the problem.

VI. SCOPE OF WORK OF A COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND

The ideal towards which a State Commission for the Blind should aim s the largest possible service to every blind person within the confines of the State. This ideal has been well stated in the Ninth Annual Report of the Commission, under the topic, "Summary of Work of the Past Year." My study of the Commission's activities leads me to believe that the Commission is working towards this goal as rapidly as possible with the funds placed at its disposal.