« 이전계속 »
The plan has several advantages over the present system. Usually the patronage marshal has had no training in anything that resembles his duties. He comes from many walks of life. Appointments for given terms assure no continuity in office, a matter of great importance to a position with such varied duties. Frequent turn-over creates administrative difficulties, including the retraining of new marshals with consequent loss of efficiency. In fact, in some districts the office could function just as well without a marshal as the deputies do all the work and actually carry the whole load. The marshal will not be subject to political pressure under the new system and accordingly will be able to administer his office without the bad effect of outside influence on his actions. He can be required to maintain the normal hours of work and will no longer be in the class of those who are entitled to pay whether they attend upon their duties or not.
The Department feels that the plan is worth while and if accepted will shortly have the effect of improving accountability and effective administration of the work of this highly essential position.
The CHAIRMAN. May I ask you a question at that point ?
The CHAIRMAN. You raise the issue that some marshals maybe do not work but draw pay. Mr. ANDRETTA. That is right.
The CHAIRMAN. Or they do very little work. When they are placed under civil service, may I ask if they work longer hours, will they draw extra pay? Mr. ANDRETTA. No, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. You mean for work they will be required to do, if duty calls, day and night, they will draw no additional pay other than salary? Mr. ANDRETTA. They will draw no additional pay.
The CHAIRMAN. Will they work 5 days a week like other civil servants? Mr. ANDRETTA. They will work 5 days a week.
The CHAIRMAN. If this plan is approved, will they get extra pay for work in excess of 40 hours?
Mr. ANDRETTA. If they are ordered to work overtime, they will be compensated on the basis of the Overtime Act.
The CHAIRMAN. Then from Friday night until Monday morning . they would not necessarily be required to be on duty ?
Mr. ANDRETTA. That is right.
The CHAIRMAN. So we are going to have the office practically vacant during that period of time? Mr. ANDRETTA. That is no different than it is now.
The CHAIRMAN. There are also some duties to perform when the court is not in session. Mr. ANDRETTA. That is right.
The CHAIRMAN. If they perform some duties on Saturday or Sunday, after they come under civil service, they will be entitled to extra pay for it?
Mr. ANDRETTA. They would, or receive compensatory time off. That is the same thing that prevails right now, Senator.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not know then that you will get any more work out of this plan. I know some marshals who work on Saturdays, part time at least.
Mr. ANDRETTA. That is right, sir.
Senator SCHOEPPEL. I am glad to have that point cleared up, Mr. Chairman.
At the present time they draw a stated yearly salary, do they not? Mr. ANDRETTA. That is right, sir.
Senator SCHOEPPEL. Many of them do not pay strict attention to. the 5-day week, do they, at the present time?
Mr. ANDRETTA. That is correct, except I would not say "many." I would say'a “few” now.
Senator SCHOEPPEL. Now, in order to compensate for that, you would have to have a stand-by employee, would you not, or compensate them for the extra overtime, if this is all under civil service?
Mr. ANDRETTA. It would not make any difference in what is happening today. If they worked overtime they would be entitled to compensatory time off or to overtime payment, depending, of course, on whether we have money to pay overtime. But they would not be any different than the other employees of the marshal's office today in that respect.
The CHAIRMAN. Your marshal today may work all day Saturday and he may work all day Sunday, but he gets no overtime now. Is that not correct?
Mr. ANDRETTA. He does not; that is correct.
Senator SCHOEPPEL. That is the point I was trying to make. To that extent this would be entirely different then.
Mr. ANDRETTA. No, I do not believe so. Let me make it clear that the nature of his appointment is not going to have a thing to do with whether he works overtime or not. He would come under the same rules and regulations that apply today, that if he works overtime even as a marshal he is entitled to compensatory time off, but the difficulty is that most marshals cannot establish they work 40 hours a week over and above which the overtime starts working. In other words, if he works Saturday, you can bet he has not been there on a Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday sometime.
The CHAIRMAN. Let us take the same proposition with a district attorney. A district attorney may work on Saturday preparing a case for Monday. He gets no overtime for that. Mr. ANDRETTA. That is right.
The CIIAIRMAN. Neither does a marshal. If he is out subpenaing a witness on Saturday before court convenes on Monday, he gets no overtime.
Mr. ANDRETTA. In fact, we have no pay at all for overtime in the inarshal's office.
The CHAIRMAN. If we place him under civil service and if they give him a subpena Friday night to serve on a witness for Monday morning, lie is going to be entitled to overtime for that day?
Mr. ANDRETTA. That is right, sir.
Mr. ANDRETTA. In brief, sections 1 and 2 of the plan simply abolish the nearly 163-year-old office of marshal, in which the appointee was nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The plan creates a new office with the same powers, duties, and liabilities as the old, but places the appointing power in the Attorney General and provides for compensation under the Classification Act and its amend
ments. As regards compensation, the plan actually makes no change since marshals' salaries are now fixed in that manner.
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1950 transferred the powers and duties of the marshals under the old system to the Attorney General, who immediatly redelegated them to the marshals. Section 3 is designed to pick up the loose ends, if any, since 1950 and to place in the Attorney General such new functions as may have been vested in the marshals since that plan became effective.
Section 4 provides the formula for the effective date of the several parts of the plan according to the several types of existing appointments and tenures.
The CHAIRMAN. Will the office of marshal be any more efficient if we delegate all of his functions to the Attorney General and then let him delegate them back? Has that actually produced any improvement in efficiency? Mr. ANDRETTA. It has made no perceptible change at all.
The CHAIRMAN. It has just been an empty gesture? Mr. ANDRETTA. Insofar as the marshal is concerned, that is correct, because there was not anything to go back to them except the appointment of the deputies which they had.
The CHAIRMAN. That was done to establish lines of authority?
The CHAIRMAN. It works out from my viewpoint that it makes very little difference. He has the same function now that he had before except for the fact we went back to the record and found that all of his powers and duties were transferred to the Attorney General and then redelegated to him.
Mr. ANDRETTA. Of course reorganization plan No. 2 was not aimed at the marshals' offices, and they were only incidentally involved in the plan.
The CHAIRMAN. I am talking of any of these instances where we take the function out, put them under the secretary or head of an agency, and authorize him to delegate them back. It is just an empty gesture.
Mr. ANDRETTA. Except that he does have the power to recall them any time and to renounce the delegation.
The CHAIRMAN. He could recall the power, that is true, he could do that. Mr. ANDRETTA. That is right.
The CHAIRMAN. There is one other thought along this line. You say the purpose of this is to abolish the office, recreate it and make the appointment from the Attorney General direct so as to give the marshal a greater sense of obligation and responsibility to the Attorney General and thereby establish that firm line of authority that you speak of so much.
Mr. ANDRETTA. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any marshals now who refuse to conform to the directives and instruction given by the Attorney General under whom he works? Mr. ANDRETTA. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What are we trying to correct here? Mr. ANDRETTA. Simply this, that the marshals have a divided loyalty in the sense of divided allegiance.
The CHAIRMAN. How do you know they have? How do you know where their superior allegiance is? That is more fiction than fact, is it not?'
Mr. ANDRETTA. It might be, but there is a likelihood all the time of his being subjected to all those influences.
The CHAIRMAN. You are trying to correct a suspicion that has not proven a fact over these many years. Mr. ANDRETTA. There have been instances in the past, Senator.
Senator SCHOEPPEL. Have we had some glaring examples of United States marshals getting into trouble by reason of that? Can you cite me one instance?
Mr. ANDRETTA. You mean because of the fact he is a political appointee?
Senator SCHOEPPEL. Yes. · The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by divided allegiance that you speak of? Where have you had any trouble? Mr. ANDRETTA. We actually have not had any. The CHAIRMAN. Over how many years? Mr. ANDRETTA. 163 years. Of course I do not know what went on 163 years ago, or even 25 years ago:
The CHAIRMAN. I imagine if there were any serious cases you would be familiar with them, from history, at least.
Let us get down to this point now. I was much gratified when Postmaster General Donaldson, referring to plan No. 2, said that the whole purpose of this is to get rid of Senate confirmation. That is the only real objective of it.
What is the real objective of this plan?
Mr. ANDRETTA. To provide career service and provide continuity in the office. I think that is very important in the operation of these offices.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. Go ahead. Mr. ANDRETTA. The committee will doubtless be interested in learning something about the persons affected by this plan. There are 94 positions, of which all but two are denominated “United States marshals” and two simply "marshals.” Eighty-five of the positions are in the continental United States, the remainder in the Territories and possessions. All of the 85 in the States, plus positions in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, are in areas now served by the United States Civil Service Commission. Future arrangements must be made for extending the civil service procedures to the four positions in Alaska and to Guam, and the Canal Zone.
Of the 94 men in the positions at the present time, 3 have been retired under the Civil Service Retirement Act and are continuing to serve under court appointments until their successors are appointed and qualified. The appointments of eight have expired. One holds a court appointment because of the death of his predecessor, one holds an indefinite appointment. These special cases total 13. Of the 81 remaining, the appointments of 2 expire later in the calendar year 1952, 28 in the calendar year 1953, 23 in 1954, 21 in 1955, and 7 in 1956. Thus, if plan No. 4 is approved the great bulk of the changeover will be on and after January 1, 1953, which will give an opportunity for working out the “bugs," if any, in the plan and provide for the practical application of its various features.
The CHAIRMAN. What kind of bug do you anticipate in this plan? I cannot see it. I cannot see where you anticipate any possible bug.
Mr. ANDRETTA. Except in establishing the procedures for examination.
The CHAIRMAN. You will not have anything to do with that. That will be Civil Service.
Mr. ANDRETTA. Yes; but we work with them on it, and there is certain shaking-down you have to do on going over the civil-service registers of eligibles and things like that.
The CHAIRMAN. How do you shake down an eligible ? Mr. ANDRETTA. We have to work very closely with the Commission in establishing standards for the positions and qualifications. Very often you find when you set up standards on paper, that actual experience requires you to make some changes in these standards. For example, we went through that with the deputy marshals when we put them under civil service.
The CHAIRMAN. Once you establish that, there will be no problem about working out bugs? Mr. ANDRETTA. No. The CHAIRMAN. You know what it is. Mr. ANDRETTA. What I was driving at is that as we go along on this and these things come up, we can by experience point out better ways of handling these appointments.
The CHAIRMAN. You request the Civil Service Commission to revise their standards ?
Mr. ANDRETTA. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. To get a higher type of eligibles ? Mr. ANDRETTA. For example, age requirements and things like that, you determine certain limits that might apply.
The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.
Mr. ANDRETTA. Further, on the ages of the present incumbents, the average age is approximately 56 years, 3 months. The ages fall into age brackets as follows: 30 to 40. 40 to 50----50 to 60----60 to 70Over 70--
------ 94 Incumbents average a total of 11 years, 2 months, total government service. The average service as marshal is 7 years, 5 months. By groups, present marshals have served as follows:
Thirty-six marshals are now serving under their first 4-year term.
Sixteen men now serving as marshals previously served as deputies; two served as assistant United States attorneys.