« 이전계속 »
thus it would actually involve a promotion so far as salary is concerned.
But the point that I am trying to get at is simply this: If this plan goes into effect, I want to know not what the Civil Service Commission would do, not what the Attorney General might do or could do or might promise to do. What I want to know is this: If this plan goes into effect, and 60 days or a year, say, after it goes into effect, the office of marshal of Little Rock should become vacant; suppose, then, we had some marshal who was already qualified and appointed under this plan over in another State, in Mississippi, New York, Idaho, California, or somewhere else, who decided he would like to come to Arkansas and live. He makes an application for transfer. He applies for transfer to get that job down there.
Are you telling me that he can or cannot be transferred under the law ? Mr. LAWTON. Under the law, he could. He could be appointed. The CHAIRMAN. He could be transferred ? Mr. LAWTON. Transferred, yes.
The CHAIRMAN. He could be transferred and appointed to that office.
Now, let us take the same thing with respect to postmasters under plan No. 2. Could a postmaster position be filled where a vacancy occurs after the plan is in effect, by transferring a postmaster from another office to fill a vacancy in an office?
Mr. LAWTON. No, because of the residence requirement, unless he resided within the area of the post office; which, of course, I do not see how he could do.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not see how he could, either.
The CHAIRMAN. You think the plan ties in with the present law so as to make the residence of the postmaster a basic qualification to serve, in the first place, and therefore you could not transfer a nonresident in to fill a vacancy?
Mr. LAWTON. No, he would have to have the same residence requirement; 1 year.
The CHAIRMAN. But that is not true with respect to United States marshals?
Mr. LAWTON. No, because they have no residence requirement now.
The CHAIRMAN. So then, if we approve the plan and if we wanted to guard against that, we would simply have to do one of two things, either rely on promises and assurances given by the Attorney General and the Civil Service Commission that they would not transfer anybody, or enact a statute to provide that safeguard.
Mr. LAWTON. Yes. You would be just the same as you are with some of the other law-enforcement officers of the Department of Justice, the head of an FBI office, for example. It would be just the same position.
The CHAIRMAN. That is just a little different, I think; a marshal's office and an FBI office. I think there is a little difference, but I wanted to get the record clear on it. I am going to request that you get it in some way, and I think you could be helpful in that request to the Attorney General, so that there can be filed an official opinion with respect to these two things, postmaster eligibility residence requirement—whether the plan preserves that—and the legality or authorization for this kind of a reorganization under the Reorganization Act. Mr. Lawrow. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I should like to have those for the record.
(The material referred to appears in the hearing of June 4, 1952, p. 161.)
The' CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? Senator Schoeppel ?
Senator SCHOEPPEL. I would like to ask Mr. Lawton: With reference to the Customs Department and with reference to the United States Marshal. In a number of these other plans there has been the abolishment of functions, transfers, and consolidations down the line. But here it appears that there is just abolishment and transfer, the oppor. tunity to rename people, by authority.
Now, quite frankly, I know you feel that it is a reorganization act. But there are some who have had doubts raised in their minds as to whether this is in reality a reorganization plan as it applies itself to these two departments.
It seems to me that we are stretching a point somewhat—of course I have not given it anything like the thought and study that you have, because you have a great responsibility in this regard, but where we are making no changes to speak of how can it really be justified as a reorganization plan without additional legislation to put it in line with what I would consider a relatively strict construction of the approach to a reorganization plan?
Mr. LAWTON. Well, if you take the basis of reorganization, the sole reason for having a reorganization act at all is one thing, really: Improvement of the efficiency in operations of Government. It is vur belief, it is the President's belief, that the placing of these nonpolicy-making positions, positions of an administrative character, a technical character, under civil service, under the classified civil-service system, the merit system, is a great step forward in improving the management and operations of Government. It meets the spirit and the reason that the Reorganization Act was passed by the Congress. It meets the spirit and the reason that you created a Hover Commission, and that that Hoover Commission recommended these kinds of changes and recommended the passage of a Reorganization Act.
Senator SCHOEPPEL. In other words, then, great emphasis is placed, in my judgment on the machinery that would permit a closer scrutiny into the qualifications and background of the individual who would be called upon to perform the functions? Mr. LAWTON. And the maintenance of a career service.
Senator SCHOEPPEL. And as you say, the maintenance of a career service, which you think in the long run would be more efficient by reason of the lack of gaps and uncertainty of a tenure of office.
Mr. LAWTON. That is correct, sir.
Senator SCHOEPPEL. Now, as to these marshals, I asked a question of the preceding witness.
I have a regard for the position which the judiciary occupies, the judges in these respective courts, over the employees, or those who serve the courts.
Are you convinced, Mr. Lawton, that there will be no division of authority, no change in the relationship that exists between the
marshal's office and the judiciary, the judges as such, that would in any way affect the impartial, practical, harmonious administration of justice and the functions of the court ?
Mr. LAWTON. I can't see any way that this would affect it, because the marshals are now officers of the executive branch of the Government. They will continue to be under this reorganization plan officers of the executive branch. They are cooperating and working with the judiciary, the judicial branch of Government. And the mere change in the method of appointment should not in any way that I can see affect that.
Senator SCHOEPPEL. Would we have any difficult-I asked the question before, because it is being brought up a good many times—or any delay such as sometimes ensues in the removing of a civil-service employee from his position?
Of course, there are safeguards during that period of time for some. one else to serve.
Now, can you envision any difficulty that might develop in the marshal's position as it relates to the Judiciary, that might prove to be a stumbling block or develop some inefficiencies?
Mr. LAWTON. I don't see that it will.
Of course, that question of difficulty of removal usually arises because of the Veterans' Preference Act, which requires "notice and hearing.
But in the case of a person who is being removed for cause, I don't see where that is any stumbling block.
Senator SCHOEPPEL. There have been long periods of delay in the final determination of justification for the removal, and those matters ought to be safeguarded. I thoroughly agree with that.
But in the marshal's position with the court, I just wondered whether it is really necessary to make this change and to shift them into civil service. This would prove, in my humble opinion, a more cumbersome procedure on a removal for cause.
Mr. LAWTON. I don't think that it will, and I think that certainly you have the opposite effect possible under the present system, whereby you can remove a good man without cause.
Senator SCHOEPPEL. That is true. I believe those are all the questions I have. Senator DWORSHAK. Mr. Lawton, in your conclusions, you state that:
The taking effect of Reorganization Plans Nos. 2 and 4, relating to the Post Office and Justice Departments, is not expected to result in any substantial savings, but is expected to produce a better structure of accountability in those two departments. Then you say, on page 3 of your statement, that,
In addition to meeting the primary objective of providing greater accountability in these executive departments, these plans will gain for us the advantages which will come from filling these offices under the merit principle of the classified civil service.
Is it not true that it is contended that the selection of postmasters. currently is being made under the civil-service regulations?
Mr. LAWTON. Well, it has the civil service examination, but it also has a measure of political element in it, inasmuch as they are what are commonly termed political officers, Presidential appointees.
Senator DWORSHAK. Do you think that aspect will be entirely eliminated under Reorganization Plan No. 2 as far as the Post Office Department is concerned ?
Mr. LAWTON. I would hope so.
Senator DWORSHAK. But what assurances do we have? I would like to go along with any proposal for greater efficiency and economy, and yet I am wondering why the elimination of confirmation of postmasters by the Senate and the nomination or selection of postmasters by the Postmaster General instead of the President, with Senate confirmation, will give us any real assurance that political considerations will be entirely eliminated. I cannot see any real reason for it except the assurances that you other witnesses give that the Postmaster General in this instance will not be politically influenced, will not have any political motives or incentives of any kind, or that under plan 3 the Secretary of the Treasury will entirely ignore political considerations. How can you assure us that that will be true?
Mr. LAWTON. I can't assure you of that but I would not suppose that political considerations would motivate the postmaster general here any more than in the appointment of the other 450,000 people he appoints. · Senator DWORSHAK. The Postmaster General may be just as politically minded, or even to a greater extent, than is the President, under the current system. Is that not possible?
Mr. LAWTON. Well, it is possible, but, of course, he does have the selection on the same basis as any other Cabinet officer, any other official of Government that has an appointive power, who appoints people under civil service.
Senator DWORSHAK. When postmasters are selected, civil service selects a certified list of three persons from whom to make a nomination, and submits them.
Mr. LAWTON. Submits, is right. The question of not being required to submit might change the political complexion of his method of appointment.
Senator DWORSHAK. The Postmaster General could ask for a register from which to select a postmaster in some particular city, and if it did not suit him personally to select one of the first five, he could probably jump to the sixth one and give some apparently adequate reason for passing over the first five.
It might be entirely a political motive, but no one would know it.
Mr. LAWTON.. The Postmaster General would know it, because he would have to select from the list he had.
Senator DWORSHAK. Could he request the selection of additional names? It is possible, is it not?
Mr. LAWTON. If he had good reasons, sufficient reasons, he should pass over the first ones. If they were not qualified, and he could prove it to the Civil Service Commission.
Senator DWORSHAK. It is difficult for me to envision a Postmaster General or a Secretary of the Treasury who is not motivated to some extent, to a large extent, by partisan politics.
And now the President, of course, is solely influenced by political .considerations. . But we do have such nominations subject to confirmation by the Senate. That would be eliminated under these plans.
Then there would not be that final check by the elective representatives of the people. And it is difficult for me to be sure, entirely sure, that we are going to make any worthwhile improvements in this selection of personnel under the proposed plans.
Mr. LAWTON. Well, I follow that, but I am not sure that that check is a nonpolitical check, either.
Senator DWORSHAK. Well, it is sometimes. To be specific, in Idaho, in my State, at the present time, we have a solid Republican delegation in the House and in the Senate. But we do not have anything to do with the selection of postmasters. The politicians in Idaho not elected by the people representing the majority party recommend who shall be postmaster. I have nothing to do with that. Yet, as a member of the Senate, with the right of confirmation, I can hold up the appointment of someone who I think is not qualified for that particular job.
But under this plan, Members of the Senate, belonging to the minority party, would be deprived of that check, would they not?
The CHAIRMAN. How about the majority?
Senator DWORSHAK. Well, that is right. But the majority does have something to say about the selection of postmasters. However, under the plan they would have nothing to do with the safeguard or check by virtue of losing the right of confirmation. So there is a difference.
- Mr. LAWTON. You probably recall that during the Eightieth Congress there were over a thousand of them held up for over a year.
Senator DWORSHAK. Well, what is the significance of that?
Mr. LAWTON. A little bit. Opposite party in control of the committee.
Senator DWORSHAK. I recognize that, Mr. Lawton, and I have frequently mentioned at hearings like this, that my party, the Republican Party, is no different than the other party. It is merely that one is in the majority at one time and the other in the minority. Human equations are involved, and I suppose, when I consider these plans, I have in mind doing what is best regardless of whether we have a Democratic or a Republican administration.
But, again, I cannot give myself those assurances that we are eliminating all of the political aspects if we adopt these plans, particularly plan No. 2.
Mr. LAWTON. My only point is that the same argument could apply to the entire civil service, all positions.
Senator DWORSHAK. Well, are not postmasters under that civil service now? Mr. LAWTON. It is a hybrid.
Senator DWORSHAK. The people generally assume, who are not intimately acquainted with political procedure, or are led to believe, that postmasters are selected on a nonpolitical basis. Maybe some of us know otherwise, but it is difficult for me to be thoroughly as. sured on that point. Maybe the chairman is. I do not know.
The CHAIRMAN. The chairman is in about the same position you are. Senator DWORSHAK. I mean it sincerely. Because I just cannot give myself that guaranty that a Postmaster General, not considering the present incumbent of that office, for whom I have a very high regard, but that a Postmaster General, is any different than a President,