TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1943, WAR PRODUCTION BOARD STATEMENTS OF LAURENCE M. LOMBARD, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, AND FRANCIS R. CAWLEY, BUDGET OFFICER TRAVEL EXPENSE OF CONSULTANTS The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lombard, the committee has under consideration an estimate from the Bureau of the Budget submitted in House Document No. 338, making available for travel expenses funds from the 1944 appropriation, for the travel expenses of compliance commissioners, as follows: The appropriation for the War Production Board for the fiscal year 1944 shal be available for travel expenses to and from their homes or regular places o business in accordance with the Standardized Government Travel Regulations including travel in privately owned automobiles (and including per diem in lieu of subsistence at place of employment) of persons employed intermittently away from their homes or regular places of business as consultants or compliance commissioners and receiving compensation on a per diem when-actually-employed basis. Will you give us a statement on that, please? Mr. LCMBARD. I will ask Mr. Cawley to speak on the budget angle of that. Mr. CAWLEY. Mr. Chairman, the Comptroller General has consistently ruled that a person appointed to a position with the Federal Government must transport himself to his first post of duty at his own expense. This rule also applies to persons appointed on a "when actually employed" basis. However, last year, in view of the need for the Board to employ experts in a consulting capacity, from time to time, we sought and secured legislation which permitted us to pay their transportation expenses from their homes or usual places of business. This was a modification of the regulation previously in force. That same provision was carried over in the 1944 appropriation, providing that employees could be appointed on a W. A. E. basis for consultation purposes and we could pay their travel expenses from their homes or usual places of business to Washington, or to some point in the field, and return. We sought a ruling a short time ago with respect to other types of employees not serving in a consulting or advisory capacity to the Board and the Comptroller General ruled that persons not serving in a consulting capacity, although on a when actually employed basis, must pay their own transportation costs to their first posts of duty. Therefore, under the present provision we cannot pay travel expenses of compliance commissioners from their homes or their usual places of business to their first posts of duty in the field, where they are to serve. The CHAIRMAN. You are not asking for any additional money; you are merely asking authority to pay from current appropriations for this travel expense? Mr. CAWLEY. That is correct, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And you are under the impression that compliance commissioners could be considered as consultants, but the Comptroller General has held they are not consultants? Mr. CAWLEY. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. And this merely makes provision for them under his decision? Mr. CAWLEY. I should like to add they are not consultants in the sense that they do not serve in an advisory capacity to the War Production Board, but act in an administrative capacity, rendering decisions in the field. The CHAIRMAN. But the service and travel requirements are identical? Mr. CAWLEY. Yes, sir. Mr. LUDLOW. Approximately how many of those compliance commissioners are there? Mr. CAWLEY. Twenty-eight compliance commissioners serving in the field. In addition to that, we have one or two here in Washington who direct their activities. Mr. LUDLOW. Now, is the language drawn so that it would not let others under the umbrella? Mr. CAWLEY. Correct, sir. Mr. LUDLOW. It applies strictly to this group? Mr. CAWLEY. It applies, first of all, to employees who serve as consultants to the Board, which is provided in the current year's appropriation, and also to the compliance commissioners. Mr. LUDLOW. What is the salary range? Mr. CAWLEY. The compliance commissioners are paid an annual rate of $5,600, which amounts to about $15.55 per day. They are usually employed on the average of from 1 to 2 days per month. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Does this cover travel both ways? Mr. CAWLEY. Between their homes and their posts of duty. Mr. CAWLEY. Yes, sir. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Every month? Mr. CAWLEY. Whenever they go. It is intermittent. SUPPLEMENTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE APPROPRIATION, 1944 1171 Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Have you any estimate what the total probably will be that is required for this purpose? Mr. CAWLEY. It will be about $3,000 in total. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, gentlemen. MONDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1943. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION STATEMENTS OF ARTHUR S. FLEMMING, COMMISSIONER; LAWSON A. MOYER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXAMINER; FRANCIS P. BRASSOR, CHIEF, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES; W. ARTHUR MCCOY, CHIEF, EXAMINING AND PERSONNEL UTILIZATION DIVISION; CECIL E. CUSTER, CHIEF, BUDGET AND FINANCE DIVISION; WARREN IRONS, HEAD ORGANIZATION AND METHODS EXAMINER IMPROVEMENT OF FEDERAL PERSONNEL REPORTING AND RETIREMENT RECORDS SYSTEMS The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Commissioner, we have a budget estimate here transmitted by the Bureau of the Budget in Document No. 310, asking for a deficiency appropriation in three items: $771,000, salaries and expenses, Civil Service Commission; $26,000 for printing and binding; and $1,503,000 for salaries and expenses, national defense. The item is as follows: For an additional amount for salaries and expenses, fiscal year 1944, including the objects specified under this head in the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1944_-- For an additional amount for printing and binding, Civil Service Com- For an additional amount for salaries and expenses, national defense, $771, 000 26,000 1,503, 000 The CHAIRMAN. We will take up first the item of $771,000 and we will consider with it the item of $26,000, as they are for the same purpose. Mr. FLEMMING. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. I understand that these do not constitute a deficiency; they represent really a new project for centralization of your personnel and retirement records. Mr. FLEMMING. That is correct, sir; this does not constitute a deficiency; it is a supplemental estimate. The CHAIRMAN. It is for something you had not done previously. Mr. FLEMMING. That is right. ESTIMATED SAVING UNDER PROPOSED SYSTEM The CHAIRMAN. You say in your justification that the central system, if installed, would save 1,800 employees with salaries annually of $3,000,000 in the agencies and facilities referred to. That is a very appealing suggestion to this committee, if that can be accomplished; that is, a saving of 1,800 employees and $3,000,000. We would be glad to have you give us a statement showing just how that can be saved, and a statement of the certainly with which it can be saved. Mr. gress a program which will, in our judgment, improve to a very conhas developed and is presenting for the consideration of the ConService Commission, in cooperation with the Bureau of the Budget, FLEMMING. As you have indicated, Mr. Chairman, the Civil 90823-43-86 Disadvantages of 1. Personnel costs $3,000,000 annually. 2. Failure of departments to keep records up-to-date. Results - (a) Long delays in employees receiving money to which they (b). Large volume of correspondence which both agencies and 3. Because departments do not keep records up-to-date, records do not Long delay and considerable expense involved in bringing together in- like to present to the members of the committee for the purpose of Mr. FLEMMING. Mr. Chairman, I have two charts which I should explaining this project. The CHAIRMAN. The charts may be made a part of the record at this point. (The charts referred to are as follows:) tem, and also the system of providing information as to Federal siderable extent, the Federal Government's retirement records sys employment. proposed net saving is 1,429 employees and $2,293,000. having funds to operate the system and the personnel; so that the to some extent by the necessity of the Civil Service Commission's Mr. Chairman, of 1,800 employees and $3,000,000, is of course, offset 1,429 employees and $2,293,800. That is, the figure which you used, about a net annual saving in the handling of these 2 operations of In addition, it is our judgment that it will make it possible to bring |