elements-elements which all of us feel to be essential to good personnel management-with what all of us now recognize are the needs of modern management, the needs of a Governor, a county executive, a mayor. I do not think these two things are what a lot of people do. We have yet to come up with any concrete practical accepted procedural way of combining the needs of chief executives with the best elements of a merit system. I think this is one of the jobs that this advisory council is going to have to cope with.

Senator MUSKIE. Do you think the legislative technique dealing with this problem in S. 699 is about as good as we can come up with? Mr. WALKER. I do. I may place too much faith in this Advisory Commission, but if it is as broad based as your bill stipulates-and your bill is quite clear on the issue of its composition: You would have local people on it, you would have State people on it, you would have professional and other people on it. It would provide the kind of people that could come up with a viable solution. I have no fears about this particular approach.

Senator MUSKIE. Do you think employees need to be on it?
Mr. WALKER. Yes, definitely.

Senator MUSKIE. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Walker, for, I think, your very excellent, very helpful testimony on some of the controversial aspects of this legislation.

Mr. WALKER. I think the Subcommittee and you personally, Mr. Chairman, should be commended for your work in this field. I was in New Hampshire yesterday with Governor Bryant, and you were in Maine Monday. If the Maine field trip was comparable to the New Hampshire meeting, manpower was one of its basic themes. It came up at various times, and this legislation came through more clearly to me than ever before, as must legislation.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much.
("Comparison of S. 699 and S. 1485" follows:)

A COMPARISON OF S. 699 AND S. 1485 MADE BY THE ADVISORY COMMISSION ON
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

Both bills would authorize the President to require that personnel administering any federally aided programs be employed under a State or local merit system meeting standards prescribed by him. There is a short statutory definition of "merit system" in S. 699 and an advisory council is authorized to review the whole area of merit system requirements, assess the feasibility of extending them, and report to the President. S. 1485 also provides for the appointment of a special advisory council to make recommendations concerning standards of merit personnel administration but includes a more detailed statutory statement of merit principles. Both bills specifically exempt educational institutions from the merit system coverage provisions. S. 699 leaves unaffected the present departmental and agency assignments of responsibility for administering current merit system requirements, whereas S. 1485 specifically transfers all existing responsibility to the Civil Service Commission. It requires that standards prescribed by the Commission in connection with transferred requirements shall be consistent to the extent feasible with any new standards prescribed by the President under the authority granted.

Both bills establish grant programs to assist State and local personnel administration. S. 699 includes appropriation authorization and separate provisions for three programs to be administered by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: one for States, one for nonmetropolitan local governments, and one for metropolitan local governments. Non-Federal matching must be at least fifty percent of the costs of providing services for the State and nonmetropolitan local

government and at least one-third for metropolitan units of local government. S. 1485 establishes only one personnel administration grant program administered by the Civil Service Commission. Federal grants may be up to threefourths of the cost. Under S. 699 all three programs would be administered through the State unless no application for a metropolitan area grant were received within one year after the effective date of the act. In that case applications could be submitted directly by metropolitan units of general local government, defined as any city or comparable general purpose political subdivision with a population of 100,000 or more or any county with 100,000 population which includes a city or comparable subdivision with a population of 50,000 or

more.

A similar provision in S. 1485 permits general purpose governments or combinations of such governments serving a population of 100,000 or more to submit a direct application for grants if a State has not had an application approved for a grant providing adequately for assistance to strengthen the personnel administration of local governments within the State. The Civil Service Commission is authorized to waive the one year waiting period if the State has not within 90 days after the enactment of the bill filed an intention to submit an application. The Commission also may make direct grants to general local governments or combinations of such governments serving a population of less than 100,000 if such grants will meet essential needs in programs of national interest and will assist governments experiencing problems resulting from their location in areas of rapid urbanization.

Both bills include program requirements and an indication of the type of provisions which may be included in the programs. Under S. 699, for State plans merit system coverage must either be general or include existing Federal requirements for merit system coverage of agencies administering grant programs plus any to which the President may extend such requirements. In metropolitan unit plans, grants must be used for projects for strengthening personnel administration on a merit basis. There is no specific requirement of merit system coverage for nonmetropolitan local government programs, only a provision that the programs can include merit system coverage as one of the methods for strengthening personnel administration. Under S. 1485, merit system coverage must be provided for the State office administering the program and for employees affected by the program who administer federally aided programs. Since local governments would be either assisted under the State program or through their own direct application under requirements similar to those for State applications, the merit system requirement would apply to local governments unless specifically waived by the administrator, as provided in the bill. We are gratified to see that in indicating the elements that may be included in the programs, emphasis is given to intergovernmental cooperation in personnel administration in both bills.

Both bills authorize the Civil Service Commission to join on a shared-cost basis with State and local governments in recruiting and examining public employees and provides specifically for the certification of names from Federal registers for State and local consideration. Both bills authorize the administering Federal agency to furnish technical advice and assistance.

The other major provision for assistance to State and local governments is in the area of training. Both bills authorize the admission of State and local employees into Federal agency training programs and the conduct of training for State and local personnel administering grant programs; the use under specified conditions of presently authorized grant funds for training and education programs for personnel administering the grants; and the establishment of new grant-in-aid programs to assist State and local governments in providing training.

In admitting State and local officials to Federal courses or in conducting special training for such officials administering grant programs, the Federal departments and agencies may receive fees or may waive them. S. 699 authorizes Federal departments and agencies to allocate up to ten percent of the grant funds authorized for administrative expenses to States and localities for training purposes. S. 1485 permits Federal departments and agencies administering grant programs to authorize State and local governments to use grant funds to support training for their personnel in federally aided programs when provided in appropriation or other acts. S. 699, to facilitate implementation of the provisions for assistance in training State and local personnel, directs the Civil Service Commisson to study existing programs, identify areas of overlap and

duplication and of training needs, and advise the President and department heads. The President is authorized to assign the Civil Service Commission the role of coordinator under this title. S. 1485 includes a general provision that the Civil Service Commission is to coordinate aid under existing programs with new programs and to make arrangements to insure consistency in administration. Both bills authorize the establishment of new grant programs to assist States and local governments in training activities. S. 699 includes a specific authorization increasing from ten million for fiscal 1968 to fifty million for fiscal 1970, 1971, and 1972, while S. 1485 includes a single overall authorization for all programs under the act. S. 699 requires that non-Federal matching be equal to one-fourth the cost of training and S. 1485 authorizes Federal grants for up to three-fourths of the cost of training. S. 699 provides that assisted training may be provided to officers and employees, including elected officials and legislative employees of State and local governments, while S. 1485 refers only to professional, administrative, and technical employees and officials. S. 699 limits availability of grant funds for training personnel to agencies not receiving assistance under other Federal programs, while S. 1485 limits the use of the new grant funds to support of training not adequately provided for under grant-in-aid or other statutes.

Requirements in both bills call for the designation of the agency for the administration of the plan and the setting forth of a training program for State and local officials. Beyond that they are different in their specifics, S. 699 emphasizes standards of selection and assignment for training, the utilization of personnel who have received training, and the standards for selecting universities, professional associations or other facilities for providing training. S. 1485 emphasizes coordination of training provided under the new grant with relevant training already made available by other Federal programs and intergovernmental cooperation for employee training, especially within metropolitan regional areas.

S. 699 allows direct submission of plans by one or more units of local government, singly or jointly, if after one year from the effective date of the act, a State has not had a plan approved including provision for training of local governmental employees involving expenditures at least equivalent to the expenditures for training of State government employees. S. 1485 provides that, if within one year no application providing adequately for local governments has been approved, applications may be submitted directly by general local governments or a combination of such governments serving a population of 100,000 or more, with the proviso that the one year waiting period and 100,000 population requirement may be waived under circumstances similar to those provided for direct applications in the personnel administration grant program.

S. 1485 also authorizes grants of up to 75 percent of the cost of training programs established by nonprofit organizations representing State and local governments or officials or engaged primarily in service to public agencies. There must be sufficient State and local interest to warrant Federal grants, and programs must meet requirements promulgated by the Civil Service Commission. S. 1485 also establishes a program of government service fellowship grants to States and local general governments. They may cover the necessary costs of fellowship recipients' books, travel, and transportation; reimbursement to the State or local government not to exceed one-fourth the salary of the recipient; and payment to the educational institutions involved not in excess of $3,000 per academic year for each recipient, less any amount charged for tuition and nonrefundable fees and deposits. Both bills authorize the appointment of advisory councils, in the case of S. 699 for the training grant title specifically and in the case of S. 1485 for intergovernmental manpower policy generally.

Both bills grant the advance consent of Congress to the State to enter into compacts or other agreements for cooperative efforts and mutual assistance in connection with the development and administration of personnel and training programs for employees and officials of State and local governments.

Both bills include a title authorizing the interchange of Federal and State and local employees. They define the status, salary, and leave rights of Federal employees assigned to State and local governments and the status of State employees assigned to Federal agencies. These titles deal with technical matters of personnel administration and no effort is made to compare their provisions.

Senator MUSKIE. We have a session of this committee this afternoon. I do not suppose any of this afternoon's witnesses are here this morning and are prepared to testify this morning, since we seem to have a little more time than we anticipated we might have in the morning session?

This afternoon's session is a panel discussion, so I guess we cannot break it up.

All right, then, we will recess until this afternoon for the discussion by the panel composed of three distinguished witnesses.

(Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., a recess was taken until 2:30 p.m., this same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator MUSKIE. The committee will be in order.

This afternoon we have a panel of distinguished witnesses. And I would like to ask that they all come to the witness table. We have Mr. Charles Byrley, director, Federal-State relations, National Governors' Conference; Mr. John Gunther, executive director, U.S. Conference of Mayors; Mr. Allen Pritchard, assistant executive director, National League of Cities; and Mr. Carl Johnson, county manager, Guilford County, N.C., representing the National Association of County Officials.

Mr. Byrley is on the right, then Mr. Pritchard, Mr. Gunther, and Mr. Johnson.

I think I will call on you first, John.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN GUNTHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS

Mr. GUNTHER. I think that is probably a good idea, Mr. Chairman, since I am certainly the nonexpert on this subject on this panel. Senator MUSKIE. That makes two of us.

Mr. GUNTHER. We are grateful for the opportunity to discuss the basic principles behind the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1967 and the Intergovernmental Manpower Act of 1967. And we hope that between the two of them, with your good help, Mr. Chairman, we will actually have an act.

It is important for our discussion not to lose sight of the primary purpose of the legislation at hand. This purpose the constant improvement of program performance-is commendable and very difficult to attain. Several approaches towards this end need to be tested. One of these approaches is in personnel administration. The development of personnel systems must be designed to assist State and local government to attract and retain qualified and motivated personnel to pursue the goal of improved program performance.

With this in mind, allow me to proceed with some more specific

comments.

First, we heartily endorse the proposed programs of intergovernmental personnel exchanges and training. A shortage of State and local employees is not the only problem facing us. There exists much distrust and lack of knowledge as to how the other governmental levels operate. Through successful employee exchanges the distrust from lack of understanding will be tempered. New operating methods will be ex

plored, making for greater efficiency and eliminating archaic methods. I hasten to add that many cities have topnotch procedures and the exchange will be most rewarding for Federal employees as well. The quest for partnership among all levels of government commonly called creative federalism-will be furthered by virtue of these exchanges.

Training programs are another way to improve the quality of governmental employees. The exchange of ideas and methods will also take place during these training sessions. Misunderstanding of program directions and goals will be lessened. The benefit list can go on. The potential is great.

I think it is particularly true, Mr. Chairman, as we have gotten a better understanding of the way the physical development and the human development programs have to be combined to work together. We have now got to get the hardware man and the soft goods man so that they understand each other. And this is an extremely difficult job at each level of the government. But between the three levels it is extremely difficult. And this kind of exchange would help greatly there. Second, I'd like to comment on the proposal of applying Federal personal standards to local personnel systems. As a general statement, we usually oppose standardization of systems. Uniform program goals are necessary and helpful but the methods to attain these goals should be a matter of local initiative. By extending the Federal standards, we take a grave risk that program performance could be lost to an unwise quest for uniform systems. This could effectively hamstring programs. We feel that assistance is needed to help local and State governments improve their personnel policies-not to impose rigidities which could be damaging. This loss of flexibility is implicit in the legislation as written, and we strongly urge the Subcommittee to revise it to eliminate this danger.

Third and finally, we express a concern at the lack of provision for direct city participation. While we recognize the desire for all levels of government to work closely and in harmony, we fail to understand any need to hand the initiative solely to one level of government, excluding another. We urge this Subcommittee to review the present legislation with an eye toward making city participation more integral to it.

Thank you again for the opportunity to present our views. And I look forward to the discussion we will have after you have heard the other statements, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MUSKIE. Let's have the second statement, from Allen E. Pritchard, assistant executive director of the National League of Cities. TESTIMONY OF ALLEN E. PRITCHARD, JR., ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES

Mr. PRITCHARD. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to appear here today on behalf of the National League of Cities.

Alexander Pope once said: "For forms of government let fools contend: whate'er is best administered is best ***”

Our concern here is the people who make our governmental institution function. They are the critical element in our national govern