CONTINUING BATTLE

Where civil service has already been established, the battle is not always won. There are people constantly trying to fight over it. Forces of destruction may come under many strange names: Rights for Minority Groups, Veterans Benefits, Creation of Exempt Positions for Greater Administrative "Flexibility." To such an extent is the merit principle threatened that in addition to passing basic laws, we must make sure that the public administrators we select have the strength to resist such threats.

With the rapidly growing size and complexity of government, we now find the nation in a situation where one out of every seven employees works for one form of the government or another. Amazingly enough, government is so well led in many areas that it sets an example for private industry to follow! Civil service has veered away from the "thou shall not" attitude of stopping the spoilsman and is now advancing along the lines of the positive development of government service as holding great career potential for competent Americans. Civil service is now as much concerned with getting competent persons in the jobs as it is in making sure that the politican does not load the payroll with his political supporters.

Taxpayers, through organizations such as the League of Women Voters, civil service leagues, intelligently led taxpayers' associations, an alert press, and many other groups, have vigilantly made sure that their tax dollars are being spent as prudently as possible. They know this requires competent people. The politicians themselves are beginning to recognize that civil service, rather than shackling them, actually frees them from constant demands from people who allegedly supported them in elections, for government positions, not only for themselves, but also for incompetent relatives.

Listen to this paraphrased comment from a now retired politician: "I used to fight civil service, but since we have had it, I wonder why I ever fought it. Before we got it, I not only had to get all of the knotheads their jobs for them, but every time they got into a little trouble with the boss, or thought they were working too hard, they came to me. I got tired of blowing their noses and it is nice now to refer them to the personnel office and have them follow the procedure established by the people."

DENIES IN COMPETENTS

This man, once a practicing spoilsman, had at last realized that his primary job was to see that civil service was working the way the people wanted it to work, that there were competent people to make it work, and that his time was henceforth freed for far more important matters.

Civil service, well administered, is not the haven of the incompetent. Incompetents not only can be, but are, dismissed. Civil service usually has far less restraints than do strong union contracts. Wherever civil service has become an asylum for incompetents, I believe it is because the leadership is incompetent and this situation in turn exists only because of complacence on the part of the community.

Local government, as well as state and federal government, can be made attractive to able citizens through decent salaries, encouragement of the career concept, and insistence on both competency and integrity in government service. Civil service is merely another name for a common sense personnel program. Private industry has recognized this need for many years and it has prospered well under this philosophy. Civil service can place its emphasis on the competitive employment and development of people in keeping with the same good management procedures.

At all levels of government the policy-making body must be elected. It is the responsibility of the citizenry to elect those whom they believe will reflect and represent their desires. Recognizing the humanity of those that they select, it behooves them to place certain restraints upon their activities. Among those restraints should be the dictate that government is to be run by competent people whose loyalty is to the total community. This can be done by a civil service law. Politics should be reserved for policy-makers; below that level, the policy-makers should select the professional practitioners. On the state and federal levels, we have long recognized the need for quality in our employees. The sheer burden of local taxation should make us painfully aware of the need for the same quality on the local level.. We are becoming a nation of specialists. Let's use the specialists and the professionals and leave politics to the policy-makers.

If we do not do something about political bossism in local government, we will eventually abdicate all local responsibility to the state and federal levels. These governments have already indicated impatience with incompetency by their strong strings on all personnel matters where large state and federal grants are involved. (A big exception to this is the interesting experience of the anti-poverty war.) If we continue our irresponsibility regarding quality in personnel at the local jurisdictions, we can be assured that "Mamma State" or "Daddy Federal Government" will eventually have to take over.

UNION POWER

One recent development in our nation, at all levels of government, is the recognition that a well administered personnel program, civil service or otherwise, is a strong safeguard against militant union influence of public officials. This is another alternative to civil service for most of the local governmental jurisdictions of this country today. Like an ostrich, local officials can bury their heads in the sands of inertia. The unions will get to them and pretty soon they will hire from the union halls. They will not only lose political patronage but what little vestige of home rule that remains. If politicians think that appointing a man from a list of three provided by the Civil Service Commission is difficult, wait until they have to accept the man put forth by a union bench. If they think it is difficult to fire an employee with a hearing before the Civil Service Commission, wait until they have to clear with the union steward before they can even give a reprimand.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

Now, Mr. Byrley. And Mr. James Martin, assistant to Mr. Byrley, will brief his statement.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. BYRLEY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS, NATIONAL GOVERNORS' CONFERENCE, AS READ BY JAMES L. MARTIN

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am James L. Martin, assistant director of Federal-State Relations for the National Governors' Conference. I am representing Mr. Byrley, who unfortunately was called to a special meeting just a few minutes ago. He is hoping to come later, Mr. Chairman, to answer questions, if possible.

My remarks today do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of the State Governors, but rather of staff analysis of the general provisions of the proposals-S. 699 and S. 1485-in light of previous testimony and positions taken in the past by a few of the chief executives of the States.

The reason for this is that the Washington Office of the National Governors' Conference was only recently established. Time has not permitted individual discussions with the Nation's Governors.

All recent surveys of personnel needs at the State and local levels of government have emphatically concluded that we face a drastic, immediate shortage of trained manpower unless appropriate and timely remedial action is taken at every level of government. We applaud the priority attention given to this problem by the President in his recent address on "The Quality of American Government." We heartily agree with his conclusion that "nowhere is the magnitude of government manpower greater-and the accompanying challenge more criticalthan at the State and local levels."

We also wish to commend Senator Muskie for his creative leadership in bringing national attention to this problem through the introduc

tion of Senate Bill 3408, the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1966. We support the goals and general import of both the Intergovernmental Manpower Act of 1967 and the Personnel Act of 1967. Major progress will be evidenced if the better features of both bills can be included in one piece of legislation.

We are in agreement with most of the provisions of both bills dealing with training programs, exchange of personnel, grants for planning and expanding administrative operations, technical assistance services, and assistance to the State and local governments to develop personnel management programs.

Let us express general concern regarding three major issues: (1) the role of the Governor; (2) the basic validity of a model merit system developed and required at the Federal level for all State and local governments; and (3) the issue of which Federal agency should coordinate the programs dealing with personnel training and administration.

The National Governors' Conference is not only apprehensive about the continued profusion in number and kind of Federal assistance programs, but is equally concerned with the problems of coordination and overall administration of the existing array of programs. Executive management at the State level, including coordination of Federal assistance programs, is clearly the responsibility of the Governor. However, we often fail to recognize this essential factor as we strive for effective State administration of Federal programs. Our primary concern about S. 699 and S. 1485 is that these proposals may not adequately strengthen the hand of the Governor as the chief executive and administrator of Federal-State relations. S. 699 (section 204) provides that the "State plan shall designate the personnel agency" which shall administer this program. The language of S. 1485 (section 104) is much preferred in that it makes specific provision for the Governor to designate a State office for purposes of administration. The differences of approach can have substantial meaning in some States where the personnel agency may not be best suited for the variety of programs included in these bills.

The ability of the Governor to provide overall leadership can also be affected by the method of appropriating Federal funds for these programs. S. 699 (section 202) specifically prescribes three separate authorizations for personnel administration grants for (1) States, (2) metropolitan areas and (3) nonmetropolitan areas. We would recommend the approach of S. 1485 which does not specify specific authorizations for the separate jurisdictions within a State. It is not only possible, but almost certain that the demand for Federal funds will require a different mix than the formula set forth in section 202 of S. 699. This becomes more clear as the funding problem is viewed on a State-by-State basis. Highly urbanized States will require a different approach from those having few metropolitan areas. Perhaps a better technique would be to have one authorization in the law with the record and legislative history showing an intent that the personnel and manpower programs in metropolitan areas be properly funded. Finally, the role of the Governor and the effectiveness of his new Federal assistance program could be strengthened by requiring that once a State plan has been approved, then all grants to local governments and to nonprofit organizations within a State must be submitted

to the designated State office for review and approval. This safeguard for immediate and long-range statewide coordination might appropriately be recognized in the law itself.

A second problem associated with these two legislative proposals in a presumption that the Federal Government can, in fact, develop a workable "national merit system" and then impose it as a prerequisite minimum national standard for States and local governments. We believe that most Governors will strongly object to any Federal policy in this direction. As Prof. Stephen Baily has said, it would be a "triumph of technique over purpose." Our goal is the performance of personnel, not their adherence to a rigid set of rules, procedures, and regulations at the Federal, State, and local levels of government. The standard ideas, procedures, and results of a so-called merit system have often resulted in rewards of mediocrity rather than performance; preference for tenure and security at the expense of dismissal and adequate promotion procedures; and a burden rather than a tool for better management practices.

The term "merit system" may need a new definition, not an as is blanket extension to all Federal assistance programs. It needs to provide for a variety of innovations and alternative choices for action. Even the Federal Government chooses to ignore some of its own merit system requirements through devices such as the "unassembled exam" which is an interview procedure rather than an examination.

We are convinced that the development of systems of personnel administration and management should progress rapidly at the State and local levels of government.

However, we believe that the variety of needs and circumstances in each State should preclude any specific Federal intervention at this time, except in the development of broad, general principles and periodic reviews. This is presumably the intent of S. 1485 which does not include reference to a "merit system," as such, throughout the entire bill. In addition, we believe the limit of section 202 of S. 1485 should be the development of broad "principles" of personnel administration with the specifics of program content left to individual states.

Our final concern is the question of proliferation of Federal agencies dealing with the same problem. Except for the preentry training programs proposed under the Education for the Public Service Act of 1967 (H.R. 8175) which should be considered as an extension of the existing HEW higher education program, there is general agreement that the U.S. Civil Service Commission should coordinate all Federal training programs.

Most of the recent discussions and committee hearings concerning the administration of Federal programs have recommended that many of their functional programs should be consolidated and administered by a single Federal agency. We agree with these conclusions and prefer that all personnel and manpower programs be administered by one Federal agency. In this regard, we favor S. 1485 which gives the Civil Service Commission jurisdiction over personnel administration and Federal merit programs as well as all training programs. The past experience of the States with HEW merit system procedures and regulations have not been totally satisfactory. We refer to the testimony of Governors and State and civil service directors before this same com

mittee last year on S. 3408. We would especially like to note the specific -objections raised by New York State to the merit system programs of HEW. We can find no substantial reasons for dividing personnel administration and training between HEW and the Civil Service Commission. We prefer that all programs be administered and coordinated by the Civil Service Commission as proposed in S. 1485.

Mr. Chairman, we have taken extra time to spell out our concerns about specific differences between S. 699 and S. 1485. These issues are important to the States. However, we wish to be clear concerning our support for the substantive aspects of these bills and our admiration for this committee in focusing national attention on these problems. Thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you today to relate our viewpoints.

Senator MUSKIE. It appears from your statement that the single common denominator is your opposition to the requirement for the merit system. I must say that I am not certain, after hearing the four versions of this opposition, exactly what your position is. That probably puts us both in the same situation.

But in your statement-Mr. Byrley's statement-there is this language that I think is duplicated in substance, if not exactly, in the other statements:

Our goal is the performance of personnel-Federal, State, or local levels of government. The standard ideas, procedures, and results of a so-called "merit system" have often resulted in rewards for mediocrity rather than performance; preference for tenure and security at the expense of dismissal and adequate promotion procedures; and a burden rather than a tool for better management practices.

The term "merit system" may need a new definition, not as an as is blanket extension to all Federal assistance programs. It needs to provide for a variety of innovations and alternative choices for action.

That is an argument against that provisions of these bills.

Now, let me read you an argument for it as given to the committee this morning by Mr. Macy, and ask you to distinguish between the two statements. Mr. Macy begins by saying

I recognize that this is a feature of the bill which tends to arouse controversy. I believe that a large part of the controversy is due to a mistaken concept of what a modern, well-administered merit personnel system really is.

Merit personnel administration demands that each individual's initial selection and his progress in the service be based on his relative qualifications, competence, and performance rather than on political or personal patronage or race or religion. A modern merit system operates with sufficient flexibility to be fully effective in a changing environment. It is fully responsive to new and changing program needs. It adjusts to the varying condition of the labor market. It is alert to the demands of the public it serves. It can and does obtain top quality personnel, if adequate salaries and stimulating leadership are provided.

On the other hand, routine merit systems with rigid or unrealistic rules and procedures have always proved ineffective and should no more be tolerated by a modern government than the old political "spoils" or "personal patronage" systems.

As I listen to this testimony, all four of you could have been speaking on the same side of the issue Mr. Macy was, and he could have been speaking on the same side of the issue you were. Can you suggest any difference between those two positions, any one of you?

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, our point of difference is not with the existence of modern personnel merit systems, but with the responsi