be recurrently, if not constantly, in training if they are to perform their roles satisfactorily, even during the shortening working life that our retirement system provides for. People in positions of responsibility need retraining to keep abreast of the new ways of doing old jobs that are developing at an accelerating rate. Even more important, they need reorientation in terms of the changing contexts in which their jobs are performed and they may even need to be trained to recognize that their old jobs have been superseded and that they should and must be doing something quite new and different. The larger and the more complex the system, the more important it is that key people in all parts of the system are kept up-to-date.

There is no system in which this is more obviously true than the American federal system. This fact underscores the national interest in the responsibility for the maintenance of personnel competence and flexibility at all levels. I think it is of the utmost importance that the kind of training programs contemplated by this bill should not be restricted either by law or by regulation to persons whose activities may for the time being be partly financed out of the Federal treasury. The most important personnel are those engaged in over-all policy development and management roles, the chief staff people in all three branches, legislative, executive, and judiciary. We should and must be concerned with the overall competence of all the governments in the country.

I hope that the act will be so administered as to encourage a large and increasing amount of training of mixed groups of national, Federal, State, and local people. I have seen evidence of the value of mixing people from different agencies and fields in the executive development seminars at Kings Point. At a number of those seminars I have been impressed by the interest of the Federal people in a better understanding of the State-local context in which many of their programs are carried out. They, of course, know a good deal about their specific opposite numbers, but they do feel a lack of understanding of the governmental, political, and intellectual environment in which they work. A number of the experiments which we have conducted at the Urban Studies Center in midcareer education of decisionmakers have demonstrated to us the importance of the education of one another by persons who come to a seminar from different backgrounds and situations. We found the best mixes for certain purposes include people from different levels of government, and different segments of the private system.

Of course, the great bulk of the training of State and local people should be done by the State-local governments themselves or by locally based educational institutions. If such training is, however, to be of the quality and effectiveness it should have, I think, in many parts of the country much of it should be done on the basis of interstate, certainly of interlocal, cooperation. This is necessary partly to achieve a satis factory critical mass, partly to help people overcome parochialism. I keep learning as I go around the country how little people know about the way things are done in the next town or next State.

I cannot stress too strongly my belief in the importance of intergovernmental cooperation not only in training but in the other areas covered by the bill. Especially important is the start that would be made under title III to achieve greater mobility of Federal, State, and

local employees. The less restrictive this title can be made in administration and perhaps ultimately by the amendment the better. I would hope that this start would lead to a truly nationwide system of public service in which all professional and semiprofessional employees at least could think of themselves as being parts of a total career service system and be as movable from place to place and State to State as city managers and administrators, planners, and a few other professionals now are. This would go a long way toward making entry into local or State service as attractive to able and ambitious young people as entry into the Federal service now is, because it would lower if not eliminate the barriers to advancement that are now inherent in our system of fractionated government.

I confess that my principal difficulty with this act has to do with title II. Surely, State and local personnel administration needs to be strengthened. It needs to be strengthened generally not just with respect to programs identified by grants as involving a special Federal concern. The difficulty lies in the low estate of many State and local personnel agencies. Federal money that merely supported "more of the same," whether in terms of expansion of merit system coverage or of present methods of recruitment, examination, and management could in some cases do more harm than letting bad enough alone. It cer tainly should be in the line of progress to coordinate and rationalize the administration of the miscellany of Federal personnel requirements set up in various acts.

Technical assistance from the National Government, if it is of a sufficiently high and sophisticated quality, can be very helpful to States sincerely desirous of improving their system. I hope, however, that grants under sections 203 and 204 will be made with great care and discrimination. Substantial development and/or maintenance grants certainly should be given States only on the basis of a very wellthought-out plan and the showing of a kind of support for modern personnel administration that gives reasonable promise of genuine, not token, compliance. The purpose is "strengthening" of the manpower basis of State and local government. There is real danger that personnel administration rather than personnel improvement may become the end.

While I believe that training should be supported partly at the outset by project grants, it should be supported in the long run on a continuing basis. I think this is an appropriate continuing function of the Federal Government. On the other hand, at the outset, at least, I would support personnel administration improvement programs strictly on a project-by-project basis.

Just one final suggestion. I would hope that out of this program will come some mechanism for a continuing study and periodic report on governmental manpower needs. This conceivably might be done with the help of the Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Manpower Policy provided for in the act, although I am not altogether sure that is the ideal mechanism for it. In fact, I have some reservations about an advisory committee that has to be representative of so many different elements.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much. This afternoon's hearing will be recessed until tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Friday, April 28, 1967.)

S. 1485

INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANPOWER ACT OF 1967

S. 699

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PERSONNEL ACT OF 1967

FRIDAY, APRIL 28, 1967

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 9:40 a.m., in room 224, Old Senate Office Building, Senator Edmund S. Muskie (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Muskie, Montoya, and Baker.

Staff members present: Charles M. Smith, Staff Director; E. Winslow Turner, general counsel; Robert E. Berry, minority counsel; and Victor Lang, professional staff member.

Senator MUSKIE. The committee will be in order.

Our first witness this morning is Mr. George J. Walker, personnel director of the State of Connecticut.

Mr. Walker, we are delighted to welcome you this morning. I hope you had a pleasant trip down.

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE J. WALKER, PERSONNEL DIRECTOR, STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Mr. WALKER. Yes, sir. Should I-may I read this prepared statement first, Senator?

Senator MUSKIE. That will be fine.

Mr. WALKER. I am George J. Walker, personnel director for the State of Connecticut. I wish to express to the committee, and particularly to the chairman, my appreciation for their initiative and sustained interest in this area of legislation. I know I express the appreciation of the Personnel Management Committee of the New England Governors' Conference. I feel I express the appreciation of personnel administrators throughout the country.

Senator Muskie commented, during the hearings on this legislation last year, that he had been a little startled by the enthusiasm with which what seems to be a dull, dry, management problem or proposals had been received across the country-by people who actually work for State and local governments.

We were enthusiastic because we saw the first glimmering of awareness of, and possible solutions to, the extremely pressing problems

79-413-67- -13

which exist in personnel management on the State and local levels in this decade. Among the causes for these problems were:

One. An expansion of traditional programs in grant-in-aid agencies with no concomitant recognition of the increased personnel administration requirements.

Two. New thrusts in traditional programs and new programs with little or no awareness of the manpower problems involved.

Three. New standards of professional requirements with apparently little recognition of the limited capacity to recruit and retain on the State and local levels, or for our educational institutions, to deliver what was demanded.

Four. Disregard for State and local merit systems, and lack of sensitive awareness of the need to establish mutual cooperation on a partnership basis in the administration of the personnel aspects of Federal programs.

I shall not try to cover both bills point by point. Instead, I shall concentrate on S. 699, the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1967, with comments covering broad aspects which apply to both bills under consideration.

I feel the following basic principles should be followed in these bills to the fullest extent possible:

One. That each level of government be treated as an equal, and that there be not only intergovernmental cooperation but continual discussion and dialog.

Two. That merit principles be extended as fully as possible.

Three. That effective, dynamic, and modern personnel administration be encouraged wherever and in whatever manner possible.g First, in reference to S. 699, I like the title better than that of S. 1485. It more clearly defines that we are talking about "personnel administration" on all governmental levels. The term "manpower" can have a meaning different from what is intended by this act.

Under title I of S. 699, I support the Advisory Council and applaud the fact that there is clearly spelled out provisions for representatives of the various levels of government and any others the President may deem necessary. This fully meets my first basic principle stated above.

I strongly endorse the authority of the President to extend the merit system standards to Federal grant-in-aid programs. I think it. must be recognized that a merit system has some basic features that few should argue with. These are:

(a) Each citizen is made fully aware of the positions which his government, through his tax dollars, is going to establish and fill.

(b) Each citizen is given an equal opportunity to present his interest in and his qualifications for such positions.

(c) Each citizen has the right to expect that his qualifications will be objectively reviewed and evaluated.

I am, of course, in favor of title II of S. 699. I think it important to point out that those States having a central merit system have provided, or have taken care of, the basic factors of recruitment, selection, classification, and compensation. We are talking here about additional funds which will have an increasing impact on excellence of performance because the basic requirements have already been met. Although I see no preference in this bill concerning it, I would