TESTIMONY OF CHARLES A. MEYER, SECRETARY AND CHIEF EXAMINER, DETROIT CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Mr. MEYER. Thank you, sir. It is a pleasure to be here and a privilege to be here.

I have a prepared statement which I would like to read first if I may.

Senator MUSKIE. Yes, indeed.

Mr. MEYER. And then any questions you have I will be happy to

answer.

I am grateful for the opportunity to present my comments on S. 699, the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1967, and on S. 1485, the Intergovernmental Manpower Act of 1967.

I am, first, going to comment on the legislation generally; second, raise a few questions with respect to specific provisions; and third, describe briefly the programs of the Detroit Civil Service Commission and the city of Detroit.

I understand that you may have specific questions relating to the functioning of the Detroit Civil Service Commission. Upon completion of my statement, I shall be ready to answer any questions you may direct with respect to the Detroit Civil Service Commission or to my

comments.

I am pleased that these bills have been introduced for several

reasons:

1. Both bills represent recognition of the need for, and the importance of, effective public personnel administration.

2. Both bills recognize the importance of the need for establishing and maintaining a merit system of employment.

3. Both bills recognize the need for creative and innovative leadership on the part of central personnel agencies.

4. Both bills recognize the need for the protection of the public interest by requiring that selection and employment be on the basis of qualifications, performance, and needs of the service.

5. Both bills recognize the need for professional competence in personnel administration.

6. Both bills provide for effective communication in and between government jurisdictions.

7. Both bills require acceptance of a shared responsibility on both a fiscal and policy basis by local, State, and Federal Governments. 8. Both bills recognize the need for attention to personnel problems involving the subprofessional employee, the employee with limited training, and those involving administrative, professional, and technical personnel.

9. Both bills recognize that, in addition to selection and promotion on the basis of merit, continuing attention must be paid to training and retraining to meet changing needs and problems.

10. Both bills recognize that personnel administration must have adequate financial support to effectively meet the needs of the public service.

I have been particularly impressed with the statements made by the committee chairman in introducing both of these bills and with the understanding and awareness of personnel problems demonstrated by his remarks in introducing Senate bill 3408 in 1966.

I recognize that there have been many individuals and organizations testifying who have presented a wide variety of information. I hesitate to make remarks which might duplicate statements previously made. However, there are a few items that I believe worthy of emphasis. There are reasonably authoritative estimates that there will be 13 million public employees by 1975 with the greatest part of the personnel increase in State and local governments, variously estimated to increase from 38 to 40 percent in the next 8 years.

The complexities of many government problems are concentrated largely in cities and adjacent areas because of urban and suburban population growth and changes. There are not only increasing needs for service and personnel in these areas but there are greater expectations on the part of the public for quality and quantity of performance. Many programs approved by the Congress are directed to the solution of these problems. These programs can be effective only through the cooperative efforts of competent personnel.

Ninety percent of all the scientists who ever lived are alive today. The rate of change technologically and sociologically is more rapid today than ever before. These mounting technological, social, and economic changes support the need for emphasis on selection, training, and development of personnel.

There is growing complexity of administrative responsibilities and a greater need for awareness and understanding of the dynamics of urban problems and administration related to them. There is an everincreasing need for capacity on the part of administrative personnel to absorb and utilize information and make decisions more quickly. There is and will continue to be a continuing shortage not only of administrative, professional, and technical personnel but of other needed service occupations. These shortages exist in both the private sector and the public sector.

I have a Forbes magazine publication here, indicating the need and some of the experiences in industry. This is a very recent publication, April 15, 1967, describing the shortages apparent in the private sector.

To illustrate, it is estimated that there are 3,000 vacancies for professional recreation workers each year, and at the present time there are only 600 persons being trained nationwide. There is a need for 200 traffic engineers each year with approximately 50 being graduated each year nationwide. There are similar disproportions between supply and demand in most technical and professional fields. I am certain that it has been emphasized that there will be other shortages occasioned by retirement and possibly death of persons who were hired during the 1930's.

I suspect that my comments indicate that I believe strongly that there is a need for increased emphasis on training. I am sure that most State and local public management people, city managers, whether elected or appointed, or what have you, would agree on the need for additional training and support the training aspects of the bill.

I believe that it is equally important that there be equal emphasis on a well-rounded system of personnel administration. All personnel functions are inextricably related. Classification, recruitment, selection, promotion, training, and labor relations problems are all interrelated and require competent professional objective direction. This is

particularly true in the public service where the public interest requires that personnel programs be administered on a merit basis.

I am particularly pleased by these bills because they represent a departure from much of the thinking expressed in the past by legislation. The majority of Federal grants-in-aid or support heretofore extended by the Federal Government have been directed toward substantive objectives of programs with limited significant attention or support of the vital role of personnel administration.

An outstanding exception to this is that of the State Merit System Division, now of HEW, and formerly with predecessor agencies. It is my observation that the HEW State Merit System Division has been most effective in its performance.

In most other situations where subsidies or grants have been made, where there were existing personnel agencies in State or local governments, such agencies have had marked increases in workloads and problems when Federal assistance to substantive programs was provided with little if any aid in assuming the additional personnel administration workload.

For jurisdictions without personnel agencies expanded activities have developed, sometimes with lack of recognition of personnel problems and certainly with relatively little attention being paid to personnel planning or programs.

I believe strongly in the merit system of selection and retention. I am certain it is apparent to the committee that the majority of local governments and jurisdictions do not have merit systems. Encouragement of the establishment and development of merit system concepts at all levels of government I am sure will be in the public interest. Basically, the legislation recognizes the importance of selection of personnel by competition on the basis of merit, the improvement of public management, and the optimum development of the individual employee, all in the framework of a free society.

Only in a free society can the optimum balance of individual freedom and responsibility be achieved. A free society can exist only in a system of democratic and representative government.

The success of representative government at any time, but particularly in the present world situation, depends in large part on its effectiveness, efficiency, and economy. Personnel administration has a direct impact on government service and the relative effectiveness, efciency, and economy of any jurisdiction.

The competitive merit system, more than any other program of personnel administration, recognizes the importance of the individual and his qualifications. The basic purpose and policy implemented by competitive merit system laws have been based on the concept that every citizen in accordance with his qualifications must have an equal opportunity to compete for public positions by having his individual qualifications reviewed objectively and competitively on the basis of

merit.

In nations, in States, in cities, or in other units of government where the person is hired or retained not because of his individual qualications and personal characteristics but because of his subservience to a political purpose or political control, the individual as such is ignored. Under a competitive merit system, emphasis is on the individual, his qualifications, his performance, and his development.

Increased productivity in private business cannot raise the general standard of living if such increased production is dissipated by cost of inefficient and ineffective government service. Efficient and economical government can be achieved only through application of proper qualifications, standards, effective selection, and effective personnel administration after employees are on the job.

Today, perhaps more than ever before, a merit system mechanism is necessary because the forms of patronage are more subtle and more sophisticated as are the pressure groups which maneuver for such patronage.

Many occupational groups beginning with those which are licensed, certificated, or registered under local or State laws in numerous areas have attempted to exert pressure to be excluded from the normal selection procedures of merit systems.

Officers of organizations representing such employees have argued that their members have already demonstrated the possession of at least minimum qualifications and therefore there should be no further evaluation. Such individuals have failed to recognize that many local governments are vitally concerned with the "quest for quality" and that the public service is making a real effort to obtain the best person and not only those who have minimum qualifications.

Some representatives of such groups have gone so far as to indicate the occupation will "tell" local government which of its members shall enter the public service.

In addition to this group, other occupations not formally recognized under law as requiring licensing, et cetera, normally are practiced by persons who had degrees. Representatives of these groups have questioned a careful screening or selection program as being unwarranted and in that the persons involved have degrees-therefore no further screening is necessary.

Beyond this group, almost to the point of being ludicrous, other occupational advocates have advanced a claim for employment without competitive or comparative selection because members of the occupation have formal schooling in some named amount, perhaps high school or eight grades, as indicating that there is no need for further comparative or competitive selection.

Still other groups have urged that any examination selection process be eliminated because examinations "induce a psychic trauma" in the examinees, particularly those who fail the examination, and therefore should not be utilized.

Personnel selection at any level and particularly at those involving administrative, technical, or professional development and understanding is an involved and extremely important process. If selection is to be carefully done, it should be done only on the basis of extremely thorough and careful evaluation of the objectives and needs of government and the qualifications essential for realizing those objectives. These include evaluations of knowledge, capacities and potential, and ofttimes of attitudes.

Analysis and evaluation of this time cannot be handled by the amateur or dilettante. Necessary selection decisions must be made by persons who are professionally competent and skilled in public personnel administration.

Now, on some specific provisions of the bill.

1. S. 699, TITLE II, SECTION 207(b)

Section 207(b) provides that there be financial participation by States or metropolitan units equal to one-third of the cost of each project including the reasonable value of facilities and personnel services made by the State or local government for the administration of the project. Unless the local contribution of "reasonable value" of local contributions was liberally construed, a city with an ongoing program which needs expansion and supplementation would find it difficult to assume any substantial additional cost for expansion which is sorely needed.

Closely related is title IV, section 405 (8) which provides for participation by the government unit in an amount equal to one-quarter the cost of the training. In the very small city, again unless "reasonable value of services" is rather liberally construed, it would be extremely difficult for the smaller city to participate. To do a significant job for a city the size of Detroit with the number of employees involved and current fiscal limitations, meaningful participation in any program expansion or new program would be extremely difficult.

I fully recognize that to be meaningful, State and local governments should play an active role in both administration and costs. On this item, I merely wish to indicate that a rather liberal approach toward the interpretation of "reasonable value" of State or local fiscal participation is important.

2. S. 699, TITLE II, SECTION 209

I believe it would be desirable to make it possible for a local government such as the city of Detroit to take full advantage of participation without the requirement of a waiting period of 1 full year for the State to take action. I realize that in our system of government that there is a role for the State to play. However, I believe that many cities, including Detroit, could develop suitable programs meeting reasonable Federal standards. It would be desirable for the legislation to provide that the Governor exercise a role but without requiring that there be the extended waiting period involved as the bill now proposes.

3. S. 699, TITLE II, SECTION 208 (1 THROUGH 6)

All of the programs contemplated in this section are desirable, important, and could be readily implemented; assuming adequate financial support, by the Detroit Civil Service Commission and I am sure by many other jurisdictions. I would make one reservation, and here I am differing just a little bit on a point Mr. Walker made. I am relating to cooperative activities and recruitment in examination. I have no objection philosophically or otherwise to cooperative programs. However, I believe that this particular section is not immediately practical because both philosophically and practically it is essential for every jurisdiction to have a positive recruitment program in those occupational areas in which personnel is critically short.

To illustrate, the Detroit Civil Service Commission has an extensive college recruitment program in which college seniors are interviewed over a wide geographical area in the hopes that they can be stimulated