Commission, which have proven to be exceedingly beneficial to our state employees. It is my personal belief that in-service training is of greatest importance to improved personnel management in that it provides a tool by which new employees can be provided orientation courses to familiarize them with administrative procedures and thus minimize the time when they become fully productive in their respective position assignments. Moreover, and of especial significance, in-service training opportunities which result in promotions and create an esprit de corps now lacking, improve the chances for career service and enhance the image of public service-something long overdue. Title IV of S. 699 is a bonanza! This advisory Council to be chaired by the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission is most appropriate. It is earnestly believed that this single effort, designed to promote higher levels of performance of elected officials and professional, administrative and technical public employees, will contribute more to much-needed improved governmental administration than any other portion of the Act. Lack of funds here have prevented initiating such a significant program heretofore. Please do not interpret these particular comments as being an adverse reflection on any of the above classes of positions, because I am reasonably confident they themselves would warmly welcome such training opportunities. It would be hoped sincerely that the provisions of Title VI can be explored to its fullest measure, since many of the problems confronting Rocky Mountain states are common ones. Title VII is highly desirable from the standpoint of offering exposure to employees of other jurisdictions to new environments and administrative processes that can only result in returning to their original employment with broader understanding of the interrelationships between various governmental agencies and an opportunity to provide new, progressive ideas with a fresher look. Since both proposed Acts closely but not identically parallel one another, with the exception of a choice of the administering agency, it seems unnecessary to comment at this time on the Intergovernmental Manpower Act of 1967 (S. 1485) and, in addition, because it is understood that a final bill will be drafted which will be a composite drawn from both. It seems that the points emphasized in President Johnson's recent message to Congress on "The Quality of American Government" concerning our dire need to provide some action to encourage and assure a flow of qualified and trained youngsters from institutions of secondary and higher education into the public service have been overlooked in both Acts. The inclusion of the allocation of funds and guidelines therefor in the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (S. 699) seems preferable to the coverage of this subject in S. 1485. Insofar as an opinion on which agency should administer the final Act, I lean toward the United States Civil Service Commission simply because its functions and responsibilities are more closely aligned to those of state and municipal jurisdictions' personnel administrative problems. Of greatest value is the fact that our federal government, through the untiring efforts of you, Senator Muskie, and your committee members, recognize our genuine needs for improved personnel administration. My sincere gratitude to you for providing me an opportunity to present these suggestions. Respectfully, HAROLD S. BIBO, State Personnel Director. JOINT STATEMENT ON THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PERSONNEL ACT OF 1967 (S. 699), AND THE INTERGOVERNMental ManPOWER ACT OF 1967 (S. 1485), BY JOHN J. BURNS, COMMISSIONER, OFFICE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT, FRANK C. MOORE, CHAIRMAN, LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADVISORY BOARD, STATE OF NEW YORK The Subcommittee's invitation to comment on the proposed Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1967 (S. 699) and the Intergovernmental Manpower Act of 1967 (S. 1485) presents a welcome opportunity to support objectives which have been among our major concerns for many years. Many decades of active interest in and involvement with local government problems have convinced us that the improvement of local personnel adminis tration and the upgrading of the local public service should be major concerns of government at all levels. Federal, state and local governments are not only faced with a common need for competent personnel, but all are more and more becoming partners with a common stake in the administration of vital programs. For these reasons it is appropriate that the federal government should now join with the states and their local governments in comprehensive efforts to meet common personnel needs through programs of personnel administration improvement and in-service training. The two proposals under consideration are designed for this purpose. New York already has developed substantial state programs for local governments both in personnel management services and in-service training. For example, the State already extends to its units of local government important services in personnel management such as recruitment, examination, classification and the development of compensation schedules. Many of New York's municipalities, furthermore, already operate under merit systems which are modeled after, and in some cases are actually integrated with that of the State. In many functional areas New York also has programs designed to provide in-service training for local employees. In the field of police training, for example, the State now requires a minimum of 240 hours of state-approved training before a police officer can become a permanent employee under Civil Service coverage. A similar, though not mandatory, training program is administered on behalf of the municipal fire service. Governor Rockefeller in 1967 sponsored, and the Office for Local Government actively supported, legislation which would have provided an extensive general program of in-service training for local government employees. A copy of this bill is attached. Although this measure was not enacted, Governor Rockefeller already has renewed his sponsorship of such a program for 1968. SPECIFIC COMMENTS The foregoing references to New York's present and projected activities in the personnel management and in-service training fields are not designed to suggest that nothing more needs to be done in New York. We should and will do much more. They rather are preliminary to three closely related observations we wish to make concerning the two proposals under consideration. The first comment is that we hope that the proposal which the Subcommittee ultimately will report will reflect a greater reliance upon state and local initiative than seems to underlie and basic approach of S. 1485. Although both S. 699 and S. 1485 place first-instance responsibility for developing plans and programs with the states, the deadline and waiver features of S. 1485 appear to invite undercutting of the states' role in program development. It is our earnest hope that the Congress will not put the states under a "ninety-day gun" in the matter of declaring "intent" to act under the law. Second we wish to express the view that the area of administrative discretion granted to the Federal Civil Service Commission by S. 1485 and to some extent by S. 699 seems unnecessarily broad. We believe that the states and the local governments are deserving of a substantially higher degree of discretion than these bills would appear to insure. In this respect we would refer specifically to such provisions as that found in Section 203 of Title II in S. 1485, where five program "requirements" are set forth, subject to an exception that the Civil Service Commission would be authorized to waive any requirement at its apparently unlimited discretion. It is difficult to see how these provisions actually constitute requirements or provide real guidance to state and local officials as to their own range of discretion, since they may be waived by administrative action in any event. While it may be said that such provisions are designed to provide needed flexibility in program administration, the placing of such virtually unrestricted discretionary authority in the federal administrative agency is likely to produce confusion and uncertainty. Our third comment is an objection which we in New York State feel compelled to register with reference to most federal grant-in-aid programs and which we obviously should renew in the case of the two bills under consideration here. This objection is that fund allotment formulas tend to reward states which have done nothing in the aided areas and to penalize those states which through their own initiative and their own resources have undertaken significant programs in those areas. We cannot believe that it is necessary for federal grant-in-aid programs, in effect, to punish progressive and forward-looking states for exercising the initi ative and responsibility the encouragement of which is regularly put forth as a basic purpose of federal grant-in-aid programs. Grant-in-aid fund allotment formulas, however, frequently have precisely this effect. We would, therefore, renew the suggestion made to your Subcommittee with reference to the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1966, that consideration be given to the development of a new policy with reference to the "no substitution" provisions which invariably are found in federal grant-in-aid legislation. State and local governments which already have programs meeting objectives which the federal grants are designed to accomplish should receive positive rather than negative consideration therefor. In conclusion, we strongly approve of several major features of both S. 699 and S. 1485. Specifically the opening of federal training programs to state and local employees on a comprehensive basis should be of substantial benefit in a variety of ways, the improvement of federal-state-local program coordination being only one. Second, we strongly support the greatest possible coordination and cooperation among federal, state and local personnel agencies in recruitment and examination of personnel. These activities, of course, should be supported by closely related efforts to assure a continuing flow of qualified candidates into the recruitment process. Finally, we believe that the employee interchange features of both bills, while presenting formidable administrative problems, are well worth substantial efforts to overcome these problems. Although both of the bills under consideration contain many similar features and are designed to serve the same purposes, in their present form we find S. 699, the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, preferable to S. 1485, the Manpower Act. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE, Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: I appreciate the opportunity to offer comments on the two Manpower Bills, S 1485 and S 699, which are now pending before the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations. My comments and opinions on these bills are: 1. The general purpose of these bills is, in my estimation, very desirable. 2. Centralizing responsibility for administration at the Federal level in the U.S. Civil Service Commission seems a step in the right direction. We feel that we can work best with a single coordinating agency. The representatives of the Commission should be (and I believe they are) sensitive to regional and state traditions and policies, particularly if considerable day-today administration can be delegated to the regional offices of the Commission. 3. The bill appears to place an excessive emphasis-perhaps unintentional -on less essential elements of the nationwide problem of manpower for the public service. In my opinion, the heart of the matter is the procurement for all levels of the public service, especially the state and local levels, of an adequate supply of qualified and interested young people. Manpower planning, training, fellowships, research, interchange of personnel, etc., have their place but they will have only indirect effects in overcoming the shortages. If we can begin by emphasizing the recruitment aspects and put the muscle of the Federal and state governments into this task, we will then have a sound basis for the other activities. 4. No amount of training can convert mediocrity into first-rate performance. When a front line program administrator has difficulty in executing his here-and-now programs, he is less than enthusiastic about expending the precious time of his scarce administrative talent in conducting or attending training programs. The result often is that "the dispensible man" is sent for training while the first-rate people struggle with the regular programs of government. Most public professional employees are more knowledgeable and technically proficient than might be indicated by their performances. They lack not knowledge but oftentimes incentive for better performance. Training can hone to a sharp edge the already competent and can probably improve somewhat the capacity of other individuals, but it is no substitute for basic quality nor does it increase the quantity of talent available. Too often training is taken as the easy way, the "pass-the-buck" means by which an administrator sloughs off to someone else his responsibility for developing his staff. 5. Interchange as a device for development is excellent, provided that the exchangees are required to be full time performers and not mere observers. They can be trained and developed rapidly provided they are given responsibility and authority in their exchange assignments. But, again, the lack of people who are available for interchange is a defeating factor; few managers will release their stars to other organizations, especially if they are likely to lose them permanently as a result! My experience is that there are plenty of takers but few willing to yield up good men. Again, if we could greatly increase the supply of available talent we could make interchange programs work, 6. I am happy to note that there will be an advisory council representing Federal, state and local government which can advise on the standards and policies to be followed in implementing the proposed law. If it were feasible to create similar councils on a regional basis, in addition to a national council, this might be beneficial since the policies and standards which apply to a region such as the Northeast, may not be appropriate in other parts of the country. I hope that we will not attempt to strait-jacket all the diverse public personnel systems of the United States into one standard form. 7. I plead also for considerable delegation of administrative latitude to the regional offices of the Civil Service Commission and through them to the state and local governments. One of the frustrating and deadening aspects of many Federally administered programs is the vast amount of red tape and clearances which must be suffered in order to get a program rolling. Where there are numerous, protracted clearances involved, by the time a good idea works its way to the top and back down to the person who must execute it, too often he has lost all his enthusiasm or the time element has destroyed the potential of the idea. A certain risk should be assumed so that those who are ready and willing to act can do so without prolonged delay. In any kind of warfare there is always a certain amount of waste and the present manpower crisis has many of the hallmarks of warfare. A plethora of bureaucratic controls is wasteful in itself and usually does not prevent the losses at which the controls are aimed. On the contrary, excessive supervision of a nit-picking character either breeds excessive caution on the part of the executors or diverts too much of their time and efforts into nonproductive channels. We become experts in justifying and explaining but failures in getting results. It is fine to sit in profound council and evolve standards and policies; but recruitment, for example, cannot be done in a council or from behind a desk. It requires persistent, unglamorous hard work. Our recruitment efforts are successful in the colleges only when we send teams of energetic recruiters to the campuses to talk to the administrators, professors and students and to maintain constant contact with the latter until they determine their careers. This is grimy labor and cannot be substituted for by flowery speeches or fancy brochures. What I have said above might be epitomized thus: We like what you are trying to do. We welcome the idea of working with the U.S. Civil Service Commission. We believe that the paramount need of the public service is for the recruitment of a large supply of young people willing to make careers in the public service at the Federal, state and especially the local levels. Without a substantial increase in the supply, the other features of this bill will become dead letters. We hope that the states and localities can have a loud, clear voice in establishing standards. We believe we are as conscientious and as dedicated to the improvement of the public service as our Federal brethren. We need Federal leadership, Federal support, both financial and moral, and thereafter latitude to get the job done. Each state and city has its own local problems and ought to be given some flexibility in dealing with them. We hope there will be an end to the requirement for multiple clearances and voluminus reports. We don't need our Federal Big Brother breathing down our backs and questioning every detail of every program. We recognize the need for broad standads but evaluate the end product: meanwhile put a little confidence in the states to effectuate the intermediate steps. If the above seems a bit acerb you may attribute it to several decades of bitter experience. We applaud what you are striving to do and want to cooperate fully. These are, of course, personal views. They do not necessarily represent the Very truly yours, official position of the New York State Department of Civil Service. W. J. MURRAY, Administrative Director. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: In accordance with your request, I am very glad to give you my comments on the proposed Intergovernmental Personnel Act (S 699) and Intergovernmental Manpower Act (S 1485). I hope that these comments, though informal, may be of help to the Subcommittee. I have been quite fortunate in having had the opportunity to read a copy of testimony presented before the Subcommittee by the Personnel Director of the State of Connecticut and a copy of the Letter of the Administrative Director of the New York Department of Civil Service in which he has expressed to you his personal views. Without dwelling on the specifics touched upon by these two, I can say to you that I find myself in substantial agreement with the observations and comments of each. I shall limit my comments to two matters which I think are of the greatest importance. First, as to the somewhat different approaches of the two bills to the same general objective: As indicated in my comments of last year, I find the designation of the Civil Service Commission as the administering agency, as provided in S 1485, highly preferable. Although you have commented in introducing S 699 that "At such time as the preponderance of aid programs requiring merit systems shifts from HEW, it may be desirable to transfer this unit to the Civil Service Commission", it would appear to me that the legislation clearly indicates a purpose to take a broader approach to State and local government personnel management now and this will be fostered by assigning administration to a staff agency such as the Civil Service Commission rather than an operating department. The personnel function does require a background in serving the interests of management generally, of being responsive to the needs of a variety of management structures, and of experience in the development of executive policy. Severe limitations would exist on the flexibility of a program-oriented Federal agency to conduct a comprehensive program of staff assistance to State and local governments in the field of personnel administration. This comment should not be construed as casting any aspersion on the accomplishments of Health, Education, and Welfare's Division of State Merit Systems. Indeed, it is clearly indicated to me in reading S 1485 that this unit would be transferred to the Civil Service Commission and would become the nucleus of the expanded operation provided. S 1485 uses the expression "systems of personnel management based on merit principles" in lieu of the familiar reference to a "Merit System." Although this is only a slight difference of terminology, I believe that it accomplishes a worthwhile purpose in avoiding a term which has for some taken on a fixed meaning as to methodology. This change is supportive of the concept expressed in your statement of purpose and justification: "In the broadest definition, merit personnel administration demands a personnel system in which comparative merit or achievement governs each individual's selection and progress in the service, and in which the conditions and rewards of performance contribute in turn to the competency and continuity of the service. A sound merit system operates with sufficient flexibility to be fully effective in a changing environment and fully responsive to program needs. It adjusts to the condition of the labor market and is viable in response to the demands of the public it serves. On the other hand, routine merit systems with rigid or unrealistic procedures, as well as the older schemes of personal and political preferment, have proved ineffective. Management must therefore seek the development of modern, flexible, merit systems of personnel administration." The application of the merit principles as enumerated in Section 202(a) of S 1485 is clearly necessary to any effective system of personnel management today. Innovation, imagination and creativity in application of these principles will be necessary to meet the modernday problems of personnel management. |