Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Joseph Cayer, N
2006.
Handbook of Public Administration, Third Edition.
Vol. 20067041,
Issue. ,
p.
345.
Article contents
The Changing Rôle of the U. S. Civil Service Commission
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
In any appraisal of our national government and its ability to shoulder postwar domestic burdens, the rôle of the U. S. Civil Service Commission deserves scrutiny. “Good personnel administration is good public administration,” Herbert Emmerich argues conclusively, and the influence which the Civil Service Commission exerts throughout the entire field of federal personnel administration has reached a peak during the past few years never before approached. In what directions and with what success has this influence been wielded? To what extent have the wartime developments pointed the way to permanent gains? What is the probable rôle, what the desirable one, of the Commission in the next few years? These seem to me to be questions upon which we need all the informed points of view we can marshal.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1946
References
1 Emmerich, Herbert, “Good Personnel Administration Is Good Public Administration,” Public Personnel Review, Vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–8 (Jan., 1945).Google Scholar
2 Feldman, Herman, A Personnel Program for the Federal Service (Washington, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1931), p. 114.Google Scholar
3 Ibid., p. 244.
4 48th Annual Report of the U. S. Civil Service Commission (Washington, 1031), p. 41.
5 Mayers, Lewis, The Federal Service (New York, D. Appleton and Co., 1922), p. 538 f.Google Scholar Curiously, Mayers considered recruiting and examining work as a “promotive and assisting” function, whereas today the Commission's authority to control the certification of eligibles and to limit appointments to one of the top three is generally regarded as one of its major restrictive or regulatory responsibilities.
6 Meriam, Lewis, Personnel Administration in the Federal Government (Washington, Brookings Institution, 1937), p. 59.Google Scholar
7 Reeves, Floyd W. and David, Paul T., Personnel Administration in the Federal Service (Washington, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1937), p. 26.Google Scholar
8 Lewis Meriam, op. cit., p. 61.
9 Reeves and David, op. cit., pp. 25, 39.
10 Ibid., p. 25.
11 In giving the President broad powers to reorganize the executive branch (Reorganization Act of 1939, Public Law No. 19, 76th Cong., 1st Sess.), Congress expressly included the Commission among those agencies which were not to be disturbed. Today, by virtue of the recent Reorganization Act (Public Law No. 263, 79th Cong., 1st Sess.), President Truman has ample authority to include the Commission's activities in any organization shuffle; Congress, however, would have sixty days to consider a veto.
12 Executive Orders 7915 and 7916.
13 McReynolds, William H., “The Liaison Office for Personnel Management,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, p. 126 (Winter, 1941).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 On this subject, see White, Leonard, “Congress and the Civil Service,” Public Personnel Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 65–69 (Apr., 1944).Google Scholar
15 Herman Feldman, op. cit., p. 8.
16 Public Law No. 880, 76th Cong., 3rd Sees.
17 In order to understand the Commission's functioning during the war period, it is essential to note that it as a body formally designated Mr. Flemming to be in charge of its “war program activities.”
18 Some would argue that the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944 torpedoes this statement, and they have a point. However, in so far as original appointments are concerned, this law is essentially a confirmation of the preference long granted veterans by regulation. See below, p. 1076.
19 See published series of hearings before the House Committee on the Civil Service: Investigation of Civilian Employment (78th Cong., 1st Sess., Mar., 1943, through June, 1943).
20 Leonard White haa well said: “Congress needs more information about the public service, more frequently presented, more carefully digested, more intelligently planned, than it now receives.” See “Congress and the Civil Service,” Public Personnel Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, p. 69 (Apr., 1944).
21 Hearings before the House Committee on the Civil Service: Investigation of Civilian Employment, Part I (Mar., 1943), p. 238.
22 Mr. Flemming frequently met with these committees in executive session.
23 Federal Employees Pay Act of June 30, 1945 (Public Law No. 106, 79th Cong., 1st Sess.).
24 Public Law No. 390, 79th Cong., 2nd Sess.
25 Public Law No. 359 of June 27, 1944, 78th Cong., 2nd Sess.
26 Reeves, Floyd W., “Civil Service As Usual,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, p. 335 (Autumn, 1944).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27 Public Law No. 359, June 27, 1944 (78th Cong., 2nd Sess.), sec. 5.
28 H.R. 5257 was passed by the House. Reintroduced in the 79th Congress as H.R. 2716, it was passed and signed on August 8, 1046, as Public Law No. 658, 79th Cong., 2nd Sess.
29 As does the unsuccessful effort to prevent exemption of Veterans Administration doctors several months later.
30 Commission Departmental Circular No. 257, rev. 3, Sept. 20, 1943.
31 The long waiting period provided for within-grade increases in the Mead-Ramspeck Act (Public Law No. 200, 77th Cong., 1st Sess.) had afforded an example of legislative rigidity growing out of the conviction that administrative discretion had been abused.
32 60th Annual Report of the Civil Service Commission (Washington, 1943), p. 51.
33 62nd Annual Report of the Civil Service Commission (Washington, 1945), pp. 1–6.
34 McReynolds, William H., “The Liaison Office for Personnel Management,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 121–122 (Winter, 1941).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35 Ibid., p. 123.
36 Executive Order 9063 of February 16, 1942.
37 White, Leonard D. (ed.), Civil Service in Wartime (Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1945), p. 253.Google Scholar
38 Executive Order 8952 of November 27, 1941; Executive Order 9259 of October 26, 1942; Executive Order 9506 of December 12, 1944; Executive Order 9598 of August 17, 1945; Executive Order 9644 of October 19, 1945.
39 Executive Order 8937 of November 7, 1941; Executive Order 9538 of April 13, 1945; Executive Order 9678 of January 14, 1946.
40 Executive Order 9243 of September 12, 1942; Executive Order 9695 of February 8, 1946.
41 Executive Order 9589 of July 16, 1945.
42 Executive Order 9503 of November 27, 1944.
43 Executive Order 9301 of February 9, 1943.
44 Executive Order 9240 of September 9, 1942; Executive Order 9289 of December 26, 1942; Executive Order 9636 of October 3, 1945.
45 Executive Order 9414 of January 13, 1944.
46 Executive Order 9252 of October 9, 1942.
47 Executive Order 9330 of April 16, 1943.
48 Selective Training and Service Act (Public Law No. 783, 76th Cong., 3rd Sess.), sec. 8.
49 White, Leonard D., “Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Public Service,” Public Personnel Review, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 139–146 (July, 1945).Google Scholar
50 See above, pp. 1072, 1074.
51 Executive Orders 9330 and 9512, respectively, of Apr. 20, 1943, and Jan. 18, 1945.
52 Hatch Act of 1939 (Public Law No. 252, 76th Cong., 1st Sess.); Hatch Act of 1940 (Public Law No. 753, 76th Cong., 3rd Sess.).
53 For example, sec. 4 of the act of August 23, 1912 (Public Law No. 299, 62nd Cong., 2nd Sess.).
54 The thirteen regional offices which operated throughout the war have recently been increased to fourteen.
55 Buckardt, H. L., “The Liaison Service of the U. S. Civil Service Commission,” Personnel Administration, Vol. 7, No. 9, p. 4 (May, 1945)Google Scholar; Flemming, Arthur S., “Emergency Aspects of Civil Service,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 25–31 (Autumn, 1940).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56 Approval of thousands of agency nominations on the spot, for example (a wartime practice which was absolutely necessary), led the Monday morning quarterbacks in Congress to charge the Commission with selling out entirely to the agencies' “office politicians.”
57 Ryder, Stephen P., “Improvement of Field Personnel Administration,” Personnel Administration, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 6–11 (Sept., 1943).Google Scholar
58 See McDiarmid, John, “Attacking Personnel Problems Coöperatively,” Public Personnel Review, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 57–65 (Apr., 1946).Google Scholar
59 See Civil Service in Wartime, especially Chaps. IV and VI.
60 An interesting commentary on the interrelation of control and service was the experience of the most able of the Commission's recruiting representatives. Perhaps not always, but generally, these persons said “no” more often when an agency requested a questionable appointment than did other recruiters. However, they gained agency respect, not only for turning down appointment of undesirables, but for successfully finding alternative candidates who were qualified. In other words, “no” seemed to them only a partial answer, completed only if a good man could be promptly got on the job. The many attractive employment offers which these recruiters received in their agency contacts cannot be attributed entirely to the philosophy “if you can't lick 'em, jine 'em.”
61 See John McDiarmid, op. cit., p. 64.
62 See Connor, Franklin G. and Landis, Russell H., “The Federal Administrative Intern Program,” Personnel Administration, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 11–14 (Dec., 1945).Google Scholar Credit for pioneering this in-service internship program goes to the National Institute of Public Affairs, which carried on the first experiment successfully during 1944. Reining, Henry Jr., “The First Federal In-Service Internship Program,” Personnel Administration, Vol. 7, No. 4, p. 8 (Dec., 1944).Google Scholar
63 Although in the field this frequently was the case.
64 Incidentally employing the term again and again in ite publications.
- 1
- Cited by
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.