R solution No. 220 Page 2 Resolved, By The American Legion in National Convention assembled on Denver, Colorado, August 23, 24, 25, 1977, that The American Legion reaforms its traditional support of the preference in Federal employment extended by a grateful Nation, and pledges to strenuously oppose any and all attempts to weaken or reduce veterans rights and benefits in Federal employment as provided and set forth in Title 5, United States Code. [Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., Monday, April 10, 1978, the committee was adjourned, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT OF 1978 AND WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 1978 U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 3302, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Abraham Ribicoff (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Senators Ribicoff, Humphrey, Percy, and Heinz. Staff members present: Richard A. Wegman, chief counsel and staff director; Paul Hoff, counsel; Claudia T. Ingram, professional staff member; Claude E. Barfield, professional staff member; Paul C. Rosenthal, counsel; and Ken Ackerman, counsel to the minority. Chairman RIBICOFF. The committee will come to order. Mr. Staats, we always welcome you. There isn't a time you are not before this committee that you don't have something constructive to offer. I think you can start on being constructive by summarizing your 21 pages. [Laughter.] Your entire statement will go in the record as if read and there will be some questions that we have of you. TESTIMONY OF ELMER B. STAATS, COMPTROLLER GENERAL, ACCOMPANIED BY: CLIFFORD GOULD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FEDERAL PERSONNEL AND COMPENSATION DIVISION, AND HENRY BARCLAY, ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL; Chairman RIBICOFF. We welcome you and please proceed. Mr. STAATS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I can omit certain parts of this, abbreviate somewhat my statement. I want to preface my remarks, Mr. Chairman, this morning, to say that I think it is appropriate to point out, that as the role of the Federal Government increases and as it affects more and more the lives of all of us, it is inevitable that attention is going to be drawn to the competency or lack of competency of the Federal employees, how they are paid, what incentives they have to do a good job and so on. This is a debate which has gone on for a long time, particularly since the growth of the Federal Government in the depression days of the 1930's and World War II. In all of this debate, we must not allow our zeal to bring about reforms in the system to cloud the essential point that most civil service employees are able, highly motivated, and dedicated to their work. The President's comment in his address to the National Press Club emphasized this point when he said: "Most civil service employees perform with spirit and integrity." Instead, the focus should be on whether the system can be improved, not on whether the career service itself is on trial. We in GAO share in the belief that the system can be improved upon. During the past several years we have studied many of the issues that are of concern here today. We have made a number of specific recommendations and have highlighted conflicting policies and objectives that need to be addressed. I list here some reports we have issued, most of them within the last year, which are illustrative of the kinds of matters that we have been concerned with. A fundamental issue is how can we give management flexibility to improve Government operations and productivity, while at the same time protect employees from unfair or unwarranted practices? The greater the degree of management flexibility, the greater the potential for abuse. The greater the controls against abuse, the greater the restrictions on innovative management. The question is how we can strike a good balance between these objectives. The proposals you are considering attempt to deal with these issues as well as others. We applaud the President and the personnel management task force for their efforts and strongly support the objectives of their proposals. These proposals deal with both organizational issues and changes in merit system policies and practices. We do have certain reservations and suggestions which I will state a little later. The Civil Service Commission now serves simultaneously as the protector of employee rights and the promoter of efficient personnel management policy. The reorganization plan divides those two roles between two separate agencies, the Merit Systems Protection Board-MSPBand the Office of Personnel Management-OPM. S. 2640 would provide additional legislative authority for these two agencies. The reorganization plan would also create a Federal Labor Relations Authority, which would consolidate the third-party function in the Federal labor-management relations program by assuming the functions of the Federal Labor Relations Council and certain responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management Relations. In addition, Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, already considered by this committee, would transfer CSC's current equal employment opportunity and discrimination complaint authority to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission-EEOC. The Office of Personnel Management would be the primary agent advising the President and helping him carry out his responsibilities to manage the Federal work force. It would develop personnel policies, provide personnel leadership to agencies, and administer central personnel programs. It would be headed by a director and a deputy director, both appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. We are aware of the concern which has been expressed that a single Director of Personnel, serving at the pleasure of the President and replacing a bipartisan commission, could be accused of partisan political motivations in actions which, by their very nature, are controversial. The argument is made that the Merit System Protection Board, important as its role would be, would not be in position to influence substantially policies, rules and regulations, including positions on legislative matters, in the same manner as a bipartisan commission. On the other hand, a commission form of organization tends to be cumbersome and divides responsibility and accountability. It is of some interest to note that President Roosevelt's Committee on Administrative Management recommended in 1937 a singleheaded director of personnel for the Federal Government. While this proposal was not adopted, the idea of a strong director of personnel management has continued to be discussed and proposed and, in fact, has been adopted at the State and local level extensively. The figures I have indicate that some 33 out of the 50 have single-headed personnel agencies. Chairman RIBICOFF. How do you appraise the fact that so many constructive suggestions have been made over the years in this field and nothing much ever happened? How do you explain that? Mr. STAATS. On the precise question as to whether or not a commission form or a single-headed personnel agency is the better, the debate has centered around the question of whether or not a commission ought to protect the merit system and the people in the service or whether it ought to serve more the needs of management. Somehow we have never really been able to come to grips with that as far as the Federal Government is concerned. If you go back to the time when I joined the Federal Government, quite a long while ago now, most of the States had commission forms but the trend at the State level has been in the other direction. Chairman RIBICOFF. What has been the attitude or the results on the State level of the single head? Mr. STAATS. I believe that you would find rather uniformly the testimony from both employees and from management that the single-headed agency is the better form. Chairman RIBICOFF. Is there any literature or studies on this shift in trend and the results from the public standpoint and the management standpoint? Mr. STAATS. I think so, and certainly I think we can get you this information both from the trend standpoint as well as in terms of the kind of charters. I think it would be useful for the committee to have this kind of information. Chairman RIBICOFF. I think it would, too, because on many of these controversial issues a number of States have undertaken to do what is being proposed and it has worked and many of the fears or reservations have been explained or negated, I think it is something I would like to have in the record. 29-894 - 78 - 35 |