The Oregon state employee. (Salem, Oregon.) 1944-195?, December 01, 1944, Page 11, Image 11

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    9
in any agency by taking and passing
one, instead of four, examinations. Al­
so, one, instead of four, eligibility lists
would be established. This results in at­
tracting more applicants to take the
test. As larger lists of ehgible employees
are established, the agencies are able to
select better employees and examina­
tions are held less frequently.
As much of a consolidation as could
be made under our present law was
effected July 1, 1944, resulting in a
more efficient operation of each State
agency. It is estimated the cost of op­
eration will be reduced $ 7 2 0 0 .0 0 the
first year, and further reduced in suc­
ceeding years. The Committee on Oc­
tober 16, 1944, unanimously requested
the Attorney General of the State of
Oregon to prepare, and he now is, the
necessary bills to be submitted to the
43 rd Legislative Assembly, which bills
are designed to enable a complete con­
solidation of the merit systems of the
four State agencies.
» » * * *
On the Main Question, the Committee
Renders a Divided Report:
The majority report being:
"A fter hearing all arguments pro
and con, it is our opinion that a merit
system would practically freeze in their
positions, State employees to the point
where' it would be almost impossible
to discharge one for any reason after he
had quahfied under a merit system ex­
amination. Therefore, we do not think
that such a law would be fair to our
elected public officers who are held
responsible for the efficiency of their
officers. For a further reason, to adopt
a merit system at this time would not
be just to our boys and girls now in
the Armed Services.”
J. N. Jones
Lew Wallace
W. W. Chadwick
The minority report being:
"We recommend that the State of
Oregon adopt a merit system for the
selection, protection and removal of
its employees. The law need not freeze
employees into their position but
should provide that an employee may
be discharged by his superior. If such
employee feels that he has been arbi­
trarily discharged, he may appeal, not
to a Court, but to the Merit System
Commission, whose decision shall be
final. The burden of proof as to the
employee’s right to keep his position
must always be placed upon the em­
ployee. As a merit system is designed
to select only qualified employees, it
will not reduce, but will enhance the
efficiency of elected public officers.
"The present law gives no prefer­
ence to veterans of the Armed Services.
The law should provide that all State
employees hired subsequent to Septem­
ber 14, 1940, the date the National
Guard was mobilized into the United
States Army, should be temporary em­
ployees until six months after the ter­
mination of this war. Thus, the veterans
would not only have an equal oppor­
tunity, but the advantage of the es­
tablished veterans preference.
"A merit system selects only quali­
fied and competent state employees.
Their promotions, demotions, lay-offs,
and discharges are made objectively
and on a basis of merit, free from per­
sonal, political, or religious considera­
tions. The seven to ten thousand state
employees should not be employed by
the state on a personal basis without
any set standard for qualifications, but
should serve the state after competitive
tests prove their ability. Instead of the
64 departments using any method at
any time, there should be a fixed norm
to determine competency for all em­
ployees in all departments.
(Continued on page 35)
When They Buy Advertising.