22
Sacramento Conference
(Continued from page 21)
necessary to retain good employees, ( 5)
that public employees gravitate to
higher brackets; 75% of stenographers
are in higher half of pay bracket in
public employment while only 25%
are in higher half of pay bracket in in
dustry, (6) that public employees now
pay income tax, (7) that salary grades
usually consist of 5 steps with 5% be
tween steps. The 5% is sufficient to
provide an incentive for self-improve
ment and advancement. $10 at $500
level is not enough— $25 at $100 level
is too large. After further general dis
cussion of effect of public salary rates
on employee morals, etc., the meeting
adjourned.
After lunch we checked out of our
hotels, got our car and started for
home. The trip north was through a
heavy rain storm but when we reached
sunny Oregon, the rain and clouds
ended.
The meeting was most interesting
and instructive. It was attended by a
diversified group consisting of non
professionals such as commissioners,
public officials, employee organization
representatives and professionals such
as directors, technicians, consultants
and educators. All sizes, types and age
of Civil Service Systems were repre
sented. As a result the questions asked
often centered discussions on theory
and principles for the benefit of the
non professionals. Many of the Systems
appeared to find their greatest d iff|
culty in the procedures incidental to"
the closed back door method of elimin
ating inefficiency from the service.
Much of the discussion relative to em
ployee groups appeared to cover the
same ground that current publications
of the National Civil Service League
of New York thoroughly analyzed and
examined. I would recommend that all
interested parties take advantage of the
publications and reports of both the
Civil Service Assembly and the N a
tional Civil Service League of New
York.
A total of 213 registered for the
Conference, breaking all previous at
tendance records.
There were in attendance 11 fro m ^ ^
Washington (Olympia 3, Seattle 7 ; J |
Bremerton 1), 11 from Oregon (Port
land 7, Salem 4 ). A majority of the
delegates were from California, but
there were 3 from Arizona, 1 from
New Mexico, 1 from Pittsburg and 1
from New York City.
Washington agencies sending repre
sentatives were the State Personnel
Board, Seattle Civil Service Commis
sion, the State Department of Social
(Continued on page 23)