The Oregon state employee., January 01, 1951, Page 18, Image 18

16
agencies, both because of the fear of
being overruled, and because the em­
ployee, if reinstated, must be returned
to a position of like pay and status
and reimbursed for any loss of pay
sustained. Several officials cited cases
where one or more Congressmen had
requested a personal explanation of
the r e a s o n s for char^^^brought
against an employee. While the num­
ber of such occurrences may not be
large, the likelihood of offending an
employee with ‘strong political, back­
ing’ is, in the, minds of some, a con­
tinuing restraint against,;,a vigorous
removal policy.
“As a consequence, agencies often
dispose of problem cases by transfers
and reassignments, or by abolishing
the job, to avoid unpleasant hearings
or incidents which might jeopardize
Congressional relationships. It is im­
portant to note that such practices are
not required or condoned by the rules-
and regulations, of the Civil Servie®
Commission and that much of the
problem is clearly chargeable to in­
ternal agency practices.”
The Task Force-also noted that in
many of the cases where long delay
and much red tape has interferedBith
getting rid of unsatisfactory ^workers
the departments did not file direct
removal charges based on inefficiency
or misconduct but chose the circuitous
route of giving the‘-.employee an un­
satisfactory efficiency rating. This in­
volved possible appeals for review at
several different levels.
The State Services
If there is so little real knowledge
of laws and rules governing removals
in the Federal civil service, there^?is'
even less about removal proWWBns of
state civil service law's:
In general,- state employees , have
greater protection against removal
than those in the Federal ||pr vice.
In this resume only the 22 states are
included which have civil service laws
for more than the so-called Social Se­
curity departments1 (i.e., those whose
employees are paid partially or wholly
from Federal grants-in-aid and there­
fore are subject to a merit system un­
der Feredal law). It may be noted
that the Massachusetts, Ohio, New
Jersey and New York laws apply to
cities in those states as well as to the
B a t e . service.
Reasons for Removal
All the; state civil service laws ex-
•cept those\ of Illinois, Si^^sachus^tts
and New York prohibit (as does the
Federal law) removal for B f e ? B l',^nd
religiou^basons. The New York (law
prohibits political removals, but does
not mention religicOpin the other two
states there is no specific prohibition
of either. CorinWEmt ^B^orbi<Wrp^j
moval for color; Kansas, Missouri,
Oregon and Rhode Island for racial
reasons; Indiana for “social”
Maine.; because" of
o^S marital
status; Pennsylvania for race, partisan
orplbor uniphBtfiliaHn. When a re­
moved employee can prove that action
in his case was based on any of the
(prohibited reasons his reinstatefrient
is mandatory.
Aside from those general prohibi­
tions, all the
"N eB York
and Oregon provide that removal may
be made for'“the go'odwf the service”
or for “just cauggMfcNelaa York’s .civil
service lh-wmEales th a t, removal may
be made for incompetency or miscon­
duct only.', Oregon p 'r o y i^ ^ E h s ^ r e -
moval m Q be made for “unfitness to
render effective service.”
the civil
service law or in the rules of the civil
service 11 commission, which ha ve the
force and Sef'feetaB^I l a w ^ y m ^ S 1
specific acts of omission or commission
by employees which warrant dismis­
sal. California lists 17 such specifica­
tions; Colorado 5; Connecticut 9 man­
datory) and 7 permi^J^ ^ reasons for
removal; Maryland 12; Michiga^^^
New Jersey 14; ©hio 9; and Oregon 6.
Examples of the mo^s^Mal-^^a^^^
are — in addition to incompetency —
drunkenness, insubordination, neglect
of duty, immoral conduct, discourtesy
to the public, and violation of any of
the prcBBftistoi the civil service law
itself.
Where these specific reasons are
named, however, removal for other
causes is not preclu&M Norfes it suf­
ficient to merely state that th’eVre-,
moval is made “for the good of the
service” or “for cause” without filing
a bill of particular's; of the action of
which the employee isiguijty. I