Image provided by: SEIU Local 503; Salem, OR
About The Oregon state employee. (Salem, Oregon.) 1944-195? | View Entire Issue (Jan. 1, 1951)
17 Removal Procedure All theW tate. law s except G eorgia’s (w here th ere is a sim ilar .provision in th e rules) provide th a t an em ployee shall be ^M w iatten sta te m en t of th e charges against him and ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ B Î ^ P P ° r t u i æ r to file an a n sw er. In M assachusetts all em ployees« and in New Y ork those who are w ar v eteran s or vo lu n teer firem an, are in addition en titled to a h earing before |w e ^ h e a d of t h e s d ep artm en t or his ^ ^ » ty . ^p j'su aily • charges againsU -'an em - ployee m ust be filed by th e appointing o f f ic S B b u t any citizen m ay file charges in A labam a C alifo rn ia( w ith th e ponse^i' of th e civil service board, th e appointing pow er or th e Attorney* G eneral), Colorado, M aryland (.with the, appointing a u th o r- ity or th e >S.jt'ate E m p lo y m e n t Com- m issioner) and P ennsylvania. Review by Central Personnel Agency In every state th ere is some pro- vision for' »review of rem oval actions gj^Æ rst p erm an en t e m p lo y e ^ by th e civil service com m ission b r p erso n n el board. U ntil 1941 the New Y ork law p erm itted no review , and, th e rem ov- ing officer was ju dge and ju ry as in th e F ed eral service, but in . 1941 the law w as am ended td p erm it the civil service com m ission toçffiHjggjjr a re - m oval action on appeal of the em - ployee and to m ak e an advisory de- term in ati‘on.)k| P r o v ^ ^ w ^ ^ S appeals fa ll into tw o general p attern s. One is th a t of the) N ational Civil Service L eague’s M odel S tate Civil S ervice Law , w hich New Y ork adopted in 1941^ ^ m ereby the personnel agency can recom m end m odifying or rev ersin g th e rem oval b u t cannot enforce its recom m enda- tion. In the states w hich follow this system, th e m ost th e personnel agency can do is to tra n s fe r to an o th er ^'de p a rtm e n t an em ployee')who it believes should n o t h av e been I rem oved, w ith th e consent of th e newLipncS-mtihc ficer; or place him on an eligiblW list, or reem ploym ent list for certification to an ap p ro p riate vacancy. This is the system in Ind ian a, M aine, ÿÉ ichigan, Orégon, R hode Islan d and Tennessee, in addition to'.'New York. T he o th er p a tte rn is “th e closed back door,” w here the personnel agency m akes the final decision and m ay rein state an em ployee over the objections of the officer who rem oved him . The states w here this is the law are A labam a, C alifornia, I Colorado, Connecggbut, Georgia, Illinois^ K ansas, M aryland, M assachusetts,« M innesota, M issouri, New Jersey, Ohio, P ennsyl vania and Wisconsin. (It should be B >ted th a t in C onnecticut not the S tate P ersonnel D irector b u t a 3-m em ber P ersonnel A ppeal B oard appointed by the G o | | | r n o r is th e review ing agency^H V ariationlllpf thésè general p a tte rn s exist. W hile in all other states (except Colorado, w hich observes nb p ro b a- tionary period) em ployees m ay be re - m oved sum m arily during or at the end of the .probationary period, w hich I considered p a rt of the exam ination, in Illinois veterans in probationary status are S tif le d to the sam e rig h t of w rit ten charges and a review by the civil ^ rv i'c e commission as are p erm an en t em plùw g^ F urtherm ore, in Illinois the commission is required to in v esti gate every removal., ■ In M aryland, M ichigan, New J e r s | j and P en n sy l vania thé ^personnel agency m ay in - vestigate a"'rem oval on its ow n in itia tive ;M t^ h e w th e r states it d o | | s o at the request of th e , aggrieved, em ployee. In some states w hich h av e a p e r- |||n p e l- director and an advisory civil service commission or personnel board the director has th e duty of m aking a prelim m ary-n^^estigation w hen a de p artm en t reports to him th a t one of its em ployees is to be rem oved, and re porting his findings to the commission. T h is « a p rb v id e d in the law s of M is- souri, M ichigan, Rhode Island and T enn e s ^ ^ ^g In m ost s p a f e ^ w hen an em ployee1* appeals to the personnel agency h e is.' entitled to* a public h earing at w hich thé charges and his defense ar‘e h ea rd , b u t this requirem ent is om itted from of Connecticut, Georgia, M aine a n d M ichigan. Review by the Courts In only a few states do the civiP'ser- vice laws s p e c j|B i w m ention judicial review o fy fe m o w H | The courts have râ re ly failed to assum e jurisdiction in (C ontinued on P age 27)
