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)