30
Removals in Civil Service
(Continued from Page 28)
agency, this danger is minimized as
far as is humanly possible.
Studies of the number of removals
made in various jurisdictions where
civil service laws are in operation does
not bear out the contention that there
are many or that they I are based, on
insufficient grounds. A study made by
the Civil Service Assembly of remov
als made in 1946 in 111 typical juris
dictions showed that the I dismissal
rate was 1.3 percent of total employ
ees, slightly lower than in private in
dustry. A study of dismissals in the
New York City service made just be
fore World War II by the New York
Civil Service R e f o r m Association
showed that the average for the years
1912-1939 was less than 1 percent.
Far more frequent than the I em
ployee’s charge that it is too easy to
remove civil service employees is the
charge of the administrator and bus
inessman that it is too difficult. This
is particularly the ^complaint where
review of dismissals" ■
by an K%t|me
agency is permitted; Investigation
does not corroborate it. The Assem
bly’s study, for example, showed that
in over 95 percent of the removal
cases open to appeal, either no appeals
were taken or the appellant agency*,
sustained "‘the action of the adminis
trative officer. It is undoubtedly and
unfortunately true, however, that
public administrators*' are more re
luctant to remove the incompetent
than are those in private industry, in
part because of the lack of a profit
motive. If the administrator, instead
of the taxpayers, had to pay the salar
ies of the incompetent or misfit em
ployees under him, it is^beriaiwthat
many would be separated from the
payroll who now are tolerated, given
a minor assignment, or “kicked up
stairs.” No employer, public or priv
ate, enjoys telling his subordinate
(who presumably needs his job) that
he is no longer required. Still less
does he relish the task when he is^apt
to be visited in the employee’s |behalf
by the latter’s Congressman or district
leader, his organization representa
tive, his pastor and some of his
friends. To many public officials, who
owe their eminencbfto political train
ing and achievements, and who are
apt to think in terms of personal pop
ularity and vote-catching, the import
ance of satisfying these intermediaries
•oiitweighs the good of an impersonal
public service. Therefore, when cor
nered, they fallb a ck upon the excuse
that “ civil service’ keeps the incom
petent on the payroll.
Anyone who has ever tried to get
rid of an unsam g M E^ PubW^^em^?'
ployee in a position outside the civil
servicd|W&em but within the realm
of political protection knows that it is
much moreMimcult, than « r e m J | | m
employee under any type of merith
system. TlS B s ime power that oper
ated to get the employee ap p o in B l|n
the first place will swing into actiop
immediately to keep him there.;?'
No civil service law can be drawn
so as to provide offgH & 'having,,dis^
ciplinary authority with the backbone
to use it. When natural reluctance to
make a removal is bolstered by a law
which contains the “ closed back door”
permitting an o u t ^ S ^ B H to over-
rule the admipistrator’s decision in
disciplinary cases, the usual result is
that no action will be'takewinwie
most flagrant cases? Although statist
ics prove that the reviewing agency is
far more apt to sustain the removal
than to reverse it, most administrators
fear being placed on trial themselves
before the review board. It is an open
secret that the greatest value of the
closed back door to the employee is Q
a deterrent to any removals g tK ffl
Knowing that he will have to go
through the red tape, delhy and cross
questioning of a public hearing, the
average administrator will conclude
that the result is not worth the trouble
involved. It is such provisions of law
which have led to criticism of civil;
service systems as productive of stag
nation of the service.
Prevention of the Need for Removal
The remedy for unjustifiable re
movals is not to be found in the arbi
trary action of an independent agency
which can fix penalties and require
reinstatements, but in preventing the
need tor removaffl| This can be done
by ffiB usjjB )f intelligBt employment