Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed]

e: three inance.coiding Studier, asix positioReporters to

ANALYSIS OF POSITION INCREASES Mr. HENSHAW. At the beginning of fiscal year 1978, we had a total of 348 permanent positions. During fiscal year 1978, the Committee on House Administration authorized 26 new employees for my office: three positions in my immediate office, seven positions in the Office of Finance, 13 positions in Property Supply, two positions in the House Recording Studio and one position of Assistant Chief Telephone Operator. However, six positions were abolished and the Official Reporters of Debates, Official Reporters to Committees and the Summary of Proceedings and Debates, for a total of 52 positions, were placed under my authority. Our total authorized budgeted positions number 420, a net increase of 72 positions. However, after the budget was submitted to OMB, the Committee on House Administration authorized an additional 12 positions for the House Recording Studio and one additional position in the Office of Records and Registration. The 12 positions will be used primarily for broadcast coverage of House proceedings. This brings the total authorized level to 433 positions. Mr. Chairman, I might add that we will need to come in with a program supplemental for about $264,000 for fiscal year 1979 to cover the costs of these 13 positions.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Let me go over these figures with you. You note that the authorized positions for the Office of Clerk is 420. You explain by pointing out that in fiscal year 1978 you had a total of 348 "permanent positions”-that you were then authorized an additional 26 employees. This would total 374. You then lost 6 positions, which left you with 368. You then added the Official Reporters of Debates, Official Reporters to Committees and the Summary of Proceedings and Debates. According to the Subcommittee Print on page 25, these three offices employ 43 people for a total of 411, or an increase of 9 less than you explain in your statement. Is the difference made up of non-permanent positions? You have indicated that of the 13 positions, nine are aboard, if I understand correctly. But would you give us a breakdown on this, to see where we differ?

Mr. HENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I think there is an error here on the total number of the positions in the summary of proceedings and debates.

Mr. BENJAMIN. How much should that be? It indicates one.

Mr. HENSHAW. Yes, that should be 10, which would make that difference, I think.

Mr. BENJAMIN. So the subcommittee print is wrong on page 25, where it reflects one employee for fiscal year 1978, 1979 and 1980 estimate; it should be 10 in each instance?

Mr. HENSHAW. Yes, sir, I think it is an error in print there. We will check that and supply the findings for the record.

The Subcommittee Print is not in error. All positions under the Clerk are fully accounted for on page 25 of the print. Nine of the Summary of Proceedings and Debates are classified positions under the HS scale and are included with the 213 HS employees under the Clerk.

Mr. BENJAMIN. OK.

Let me ask you, it appears that the majority of the Clerk's positions are under the House employee schedule. How many va

cancies do you now have in the jobs on this schedule? What is your lapse rate? When new employees are hired, are they started at the lowest step within the grade? Given your turnover and the maintenance of a level employment ceiling, would you explain in a statement why you are asking for a 10.7 increase over the 1979 levels? I use that figure without considering the supplementals.

[The information follows:]

ANALYSIS OF POSITION INCREASES Mr. HENSHAW. At the beginning of fiscal year 1978, we had a total of 348 permanent positions. During fiscal year 1978, the Committee on House Administration authorized 26 new employees for my office: three positions in my immediate office, seven positions in the Office of Finance, 13 positions in Property Supply, two positions in the House Recording Studio and one position of Assistant Chief Telephone Operator. However, six positions were abolished and the Official Reporters of Debates, Official Reporters to Committees and the Summary of Proceedings and Debates, for a total of 52 positions, were placed under my authority. Our total author. ized budgeted positions number 420, a net increase of 72 positions. However, after the budget was submitted to OMB, the Committee on House Administration authorized an additional 12 positions for the House Recording Studio and one additional position in the Office of Records and Registration. The 12 positions will be used primarily for broadcast coverage of House proceedings. This brings the total authorized level to 433 positions. Mr. Chairman, I might add that we will need to come in with a program supplemental for about $264,000 for fiscal year 1979 to cover the costs of these 13 positions.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Let me go over these figures with you. You note that the authorized positions for the Office of Clerk is 420. You explain by pointing out that in fiscal year 1978 you had a total of 348 "permanent positions”—that you were then authorized an additional 26 employees. This would total 374. You then lost 6 positions, which left you with 368. You then added the Official Reporters of Debates, Official Reporters to Committees and the Summary of Proceedings and Debates. According to the Subcommittee Print on page 25, these three offices employ 43 people for a total of 411, or an increase of 9 less than you explain in your statement. Is the difference made up of non-permanent positions? You have indicated that of the 13 positions, nine are aboard, if I understand correctly. But would you give us a breakdown on this, to see where we differ?

Mr. HENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I think there is an error here on the total number of the positions in the summary of proceedings and debates.

Mr. BENJAMIN. How much should that be? It indicates one.

Mr. HENSHAW. Yes, that should be 10, which would make that difference, I think.

Mr. BENJAMIN. So the subcommittee print is wrong on page 25, where it reflects one employee for fiscal year 1978, 1979 and 1980 estimate; it should be 10 in each instance?

Mr. HENSHAW. Yes, sir, I think it is an error in print there. We will check that and supply the findings for the record.

The Subcommittee Print is not in error. All positions under the Clerk are fully accounted for on page 25 of the print. Nine of the Summary of Proceedings and Debates are classified positions under the HS scale and are included with the 213 HS employees under the Clerk.

Mr. BENJAMIN. OK.

Let me ask you, it appears that the majority of the Clerk's positions are under the House employee schedule. How many va

cancies do you now have in the jobs on this schedule? What is your lapse rate? When new employees are hired, are they started at the lowest step within the grade? Given your turnover and the maintenance of a level employment ceiling, would you explain in a statement why you are asking for a 10.7 increase over the 1979 levels? I use that figure without considering the supplementals.

(The information follows:)

« PreviousContinue »