ment. We do not propose that persons with a disability recognized and compensated by the Veterans' Administration be deprived of these advantages. The subcommittee does feel, however, that those veterans who have noncompensable disabilities (less than 10 percent) should not be granted the preference allowed disabled veterans in the Veterans Preference Act of 1944.

The subcommittee's views on the need for amending the act in the above manner are shared by three major veterans' organizations, The Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, and American Veterans, have all enacted resolutions favoring those amendments. Recommendations

(1) The subcommittee recommends that the Civil Service Act be amended to eliminate the provisions relating to apportionment.

(2) We recommend that section 3 and section 7 of the Veterans Preference Act of 1944 be amended to read as follows:

SEC. 3. In all examinations to determine the qualifications of applicants for entrance into the service ten points shall be added to the earned ratings of those persons included under §2 (1), (2) and (3), and five points shall be added to the earned ratings of those persons included under §2 (4) of this Act: Provided, That only those persons included under §2 (1), (2), (3) and §2 (4) of this Act who have attained a passing grade shall be entitled to the ten points provided in §2 (1), (2) and (3), and the five points provided in §2 (4): Provided further, That in examinations for the positions of guards, elevator operators, messengers, and custodian competition shall be restricted to persons entitled to preference under this Act as long as persons entitled to preference are available and during the present war and for a period of five years following the termination of the present war as proclaimed by the President or by a concurrent resolution of the Congress for such other positions as may from time to time be determined by the President. SEC. 7. The names of preference eligibles shall be entered on the appropriate registers, or lists of eligibles in accordance with their respective augmented ratings, after receiving a passing grade, and the name of a preference eligible shall be entered ahead of all others having the same rating: Provided, That, except for positions in the professional and scientific services for which the entrance salary is over $3,000 per annum, the names of all qualified preference eligibles who have a compensable service-connected disability of 10 per centum or more, entitled to ten points in addition to their earned ratings, shall be placed at the top of the appropriate civil service register or employment list, in accordance with their respective augmented ratings.

SHORTCOMINGS OF RATING PROCESS

The Civil Service Act requires that candidates be placed in rank order for selection purposes. One advantage of the "assembled" examination is the fact that candidates are given a score which can be used to rank them. This is not to say the written examinations of the Civil Service Commission are sufficiently refined to measure accurately the differences between candidates necessary for rank order rating. It is claimed that the written examination is, in any event, more accurate than the unassembled examination. However, the great bulk of examining is accomplished by "unassembled" rather than "assembled" examinations. Eighty percent of the formal examinations given in 1951 were of the unassembled type.

In other words, the candidates were given a numerical score based largely on a quantity review of their training and experience as set forth on their application form.

A rater is unable to accurately distinguish between a group of candidates and place them in accurate rank order by matching a rating schedule against the experience and training history in their applica

tion forms. The human differences in raters; the applicant's ability to state his qualifications in the application; and the fact that the technique in no way measures personality traits, attitudes, or the ability to perform on a specific job, all illustrate the unsuitability of this device as a means of placing candidates in rank order for selection. Since rating scales, and to a lesser extent written examinations, do not measure the "whole man" and his real ability to perform on a specific job, the rank order assigned to applicants on the basis of such examination has resulted in widespread dissatisfaction with the rule-of-three order of selection. The rule-of-three requires that selections for appointment be made from the top three names on the register. The Tennessee Valley Authority and the Atomic Energy Commission, agencies which are not within the purview of the Civil Service Act, do not assign numerical ratings based on examination scores nor do they observe the rule-of-three. Instead, these agencies divide their eligibles into quality categories, i. e., the candidates are ranked: outstanding, well-qualified, and qualified, and veterans' preference is applied within these categories. The obvious advantage to the above system is the increased latitude in selection. Instead of being confined to a choice among three eligibles the selector may select from among all those in a given category, subject to the requirement of granting preference to veterans.

The Civil Service Act requires that all jobs in the competitive service "shall be filled by selection according to grade from among those graded highest as the results of *** competitive examinations." Hence, the Civil Service Commission must rank candidates on the basis of their examination grades. During the last session of Congress in testimony given on S. 1135 (82d Cong., 2d sess.), the Commission testified that all Government jobs are not susceptible of precise numerical ratings and rank order determinations for applicants. The Civil Service Commission at that time endorsed legislation which would enable them to use the category rating method in examining and selecting for scientific and professional positions. This bill was not enacted into law.

Although the subcommittee recognizes the advantages of a category ranking system where the quality of applicants has not been accurately measured, there is no evidence in our study that abandonment of the present system of ranking eligibles on the scale of 100 and the adoption of category system would provide a panacea for admitted deficiencies of the present system. As pointed out earlier, the dissatisfaction with the rule-of-three is attributable, in large degree, to the shortcomings of the examination process. The desire for more latitude in the selection process results from the fact that not all persons certified as eligible for selection are, in fact, qualified.

In light of the anticipated improvement resulting from the adoption of proposals in this report, the subcommittee does not have compelling evidence which would warrant abandonment of the rule-ofthree order of selection process at this time.

PART 6-THE SELECTION OF APPLICANTS

The subcommittee has found that dissatisfaction of appointing officers with the rule-of-three order of selection, stems from lack of quality in the eligibles certified in relation to actual job vacancies.

This is the logical outgrowth of inaccurate examining methods as explained earlier. As a prime objective, therefore, the subcommittee has sought ways to improve the quality of eligibles.

Since no examining methods, however, can be perfect in accuracy, there will always be needed a degree of flexibility within the selection process. That flexibility, we believe, can be attained within the present rule-of-three order of selection and will go far toward satisfying appointing officer dissatisfaction with the rule providing the quality of eligibles certified is raised as contemplated by our recommendations with respect to improving examining techniques.

The rule-of-three restricts appointing officers to a choice from among three eligibles in filling a vacancy. The Veterans' Preference Act 19 further restricts the selection by requiring that the appointing officer submit his reasons in writing to the Civil Service Commission if he wishes to pass over a veteran and select a nonveteran.

This procedure is time-consuming and unnecessarily complicated. We have been informed by several agency officials that they are reluctant to go through the red tape involved in this procedure.20

They either (1) take a veteran although they believe the nonveteran to be better qualified or (2) leave the position vacant until they can reach a candidate considered satisfactory. They are sometimes able to accomplish the latter by waiting until the veterans at the top of the register have been selected by another agency.

The net effect of this is that appointing officers, rather than having a rule-of-three choice frequently have only a rule-of-two or rule-of-one. The Civil Service Commission, far removed from agency operating and selection problems, is frequently in a poor position to rule on the sufficiency of an appointing officer's reasons for passing over a veteran. It is the opinion of the subcommittee, that the boards of examiners should have the authority to rule on these reasons subject only to a post-audit by the Commission during its periodic inspection.

19 SEC. 8. When, in accordance with civil-service laws and rules, a nominating or appointing officer shall request certification of eligibles for appointment purposes, the Civil Service Commission shall certify from the top of the appropriate register of eligibles, a number of names sufficient to permit the nominating or appointing officer to consider at least three names in connection with each vacancy. The nominating or appointing officer shall make selection for each vacancy from not more than the highest three names available for appointment on such certification, unless objection shall be made, and sustained by the Commission, to one or more of the persons certified, for any proper and adequate reason, as may be prescribed in the rules promulgated by the Civil Service Commission: Provided, That an appointing officer who passes over a veteran eligible and selects a non veteran shall file with the Civil Service Commission his reasons in writing for so doing, which shall become a part of the record of such veteran eligible, and shall be made available upon request to the veteran or his designated representative; the Civil Service Commission is directed to determine the sufficiency of such submitted reasons and, if found insufficient, shall require such appointing officer to submit more detailed information in support thereof; the findings of the Civil Service Commission as to the sufficiency of such reasons shall be transmitted to and considered by such appointing officer, and a copy thereof shall be sent to the veteran eligible or to his designated representative upon request therefor Provided further, That if, upon certification, reasons deemed sufficient by the Civil Service Commission for passing over his name shall three times have been given by an appointing officer, certification of his name for appointment may thereafter be discontinued, prior notice of which shall be sent to the veteran eligible. Whenever in the Postal Service two or more substitutes are appointed on the same day, they shall be promoted to the regular force in the order in which their names appeared on the civil-service register from which they were originally appointed, whenever there are substitutes of the required sex who are eligible and will accept, unless such vacancies are filled by transfer or reinstatement.

20 * **Under the rule-of-three, you have a selection of the highest three qualified persons available. Should the first person be a veteran and the second person be a nonveteran, but after interview and all factors considered, the agency feels the second person is the best qualified, the second person cannot be appointed until the agency submits in writing reasons for passing over the first person and these reasons are passed upon by the Commission. This requirement seems to be useless except to throw additional work on the appointing agency and thereby make it less desirable to pass over a veteran since, if the reasons are not sufficient for the Commission to approve the passing over the veteran, the agency can submit additional reasons or lacking additional reasons, can say that they have reviewed the situation and still feel the nonveteran is the better qualified. These are reviewed by the Commission and, while there is no additional information necessarily submitted, the agency can then go ahead and appoint the nonveteran. Since we have a rule-of-three, it is believed that the agency should be able to freely select the person of those three that it feels is the best qualified without having to resort to a lengthy correspondence with the Commission.

"The difficulty is not the rule-of-three but disapproving valid well-documented requests to pass over unsuitable eligibles. In short, its not the rule-of-three but the narrow interpretations given it. Too often an agency is forced to hire the unsuitable applicant, and then shortly separate him as the only way out of this situation."

SELECTIVE CERTIFICATION

Another instance of centralized control which, in the opinion of the subcommittee, militates against efficient, smooth-functioning selection is the granting of authority for selective certification.

Selective certification is that process whereby in the absence of a register appropriate as a whole to fill a particular vacancy, certification may be made of any eligibles from the most nearly appropriate register, in the order of their ranking, who are found to be adequately qualified to fulfill the particular requirements of the vacant position.21

Agencies frequently have vacancies for which many of the candidates on the register are not qualified. In such instances the agency must request Civil Service Commission permission for selective certification, i. e., only those persons on the register possessing the specific training and experience required for the job in question are certified for selection. This requirement of going to the Civil Service Commission for permission to engage in selective certification results in the same delays and misunderstandings outlined above with respect to passing over a veteran.

Agency comments are set forth below:

Examination announcements are normally of necessity issued in a manner to accommodate the needs of a variety of different types of stations. A position vacancy often occurs which, while admittedly coming within the purview of the examination announcement, contains certain responsibilities peculiar only to local operations. In those instances selective certification has been requested. However, in some instances it has been difficult to convince the certifying authorities that the job content is peculiar to this station and it has been impossible to obtain selective certification.

The rule of three is adequate. However, selective certification service should be available without limitation if requested by the appointing officer.

It is apparent that the quality of selected eligibles for specific positions would be relatively assured if selective certification privileges were available without limitation.

We are sometimes forced to accept eligibles who do not fully meet the agency needs even when fully qualified candidates are available elsewhere from Civil Service Commission registers. Once a register has been established it is often very difficult to get selective certification.

Our experience with selective certification has been generally unsatisfactory because the Civil Service Commission is reluctant to authorize such certification except under the most extreme circumstances.

We anticipate the elimination of this problem as it relates to central registers, with the adoption of the employment plan outlined in part 11 of this report. When complete decentrali ation of recruiting and examining, as contemplated in the plan, is accomplished, the use of central registers as we now know them will be discontinued. We have found, however, that Civil Service Commission standards for granting selective certification as outlined in Handbook X-107 result in the same sort of rigidity at the board level. The emphasis seems to be on why selective certification should not be granted. This negative approach unduly restricts boards in their attempts to aid appointing officers in locating the right man for the job.

A major factor in the philosophy behind the Civil Service Commission's program of decentralization to the boards is the proximity of the boards to agency problems. The Civil Service Commission realizes, as mentioned earlier, that each board is keenly aware of

21 CSC Handbook X-107.

31101-53-4

those job problems which are peculiar to its agency. It would seem, therefore, that they would be able to pass on the sufficiency of passing over a veteran and to determine the need for selective certification without undue procedural restrictions.

Recommendations

The Civil Service Commission should, subject to standards, delegate authority to boards of examiners to pass on the sufficiency of reasons for passing over a veteran as required by section 8 of the Veterans Preference Act of 1944.

The Civil Service Commission is also requested to draft new standards to govern the boards in the granting of permission for selective certification. These standards should emphasize to the maximum the real objective of the appointing process the realistic matching of the job against the best available eligible.

PART 7-THE APPOINTMENT OF APPLICANTS

A career employee cannot be established through legislative or administrative device. Only the employee, the individual himself, can determine his goal. The most the Congress can do is establish the legislative climate to permit the maximum administrative flexibility in identifying self-determined career employees, and in developing, promoting, and utilizing them to the maximum degree of their capabilities.

There is no valid estimate anywhere in Government as to the real cost of the conversion program which began in 1946 at the end of World War II. This vast, mass-examining program of hundreds of thousands of wartime employees, with its innumerable reassignments, is generally agreed to have cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Some idea may be obtained by referring to the subcommittee's interim report, issued March 19, 1952, wherein we called attention to the excessive reduction-in-force costs.22 In one case the amount was $10,000 to lay off 32 employees. In another case, the cost was estimated to exceed $150,000 to separate 25 employees. The cost in lost production efficiency and morale-intangible costs which go into the tax bill as surely as salary money is difficult to imagine.

These costs stemmed directly from the hiring and appointment process used during the war, and the somewhat artificial goals set up after the war to enable us to revert to a pre war pattern. Indefinite types of appointment were given. They were for the most part, noncompetitive--equivalent to present-day direct hiring.

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH INDEFINITE APPOINTMENTS?

In 1951, 53 percent of our hiring was competitive, that is through board or Commission examinations, while 47 percent were hired directly by the agencies. This means that nearly 600,000 of our new employees were required to stand competitive examination, while over 500,000 were not. The meaning of this is complicated, by the fact that agencies use the same recruiting methods under both systems. Thus, in many cases, particularly under an open-continuous examination announcement, it is sheer chance as to whether an individual is 22 The subcommittee felt this was so serious that a special study was conducted and a separate report is being issued with a plan for improvement of reduction-in-force procedures.