Page images
PDF
EPUB

ployee or, if he is an outsider, conducts a competitive
examination and establishes a register of the top three
candidates. The examination may be repeated until the
adviser's choice falls within the top three so he can be
selected. During this period, the adviser simply withholds
advice, while technical reasons are given to justify holding
new examinations.

The adviser may well recommend a career employee. One-
third of the postmasters appointed since 1960 have in fact
been career employees. Yet such promotions do not neces-
sarily go to the best qualified supervisor. Not uncommonly,
clerks or carriers are elevated to a postmastership over the
heads of better qualified supervisory employees.

Delays result while the adviser waits for a favored candidate to qualify, while an announcement is held until an opportune moment, or, at times, while a newly hired "substitute" waits the 90 days necessary to become eligible for a noncompetitive appointment. The National Civil Service League, when headed by former Postmaster General J. Edward Day, characterized the procedure as "remarkable in its cynicism and even more remarkable in its transparency." It is quite obvious that if political considerations are to be completely removed from postmaster appointments, the vicious adviser system must be effectively abolished. H.R. 16524 will not only permit it to continue, but will give it added impetus by making it easier to operate in the hidden recesses of the Post Office Department.

There is certainly much merit and commonsense in eventually permitting the Postmaster General, as head of his department, to appoint postmasters directly without Senate confirmation. However, until such time as the top management of the Post Office, including the Postmaster General himself, are appointed without regard to political considerations and solely on the basis of their abilities to run the postal service, and until the adviser system is abolished, there is equal merit in retaining the bipartisan forum and congressional check now provided by Senate confirmation.

The requirement in H.R. 16524 that no career employee can be promoted, however well qualified and experienced, unless he attains the eligible register in a competitive examination is completely unrealistic and unworkable. Since the vast majority of postmaster appointments are to smaller offices where the numbers of eligible employees who might compete would be limited to three or four persons, it would be virtually impossible to certify a register of eligibles for the postmastership for any except the very large offices. The net effect of this requirement would be open competitive examinations (open to anybody) for almost every postmastership in the Nation, further eroding the already limited promotional opportunities for postal employees.

It is important to note that the committee did have pending before it, and rejected, a number of proposals which were carefully drafted to abolish all political considerations with respect to all appointments, all promotions, and all assignments and designations in the postal field service, including postmasters and rural carriers. The first of

these bills, H.R. 5284, introduced by Mr. Gross on February 9, 1967, would

Retain Senate confirmation:

Require that first priority on the filling of postmaster and rural carrier vacancies go to qualified career employees on the basis of noncompetitive examinations;

Prohibit the giving or acceptance of any political recommendation for any appointment or promotion or other personnel action in the postal service; and

Assess strict penalties for the violation of the prohibitions against political influence.

Should H.R. 16524 come to the House floor for action, it would be our intention to offer the provisions of H.R. 5284 as a substitute so that the House will have an opportunity to give more than lip service to the critical problem of politics in the postal service.

Unless H.R. 16524 is so amended, it must, in good conscience, be rejected.

ROBERT J. CORBETT.

H. R. GROSS.

о

90TH CONGRESS 2d Session

}

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

{ No. 1887

REPORT

VOLUNTARY WITHHOLDING OF MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA INCOME TAXES; CERTAIN OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES IN LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

SEPTEMBER 10, 1968.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. MILLS, from the Committee on Ways and Means,
submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H.R. 11408]

The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 11408) to amend section 5517 of title 5, United States Code, to authorize certain agreements relating to withholding of State income taxes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. The amendments are as follows:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

That (a) subchapter II of chapter 55 of title 5 of the United States Code is amended by inserting after section 5516 the following new section:

"§ 5516A. Voluntary withholding of Maryland and Virginia income taxes; cer

tain officers and employees in legislative branch

"The Clerk of the House of Representatives, the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, and the Architect of the Capitol shall each enter into an agreement with the State of Maryland, and an agreement with the State of Virginia, at the request for agreement from the proper State official. The agreement shall provide that

"(1) the Clerk of the House of Representatives, in the case of employees whose compensation is disbursed by him,

"(2) the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, in the case of Members of the House of Representatives, and

"(3) the appropriate disbursing officer, in the case of employees under the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol,

shall withhold State income tax in the case of each Member and employee who is subject to such income tax and voluntarily agrees to such withholding."

« PreviousContinue »