The most recent, and one of the most comprehensive studies of the personnel problems of the Department was made by the Herter Committee-the "Committee on Foreign Affairs Personnel"-under the auspices of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Its report, "Personnel for the New Diplomacy," was published in December 1962. Mr. Joseph E. Johnson, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, appeared before you on May 20, and at his request you inserted chapter III-"A Framework for Foreign Service Personnel Management"-in the record. In his testimony, Mr. Johnson stated: **** my principal purpose in testifying today is to endeavor to demonstrate that H.R. 6277, the Hays bill, is completely in the spirit of our report, and follows very closely some of the most important recommendations in it."

USE OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE SYSTEM

Some opponents of the bill contend that the civil service system, rather than the Foreign Service system, should be used for the unified service. I do not agree with this idea, nor was it supported by the Hoover Commission, the Rowe Committee, or the Herter Committee studies. On the contrary, it is my conviction-supported by the reports of the various public study groups-that there is the need for two separate systems operating side by side (i.e., one in the domestic field and one in the Foreign Affairs field) to meet entirely different personnel problems.

The civil service system has been developed to meet the needs of domestic agencies. It is my opinion that the system is not designed to meet certain particular requirements of the agencies engaged primarily in foreign affairs. I am convinced that the problems of the foreign affairs agencies would be further increased if they were required to operate under certain "rigidities" in the civil service system to which the domestic agencies are able to conform.

Although the Foreign Service system is younger than the civil service the development of the two systems has been parallel during the past 41 years, since passage of the Rogers Act in 1924. The Foreign Service system was given a much broader footing with the enactment of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, and has been improved by a series of amendments to that act and through administrative action during the intervening 19 years. It has been developed specifically to meet the needs of a foreign affairs agency, with a significant overseas operation. I firmly believe that it provides a more practical base upon which to build a unified system for the major foreign affairs agencies than would the civil service system.

Furthermore, the Civil Service Commission-which is in a unique position to evaluate the merits and weaknesses of a variety of personnel systems-has endorsed H.R. 6277. By its endorsement, the Commission considers it advantageous to develop a separate foreign affairs system along the lines proposed rather than as a part of the civil service. Moreover, had the Commission recognized any inherent dangers to the rights and benefits of present civil service employees in this proposal, it would unquestionably have been quick to point them out.

INCLUSION OF OTHER FOREIGN AFFAIRS AGENCIES

Earlier study groups-the Hoover Commission, the Rowe Committee, and the Wriston Committee-concentrated their attention on the needs of the Department of State. The Herter Committee, recognized the need for a broader coverage. In its report-chapter III, to which I have previously referred, the Committee states:

"Variety in personnel systems has certain virtues, especially where it permits flexible personnel arrangements adapted to different kinds of needs. But variety built on improvisation and accidents of history often has an opposite effect, limiting executive freedom of action, inhibiting the employment and retention of the highest quality people, and damaging employee morale. The Committee believes that these effects are discernible in the foreign affairs agencies at present."

As a consequence, it recommended that "a family of compatible services" be developed to meet the needs of the Department of State, the U.S. Information Agency, and the Agency for International Development-usually referred to as the principal foreign affairs agencies.

When I last met with you it was agreed, I believe, to eliminate from section 22 the statement "* ** and such personnel as he may designate of other Gov

ernment agencies who are engaged in foreign affairs functions." With this amendment, section 22 would authorize the President to bring employees of State, USIA and AID under the new unified personnel system. Under the amendment proposed by you this morning, this would be on a voluntary basis. Because of the widespread misconception, and misunderstanding that has arisen on this point, let us make clear for the record that the authority granted in section 22 is now, with this amendment, applicable only to employees of these three agencies. It does not apply to thousands of employees in 20 or more agencies. It was never, in its previous form, intended to do so.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS PERSONNEL SYSTEM

President Johnson, in a letter to Secretary Rusk dated May 6, 1965, states: "I shall expect you to insure that personnel policies and actions of the Department, AID, and USIA are guided by uniform standards and criteria. Perhaps this could be accomplished through continued use of the Board of the Foreign Service, including on it representatives of AID and USIA. I shall expect the continued fair administration of the Foreign Service, with due regard to the principles of merit, that has been the mark of that Service since its modernization under the Rogers Act in 1924."

The instruction from the President, considered together with the basic policies enunciated by him which I discussed earlier-gives, I am convinced, a clear and definite statement of the role the Secretary will have in developing and implementing the new system. I cannot see how this can be interpreted as giving the Secretary absolute power over the administration of the system, nor how it can be construed as authorizing him to delegate such authority to one of his subordinates.

Mr. Chairman, I have a few other comments that I would like to insert in the record.

(The additional documents submitted by Mr. Crockett are follows:)

HOW THE SELECTION-OUT SYSTEM IS CONDUCTED

Under existing law this system is applicable only to Foreign Service officers. It does not apply to Foreign Service Reserve officers or to Foreign Service Staff officers or employees. There follows an explanation of how the system is conducted:

OPERATION OF THE SELECTION-OUT SYSTEM

Sections 633 and 634 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946 inaugurated a selectionout system for Foreign Service officers. The Congress intended (H. Rept. 2508, 79th Cong., 2d sess.) that the system be patterned after the Navy system and be used to achieve an ever-improving Foreign Service Officer Corps by an annual weeding out of the least able officers in each class, and thereby permit the more rapid advancement of the most able officers. More specifically, the 1946 legislation provided that the Secretary prescribe the maximum period during which officers in classes 2, 3, 4, and 5 would be permitted to remain in class without promotion. Any officer not receiving a promotion within that period was to be retired from the Service. At that time the Foreign Service Officer Corps consisted of six numbered classes (FSO-1 through FSO-6) and the class of career minister. Selection out did not apply to junior officers entering at class 6, since they were in a probationary status and could be terminated by the Secretary at any time; nor did selection out apply to officers in class FSO-1.

Public Law 22 of the 84th Congress, effective April 5, 1955, extended selection out through class FSO-1 and provided an additional basis for selection out. Henceforth, officers who did not receive a promotion to a higher class within a specified period or who failed to meet the standard of performance required of officers for each class were to be retired from the Service. Public Law 828 of the 84th Congress, effective July 28, 1956, added classes 7 and 8 to the Foreign Service officer numbered structure and thereafter selection out was applied to officers in class 7 who had been promoted to that class in lieu of entry into the class through the examination process.

Officers are ranked by annual selection boards which include, in addition to Foreign Service officers, representatives of other Government agencies as well as public members. Extreme care is exercised in selecting persons to serve on these boards in order to insure an objective and impartial consideration of each officer's

efficiency record. The selection of members of selection boards is rigidly controlled by regulations as is indicated by the following quotations from the Foreign Affairs Manual of Regulations:

"SELECTION AND QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS

"FOREIGN SERVICE AND DEPARTMENTAL MEMBERS

"Foreign Service or departmental members of selection boards, including former Foreign Service officers, shall be approved by the Deputy Under Secretary for Administration. Each officer chosen to serve on a selection board shall, so far as possible, meet the following qualifications:

"a. He must have a rank at least one class higher than that of the officers to be rated by the board of which he is a member;

"b. He shall have appropriate depth and breadth of experience which will enable him to evaluate the officers designated for evaluation by the board of which he is a member;

"c. He shall have a superior record of service;

"d. He shall have an established reputation for unbiased judgment of personnel and for perceptive evaluation of performance;

"e. He shall not serve on a selection board for any 2 consecutive years.

"PUBLIC MEMBERS

"Each public member of a selection board shall be approved by the Deputy Under Secretary for Administration and shall meet the following qualifications: "a. He shall have gained prominence in a profession, in business, in labor, or in a nongovernmental organization or institution serviced by, or having an interest in, the Foreign Service.

"b. He shall be available to serve on a full-time basis during the entire time that the boards are in session; and

"c. He shall not be in the Federal Government service.

"OTHER AGENCY MEMBERS

"Other departments or agencies having a direct interest in foreign affairs may be invited to nominate representatives to serve as voting members on selection boards. Such members shall be approved by the Deputy Under Secretary for Administration and shall not serve on a selection board for any 2 consecutive years.

"OBSERVERS ON SELECTION BOARDS

"Representatives of other departments or agencies may be designated by the Deputy Under Secretary for Administration to serve in the capacity of observers on selection boards when such agencies are not represented by voting members." Evaluation records, or efficiency reports have a most important effect on promotions, assignments, and separations. Regulations require that supervisors prepare detailed efficiency reports on all officers and employees on an annual basis; interim reports are required whenever there is a change of duties, supervisory officers, or a significant change in a persons level of performance. There is a systematic review and evaluation of all reports by reviewing officers and, at some of the larger Foreign Service posts an additional review is made by a panel as well, before efficiency records are placed in an officer's official personnel file. Any officer may at any time submit material relating to his performance for inclusion in his official personnel file.

Efficiency records include such materials as performance reports submitted by supervisors, reports prepared by Foreign Service inspectors, appraisals by end-users, such as the Departments of Commerce and Labor, and related material. The boards are governed by precepts which outline in detail the specific standards and procedures they are to follow. The preparation of the precepts for selection boards is, in turn, governed by regulations quoted below:

"PRECEPTS FOR SELECTION BOARDS

"Precepts for the selection boards shall be approved by the Deputy Under Secretary for Administration, by and with the advice of the board of the Foreign Service, and shall be distributed to the members of the selection boards for their guidance. These precepts shall inform the boards of the Department's policies 44-699-65-9

on promotion and factors to be considered in evaluating officers, and shall provide instructions for their use in rating officers of the Service on the basis of relative merit."

Criteria used in rating officers for purposes of selection-out are contained in excerpts from the precepts of the 18th selection board (1964) quoted below:

"The Department relies on the selection-out system to achieve a constantly improving Foreign Service Officer Corps-one composed entirely of able, well qualified officers. While selection-out is applicable only to Foreign Service officers, the goal is similar for Reserve and Staff officers. Selection boards by identifying among all categories of officers whom they are rating, those whose performance does not meet the level maintained by their colleagues, can provide valuable information on Reserve and Staff officers which can be used along with other information as a basis for administrative action to separate officers whose performance does not justify their retention in the Service.

"Any Foreign Service officer in classes 1 through 7 shall be presumed not to have maintained the performance standard required for his class when he has been ranked in the lowest 10 percent of his class by the current selection board and any previous selection board while in the same class. The cases of Foreign Service officers thus identified will be considered for selection-out.

"In order to assist the Department in determining what final action should be taken with regard to officers in all categories whose performance does not meet the standard required for their class or grade, as distinguished from Foreign Service officers whom the boards merely place in the low percent zone, the board shall prepare a written statement setting forth the basis for such a finding in the case of each officer so identified.

"Selection boards must conscientiously discharge their responsibility for assisting the Department in identifying officers who should be considered for selection-out or separation on the basis of their performance. Grounds for such action include inadequate productivity, consistent delinquency in carrying out assigned tasks, or well-documented occurrences of situations in which personality problems have clearly prevented an officer from working cooperatively and harmoniously with his superiors, colleagues, or subordinates, thus limiting the effective performance of his assigned tasks.

"Although evidence of unsatisfactory working relationships with colleagues and superiors must be considered in ranking an officer, particular care should be taken to determine that personality problems have, indeed, affected the officer's performance adversely. Panels should be satisfied that imputations of lack of team spirit, uncooperativeness, and the like, are not being used by superior officers to cover what are in fact policy differences. It should be emphasized again that daring and dissent are qualities sought after in the Service and should not be penalized unless they result in actions which are genuinely rash or ill-conceived and give evidence of seriously faulty judgment.

"In addition to the performance of the officer himself, consideration must be given to his wife as well as to all factors relating to his role in the Foreign Service. His spouse is expected to possess the qualities and personality which will support and enhance the ability of the officer to perform effectively in his assignments abroad.

"An officer should not be ranked low simply because health limitations prevent assignments to altitude or hardship posts, or because of some personal trait or characteristic which does not interfere with the proper conduct of his assigned tasks and is not likely to reflect discredit upon the United States but an officer's usefulness must of necessity take into consideration his total availability for assignment in relation to others of his function and class. "Selection-out should not be used as a substitute for separation on charges when the situation calls for the latter course of action. In this connection it should be noted that the Foreign Service Act provides for a hearing by the board of the Foreign Service in any case where separation is proposed by reason of misconduct. Cases of this nature in which action has not been taken previously should be brought to the attention of the Director General of the Foreign Service. In evaluating an officer in these circumstances, boards should give due weight to the officer's personality, judgment, and other factors and rate him accordingly."

Under existing regulations officers may be selected-out under the following conditions:

1. For failure to be promoted after having served in class for a stipulated period, namely,

(a) 15 years in class 1,

(b) 12 years in classes 2 and 3, and

(c) 10 years in class 4 and below.

2. By reason of having been ranked twice in the lowest 10 percent of a given class by selection boards.

NOTE.-Criteria for the 19th selection board is to be changed as follows: (a) Three times lowest 10 percent; (b) combination of lowest 5 percent and lowest 10 percent must be documented by selection board; and (c) substandard performance at class 1.

3. By reason of having been found by a selection board to have failed to meet the standard of performance which officers must maintain to remain in the Service.

Whereas selection-out for failure to be promoted is automatic, with respect to the latter two bases for selection-out, provision is made for an administrative review of the officer's performance record. The final decision in such instances is made by the Deputy Under Secretary for Administration with the advice and assistance of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and of the Director General of the Foreign Service.

Officers who for the first time are ranked in the lowest 10 percent of their class receive notification of this fact and are encouraged to improve their performance. They are entitled, moreover, to review their efficiency record and to take advantage of counseling regarding their career prospects. All officers who are selected-out are given a reasonable time period within which they can obtain other employment. The Department provides placement assistance for this purpose. Their retirement and severance benefits are fixed by law. In some instances officers who are unable to compete effectively as a Foreign Service officer, but who are capable of performing adequately in a narrow specialty, are accorded the opportunity of transferring to the Foreign Service Staff Corps. In like manner, officers who are unable to adapt to overseas environments (frequently from a family standpoint) and who have performed effectively in Washington assignments may be separated as a Foreign Service officer and transferred to the departmental service.

It should be emphasized that selection-out is based on a relative comparison of officer in each class and generally equates to an honorable discharge in the armed services. Selection-out actions are officially recorded as retirement as specified in section 634 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended.

ANTICIPATED APPLICATION OF THE SELECTION-OUT SYSTEM TO OTHER CATEGORIES OF FOREIGN SERVICE PERSONNEL

PROPOSED OPERATION OF THE SELECTION-OUT SYSTEM UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF H.R. 6277

Section 14 of H.R. 6277 amends section 633 of the Foreign Service Act, by giving the Secretary authority to apply selection-out to any or all categories of personnel of the foreign affairs service. The concept of selection-out has been associated in the past only with career officers in a rank-in-person system, such as the Foreign Service or the military services, where officers in a given class or grade are competing for promotion, their efficiency records being reviewed for this purpose by promotion boards on an annual basis. Selection-out has been used as a means of forced attrition of the least able officers in order to permit the more rapid advancement of the most able officers. In the Foreign Service it has been applicable only to Foreign Service officers, even though Foreign Service Staff officers and employees are also under a rank-in-person system and, except for staff employees in the lowest grades, compete for promotion annually under a system which is very similar to that for Foreign Service officers. The concept is, therefore, equally applicable to any category of career employees in a service such as the Foreign Service.