EXTENDING CLASSIFIED CIVIL SERVICE

TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 1940

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE, Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a. m., in room 249, Senate Office Building, Senator William J. Bulow (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Bulow (chairman) and Mead.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Mr. Baldwin, are you ready?

Mr. BALDWIN. Ready at any time. Do you want me to go right ahead?

The CHAIRMAN. If you please.

STATEMENT OF C. B. BALDWIN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, FARM SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Mr. BALDWIN. I am Assistant Administrator of the Farm Security Administration. My appearance this morning is at the request of the Department as an advocate of inclusion of the Farm Security Administration's employees in this bill, that is, permitting them to obtain civil-service status by whatever method the Congress might determine.

Mr. Chairman, in the Farm Security Administration we have a total of 14,657 employees, of whom 754 are in Washington, paid from Emergency Relief funds appropriated directly to the Secretary of Agriculture.

The Washington employees are, of course, classified in accordance with the Classification Act of 1923, some few of them have civilservice status by virtue of the fact that they came to us from civilservice agencies elsewhere in the Department and from other agencies.

We have had a rather large turn-over in our personnel which we believe to a large extent has been caused by the fact that our people have not had civil service open to them. Field turn-over is considerably larger than that in other bureaus of the Department. Most of our employees are located in the counties throughout the United States. We operate in every agricultural county throughout the country. In some cases, where our number of borrowers is not particularly heavy, we may have one office that serves two or more counties. Employees in these county offices generally consist of a rural rehabilitation supervisor, who has the equivalent of the degree in agriculture from one of the land-grant colleges.

I say the equivalent because some of our people have obtained their experience from practical farming operations, but their knowledge of agriculture and their technical qualifications are generally the equivalent of an agricultural-college graduate.

We also have in most of the counties a home economist who in almost every instance is a graduate in home economics.

In these two particular categories the selections have been made on a merit basis. This program in which we are engaged was started in 1935 and has been operating now for 5 years. Qualification requirements have been raised continually during that period. I think that now practically all of these employees, perhaps 90 percent of them, would qualify under the usual civil-service standards. We think that it would be no handicap to us but a definite advantage if these groups of technical people were given the opportunity to obtain. a civil-service status.

As a general rule, we have one clerk in each of our county offices, sometimes two, where our loan load is heavy. These clerks are required to pass a civil-service examination at the present time. I would say that fully 90 percent of them have passed such an examination. The reason the others have not is because they were taken on in the early days of the Administration, the latter part of 1933 and in 1934, before the Farm Security Administration or the Resettlement Administration were established.

Now the turn-over, we think, has been largely occasioned by the lack of security that some of these people feel because they do not have civil-service status. In a good many cases they have gone to other Federal agencies, after taking an examination, where the agencies were covered by civil service.

It is also somewhat of a handicap to us in getting people who are properly trained from the other bureaus of the Department where the need for them is great and where there should be a better opportunity for their advancement. They hesitate to leave a civil-service appointment to come with us, in some cases regardless of the fact that it might mean a promotion for them, because they feel that they have greater security where they are.

The cost of training our employees, as is the case I guess with most Federal agencies, is rather high. Our investment in these people is large. In many of the counties in which we operate we have loans outstanding to farmers who have been unable to get credit from any other sources, amounting to $300,000, $400,000, and even $500,000. If we lose one of our supervisory staff in the field we are likely to lose the equivalent of several years' salary of that individual because this man whom we have trained and who has been with us several years understands families he has been working with much better than a new employee would. He is able to effect collections in a much more satisfactory way.

Probably about half of our turn-over is due to Farm Security employees going to other agencies of the Government. Many of them go to insurance companies and other jobs in private industry.

We feel that these people who have worked hard and have served their Government loyally are entitled to the same opportunity to obtain a civil-service status as employees of other agencies, which, they would feel a more secure and this, we feel, would add greatly

to the efficiency of our operations and to the morale of our organization.

The CHAIRMAN. The turn-over that you speak of is affected by your people separating voluntarily?

Mr. BALDWIN. Yes. Generally.

Of course there are some separa

tions because of unsatisfactory service and for similar reasons as you will find in any agency of government.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you many people in your set-up that are on per diem jobs?

Mr. BALDWIN. No, sir. Very few.

The CHAIRMAN. About how many?

Mr. BALDWIN. About the only people that we have on per diem jobs, Mr. Chairman, are county committeemen who are employed under authority of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act.

The CHAIRMAN. They are elected locally?

Mr. BALDWIN. No. The Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act requires that the Secretary select and appoint three farmers in each county in which we are operating to pass on the loans to tenants to enable them to become owners. They are per diem employees, receive a per diem of $3 and expenses, which amount to about $2.

Now I think we have done a very thorough job in the selection of our present personnel. As I have said, in the clerical grades examinations are required, and work of an accounting and auditing type also require examinations. We haven't required examinations for our county supervisors, since no examination has ever been prepared. This is work of an unusual character, work of a type which hasn't heretofore been engaged in by the Government. As a result of our 5 years' experience we now feel sure that an examination could be devised which would give us the proper protection.

In addition to the procedure we have followed in selecting employees through interviews, we make a careful check before employment, in their communities of the individual's character and ability. The CHAIRMAN. Have you made any estimate of what the additional cost would be in your Department?

Mr. BALDWIN. You mean in the matter of salaries?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. BALDWIN. No, sir; I haven't any estimate available. Our salaries in the organization are low, perhaps the lowest in the Federal Government. The average salary for the whole staff is about $1,500 a year. If the Classification Act were extended to the field it would undoubtedly increase our pay roll considerably. But I think that increase would be justified. In a sense of fairness to these employees I cannot see why they should be kept continually over a long period of years at salaries lower than those that prevail in other Government agencies.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you a prepared statement?

Mr. BALDWIN. No, sir. I have made my statement. I will be glad to answer any questions that you have.

The CHAIRMAN. I haven't anything in mind just now. However, if you have anything further to state we should be glad to have it.

Mr. BALDWIN. No, sir; I don't think I have. We hope, if this bill is passed by the Senate, that opportunity would be afforded

the employees of the Farm Security Administration to obtain a civil-service status.

I think that is all.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you gave the number of employees. Mr. BALDWIN. I gave the number of employees, and if there is anything else that you would care to have submitted for the record I will be glad to furnish it.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. When we look over the testimony we may call on you.

Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hendrickson.

STATEMENT OF ROY F. HENDRICKSON, DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. HENDRICKSON. I am Roy Hendrickson, Director of Personnel, Department of Agriculture. I would simply like to add to what Mr. Baldwin has said from the standpoint of the Department, that we would like to see the employees in the Farm Security Administration dealt with in every respect on the same basis as the employees in the other departments.

There are a number of employees in the Department who would be affected by the Ramspeck bill. There has been considerable transfer of employees between Farm Security Administration and some of the other agencies and we regard the employees of the Farm Security Administration as of the same level of competence and as carefully selected and in every way entitled to the same advantages and benefits as the employees of other departments. That is about all that I would like to add unless there are some questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you made any estimate of what the additional cost would be on the basis of extension of the Classification Act?

Mr. HENDRICKSON. I do not know. Mr. Baldwin says the cost would be in the field alone. In the case of Washington or departmental employees they are now classified on the basis of the act of 1923. I don't think there would be any change there at all. How much change there would be in the field I am not certain. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Riley.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE D. RILEY, EDITOR OF U. S. AND US, WASHINGTON TIMES-HERALD, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I have heard with interest the many statements presented for your information and suggested guidance. There have been some splendid suggestions. Some have touched the vital angles, others have failed to reach the more essential details. It is my earnest desire to be of assistance to your committee and to offer some thoughts that perhaps have escaped the attention of others as they spoke before your committee.

At the outset may I say that the committee may go in one or the other of two directions.

It may be your desire to report a bill that definitely aims at what appears to me at this moment to be the main topic, which is the extension of the classified civil service.

If this is your aim, I feel sure the committee will want to report an uninvolved bill, in which case may I suggest that all of H. R. 960 be stricken, beginning on line 6, page 2, with the words "Provided further," and to incorporate a few clear additional sections. Whether we are to have competitive or noncompetitive examinations I believe should be left to the discretion of the President of the United States. To hedge the President with a great deal of verbiage appears to me to put the legislation entirely in the field of politics. I am sure the committee desires to avoid this aspect. If left to the President, there is no doubt the Chief Executive will order noncompetitive exami

nations.

If we are to have a specific bill in great and minute detail, then, of course, we would want to see title I amended to make extension of the classified civil service mandatory rather than permissive. Perhaps the committee does not desire to make the legislation mandatory, and even discriminatory, and since it may not, I believe that section 2 (a) and section 2 (b) on pages 2 and 3 may well be eliminated. To leave section 2 (a) in its present form would be to take an opposite stand to that which has been expressed by the President in the Executive order of June 24, 1938, wherein the President provided that persons who fail to pass a noncompetitive examination may be retained, without acquiring a status. As you will realize, section 2 (a) makes it necessary to separate those who fail to pass the examination not later than 6 months after the Commission has advised the appointing office that such employee has failed.

I believe, however, there should be some provision to care for the peculiar situation which is now being endured by the mechanical branches and to remedy the conditions which were set forth before this committee last Friday by members of the National Association of Federal Mechanics. If the committee desires to keep the bill in an omnibus form as at present, we may well give attention to the several situations which deal with veterans' preference, apportionment, and boards of review. You will note on page 12, in the new language amending title V, section 669, of the United States Code, 1934 edition, that a Board of Review is provided, and that there shall be three members, the chairman to be designated by the Civil Service Commission, and the other members to be designated by the head of the department concerned. Over the years we have felt the need for some form of appellate body to which an employee may appeal his grievance, real or fancied. I believe it is eminently fitting at this time to set up this or any other type of appeals ma. chinery with the definite idea that employees may participate in the public business management system. Even the President's Committee on Personnel Administration in the Federal Service, as of January 1937, avoided the extreme of suggesting elimination of em ployees from such boards of review. We find in section 17 of the report of that committee the following language:

SEC. 17. The problems arising in connection with individual grievancé cases should also receive early attention, with promulgation of suitable policies to govern the handling of individual grievances wherever they arise. The possibilities of grievances within each agency should be explored under in