EXAMINATIONS FOR PROMOTION.

The following remarks on this subject by the Honorable Silas W. Burt, the late chief examiner of the New York State Civil Service Commission, published in the New York Evening Post of December 8, 1886, are in general harmony with the rules of this Commission on this subject, especially Rule No. 32, and may serve to illustrate their scope and the fairness of their working, if the record is faithfully kept.

While there is a general agreement that the competitive principle should apply not only to admissions to the service, but also to promotions within it, there has been some difference of opinion. regarding the method of its practical application. Wherever promotion examinations have been held in the United States service they have closely resembled those for admission. It is true that in the former some efforts have been made to give practical force to past efficiency in the service, but these efforts have been crude and the results have mainly rested upon the written examinations, as is the case in the tests for admissions. It is absurd, however, to substitute a written examination conducted within the limits of a few hours for the test of that actual competition in the service covering the entire period of each candidate's employment. The results of this latter competition should be the main factor in determining the respective standing of the candidates. In the promotion examinations so far held, the attempt to give an expression to the individual merits of the aspirants has been limited to making "efficiency" one of the elements; this has been represented upon the scale of 100 by an estimate made by the immediate superior of the competitor. Experience and observation by the writer for several years indicate this estimate as very untrustworthy. In the absence of regular records the estimate is based upon a general recollection colored by the latest impressions, good or bad. Recent acts, praiseworthy or the reverse, may thus obscure the whole previous tenor of official conduct, while the greater proximity of some employees to their superior naturally affects his measure of their relative capacity. It has been found that superiors, when called upon for such estimates, are dependent upon unsupported personal opinon, affected as above, and almost invariably mark their subordinates much higher than their merits warrant; several instances have occured within the writer's knowledge where the head of a bureau has indiscriminately marked all his subordinates at the maximum of 100. It is easier to sustain the reputation of being good natured and clever than to defend a low mark unsupported by evidence.

It is obvious that the only safe and satisfactory basis is to be found in the daily record of some of the important elements necessary to determine the relative merits of those eligible to promotion. There are certain traits evinced by clerks in the dailydischarge of business in a public office that can be observed and

measured, such as punctuality and fidelity in attendance, industry, efficiency, as shown by the character of the work and its freedom from errors, and conduct, comprising personal behavior in its relation to the official rules of discipline and to the general observance of morality and courtesy. A competent head of a division can easily mark at the close of each day's business the standing of his several subordinates in the above respects, upon the scale of 100 as a maximum, and the general monthly averages of these markings can be computed, compared, and registered for future uses. The detailed methods of marking and form of register might have to be adapted to varied conditions, but for offices where the work is mainly clerical there have been prepared methods that are deemed sufficient, but which cannot be given within the limits of this article. In the use of these records for the purposes of promotion there could be prepared a list of all those entitled to compete, placing opposite the name of each competitor the average of his markings for the whole period of his service, and the average of his markings while in the position then held, and to the mean of these two averages could be added one unit for every five years of service in the office and two units for every five years of service in the position then held, and in each case proportionally for periods of less than five years. The mean of the two average markings thus increased by the service allowances would be the promotion standing of each of the competitiors, and their names should be entered upon an "eligible list" in the order of their standing, beginning with the highest and excluding all who fall below a certain fixed minimum. The appointing officer should be furnished with the whole eligible list from which to select a name to fill the vacancy, and in case he selects any name below the highest on the list he should record his reasons for passing over each of the persons whose names are recorded above that of the person selected by him. It is presumed that promotions will be made in successive steps, from grade to grade, and that if none be found eligible in the grade next below that in which the vacancy exists, an eligible list will be prepared of those in the next lower grade, and so on until recourse is had to the eligible list of applicants for admission.

If promotions are to be subject to any other rule than the uncontrolled will of the head of the office, the above scheme possesses many intrinsic advantages. It gives positive force to some of the relative merits and demerits of each candidate so far as such traits can be measured. The effect of occasional errors of judgment in the daily markings is minimized to practical harmlessness by the long periods of the marking, and the general averages thus obtained may be accepted as substantially correct. In addition there is the

important guarantee of good faith and impartiality afforded by publicity in the reports, so that all persons interested may secure fair treatment. In this as in all other matters of official adminisration publicity is the only security for the public interests. The

British rule of promotion by mere seniority has obvious defects, but length of service as indicative of fidelity and experience should be considered, and it is moderately expressed in the above scheme. There are certain qualities that cannot be termed mathematically and yet are important factors in selection for promotion, such as executive capacity, tact, and special aptitude; by giving the officer the whole eligible list he can take these unrecorded factors into consideration, while the injunction of recorded reasons for passing over names is security against an abuse of the privilege.

It could be further provided that whenever the monthly or yearly average standing of any employee should fall below a certain minimum, it would be considered a good cause for removal, unless such descent in marking is attributable to partial disability incurred in the service, in which case the person so marked might be reduced in salary or assigned to lighter duty, or both, as in each case might be deemed most just or expedient.

Such a system is certainly superior to promotions made at will or by virtue of occasional written examinations, and possesses merit apart from its relations to promotion and retention. The great danger that assails a stable Civil Service is the tendency to "dry rot; many of the employees gradually lose a live and active interest in their work; perfunctory habits replace an intelligent and zealous discharge of duty; the daily routine is accomplished so as to incur no positive charge of inefficiency, and yet falls far below the highest standard. These are the cases that baffle the responsible head of an office; he cannot allege actual misconduct or inefficiency except in the most general terms, and the final outcome is an increase of the force with consequent added expense. These evils are in a measure diminished by better systems of appointment; but the general sag into mechanical and perfunctory habits can only be overcome by such competitive records and their use as have been proposed above.

The Civil Service must be protected from two evil tendencies — its perversion and degradation by the spoilsmen on the one hand, and its petrification into a bureaucracy on the other. There are three prime preservatives from these tendencies:

(1.) Admission to the service only through approved merit ascertained by open competition.

(2.) Promotion only through superior efficiency, conduct, and capacity, as indicated by systematic records.

(3.) The unrestrained power of removal, except that the cause for its exercise shall in all cases be publicly recorded. These three general principles of administration should be supplemented by a more systematic orginization of the service, a revision of the rates of compensation, and a beneficent provision for the disabled and superannuated.

NEW YORK, November 26.

SILAS W. BURT.