Page images
PDF
EPUB

an eligible list with sufficient promptness, or where a list is temporarily exhausted, an appointing officer may hire and employ for a period not exceeding five days as many persons as may be required." The Municipal Commission has construed this rule so as to permit reappointment of the same person for successive five day periods, as in the employment of Frank Schwarts (from October 26, 1904, to January 25, 1905) and Henry I. Taylor (January 23 to March 19, 1905), as machine automobile repairists in the department of street cleaning, and of Warren G. Pearce (August 5 to December 3, 1904) as automobile repairist to the President of the Borough of Manhattan. This was done in spite of the ruling above referred to that the position fell in the competitive class, and in spite of the secretary's notice that the Municipal Commission "could not approve any such appointments in future." The Commission was clearly right in this ruling, and it violated the spirit and letter of the law by continuing certification of the employees named. If they were properly in the labor class, then their practically continuous employment violated the spirit of the rule permitting emergency employment for a period of five days only. That limitation may be too narrow under some circumstances, but until amended the Commission is bound to ob serve its requirement.

Several of the practices criticised have been discontinued, the State Commission is glad to note, by the present Municipal Commission under the presidency of Mr. Baker. No further certifications are made under titles not covered by the classification in Part I, except in the single case of "stoker-marine." The Municipal Commission has continued to certify foremen of specified trades under the general title "foreman of mechanics," and when these are confined to the trades listed in Part II, they would

seem to be within a fair interpretation of the rule. If the title, foreman of mechanics, was not intended to mean this, it is without meaning. But the title confined to this part does not cover the trades in which the city really requires the services of such officials, and so the Municipal Commission has assumed that the title applies also to the trades of blacksmith, carpenter, plumber, etc., listed in Part III, where the appointees are subject to trade examinations. This assumption, of course, has been unwarranted, but the State Commission is informed that through amendment of its rules the Municipal Commission now seeks to expunge the title of foreman of mechanics from Part II, and to limit the titles under which foremen in Part III may register to about eight special titles, in which there is bona fide need for such officials. These changes in the rules should operate to prevent a repetition of the abuses of which complaint has been made. The State Commission agrees with Mr. Fowler, its chief examiner, that" the present Commission should be commended for limiting and specifying the titles under which foremen may register," and believes with him that it is closing the door to abuses which were permitted under rules of the Ogden and McCooey Commissions. Concerning those who have, through favoritism and the abuse of the rules, secured employment, the Municipal Commission should make a thorough investigation. The examination of the few laborers which the State Commission was able to make discovered several "foremen" not actually doing foremen's work, and suggested the probability that many others not examined had secured unfair advantages and were not doing work appropriate to their titles. These persons should not be permitted to reap any further benefit from such appointments beyond being retained in the exact positions which they now hold, and their transfer to any other

positions on the strength of their present employment should not be permitted. To prevent this, a probing of the labor service is necessary and the Municipal Commission has full power to make it. Such investigation might also properly consider the politica! favoritism complained of in the employment of laborers, concerning which Chief Examiner Fowler reports:

"Mr. Birdseye and I have not felt that we were in a position to discuss various political features advanced by the Reform Association, finding as a rule that they do not affect the actions of the Municipal Commission itself in any direct way," but adds, "the mass of evidence along this line tends to convince one that there is a great abuse."

CASES IN THE COMPETITIVE CLASS.

In regard to the particular cases in the competitive class to which attention is called by the Reform Association, the State Commission finds that the alleged violation of Rule XIV, clause 11, is purely technical, that the Association and the Municipal Commission agree as to the propriety of admitting laborers to promotion examinations for the positions of section foreman, and that the latter expresses willingness to amend the rule if necessary to so admit them; also that the alleged violation of section 13 of the law in the case of Dennis Gerrity was technical and that occasion for criticism was removed by the Municipal Commission in action taken April 7; and that the questions at issue as to the classification of positions in the office of the Commissioner of Licenses have been determined by the action of the State and Municipal Commissions and that in the classification of positions in that office, held to be a department of the city government by the Attorney-General of the State, the law and the rules are now observed.

THE CASE OF GIRDELL V. BROWER.

The employment of Girdell V. Brower, appointed March 24, 1904, to the position of foreman of laborers in the department of water supply, Borough of Brooklyn, at $6 per day, was and is in open violation of the provision of section 13 of the Civil Service Law prohibiting the appointment or employment of a person under a title not appropriate to the duties of the position. Brower has been and is acting as superintendent of ponds and reservoirs, exercises the authority of that office and occupies the city residence heretofore assigned to its incumbent. His employment in this capacity, under a title in the labor class, has been with the evident design of avoiding a competitive examination, to which candidates for the office of superintendent of ponds and reservoirs would be properly subjected. It has been persisted in in face of repeated protests by the State Civil Service Commission and the Reform Association, and the continued certification of his accounts by the Municipal Commission has become a public scandal. Brower is a member of the Board of Supervisors of Nassau county and his long continued illegal employment inevitably suggests the operation of political considerations. Indeed when the renewed request for exemption of the superintendent of ponds and reservoirs was before the State Commission its members received letters in his behalf from politicians urging its favorable consideration. The alleged necessity of exempting this place to secure the right sort of man is disproved by the fact that in the recent competitive examination Brower, the very man for whom all this effort was made, was placed third on the eligible list, though with the aid of an experience mark based on his actual performance of the duties

of the office which he held by subterfuge under the deceptive title of "foreman of laborers."

TRANSFERS.

The

The transfer of Dr. T. D. Lehane from the position of medical inspector, department of health, at a salary of $1,200, to that of coroner's physician, at a salary of $3,000, and other similar transfers, have been effected under a resolution of the Municipal Commission authorizing its secretary to issue certificates therefor subject to subsequent approval by the Commission. Municipal Commission has never so approved the transfers, but the certification of their accounts has been continued in direct violation of the opinion of Mr. Justice Gaynor, of the Supreme Court, handed down subsequent to the adoption of the resolution, holding that transfers to positions involving different qualifications and paying higher salaries are in law and in fact promotions and contrary to the Civil Service act, unless the person to be transferred has first obtained a place upon the eligible list which would entitle him to appointment. Justice Gaynor granted a stay pending appeal in this case (Hale vs. Worstell) and this is made the excuse for the continued certification. That might be a good reason for certifying the accounts of persons actually transferred before the decision, who were in the same state as the person whose accounts Justice Gaynor allowed to be certified, but it could not justify the granting of new transfers of the sort that had been condemned by the court, on the assumption or hope that Justice Gaynor would be reversed. Yet on the strength of the resolution of the former Commission, on July 27, 1904, authorizing him to grant certificates of transfer during the month of August, Secretary Berlinger allowed many such trans

« PreviousContinue »