that in cases of unsatisfactory service, seniority counts against a person's rating on record.

The system of efficiency ratings in use makes it possible for an employe whose efficiency is considered far above the average for extended periods to enter a promotion examination upon equal terms with one whose efficiency is considered average but who may have served for a much longer time in the grade. For example, in a position where five years is the longest seniority considered an employe whose efficiency has been considered average during all that time earns 84% on the maximum time of service. An employe whose efficiency is considered far above the average earns 85% in two years and six months. Therefore the rating for seniority depends not upon length of service only but also upon the comparative efficiency of employes during that period.

The above outlined methods agree in the main with the suggestion made by your special committee. The only difference is the following: Your committee suggests that the division chiefs enter the efficiency records of employes monthly and that the boards of promotion meet semi-annually and make their reports to the civil service commission. In the methods used in New York city the entries are made under the direction of the board of promotions, who meet at least quarterly, and who send an annual report to the civil service commission.

The above system is not considered to be adapted for use in promotion examinations in the uniformed forces. of the police and fire departments for the reason that their actions and conduct under practically all circumstances are directed by established rules for the violation of which charges are preferred against them. Therefore, in the absence of charges, it is assumed that their conduct and efficiency are satisfactory. In rating records for promotion in these departments, a period is fixed for the maximum length of service in the grade to be considered and also a maximum rating to be given for a colorless record or record without either charges of violation of rules or rewards for meritorious conduct. Starting at 80% a passing mark, the candidate is given credit for every quarter served until the maximum rating is obtained. If charges have been preferred against him, a certain.

percentage is deducted for each day's fine in the grade, which percentage is fixed by the date of the offence. If he has been officially awarded by his Department a certain percentage is added to his rating on record. The above may be illustrated by the scheme of rating adopted in the examination for promotion to the rank of captain of police which was held on November 21 and 22 of the present year. In this examination it was necessary, under the city charter, and the civil service rules, that a lieutenant should have served at least three years in the rank in order to be eligible for examination.

Record and Seniority.

Colorless Record.

Beginning with date of appointment as Lieutenant...... .80% For every additional 4 months in the grade, add 1⁄2 of 1% or 11⁄2% a year, making at the end of 10 years a maximum of

...95%

For each day's fine between October 1, 1900, and Feb

ruary 1, 1904, deduct..

% of 1%

For each day's fine between February 1, 1904, and June
I, 1907, deduct...

.4 of 1%

For each day's fine after June 1, 1907, deduct.

Reprimand to count 1⁄2 of 1 day's fine.

Fines previous to October 1, 1900, not considered.

12 of 1%

The above scheme shows 101⁄2 points difference between the term of service necessary for eligibility for examination and the longest term considered. This difference can be easily made up in the mental examination by candidates of intelligence as has been clearly demonstrated in other promotion examinations during the past year and a half.

In sub-division D your committee refers to competitive examination. The paragraphs marked 1 and 2 that all employes submit themselves to the same tests of capacity and that these tests have relation to the ability to perform the duty of the higher position, appear to be axiomatic, in my opinion, and need no further argument. In the paragraph marked 3 your committee states that the examination can be made to cover more than ability

to perform duty in a particular division or section and to a certain degree can test the candidate's general ability and capacity to make progress. The New York City municipal civil service rules direct that mental examinations for promotions shall, as far as practicable, correspond in scope, subjects and preliminary conditions to examinations as would have been prescribed for original entrance to the same position, but due consideration shall be given to the particular requirements of the department office or institution for which the examination is held. In examinations which require strictly technical or professional training such as the engineering, the legal and the medical branches of the service, an examination consists of questions designed to test not only the knowledge of the candidates on the general requirements of their profession, but which tend also to show their knowledge of the particular requirements of their own departments. For example, all candidates for the higher positions in the engineering service would receive two papers; one containing general questions and the other pertaining to the particular business on which they were engaged whether it be building bridges or constructing dams and conduits or planning and laying out new streets or building docks. In the legal profession, candidates, in addition to the general principles, are supposed to be familiar especially with Municipal Law as applied to New York Citv.

In the clerical service, examinations are held along broad lines tending to test a candidate's general intelligence upon matters with which he should be cognizant. A clerk, for example, to pass an examination for promotion to the fourth grade ($1800 annually) is supposed to be familiar with all the powers and duties of the department in which he is employed, with the general government of the city and the state of New York and with general business methods including those of office discipline and management. He is supposed to be able to write a clear report upon matters with which his department is concerned. The examinations are somewhat searching and in order to pass a clerk must possess a certain degree of intelligence. In a promotion examina-. tion among bookkeepers, the candidates are supposed to

be familiar not only with the methods of accounts in use in their own departments, but also with the general theory and practice of accounting in addition to the general knowledge required of clerks of the same grade.

In the clerical service it has been shown by experience that examinations which are confined solely to the duties which have been performed in the past are almost valueless. The city departments are mostly so large that, as in other lines of business, the duties of clerks are specialized. It is assumed, therefore, that a clerk is able to perform duties in which he is engaged continuously without variation. Besides, his ability in their performance has already been tested by his superiors and the result shown in the record of his efficiency. It sometimes happens, however, that a clerk is called upon to perform duties which require some special knowledge not ordinarily familiar to clerks. A contract clerk in a department, for example, must be familiar with the general provisions of law regarding contracts as applied to New York City departments, and, in case of a vacancy in the position, the examination would be designed in accord

ance.

In certain branches of the service, all positions have been filled by competitive examination. This applies especially to the uniformed forces of the police and fire departments. In these two departments all examinations for promotion are designed to test not merely a candidate's knowledge for the position for which he seeks promotion, but also his general fitness for further advancement. The great degree of efficiency which these departments have attained has been due to the great intelligence and executive ability of the officers in the various ranks, all of whom have been selected through competitive promotion examination.

Your committee makes one statement which experience has shown me may be applied in another sense than that in which it is used in the report. It is stated that employes, knowing in advance the person whom the head of the department desires to promote, and will promote in case he passes the examination, will be discouraged from entering the competition. Your committee refers to noncompetitive promotion examinations but practically the

same results obtain, in my opinion, if appointing officers are allowed to give a rating on record which is not based on permanent records. It was formerly the usage in New York City and I believe that it is still the practice in other places, that in a promotion examination the appointing officer give his personal opinion of the efficiency of the various candidates, and that this opinion or rating is practically the determining factor in the result. For example, if an appointing officer desires, he can give one candidate 100% in efficiency and the rest 70%, or less. The opinion may be honest and in accordance with the actual conditions or it may not be based upon anything more substantial than the desire to promote this particular person. In any case, the employes who may consider themselves unjustly treated have no remedy or right of appeal. If such methods be tolerated, in an examination where record counted 50%, it is plain that a head of department can practically determine the relative standing of persons on an eligible list, regardless of their ability, efficiency or merit.

As your committee states, promotion from place to place by competitive examination presents no serious difficulties. It consists, mainly, in my opinion, of the installation of a rational system of records designed to give due credit to an employe for past efficiency of service and of a mental examination designed to test his intelligence and general fitness for advancement. The problem of promotion for increases of salary is now confronting the New York Commission and is much more difficult.

In December, 1909, the commission established a new Classification which fixed salary grades for most of the competitive positions in the City. Previously, the only positions for which salary grades were fixed were those in the clerical service. Owing to an injunction, which has been vacated, within the past few days, the commission has been restrained from holding examinations under the new classification. Previous to the issuing of the injunction a few examinations were held, but the ratings were not finished at that time. These ratings are now completed, but it is impossible to judge of the success of the examinations until the lists are announced. Theoretically, however, the plan