cation be extended to cover the police force in the nineteen villages of Westchester county not already included. After due inquiry the request was denied as impracticable. The police force in some of the villages numbers only four or six members, and its inclusion in the competitive class would probably have little effect either in protecting efficient men now in office from removal or in assuring efficiency in new appointees. Experience has shown that where a service is so small and salaries so inadequate, there is little or no competition while the labor that would devolve upon the State Commission in holding separate examinations and establishing separate eligible lists for each of these villages would be considerable. Only through legislation organizing the police of the different villages as one force and providing that appointments might be made from one list, could the proposition be made practicable. Board of Education Employees. The State Civil Service Commission was faced early in the year with the possible necessity of assuming supervision under the Civil Service Law, of the administrative employees of the several boards of education throughout the State. This extension of authority was not sought by the Commission. An inquiry from parties interested in the schools of New York city, referred to the AttorneyGeneral, elicited an opinion from that official to the effect that such employees, in the case of New York city particularly, were in the service of a State department and were, therefore, subject to the supervision of the State Civil Service Commission rather than that of a municipal civil service commission. The transfer of authority threatened to throw into the hands of the State Commission the duty of classifying, examining and certifying the payrolls of several thousands additional public servants and made imperative the securing from the Legislature of an appropriation to cover the cost of the large prospective increase of the Commission's work. This appropriation was granted, but the proposed transfer, at first unopposed by the municipal authorities, was blocked by an opinion by the Corporation Counsel of the city of New York contravening that of the State Commission's legal adviser, the Attorney-General, and determination of the question of authority now rests upon the result of a friendly litigation which the Commission is seeking to arrange. Conference of State Department Heads. The State Commission feels that with the application of the rules to the larger villages, the principle of competition has been extended as far over the civil divisions of the State as is now practicable. While there may be particular offices existing in the county or village service throughout the State which may be properly brought within the rules, the effort in the immediate future should be to secure the impartial and thorough application of the competitive principle rather than to further extend the scope of the Commission's work. It is important to demonstrate through careful administration the practicability of the merit system of appointment to public office and to convince the people that through it they are securing the most competent and most faithful conduct of official business possible. To reach out for counties or villages of comparatively small population and simple government, where competition would necessarily be restricted and the benefits to be derived in no way commensurate with the resulting expense and trouble, would be a mistake. The Commission may, however, properly look forward to availing itself of opportunities to improve the public service which belong to it by reason of the close relations which through the nature of its work it sustains with every other department of the State government. It is the natural and proper agency through which the officials in charge of the several State departments may be brought together for consideration of common problems of administration and for action looking to uniformity of procedure and co-ordination of functions. The initial step to such co-operative work was taken at the instance of the State Civil Service Commission early in February, when on its invitation the State officers and department heads gathered to discuss the question of vacations for employees and consider the possibility of adopting a uniform plan therefor. This conference was of great interest and elicited suggestions that it might be reassembled to consider problems of larger importance and those in whose settlement the State officials acting together might properly exert a helpful influence. Its recommendations in regard to vacations were embodied in the report of a sub-committee which was presented and adopted at an adjourned meeting. The committee, in its report, reviewed the conditions in the various departments, recognized the obvious impossibility of securing uniformity of practice in the matter of vacations throughout the many corps of employees connected with the various offices and commissions in different parts of the State, and finding that there was no provision in existing statutes relating to vacations recommended legislation recognizing the principle of vacations and authorizing the heads of departments to grant per diem employees vacations, with pay, of not to exceed two weeks in each year. Covering these recommendations the Legislature passed and the Governor approved an amendment to the Public Officers Law, by the insertion of a new section (71), which authorizes the executive officers of every public department, bureau, commission or board of the State and of each county, city or other civil division, to grant to every employee under their supervision, who shall have been in such employ for at least one year, a vacation of not less than two weeks in each year at such time as the executive officers may fix and provides that during such vacations the employees shall be allowed full pay. Pensions for Superannuated Employees. The committee of the conference of State officers above referred to was also charged with the duty of investigating the subject of pensions or insurance for superannuated State employees, and on this subject it reported as follows: "We appreciate the fact that no provision has yet been made for those who have long since passed their maxim of efficiency and hold their positions because of faithful service in the past. Such a condition deters the appointive power from maintaining a maximum working capacity under appropriations for the purpose, and until proper remedy be found in a recognition by the State by pension or otherwise of its obligation to those who have given their lives to the service, the departments of State government will be increasingly hampered in affording effective administration. This broad question, involving State policy, is so important that it seems unwise to your committee to form definite conclusions without a thorough study of the subject in the light of precedents as they exist in other governments and without a full knowledge of all the conditions that must be met." The committee was continued with directions to further consider this question. As a preliminary, essential to any intelligent consideration of the subject, either as to the need for the adoption of some system for the retirement of employees who may have become incapacitated in the public service, or as to the practicability of imposing upon the State the burden, in whole or in part, of such a system, the President of the State Civil Service Commission, acting as a member of the committee mentioned, addressed inquiries to the heads of the several departments asking for information as to the number of employees now in the State service who had reached the ages of sixty and sixty-five years respectively, and as to what extent the efficiency and economy of administration of the several departments are affected by the retention in the service of men above the age last mentioned. Replies to this inquiry were received from the heads of twenty-seven departments, a summary of which shows that there are now employed in those departments one hundred and thirty-five persons who have attained the age of sixty years, of whom sixty-five are sixty-five years of age or over. The number of departments is as follows: Public Service Commission, First District. 60 years old. 65 years old. 1 1 5 4 2 14 9 14 6 1 1 6 3 1 2 11 4 The heads of the following named departments report that they have no employees over 60 years of age: the Attorney-General, the State Historian, the State Probation Commission, the State Superintendent of Weights and Measures, the State Board of Tax Commissioners, the Supreme Court Reporter, the Secretary to the Governor, the State Water Supply Commission and the State Civil Service Commission. The number of employees over 60 years of age in the twentyseven departments from which replies to the inquiries have been received, constitutes 3 9/10 per cent. of the total number of employees in those departments, and the number over 65 years of age is only 1 7/8 per cent. of the total number. In response to the query as to what extent is the efficiency and economy of administration of the department affected by the retention of men above the age last mentioned, there is expressed a variety of opinion. Several report that the work in their de partments has not suffered by retention of these employees, and one at least says that the long service, familiarity with departmental precedents and general usefulness by reason thereof, gives such employees efficiency not possessed by younger and less experienced men. But the concensus of opinion is that the work of the departments suffers somewhat by the retention of employees beyond the age of 65 years. The head of one department says he believes that it would be possible to do the work now performed by men in the service who have reached the age last mentioned more efficiently with half the number at half the cost. Another |