DOCUMENTS JULY 1932 REPORT To the Governor: ALBANY, N. Y., December 31, 1909. The State Civil Service Commission hereby submits its twentyseventh annual report concerning its work in the year 1909. The Chief Examiner. On March 1st, Mr. Charles S. Fowler, who since 1896 had given to the Commission most efficient and faithful service in the office of chief examiner, resigned to become second deputy superintendent of insurance. After long search, the Commission selected to fill the vacancy thus created, Mr. Harold N. Saxton, at that time secretary in executive charge of the second United States Civil Service district, with headquarters in New York city. Mr. Saxton is a member of the bar. He had in 1895, while an examiner in the Federal service, passed the competitive examination for the position of chief examiner for the New York State Commission, and subsequently for three and a half years was assistant to Chief Examiner Fowler. He retired voluntarily to engage in private business, and in 1901 again entered the Federal service. His combined experience with the administration of the merit system under both the State and the United States governments extended over ten years, and was supplemented by service in the War Department and in the Department of Commerce and Labor as a special agent assigned to legal work. On account of these exceptional qualifications, Mr. Saxton was appointed without examination in accordance with the provisions of subdivision 2 of section 15 of the Civil Service Law. Legislation. A No changes were made in the Civil Service Law this year. bill was introduced and passed by both houses, at the request of the Commission, to allow office reorganization which it was feared might be desirable incident to the change of chief examiners. As it was found to be unnecessary on the selection of the new chief examiner, the bill was, at the request of the Commission, left unsigned by the Governor. Another bill which passed both houses of the Legislature sought to amend the Civil Service Law by providing that certification for employment in the State service outside of Albany might be made from one or more judicial districts instead of by single judicial districts as is now allowed. The Commission believed the amendment unwise because, while appearing and perhaps intending to enlarge the field of competition, it would in reality restrict it. It would not operate in any case to allow residents of two or more districts to compete for any office now open only to residents of one district, but would narrow to the residents of one part of the State competition now open to the citizens of the whole State. Moreover, the boundaries of no group of judicial districts coincide with those made for the territorial divisions of the work of the administrative departments for the supposed convenience of which this method of certification was desired, and, therefore, the plan, even if otherwise meritorious, must have proved impracticable. The bill failed to receive Executive approval. In its last annual report the Commission recommended several measures for the improvement of the service. Among them were the extension to municipal commissions in general of the power of investigation within their several jurisdictions, now possessed by the State Commission and by the New York City Commission under charter provision; the clarifying of the law respecting certifications more certainly to prevent the abuse of employing a person nominally in one position but actually in another for which he had not qualified; the allowance of a test by a taxpayer's action of the legality of the appointment of persons held to be public officers (such as policemen) in the classified service, as well as those held to be mere public employees, the remedy by quo warranto for violations of the Civil Service Law being in most cases cumbersome and ineffective; and the restriction of statutory exemption of deputies authorized by law to act generally for and in place of their principals to one deputy, leaving the exemption of others to the discretion of the Commission and the Gover nor, according to the circumstances of each case. These measures were not passed. The Commission still believes their enactment would be advantageous to the public service. Litigation. The Commission has been a party to only three cases in court. during the year, all of them attempts to break down the classification for the benefit of individuals. The case of The People ex rel. Frederick W. Ahrens vs. Charles F. Milliken et al., and Frank Ehlers as County Clerk of Kings County, was an application for mandamus to compel the Commission to place the position of assistant cashier in the office of the county clerk of Kings county in the exempt class, and to certify the pay-rolls for July and August, 1908, so that the relator might receive the compensation at $150 a month for each of said months. The case of The People ex rel. Louis Green vs. Charles F. Milliken et al., and Frank Ehlers as County Clerk of Kings County, was an application for mandamus to compel the Commission to place the position of chief in charge of the marriage license bureau in the office of the county clerk of Kings county in the exempt class, and certify the pay-rolls for July and August, 1908, so that the relator might receive compensation at $150 a month for each of said months. In both of these cases the Special Term denied the motion for mandamus. The relator and the defendant Ehlers appealed in both cases to the Appellate Division, which in both cases affirmed the Special Term, whereupon the relator and defendant Ehlers appealed to the Court of Appeals. In neither litigation has a printed case yet been served. The case of The People ex rel. Thaddeus L. Weatherly vs. Charles F. Milliken et al., etc., was an application for mandamus to compel the Commission to certify that the relator had been appointed stenographer for the ninth judicial district and to classify the position in the exempt class. The Special Term granted an alternative writ, the relator having sought a peremptory writ. Testimony was taken before a referee by stipulation and the case is to be submitted to Mr. Justice Betts at his convenience. The matter has not yet been brought to a hearing. Another case, to which the Commission was not a party, but which involved the construction of the promotion rule, was the "Matter of Jabureck." This was an application for a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the Public Service Commission of the First District to prepare and forward to the Commission for certification a payroll covering increase of salary beyond the grade fixed for promotion by the Civil Service Commission. Jabureck was an employee of the old Rapid Transit Commission of the City of New York, and passed an examination conducted by the Municipal Commission for what was known as the ungraded service. In accordance with the permission granted by the act establishing the Public Service Commission he was transferred from the city to the State service. He contended that his examination for an ungraded position in the city qualified him to be promoted in the State service without examination to the maximum salary which he might have received from the city. The Public Service Commission passed a resolution increasing his salary, but upon learning that such increase was in contravention of the State rules, declined to forward a pay-roll covering the increase for certification. The case was heard before Mr. Justice Seabury, whose decision is reported in the New York Law Journal of January 4, 1909, as follows: In my opinion the resolution of the Public Service Commission, June 26, 1908, was not in accord with the provisions of section 16 of the Civil Service Law and rule XIV of the State Civil Service Rules, and, therefore, the motion is denied. Special Investigations. The State Commission has conducted special investigations (1) into an alleged removal for political purposes in violation of section 25 of the Civil Service Law (chapter 7 of the Consolidated Laws) by the State Comptroller; (2) into allegations that a candidate in a civil service examination in the city of New Rochelle had received in advance information as to questions from one of the Municipal Commissioners; (3) at the request of the common council of the city of Amsterdam into the marking of papers in competitive examinations for chief of police and patrolman of 1 |