Service reform will have to operate on-the Federal employes themselves. And by the selection of the said Federal employes, as president of the organization known as the National Federation of Federal Employes, I am in a position to express the views of more employes in the civil establishment of the United States Government than any other individual in the United States. Therefore, I can say without fear of contradiction, as to civil-service reform or administrative reform, that the employes are very much interested in the subject. The reason for our organization's existence is substantially the same that created your organization, namely, the necessity for administrative reform. In addition, it was necessary for us to organize to meet unfair attacks upon us as a class of workers which, as individuals, we could not meet.

Until August 24th, 1912, we were not allowed to organize for the purpose of bettering our condition. On that date there was inserted in one of the bills before Congress a clause which repealed what is known as the gag law. By the terms of this clause civil-service employes are permitted to organize and to petition Congress, individually or collectively. Out of that permission has grown this organization, which has branches in forty-one States, the Isthmus of Panama and

Hawaii.

Fundamental Changes Required

We are interested in civil-service reform and have been from the start. We take a very advanced stand on the subject. We believe that any real reform requires fundamental changes in our whole civil-service structure. The personnel of the Civil Service Commission or the replacement of heads of departments or bureaus is interesting, but not vitally important. We want to make over the whole structure. When it is realized that the United States Government is the biggest business in the world and yet has no employment policy, not even a semblance of one, that it has organized bureaus for the purpose of instructing private employers as to standards and wages, and at the same time has not maintained those standards and wages in its own service, the striking inconsistency of the whole scheme is apparent.

Hitherto, those who have been interested in reform of the civil service have, in our judgment, overlooked one very important feature. They have tried to a considerable extent to reform at long range, instead of considering the employes as essential partners in the enterprise and possibly possessing much inside information of a very useful character.

I was very much interested this morning in what Mr. Griffenhagen said as to the reclassification of the civil service

in Canada, and reclassification is what will have to be done in the United States if any substantial good is to be accomplished. We hold no brief either for or against any established agency of the Federal Government, but we do feel that we have had enough patchwork and want to start at the beginning and erect in the machinery of the Federal Government what is in effect an employment department. Centralize the authority, give the responsibility and the authority to cover not only the entrance test but other conditions, such as the character of the employment, promotion, demotion, dismissal, and, in fact, everything which may affect the employe during his official life.

What have we now? The Civil Service Commissionwhich I do not think can be held responsible for everything that it has been blamed for, if you examine the authority under which it operates. In the first place, a bipartisan Commission is wrong. We object seriously to that. We stand for a Commission upon which the United States Government, the general public and the employes shall have equal representation.

But, to get back to the authority of the Civil Service Commission, what can it do? It can hold tests as a preliminary to appointment in the Federal service. Then a list of eligibles is sent to the head of the department that desires to make the appointment. That is about all. The departments and independent establishments may spend their time in circumventing the Civil Service Commission, which can talk about the condition, but can do little else.

Commission Only an Examining Agency

It must be realized that we have no centralized authority, and that, to a large extent, the Civil Service Commission is nothing but an examination agency. When it comes to putting into effect what is known to be right the Commissioners are hampered not only by lack of authority, but also by either open or covert opposition on the part of those who should be the first to support a real merit system. A real merit system, however, we do not possess. There is no use deceiving ourselves by applying the term merit system to a scheme which merely imposes an entrance test, appoints young men and women and leaves them to their own devices to hew out a career for themselves. That is not a merit system.

As to the security of tenure. Much can be said in favor of it, but some things can be said against it. In many instances it acts as an opiate on the appointee, and an opiate is certainly not good for the efficiency of the organization. Furthermore, the so-called merit system does not do away

with political influence, because after the appointee enters upon duty in one of the various departments there is nothing to prevent the head of that department or bureau from being constantly bombarded by influence, Congressional, fraternal, religious or otherwise, to do something for that appointee. There is at present no way of stopping that, especially if the head of the office rather likes to have that kind of pressure exerted, as unfortunately many of them do. Until, as has been outlined by Mr. Keating and Mr. Wales, something beyond the mere entrance test is provided that will take that young man or woman when they are in the raw state and train them we will have a tremendous amount of this economic waste.

Forty-One Percent Turnover Too High

Mr. Wales pointed to 41 per cent turnover in the Federal service, as against 220 per cent in private employ. That 41 per cent was much too high and was due to the fact that the United States Government has always made a practice of letting its experienced workers go for the lack of ability to pay them enough to meet outside competition. The result is not good for efficiency, and it does not enhance the confidence of the workers in their future. Until training is afforded for those who come into the service and until the Government maintains at its own expense a training school for executives, so that any intelligent young man or woman may have the opportunity to attend this school as part of his or her official duty, and there be trained for higher positions, we will not have real civil-service reform.

As to the reclassification of salaries by the Congressional Commission the National Federation of Federal Employes wanted a reclassification and has always wanted it and worked for it. It secured the passage by the American Federation of Labor Convention at St. Paul last June of a resolution providing for a Federal Personnel Commission to be appointed by the President, with the public, the administration, or management, and the employes represented on it. We discovered at the last session of Congress, however, that Senators and Representatives, while somewhat favorable to a reclassification, were not disposed to extending the authority of the Executive. As a result we are to have reclassification

by a Congressional Commission, and that Commission is now at work. One of the first things the Reclassification Commission has done is likely to prove a big asset-that is the making of an honest attempt to secure the confidence of the people they are going to classify. Almost every attempt to classify or to standardize public service, and there have been many such attempts in the United States, has wholly or par

tially failed because it was too mechanical and ignored the human element.

The Reclassification Commission has laid its cards on the table, as Mr. Keating has said, and has given to the employes the opportunity to sit in at the game. Consequently, the employes have the utmost confidence in the Commission. This is an asset which if it can be retained by the Commission will determine its success. If lost, the job is doomed to failure. We feel we have the right to insist before we are operated upon that we see the surgeon's license to practise.

THE CHAIRMAN:

The next meeting is the business meeting of the National Civil Service Reform League. We had better take about five minutes' recess.

Minutes of Business Session

Mr. Dana presided.

Committee on Revision of the Constitution: Mr. Spencer reported proposals for amendments to the constitution and by-laws of the League. It was voted to refer the proposals to the Council for discussion, with the suggestion that a special meeting of the League be called for the specific purpose of considering amendments.

Publication of Proceedings: A motion to resume publication of the proceedings at annual meetings was laid on the table, in view of the discretionary authority already possessed by the executive officers.

Special Committee on Railroads: Mr. Foulke presented an interesting preliminary report outlining the employment methods of several railroads and the views of certain railroad officials with reference to the classification of the employes. It was voted to thank the special committee for its work and request it to continue the development of an employment program for the roads in cooperation with the executive committee of the League.

Reclassification of the Federal Service: The President of the League and Chairman of the Council were authorized to appoint a Special Committee to cooperate with the Congressional Salary Classification Committee.

Committee on Report and Program: Mr. Spencer presented the following report of the Council for the year just concluded:

Report of the Council

It will be recalled that at its annual meeting at New Haven in December, 1916, the League contemplated an extension of its activities of great significance. The program which was then outlined included more intensive work at Washington and in the various states throughout the country, and especially a campaign of education which would bring home to the people of the United States the importance of developing the efficiency of our government and proving that it is possible for a democracy to compete with an autocracy in that regard. The entrance of the United States into the war within four months thereafter necessarily involved a suspension of this specific program. Council felt itself called upon to assist in the adjustment of a number of new problems growing in part out of the inefficiency of the Civil Service Commission, and in part out of conditions instantly created and most unusual. The country was so concerned with the war that the Council deemed it inadvisable to hold the annual meeting of the League in 1917 in other than a formal manner, and the annual meeting now held is, therefore, the first in two years in which the public will be invited to take an active interest.

THE LEAGUE AND WAR WORK

The administration of the civil service from the time of our entrance into the war was immediately thrown into considerable confusion. The entire civil service of the government was manipulated, and, so far as the object was concerned, rightly so, to the end of producing substantial immediate results. This is true not only in regard to positions of lesser importance, but to the Departments as well, as is evidenced by the passage of the Overman bill, which empowered the President to allocate duties in such a way as to render the service more responsive. The League had thrust upon its attention a number of new and immediate problems, especially at Washington. The Civil Service Commission of the United States failed to perform adequately even the routine duties with which it was charged. It insisted upon traditional procedure at a time when nearly every other agency, public and private, was devising emergency means of avoiding formalities which, however needful in peace, must be disregarded under stress of war. sufficient funds for its work, and yet hesitated to make its needs known to Congress. It was hampering the executive departments by failing to furnish them promptly and satisfactorily with the thousands of new employes that were needed for a wide variety of clerical and technical positions. It was causing the naturally impatient executives charged

The Commission was without