Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1911-08-31
OF
COUNTY STILL IN
DOUBT ON LAW
Interpretation of Civil Service
Statute Leaves Their
Status Undecided.

Colonel James r. Mullikin. president
of the Civil Service Commission, who
recently submitted to the attorney-gen-
erals department the question as to
the status of the Court House and other
county employees when the change is
made from the large to the small board
of ~freeholders, received today from AS
sistant Attorney-General Gask.ll a
reply which indicates that there is pos
sibly some ground for theb ellef That at
least some of those employees may lose
the protection of the civil service act
when the new government goes into
effect, but which does not clear up the
real point. There was apparently a
misunderstanding Of the query in the
attorney-general's office. The opinion
received says;
''The question has to do with the act
of 1902, giving the small board OF free
holders the power of removal, and the
possibility of conflict therewith by the
civil service act of 1908, which the
writer believes to take away the power
conferred upon the small board by the
act of 1902, and, therefore, raises a
query as to the status of employees Of
the board of f%reeholders under the civil
service law
II do not understand the civil service
act In any sense to be a repeater OF
previous statutes authorizing the abol-
ition of consolidation, with a resultant
lessening of employees. On the con-
trary, section % of the civil service
law provides that holders of abolished
! positions shall be placed upon a pre-
ferred list for a certain length of time
which seems to be a direct contempla-
ton by the civil service law that, des-
| pite its provisions, offices may be abol-
| ished. | understand the professions of
the civil service law to apply merely to
the protection of ofiiceholders during
the continuation of such offices. and
that where the power to abolish such
an office is given such power is not
taken away by the civil service law"
Mr.. Gaskilfs opinion appears to be
based on the authority of the board
to abolish or consolidate Offices which
was not the exact question the em-
nloyees at the Court House, who APP
pealed to Colonel Mullikin, had raised.
Section 6 of the act of 1902, providing
for a change from the large to a small
board of f~reeholders, says:
THE terms of all officers then hold
ers of offices under appointment by the
board of freeholders existing in am
county at the time of the r~eorganiza-
ton of said board in said county shall
expire with the termination of office Of
the members of such previous board as
I "a Forl.ofJ ,otVuffhct pliDo thni such
| officers may have been appointed for s
longer term; and all offices filled by
appointments by such previous boards
shall then become vacant, and thu
board of chosen freeholders constituted
or selected under the provisions OF this
act shall forthwith, upon their organi-
cation, fill the offices hereby vacated
for the term of one year only"
The act excerpts the county collector,
who Is to retain his position until his
successor qualities, and veterans and
the widows of veterans are exempt
from removal except for cause.
There is nothing in the act of 1909
referring to the abolition or eonsolida-
ton of offices, but the act "vacates all
Offices and authorizes the new board
to "fll the offices hereby vacated
1t is claimed that this does not con
template abolition nor consolidation,
but is a deliberate removal of one set
OF employees and the substitution of
another. hence the question of conflict
with the civil service law.
What the county employees want to
know is this:
) If the act Is not in conflict, are the
positions of clerks, engineers, elevator
men, bridge attendants. wardens, stew
ards and other subordinate appointees
of the board included in the offices va
Gated or are the heads of departments
only removed.