Evening star., 1924-02-11

Of the bureau of efficiency. depart
ment heads were required to make al
locations to the bureau of efficiency
schedules, which had been rejected
by the House of Representatives in
substantially the form used. whereas
the act directed the ALLEGATIONS should
be made to section 13 of the act.
"2. Nothing in the act authorized
this use of the bureau of efficiency
classification.
Course Held Violation.
"3. The board did not establish and
define classes of positions within
the several grades under the act Che
refers to the classification acD and
adopted no other device to bring
about uniformity of Interpretation by
several departments. 1t is believed
, that its failure to establish classes
within the grades was in violation
OF the spirit of the act, If not of its
I letter.
"A. The personnel, organization
and procedure of the District Of CO.
lumbia division of the board, under
| bureau of efficiency, and made up
| mainly of employees Of the bureau Of
! efficiency, was entirely inadequate to
the task imposed upon the board by
the act.
"5. The initial ALLEGATIONS made to
the bureau of efficiency schedules by
, the District of Columbia division
abounded in errors.
| IS. Possibly because of the state
! mentS that these ALLEGATIONS were
| tentative and for estimate. purposes
| only. the board never made any ade-
quate review of ALLEGATIONS.
Approval Is Withheld.
-. Because of the obvious errors
| in the ALLEGATIONS examined, the rep
resentative of the Civil Service Com
mission was unable to give even his
pro forma approval Of these tentative
ALLEGATIONS.
! IS. Without further general re-
| view of ALLEGATIONS and without ever
| complying with the requirements of
section of the act. the board on
] November IL, over the protest of MIR.
! Moffett of the Civil Service Commits
| sion, voted to make these tentative
| ALLEGATIONS to the bureau of efficiency
| schedule final without further general
| review.
-. The net result is to adopt the
| bureau of efficiency classification
which was rejected by the House and
never received the Endorsement of the
Senate
Tells Of Field Service.
Summarizing the situation with re-
spect to the classification of the field
service. Mr.. Merriam told Mr.. Lehl-
bach that the record relating to the
I classification of the field service, re-
viewed from the beginning. discloses:
Il. That at the outset there was
| substantial agreement among the
| three members of the board that the
classification act and its admlnistra-
| tion requires the development oil
| compensation schedules of services,
grades and classes, though the mem
bers differed as to the best methoos
! Of carrying on the work.
| "2. That the representative of the
, bureau of efficiency changed MS
! views of the requirements of the law
| when his proposed methods were not
; adopted.
.'3. That the representative of the
, bureau of efficiency became an oppo-
nent of the type of salary scheduled
. for the field service that he had
+! originally considered necessary under
/ the act;
"A. That thereafter the represent
ative of the bureau of efficiency
sought on every possible occasion
! TO substitute a mere salary grading
! scheme based on existing rates of pay
and on the bureau of efficiency Wood
! Smoot bill plan which had been re-
! jected by Congress:
- That the representative of the
! bureau of the budget voted with
| the representative of the Civil Ser
vice Commission in opposing the rep
resentative of the bureau of efficiency;
| Says Statement Misleading.
! "6. That the bureau of the budget.
/ the personnel board or both muddled
! the matter of including estimates for
! the field service in the budget there
| by crippling the work of the field
| division of the board by shortening
! almost without warning the tine
available for it's works:
"7. That somehow. through this
| imuddling, an unexplained situation
arose which resulted, for an uneX-
planned reason. in making the repre-
! sentative of the bureau of the budget
change his vote involving a matter
! of law without legal advice and