Evening star., 1924-08-03
CLASSIFYING LAW
IGNORED, ,|SCHARGE
Moffet Calls Specifications
Just Issued by Personnel
Board Useless.
SEES TROUBLE AHEAD
Forecasts Dissatisfaction When
Government Employees Start
Checking Schedule.
SEES TROUBLE AHEAD

| Glass specifications just issued by
| the Personnel Classification Board
were branded last night by Guy Mof-
| fett, the Civil Service Commi ission
member of the board as about as use
less as windmill in a grove of tall
cottonwood trees, protected from the
| wind, and zoo yards away from the
pump"
Mr. Moffett, who cast the only vote
against adoption of the specifications
now in the hands Of the Government
Printing Office, explained for the first
| time in comprehensive way, his OBJ
jections to the specifications.
The difference between my views
and the views of the other members
| of the board, so far as the class
specifications are concerned" Mr..
Moffett said in his Office at 1928 F
street, Involve the use for which
they are intended as we'll as their
form and content.
Congress passed the classification
act and gave to the Personnel Classi-
! fcation Board the duty of admins
tering it. Congress established
grades and in outlining the duties
of the board the first thing Congress
said was that the board should pre-
pare and publish specifications of the
classes of positions belonging in the
several grades. The next thing it
said was that under a uniform pro-
cedure prescribed by the Board, the
| heads of departments should allocate
positions to the grades in the act
and the next thing it said was that
the Board should review the alloca-
tions made by the heads Of depart
ments and reach final decisions as to
the proper ALLEGATIONS.
1.-THE authors of the law, as we'll as
every one else who was familiar with
the practice followed in installing a
classification of this kind, knew that
one of the primary uses of class spe-
cifications was to serve. as a basis
and a guide for making ALLEGATIONS.
The law provided that the heads Of
| departments were to make the initial
| ALLEGATIONS to the grades in the act,
and it was clearly the intent of the
law that class specification further
defining the grades should be devel-
oped and published first of all; that
| they should be put to use by the
department heads in making alloca-
tions, and that they should be put
| to use by the board in reviewing
| ALLEGATIONS to promote uniformity Of
action"
Differences Are Explained.
Asked about the difference in
method as he saw it, as advocated
by the two schools of thought in the
board, Mr.. Moffett said, "One Govern
ment agency had been opposing this
legislation, and had been pushing a
substitute method Of classification.
1t didn't believe in this class speci-
fication idea. 1t couldn't get its sub
stitute idea adopted by Congress. but
it did get representation on the
| board.
What did the board do. It look ed
carefully over the law and it found
that Congress had not said in so
mary words when the class specifi-
! cations should be developed. Con-
gress had not stated in specific Ian
guage the particular place in the
boards procedure that the class spe-
ifications should occupy.
"The board recognised that some
thing must be furnished as a guide in
making ALLEGATIONS. Instead of using
the grades in the act. as Congress had
expressly required, and class specifi-
cations for which Congress had pro-
vided, it directed that the depart
ments use as a substitute the Bureau
of Efficiency schedule. which was the
same substitute, Congress had re-
jected.
THE ALLEGATIONS were reviewed by
the board, final decisions made and
the new pay rates put into effect on
the 1st of July.
Now, after all this has been done,
the majority members Of the board
(Continued on Page 2, Column 81