The Washington times., 1925-01-06
PERSONNEL BOARD SCORED
FOR "SUPER- BONER0
CONTINUED from First Page.l

CONTINUED from First Pagel
questions numbered (2b 90 and a.
In the negative.
The Federal employees publica-
ton, with scathing sarcasm, win
say, further:
1T was the first time the board
had ventured q request in adj
vance of its action for an opinion
regarding the legality Of possible
courses. The board got what It
has so long needed; an elementary
lesson In the rules governing the
Interpretation Of statutes; a simple
statement of the principles OF per-
sonnet administration that under
lay the legal requirement for pub
licity of efficiency ratings. The
National Federation OF Federal En-.
ployes and organizations of public
spirited citizens who are desirous
Of having sound system of per.
sonnet administration In the Fed
eral service can only regreAt that
the board did not receive similar
Statutory primary lessons earlier In
It's career. It's history might then
have been less marked by disre-
gard, evasion and pervcrsion Of the
act the board was created to ad-
minister.
"Guide Posts Ignored.
''Note the ingenuity and the dis
ifgeftiousness Of the four ques-
ti0ns put to the Attorney General
by the board. Each was carefully
marked with guide post to lead
the Attorney General along the
narrow and tortuous path he was
expected to follow in administer.
Ing the coup de Graves to the last
outstanding provision Of the classi.
fication act. designed to bring TO
the light Of day facts regarding
personnel administration in the Fed.
eral service.
'Who, other than the dominant
and domineering representative OF
the Bureau Of Efficiency, could
have devised the ingenious ques.
ton four. Read 1t with awe and
reverence, characteristic out
giving bearing the not too subtle
scent of the United States Bureau
Of Efficiency. 14) Assuming an
affirmative answer to the third
question (guide-post for the At
torney GeneraD would the re-
quirements Of the act be met II
deleted and Identifying numbers
substituted in the, lists made avail.
able for Inspection so that each
employee, although able by number
to identify his own rating in the
list and to compare it with the
percentage ratings Of other en-
ployes?'
Purpose Of DeIetiOn.
sentIla nhA~inh -IflSn 81 vn . r..v "a -
leted names was to create q sem.
blance of compliance with the law
that, The current ratings for each
grade or class thereof shall be
open to inspection by representa-.
tives Of the board and bye en-
ployes OF the department under
conditions to be determined by the
board after consultation with the
heads
1.-THE plight of the forces con.
trolling the Personnel Board arises
from the fact that the ATTORNEY
General has his own guide-posts.
He replies with dignity and re.
straint, as BELTS his high office,
but ne knocks the four questions
into a cooked hat. Question one,
according to the Graves guide.
posts. was to be answered in the
negative, thereby creating an ex.
cuse for the other three, particu.
lArly the ingenious fourth. But
listen to what the Attorney Gen.
eral said:
"QuestiOn numbered III is an
swered i'm the affirmative, thereby
answering questions numbered Or
and 81 In the negative, as the AZ. |
firmative Of a. is the negative Of
te) and 81. The second sentence
OF the second paragraph Of said
Section specifically provides that
"the current ratings for each
omen to inspection by the represen-
tatives of the board and BY the EN-.
DIoyes OF the department under
conditions to be determined by the
board after consultation with the
department heads" There seems
to bo no ambiguity nor uncertainty