Evening star., 1939-12-01

would confer on the proposed de-
partment Of personnel all admins
trative functions Of the District in
respect to personnel of the District.
The second paragraph of Section
402 Is poorly expressed. 1t Is dif1-
cult to determine from it whether
the positions of employees mentioned
after the parenthesis are meant to
be included or to be excluded.
The provisions of Title Nv seem
to be taken from the old United
States Civil Service Act, originally
enacted In 1883, since when there
have been marked development in
the field Of public personnel admin
istration. If new merit provisions
are to be adopted for the District,
they should be drafted by authori-
ties famiidr with these develop
ments, to be in line with the best
accepted modern thought. In many
respects the provisions incorporated
are defective and incomplete, and
are poorly drawn.
Distinctions Unclear.
In the oft-repeated expression
position or jobs" what is the dis
tinction intended between a position
and Job? Does either term. or do
both, include Offices not specifically
exempted? There is no provision
to exempt heads of departments or
other officers, other than those men,
toned in Section 402. Most of these
are included by the contradictory
Section 205, as to all personnel pro-
cesses except classification, though
excluded under Title Nv.
Sundry other defects involving
matters Of bill drafting: The draft
abounds In inconsistencies, contra
dictions, omissions, and confusions,
some of which have been touched
upon. Some others are indicated
here, but the list Is far from ex-
haustive.
AS already indicated, the bill by its
title purports to provide for reor-
ganization of the entire government
Of the District. But, as pointed out,
it does not do so. Many existing
agencies are referred to in the bill
that are not included in the organ
ization provided There are others
that obviously are intended to con-
tinue, that are not mentioned at all.
What things are meant by the
government of the District" de
partment," and other terms loosely
used, in connection with the organi-
zation provisions, are not made
clear
Title 3 defines department" as
any agency supported by District
funds, but the same term obviously
is used in Title 2 IN different and
underlined sense, as different from
the office" provided for in Title 6.
Five Of the departments named in
section 201 (a) would be headed by
omcers named "as hereinafter pro-
vided" Six of the departments
named are left headless by that Sec
ton, though heads of most of them
also are hereinafter provided"
In sections 204 and 210, why are
the Commissioners given express
power to divide the departments of
public works and corporations into
bureaus when no similar powers are
granted with regard to any other
departments?
School Provisions Hazy.
Section 205 exempts officers,
teachers and librarians of the public
schools (but not other employees of
the Board Of Education) from some
personal provisions of the bill thus,
by implication, including them, as
we'll as all other positions under the
Board Of Education in "the District
service" as "jobs and positions in
the government of the District" and
the personnel Of the District" This
is the case in spite of the fact that
the Board Of Education and school
system are outside the scope of the
organization prescribed by sections
POI to 211 and thus presumably out
side the underlined concept Of the
government of the District" There
is no way to tell what is intended.
Librarians of the public library
system are not mentioned. Are
they in or out?
Was Section 205 meant to exclude
officers, teachers and librarians of
the public schools (and nbraries?)
and members of the fire and police
departments from the classification
provisions of the section, only, and
not from the provisions relating to
administration of all other per-
sonnet processes including those Of
keeping personnel records, prepar-
ing examinations, rating employees,
certifying eligibles and recommend
ing transfers, promotions, etc., that
are specified in that section, with
out exemptions?
Police Reference Questioned.
Is the reference in Section 206 to
the Police Department" sutncient
in law to provide the proposed police
department with the existing func-
tions of the metropolitan Police
Force?"
In Sections 2O6, 209 and 211, the
functions assigned to the depart
ments covered are limited by the
expression except as otherwise pro-
vided by this act" which does not
appear in the sections prescribing
the functions of the other depart
ments. To give this expression ef-
feet where it does appear, gives rise
to the necessary implication that
the functions stated for the other
departments are to be all-inclusive
within the scope of the act, regard
less of any other provisions.
Why, in Section 412, are laws and
parts of laws inconsistent with "this
title little ~, the only ones ex-
pressly to be repealed by any pro-
vision of the proposed act?
The provisions of the Kennedy
bill regarding consolidation Of
courts in the District were drawn
after consultation with the judges
affected and include provisions