The Waterbury Democrat., 1940-05-02

courtesy ok tormer lhne mspecs tors.
 Given Highest Rating
 Furthermore, as o former lane Inspector, cannot allow your statement to pass without com- inent. For your information, MT. Warehouse, have received a character and service rating of 85 per cent, which incidentally is on file at the offlce of the personnel department. Does this rating in- dicate lack of courtesy on my part in the performance of my duties2 My answer to you is in the mega. tive since you should know that no higher rating can be had.
 Tn addition, you have stated in your letter that in making recom- mendations to Commissioner Con- nor you have strongly "empha- sized the matter of courtesy as one of the most important quali- flcations of @ lane inspector" If that is so, wonder why my name was not given any meritoriouS consideration, especially in view of my high rating and also n view of this ensuing letter, dated Feb ruary 28, 1889, addressed to me in person, and signed by Commis- sioner Connor, which reads as follows.
 "This Is to advise you that, due to the lack of funds and the cons seuuent immediate necessity Of re- duction of the staff, your services will not be required after Febru- ary 28, 1889. No charges having been filed against you, you are recommended to the personnel di- rector for retention in the state service, and, In accordance with Section 448d of the Merit System Act, you are entitled to be placed on & reemployment list for the same classification from which you are being dropped.
 with appreciation of your ser- vices 10 this department, am,
 Yours very truly.
 MICHAEL A. CONNOR. Commlssioner of Motor Vehicles"
 This letter is self-explanatory and clearly discloses the fact that I enjoyed 6 fine reputation with the department.
 Entitled to Place
 In analysing tho contents Of this letter, you will observe that was entitled to be placed on the re- employment list for the same classification from which was dropped duo to lack Of funds. A peri,sal of section 44ed Of the Merit System Act diScloseS in substantial terms that "when any employe in the state classified service who has been performing his duties in c satisfactory manner shall be dismissed from his office or position because or lack of work, economy, ,nsuffi' cicnt appropriation !, the di. rector shali cause the name Of such employe to be placed on the e.employmcnt list for the ap.. propriate class for which he shall have qualified for future re-em- ployment when vacancies ln the class shall occur
 Inspection lanes have never been abolished by the General Assem- ply, but the majority Of the Re- publican party were opposed 10 this measure. not because It was undesirable legislation. but be. cause 1t would "freeSe Into office" all lane inspectors then in service and who happened to be Demo- crats. The Republican leaders did not dare abolish 1t in view of the strong public sentiment In favor of it's continuance, but they accomplished the very same pur" pose by failing to make any ap- propriation for the immediate fu- ture, Their strategy was to re- move all incumbents from office by virtue of lack Of funds, and at some later date, attempt to i'll In all vacancies with Republican appointments. Such has been the case, MT. Morehouse. Under the present Merit System Act, all former lane inspectors should have been re-employed in the same classification whenever the lanes were re-opened. In the absence of unsatisfactory work, the Per- sonncl Director had no discretion whatsoever, and 1t was his solemn duty under the Merit System Act to reemploy these same inspectors immediately. But, MT. MorenouSe' ttja action was not followed. New inspectors were appointed to the exclusion of their predecessors who had had 3s years of experl- ence as lane inspectors and who were entitled to their former posi- tions as A matter of law. This action of the Personnel Directo! and the Republican administra' ton was contrary to both the let ter and spirit of the Merit sys-
 MT. Morehouse, if these for mer lane inspectors, who came under the Merit System Act and who divorced themselves from politics while in such employ- ment. were dismissed so sum- marily under a Merit System Act' why wasn't the same action taken by the Republican administration in dismissing others employed un- der similar circumstances in other departments of the state? There can be only one answer to this query. MT. Morehouse, and that IS that such action would be clearly illegal under the statutes Of Con- necticut. -