Editing 76-09-B7 (section)

=== Transcript ===
My first experience with the multitudinous rules of civil service and the evil they can do came during World War II. I was adjutant of an Air Corps installation under the direct command of Air Corps Intelligence. We had approximately 1300 men and officers and 250 civil employees. One day a Major, doing some significant technical writing, came to me and said he couldn't stand it any longer, his civilian secretary couldn't spell "cat". Dutifully I called in the head of the civilian personnel office and told the Major to tell her his story. She couldn't have been more cooperative. Cheerfully she told the Major she'd draw up the charges for his signature and set the date for a hearing. Suddenly the Major grew wary -- "What do you mean, charges?", he asked. She explained that what would have to take place was similar to our military court martial. The Major would testify to the secretary's incompetence in her presence, etcetera. The Major's reaction was -- "No, not even if we lost the war."

Well, I asked the Civil Service chief what possible alternatives there were. It was easy as pie. She could transfer a very capable girl, not then doing secretarial work, to the Major's office and move the offending secretary to another less demanding spot. The catch was that under civil service rules, the incompetent secretary could only be moved by giving her a promotion. And that's how it was worked out. Forgive us, there was a war on.

A short time ago a visiting bureaucrat here in California created one of those man-bites-dog stories. He publicly called for reform of Civil Service. S. John Byington, Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, referred to Civil Service as, "a rigidly structured -- almost fully tenured -- bureaucracy which answers to no one".

He pointed out that when Civil Service was adopted, it only covered about 10% of government employees. Today, the figure is 85%. Now admittedly, government being what it is, there can be no quarrel with some kind of protection for workers who might be capriciously fired for political reasons. No one wants a return to the spoils system that gave birth to Civil Service. But we are denied, in the present system, the basic tools of management; the ability to hire, to fire and to demote.

That war time story I told? Had we filed the required charges the hearing could have taken from six months to a year. Mr. Byington is urging that career civil service restrictions be removed from a certain level of management positions. Maybe it should be pointed out that a great many of those management positions were not civil service only a decade or so ago. Then an outgoing administration, turning the reins over to an administration of the other party, would freeze it's appointees into permanency by way of Civil Service. Gradually, layers of government that were once intended to reflect the policies and philosophies of elected officials, begin to reflect only their own philosophies. They have taken to determining policy to a greater extent than any of us know when we cast our votes for legislators and executives.

It shouldn't be impossible to continue the protection for the bulk of public employees while, at the same time, determining what layers of management personnel should be appointed by incoming administrations to help carry out the promises made by the candidates. 

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">