.NTQxMg.NTQxMg

United States of America Vol. 112 <to grcssi n tRecord PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 89 th CONGRES S 1 SECOND 11 SESSION WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1966 F ederal aid to State and local governments will have more than quadrupledrising from $3.1 billion in 1955 to an estimated $14.6 billion in 1967. And in number, these programs have reached the 170 mark. In relative terms, this growth has been fairly modest. Witness the fact that Federal a id as a percentage of State and local revenue during this 13-year period increased by only appi·oximately 5 percent. But this gradual growth highlights indirectly the extraorTHE STATE AND LOCAL MANPO\VER CRISIS For over three and a half years the dinary effort that State and local govSubcommittee on Intergovernmental Re- ernments have made to resolve their fislations of the Committee on Government cal crisis. During this same 13-year peOperations, which I am priviJeged to riod, State and loca l expenditures will chair, has been examining the critical, h r.ve more than d oubled-rising from but largely misunderstood, topic of Fed- $34.5 billion in 1055 to approximately eral-State-local relations. On the basis $84 billion for fiscal 1967. The increase of the subcommittee's diverse legislative in the number and amount of- Federal and research undertakings, I am now aid available to State and local govconvinced that the success of the Great ernments, then, is not the most signifiSociety programs-and indeed, perhaps cant factor in the total State-local fiscal the future of American federalism- picture, but it has thrust greater burdens largely depends on whether or not we on a n already strained intergovernmenrecognize and overcome the crisis in gov- tal system. State and local employment, for exernmental m anpower, especially as it involves State and local governments. In ample, reached the 8 million mark last his May 11 address at Princeton Univer- year. This represented a half million sity, President Johnson took note of this increase over the 19'64 fi gure, a 2.2 milcrisis and called for a joint effort to sur- lion rise from the 1961 fi gme, and a 4.7 million hike from the 1946 employment mount it. But to date, we at the national level level. By way of contrast, the Federal h ave acted largely as though the crisis Government employed 2.6 million workdoes not exist. During the past five ses- ers in 1965, or 60 ,000 more than in sions of Congress we have developed the 1964. This figure-was 200,000 above that most impressive package of Federal of· 1961, but 100,000 less than in 1946 . legislation since the New Deal to attack These comp&.risons dramatically high.: poverty, ignorance, uneven economic de- light the strenuous efforts State and velopment, discrimination, and urban local governments have made in the blight and sprawl. For the most part past two decades to meet the demand we have utilized the categorical grant- for more public services. A breakdown of the 8 million Statein-aid device as the basic weapon in this many-faceted attempt to achieve a social local employees, by jurisdictional cateand economic betterment of all our peo- gories, is equally striking. State govple. But the grant-in-aid involves joint vernments now account for over oneefforts, not simply Federal efforts. It fourth of the State and local total. involves joint action, not just Federal Counties have one-eighth of all such action. It involves the utilization of employees, while municipalities engage governmental manpower at all levels, nearly one-fourth, and school districts a little less than a third. Townships not merely the F ederal. The grant-in-aid today is the most employ 3.5 percent, and other special striking symbol of cooperative federal- districts, 2 perce1,t of the total. From ism. Yet its effective use constitutes one 1961 to 1965, the States, other special of the greatest challenges to creative districts, townships, school districts, and federalism. And in the final analysis, counties--in that order-experienced our heavy reliance on the grant mech- the greatest increase in employment. Changes in · occupational categories anism has made the gover~ental manpower crisis a crisis of contemporary further highlight the impact of public demand for new or improved·State and federalism. governmental services. From April Most of us are unaware of the extent local 1957 to October 1965, the number of fullto which we have turned to the grant- time State and local highway workers in-aid in our efforts to implement the rose by 24 percent. Employment in poEisenhower program, to chart the New lice protection increased by 30 percent, Frontier, and to establish the Great Society. From 1955 through 1967, total and in public health and hospitals by 41 THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PERSONNEL ACT OF 1966 Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to enable greater colla boration in personnel matters between and among the levels of government in order to improve t he administration of Federal grant-in-aid programs and to strengthen the public service of the States and their localities. No. 86 percent. The number of full-time public employees in education soared by 60 percent, and those in public welfare, by 62 percent. Much of this massive growth in State and local employment can be attributed to the population explosion and the demand for expanded services generated by it. The physical and social problems stemming from urbanization and suburbanization, however, have been other key factors in developing greater needs for police, fire, housing, sanitation, welfare, and other public services. In addition, one of the byproducts of our a ffluent society is the rise in popular expectations with respect to governmental services. To put it more bluntly, the American citizem-y is not willing to settle for the level and quality of services that were provided three, or even two, decades ago. THE FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY The c1isis in State and local employment, however, also bears a close relationship to expanded Federal programs and activity. Federal programs in highway construction, education, urban ren ewal, housing, water pollution control, and poverty-to mention only a fewh ave produced new and urgent personnel needs at the . State and local levels. Moreover, other new legislation in the fields of primary and secondary education, the aged, and medical assistance-if inadequately planned for-will only aggravate this manpower crisis. Much of the recent Federal aid legislation sets only general goals and provides the funds necessary to achieve them. The job of implementation falls to the States, the counties, and the cities, which then have to "staff up" to accomplish the objectives of this legislation. Further, some Federal aid programs simply make .money available to the States and municipalities for developing their own plans for use of such funds . In these instances, Federal agencies merely play the role of disbursing agent to underwrite plans and projects Initiated and developed at the State and local levels. Finally, many of these Federal efforts generate counterpart efforts at other levels of gove1nment, with many States and localities enacting legislation in program areas similar to those covered in Federal legislation. In these various ways, congressional action directly or indirectly has contributed to the extraordinary growth of public employment at the State and local levels. So, the States now employ more than 2 million workers with a monthly payroll of $850 million, and �May 25, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - local governments employ nearly 6 million workers with a monthly payroll of $2.5 billion. We have reached the point where, on a day-to-day basis, intergovernmental relations are primarily administrative rela,tions. As the recent subcommittee survey, "The Federal.System as Seen by Federal Aid Officials," pointed out, the authorizing statutes, the funds, and the legislative oversight which affect Federal-State-local relations come from legislative bodies. Policy directives, budgetary review and control, and administrative rules and regulations come from top management policymakers. Advice, assistance, and support, as well as complaints, criticism, and censure, come from officeholders, individual citizens, and interest groups at all levels. These basic forc es in our pluralistic political system shape and sustain the intricate pattern of today's intergovernmental relations. But the "wheelhorses of federalism" are administrative, professional , and t echnical personnel-the Federal middle-managem ent aid offi. cials, their fieldmen, and their functional counterparts at the State and local levels . We must focus our attention, then , on the largely unexplored topic of intergovernmental m anpower if our eff01ts to achieve a creative f ederalism are to succeed. The various growth figur es I have cited indicate that State and local governments are vigorously attempting to provide the m anpower needed to administer the new joint-action programs as well as their own . They suggest that present Federal efforts in this area are inadequate, since they are geared largely to the needs of certain grant progr ams and to certain categories of specialized personnel administering them. They indicate that the Federal Government has a greater responsibility to provide financial, technical, and other forms of assistance to the States and localities to h elp them mount a broad attack on this manpower crisis. And they indicate the critica l need for the legislation I am introducing today. Economy and efficiency compel our concern, for the wisest use of the Federal grant-in-aid dollar depends upon how well we m eet this challenge. Improved public administration makes it necessary, since the success of these various programs depends on our ability and willingness to solve this crit ical problem. Improved intergovernmental cooperation requires it, for conflict between and among administrators is one of the major sources of friction in contemporary Federal-State-local r elations. Finally, manpower needs of State and local governments in the years immediately ahead clearly dictate that the Federal Government must join with the other levels of government in helping to surmount this crisis. Present estimates indicate that total governmental employment will reach the 13 million m ark by 1975. As in the past t wo decades, nearly all of the increase will be in State and local governmental agencies. Continued population growth and the ·migration of people from rural to urban areas, and from cities to sub- 10983 SENATE urbs, will raise the requirements for public health services, education, police and fire protection, sanitation, street and highway maintenance, welfare, and other services. Consequently, State and local government employment is expected to rise by more than 38 percent between now and 1975 , whereas little change is expected in Federal employment-barring, of course, major unemployment, big wars, or other national catastrophes. There already exists a shortage of welltrained and highly qualified administrative, professional, and technical personnel at all levels of government, and forecasts indicate this gap will grow. Many well-trained and well-qualified employees in State and local governments were hired during the depression years and are now approaching retirement age. More than one-third of all municipal executives fall in this category and will retire within the next decade. · In certain specialized categories, howeve1'., the proportion is even higher. Half of the Nation's municipal health directors, for example, will be eligible for retirement within the next 10 years. And a recent survey of New York City revealed that one out of every five budgeted positions of a professional, managerial, .or technical nature-excluding education-was vacant. Many others were filled with people not fully qualified . More or less similar conditions exist in many other of the Nation's cities. By 1980, local governments will have to recruit approximately 300,000 additional administrative employees to achieve their current program obj ectives. When the long-term implications of r ecently enacted programs are considered, this m anpower gap widens. Witness these facts: That, as of 1964, it was estimated that the Nation's counseling personnel would have to be increased during the subsequent 3 years by approximately 90 percent to m eet the new requirements for public schools, public employment offices, and other governm ental a gencies; that there will be an estimated 3,000 vacancies each year for trained, recreation workers, but only about 600 persons complete preparation for this occupation annually; that there will be 200 traffic engineer vacancies occurring annually, but there are only approximately 50 n ew gradu ates in this specialized area; that there will be at least 2 vacancies for every graduate of a university course in city management; and that between 1960 and 1970, accordIng to t h e Manpower Commission's report, the overall demand for professional and technical personnel at the local level will h ave increased by 40 p ercent. These current and projected estimates of governmental manpower sho1tages have implications extendin g far beyond the individual States, communities, and programs that are affected. They indicate that we can take no great comfort in the fact that State and local employment has reached the 8 million mark. They indicate that State and local governments generally-not just a few of these jurisdictions-are having difficulty in attracting and holding professional, managerial, and technical personnel, and that these levels will experience even greater difficulties in the future. They suggest that decisionmakers at all levels of Government are not yet fully aware of the c1itical nature of this manpower gap, and that long-range planning in this area is in its infancy. They further corroborate John W. Gardner's assessment-in his book on "Excellence"that: • • • The demand for hlg-h-talent manpower is firmly rooted In the level of technological complexity which characterizes modern life, and In the complexity of modern social organization. And more important than either of these is the r ate of Innovation and change In both technological a nd social spheres. In a world that Is rocking with change we n eed more than anything else a high capacity for adjustment to changed circumstances, a en.pa.city for innovation. And finally , these estimates document the need for a national policy on intergovernmental personnel. The legislation I introduce today provides such a policy. CHA RTING A COURSE The proposed Intergovernmental Personnel Act does not purport to solve all the manpower problems faced by State and local governments. There is, of course, no panacea for the absolute shortages in the country in certain prof essional fields. The Federal Government in a variety of ways is now assisting in the professional education of many in these fields. But these measures are geared to specific Federal program n eeds and specific types of personnel. They must be supplemented to meet the particular staffing requirements of State and local public agencies. Personnel administration in the S tates and localities must be equipped to deal with the whole range of State and local job needs. Practical m ethods must be devised for r ecruitment, selection, utilization, and development within the realities of current supply and demand. At the same time, a rational plan for meeting projected n eeds must be devised and initiated. This legislation will encourage the developm ent of such m ethods and plans. The ac t deals direct ly with three major hurdles confronting State and local governments in recruiting and holding qualified employees. A fourth-low salary schedules--is not so directly considered, but it is a topic that cannot be ignored. Generally, State and local salary schedules-though better today than they were a few years ago-are still lower t han those at both the Federal Government and private industry. The Municipal Manpower Commission r eport found: S ala ries are a major source of dissatisfaction among m ore than one-third of a ll mu nicipal executives- And thatnine out of ten believe that their salaries a re not as high as comparable posi tlons I carry I in private business, a nd 60 percent believe that Federal salaries would also be higher. Not so long ago, Clarence B. Randall, the distinguished Chairman of the Panel that President Kennedy appointed to 1·eview Federal salary policy, wrote: Inadequate Federa l pay poses two problems that seriously hamper Federal agencies' operation . It's a tossup in the Federal service whether getting the best people Is more difficult than keeping the good ones. • • • �10984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE The average salary of vocational rehabllltaInadequate compensation ls one of the principal reasons for reluctance to enter Fed- tlon counsellors ranges !rom an annual mln!eral service. In fact, it frequently eliminates mum of $6,051 to a maximum of $7,712. Such groups o! potential candidates !or Federal counsellors are responsible for ln!tlating and positions. On others it Imposes severe fi- carrying out rehabilitation processors for nancial sacrifices . First there are those who p ersons who are physically and mentally have not yet reached the top of their career h andicapped. The position usually requires ladders and who are still faced with such a college degree and some experience 1n the real problems as mortgages and their ch!l- field of vocational guidance, psychology, dren's education. • • • Not so generally social work, personnel work, or industrial known a.re the problems associated with rel ations. filling second echelon positions. • • • The average salary of an administrative I do not contend th at government salaries officer In a State's Civil Defense program should be Identical with those in Industry. ra nges from a minimum of $ 6,893 to a maxiOn the contrary, I never want to see the mum of $0 ,819. An employee In this posimoney seekers go Into government. • • • tion provides administrative assistance In But the present disparity between publlc pay the personn el, budgetary, and fi scal areas to and private pay In the leadership positions is Clvll Defense offices ; the position u sually a scandal. It must be corrected or the r equires a college degree and considerable United States will not be able to fulfill the experience In the fi eld of general adminhigh destiny to which It has bee n called In istration, office m anagement, or a combinathis difficult modern world. tion of both . While Mr. Randall was primarily conIn light of these and other findings , I cerned with Federal pay scales-and it am convinced that the President and the should be noted that his panel's recom- Advisory Commission on Intergovernmendations were ins"trumental in enact- mental Relations should join in launchment of the Federal Salary Refo1m Acts ing a national study of State and local of 1962 and 1964-his r emarks have no salary reform. The issue is that critical. less relevance to the States and their lo- Constitutional barriers and the dictates calities. The report of the Municipal of interlevel comity bar direct consideraManpower Commission and the survey tion of this question in the proposed legof Federal aid officials conducted by the islation. But certain of its provisions Intergovernmental Rela tions Subcom- b ea r indirectly on such reform-includmittee clearly indicate that low pay and ing those sections which seek respectively the resulting high personnel turnover to streng then the merit system , upgrade have served to put m any State a nd loca l classification and salary schedules, and governments at a competitive disadvan- improve training programs in these tage. And the lates t figures-July 1, jurisdictions . 1965-for specific State and loca l profes ! I) THE MERIT SYSTEM IN GRANT-IN-AID sional and technica l positions, indicate PROGRAMS that, despite some recent improvements, A basic problem in the intergovernsalary schedules are still a critica l problem. A few case studies will illustrate m ental p er sonnel field concerns the m erit principle, and particularly as it my point: The average a nnual sala ry of a State hea r- applies to Fede ral g rant-in-aid proings r efer ee ranges from $7,750 minimum t o g rams. The proposed Intergove rnmen$9,737 ma ximum. Such referee s are respon- t a l Personnel Act deals directly with sible for preparing, conducting, and deciding this controversial issue. My experie nce quasi-judicial h earings Involving questions ::i s a State legisla tor, as Governor of the of statutory compliance, claims, a nd viola State of M a ine. a nd as a U.S. Senator tions of regulations in Issu es between St ate convinces me of the validity of this prindepartments and other parties; they u sually ciple. I s trongly beli eve that an o pen must have an A.B. and a law degree. The average annual sala ry of a n unemploy- system of public empl oym ent, operating ment claims deputy ranges from a mini m um under public rul es and based , among or $5,237 to a maximum of $6 ,604 . This other factors, on competitive exa minatechnical position Involves non-moneta ry tions , equa l pay for equal work, tenure determinations on unemployment Insura nce contingent on successful perfor mance, claims, Includin g the adj udication of ques- and promotion on evalua ted capacity tionable or contested claims; successful ap- a nd se rvice , provides one of th e s urest pllcants must possess considerable prior ex- foundations for the development and perience or college training. The average salary for public ass istance m ai ntenance of a n efficient career civil case worker supervisors ranges from a mini- service based on excelle nce. Equally immum of $5,8 10 to a maximum of $ 7 ,762 . This portant, It m eet s the democratic objecpost involves professional social work a t the tive of equal opportunity. local level and Immediate supervision a nd deThe b eg innings of State a nd local civil velopment of a group Of case workers; It service, b ased on the merit pri nciple, first usuall y requires training In a grad uate appeared in the 1880's, followin g the enschool of social work . The an n u al pay of sanitarians ranges from a c tment of the Federal legislatio n . a mini mum of $5, 142 to a m aximum of $ 6,592. Thanks to the efforts of the National This professional position In environmen tal Civil S erv ice Leag ue and ot hers, addisanitation work Invol ves control of commu- tional jurisdictions subsequently adopted nicable diseases, promotion of health and the s ystem. But widespread acceptance safety, and the solution of environmental did not come until the 1930's. Beginhealth problems; It usually requires a col- n ing with an amendment to the Social lege degree with speclallzatlon In the physical Secu rity Act in 1939, the Federal Govand biological sciences . ernment contributed to this development The mean salary of a public h ealth nurse by specifying standa rds which would ranges from a mlnlmwn of $4 ,778 to a maxlmwn of $6,1 94. T h is position usually re- bind State and local agencies to such quires graduation from an accredited school requirements If ihey received Federal of nursing, State registration, and a program funds under certain grant programs. In spite of these advances and some reof stud y In publlc health nursing, or appropriate public health nursing experience. cent improvements in a fe w of the larger 3 May 25, 1966 States and in some municipalities, only 28 States and only our larger cities today have a merit system covering employees in most of the executive departments ; 22 States and most of the smaller local jurisdictions only apply the principle selectively. In these 22 States, the merit principle applies in all instances to departments administering those few federally aided programs ,subject to merit requirements, but in only some in.stances to employees of one or more other departments. In these States, the impact of those grants-based on approximately nine statutes and administered by the Departments of Health, Education , and Welfare; Labor; and Defense-has been a primary if not exclusive factor in encouraging the merit principle. Is this record adequate? I think not. I am completely aware that formal merit systems based on detailed examination, promotion, dismissal, and other factors may not prevent political sabotage of the p1inciple. I am also aware that a patronage-based system of personnel administration may produce at any given time a competent civil service with high morale. In general, however, I am convinced that the application and extension of the formal requirements have had a salutary effect. And I am convinced that the arguments President Roosevelt advanced in his message calling for application of the merit principle to the social security program are as valid today as they were in 1939: • • • I recommend th at the States be required, as a condition for the receipt o! Federal funds , to establlsh and maintain a merit system for t he selection of personnel. Such a requirement would represent a protection to the States and cl tlzens thereof r ather than an encroachment by the Federal Government, since It would automatically promote efficiency and eliminate the necessity for minute Federal scrutiny of State operations. F or these reasons, I b elieve m erit standards should be added to more grant-in-aid programs as a condition for elig ibility. Title I of the Intergovernm e ntal P ersonnel Act of 1966 provides for this by autho1izing the President to require , insofar as he d eems p ractica ble, that, as a condition f or receiving Fede r a l funds under any grant program , personnel engaged in its a dminis tration mus t be employed under a me1it syst em m eeting Federal standards. This discretionary provision recognizes the difficulties of extending the merit system to all g r a nt-inaid programs. More particul arly, it recognizes the troubles inherent in att empting to apply it to many of the recently enacted p rograms. At the same time, it encourages action in those grant programs which involve s ubstantial Federal funds and are on going, rath e r than experimental , ventures. The Federa l hig hway prog ram immediately comes to mind as an excelle nt candidate. The proposed legislation also seeks to strengthen the merit system by· providing that the grants authorized for improving S t ate personn el administration under title II be used to strengthen or e xtend the career civil service of the State. To sum up, the Federal Govern- �May 25, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE ment, a majority of the States, most of the larger cities, and nearly all of the experts in the field recognize the relationship between attracting and retaining competent public administrators and the presence of · a viable merit system. These provisions of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act are based on this relationship. (2) OVERALL PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION Aside from the Federal interest in more effective administration of grant programs, there is a clear Federal interest in strengthening the overall personnel management of the States and their localities as partners in the federal system. The absence of an effective system of personnel management contributes to the manpower difficulties now confronting State and local governments. Both the merit principle and modern management techniques require such a system, which calls for imaginative recruitment efforts and sophisticated examination techniques; an intelligent placement system, which fits the man to the job, and a fair and rewarding promotion system; the development and continuous updating of a position classification plan, since the grouping of positions into classes helps to identify questions of pay, lines of promotion, requirements for transfer, and other basic administrative questions; the meaningful development of the time-honored concept of a career service, in which advancement is not limited merely to service in one agency; and planning for the manpower needs of the years ahead. These are but a few of the basic objectives of good personnel management. Concern with the merit system initially prompted the development of examinations and classification plans. And the requirements of modern management and modern government have modified and expanded the original list of personnel administrative functions. Yet, in nearly all of the States and localities that lack a general civil service system, personnel management, in practice, is usually limited to the job classification and salary setting functions. Even in those States possessing a viable merit system, conflicts between the policing efforts of the Civil Service Commission and the management concerns of the Governor-his staff and personnel officer-sometimes have impeded improvements in this area. In general, then, State and local resources for public personnel administration have not kept pace with the growth of the programs they administer. With few exceptions, State and local personnel agencic:; have not been equipped or given additional support for new workloads. The inadequate support of personnel planning and operations has left many personnel agencies short of needed professional personnel, including trained job analysts, personnel psychologists and training staff. For example, only 10 States have as many as 25 professional, administrative, and technical employees in the State civil service or merit system agency to handle their continuing responsibilities, let alone to undertake broadened activities. Yet State and local personnel agencies must cope with new needs and new problems. The Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1966 recognizes these needs and attempts to come to grips with these problems. Title II of the proposed legislation authorizes grants to enable States to strengthen their systems of personnel administration, to provide State personnel services to smaller jurisdictions of local government, and to stimulate projects for the improvement of personnel administration in their lar'ger cities. To qualify, States would need to develop programs of personnel improvement which might cover such topics as: expansion of the coverage of a State merit system; planning for manpower needs; improvement in one or more of the traditional areas of recruitment, examination, position classification plans, and compensation schedules; or possibly research and demonstration projects in the new areas of electronic data processing and motivational research. Title II also seeks to improve the personnel administration of smaller units of local government. Grants are authorized for the development of State plans that might involve broader coverage of local employees under a State merit system, State technical personnel services to such units of government, cooperative research and demonstration projects in this field, or cooperative intergovernmental ·efforts relating to loans, transfers, or promotions of personnel. The title assigns full responsibility to the States for developing their own programs and a coordinating role for their local jurisdictions. There is a need for pioneering efforts in State assistance to nonmetropolitan local governments. At the local level, the smaller jurisdictions are not in a position to establish modern personnel systems that meet the need for broader recruitment for professional personnel or for attracting able young men and women who regard these initial jobs as rungs on the career ladder rather than as blind alleys. Intergovernmental ·c ooperation with the possibility of increased mobility can help meet these prnblems. Self-contained local personnel systems present certain problems of parochialism even in our larger metropolitan governments. They are simply not feasible for the smaller nonmetropolitan governments in terms of either the expense or the availability of technica l services. Hence there is a need for State services to the nonmetropolitan governments. The act provides for a variety of services ranging from merit system coverage to more limited specialized services. Part C of the title authorizes a separate program of Federal assistance for personnel improvement in our larger cities. There is a pressing need for innovative activities in our metropolitan areas. The shortages of professional, administrative, and technical personnel require planned recruitment, selection to assure the Intake of a fair share of young talent, and a long-range staff development pro- 10985 gram covering various occupational fields. Imaginative job analyses can lead to the establishment . of new types of auxiliary jobs to help meet the absolute shortage in many professional and technical fields. They also may open up opportunities for job training and employment for many of the disadvantaged. While public personnel administration is not a social program designed to solve the problem of employn1ent of the disadvantaged, governments, as large employers, can and should show leadership in this· area. The act provides for project grants for metropolitan personnel administration in order to permit a wide range of experimentation and demonstration projects to strengthen personnel administration and meet urgent manpower problems. These grants may be used for personnel planning, for upgrading or establishing personnel agencies, for improving personnel operations in specific functions, or for initiating pilot projects designed to meet current and projected needs. The States are given the initial opportunity to work with the cities in developing project proposals under this section, with special emphasis on the particular problems of our larger metropolitan units of general local government. But if a State fails to submit any projects after one year, individual metropolitan units may then initiate their own projects. This aproach, I feel, recognizes the necessary coordinating role of the States in personel management, while permitting direct Federal-local efforts· in cases of State inaction. Title II, it should be noted, would be administered by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. More specifically, It is anticipated that HEW's Division of State Merit Systems would assume primary responsibility for its administration. This division has h a d more practical experience with State personnel systems than any other unit in the Federal Government, thanks to the merit requirements of many HEW grant programs. Moreover, it already has a tradition of extending technical assistance to State and local governments which have sought out its assistance in upgrading their civil service. The concurrence of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, however, would be required before HEW could approve projects for metropolitan jurisdictions. In addition to the grants authorized for State and local personnel administration under title II, the proposed legislation provides another means for Improved intergovernmental collaboration In this field. Title V of the act authorizes the Civil Service Commission to join on a shared-cost basis with States or units of general local government, or both, in cooperative recruitment or examinations under mutually agreeable regulations. Some authorities believe the Commission already pos.5esses this autho11ty, but the same authorities concede that adequate provision is lacking with respect to financing such joint activity. This title provides a statutory �10986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE basis for the Commission's au thority to enter into such cooperative arran gem ents, and it settles t he financial question by adopting the sh ared-cost formula . In these ways, the proposed legislation squarely confronts many of t h e mo re significant personnel m an agement problems confronting S tate a nd local governm ents t oday. The amounts a uthorized a re m odest, a nd the coopera tive arrangem ents are permissive. But t he fun ds will be seed money well spent, a nd t he devices for cooperation will encourage a concerted a t tack on wh a t we must now concede to be a joint problem. ( 3) TRAINING Inextricably linked to t he m erit system a nd personnel m a n agem ent problems is the n eed for more a nd better tra ining op'por tunities. Ideally , such a progra m should in clude provision fo r orienta tion, in-service and out -ser vice training, tuition r efund, a nd educational leave. It should be r ooted in th e car eer service ethic a nd imply future prospects tha t r eward special effo r t on the part of employees. Our concern h ere is training within the service after a ppoint ment, not educa tion for public service prior to appointmen t . T he la t te r, of course, deserves t h e consideration of a ll of us, a n d hopefully title I of t h e H igh er Education Act of 1965 will resolve some of the problems in t his area. T he man power shortages I have described, a long with t h e mou nting technological, social, a n d econ omic ch an ges affect ing t h e a ctivities of S ta te and local governmen ts, u nderscore t h e emphasis tha t a ll of us should give to establish in g and st ren gthening tra ining progra ms at these levels of governm en t. Many legisla tors , administrators, a nd other public officials n ow recognize the need for such programs. Yet only California, New York, Mich igan, a nd a few other States have t raining programs for top m anagement. Others provide some trainin g fo r other key ·p ersonnel. But a ccording to a r ecen t sur vey conducted by t he International City Man agers Association, most of the States have no t raining or development progra ms for administrative, t echnical, a nd professional personnel. And no city h as anything approaching a model training program. Most existing t raining is still designed to improve the skills of routi ne officeworkers, policem en , and firemen. Moreover, training prog rams stimulated by Federal grants-in-aid are largely geared to specific functional specialties. Such inservice training and education al leave are valuable, of course, but they do not meet the growing requirements of S tate a nd local govern ments for more and better administrative, professiona l, and technical talen t . The repor t of t he Municipal Ma npower Commission a nd the survey of th e Federal aid officials by the subcommittee fully document the need for a Federal response to this critical personnel management deficiency, The Intergover nmental P ersonnel Act attacks this problem of training in four ways. First, title III authorizes Federal departments and agencies conducting programs for their professional, admin- lstrative, and tech nical employees to open t h em up to S ta te and local personnel in counterpart agencies. The S tates or localities would initiate t h e r equest to participate, and f ees for a ttendance could be waived for employees in sh ort -supply categories. S econ d, Federal departments or a gen cies a dministering grant -in-a id programs are a ut horized to establish training programs fo r counte rpart State and local personnel in the professional, a dministrative, and tech nical fields. Such a gencies a re authorized to m ake grants to S tates a nd localities from F ederal funds appropria ted for administrative costs of the progra m to cover the expenses of such training. In a ddition, such F ederal agencies are permi tted t o m ake grants from such funds for educa tional lea ve or comparable arra ngements fo r sa laries a nd training expenses of m erit system employees in short-supply a reas, to permit them to a ttend university or other training courses r elated to their progra m. Third, title IV establish es a grant.;!_!1a id progra m f or inservice training of S tate and local employees. This provision is geared to promoting high levels of per form ance of such personnel, pa rticula rly in th e professional, a dministra tive, and technical a reas, and t h e development of employee potential by providing F ederal fun ds for S tate and local governments t o initiate or strength en t raining programs for t h eir own public servants. Such assista nce would be available only in personnel a reas wh ere compa rable a id is not already provided under other Federa l statutes. The pattern of Federal assista nce h ere roughly pa rallels that of title II, except that the Civil S ervice Commission would be the a dministering a gency. T h e S ta tes would be given t he p1im ary r esponsibility for developing pla ns for the training of their employees and the initia l responsibility for joinin g with local governm ents in the developmen t of t raining progra ms for local personnel. Such pla ns would include provisions for a continuing assessment of training needs, for equitable stan dards r elating to the selection and assignment of per sonnel for t raining, a nd fo r efficient utilization of personnel receiving train ing-including contin ued service for a reasonable period of time. Educa tional leave or other a.rra ngements for salary a nd tra ining payments for periods in excess of a month in a ny one ca lenda r year would be permitted only for career personnel employed under a merit system. In addition, a Sta te plan would include guidelines covering t h e selection of universities or other nongovernmental facilities, when such institutions a re to be used for t raining purposes. The title also autho1izes units of general local government in a State, either jointly or separately, to submit a training plan if , within a year from the effective date of the act, the State fails to submit a proposal which includes sub.stantial provisions for training local government employees. Such proj ect applications would have to m eet the same general requirements applying t o State plans and t he administrative regulations 5 May 25, 1966 establish ed by t h e Civil Service Commission. I n addition , the concurrence of the Secretary of Housing a nd Urban Developm ent would also be r equired for project approval, to assure full considera tion of the special training problems of our Na tion's cities . It is impor tant t o underst and what this title does not provide. It does not , for example, distinguish between m etropolitan a nd n onmetro:i,iolitan units of local government, since the problems relating to inser vice t raining differ mat e1ially fr om those falling under the tra dition al h eading of personnel administration. It d oes n ot compete with title VIII of the Housing Act of 1964 which, a mong other things, a uthorizes m a tching g1·ants t o the States for developing and expanding pr ogra ms to provide special training in skills needed for economic a nd efficient community development to technical and profess ional people who a re employed or are being trained for employm ent in a governmental body which h as resp onsibility for such development. That Housing Act title is prim arily concer ned wit h a compar atively n arrow range of voca tional specialties and, it should be n oted, h as yet to be fund ed . Title IV also is not intended to duplica te or compete ,vith title I of t he High er Educa tion Act of 1965. Tha t Act authorizes the Commission er of Education to m ake gra nts t o strengthen community service programs of colleges a nd univer sities. It is geared to institutions of high er education in t h e Stat es, and to the development of an educational program design ed t o assist in the solution of community problems in ru ral, ur ban , or suburban areas, with particular emph asis on urban and suburban problems. To date, only a few project applications submitted un der t itle I of the High er Educa tion Act of 1965 relate t o t h e broad inservice trainin g n eeds of the various cat egories of State and local personnel. In sh ort, t itle IV is residual. Personn el receiving training under oth er F ederal statutes are specifically excluded from its coverage. It does not repla ce or restrict existing F ederal tra ining programs for a wide va riety of professional personnel in grant-aided fields. But more positively, it m eets the t rainin g n eeds of the Stat es and their localities, as these jurisdictions see them. It em ph asizes training n eeds as t h ey a re seen from the a dministra tive firin g line. It is designed to r epla ce the piecemeal method t ha t has to date cha racterized the Federal approa ch. It is geared to a ttacking a problem tha t a dministrator::; a t a ll levels, as well as experts in public a dministration , h ave described as criti cal. . Finally, it full y recognizes t h a t, as President J oh nson sta ted a t P rinceton : The public serva;:i.t toda y moves along p a ths of a d ven t ure wh ere h e Is h elp less wit hout the tools of a d vanced learnin g. The proposed I n tergovernmenta l Pers on nel Act provides still another m eans for improving t he in-service t r aining capability of State and local governments. Title VI gives prior Congr essional consent to interstate compacts or other agreements, not in conflict with �May 25, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 10987 Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- grants In any program fin a nced in whole or sent that the text of the bill, together in part by Federa l funds, the personnel engaged in the ad.ministration of the program with a section-by-section analysis, be be employed under a State or local merit inse1ted in the RECORD immediately fol- system meeting Federal standards. He is lowing my remarks, and that the bill authorized to approve for this purpose standlie on the table for 10 days so that other ards for a merit system of personnel administration. The Federal Government, howSenators may join in cosponsoring it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill ever, shall exercise no authority over the selection, tenure, or compensation of ind ividwill be received and appropriately re- uals ferred; ,and, without objection, the bill system.employed in accordance with such will be printed in the REconD , and will lie TITLE II-GRANT6 FOR s X. ATE AND LOCAL at the desk, as requested by the Senator PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION from Maine. Declaration of Purpose The bill <S. 3408) to strengthen interSEC. 201. The purpose of this title is to governmental cooperation and the ad- provide Federal grants-in-aid to enable each ministration of grant-in-!!id programs, State to strengthen its system of p erson n el to extend State merit systems to addi- ad ministr ation, to provide State personnel CONCLUSION tional programs financed by Feder.al ser vices in nonmetropolita n units of loca l Improved merit systems, improved funds, to provide grants for improvement government, a nd to stimulate projects for State and local personnel management, of state and local personnel administra- the improvement of personnel administration and improved in-service training pro- tion, to authorize Federal assistance in in metropolita n areas. Appropria tion Authorization grams--these are the three basic con- training State and local employees, to SEC. 202. There is hereby authorized to be cerns of the Intergovernmental Personnel provide grants to Sta,te and local governAct of 1966. Put more simply, greater ments for training of their employees, to appropriated for the fisc a l year ending June career competence is the paramount authorize interstate compacts for per- 30, 1967, and each of the four succeeding years, the following sums: (a) $10 ,theme of this legislation. Through a sonnel and training activities, and for fiscal 000,000 for payments to States which h ave judicious combination of grant funds, other purposes; introduced by Mr. Mus- plans for State personnel administration aptechnical assistance, and new devices for KIE, was received, read twice by its title, proved under section 204; (b) $8,000,000 for intergovernmental cooperation in the referred to the Committee on Govern- payments to States which h ave plans -for personnel area, the proposed legislation ment Operations, and ordered to be provision of State personnel services to nonmetropolitan units of general loca l governprovides a variety of ways to strengthen printed in the RECORD, as follows: ments approved under section 206; and (c) the professional standing and prestige of s. 3408 $15,000,000 for payments to States or metropersonnel at the State and local levels. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of politan units of general loca l governments The Advisory Commission on Intergov- Representatives of the United States of which have projects for metropolitan p erAmerica in Congress assembled, That this Act ernmental Relations went on record at its sonnel administration approved under secmay be cited as the "Intergovernmental PerApril meeting as favoring the objectives tion 208. of this legislation. And at Princeton, son n el Act of 1966." Part A . Grants for State personnel Declaration of Policy President Johnson called for a program administration of assistance to "State and local governSEC. 2. The Congress hereby finds a nd SEC. 203. (a) From the sums a ppropriated ments seeking to develop more effective declares : under section 202(a) the Secretary of Heal th , That effective State and loca l governmen- Education, and Welfare (hereinafter referred career services for their employees." tal institutions are essential in the mainte- to as the Secretary) sh all make annually Prof. Charles Adrian has pointed out n a nce and development of the Feder al sys to States wh ich h ave plans for State that conflict in our cooperative federal tem in a n increasingly complex and grants personnel ad.ministration approved by him system does not stem today from the interdependent society. under section 204. relations between the levels of governTh at, since numerous governmental activ (b). The sum availabl e a nnually for grants ment as such, but that "friction results ities administered by the Sta te and loca l under this section s h a ll be a llotted among governments are related to national purpose whenever the administrative personnel the States under a formula approved by the at a particular level for a particular and are fin a nced in part by F edera l funds, a Secretary which shall give weight to the national interest exists in a high calib er of number of employees under the merit sys function are not fully professionalized." public service in State a nd local governments. tem and the financial ability of the State The findings in our survey, "The Federal Th at intergovernmental cooperation in as indicated by its r ela tive per capita inSystem as Seen by Federal Aid Officials," State personnel administration on a merit come, except th at each State will receive clearly illustrate the administrative diffi- basis has contributed to greater efficiency not less than $25,000. culties produced by such friction. in various federally a ided programs ·and Requirem ents of State Plans We n eed greater expertise at these should b e extended generally to such proSEC . 204. A S tate plan for State personnel grams. levels, then, because its absence is now administration to be approved by the SecThat F ederal financial and technical assis- retary mustone of the primary sources of tension and tance to State and local governments for conflict in intergovernmental relations. (a) des ignate the appropriate S tate perstrengthening their personnel administra - sonnel agency for the administration of the We need it because t he success of the tion will Improve the effectiveness of the pla n; Great Society programs depends on re- public service and is in the n ational interest. (b) provide for a merit system conform ducing these antagonisms. We need it That the continuing training and developto the Federal sta ndards established because we live in an age of administra- ment of career employees, particularly in ing under this Act for a Merit System of Per tive federalism ; in an age of more, not professi onal, administrative , and technical sonnel Administration; · less, use of grants-in-aid; in an age of fields, are critical to the success of joint Fed(c) set forth a program for the improve more, not less, contact among the ad- eral-State-loca l programs and that the Fed- ment and s trengthening of State personnel eral Government should encourage and assist ministrative officials at all levels of administration which m ay include, among government. We need it if the States in such training for State and local em- other features : ployees. ( 1) expansion of the coverage of S tate and their localities are to be vigorous TITLE I-EX PAN S ION OF MERIT SYSTEM I N employees under the State m er it system; members in the great partnership that FED ERALLY AID ED PROGRAMS (2) assessment of m anpower need s in was established in 1789. We need it if we developing programs and methods for m eet Declara tion of Purpose are--in the President's words-to "dethem; SEc. 101. The purpose of this title is to Ing(3) velop a creative federalism to best use improvement in one or more a reas of achieve greater efficiency in the administra- personnel administration such as r ecruit the wonderful diversity of our institu- tion of programs financed In whole or in ment, examinations, classificat ion, and comtions and peoples to solve the problems, part by Federal funds extending the a pplicafulfill the dreams of the American tion of personnel standards on a merit b asis pensation pla.ns: (4) research and demonstration projects people." in the a dministration of such programs. for the use of valid personnel methods, inThis is precisely what the IntergovPersonnel Sta ndards cluding electronic data processing techernmental Personnel Act of 1966 is a-11 SEC. 102. The President is authorized to niques; about. And that is precisely why I am require, insofar as he deems practicable, that (5) development of a uxiliary or support as a condition for the receipts of Federal types of positions to perform appropriate introducing this measure today. any law of the United States, for cooperative efforts and mutual assistance relating to the administration of personnel and training programs for State and local employees. The New England Governors' Conference already has launched a survey of the possibilities of regional collaboration with respect to personnel training programs. Building on the precedent set in the Housing Act of 1961-which gave prior congressional approval to interstate compacts establishing metropolitan agencies in multistate urban areas--this provision hopefully will encourage expanded efforts to develop training programs on a regional basis. ' �10988 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - functions currently performed in occupations in which there are now shortages; and (6) interdepartmental and intergovernmental cooperation in personnel administration; (d) provide for financial participation by the State in the costs of merit system administration at least equal in amount to the Federal grants, and further provide that the operation of the plan wlll not result in a reduction In State expenditures for such administration or the substitution of Federal for State funds previously available for merit system administration; and (e) provide that the State agency will m ake such reports in such form and containing such Information as the Secretary m ay from time to time require, and shall keep and make available such records as he m ay r equire for the verification of such reports. Part B. Grants for State personnel services to nonmetropolitan units of local government SEC. 205(a). From the sums appropriated under section 202(b) the Secretary shall m a ke annually gra nts to States which have plans a pproved by him under section 206 for services to nonmetropolitan units of gener a l local government. (b) The sum available annually for grants under this section shall be allotted under a formUln approved by the Secretary which shall give weight to (1) the number of employees and number of local governments served, (2) the scope of State services provided, and ( 3) the financial ablll ty of the State as indicated by i ts r elative per capita income, except that each State sh all receive not less than $25,000. Requirements of Sta te plan SEC. 206. A plan for State services on personnel administration to nonmetropolltan units of general local government to· be approved by the Secretary must( a) designate the State agency, which may be the agency des ignated under section 204, for the administration of the plan; (b) set forth a program for Improvement and strengthening of personnel administration of such local governments by one or more of the following means : ( 1) the c:>veragc of lc,c1l employees under the State mertt system; (2) technical services In one or m ore areas or personnel admJnlstratlon s uch as recruitm e nt. exnmlnations, classification and compensation pla ns; (3 J cooperative resear ch and demon stration projects for the u se of valid personnel m ethods ; or (4) intergovernmental cooperntlve arra n gem ents between the Sta te and local governments or among local governments, Including facili tating Inter jur isdictional loans, transfers or promotions or personnel; (c) provide for financial participation by State or such local governments, or both, In the costs of providing services a t least equa l In runount to the F ed er al grants, a nd provid e further thn t the opera tlon of the pla n will not result in a r eduction In State and local expenditures or a eubstitutlon of Federal for State or loca l funds for personnel admin is tration; and (d) provide that the State agency will m a ke such reports in such form and containing su ch information as t he Secretary may from time to time r equire and shall keep and m a ke available such records as he may require for the verification of such reports, Part C. Grants for personnel administration in m etropolitan areas Soc. 207(a). From the sums appropriated under section 202 ( c ) the Secretary shall m a ke an nually payments to States or m&tropolitan units of general loca l government which have projects approved by him under section 206. SENATE (b) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, shall establlsh such standards for the distribution of grants under this section among the States a nd among such metropolitan units as will most effectively carry out the purposes of this Act, and shall estabJlsh regulations for financial participation by States or such units, or b oth, in an amount equal to at least one-third of the costs of each project, including the reasonable value of facliities a nd personnel services made avaliable by the State or such loca l government for the administration of the project. Project requirements SEC. 208, Projects to be approved for grants unde r section 207 shall conform to ,criteria established in regUlations which shall be Issu ed by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Grants wiU be used, in accordance with such regulations, for projects for strengthening personnel administration on a merit basis in order to meet increasingly critical problems of administration In metropolitan units of general loca l government. Projects may Include, but are not limited to-( 1) assessment of m anpower needs In developing programs and methods for meeting them; (2) Improvement of classification and compensatioh plans, and recruitment and examinations, particularly for profeeslonal, administrative and technical personnel In shortage ca tegorles; (3) application of psychological and other research in personnel administration directed toward improvement of selection and development of members of disadvantaged groups whose capacities are not being fully used; (4) plans for establishing auxiliary or support types of positions to perform a ppropriate functions currently performed In occupations In which there are now shortages; (5)research and demonstration relating to t echniques, such as electr onic d a ta processing, for Improving the speed and quality of personnel operations; and ( 6) cooperative activities in recruitment and examining by governmental Jurisdictions operating In metropolitan areaa. Exceptlon--Submittal of Local Projects SEC. 209. After the expiration of one year from the date or enactment of this Act, if a State h as n ot submitted any proje{:ts under section 208 of this title which have received approval, the metropolitan units of general local government may submit proj ects for approval , a nd such projects may be approved If they comply with the reqUlrements or section 208. Administration SEC. 210. The provisions of this title shall be adminis tered by the Secr etary, who Is authorized to furnish such technica l assistance to States or units or general local governments and to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this title , Suspension of Grants SEC. 2 11. Whenever the Secretary, after giving reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the State or local agency administering a plan approval under this title, finds ( 1) that s uch plan has been so changed that it no longer complies with the provisions of thls title, or (2) that 1n the administration of the plan there Is a failure to comply substantially with any s uch provision, the Secr etary shall notify such agency o! h!s findings and no further payments will be made to the State or other recipient under this title (or in his discretion further pay- 1 May 25, 1966 ments wlll be limited to projects pnder, or portions of, the plan not affected by such failure), until he ls satisfied that there will no longer be a ny failure to comply. TITLE III-AUTHORIZATION FOR TRAINING D eclaration of Purpose SEC. 301. The plll'pose of this title is to foster the training of State and local employees by permitting their attendance at Federal courses, and by authortzing Federal departments or agencies administering grantin-aid progrruns to conduct training and to permit Federal grants to States and localities to be used for training and educational leave. Participation In Federal Programs SEC. 302. Any Federal department or agency conductlng training programs for professiona l, administrative, or technical employees In the Federa l service is a uthorized to include In such programs , under conditions imposed by the head of such agency, State and local officers and employees in sim_Uar or related functions, on the request of the State or local government. Fees for attendance at any such training program may be received by the Federal agency conducting It and expended In the same manner as fees r eceived for attendance of Federal employees, or the payment of fees may be waived in occupational categories d etermined by the head of the Federa l department or agency to be in short supply. Training In Grant-Aided Programs SEC. 303 , Any Federal department or agency administering a program of gr ants or financia l assistance to States and localities is au thorized (a) to conduct training for State and local officers and employees in professional, administrative, and technical fields r elated to such programs: (b) to make grants to State and localities from Federal funds appropriated for State or local administrative expenses of the program, unc!er the usual terms and conditions of such grants, for the conduct of training for S tate and local officers and employees In such progra m: and (c) to make grants to State and loca lities from Federal funds appropriated for State or local administra tive expenses of the progr am , under the usual terms a nd conditions of s u ch grants, for education a l leave or comparable arrangements for sala ries a nd training expenses or employees In professiona l, administrative, and technica l fields who h ave been employed under a merit system of personn el administration in State or local agencies ad ministering the federally aided program, In order for . them to attend university or other training courses related to the program. S aving Provis ion SEC. 304. The a uthorizations in this title are not a limita tion on exis ting authority u nder la w for Federal d epartments or agencies to conduct training or to make grants for training or edu cational leave. TITLE IV-GRANTS FOR TRAINING OF STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES Declaration of Purpose SEC. 401. The purpose of this title Is to promote higher levels of performance of employees In the public service, particularly in professional, administrative, and techn ica l fields , and the development of employee potentia l by providing Federal assistance to State and local gov er nm en ts to ins ti tu t c and carry out programs for the training of their employees ln fields where such Federal assistance is not already provided under grant-in s.Id or other statutes. Appropriation Authorization SEC. 402. There Is h ereby authorized to be appropriated the following sums for payments to States and units of general local government which h a ve plans approved un der this title for the training of their employees: tl0,000,000 for fiscal year 1967, $25,- �May 25, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - 000,000 for fiscal year 1968, and $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1969, 1970, and 1971. Grants Authorized SEC. 403(a). From the sums appropriated under section 402 the Civil Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). shall make annually grants to States or units of general local government which have plans approved by It under sections 404 and 405, respectively. , (b) The sums available annually !or grants under this section shall be allotted among the States, and between States a nd units of general local government In a State, under formulas to be approved by the Commission which shall gi ve weight to the number of State and local employees, the number of local governments p a rticipating, the scope of training to be provided , and the financial ab lllty of th e State as indicated by Its relative per capita Income , excep.t that each State will receive not Jess than $25,000 for fiscal year 1967 and $50,000 annually therea fter. Requirements of State plans SEC. 404. A State plan for training of officers and employees to be approved mus t ( 1) designate the State agency for the admini stration of the plan; ( 2) set forth a program for the training of omcers and employees of States and units of general loca l government which will meet the objectives of this title and provide for training personnel of agencies not r ece iving assis tance under other Federal program s ; (3) provide for continuing assessment of trai ning needs ; (4) set for th equitable standards for the selection and assignment of personnel for training; (5) provide fo r the efficient utillzation of p ersonnel who h ave been given such training, a nd for their continued service for a reasonable p eriod of time; (6) provide that educational leave or other arra n gements for p aymP.nt of salary and training expenses for period s In excess or one month in a ny one year sh a ll be allowed only for career personnel empl oyed in accordance with a merit system; (7) set forth, when training ls to be given through univers ity or other nongovernmental facilities t h e policies with respect to the selection of such facilities and the types of agreements to be entered Into for th e training ; and (8) provide for financl ,t l p:nticlpation by the States. the uni ts of genera l loca l government thereof, or from private sources. in a n amount equal to one-fourth of the cost or the training, In cluding the reasonable value of facilities and personal se rvices made available for admini stration of the training, provided that the operation of the plan wlll not r esu lt in a reduction in State and local expenditures or substitution of Federal for State or loca l funds !or training . Exception-Submitta l of Loca l Plans SEC. 405. I! after one year from the effective date of this Act, a State has not sub mitted and had approved a plan under sec tion 404, Including provision for training o! local governmental emr-'oyees Involving expenditures at Ins t equ iv alent to the expendi tures for training of State government employees, one or more units of general loca l government In the State Jointly or severally may submit a plan for such training during the following fiscal year, designating a single local agency for adm ini stration and otherwise conforming to the requirements of section 404 under regulations which sha ll be prescrl bed by the Commission with the concurrence or the Secretary o! Housing and Urban Development. Administration SEC. 406. The provisions of this title shall be admlnlstered by the Commission, which SENATE 10989 Is authorized to furnish such technical assistance to States or units of general iocal government a nd to prescribe such regulations as m ay be necessary to carry out the purposes of this title. Suspension of Grants SEC. 407. Whenever the Commlssion, after giving reasona ble notice and opportunity for hearing to the State or other agency administering any plan app~oved under this title, finds (a) that a State or other plan has been so changed that It no longer compiles with the provis ions of th.ls title, or (b) that in the administration of the plan there ls a !allure to comply s ubstantially with any such provision', the Commission shall notify such agency of !ts findings and no further payments will be made to the State or other recipient under this title (or In !ts discretion further payments wlll be llmlted to projects under, or portions of, the plan not affected by such !allure) until It ls satisfied that there will no longer be any failure to comply. Metropolltan Unit of General Local Government SEC. 703. "Metropolltan un!t(s) of general local government" mea ns any city or comp a ra ble general-purpose political subdivision of a State with a population of 100,000 or more, as determined by the most recent Federal census, or any county or parish with such population which Includes a city or comparable subdivision with a population of 50,000 or more, as determined by such census. Non-metropolltan Unit qf General Loca l Government SEC. 704. "Non-metropolltan unlt(s) of general local government" means any city, county, p al\ish, town, village or other generalpurpose polltlca l subdivision of a State, except such units of general local government as are included In section 703 of this Act. TITLE V-COOPERATION JN PERSONNEL RECRUITMENT AND EXAMINATION SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE INTER- SEC. 501. The Commission Is authorized to Join, on a shared-cost basis, with State or units of general local government or both, in cooperative recruitment or examinations under such regulations as may be Jointly agreed upon . SEC. 502. The Commission Is authorized, upon written request from a State, a unit of general loca l government thereof, or both, and under such regulations as may be Jointly agreed upon , to certify to such agencies, from appropriate registers, a llst of ellglble personnel who h av e successfully completed such examinations a nd satisfied such requirements as the Commiss ion has prescribed, upon the pay ment by the unit of government making the request, of the salaries and such other costs for performing such service. SEC. 503. The terms of reimbursement for the service authorized under section 502 shall be d etermined by the Commission. All mon eys received by the Commission In payment for furnishing such serv ice a uthorized s hall be deposited to the credit of the a ppropriation of the Commission. There being no objection, the bill and the section-by-section analysis was ordered to be printed in the RECORD , as follows: GOVERNMENTAL PERSONNEL ACT OF Section 1. Short title. Section 2. Declaration of Polley. 1966 Under our federal system and In an Increasingly complex society, effective State and local governments are Indispensable. Their efficiency a nd administrative competence Is of nationa l concern, p articularly since many programs they administer are federally financed . The appllcatlon of merit systems of p ersonnel administration In certain federally aided progra ms h as contributed to their efficiency, and such systems should b e extended to other grant programs. Federa l fin a ncia l a nd technical assistance should a lso be made avallable to State and local governments to strengthen their overall personnel administration. The Federal Government should encourage and assist in the continuing training and development of State and local employees, particularly in professional, administrative and technical fields , in order to Improve the capab!llty of the public service. The Act recognizes that the success o'f the Joint-action programs enacted by the Congress and the State legislatures Is vitally affected by the caliber of State a nd loca l personnel a dministering them. It recognizes TITLE VI-AUTHORITY FOR INTERSTATE COMPACTS that a ll levels of government Involved · In SEC. 601. To promote higher personnel these Joint ventures-Including the Federal standa rds and mobillty of quallfied person- Government-have not only a right but a n el, particularly profession a l , administrative, duty to take steps to see that such progra ms and tech nical personnel In s hortage cate- are efficiently a dministered and that the -gorlcs, the consent of the Congress Is hereby fund s provided a re u sed effectively to accom give n to any two or more States to enter Into plish the purposes prescribed by Jaw . The compacts or other agreements, not In conflict Act, then, Is designed to assist State and with any law of the United States, for co- loca l governments in strengthening their opernLlve efforts and mutual assistance (In- partners hip role In the federal system. cluding the establishment of such agencies, States and Iocall ties are facing cri tlca l Joint or otherwise, as they deem desirable) for the admin is tration of personnel and problems In the recruitment, selection. and training programs for officers and employees retention of well-qualified personnel for new and expanded programs. This shortage Is of State a nd local governments. acute In the upper levels, both In the public TITLE VII-DEFINITIONS and pri vate sectors of the economy. The When used tn this Act, State and loca l flnanclal and technical resources for publlc personnel a dministration State SEC. 701. The term "State" means any of and staff development, however, h ave not the several States of the United States, the kept pace with the growth of the programs District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, any terri- they administer. Yet, qualified personnel tory or possession of the United States, or and sound personnel policies are absolutely any agency or lnstrumentallty of a State, but essential to effective governmental operadoes not Include the governments of the po- tions . The Act proposes to bulld on the Interlltical subdivisions of any State. governmental personnel experience in certain Merit System grant-In-aid programs. It would make SEC. 702. "Merit system" means a planned matching grants and technical services availState or local operation to develop and main- able to State and local governments for the tain an efficient career service, under publlc improvement of their overall personnel adrules, which among other provisions Include ministration . It would encourage cooperaappointment through competitive examina- tive efforts In recruitment and training on tion, nondiscrimination in race, polltlcs or an lnterle vel and Interstate basis. It would rellglon, equal pay ror equal work, tenure make available Federal training facilities contingent on successful performance, and and also provide grants and technical assistpromotion on evaluated capacity and service. ance for training. Thus, It balances the need �10990 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE t o f ost er dynamic p ersonnel systems f o r r ecrui t m e nt of Sta te ana local staffs of high ca p a.c lty with an effort to assis t In their continuous development. TITL E I - EXT E N S ION OF THE M ERIT SYS T EM I N F E DERALLY AIDED PROGRAM S This title a uthorizes the Preside n t, In orde r to achie v e grea ter efficiency in a dministr ation of p rogr a m s fina nce<!. with F ed e ral funds , t o extend to additional programs the r equire m ent that Sta te and local personne l in s uch progra ms be employed unde r a S tate or local merit system meeting Fede r a l standa rds. No F ed er a l authority would be exercised over the selection, tenure of office , or compe n sation of a ny individua l employed in a ccord.a nce with such systems. This p n.ttern o f administration Is n ow applicable In the va rious public assis t a n ce, child h ealth a nd weifare, public h ealth, employment service a nd une mployment Ins urance, ci vil defense , and aging programs . The merit system r equirement was originally enacted for program s under the Social S ecurl ty Boa rd. This action was t a ke n b y Congress in 1939 a f ter some three yea rs ' e xpe rie n ce with out s uch a requireme n t d e m o n str ated the n eed for it to assure pro gra m effectiven ess a nd economy. It h as b een e xpanded ove r t h e years, most r ecently b y the 89t h Con gress i n t h e m edical assis t ance tit le of t h e Socia l Security Ac t and in t h e Olde r Ame ricans Act of 1965 .' The Division of State Merit S ystems of HEW has served f o r more than a quarter of a century as the Fedet"al Interdepartmental unit concerned wi t h State and local p ers onnel a dm1nlstra tion. Under commo n F eder a l standard s f or t he a pplica tion of t h e merit syst em in various gran t programs administer ed b y t h e D ep a r t m e nts of HEW, L a b or and D efense, It h as pr ovided coordinated F ederal technical a nd advisory ser vices on S tate and l ocal personnel m a n agement. Under t h is t itle, the Preside nt, at his dis cretion, would d e t erntlne if and whe n to e x tend t h e m erit system r equire m ent to oth e r programs. H e would b e free to take i n to accou nt su ch f actors as h e deemed r elevant. S u ch c riter ia m ight i nclude the proport1on of F eder al funds i n volved or the exp erimen tal n atu re of t he program. T I TLE II- GRANTS FOR STATE AND LOCAL PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION Section 201 expr esses t h e threef old obj ect! ve of t h Is ti tie to provide Feder a l gra n ts to enable each Sta te t o 1) s tren gth e n Its system of personnel admlrulsr atlon, 2) p rov ide State p e r so nnel services to nonmetr opolitan local governments, a n d 3) stimulate projects for t h e improvement of personnel administration In metropolitan units of general local gover nmen t (as defined In Sectio·n 703 of this Act). Section 202 a u thorizes $8 mi111on , $10 million, a nd $15 million, r espectivel y, to car ry out the purpoees of this title. Grants f or State personnel administration Section 203 p r ovid es that grants will be made to States which have approved p la n s for State personnel administration under a n allotment formula which gives weight to the number of emp1oyees under the State merit system and the financial a bility of the State. The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Is assigned the responsibility of administering this program in recognition of the f act that HEW's D iv ision of S tate Merit Systems has the gree.test experience In the area of State personnel admlnlstratlon. Section 204 lists the major elements a State plan must have to be approved. These 1 Cf. U .S.C. Title 42, Sec. 302(a) (5), Sec. 503(a) (1), Sec. 703(a) (3) , Sec. 712(a) (3), Sec. 723(a)(2), Sec. 1202(a)(5), Sec. 1352 (a) (5) , Sec. 2674(a) (5); and U.S.C. Title 50, Sec. 2236(a)(4). include d esign a tion of a State agency, conformity with Federal standards, provision for Sta te ~ a tchl ng funds and a d escription of ~he program f or Improving and strengt henm g p ersonnel administration. The progr a m m ay Include expa nsion of the s cope of the m erit sys t em; pla n s t o meet m a npower needs In new a nd exp a nding S tate program s; improveme nt of ser vices in recruitment e xamin a tions, classifica t ion a nd p a y pla n s; d e velo pm ent of a u x iliary types of pos itions to supple m e nt professiona l staff In short supply; r esear c h a nd d emons tration projects; a nd In terdepa r t m e nta l and int ergovernmental cooperation m ~rsonnel a dminlstrntlon Grants fo r State per sonnel services to non m etropoli tan local governments Section 205 p rovides tha t the Secr etary of H ealth, Educatio n , and Welfa re s h a ll m a ke gran ts a nnually to Sta tes which h a ve a p proved plans f or S ta te personnel services to nonmetropolltan local governments under a n a llo tmen t f ormula. w hich gives weight to the number o f local governments and employees to be ser ved, t h e scop e of the services to be provided, a nd t h e financial a bility of t he Stat e. · Sec tion 206 lis t s the major elem en ts a State pla n f o r s erv ices to nonmetrop olitan local governme n ts must h a ve to b e a pproved, including S t a te or local matching fu n d s. It provides tha t these services to local governments m a y include: covera ge of local e mployees under the State merit sys tem;. teclmlcal services f rom the State In such areas a s recruitment, examinations classlficntlon a nd compe n sation plan s; cooperative r esearch a nd d e mons tra~lo n pro jects ; a nd coop erative a rrang eme nts (Including inter c h a n ge of p ersonnel) amon g units o f local go.J1e1nments or b e t ween State and local governmen ts. The S tates and loca lities could s tre n gth e n p ersonnel oper a tions for nonmetropolltan units of go vernment in a variety of ways. The plan may not only va ry from S tate t o State, but may p rovide f o r differe n tiated ser vices w ithin a Stat e d ep e nding on t he s ize a nd needs of the local governrne n ts. The services m ay va ry from complete coverage o f local e m p loyees under the State m erit system to liml t ed ser vices t o m eet ,;p ecliic local n eeds. T h e . latter migh t Include recrmtme nt of specialized p ers onnel or d emon s tra tion pro ject s .fo r Improved classifica tion plans . Gran t s f or personnel admini st ra t ion in metropolit a n areas Section 207 provides t h at t h e Secr etary of the D ep a r tment of Health, Education, a nd Welfare sh a ll m ake p aymen ts annu ally to S t ates ( a nd a lternatively u n d er . Section 209 t o l ocal governmen ts in m etr opolitan areas ) w hich h ave approved pro jects for personnel administra tio n , with State or local financia l participation to the ext ent o f one-t hird o f t h e costs of the p ro jects. Sta nda rds governi ng the d istribu t ion of s u ch gran ts shall be made by the Secretary o f HEW w l th t h e concu rrence of the Secret ary of Housi ng a nd Urban Development. Section 208 provides that app roved projects may incl ude man power p lanni ng and u t ilization; Improvement of classification and compensation p lans and of recruitment and exantlnlng; research for the Improvement o f the selec tion and the developmen t of tllsadvantaged persons whose capacities are not being used; developing .aux lllary positions in shortage occu pations; improvement of management techniques, s u ch as electronic data processing, in p ersonnel operations; and d eveloping cooperative activities in such areas as recruiting and examining by government Jurisdictions in a metropolitan are&. Metropolitan governments are facing new and acute problems with lintlted resources May 25, 1966 in pe rsonnel a dminis tration . This t it le Is designed to provide for innovative projects of various kinds to meet special n eeds. This m a y Involve t he application of tested personnel m ethods or the d emonstrat ion o f new t echniques . Local governments vary g reatly in both their organization f or p er sonn el administration a nd t he level of i ts e!Iec tlven ess. Ma n y factors exp lain this , including the administrative a nd p o litical traditions of the juris diction, the stat utory b ase a nd the _fina n cia l support for n ersonnel a dministra tion, a nd public a ttftudes. Since the s cope and quality of personnel oper a tions va ry, the Act p ermits projects to be d esigned realis tically to m eet specific needs for improvement. Sect ion 209 provides tha t if a S tate has not s ubmitted a ny projects (unde r section 208) r eceiving a pproval w ithin one yea r a fter the en actme nt of this l egisla tion, the metropolita n unit of gen e ral local go'iernment m a y submit projects for a ppr oval. Section 210 provides tha t this title will be administer ed b y the Secretary of H ealth, Educa tio n , a nd Welfa re. The criteria for m e tropolita n p roj ects, a s was n oted previously, would be established with t he concurrence of t he Secretary o f Housing a nd Urba n D evelopm ent. The inten t o f t his s ection Is t o u t ilize the e xperie n ce in In tergovernmen tal pers onnel r ela tion s of the Depa rtme nt of Heal t h, Education, a nd Welfa re's Division of Sta te Merit Sys tems In various gra nt-In-a id . progra ms. At the s a me time, the responslb!llt y of the Department of Housing a nd Urba n Developm e n t with resp ect to urba n per sonnel adminis tration would b e recognized b y i ts required concurren ce i n the d evelopment o f criter ia for m etropolitan personnel pro jects. The F ed er a l appr oach would b e coordina ted, t a king i n t o account t h e Federal interest In the various grant program s a nd t h e d iffer ential n eed s for S tate a nd for local nonmetropollta n a nd m etr o politan a dmin istra tion. T echnical s er vices, a s well as fin ancia l ass ist a nce, would b e a va ilable t o str engthen S tate a nd local personnel adm in istration. Section 211 provides f or w it h holding of f unds after notice a nd h earing for noncomplia n ce with a p proved plans or p roject,;;. TIT L E I I I -AUTHORIZATION FOR TRAINING This tit le permits, u pon requ est of the r espective S tate a nd local governmen ts, the attenda nce of State and local em ployees ·at F ed era l t raining courses; it a u t h orizes F eder a l agen cies administering grant programs to con duct training for S tate and local profess ional, administrative, and technical p er ~ sonnel; and it provides that Fed er al f u nds granted to State and local governments for t h e a d ministration of Joint programs may b e u sed to cond uct training or for education a l leave. Cooperative relationships in the field o f t r a ining h ave, in recent years , d eveloped to s u c h a n ex tent that t h ey are becoming common p ractice. Even so, most of the m are limited to p a r ticu lar types of training o f fered by one Federal department or agency t o e m pl oyees In counterpart State and local agencies. That the F .B.I. Academy provides cer tain training f or law enforcement officers for both State and local governments Is well known. Not so well known is the fact t h at many other Federal d epartments and agen cies al so offer train i ng to S tate and local officers and employees. Among these are the D epartment of Agricul ture, the Food a.nd Dru g Administration, the Forest Service, the Internal Revenue Service, the Public Health Service, and many more. This title builds on these precedents and extends authority to all Federal departments and agencies to make their training programs ava!lable to ·counterpart State and local officers and employees. It d oes not limit existing training authorizations. �May 25, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE TITLE IV-GRANTS FOR TRAINING OF STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES Section 401 states the purpose of t his title: to promote higher levels of performance In the publ!c service and to develop employee potential through Fed eral assistance to Sta t e and local governmen ts for Initiating and ca rrying out training programs in fields where s u ch Federal assistance Is not already provided under exis ting grantin-aid or other statutes. Secti on 402 authorizes $10 million for fiscal 1967, $25 million for 1968, and $50 million each for 1969, 1970, and 1971 to carry out the stated purpose of this title. Secti on 403 provides that the Civil Service Commission shall make grants to S tates (and, alternatively under Section 405, t o local governments) which h ave approved plans for t raining under an a llotment formula which gives weight to the n umb er of State and/ or local employees and governments to be ser ved, t he scope of the services to be provided, and the financia l ab!l!ty of the S tate. Section 404 lists the major elem ents a State plan for training must h ave to be approved under Section 403. These Include: designating the State agency to a dminister the training plan; settin g forth t he program of tralnlng, with educa tional leave for periods of over one month limited to ca reer personnel; providing for continuing assessment of training needs; es tabllsh!ng s tandards for the s election of personnel for trainIng and their subsequ ent u t ilization; a nd Issuing policies a nd standards for the sel ection of univer sity or ot h er nongovernmental f ac!llties a n d for the t ypes of agreements to be entered Into for such tra ining; providing f or fina ncia l p a rticipation f rom State, loca l or priva t e sources to the extent of onefourth of the total training costs. Section 405 provides t hat If within a year after t he enactment of this legislation a State has not received approval for projects which provide at least a s much training for l ocal employees as for State employees, then the local govern m en ts may submit pJa ns for such t r a in ing . Section 406 au t h orizes the U .S . Civil Service CommlS&ion t o administer the provisions of this title and to furnish t ech n ical assistance to State or local governments. The Commission Is assigned t h is responslbll!ty because of the exten sive experience It has acquired · throu gh Its own career development training program f or F ederal employees . The Commission Is a lso authorized to prescribe t h e regulations necessar y to ca rry out t he p urposes of this title. Local pla ns for tra ln1ng m u st be consistent with criteria est a blished In regulations Issu ed with the concurrence of the Secretar y of Hou sing a nd Ur ban Development. Section 407 provides for the withholding of f und s after notice and hearing f or n oncomplia n ce with a p p r oved plans. ently fea red that It might be Improperly used. Thus, It was further assumed that each proposed compact would be carefully examined and debated as a part of the consent procedure. This procedure often Is no longer fully a dhered to. The Congress has on numerous occasions given prior consent, and In 1948 when the Southern Regional Education Compact was under consideration, the point was m a de that no formal consent was r equired for two or more States to perform cooperatively an a ctivity that each h as the power to perform Individua lly. TITLE VII-DEFINITION This title provides definitions of the terms "Sta te," "m erit system," "m etropolitan unit of general local government," a nd "nonmetr opolitan unit of general loca l governm ent." TITLE V---<:O OPERATION IN PERSONNEL R ECRUITMENT AND EXAMINATION This title a u thorizes the U.S. Civil Ser vice Commission to cooperate with State or l ocal governments on a shared-cost basis In cooperative recruitment or examinations. TITLE VI- AUTHORITY FOR PACTS INTERSTATE COM - T his t itle a uthorizes any two or more Sta t es to enter Into compacts br other agreements for cooperative effort s and mutua l assistance for the adin1nistrat1on of person nel a n d t raining prograins for officers and employees of State and local governmen ts. The purpooe Is to promote higher personnel standards and moblllty of qualified personnel , particularly professional, administrative, and techn1cal personnel In shortage categories. When the compact clause of the Constitution was framed and adopted, It was appilr- ,o 10991 �