PUBLIC SERVICE CONTROL

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2919, 3 November 1916, Page 9

PUBLIC SERVICE CONTROL

APPOINTMENTS AND OTHER MATTERS

POINTS DISCUSSED

i. The ruling given recently by the J Solicitor-General on the subjcct of 'f promotion in the Civil Service has He roused a considerable amount of discussion locally, and its importanco is ' widely recognised. Tho Solicitor-Gen-eral says, in effect, that when appointbeing made the interests of 'ths publio .servant as well as of tho "State should ho considered l , and that •sin officer who is considered to' bo the Imian best qualified for a position other jthan the ono lie occupies should not be jikept back merely on tho grounds that ijiis promotion is not in tho interests of 'tho Department ho is serving.; It is (claimed in some quarters that under i.this ruling. tho efficiency of a Stato ■Department may bo to somo ■extent, to tho interests of a btato em■plpyeo. , In tho course of discussion on this point, the writer had iiis attention drawn tp another aspect <,f the problem of appointments and promotions in the Civil Service. "Inefficiency," ho was told, "is seldom or never a cause of vftsmissal in the public service. An tinofficient officcr may fail to sceure promotion, though seniority' '.vill help •him oven thesro; but he -.fill not get - 'dismissed if' ho breaks no regulations land attends to duty' for the requisite Slumber of hours each day. lii fw't, it lis extremely difficult for a. p-.iblio servant to got dismissed under any conditions. The head of his Department fcanot dispenso with his services, and 'even tho Public Servico Commissioners Mo not appear to have summary powers. I don't think an instance could

[be guoted of a man being 'fired' by She Commissioners (apart from tompor--1 jury hands) merely becauso he was not 'competent."' Tho powers of tho Public Service 'Commissioners with regard to dismissals are stated in tho Public Service . 'Act as follows:— Clause 51: Every officer shall be deemed to ho a three-monthly servant, Sand removable by the Commissioner at 'any time after ' three months' notice. Clause 52: If any officer permanently employed in tho public service .... lis inefficient or incompetent, and l such (inefficiency or incompetency appears to j'jiriso from causes within, his own conjtrol, he shall bo liable to dismissal or rto such other punishment as may be Motermined upon. •: The powers given under Clause CI are itrido enough to meet any case that jmay arise, but inquiries made on the' point showed that in one instance only I'll avo they been used by the Commissioners. . Cases of alleged) inefficiency j»ro dealt with normally under Clause 162, mid it is admitted to bo a fact that inefficiency, in itself, is not regarded [as a ground for dismissal. The officer lis not penalised unless "such inefficiency or incompetency appears to arise ifrom causes within his own control." jln any case, the verdict of tho Departmental head on the question of ef- • 'neijcy is. not final, 6iiice the officer con'oerned may demand, an inquiry, and . -then, if the verdict is against him, may ' pappeal to the Board of Appeal consti- ■ jtuted under the Act. An officer may [bo transferred by the head of his Defpa.rtment provided that his salary and [status are not .changed!;' but his salary land status "cannot be reduced by the (Departmental head. ; i Does this system make for efficiency [in the Departments 'of State ? The [writer put the question to. an old and (experienced public servant, a man who [made good in one of the business Departments of State, and the answer : was interesting. - .."I- believe,the proper thing is.to" mate; eachyDepartment a-self-contained business organisation," said tho officer. '.'I-don't mean that State Departments should not'co-oper-ate with one another. . But each of them should be run- as a business. It should present .a' biisinoss report and balance-sheet at.the end of .the year, and its head should bo held personally responsible for results. Wo have a permanent head to each Departmcnl at the present time. My idea is that it would bo in tho. interests of the State, though possibly not of the State . employee, to give on&'man full control of eacji Department'and hold him personally responsible for results. I can anticipate lots of the arguments against [that suggestion, which is. not a new ' Diie". Wo don't wailt favouritism, wo don't want sweating, wo don't want tone State Department to fight another. But we want, results, and tho host way to get them is to have an individual in a position where the Government, or Commissioner if you proper it. can say to liini:-'Your Department is'not working efficiently. "What's Jtlis matter? Get on to your job or.get fout.'

! "Of course tlio man who is put at ilie head of tho Department under •those conditions has got to have tho Same powers as are possessed by the manager of an ordinary business' concern. He must havo th'o right to dismiss the incompetent employee, and I recognise all the difficulties that arise .when this ordinary business rule is {proposed to bo applied to the State Service. But if the head of a Department can do no nioro than reprimand a subordinate, if lie cannot raise salaries or reduce salaries, and if ho must promote generally, in accordance with Some scheme of seniority, the difficulty ■of securing efficiency obviously is vast!lv increased."