PIBLIC SERVICE.

Hokitika Guardian, 16 February 1922, Page 4

PIBLIC SERVICE.

REPORT OF COAIMISSIONER. WELLINGTON, Feb. 13. Tlie annual report of the Public Service .Commissioner deals with promotion in tlie service and questions relating thereto. A section in the Act of 1912 is quoted as follows: “Except in tlie ease of promotion, annual increment shall accrue to any salary until tlie officer in receipt of such salary lias received the same for a period of twelve months. The right to receive such increment in any year shall depend up.on the good and diligent conduct of the officer to whose salary the increment it attached, and if in the opinion of the pertppnent head tlie. officer is not entitled thereto, he may issue an ordei to deprive such officer of such increment, which shall in that case not be paid, provided that tlie Commissioiiei shall, on appeal of such officer, confine or disallow such order.”

“It is felt,” states the report, “that many controlling officers regard tlie payment of annual increments in salary as a matter of course. During the past year thirty-one orders in three Departments were issued by permanent heads in terms of the above section, and the Commissioners feel constrained to state after inspection of certain Departments, that some permanent heads do not make use. of tlie provision in the manner intended by the legislature. The provision is an excellent one, and one which, if carefully and properly exercised by controlling officers, would make for greater efficiency in the service. Tlie Commissioners strongly recommend that the present statutory provision lie amended so as to make it obligatory on tlie permanent bead to be satisfied that an officer is rendering satisfactory service, and that the increment is merited in the proper sense of tlie term. Tn one particular case an officer in a responsible position in one of the principal Departments was actually adversely reported on by the permanent bead, wlie, notwithstanding tin’s tact, took no steps to exercise his authority in pursuance of this section. That an amendment in tlie direction indicated is one of urgency would seem apparent. Tlie Commissioner also should be empowered to arrest the increment of an officer where such a course was, in bis opinion, necessary.’ The Commissioner deals with the question of probations, and points out that six months is not long enough to enable the suitability and capability of the new appointee, particularly in a junior officer, to bo fully iested, and it lias, therefore, been decided, that the period of probation shall in future be at least two years, and its extension to four years for cadets is under review. The effect of a short period of probation lias been that some candidates (not a large .number) have been retained whose bent it lias later become apparent lies in directions other

than in the public Service. Men should, it is claimed, be passed out of the, service as soon as it is found that thev are unsuitable i'oi it, as would

be done in the ease of a business firm. It is suggested Unit the extended period of probation would enable the position to be more carefully reviewed by controlling officers and permanent heads. “The matter is one of serious moment,” states tlie report. “Controlling officers are inclined to regard the. termination of tlte services of an officer for incompetence after a period of years in the Public Service as a case of hard-

ship. After personal association with an officer for a number of years, it is very difficult for a controlling officer to raise the question of the unsuitability of the officer for whom lie may have the highest personal regard. Nothing creates greater discontent in the mind of a promising young officer than to observe that the inefficiency and incompetency of a senior and more highly paid officer is being carefully overlooked.”

“The provisions of the Public Service Act require that both fitness and seniority are to be taken into account in determining whether an officer is worthy of promotion. Promotion by merit, however, and by merit alone, is regarded by tlie Commissioners as tlie only satisfactory means of ensuring that men of ability receive the benefit to which they are entitled. The general practice has been to subordinate seniority to fitness, but in actual practice it lias been found that the human characteristic of sympathy to an old officer has in some eases led to the

question being raised as to whether the

senior officer would carry out the duties not whether lie was the best entitled to the position by merit. Efficiency can never Ik 1 maintained in the service unless merit is regarded as the determining factor in all cases. While an officer on first appointment is required to undergo a probationary period, no such condition exists in respect of an oflicer promoted to a higher position. Although an officer may appear to he worthy in every respect of promotion, it sometimes happens that when called upon to perform duties of a more onerous character, he does not exhibit those qualities necessary to meet requirements. The only method at present of dealing with such an officer is to treat him as incompetent or inefficient, and proceed on the elaborate lines of an enquiry in terms of the Public Service Act. In a private concern, if an employee does not give satisfaction, there is no hesitancy in disrating him. In the service, howevei, there is a natural reluctance, partly from long association on the part of controlling officers, to bring matters of this kind under notice, with the result in some cases that inefficient officers

are retained in responsible positions. We are of opinion that a great improvement would result il all officers on probation were required to give proof by practical means, showing that their promotion was fully merited, and not that they should revert to their former status.”