The report of President Kennedy's Task Force on Employee Management Relations in the Federal Service states, in part "The principle of entrance into the career service on the basis of open competition, selection on merit and fitness, and advancement on the same basis, together with the full range of principles and practices that make up the Civil Service system govern the essential character of each individual's employment . . .”

1

II. The improvement and support of public personnel merit systems and the extension of the merit principle to all public employment is desirable and is in the best interest of a free society.

The Michigan Chapter supports the recommendation of the Committee for Economic Development in its report of July, 1966, "Modernizing Local Government," which states, "Personnel practices based on merit and professional competence should replace the personal or partisan 'spoils' systems found in most counties and many other local units." 2

Support for this recommendation is also contained in the proposed "Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1967" which states "The President is authorized to require, insofar as he deems practicable, that as a condition for the receipt of Federal grants in any program financed in whole or in part by Federal funds, the personnel engaged in the administration of the program be employed under a State or local merit system meeting Federal standards."

III. The right of Michigan public employee organizations under the Public Employee Relations Act to consult, discuss, negotiate and reach agreement with the authorized employer representative on matters concerning wages, hours or other conditions of employment, is recognized. Such discussions should be instituted and concluded in sufficient time to permit any agreement or decision results to be included in the normal budget cycle of the governmental unit.

IV. Merit systems are vital to the effective functioning of units of government whether or not those units have formalized systems of collective negotiation, including exclusive recognition of employee groups.

The principle set forth in the following statement from the President's Task Force Report is wholly applicable at the State and local levels. "The Task Force wishes, finally, to note its conviction that there need be no conflict between the system of employee-management relations proposed in this report and the Civil Service merit system, which is and should remain the essential basis of the personnel policy of the Federal Government."

V. Citizens should have the right to compete for employment in government based upon merit and fitness and to continue in such employment without being required to join or affiliate with employee associations or to pay dues in lieu of memberships.

While provisions have been made for union and agency shop agreements in private industry, there are substantial reasons for maintaining an open employment policy in the public service.

Again, the report of the President's Task Force indicates "The Task Force wishes to state its emphatic opinion that the union shop and the closed shop are contrary to the civil service concept upon which Federal employment is based. and are completely inappropriate to the Federal service."

VI. There are significant differences between public and private employment, Government in the United States has been organized in ways which differ considerably from the patterns of organization in private industry. The affairs of government are conducted by elected and appointed officials who are responsible for providing authorized services and functions, under a rule of law.

Important differences between public and private and employment include: 1. Government is service oriented rather than profit motivated.

2. Government is continuous, it does not cease to exist because of failure to make a profit or because of management decisions to discontinue operations. 3. Elected government officials are directly accountable to the public through the election process.

1A Policy for Employee-Management Cooperation in the Federal Service. November 30, 1961. page 15. 2 Modernizing Local Government. A Statement on National Policy by the Research and Policy Committee of the Committee For Economic Development. July, 1966, Privately endowed.

3 Op. cit. page 15.

4 Op. cit. page 50.

4. A basic democratic institution provides that any citizen or group of citizens have the right to petition and make their voice heard in matters of public

concern.

5. Public employees have a number of appeal procedures not available to employees of private industry. These include civil service, merit and appeal boards, appeals to departmental commissions, mayors and councilmen, court appeals, and initiative action on some matters such as pension systems and reductions in the work week.

VII. Compulsory arbitration of public employees' wages, hours or other conditions of employment is unwarranted and constitutes an unlawful delegation of public responsibility and legislative authority. This is contrary to the principle of representative and responsible democratic government.

The report of the President's Task Force indicates "Impasses in negotiations between Government officials and employee organizations granted exclusive recognition should be solved by other means than arbitration .

VIII. The long standing public policy in the United States which provides that strikes by public employees are illegal, should be continued. While the threat or exercise of the strike may perform a useful function in the private sector, public employee strikes prevent the orderly functioning of government. It should be emphasized that the public is all persons, and the employer in government is the public.

Equitable procedures for the peaceful resolution of public employee disputes have been developed. These include mediation, public hearings and factfinding with recommendations made public.

Because these alternatives to strike action have been developed in the public service, reasonable and realistic sanctions against public employee strikes should be provided by law. Such sanctions should include direct court action followed by fines and penalties, and/or by withdrawal of recognition (as in the Federal Executive Order) and discontinuance of the check-off.

Senator MUSKIE. Just one other question. You have analyzed both bills, but you have not indicated a preference. Do you have a preference overall for one or the other of the two bills? You do not have to worry about me. I would not hold it against you if you have a preference for the administration bill at all. [Laughter.]

Mr. MEYER. I would say-and this is not out of deference, sir-but I have a slight preference for S. 699.

Senator MUSKIE. For any particular reasons that you could pinpoint quickly?

Mr. MEYER. Well, I think, and perhaps I am led by the title which emphasizes the "personnel" aspects of the bill, and

Senator MUSKIE. I think President Johnson might appreciate a compromise which might give me the title and give him the substance. [Laughter.]

Mr. MEYER. Actually, I think both bills are good. I do think, as I said before, and again I am trying not to equivocate, actually, I think both bills accomplish-are obviously directed toward the same end.

I do think, however, that the idea of continuity which I do think is more—unless I misread the bills-is more implicit in the Muskie bill than the other bill. It is significant.

Now, other than that, I am afraid I cannot pinpoint anything more. Senator MUSKIE. Do you have any preference on the question of allocation of funds, the formulas used, the approach used in the two bills?

Mr. MEYER. No. Frankly, sir, I did not pay too much attention to that. I was concerned more about the substance than the allocations.

Op. cit. page 34.

Senator MUSKIE. I was thinking especially about the fact that S. 699 requires certain allocation in metropolitan areas and does not leave that up to the States.

Mr. MEYER. Yes.

Well, on that point, as I indicated in my earlier remarks, I think that the allocation should be in terms of program, and where there is a compliance with the requirement, and we are not-I am sure, as Mr. Walker indicated objecting to standards which would relate to the needs of the service and the needs of the program, and a continuing program.

I do think that in an area such as ours where in a large core city we have terrific problems these days, that we should not have to be delayed in participation in the programs, and I think that the approval of the State should be based on the substance of the program, and that there could be an allocation made directly to metropolitan areas and large cities.

I fully recognize that the smaller cities need help, too, and where we or they can get a program going or expand a program that is worthy of expansion, I think that that allocation should be made on the basis of the substance of the program rather than leaving it to the distribution or control by the State.

I think the State's role should be approval of concept rather than the allocation of the funds.

Senator MUSKIE. Just one final question as a point of interest: In your own program, what is your annual budget, how large is your staff, and how many city employees are involved in your programs?

Mr. MEYER. Our annual budget is just under $1 million. We have 114 people on our staff, more than half of whom are in the professional area. We serve directly about 22,000 employees. We have over 26,000 employees, but there is a separate merit system for our police officers and police women.

We hire the civilian employees of the city through my agency. Police cadets, which is a program which we started through our agency in 1953 and in which boys from the ages of 17 through 21 can be hired as potential patrolmen, but they are civilians until they attain age 21 when they become eligible for patrolmen, and they have to go through the police department system.

We work rather closely with the police department on concepts and understandings and some examination techniques, but we do not have an official role in the recruitment of police officers.

Senator MUSKIE. How many cities or metropolitan areas in Michigan have their own personnel systems?

Mr. MEYER. Well, I would say not over 25 cities in the State have a full program. We do have one special bit of legislation, it is a State statute under which Detroit does not come, that relates to a civil service system for police and fire. It creates one of the types of systems that I think causes some of the adverse and negative reaction to socalled civil service systems because it is completely employee oriented. This law has created many problems for some of those smaller cities. The systems are not true or complete merit systems in the concept of merit or civil service system as I use the term or as contemplated by the proposed Federal legislation.

I think it has to be considered in the interest of the service, the need for effectiveness and some viability and some flexibility in management, and also the public interest.

But for a general civil service system, out of the 400-odd cities in Michigan, I would say that there are not over 25 cities which have it. In the metropolitan areas there is a civil service system in the city of Flint which is one of our larger cities, one in the city of Grand Rapids, and in some of our satellite cities, such as the city of Dearborn, adjacent to Detroit.

Senator MUSKIE. You have no examples of cooperative regional systems including many or several local groups of governments?

Mr. MEYER. Cooperation only in this sense, that we have worked with some of the smaller cities in examination work and some of the smaller communities, including some of the townships in doing some testing for them on a cost basis. We have also made classification administration services available to them. In the training programs-the supervisory training programs and some of the "skill" training programs to which I alluded in my general comments on training we have cooperated with these smaller cities which wanted their people to participate. This has not been too frequent but there have been several instances.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Meyer. I appreciate your testimony. It has been very helpful.

Mr. MEYER. Thank you."

Senator MUSKIE. Our final witness this morning is Mr. Robert Coop, city manager of Phoenix, Ariz.

TESTIMONY OF F. ROBERT COOP, CITY MANAGER, PHOENIX, ARIZ.

Mr. Coop. Senator, in view of the time restriction on yourself, I am wondering if you would prefer that I make a few general comments and submit myself to such questions as you may wish to ask. I believe you were all furnished with copies of my statement. I am quite pleased to read it, if you wish me to do so.

Senator MUSKIE. I haven't had a chance to read it and I understand Senator Baker will be here and may I apologize in advance for leaving in the midst of your testimony.

Mr. Coop. I understand.

Senator MUSKIE. But Senator Baker will be here in 5 minutes or so. Mr. Coop. Then perhaps you would wish that I do read it. Senator MUSKIE. Yes.

Mr. Coop. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, my name is Robert Coop. Presently I am serving as city manager of Phoenix, Ariz., population 520,000.

I am honored to appear before you today and give you my views concerning the Intergovernmental Manpower Act, S. 1485, and the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, S. 699.

As vice president of the International City Manager's Association, I have requested the staff of the association to assist me in the development of various parts of this statement. The materials used have generally been drawn from their extensive work in their book entitled, "Municipal Personnel Administration" and ICMA Municipal Year

book surveys. While the ICMA does not support or oppose specific legislation, they have considerable factual information that is perhaps useful to this subcommittee. While ICMA has no formal system for adopting policy positions of its members, I am not similarly encumbered. Therefore, I am pleased to have this opportunity to personally present my own view based on a career that has been somewhat heavily involved in personnel administration in a staff capacity.

First of all I would like to state how pleased I am as a professional local government administrator, to pay tribute to the excellent message of President Johnson on the "Quality of American Government. I thought this was a most significant statement and a most rewarding one for those of us who toil in the vineyards of local government. This message and subsequent legislative proposals and the very creative leadership of yourself, Senator, have done a great service in placing into a proper national perspective some of the great problems facing local government in their efforts toward developing the best possible talent for local public service.

I would also like to commend the excellent work of this subcommittee and its distinguished chairman. Your extensive research into State and local personnel problems, your series of very productive hearings, and I have been able to read some of the testimony, coupled with the excellent recommendations formulated by the administration, indicate that there is every likelihood that both State and local government may receive very significant assistance toward improving the quality of government personnel.

I would like to comment on that at the end of my prepared state

ment.

More and more attention is being given at all levels of government to the need for developing a true career service.

First and foremost, a government personnel system has to be based on merit. Personnel actions in the public service must always be based on the individual worth of each employee and not on consideration of partisan political advantage, racial or religious prejudices.

The civil service reform movement was motivated by principles of merit, and while many civil service systems achieve merit to a considerable degree, some also have been perverted to partisan advantage, and I perhaps could cite, although I prefer not to, several cities in years gone by where this has been true.

On the other hand, many public agencies have implemented the spirit of the merit principle without the traditional trappings of the independent civil service commission, and all that it meant in its earlier days.

I would be glad to comment on that, too.

The council manager movement has been instrumental in spreading the principle of merit in public employment to many cities which have never adopted the civil service structure. The ideals and ethics of the city manager profession support the principle of merit in public. employment.

This is well known to the members of the committee, I am sure.

The success of the council manager movement is itself, in part, the result of public reaction against the spoils system and the resulting deterioration of public services.

The council manager form of local government has had its largest growth since World War II and has recently become the most pro