Mr. MALETZ. Is it correct according to your best understanding? Mr. YOUNG. That is correct. I could not make it out, I am sorry, I could not make out whether you were asking me a question based on the information in the release or whether the release was accurate. Certainly the release was as accurate as we could make it at the time we put it out, so far as I know. We have not changed our minds since.

Mr. WALDEN. In order to remedy this situation, did you have to appoint a special task force to go down into NPA and see what the trouble was?

Mr. YOUNG. That is right, because I did not like the looks of it and we wanted to get the job done as quickly and as painlessly and to correct as many inequities as possible, just as rapidly as we could.

Mr. WALDEN. In this investigation did you find out who was responsible for this reduction-in-force program which took place? Mr. YOUNG. NO; I do not remember. I could not recall any of the

names involved in this at the moment.

Mr. MALETZ. Do any of the two gentlemen with you recall that situation?

Mr. MACY. I certainly recall the situation, but I am unable to respond as to the names of any individuals.

Mr. MALETZ. We are not talking about specific individuals. WOC's were occupying key positions in NPA, according to the testimony before this committee. Were WOC's responsible for the reduction in force?

Mr. MACY. I am unable to respond.

Mr. MELOY. I have no knowledge on the subject.

Mr. MALETZ. Could you supply that information for the record? Mr. YOUNG. Yes. Could you restate your question specifically so that we will be responsive to it when we reply?

Mr. WALDEN. I would like to know to what extent WOC's were responsible for the reduction in force, either in recommending the dismissal of these persons or actually dismissing them.

Mr. YOUNG. We will be glad to try to supply an answer to that. (The information supplied is as follows:)

Subsequently, in a letter to the chairman, August 16, 1955, Mr. Young stated: "In the Commission's review and investigation of the reduction in force made by the National Production Authority, we looked only to find whether a reductionin-force action was proper under our regulations. We did not attempt to assess individual responsibility for irregular actions. I am enclosing a list of NPA officials who were serving in the more responsible line positions under appointments authorized by section 101 (a) of Executive Order 10182. It is not possible for the Commission to determine the extent to which these officials may have been responsible for any portion of the reduction-in-force activities, however, for reasons stated above."

NPA officials appointed (without compensation) under sec. 101 (a) of Executive Order 10182

Mr. RODINO. I would like to point out here that at a previous hearing relating to the same question I asked Mr. McCoy whether or not WOC's were in position in such a capacity or nature that they made recommendations bringing about reductions in force at that time in 1953, which resulted in the separation of some 300 or 400 individuals who appealed to the Civil Service Commission, and I think it relates to these people in particular, of whom 52 percent were reinstated because of violation by the NPA of Civil Service Commission regulations. Is that not so?

Mr. YOUNG. It may have been. I just do not know.

Mr. RODINO. Mr. McCoy, who appeared before us, in response to a question put by me as to the number of people that had appealed to the Civil Service Commission, did state in effect that violation after violation did occur at that time.

Mr. WALDEN. Would it be fair to state that whoever was responsible for this reduction in force had done a miserably poor job?

Mr. YOUNG. We had a terrific time straightening it out. Perhaps it is always more difficult to straighten things out than to create them, but certainly there were a great number of violations of the regulations at the time. There is no question about it.

Mr. WALDEN. I should like to have this entire press release inserted in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be done.

(The document entitled "Press Release, United States Civil Service Commission," dated July 17, 1953, is as follows:)

PRESS RELEASE

UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
Washington 25, D. C., July 17, 1953.

The Civil Service Commission has completed its review of positions in the National Production Authority and directed the Commerce Department to displace an additional 104 of 129 employees in the grade levels of GS-6 ($3,795) and below. The positions will be filled by employees with higher retention rights who were improperly released during NPA's recent reduction in force.

In a previous order the Commission directed the Commerce Department to displace 102 of 263 employees holding jobs in the GS-7 ($4,205) and above grade levels. This last action brings the number of employees being displaced by persons with higher retention rights to 206 of 392, or 52 percent.

In announcing the results of the review, Chairman Philip Young, of the Civil Service Commission, pointed out that the Commission's efforts in this case are indicative of its future policy and attitude in the protection of career employees under the new reduction-in-force regulations.

The review of the NPA positions was made by a joint Commission-NPA task force headed by N. J. Oganovic, assistant to Chairman Young. The review was completed in slightly more than 2 weeks' time.

UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. Mr. WALDEN. Please turn with me to section 102 (a) of the Executive Order 10182, which states, as you have noted here:

So far as possible, operations under the act shall be carried on by full-time, salaried employees of the Government, and appointments under this authority shall be to advisory or consultative positions only.

If I may again read the minutes of the Consumer Containers and Packaging Conference of March 15, 1954, called by BDSA, which deal with the Assistant Administrators of BDSA, these minutes, Mr. Young, read as follows:

To facilitate

Mr. YOUNG. These are the minutes of what?

Mr. WALDEN. These are the minutes of the Consumer Containers and Packaging Conference of industry representatives called by BDSA.

Mr. YOUNG. I see.

Mr. WALDEN. And I am quoting excerpts from the minutes of this conference, and they read:

To facilitate the advancement of industry viewpoints topside, BDSA has three Assistant Administrators, all of whom are from industry and serve on a WOO basis. By this organizational device, transmission of industry views topside is assured.

Now, my question is, if BDSA intentionally employs WOC's in the Assistant Administrator's position in order to assure transmission of industry views topside, does this violate the provision of the Executive order referred to above, which expresses preference for full-time career persons?

Mr. YOUNG. They are bound to certify that they were unable to obtain a qualified full-time person for those positions, as I read it. I am not a lawyer, I might add, and this involves a legal interpretation, and if it does, my statement does not mean a thing.

Mr. MALETZ. Do you have a lawyer with you? Mr. Meloy is a lawyer?

Mr. MELOY. Yes, sir.

Mr. MALETZ. Would you answer that question?

Mr. MELOY. Let me get it straight.

Mr. WALDEN. If the intent of the Department is to employ WOC's in the Assistant Administrator's position, as an "organizational device," which it says will assure transmission of industry's views topside, is there not a violation of the Executive order both with respect to the policy preference of the Executive order and the certification requirement referred to by Mr. Young?

Mr. MELOY. I do not know whether the excerpt you are reading goes far enough to make a determination.

67271-55-pt. 1—43

It is true that probably topside did want these people close to them who had the views of industry. Does that necessarily mean that the other work they perform is of such a character that they were not able to find someone in the ordinary services of the Government to serve them?

Mr. WALDEN. Let me in that connection read to you an excerpt from the ininutes of a January 12, 1955, Steel Products Industry Advisory Committee meeting, which is another advisory group to BDSA, and

that says:

That despite the fact that the three Assistant Administrators rotate as frequently as every 6 months, it is found preferable to use them rather than permanent career men because the businessmen bring into Government the fresh viewpoint of industry which is sought by the administration.

If it is found preferable by the Department to use WOC's as Assistant Administrators, rather than full-time career men, because the latter do not have the fresh viewpoint of industry, I ask you, does that not violate the requisites of the Executive order?

Mr. MELOY. I think that if you took that as the sole basis, but I do not think that you can take that as the sole basis from that one statement. In other words, the WOC's employed are employed because of preference. I think that perhaps half of the subject or part of the subject is that, but not all of the reason for the employment of the WOC. You may be right; you may be wrong.

If we have all of the facts. I do not think it is possible to answer unless you had the rounded-out picture.

Certainly, as you read it, their preference did play a part. What part, I do not know unless I had the whole picture.

Mr. WALDEN. Has the Civil Service Commission made any effort to study or find out whether BDSA did endeavor to obtain full-time Government employees in place of WOC's for the assistant administrative positions?

Mr. MELOY. I would not have knowledge of that aspect of the Commission's business.

Mr. YOUNG. We have not gone behind the certification of the head of the agency that they have, and that they have followed out their instructions and procedure which I have already submitted for the record. Of course, from the policy angle I think the policy statement in this book put out by the Civil Service Commission is as good a statement as I have seen anywhere. I assume you have a copy of this. If not, you ought to have it.

It is good. It is entitled, "Employment and Compensation of Experts and Consultants," "A Guide for Federal Executives." You probably have it somewhere. It is Personnel Management Series No. 3, March 1954.

While this is designed primarily for paid consultants, it still does have reference to WOC people. And on page 1 it has a statement of policy in the use of consultants which I think is a very good statement. And again I think it emphasizes the fact that we are both driving for the same objectives in that while we believe consultants and advisers on a WOC basis can be very useful in certain spots and places and at certain times, nonetheless, they have to be used properly and not interfere with the regular operating programs of the Government, and that is what is set forth here.

Shall I submit this for the record?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

(The booklet entitled "Employment and Compensation of Experts and Consultants" is as follows:)

EMPLOYMENT AND COMPENSATION OF EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS-A GUIDE FOR FEDERAL EXECUTIVES

United States Civil Service Commission, Personnel Management Series No. 3, March 1954

FOREWORD

This guide is based on the authority to appoint experts and consultants contained in section 15 of the act of August 2, 1946 (Public Law 600) and in section 6.101 (n) (schedule A) of the Civil Service Regulations. Because special authorizations available to individual agencies vary only in certain respects from these general provisions, it is anticipated that the material set forth here will also serve as guidelines for appointments under these special laws.

Section II of this guide is lifted bodily from the Federal Personnel Manual (p. A7-37). It is the only portion of the guide that is regulatory in character. All other sections either summarize existing law and interpretations which are authoritative or outline suggested practices in order to achieve greater consistency and equity among Federal agencies.

The guide as a whole was developed with the assistance of an interagency committee, representing various points of view and a variety of uses of experts and consultants.

Members of Interagency Committee:

Doster, Jerry C. (Chairman), United States Information Agency
Cramer, Norman S., Department of Labor

Deck, Leland P., National Science Foundation

Elledge, Miss Ann, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Reid, Max, Department of Agriculture

Sullivan, Mrs. Martha D., Office of Secretary of Defense
Milkey, Robert F., United States Civil Service Commission
Steele, John W., United States Civil Service Commission
Tournier, Frank D., United State Civil Service Commission
Stahl, O. Glenn, United States Civil Service Commission

I. POLICY ON USE OF CONSULTANTS

Because of the scope of legal authority available and the lack of consistency in practice among Federal agencies, the impression has developed among bureau and division heads that authority to employ consultants and experts is primarily a form of exception to regular civil-service competitive merit procedures. Such employment does constitute an exception, but it is not designed for that purpose as such.

The use of consultants and experts is a normal, legitimate, economical method to improve the product, service, or operations of any enterprise. For this reason, appropriate use of authority in the Federal Government to secure consultant or expert help should be encouraged.

This does not mean, however, that it is appropriate to use such means to do a task that could be as well done within the agency, that calls for full-time continuous employment, or that is organized to “get around" competitive employment procedures or Classification Act pay limitations. Such devices are not only illegal; they are wasteful, and they destroy the morale of the career specialists. On the other hand, there are situations in which agencies could contribute to economy in cost of personal services by using temporary or intermittent consultants and experts. For example, highly specialized, and consequently high priced, knowledge and skill in some agencies is required from time to time but not on a full-time basis. If hired on a full-time basis, the individual will devote a portion of his time either to gathering information to maintain his expertness and/or doing work of less actual value but at the same rate of pay. Another situation is that the hiring of an expert on a temporary basis through civil service competitive procedures may not be practicable in terms of the length of work involved and the unique type of services desired.