3.

4.

5.

6.

If CSC determines a panel is needed, at least one panelist
should be from a disinterested agency.

Agencies should be prohibited from stipulating that they do
not want a certificate that does not include the name request.

An agency should be precluded from cancelling a request just
because its name request does not appear on the certificate.
Exceptions would be approved only upon submission of a satis-
factory explanation to the Commission.

CSC should follow up on the specific cases in the two organiza-
tions identified by the subcommittee to ascertain if laws or
rules have been violated and corrective/punitive action should
be taken.

We generally agree with these recommendations. Our analysis and proposals are as follows:

A.

Historically, we have used agency panel members because of the
need to apply subject-matter expertise in evaluating candidates
for the varied and unique jobs covered by Senior Level. This
has been a valid consideration for highly specialized occupa-
tions like Psychologist, Economist, and Health related jobs.
However, for the general administrative and staff type jobs which
comprise a significant number of agency requests, we could rate
applicants just as well, if not better, without using outside
assistance. This would clearly reduce the appearance or possibility
of favoritism in the rating process.

Based on the preliminary results from our current experiment using
at least one panel member from a disinterested agency, we
believe we get a better product with this approach than when all
panelists are from the requesting agency. However, the benefits
we realize are offset by the continuing reluctance of agencies to
cooperate and the accompanying delays in issuing certificates.
Since we believe that we can do as good or better rating without
panels in the large majority of cases anyway, we plan to adopt
the following approach to Senior Level rating:

-

As a general rule, to process Senior Level requests using our own staffing specialists. We estinate that this will suffice in about 90 percent of the cases.

To ask for advisory assistance (from a disinterested agency
if possible) in cases where we decide subject-matter knowledge
is necessary for effective evaluation. This assistance would
be sought for the purpose of gaining a better insight into

B.

the technical aspects of the job or program, and the relative importance of the duties and responsibilities. Advisors would not participate in rating schedule development or in the actual evaluation of candidates.

To convene a panel in unusual cases where the complexities
of the job cannot be easily assimilated or understood
through advisory assistance alone. Such a panel would
consist of a subject-matter expert (normally from a dis-
interested agency) and a CSC examiner serving as chairman
and full participating member.

The subcommittee recognizes that implementation of its recommendations will require enlargement of the examiner workforce. Since only 18 percent of the Senior Level requests are handled in the field, and in most cases CSC representatives either perform the evaluation or participate as panel members, we believe the procedures proposed above can be absorbed by regions without additional

resources.

However, in the Washington Area Office where 82 percent of all Senior Level activity is centered, we will need to compensate for the assistance lost if panels are eliminated. Currently agency panelists conduct the job analysis, develop the rating schedule, and evaluate the candidates, often involving in excess of 100 applications per request. We estimate that this service is worth approximately 5 hours per request which, on an average volume (over the last 3 years) of 1,900 certificates per year, amounts to about 5 man-years. To provide an acceptable standard of service, we propose to increase the Washington Area Office's Senior Level examining staff by this amount.

We concur with the intent of Recommendation No. 4 which would prohibit agencies from stipulating that they do not want a certificate that does not include the name request. However, we propose to discourage rather than prohibit agencies from indicating they do not want a certificate which does not contain a name requested candidate. A flat prohibition would result in unproductive work for us in cases where an agency has decided to fill a position through promotion or other noncompetitive means unless a particular outside candidate they feel to be outstanding is available. Likewise, with respect to Recommendation No. 5, we cannot realistically stop an agency from cancelling a request or from returning a certificate unused, nor can we force them to make a selection. We must recognize that there are legitimate reasons for cancelling requests or returning certificates without action, such as (1) deciding to fill a job in another authorized manner (promotion, transfer, reassignment, or reinstatement), or (2) upon finding the quality of eligibles

C.

referred to be below expectations, deciding to conduct further
recruitment to find more highly qualified candidates. We believe
we should continue to permit these types of flexibilities, but
we recognize the need to assure proper use of the name request
procedure. Accordingly, we propose to:

Review and strengthen existing instructions to require a
closer review of cancellations and unused certificates, and

Explore the best way of following up on suspect cases and
for determining any corrective steps that might be taken.

With respect to Recommendation No. 6, we have provided a copy of the report to BPME which will meet with the Committee staff to discuss plans for following up on the specific cases featured in the report.

FUTURE PLANS

The subcommittee report focuses mainly on hires through the Senior Level examination (Announcement No. 408) and the Physical Sciences and Engineering examination (Announcement No. 424). Our comments in this paper are framed with these examining plans in mind. However, the subcommittee recommenda❤ tions may have a broader application to our other examining vehicles, which we believe should be explored. In the next several months we plan to look into this possibility as well as looking more closely at some of the recurring problems (such as conversion of excepted employees, experts, and consultants, and hiring of former associates of current Federal employees) faced in filling high level positions. As we see needs for strengthening our process as regards these issues, we will develop new strategies, techniques and requirements.

In addition to the six specific recommendations outlined above, the subcommittee report asks for information on four additional action items:

1. Results of the sampling being conducted by BPME,

2.

The results of the pilot using panelists from disinterested
agencies,

3.

4.

Any significant corrective actions in the name request area, and
Recommendations for appropriate legislation.

While the results of the sampling will not be known for several months, we have attached a proposed letter which responds to items 2, 3, and 4, in addition to the specific recommendations discussed above.

Attachments

Honorable Thaddeus J. Dulski

Chairman, Committee on Post Office

and Civil Service

House of Representatives

Washington, D.C.

20515

MAY 10 1974

Dear Mr. Chairman:

We have studied the Committee's report (93-925) which inquired into the recruiting and examining practices used for filling high-level positions in the Federal Government. The Commission is vitally interested in strengthening merit staffing procedures throughout the Federal service and the constructive recommendations contained in the report will help us to meet that objective. We appreciate this opportunity to respond to the recommendations and to let the Committee know the additional steps being taken or planned on the basis of the recommendations to improve our examining and referral techniques.

The Committee report recommends that:

1. The Commission limit the use of agency panels to those examinations where it lacks the expertise needed to rate applicants; exercise more supervision over panels; if necessary, enlarge the examiner force.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Requesting agencies should not be permitted to designate panel
members except when so asked by the Commission.

If the Commission determines a panel is needed, it should be
composed of at least one member from an agency other than the
requesting agency.

Agencies should be probibited from stipulating that they do not want a certificate that does not include the name request.

Agencies should be precluded from cancelling requests when it is found their name request is not within reach for referrals Exceptions would be approved only upon submission of a satisfactory explanation to the Commission.

6.

The Commission should examine the cases developed by the sub-
committee concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin-
istration and the Ainistrative Office of the United States
Courts.

Recommendations 1, 2, and 3, are closely related and we are in basic 2greement with them. In this connection, we plan to limit the use of agency panel members and to enlarge our examiner work force both to do core of the rating work and to exercise stronger supervision over panels when their use is found to be necessary, Panel member designations vill be accepted from agencies only when requested by the Commission. enever panels are used, we will seek a subject-matter specialist from a disinterested agency, so that all panels will include & Commission and/or disinterested agency representative.

Our goal is to be fully operational under this procedure in early FY 1975. To accomplish this and, at the same time, to offer timely service to agencies, we must provide an additional 5 man-years support to our Washington Area Office. This will be done, initially, by diverting existing resources from other priorities; however, it may become necessary to request supplementary funding should we find that other program areas suffer, as a result of this shift.

He also concur with the intent of Recommendations 4 and 5. However, to give real meaning to Recommendation 4 we would have to be able to not only require that the agency accept a certificate but that it give full consideration to the persons referred. We do not believe we can realistically require this, nor can we stop an agency frca cancelling a request or from returning it unused. There are often sound reasons for taking this action. Nonetheless, we plan to review and, as necessary, strengthen existing instructions to assure close monitoring of cancelled requests and used certificates. We also plan to follow up on suspect cases and to take corrective action whenever warranted.

With respect to Recommendation 6, it has been agreed that a representative of our Bureau of Personnel Management Evaluation will meet with Mr. ugler of the Committee staff to discuss the cases highlighted in the report. Based on that discussion, the necessary followup action with the 2ffected agencies will be faltiated.

Our investigation, on a sampling basis, of 100 name request cases is currently in progress. We will provide you a report as soon as the sapling is completed. We can report, however, that our pilot procedure of including one panel member from an agency other than the one with the vacancy did not provs worthy of implementing across-the-board. While we believed the quality of evaluation to be somewhat improved by this procedure, this benefit was offset by a loss of production caused by the