THE PERSONNEL CLASSIFICATION BOARD

ITS HISTORY, ACTIVITIES, AND

ORGANIZATION

CHAPTER I

HISTORY

The Personnel Classification Board, one of the independent establishments of the national government, was created by the act1 of March 4, 1923 (42 Stat. L., 1488), which provided for the classification of civilian positions in the departmental federal service within the District of Columbia. It is an ex-officio body composed of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, a member of the United States Civil Service Commission, and the Chief of the Bureau of Efficiency, with the Director of the Bureau of the Budget acting as Chairman. The Board functions under the active and immediate direction of a Director of Classification appointed by the ex-officio members of the Personnel Classification Board.

It was not until July 1, 1930, that the Board was authorized to organize a staff of its own. Between March 4, 1923, and July 1, 1930, its staff consisted solely of employees detailed to it by the various departments and independent establishments. As now organized, it has a permanent staff of sixty-two employees, many of whom are technically trained in personnel classification work.

1 This act is commonly known and referred to as the "Classification Act of 1923."

2 The term "department" was defined in the law so as to include the municipal government of the District of Columbia, the Botanic Garden, Library of Congress, Library Building and Grounds, Government Printing Office, and the Smithsonian Institution. See Section 2 of the act of March 4, 1923. Section 3 of the act of June 20, 1929 (46 Stat. L., 38), later placed positions in the Office of the Architect of the Capitol under the jurisdiction of the Board.

The law enacted in 1923 establishing the Board and providing for the classification of positions on the basis of duties performed, was the culmination of some four years of effort on the part of Congress to legislate on the matter of personnel classification and salary standardization. Many years previous to this, however, various governmental investigating commissions and agencies had given consideration to the problem of setting up some system of personnel administration which would insure "equal pay for equal work." The history of this movement, in so far as it bears with more or less directness upon the Personnel Classification Board and the Classification Act of 1923, is presented in this chapter.

Early Attention to the Classification Problem. Examination of the documentary evidence relating to personnel classification and salary fixing shows that as early as 1818 Congress was occupied with the task of "equalizing compensation among clerks of equal responsibility." Interest in classification at that time, however, was incident to the problem of salary fixing, as it must be borne in mind that only in recent years has the phrase "classification of positions" come to have a meaning and significance clearly distinguishable from the phrase "salary equalization and standardization." 3

On January 28, 1818, a letter was addressed to the Secretaries of State, Treasury, War, and Navy and the Postmaster General by a committee of the House appointed for the purpose of inquiring into certain legislation under consideration. Portions of this letter read as follows:

The committee appointed in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Representatives, adopted on the 23rd instant, to inquire what alterations are necessary to be made in the act, entitled 'An act to regulate and fix the compensation of clerks, and to authorize the laying out of certain roads, and for other purposes', have directed me to request that you will be pleased to inform them what num

8

Chapter IV of the Closing Report of the Wage and Personnel Survey, Personnel Classification Board, 1931, discusses this differentiation in great detail. It is pointed out that there are other purposes of a classification plan than that of affording a "basis for fixing fair pay for work performed."

ber of clerks are employed in your Department, and what compensation, either of salary or contingent allowance, each of them has received for the last year-also that you will give the committee such information in relation to the respective employment of your clerks, as may best enable them to judge of the amount of compensate proper to be allowed; together with your own views of the most proper permanent arrangement for compensation for the clerks in your Department, having regard to an equalization, as nearly as practicable, to the compensation among clerks of equal responsibility, in the several departments of government.4

In response to this letter came the earliest systematic statements of the duties of the various clerical positions in the departments at Washington that a search of the public records has revealed. The forms used by the different reporting officers were not uniform, but they gave considerable information regarding the duties and responsibilities of the several positions. The Comptroller reported on a tabular form, the columns of which were headed "Names of the clerks"; "Duties performed by them respectively"; "Relative importance of the duties performed by, and responsibility of, each of the clerks"; "Stated salaries per annum, according to the appropriation for the year 1817"; and "Contingent allowances for the year 1817."5 The tabular form used by the Register of the Treasury contained the following columns: "Divisions of the records"; "Chief Clerk"; "Clerks having charge of particular branches of the public service, with clerks subordinate to them"; "Clerks having charge of separate branches of service, performing such without the aid of subordinate clerks"; "Clerks employed in recording and keeping the books of the office"; "Clerk employed in copying only"; "Salaries per annum"; and "Books on which they are employed or otherwise."

The documentary evidence covering the period around 1835 discloses much information on the general subject of salary standardization. In response to a Senate resolution the Postmaster General of the day disclosed no little familiarity with some of the principles of modern personnel administration. He recommended three rates of salary of 15 Cong. 1 sess., H. doc. 194, p. 3.

Ibid., p. 11.

$1500, $1200, and $900 for ordinary clerks and said, "A salary of $900 will support a single man in this city, and if he be prudent, afford him a moderate income. A married man without children can barely subsist upon it. For him a salary of $1200 is less than a salary of $900 for a single man. And if he have a family of children, he can lay up less on one of $1500 than a single man can out of $900. Indeed, this rate of salary would afford the clerks generally, with little more than the means of subsistence for themselves and families." He also pointed out that "each of these sums affords an equal subdivision by twelve. Salaries are paid at the end of each calendar month and the present rates produce fractions in the accounts. Simplicity is deemed an essential in public accounts as in anything else and it appears to the undersigned that it should not be overlooked in fixing on a tariff of salaries." 6

Data on the cost of living in the community where the employees are engaged were already recognized as having a direct bearing on salary, and the Secretary of the Treasury forwarded to this same Senate committee a communication setting forth the expense records of one of the department's clerical employees. The compilation of this cost of living information was for the purpose of enabling the Senate to effect certain increases in the salary schedule.R

24 Cong. 1 sess., S. doc. 362, pp. 2, 3.

724 Cong. 1 sess., S. doc. 355.

Pages 3 to 11 of the report cited above contain two most interesting letters which throw light on living conditions of that period. The first, which is a letter from the Second Comptroller of the Treasury to the Secretary of the Treasury, reads as follows:

"I am favored with your communication in relation to the resolution of the Honorable Daniel Webster; and with a view to forward such information as the Honorable Senate might safely rely on, I requested Mr. Seaver, a gentleman in my office who keeps a regular diary of his expenses, and who is proverbial for economy and correctness, to furnish me with an account of the actual expenses he has incurred for the support of his family for the last three or four years." Mr. Seaver's letter to the Second Comptroller follows:

"Sir: In compliance with your request of yesterday, that I would furnish you with a copy of my account of expenses for 1835, I herewith enclose it. At the close of it will also be found the aggregate amounts, taken from similar accounts, for the years 1833 and 1834. It may be proper to state that it has been my uniform practice to

About the same time the Secretary of State, in response to a House resolution, submitted to the House of Representatives a statement showing names, ages, salaries, and nature of duties of the clerks in the State Department that might be termed a set of "job specifications." The Secretary apparently was familiar with the criticism that if the duties are minutely specified, the employees may object to the performance of any duties not specified; he therefore put at the end of the detailed specifications a standard provision phrased, "Notwithstanding the foregoing partial distribution of duties, each clerk will from time to time perform such other duties as the public service may render necessary and as shall be directed by the Secretary." 9

On May 10, 1836, the Committee on Ways and Means submitted its report on the clerical service of the government, the substance of which is fairly familiar. It read in part as follows: 10

The principle of a just economy, which lies at the bottom of our republican institutions, ought never to be lost sight of in any public expenditures; but this principle properly understood, so far from being inconsistent with, demands, as the committee believe, a fair remuneration for all the services of whatever kind or degree the public is clearly in need of, as required at once by justice and sound policy.

purchase with cash, and that I have not paid house-rent or pew-rent. My family has generally consisted of three grown persons, five children, and two servants; and as my children were taught at home, no expense for teaching has been incurred until last year; at present, four of them attend school. It may be proper also to remark, that the ninety-five dollars for servant-hire in 1835, covers two years' wages paid to a non-resident owner, and hence relates to 1834 and 1835. Very respectfully, Your obedient servant, J. SEAVER.

"To James B. Thornton, Esq. "P.S. Neither wine or spirituous liquor is used in my family, except as medicine, and I give no dinners."

Attached to the letter was a detailed statement of expenditures for the period.

9

924 Cong. 1 sess., H. doc. 247. Employees of the federal government will be interested to know that the Secretary's rules provided that the hours of business should be from 10 A. M. until 3 P. M.

10 24 Cong. 1 sess., H. rept. 641, p. 8.