orally, their answers written down for them, their physique and character judged by their general conduct and appearance; moreover, information as to their proficiency in their trade and as to their character is asked of the references they give. The competitive examinations for official positions are surrounded with all possible safeguards against frauds.. These safeguards are partly embodied in the printed instructions each applicant finds on his desk, and in addition to this the most essential are again emphasized by the Chief Examiner in his opening remarks at the beginning of the examination. The questions, prepared by the Chief Examiner, or, if technical, by an expert under injunction of secrecy, after approval by the Board, are typewritten, stenciled, mimeographed and kept under Yale lock protection in the Chief Examiner's private office until the beginning of the examination. The name of the applicant is not allowed to appear on his answers and is not known to the examiners who mark the papers. No communication, written or oral, is allowed with or between the applicants, and no memoranda or other auxiliaries are allowed. No one is permitted to be present in the room except the Commissioners, the Chief Examiner and his assistants. During the examination. admissible questions asked by applicants during examination are answered aloud so that no single candidate can be favored, and the identification envelope containing the identification sheet with the name of the applicant is not received unless it is sealed, and is not opened until the marking is completed. That all rumors as to violation of this secrecy are utterly false, is patent to the Commissioners and all their employes. In a flagrant case of such insinuation the Board instituted a thorough investigation; witnesses were summoned and examined by them under oath, and the result was a complete refutation of the charges made. In other cases the charges made or alleged to have been made were completely withdrawn and apologized for, or disavowed. It is plain that every class of employes require a different examination and set of questions; but, in addition to that, more or less weight is given the various subjects in the calculation of the final average rating, according to the degree of importance that must be attributed to each subject in its relation to the particular needs of the position aspired to. The preparation of examination questions, the marking of examination papers, and the finding of methods for computing final ratings, all require good judgment, a conscientious weighing of points of view that might be taken by different persons, and the moral courage to do what seems right in every phase of this unremitting work, no matter what misconstructions and calumnies of ignorant, unreasonable and maliciously selfish misleaders of the people may invent to cast opprobrium upon a good patriotic cause. The marking of character is one of the most difficult parts of examinations. To make personal inquiries in the case of 100 or 200 applicants for any single position would require the service of a force of detectives more numerous than that of the Police Department. It is impossible. The Board has to rely mainly upon the reports of former employers and other citizens to whom applicants refer; but of the 412 information sheets sent out at a recent examination, only 319 were returned with more or less complete information. In the case of the other 93, the best that could be done for the applicants was to mark them 75%, so that the absence of reports would not reduce their total average on all other subjects below the minimum required for a position on the eligible list. The supposition is that if former employers, neighbors or friends referred to by an applicant have anything to say in his favor, they will take the trouble to answer the questions; still, it is assumed that a non-compliance with the request for information does not warrant a mark for bad character. Hence the neutral 75% is given, after waiting as long as possible; i. e., until the final rating is calculated from all the averages. It is well known to educators throughout the world that in case of the failure of students to pass examinations, their parents or their friends try to bolster them up in public opinion by either criticising the difficulty of the questions or charging severity and partiality to the examiners. Every Civil Service Commission in our country has to contend with similar assaults. The acknowledged spoilsmen who are enemies of Civil Service Reform in principle, and are "sore” from having lost their patronage and concomitant power, or the friends of some man or woman who does not feel able or has failed to pass an examination, occasionally raise a great hue and cry over the difficulty and technicality of examination questions, picking out one or a few and pretending that they seem to them to be too difficult or to stand in no relation to the duties of the office for which the examination is to test candidates. While this criticism reflects only upon the intelligence and good judgment of the Civil Service Commissioners and their executive officer, other reproaches of a more serious nature have from time to time been heaped upon them, impeaching their impartiality and therefore their official integrity. After their patient endurance had been taxed to the utmost by the concerted action of a set of immature and reckless tools of partisan purposes who are allowed to play the role of framers of public opinion, and were inspired behind the scenes by the malice and duplicity of thwarted schemers, the Board, making use of the judicial powers given them by law, instituted a public investigation of such a charge and proved beyond a doubt, by the sworn testimony of the principals and witnesses concerned, that there was not the least suspicion of a foundation for the accusation made, which was that owing to political or personal influences, examination questions had been given out before a certain examination took place. As collateral evidence it may be mentioned here that the very person who was alleged to have pretended to have received said questions by his "pull," had failed to attain the minimum of 75% required to pass at that examination. Though a number of more or less persistent and well organized attempts have been made to bias the action of the City Civil Service Department in favor of certain aspirants to places in the classified service, I believe that every one of them has remained futile. The non-competitive examinations and resultant appointments formed a principal point of attack. Judging by the printed rules, so far as known to me, all Civil Service Commissions recognize the necessity of providing for exceptional cases, where a vacancy could not be properly or timely filled otherwise than by a special or non-competitive examination, or by a temporary emergency appointment. Those Commissions may be supposed to have studied the subject of Civil Service Reform and to know that a set of rules covering every possible contingency by rigid provisions can not be made without in some cases defeating its very object, the good of the service. The critics, without much. study and with no experience, presume to know more than all the experts, if they assert that there are no good reasons to provide for exceptional cases; or if they admit the necessity for such provisions, they arrogate to themselves a better judgment in regard to the individual cases objected to than the heads of departments and the Civil Service Commissioners who have been given a certain discretion in these matters because they are supposed to have the requisite knowledge, experience, judgment and conscientiousness to weigh the reasons. pro and contra carefully in all cases requiring discretional action. |