years have insisted on preserving our independent status so far as employment is concerned. This is in keeping with the deed of gift from Enoch Pratt to the city wherein he stipulated that the board of trustees be incorporated for the management of the library. As there has been established a satisfactory personnel program, I see no reason for desiring a change.

"My one experience with civil service was in Worcester, Mass. (1940-45), and there only the building employees came under the State civil-service program. I would not say that the arrangement was ideal or even good."

Dr. Milton J. Ferguson, who recently retired as librarian of Brooklyn Public Library, was still in office when he wrote: "I am strongly of the opinion that the method of selection now observed in the Brooklyn Public Library is much better for library purposes than civil service, as we see it."

* * *

Mr. Carl Vitz, librarian of the Cincinnati Public Library said: "I would be very unwilling to head a library for which an outside agency selected the people through whom I was expected to produce results It is my observation that when cities are politically controlled, that civil service, if it does exist, operates chiefly to prevent or reduce the worst abuses. If cities are free from political domination, good results may be had, but I know of no place where a civil service commission selects better than the library itself. Certainly Cleveland, Detroit, Baltimore, and Minneapolis without do not have to take a back seat to Chicago or Milwaukee or St. Paul with civil service."

Mr. Ralph Munn, director of the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh and of the Library School of the Carnegie Institute of Technology as well, former president of the American Library Association, wrote in part: "Pittsburgh offers a marked contrast between civil service and non-civil-service libraries. Its Northside is the former city of Allegheny. The Carnegie Free Library of Allegheny is still independent of the Pittsburgh library system, and it operates under municipal civil service. It has never been able to attract a sufficient number of library-school graduates and it is forced to maintain a training class in which it trains its own librarians. With the same salary schedule, the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh secures superior librarians from the library schools."

From the Detroit Public Library, which several years ago was faced with the possibility of being included under civil service, came this observation: "The record of accomplishment in civil-service libraries to date is nothing to point to with pride, except, perhaps, in California. It is generally acknowledged that that State's civil service set-up is far superior to any other in this country."

However, although the civil-service system in California is considered effective, Mr. Harold Hamill, Librarian of the Los Angeles Public Library, observes: "Obviously civil service is an advantage over the old spoils system, but libraries which have been competently administered by library boards and qualified administrators have undoubtedly been able to carry out higher levels of service than those which have been forced to surrender their personnel procedure to a considerable extent to civil-service control

* * *

"It would seem to me to be a definite mistake for the Public Library of Washington, D. C., which has had such a highly satisfactory administrative record, and which has always offered a very high level of service to the public which it serves, to be forced to surrender any part of its personnel procedure to a Civil Service Commission, even though it may be under the Federal Civil Service Commission. I think it would very likely result in lowered standards of

achievement."

A similar inquiry addressed to Dr. Carleton B. Joeckel, professor of librarianship at the University of California, former dean of the Graduate Library School, University of Chicago, and author of the previously quoted Government of the American Public Library, elicited this response: "Regarding the question of civil service in relation to the library, I think you are probably right in attempting to maintain your present independent status. I have had occasion to check on the operation of civil service in a number of cases recently, and each time it seems to me that an efficient independent organization is preferable to a general civil-service system, however good that system may be."

The above quotations note general objections to civil service for public libraries. However, specific complaints are numerous. One typical objection is that although personality factors are very important to the success of public-library operations, civil-service examinations fail to test personality. In this connection, Mr. Wharton Miller, Dean of the Syracuse University Library School, made the following comments: "No test, oral or written, has yet been devised to measure such intangibles as enthusiasm, desire to serve, loyalty to the job, temper, temperament-especially desired qualities." He feels that appointment of a librarian "should be decided

95148-49-19

on the basis of fitness for the job, because misfits injure not only themselves (as a doctor or lawyer would), they injure the whole institution of which they are a part.'

The librarian of the Evanston (Ill.) Public Library (under civil service for many years) is quoted as saying that while their civil service was of unusually high caliber and very understanding of their library problems, "there was no place in civil service for consideration of personality that will augment qualities already on the staff, that the best rating does not mean that this person will fit in and build up the staff to achieve the best results for the library as a whole.'

In the Los Angeles Public Library (under civil service) it is felt that limiting an administrator to a selection from the first three names listed does not take sufficient recognition of the value of personality in library work. Baltimore, Brooklyn, Cleveland, Detroit, etc., all emphasized the importance of this trait and mentioned the failure of civil-service examinations to screen for personality defects.

The consensus was that recommendations from library schools and employers, and personal interviews wherever possible, were much more valid selection devices than examinations. Alexander Galt, Librarian of the Buffalo (N. Y) Public Library, summarized it thus: "In the majority of cases the new employee has had experience in some other library and the administrator can always make inquiry of the previous or present employer and practically always be sure of receiving an honest report of the ability of the librarian under consideration. When either or both of these methods can be combined with a personal interview, the administrator is in a position to secure the very best librarian that is available for the position to be filled."

And from Detroit, "We have access to the services of the best library schools and the American Library Association Placement Bureau to which professional librarians throughout the country have recourse. From acquaintance over the years at library conferences, and otherwise, we know the people connected with these institutions, their caliber, their judgment and discrimination, and they know our library, its standards and its needs. We know from experience and knowledge of long standing the people upon whose judgment of possible recruits we can depend, and on the other side they know the type of people and qualifications we would consider for appointment * * * The best librarians do not have to wait to take examinations * * * but get the best position available for which they are fitted."

Mr. Munn (Pittsburgh) reiterates: "The examinations are unnecessary from the library's viewpoint, because dependable appraisals can always be secured from the library school and former employers."

As

Another criticism of civil-service examinations in their present form, is their failure to make allowance for special requirements. Frequently, a library needs someone with special training in a certain field, such as science, cataloging, reference service, children's work, etc. Yet an administrator under civil service is required to accept one of the persons at the top of the eligible list without regard to such special requirements, for which the examinations do not now test. Miss Lucy L. Morgan, assistant librarian in charge of personnel, wrote from Detroit: "In selecting employees one must not only keep in mind the gaps in the background of the staff as a whole, but any single appointment may require a specific background not available on the eligible list * *. We are making every effort to build a staff the subject background of which corresponds to the fields of knowledge with which we deal."

These criticisms of civil service, voiced by library administrators all over the country, have been confirmed by off-the-record comments of several departmental librarians in Washington who operate under civil service. They too complain that the examinations do not adequately test for the jobs prescribed; there is great delay in filling vacancies; examinations do not test for temperament. It has been reported that one agency, for years, has circumvented recruitment from registers by negotiating transfers from other departments; one officer, after a delay in procuring a replacement, went in person to the Commission and transported papers from one office to another in order to expedite the action. It is significant that not a single one of the agencies contacted recommended the civil-service system of appointment from an administrative point of view.

The scarcity of trained librarians makes recruitment under civil service procedures even more difficult-and ineffectual-than it would otherwise be. The American Library Association has estimated the need for 18,000 additional librarians in the 6 years following the war. Even before the war the percentage of placement from library schools was 100 percent; and library school enrollments

declined during the war years. The personnel situation is bad enough elsewhere, but it is aggravated locally by the large concentration of institutions competing for trained librarians. By way of illustration, the Library of Congress alone has approximately 500 authorized positions for professional librarians and over 300 for subprofessional. The Civil Service Commission lists and sets up examinations for about 600 additional positions for librarians and archivists; not to mention nearly 200 positions for library and archives aides.

These figures offer some idea of what the District of Columbia Public Library would face if it were denied the opportunity for independent recruiting and were obliged to rely on civil-service lists. In this connection it may be interesting to note that the Public Library personnel officer is frequently called to suggest candidates for temporary appointments in libraries under United States Civil Service because of the failure of the register to provide eligibles. A recent request came from the National Security Resources Board; Fort Belvoir also asked for names of candidates. When a similar inquiry came from the Navy Department a few months ago the comment was made that "The Commission has nobody." Doubtless there are a number of factors accounting for the apparent indifference of qualified applicants toward civil-service positions. But probably not the least significant is the general unpopularity of examinations which (coupled with delays in holding and posting them) often drive the best candidates away. For the administrator this means long periods in which positions remain vacant-or getting along with temporary appointees of less desirable caliber. Mr. Munn (Pittsburgh) sums it up: "The supply of trained librarians is usually below demand, and the more promising librarians can choose from among several openings. They will not bother with qualifying examinations when so many other openings are available to them."

But if it is hard to obtain good people under civil service, it is also difficult to eliminate inefficient personnel. Mr. Hamill (librarian, Los Angeles Public Library, under civil service) points out, "The administration is often put on the defensive in making discharges after completion of the 6 months' probation period. Some employees are bound to take advantage of the security offered by civil service and of the administrative difficulties involved in the dismissal process." In collecting evidence on which to base its own stand regarding civil service, Detroit discovered that, "Dismissal of unsatisfactory employees under civil service is frequently a difficult problem. Tenure provisions often guarantee security for those whose work is not up to the proper standard of efficiency, since rather than have publicity of a dismissal case brought to court the librarian is likely to retain the employee, with resultant reduction in efficiency."

CONCLUSION

For the reasons noted, I respectfully urge that the provisions of S. 1527 (H. R. 4981) affecting the Public Library of the District of Columbia be modified so that the present independent Board of Library Trustees and the present independent merit system for Public Library personnel will be retained.

EXHIBIT A.-Municipal libraries managed by boards (cities of over
30,000 population)

[Quoted from: Carleton B. Joeckel The Government of the American Public Library (Chicago, 1935) p. 175]

EXHIBIT A.-Municipal libraries managed by boards (cities of over 30,000 population)—Continued

EXHIBIT B.-Library boards in cities of over 30,000 population

[Quoted from: Carleton B. Joeckel The Government of the American Public Library (Chicago, 1935), p.

11 mayor-council city and 1 manager city have no libraries. 1 mayor-council city is a branch of a county library. Total number of libraries (315) exceeds number of cities because of duplication of libraries in same city.

Mr. PETERSON. At the same time I should like to incorporate a statement regarding the effect of the transfer of the Public Library under civil service, as a supplementary statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection it may be inserted in the record at this point.

(The statement above referred to is as follows:)

THE KEFAUVER BILL (S. 1365) AND THE PUBLIC LIBRARY'S MERIT SYSTEM

Within the past 16 months, four separate bills have been introduced in the United States House of Representatives and the Senate, concerned with home rule and reorganization in the District of Columbia. The first, H. R. 4902 (January 12, 1948), placed the professional staff of the Public Library under the merit system of the present Board of Education and the clerical and maintenance personnel under civil service. H. R. 6227 (April 14, 1948) transferred all Public Library positions under civil service. While H. R. 28 (January 3, 1949) includes no explicit provisions regarding the application of the Civil Service Act to Public Library positions, its Senate counterpart, S. 1365 (March 23, legislative day, March 18, 1949), definitely eliminates the present independent merit system and transfers all Public Library positions (except that of Director) under civil service, by title XIII, section 1301 which states: (a) "Except as otherwise provided in subsections (b) and (c), all offices and positions in the government of the District shall be subject to the Act entitled 'An Act to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States', approved January 16, 1883, as amended, and rules and regulations made in pursuance of such Act." 1

The vigorous opposition to such a course expressed by many distinguished public librarians on the basis of their own experience and observations impels us to importune for a guaranty of our status quo in respect to the appointment and removal of personnel. The opinions of several library educators and of librarians in a number of Federal Government departments as well as the findings of the Hoover Commission, only serve to strengthen our conclusive belief that a transfer to civil service will result in the serious impairment of public-library service to the citizens of the District.

About a year ago, in connection with H. R. 4902, letters were sent to librarians of public libraries in 17 cities of 500,000 or more population, inquiring their opinions of civil service as applied to public library personnel. Of the four under civil service, only one spoke in its favor and that in a way to indicate his system was unusually liberal. Two (including one under a civil-service set-up conceded to be the best in the country) replied unfavorably; one was noncommittal. In 1 Since this report was prepared, a revision of S. 1365 has appeared. This bill, S. 1527, dated April 7 (legislative day, March 18), 1949, makes no important change in the provisions affecting the Public Library.