Last week, acting personnel director Tanya Smith resigned amid accusations that she altered the results of a civil-service test to help a friend. Changing the results of a exam isn't as sexy as stealing money or selling influence, but it undermines the fairness of hiring across all of city government. In many ways, civil-service regulations are the only barrier between ethical practices and complete patronage.
I spoke with Celia O'Leary, who replaced Smith as acting personnel director, about the civil-service exams. According to her, the tests are supposed to protect jobs in government agencies from patronage or favoritism. "That's the goal of the merit system," said O'Leary. "To eliminate bias coming from politics or just favoritism from ordinary human beings."
O'Leary explained that the individual tests can vary widely based on the job type. Some entry level positions require only a multiple choice examination. Other jobs, such as police officers, require a battery of physical, psychological, and written tests. The purpose of the test is to provide an objective assessment of an applicants ability to preform in the position.
Civil-service tests have literally been around in one form or another for thousands of years. The first known use of a standard test to measure aptitude for government employment was in China during the Sui Dynasty in 206 BC. The tests were extremely complicated and many prospective civil servants spent a great deal of money on tutors to ace the exams.
The modern civil-service examination process emerged in the United States as a result of the reform movement in the early 1900s. Until then, employees of the federal government were routinely fired based on their political affiliation. Workers were expected to participate in partisan campaigns or face repercussions. Reforms aimed to ensure basic competency and to protect employees from being unfairly fired.
Despite the recent scandal, O'Leary believes the civil-service test provides a basic standard for employment and ensures fairness for potential hires. "No test is perfect. But if you don't have them, it just falls on the judgment of city managers. How else can you figure out who is the best for the job?"
Walter Olson, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute who has studied civil-service tests, says that the effectiveness of regulations is partially dependent on the political culture of the municipality.
"Some places can sustain a civil-service system that works as intended and some cities turn it into a horror story," said Olson. "Where there is a political culture that works-- two political parties, voters who are paying attention, a press that is paying attention-- you see the system working. If you see a system dominated by insiders, the civil-service rules will often fail."
Ironically, Olson says that Smith's departure might mean that the civil-service system works in Philadelphia. "If there is enough scrutiny that someone can get fired for abusing the system, then you know it's not completely broken."
Comments (4)
As a city employee who has always had a problem with the way the city's personnel department does business, I disagree with the contention in your opening paragraph that, "the results of a exam isn't as sexy as stealing money or selling influence".
It is stealing from the legitimate candidate who would have been promoted had improprieties not taken place. Whatever the rise in pay for the person that sould have been properly promoted has been stolen from them. Additionally, that bump in salary will not be counted towards the proper candidate's pension and those losses continue until that candidate receives the promotion that they should have received all along. The actions of these people cited in the article adversely affect employee's careers, finances, pension and retirement without a moment's hesitation as to the implications and consequences of their actions because they do not care. Too many people view what they have done as nothing more than an annoyance.
And the problems are not only in testing. The city personnel department routinely and without consequence waive their own rules and determinations whenever they please. They adjust requirements of job specifications to fit the candidate they have in mind for the position to the detriment of other candidates that qualify based on the original job specifications.
Perhaps someone should look into many more aspects of the city’s hiring and promotion practices.
Posted by Anonymous City employee | June 2, 2008 2:19 PM
As a city employee who has always had a problem with the way the city's personnel department does business, I disagree with the contention in your opening paragraph that, "the results of a exam isn't as sexy as stealing money or selling influence".
It is stealing from the legitimate candidate who would have been promoted had improprieties not taken place. Whatever the rise in pay for the person that sould have been properly promoted has been stolen from them. Additionally, that bump in salary will not be counted towards the proper candidate's pension and those losses continue until that candidate receives the promotion that they should have received all along. The actions of these people cited in the article adversely affect employee's careers, finances, pension and retirement without a moment's hesitation as to the implications and consequences of their actions because they do not care. Too many people view what they have done as nothing more than an annoyance.
And the problems are not only in testing. The city personnel department routinely and without consequence waive their own rules and determinations whenever they please. They adjust requirements of job specifications to fit the candidate they have in mind for the position to the detriment of other candidates that qualify based on the original job specifications.
Perhaps someone should look into many more aspects of the city’s hiring and promotion practices.
Posted by Anonymous City employee | June 2, 2008 2:23 PM
I would like to be apart of this Department because I want to pertect in serve my community
Posted by Monte Reevey | June 6, 2008 1:45 PM
I am a city employee.On October 15,2008(just last week. I was offered a promotional position within the dept. of rec. I accepted, (notified my supervisor, co-workers family and friends that I have received a promotion in only 1 year and 4 months of employment!!!) I was informed that I would be contacted as soon as they could obtain a release date from my current department for November 3rd or 10th 2008.
Today, October 23,2008, the rec dept. contacted me to say OOOOPS, our bad. We just found out that there is a FREEZE on the dept. OK, the previous article posted here states that the dept of rec was one of the depts that would NOT be affected! Contacted union member rep, he is not aware of any such FREEZE, as well. Still awaiting the outcome of union 33 investigation.....
Posted by Confused | October 23, 2008 7:54 PM