Chapter 13:
Some Observations from Retirement
Over the last twenty years there have been increased
violations of the purpose and intent of the civil service system. Most
of them have introduced patronage by changing methods of operation and
disregarding the basic principle of a career service embodied in the
Civil Service Act. In July, 1975, the comptroller general submitted to
Congress a report that criticized actions of the Civil Service
Commission and referred to some of the violations of the act.
THE CIVIL SERVICE AND "SCHEDULE C"
Some time in the late forties and early fifties, word
came out that some civil service positions of high grade were to be
placed in a "Schedule C" classification and that the people in those
grades could be reassigned to other positions in the government. This
concept has some real merit, provided such changes are based on sound
administrative judgment; however, it is easily abused and that abuse has
for all intents and purposes grown to the extent that it is destroying
the main reason for the establishment of civil service.
Shortly after the beginning of the Eisenhower
administration, word came down from Interior Secretary McKay of a
proposal to place the positions of director of the National Park Service
and some seven top personnel on his staff, together with their
secretaries, in "Schedule C." I strongly objected, not only because such
a step would forfeit the long years of special training and experience
required to develop capable people in the specialities needed to plan,
develop, and administer the national park system, but also because it
disturbed the general morale of people in the organization who felt that
they were going to be traded around like professional ball players. Any
one of us could be moved to any other agency, and goodness knows who
might be sent in to fill our positions. The National Park Service is a
professional career service, and its effectiveness lies in that fact. By
the time a person gets into the upper grades of the civil service in the
National Park Service, he becomes very valuable to the service. On the
average, he will have had about twenty years of administrative
experience with national parks and be in his upper forties or early
fifties, and it would be rather late for him to start a new career.
After several meetings the secretary approved the
placing of only the director's position and that of his secretary under
the new schedule. But as years went by more positions were gradually
placed in the "Schedule C" category until at the present time, I
understand, all or most of the so-called supergrades16, 17, and
18are classified in the "Schedule C" designation. An "executive"
classification has also been established in which the top supergrade
positions have been placed by executive order of the president. At the
present time any person who accepts an appointment classified as
executive grade must give up his civil service rating and agree to serve
at the pleasure of the secretary.
By the last year of the first Nixon term, the
National Park Service began to get requests from the White House to give
certain people jobs. Many of these applications were returned with the
explanation that the individuals were not qualified. Word came back to
the Park Service from the White House to put them on because refusal to
do so would interfere with the president's program. About that time the
director of the National Park Service, a long-term career man in his
fifties, was requested to submit his resignation, and it is my
understanding that other bureau chiefs of the departments were asked to
do the same. Director George Hartzog submitted his resignation under
protest. He had to resign because he was in the executive
classification. It was accepted, and in 1973 a White House staff man
with no experience in the parks was appointed director of the National
Park Service. After the new director took over, it wasn't long before
some twenty or so additional people were brought into the service with
qualifications unrelated to the positions they filled. The new director,
Ron Walker, was a nice enough fellow and tried hard, but he was
politically motivated and it was this that caused him to do some things
that were very detrimental to the national park system. Many of us tried
to help him, but it was like putting up a brick building with putty in
place of mortar.
By the end of 1974, Walker resigned and Secretary
Rogers C. B. Morton made an in-depth study, both inside and outside the
service, to find a well qualified person to be the new director. He
ended up appointing a career Park Service man, Gary Everhardt. Here
again, Everhardt had to give up his civil service rights because the
position is still in the executive classification.
|
|
Ron Walker, director of the National
Park Service from January 1, 1973, to January 3, 1975.
|
Gary Everhardt, director of the National
Park Service from January 13, 1975, to May 27, 1977.
|
I feel sure that Secretary Morton had nothing to do
with the selection of Ron Walker. And I do not wish to imply that the
secretary would not have made a good selection of a new director of the
Park Service to succeed Walker. But I must say that Gary Everhardt was
on a list of five suggested candidates that was drawn up by Park Service
retirees ("alumni") at their reunion in Yosemite National Park in the
early fall of 1974. Following is the letter to Secretary Morton that the
alumni committee asked me to sign on their behalf along with Morton's
reply. I wrote a similar letter to the White House and got a reply a
long time later; both of these letters are also reproduced below, as is
my second letter to the White House.
October 7, 1974
Honorable Rogers C. B. Morton
Secretary of the Interior
Washington, D. C. 20240
Dear Mr. Secretary:
At the meeting of the Old Timers in Yosemite National
Park, Sunday, September 29 through October 1, there were over 120 Park
Service Retirees present, and the Chairman of the Employees and Alumni
Association called a meeting of a special committee to discuss what
action or steps, if any, should be taken by the Alumni of the National
Park Service in connection with returning the Service to Career Civil
Service status. Attached to this letter is a list of those who attended
that meeting; and an additional number of the Alumni who had been
contacted expressed their support of the committee's deliberations.
One of the decisions reached was that I should
address a letter to the President of the United States on the general
subject of Civil Service, especially as it relates to the National Park
Service, and a letter to you suggesting individuals presently in the
service whom we feel you should consider in selecting the new Director
of the National Park Service. In other words, Mr. Secretary, we want to
be helpful. Further we can't help but feel deeply concerned about the
agency that we spent a lifetime working in, and we're proud of the
National Park System and Service. We know full well that the
responsibility for the appointment is yours and not ours, but we also
believe that we know the career people and how they fit into an
organization and whether they would be accepted as the Director by their
associates. We feel that these factors of selection can be best
communicated to you by those who have been closely associated with the
growth and history of the Service. What we're trying to convey to you,
Mr. Secretary, is our deep interest and most profound desire to help the
National Park Service meet its administrative and assigned
responsibility with full adherence to its purpose so ably expressed in
the basic legislation. We know this objective is also yours, but I guess
what we are trying to say is, "This is a family matter and we think
Grandpas are part of the family also."
We are listing five people we feel should be given
careful consideration, and we are willing to meet and discuss their
qualifications in detail if you so desire. [Identification of the
individuals recommended to the secretary is deleted out of consideration
for them; obviously, Gary Everhardt was one of them.]
I'm sure the background of each of these individuals
is fully exposed in the personnel files of the Department. We feel that
the appointment of any one of them would be well received by the field.
They have all had a certain amount of administrative work in a central
office either in Washington or in the regions.
I would like to say personally a word about Ron
Walker, and I think the others on the committee would endorse my
statement regarding him. Ron is a likeable person who tried hard. There
were several things which some of us objected to or felt were
unnecessary, although one very fine thing he did was to move
considerable authority to the field. However, we feel that he lacked the
qualifications and experience to head up a bureau like the National Park
Service, and that's not really his fault. There are quite a few of us,
however, who would like to have had a greater opportunity to help more
than we did.
We beg of you, Mr. Secretary, to give our suggestions
careful consideration. If for any reason these suggestions are not
acceptable and you wish to discuss with us other people you have in
mind, I'm sure that any individual among us or a group of members of the
Alumni Committee will be glad to be consulted.
Sincerely yours,
Conrad L. Wirth
For the Alumni Committee
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
Oct. 25, 1974
Dear Connie:
I appreciate your October 7 letter regarding the
appointment of a new Director of the National Park Service when that
position becomes vacant. Would you please also relay my gratitude to the
other members of your special committee of the Alumni? I hope that all
of you already know I value your counsel.
As you might well imagine, we have received a number
of recommendations, not to overlook first person applicants. The
qualifications of the five persons of your Alumni Committee selected for
specific mention are, of course, well known. The five certainly have
every right to be proud of being singled out by such a distinguished
group, whose combined public service must total more than three
centuries.
When the time comes to make the appointment from
among the many names before us, it will be a serious responsibility,
hardly to be treated lightly, and I regard your recommendations with
gravity.
I know the high standards you and your fellow alumni
have in mind. And, surely you understand we will insist upon a selection
with the professional skills and managerial talent equal to the
position. You have my assurance your recommendations will be given the
most thorough consideration.
With best wishes.
Sincerely yours,
(Sgd) Rog
Secretary of the Interior
Mr. Conrad L. Wirth
9633 East Bexhill Drive
Rock Creek Hills
Kensington, Maryland 20795
CONRAD L. WIRTH
9633 EAST BEXHILL DRIVE
ROCK CREEK HILLS
KENSINGTON, MARYLAND 20795
October 7, 1974
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. President:
On Saturday, September 28, while I was in San
Francisco on my way to Yosemite National Park, I heard on T.V. your
statement on inflation and the economy, and I thought it was a very good
one. . . . When I arrived at Yosemite I found I was not the only one
that heard your talk, and that it had instilled in people the feeling
that a sound plan of attack on inflation would soon be made public. We
will all pitch in and help in every way we can.
The meeting I attended in Yosemite was a gathering of
some 125 Old Timersretired Park Service employeesto
celebrate the 84th anniversary of the establishment of Yosemite and to
do honor to John Emmert and James Lloyd who were the first two rangers
in Yosemite when the National Park Service was established as a career
organization in 1916....
Mr. President, the Alumni and employees of the
National Park Service want most sincerely to have the Service restored
to the status of a career service. It had always been a career service
until 1973 when, for the first time, the President requested the
Director to submit his resignation and then appointed a person who knew
nothing about parks. Director Ron Walker did the best he could, worked
hard, and is a friendly person; however, he resigned as of January 1,
1975, and the professional park people most sincerely request that the
Service be returned to career Civil Service status.
Mr. President, there were distributed copies of the
article by Carol Kilpatrick in the Washington Post of September
21 and we like very much what you said about the Civil Service. We must
report that the National Park Service has suffered from the strong
assault on the federal career system. We have been informed that in the
last several years over 50 career positions in the Service have been
taken over by non-Civil Service people whose qualifications are
questionable. Well qualified and trained career people, whether in
government or private enterprise, can produce the best job, and the best
job is the best politics in the long run. We urge most strongly that the
present Administration return the National Park Service to its career
Civil Service status. We also strongly believe that the national policy
must be determined and defined by the Administration and the Congress,
and that the professional career personnel are subservient to the
Secretary in carrying out the policies of the Government.
The National Park Service down through the years
starting with the Mather-Albright period has been a well trained, hard
working, progressive organization always willing to work with and carry
out the policies of the Government. The "C" classification imposed on
the three highest grades of Civil Service has been destructive of the
intended Civil Service as originally established. It has weakened the
Civil Service structure and lowered the morale of many agencies of
government. Under these conditions highly trained professional employees
have left their jobs at the first opportunity.
Mr. President, we urge that as part of your
anti-inflation effort you return to a sound quality employment program.
We feel that such a move will produce better work, at less cost.
This letter and a letter to Secretary Morton have
been written under instructions and on behalf of a Committee of Alumni
appointed by the Chairman of the Employees and Alumni Association of
the National Park Service. Attached is a list of the Committee. The
active employees who are members of the Association have had no part in
the actions taken by the Committee, and as far as I know have no
knowledge that this letter and the letter to the Secretary are being
written. We retirees want to be helpful, and in as much as this switch
over to political appointment of a Director took place during a
Republican Administration we are hopeful that "an in house" correction
can be made. We are of a definite feeling that Ron Walker's appointment
came out of the White House, hence this letter to you. A copy of this
letter is being sent to Secretary Morton so that he will be fully
advised of our feelings.
We join with you and all Americans in our prayers for
the First Lady.
Sincerely yours,
Conrad L. Wirth
For the Alumni Committee
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 8, 1974
Dear Mr. Wirth:
On behalf of the President, thank you for your
October 7 letter with its generous compliments on his remarks at the
closing of the summit conference on the economy, and your pledge to
pitch in to do your part to help whip inflation. Your support of his
September 20 memorandum on the Civil Service is also appreciated very
much. It was most kind of you to add your good wishes for the First
Lady's rapid recovery.
We note with interest your request that the National
Park Service "be returned to career Civil Service status". It has
remained in the career Civil Service without interruption, and shall
continue. An agency's Civil Service status is in no way destroyed by
requiring the agency's uppermost officials to be directly and personally
responsible to those who in turn supervise them.
We regret that we cannot agree with your assessment
that the Civil Service structure has been weakened by non-career
classifications placed upon some positions in the three highest Civil
Service grades.
You may be aware that legislation has been introduced
which would make a number of additional agency positions subject to
Senate confirmation. Indeed, the Congress recently wrote into law a
requirement that the Director of the Park Service's sister agency in
the environmental field, the Fish and Wildlife Service, be a
Presidential appointee subject to Senate confirmation.
If Cabinet and sub-Cabinet officers are to have
adequate direction over the bureaus they are charged with supervising,
then they must have control over the appointment of the top bureau
administrators. It seems abundantly clear that, regardless of which
Administration holds office, the Legislative Branch agrees with the
Executive Branch on that point.
In this same regard, I understand that 26 members of
the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs have signed a letter
to Secretary Morton stressing that his search for a new Director should
not be limited to present or former employees of the National Park
Service. Unquestionably, there are men and women without prior Park
Service affiliation whose qualifications ought to be considered.
We appreciate your continuing support of the National
Park Service, and can assure you of the President's commitment to the
selection of qualified personnel.
Sincerely,
Norman E. Ross, Jr.
Assistant Director
Domestic Council
Mr. Conrad L. Wirth
9633 East Bexhill Drive
Rock Creek Hills
Kensington, Maryland 20795
CONRAD L. WIRTH
9633 EAST BEXHILL DRIVE
KENSINGTON, MARYLAND 20795
November 18, 1974
Mr. Norman E. Ross, Jr.
Assistant Director
Domestic Council
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Ross:
I must answer your letter of November 8th. It is hard
for me to believe that such a letter as yours could come out of the
White House. Further, it is my firm belief that it doesn't exemplify the
present administration.
Your attitude, as expressed in the second paragraph,
is destructive of the Civil Service. The National Park Service, like
many of the other Bureaus, is composed of professional people, and when
you put a political staff of some twenty-five people or more in the top
jobs you destroy the agency's character and morale. The Administration's
policies and major administrative control rest in the hands of
the Secretary and his Assistant Secretariate staff. The present Director
is a nice enough fellow, but when he was sent over from the White House
he was not equipped by training or experience to be Director. The NPS
has, down through the years, done a good job, in my opinion, and
supported the Administrative policies. It is hard for me to see why the
change was made in January 1973. I am inclined to believe that it was a
White House, rather than a Department decision.
As to your third paragraph, you do not seem qualified
to make such a statement. Enclosed are some newspaper articles on the
subject.
Regarding your fourth paragraph, yes, I know of this,
but it never would have happened except for the things that have been
taking place in the last six years, especially since January 1973.
However, if the C classifications are going to provide the requirement
of confirmation by the Senate of future Directors, this is the only sure
means left to guarantee the appointment of qualified people. Such
appointments will call for public hearings.
I agree with the statement in your fifth paragraph,
the Director of the NPS has always been appointed by the Secretary.
However, six of the first seven Directors and their staffs were career
people, and the other one was an excellent conservationist and well
qualified. It was at the beginning of the second Nixon administration
that not only the Park Service but other Bureaus as well found
non-qualified political personnel taking over.
As to your sixth paragraph, I agree it is quality
that is needed, if you are going to do a good job. Further, when you
pick quality for a Civil Service job you strengthen the Career Service.
On the other hand, there are a lot of well qualified and loyal people in
the National Park Service that could help the Administration in office.
Remember, it has been proven, time and again, during the two hundred
years of our Republic, that the good job is the best politics, and that
can't be done without qualified people. We have left the old
ward-heeling type of politics far behind.
I have answered your letter at length, because it
needed an answer. I get the feeling from your letter that whoever
prepared it had neglected his research.
I assume you know I am a retired government employee
with 35 years of Federal service. I started during the Hoover
administration and retired in the early part of the Johnson
administration. The last twelve years I was Director of the National
Park Service, including eight years of the Eisenhower administration. It
was President Eisenhower's approval of the National Park Service,
Mission 66 program at a Cabinet meeting presentation arranged by Max
Rabb that pre-dated the national upsurge in the park and recreation
programs. The President shortly thereafter established the Outdoor
Recreation Resources Review Commission which resulted in the establishment
of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and their nationwide programs.
I am an independent, and voted for President Nixon in 1972. I like
President Ford, and like very much his selection for Vice President.
I'm telling you this because I want you to know I am
not a nut. I want to be constructive and I dislike seeing a lecture-type
letter such as you signed come out of the White House, especially while
President Ford is there. It is very poor politics.
Sincerely,
Conrad L. Wirth
Ross never replied to this letter, nor did anyone
else.
The June, 1973, issue of the National Park
Courier, the newspaper published by the Employees and Alumni
Association of the National Park Service, printed an editorial I had
written on this subject. I sent a copy of it to several senators.
Senator Jacob K. Javits, of New York, thereupon wrote a letter to the
Civil Service Commission referring to my published views and requesting
a statement of the commission's position on the issues I had raised.
Following are the commission's reply to Senator Javits, a letter which I
addressed to the commission in 1975 raising new questions, and the
commission's response to me.
UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
BUREAU OF EXECUTIVE MANPOWER
WASHINGTON D.C. 20415
4 Sep. 1973
Honorable Jacob K. Javits
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Javits:
This is in response to your letter of August 9, 1973,
asking our views on the allegation regarding politicizing of civil
service positions in the National Park Service, as stated by Mr. Conrad
S. Wirth in an editorial in the June issue of the National Park
Courier. Mr. Wirth expresses his feeling that the position of
Director and other top-level positions in the National Park Service have
become political positions and the filling of these positions by
nonprofessional appointees has a deleterious effect on the morale of
career employees.
The position of Director, National Park Service, was
placed in Executive Level V of the Executive Schedule by Executive Order
11189, effective August 15, 1964, and upon recommendation of the
Secretary of the Interior it was excepted from the competitive service.
The position of Deputy Director, National Park Service, was abolished
July 9, 1971 and has not been reestablished. Prior to that date it was
filled by noncareer executive assignment since it was first established
in January 1967. Noncareer executive assignments are authorized by the
Civil Service Commission when the incumbent will be deeply involved in
the advocacy of Administration programs and support of their
controversial aspects; participate significantly in the determination of
major political policies of the Administration; or serve principally as
a confidential assistant to a Presidential appointee.
Since it was established in 1967 until it was
abolished in 1971, the position of Deputy Director was filled by
long-term career employees of the National Park Service, serving under
noncareer executive assignments. Since the position is noncareer, the
incumbents have had to voluntarily relinquish their career tenure to
accept the Deputy Director assignment. The position of Director,
National Park Service, has been filled historically by career employees,
who likewise voluntarily relinquished career status.
The vast majority of supergrade positions are filled
on a career basis by career employees. Each request from an agency for
excepting a position from the competitive service and placing it in the
excepted service receives a most careful scrutiny prior to approval by
the Civil Service Commission and every effort is made to keep the number
of such positions to an absolute minimum. In fact, the number of
noncareer supergrade positions declined from 579 on June 30, 1972, to 536
on June 30, 1973. We can assure you that there has been no wholesale
movement of career jobs into the excepted service.
The qualifications of all appointees to supergrade
positions, career and noncareer, is by law within the jurisdiction of
the Civil Service Commission and each appointment must have the prior
approval of the Commission. This enables us to effectively monitor the
qualifications of all individuals moving into supergrade positions.
We are not aware of any impropriety in appointments
to various supergrade positions in the National Park Service. Neither
do we find anything in Mr. Wirth's editorial or letter that requires any
action by the Civil Service Commission at this time. We see no threat to
the normal goals and aspirations of the career professionals of the
National Park Service.
In addition, we are not in receipt of any complaints
from employees of the National Park Service reflecting a deteriorating
morale of the work force. Complaints, if received, would be referred, as
a matter of course, to our Bureau of Personnel Management Evaluation for
exploration during their visits to evaluate personnel management
practices. A copy of your inquiry and a copy of Mr. Wirth's editorial
has been forwarded to the Director, Bureau of Personnel Management
Evaluation, for appropriate consideration.
We hope this information has been responsive to your
request. Please do not hesitate to call upon us if we can be of any
further assistance.
Sincerely yours,
Joseph U. Damico
Director
CONRAD L. WIRTH
9633 EAST BEXHILL DRIVE
ROCK CREEK HILLS
KENSINGTON, MARYLAND 20795
September 16, 1975
Director Joseph U. Damico
Bureau of Executive Manpower
U.S. Civil Service Commission
Washington, D.C. 20415
Dear Mr. Damico:
I have a copy of your letter of September 4, 1973 to
Senator Jacob K. Javits in answer to his letter to you dated August 9,
1973 in which he transmitted to you an editorial I wrote that appeared
in the National Park Courier. I did not bother writing further on the
subject because your letter made it quite clear that you were not going
to do anything about it and it was clear that other steps were
necessary.
Now that the matter has been at least temporarily
straightened out I would like to ask you a question and to point out
where the information contained in your letter of September 4, 1973 to
the Senator is not correct.
1. Did the Civil Service clear Ronald Walker as being
qualified to be Director of the National Park Service?
2. Do you honestly think that an employee in a career
appointment is going to go to the Civil Service Commission and file a
complaint about its selection of an unqualified political appointment
to head up a major bureau of the Federal Government?
3. You sent the Senator's letter and my editorial to
your Bureau of Personnel Management Evaluation; that was a complaint.
Did they do anything about it and if so what?
4. For your information the position of Deputy
Director was not abolished in 1971. There is now and there has been a
Deputy Director ever since 1967.
5. You state that "The position of Director, National
Park Service, has been filled historically by career employees, who
likewise voluntarily relinquished career status." I can only speak for
myself when I tell you that I am a retired National Park Service career
employee with 36 years of service of which 33 years have been with the
Park Service and with better than 12 years as its Director. During my
term as Director I served under four secretaries, two of whom were
Republicans and two were Democrats and I had just one appointment and I
never gave up my Civil Service status and I never was asked to resign as
was Director Hartzog.
Mr. Damico, I am not trying to be mean, but there is
a large group of retired career service people as well as employees who
believe in training and improving oneself to do the best job possible
for our government and our country and this can't be done if we and
Civil Service don't do our thing. Certainly you must admit that asking
Hartzog to resign, which I understand he did under protest, and
appointing Ronald Walker, with no knowledge or training in park
administration, is not the right way to get the best results and the
most out of the tax dollar.
I assume that Executive Order 11189 is still in
effect. Would it be possible for you to send me a copy? I would
appreciate it very much.
Sincerely yours,
Conrad L. Wirth
UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
BUREAU OF EXECUTIVE MANPOWER
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20415
Oct. 06, 1975
Mr. Conrad L. Wirth
9633 East Bexhill Drive
Rock Creek Hills
Kensington, Maryland 20795
Dear Mr. Wirth:
This is in reply to your letter of September 16,
1975, in which you posed questions concerning the top management of the
National Park Service.
The position of Director, National Park Service was
established in 1964 at Level V of the Executive Schedule and excepted
from the competitive service under Schedule C. The Civil Service
Commission was not involved in the selection or approval of Mr. Ronald
Walker for that position because we are not involved in the selection
and approval of the qualifications of candidates for positions in the
Executive Schedule. In case you are not aware of it, Mr. Walker
resigned as Director of the Park Service in January 1975 and was
succeeded by a former career employee of the National Park Service, Mr.
Gary E. Everhardt.
Procedures exist for Federal employees to complain to
the Civil Service Commission about all types of personnel actions,
including political appointments, which they view as improper. The Civil
Service Commission Complaint Office here at our 1900 E Street address
handles written, telephone, and walk-in complaints.Em ployees
contacting that office may complain anonymously or request that their
complaint be maintained confidential. The system, thereby, allows
employees to point out seeming irregularities when they otherwise would
not for fear of reprisal.
The Bureau of Personnel Management Evaluation follows
up on complaints with a prompt inquiry to the agency concerned and/or by
flagging the complaint for investigation during a general evaluation of
personnel management in the agency. Your complaint, which was referred
to them as a result of your previous letter, was flagged for future
investigation and should be considered in the evaluation of top
managerial positions currently underway in the Department of the
Interior.
Our records indicate that the position of Deputy
Director, National Park Service was established in grade GS-17 on
January 30, 1967, upgraded to grade GS-18 on January 14, 1971, and
canceled on July 9, 1971. In August 1972 the Department of the Interior
requested our approval of their proposal to reestablish the position of
Deputy Director, National Park Service in grade GS-18 and requested
concurrent approval of the qualifications of the proposed appointee.
These requests, however, were not approved and the position was not
established and filled again at the supergrade level until October 12,
1973. At the time of our response to your letter to Senator Javits in
September 1973 the position of Deputy Director, National Park Service
had not existed at the supergrade level for more than two years.
The position of Director, National Park Service was
in the career service when you were appointed to it in December 1951.
However, it was converted to be excepted service under Schedule C in
August 1953 and continued under Schedule C when it was upgraded to grade
GS-18 in November 1957. Since you were a career employee when you
entered the position you retained your career status when the position
was converted to Schedule C. If the position had been excepted under
Schedule C prior to your appointment to it, you would have relinquished
your career status in accepting it and would have served at the
pleasure of the Secretary of Interior as did Mr. Hartzog.
Executive Order 11189 is still in effect and a copy
is enclosed per your request. I appreciate your concern for the
well-being of career employees and the career service and hope this
letter has amply responded to your questions.
Sincerely yours,
Joseph U. Damico
Director
|