If it is true that the Civil Service Commission is "not involved in the selection and approval of the qualifications of candidates for positions in the Executive Schedule," then the National Park Service is no longer a career service. Further, the commission's admitted ignorance of Ron Walker's qualifications—or lack of them—for the position of director of the Park Service removes all authority from Damico's statement to Senator Javits that "the position of Director, National Park Service, has been filled historically by career employees." If I am right in believing that civil service employees are selected on the basis of their qualifications, then the executive classification positions are no longer civil service positions. (Regarding the position of deputy director, Damico is intentionally misleading. The position was not canceled, although there was a seesaw game of shifting it from grade 17 to 18, back to grade 17, and up again to 18.)

I must note, however, that of the eight directors of the National Park Service—from the appointment of Stephen T. Mather with the establishment of the service on May 16, 1917, to the end of Gary Everhardt's tour of duty as director in May, 1977—all but one, Ron Walker, were well qualified to fill the position. But that one illustrated the dangers of the new system.

William J. Whalen, director of the National Park Service from July 5, 1977, to the present.

The secretary of the interior, the under secretary, and the assistant secretary are all political appointees charged with seeing that the policy of the administration is carried out. Most of them are new to government, and they come and go. Some don't like it and want to go back to private business; others have been let go for political reasons. The secretary of the interior stays in office for an average of 4.4 years. The under secretary, second in command of the department, has an average longevity of 1.7 years. The assistant secretaries average 2.2 years in office. How could they possibly operate with businesslike efficiency—and government is big business—without well-trained and experienced career personnel to carry out the integral details of government responsibility?

In the twelve years that I was director of the National Park Service there were eight assistant secretaries to whom I reported at different times. In that same period there were eight under secretaries to whom the assistant secretaries reported, and four secretaries. Now what could be expected to happen if a political appointee takes over a bureau, as when the Nixon administration moved Ron Walker into the directorship?

I can't help but draw the conclusion that everything possible should be done to insure that the bureaus have well-trained career people to head them, people with a desire to devote their entire lifetime to getting the job properly done. I know it has been said that a man may be doing a good job, though not carrying out policy established by the political party in power, and that it is difficult to fire civil service people. The solution, in my opinion, is to establish rules and regulations that will allow the replacing of such a person. But he must be replaced by a person with experience and know-how if the job is going to be done and done right.

It is perfectly evident that the civil service structure has already been broken down by executive classification of the upper grades, and, in fact, the Civil Service Commission claims it has nothing to do with the appointment or separation of executive grade classification personnel. The executive grades are established by presidential order. If that regulation prevails the only recommendation I can make is that all such appointments be confirmed by Congress subject to public hearings. This procedure would at least provide an opportunity to examine the qualifications of the nominees.