BACKGROUND

The designers of the current personnel management system in Virginia viewed the role of a central personnel activity as one of a coordinator, a facilitator, a provider of services to the operating agencies. The leaders of the State in the late 1930's and early 1940's soundly rejected the establishment of a control oriented, watchdog type civil service system for the Commonwealth.

In 1973, the General Assembly created the Commission on State Governmental Management "to conduct a thorough reorganization study." One of the Commission's areas of in-depth review was the personnel management system. In a document presented to the Governor and the General Assembly in December, 1975, titled the "Sixth Interim Report: Recommendations on the State's Personnel Process", the Commission expressed the following point of view regarding the proper role of the central personnel agency: "The Division of Personnel is one of the key staff arms assisting the Governor in the execution of his responsibilities. If the management of the state government is to be substantially improved, it is imperative that the Division be strengthened in its central management role. To become completely effective in its management role, it will be necessary for the Division to divest itself wherever possible of all matters that are extraneous to that central role."

In the Commission on State Governmental Management's review of the operation of the State's personnel system, they evaluated its effectiveness and suggested possible modifications and improvements where appropriate. They recommended that the General Assembly enact legislation directing the Secretary of Administration and Finance to conduct a study of the relationships between the Department of Personnel and Training (DPT) and State agencies and develop a definitive plan for the delegation of operating personnel functions to the appropriate levels of management for submission to the Governor and the General Assembly. This resulted in the enactment of House Joint Resolution 64 which directed a study be conducted and a plan submitted to the Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Delegates not later than December 15. 1976.

As a result of HJR 64, the Secretary of Administration and Finance appointed a committee on July 21, 1976 to conduct a study of personnel management within the Commonwealth. Each member of the Cabinet was asked to designate two individuals from his secretarial area to serve on this committee. It was suggested that the individuals be not only familiar with personnel policies and procedures but, in addition, have experience in personnel management practices. It was also felt that members should be selected from the involved central agencies; large, complex operating agencies; and the smaller operating agencies.

The initial meeting of the committee was held on August 11, 1976 at which time Secretary Maurice B. Rowe emphasized that this was an extremely challenging and meaningful study that could have far-reaching effects on future personnel management in the Commonwealth. In addition, he stressed the importance of addressing the provisions of HJR 64 as well as the need to closely review the contents of the Sixth Interim Report.

From the beginning active and continuous involvement by the Cabinet and agency personnel was solicited and received. All State agencies were asked to submit their comments and recommendations by their individual Secretaries and this Committee. Extensive input has been received. This Committee has visited numerous State agencies and talked to employees in an effort to obtain firsthand their comments and suggestions within the existing time constraints. A concerted effort was made to obtain the viewpoint of representatives of a variety of State employee groups during the course of this Committee's work.

The identification of those "personnel functions not of a policy nature" proved to be extremely difficult. The Committee, when discussing personnel functions not of a policy nature, with DPT and the operating agencies discovered a wide variance of views. However, with only minor exceptions, the majority of operating agencies saw not only a need but a real value in DPT establishing basic personnel policies and monitoring their enforcement. The real issue was to what extent this delegation should occur.

The identification of personnel management positions currently available in State government as a whole and in individual agencies was addressed. It was possible to clearly identify only those positions assigned to a class title relating to personnel management. Frequently, however, individuals were involved in personnel management as an additional responsibility. This was especially true in the smaller operating agencies and in the internal organizational structure of larger operating agencies. It proved impossible to estimate the personnel staff resources required at the several levels of State organization due to the complexity and diversity of the Organizational structure of the agencies within State government, the time available for this study, and the size of the Committee. Many of the recommendations of this study will impact the current personnel management resources throughout State government. Their impact, however, can only be determined after they have been evaluated and implemented on an agency by agency basis.

The House Joint Resolution directed that attitudinal changes be considered that may be required throughout the personnel management system. The Committee encountered numerous expressions of attitudes both in the written input from State agencies as well as interviews and discussion with members of several agencies. DPT is justifiably concerned with its responsibility for the overall function of State government as it relates to personnel management. This is viewed as best accomplished through the implementation of policies and detailed procedures and close and continuous review and approval of State agency requests and actions.

The operating agencies, on the other hand, feel DPT is too control-oriented. They do see the need for a strong role in establishing and maintaining uniform personnel policies and practices on the part of DPT. The operating agencies, however, feel a more participatory approach on the part of DPT is both appropriate and needed. They feel many of the present review procedures performed by DPT could be eliminated and replaced by appropriate post-audit actions to insure compliance with established personnel policies. The Committee agrees there is a need for greater decentralization of operating personnel management programs as opposed to personnel management policies. This will require some changes in attitude on the part of both DPT and operating agencies.

Several studies have been conducted over the past few years which have reviewed Virginia's personnel system. The most recent study was the one conducted by the Commission on State Governmental Management. An earlier study was conducted in 1970, "The Governor's Management Study." These studies were conducted by groups of individuals outside the Executive Branch of government. This Committee on Personnel Management, on the other hand, brings a different perspective and insight to the challenge of reviewing and submitting recommendations for the purpose of improving personnel management within the Commonwealth. This Committee is composed of senior management personnel from within the Executive Branch who deal with the personnel management system on a daily basis. As a result, they have an intimate knowledge of the personnel management system as it relates to State government and its strengths and weaknesses. In addition, they have a personal and professional commitment to the development of sound, pragmatic recommendations to resolve existing weaknesses in the system as well as the implementation of such recommendations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This section contains, a summary of the recommendations made by the Committee in each functional area of personnel management. In the interest of brevity, this section contains none of the rationale that is set out in the main body of the report in support of the recommendations. The reader is referred to the various chapters of the study for that information.