Civil Service Reform in Action

• Author: Ronald R. Sims
• Published date: 01 December 2009
• Date: 01 December 2009
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X09338507
• Subject Matter: Articles

382

Review of Public Personnel

Administration

Volume 29 Number 4

December 2009 382-401

© 2009 SAGE Publications

10.1177/0734371X09338507

http://roppa.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Civil Service Reform in Action

The Case of the Personnel Board

of Jefferson County, Alabama

Ronald R. Sims

College of William and Mary

Civil service reform interventions are designed to address institutional weaknesses

associated with human resource management (HRM) and processes. This article dis-

cusses the case of a federal court order reform of a HRM system. More specifically, the

article offers a firsthand look at efforts to reform the Personnel Board of Jefferson

County, Alabama, following the imposition of a receivership.

Keywords: civil service reform; public human resource management

Things continue to change in the world of public human resource management

(HRM) in the United States. As evidenced in a recent article by Battaglio and

Condrey (2006), the past two decades have seen a renewed interest in reforming the

structure and nature of civil service systems. In the United States, these reform

efforts were spearheaded by the concepts of “reinventing government” and new

public management. Additionally, Naff (2002) noted that, during the 1990s, many

public sector jurisdictions sought to reform their civil service systems to make them

more flexible and responsive. The success of those efforts depended to a large extent

on political factors such as the extent to which there were active constituencies back-

ing such reforms. For example, in 1978, the Carter administration was able to enact

reform legislation, whereas efforts by the Clinton administration died for lack of

support (Naff, 2002). According to Naff, state governments that have sought reform

have taken one of two approaches: either modernization or the complete abolish-

ment of the system. In their discussion of reform in four states and two local govern-

ments, Battaglio and Condrey (2006), on the other hand, offered that state (and local)

governments have sought reform using one of four models: traditional, reform, stra-

tegic, and privatization/outsourcing.

The intent of this article is to contribute to our knowledge of approaches to

reform civil service systems by taking a detailed look at one example, the Personnel

Board of Jefferson County, Alabama (hereafter referred to as the PBJC). Change at

the PBJC came in the form of a mandate by the Eleventh Circuit, which found the

agency ill-equipped—both in terms of staff and infrastructure—to provide funda-

mental services to its constituency and to execute its obligation to administer the

civil service system for Jefferson County in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner.

Sims / Civil Service Reform in Action 383

History of the Personnel Board of Jefferson County

The PBJC was created in 1935 by the state’s legislature to oversee the conduct of

civil service in the county. It is the organization’s responsibility to administer non-

discriminatory employment tests, to create hiring registers, and to certify lists of

qualified applicants to the 23 municipalities and agencies it serves. Additionally, the

PBJC fulfills a number of other statutory obligations, including the maintenance

of personnel records for more than 9,000 employees, the certification of payrolls,

and presiding over reductions in force. The PBJC had been involved in decades-long

litigation surrounding its testing practices before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Eleventh Circuit intervened and placed the PBJC under court receivership.

Citizens Supervisory Commission and the Three-Member Board

The PBJC reports to a Citizens Supervisory Commission (CSC) composed of

17 community leaders, including heads of local colleges, universities, and civic

groups. The PBJC is governed by a three-member board. Board members are

appointed by the CSC and serve staggered 6-year terms.

Consent Decree and Appointment of a Receiver

The NAACP initiated litigation against the PBJC in 1974, alleging discriminatory

practices in job selection, tests, and hiring. In 1981, a federal consent decree was

reached to develop “non-discriminatory tests” and to establish “fair job selection

procedures and hiring tests” (United States of America v. Jefferson County, Alabama,

et al., 2002, p. 20).

In July 2002, the PBJC was found in contempt for violating the terms of a

December 1995 order that extended and modified the 1981 consent decree to rectify

discriminatory practices. On July 8, 2002, the federal judge appointed a “receiver”

to function as the “sole board member” in orchestrating court-ordered changes to the

discriminatory practices. According to the ruling, the receiver was to “take over all

powers state law assigns to the three member board, its executive director and the

Citizen Supervisory Commission” and to “manage and control property and employ-

ees, and perform contractual, financial, legal and personnel duties” (United States of

America v. Jefferson County, Alabama, et al., 2002, p. 2).

Receiver’s Charges

As ordered by the U.S. District Court (United States of America v. Jefferson

County, Alabama, et al., 2002), the ultimate mission of the receiver was to