Public Employment in Georgia State Agencies

• Author: Rex L. Facer,Christine L. Kuykendall
• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X0202200205
• Published date: 01 June 2002
• Date: 01 June 2002
• Subject Matter: Articles

REVIEWOFPUBLICPERSONNELADMINISTRATION / Summer 2002

Kuykendall,Facer/PUBLICEMPLOYMENT IN GEORGIA

Public Employment in

Georgia State Agencies

The Elimination of the Merit System

CHRISTINE L. KUYKENDALL

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

REX L. FACER II

Brigham Young University

Georgia’s 1996 elimination of merit protections for newly hired employees chal-

lenges the legal protections that act as a barrier to unfettered government action.

This article reviews the implications of Georgia’s reforms in light of constitu-

tional protections and judicial precedent. Although this reform effort sought to

avoid employees’ procedural due process rights by eliminating merit status for

newly hired employees, federal and state judicial decisions indicate that those

rights may not be so easy to extinguish. The most pressing challenge involves the

constitutional right to due process. The SupremeCourt has deter mined that pub-

lic employment may rise to the level of a property right, requiring proceduraldue

process. The courts have used a variety of standards to confer a property right

interest, including the existence of language in policy and procedure manuals.

Accordingly, many of Georgia’s agencies may have unknowingly promulgated

employee regulations that lead to the expectation of a property right in continued

employment.

Publicemployment reform in Georgia has resulted in a tangled and confus-

ing web of personnel rules and procedures that are still being sorted out

(Condrey,1998; Facer, 1998). This article addresses some of the most signifi-

cant issues associated with the elimination of merit protections. Georgia’s

1996 reform challenges legal protections that act as a barrier to unfettered

government action. Additionally, the elimination of the merit system raises

issues of constitutional protections, judicial precedent, and public personnel

authority. The reform legislation focused on controlling the administrative

133

Author’s Note: This article is a revised version of a paper presented at the 60th National

Conference of the American Society for Public Administration, April 10-13, 1999,

Orlando, Florida.

Review of Public Personnel Administration,Vol. 22, No. 2 Summer 2002 133-145

© 2002 Sage Publications

at SAGE Publications on December 8, 2012rop.sagepub.comDownloaded from