How Did The Pendleton Civil Service Act Address The Problems Of The Spoils System
From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
| The Administrative State Projection |
|---|
 |
| Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
| • Nondelegation • Judicial deference • Executive command • Procedural rights • Agency dynamics |
| Click hither for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia |
The Pendleton Deed is a federal law passed in 1883 reforming the civil service and establishing the United States Civil Service Committee. It ended the spoils system of political patronage and established competitive examinations for hiring ceremonious servants.[1]
Background
The election of Andrew Jackson in 1828 established the spoils system, in which federal ceremonious service jobs went to political supporters, party members, family, and friends of the winning assistants. Following the assassination of President James Garfield in 1881 by a disgruntled job-seeker, public support grew for civil service reform. The new President, Chester Arthur, who had been Garfield's Vice-President, signed the Pendleton Act into law in 1883.[2]
Provisions
Usa Civil Service Committee
The human action established the U.s.a. Civil Service Commission equally a nonpartisan federal agency to oversee the hiring of federal civil servants. The commission consisted of three members appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, not more than than two of whom could be members of the aforementioned party.[1]
The primary duty of the Commission was to create and administer standardized competency examinations for civil service job candidates. The Commission also appointed a Master Examiner to coordinate the activities of state and territorial examination boards, which were modeled afterward the federal committee. Finally, the act authorized the federal commission to promulgate rules and regulations for the performance of its duties, which were to be published in an almanac study to the President and Congress (rulemaking was not fully standardized and centralized until the passage of the Administrative Procedure Human action, subsequently which all regulations were published in the Federal Register).[1]
Ban on Patronage
The act took several steps to eliminate political patronage in the ceremonious service. Besides requiring exams, it likewise instructed the Commission to apportion ceremonious service appointments amongst united states and territories according to their population. Any examiner who unfairly aided or injured a candidate'south chances, or contradistinct the results of an exam, would be constitute guilty of a misdemeanor and field of study to fines or imprisonment. No Senator or Representative could make a recommendation to rent a candidate, they could only offer character references. Finally, the act held that only two members of the aforementioned could serve in the civil service at the same time.[one]
Ban on Political Activity by Civil Servants
The act prohibited ceremonious servants from using federal money or buildings for political purposes. Information technology also banned them from coercing a subordinate to make any sort of political donation or action. Section 14 of the act issued a blanket ban on payments by ceremonious servants to other civil servants to obtain political favors.
| " | That no officer, clerk, or other person in the service of the Usa shall, directly or indirectly, requite or mitt over to any other officer, clerk, or person in the service of the United states of america...any money or other valuable thing on account of or to be practical to the promotion of any political object whatever.[one] [iii] | " |
Amending statutes
Below is a partial list of subsequent laws that amended provisions of the Pendleton Act:
- Civil Service Reform Human activity abolished the Us Civil Service Committee and replaced it with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Merit Systems Protection Board, and Federal Labor Relations Authority.
See as well
- Civil Service Reform Human activity
- United states of america Civil Service Committee
- Authoritative state
External links
- Total text of the act
- Search Google News for this topic
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 one.i 1.ii 1.three 1.4 OurDocuments.gov, "Pendleton Deed (1883)," accessed January 3, 2018
- ↑ OurDocuments.gov, "Pendleton Act (1883)," accessed Jan 3, 2018
- ↑ Notation: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
| The Administrative Land Project | ||
|---|---|---|
| Main | The Administrative State Project main page • Authoritative State Projection Index • Glossary of administrative country terms • Quotes nearly the administrative country • Administrative state • Rulemaking • Deference • Adjudication • Nondelegation doctrine |  |
| Reporting | Changes to the Federal Annals • Completed OIRA review of federal administrative bureau rules • Federal bureau rules repealed nether the Congressional Review Act • Historical additions to the Federal Register, 1936-2016 • Pages added monthly to the Federal Annals, 1995-2017 | |
| Laws | Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Deed of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Deed of 1914 • Liberty of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Human activity • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Deed • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Human action of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Human activity (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Concern Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Human action • Truth in Regulating Human action • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act | |
| Cases | Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United states of america • Association of Information Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Merchandise Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Visitor of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Assistants v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United states of america • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Visitor 5. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall five. Barlow'south • Massachusetts v. Ecology Protection Bureau • Mistretta five. The states • National Federation of Independent Business organization (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Committee v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United states of america v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Ability Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense force Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company 5. United states of america Fish and Wild animals Service • Whitman five. American Trucking Associations • Wickard 5. Filburn • Wiener v. United States | |
| Terms | Adjudication (administrative state) • Authoritative estimate • Administrative law • Authoritative law approximate • Authoritative land • Capricious-or-capricious exam • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (authoritative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative country) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (authoritative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte advice (authoritative land) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative land) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation past reference • Contained federal bureau • Informal rulemaking • Articulation resolution of disapproval (administrative country) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact assay • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Run a risk assessment (administrative land) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural police • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large | |
| Bibliography | | |
| Agencies | Authoritative Conference of the Us • United States Civil Service Commission • U.S. Authorities Accountability Office • U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs • U.S. Office of Management and Upkeep | |
| Ballotpedia | |
|---|---|
| About | Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities |
| Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy Communications: Kayla Harris • Megan Brown • Sarah Groat • Lauren Nemerovski Contributors: Scott Rasmussen | |
| Editorial | Geoff Pallay, Editor-in-Chief • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Josh Altic, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Jerrick Adams • Victoria Antram • Dave Beaudoin • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Kate Carsella • Kelly Coyle • Megan Feeney • Juan García de Paredes • Sara Horton • Tyler Male monarch • Doug Kronaizl • Amee LaTour • David Luchs • Brittony Maag • Andrew McNair • Jackie Mitchell • Elisabeth Moore • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Samantha Post • Paul Rader • Ethan Rice • Myj Saintyl • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Janie Valentine • Caitlin Vanden Boom • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Mercedes Yanora |
Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Pendleton_Act
Posted by: matthewsmande1942.blogspot.com
0 Response to "How Did The Pendleton Civil Service Act Address The Problems Of The Spoils System"
Post a Comment