The Merit System Protects All Of Us By Charles B. Wells, Executive Director, Kentucky Association of State Employees Why should anyone who is not a state merit employee care about the current Attorney General's investigation into alleged violations of the merit law? You must first review the history of the merit system in order to answer this question. Before the merit system existed, state employees owed their jobs to the political party in power. In order to get a job with the state, you had to be politically connected. You had to do what the political leadership of the party in power told you to keep your state job. State employees were expected to make significant annual donations to the political party in power. A state employee who refused to make such a donation would find themselves unemployed. Day to day job decisions made by state employees, were overseen by party leadership. In the 1950s, Governor A.B. "Happy" Chandler created the first merit system through an executive order. Governor Bert Combs and the 1960 General Assembly created the first statutory merit system under KRS Chapter 18. The 1982 General Assembly rewrote and strengthened the merit law under KRS Chapter 18A. Both of these statutory merit systems mirrored the federal civil service program which was enacted into law by congress. The current KRS 18A merit system has two purposes. The first purpose is to ensure that all state merit positions are filed by the most qualified and capable individuals, without political influence. The law is designed to allow any Kentuckian to have an open and fair chance to compete for any state position for which they qualify. KRS 18A.010 specifically states "All appointments and promotions to positions in the state classified service shall be made solely on the basis of merit and fitness, to be ascertained by competitive examination." Without a statutory merit system, unqualified and incompetent people could be placed into important state jobs that provide services that the public depends. The second purpose of the state merit system is to protect the ability of state employees to perform their jobs without political influence or interference. According to KRS 18A.140, "No person shall be appointed or promoted to, or demoted or dismissed from any position in the classified service, or in any way favored or discriminated against with respect to employment in the classified services because of his political or religious opinions or affiliations or ethnic origin or sex or handicap." This section of the law also enables state employees to enforce the law and protect the public without fear of political repercussions or interference. Without a merit system, state employees who conduct safety inspections, remove children from unsafe homes, fight toxic releases into the atmosphere and enforce other safety provisions could be subverted by anyone with powerful political connections. During the 2003 governor's race, many Kentuckians voted for Ernie Fletcher because of his commitment to "change the culture in Frankfort" and to "clean up waste fraud and abuse" in government. He promised to restore hope for Kentuckians by establishing an administration based on "rock solid values." Fletcher even sent a letter to state merit employees and promised them that he would "…ensure that the current merit system remains strong and that we continue to keep politics out of state government." Unfortunately, the evidence that was given to the attorney general and the state auditor indicates that the number of patronage hires and merit law violations to date under the Fletcher administration may have surpassed any administration in the past 20 years. The argument that the Fletcher administration is not the first administration to violate the merit laws does not excuse them from breaking those laws, nor does the assertion that the governor did not know what his staff were doing. As governor, Fletcher should take responsibility for and correct any inappropriate actions of those who work for him. History will be the final judge on how the governor handles this situation. Will Governor Fletcher acknowledge any mistakes made by his administration and will he act decisively to protect the interests of the public by correcting them or will he continue to defend new lows in patronage hiring and merit law manipulation?