The civil service system was created with noble and necessary intentions: to safeguard public employment from cronyism, nepotism, and backroom politics. In theory, it’s a structure built on fairness—rooted in the idea that job candidates should be judged on their knowledge, skills, and qualifications, not on who they know or how well they’re connected. But let’s be real. That idealistic model is slowly crumbling, particularly in the world of public libraries. What was meant to be a barrier to corruption has become a box-checking exercise, easily manipulated, rarely enforced, and—at times—flat-out ignored.

Civil Service in Theory vs. Civil Service in Practice

In theory, civil service lists rank job candidates based on their performance on standardized exams. These exams are intended to objectively measure who is best suited for a role. But anyone who has worked in or around libraries long enough knows that these lists are often little more than a bureaucratic formality. Hiring managers often “find” their candidate before a position is even publicly posted. Candidates are brought in provisionally—ostensibly on a temporary basis—only to remain in that role indefinitely, bypassing the testing process altogether. Sometimes, departments manipulate job titles to avoid using the existing eligible list, exploiting loopholes in the system (New York Library Association [NYLA], n.d.). And in some cases, the eligible list expires or is canceled before appointments are made, conveniently opening the door for internal hires who may not have ranked high on the exam—or taken it at all.

The Impact on Libraries and Library Workers

Libraries, as public institutions, should model equity and inclusion in hiring practices. But civil service inconsistencies send the opposite message. When qualified candidates study hard, pay fees, take exams, and still get passed over for those with insider access, it fosters resentment, burnout, and a toxic workplace culture. It also deters promising talent from entering the field. Library workers often face underpayment and limited upward mobility, especially in smaller or underfunded systems. When they finally get a shot at career advancement, and it turns out the process is rigged? That’s not just demoralizing—it’s systemic failure. Staff feel devalued, and communities miss out on diverse, talented professionals who could bring fresh energy to these public spaces (American Library Association [ALA], 2021).

The Financial Side: You’re Paying for the Illusion

Let’s talk money. Every time someone signs up for a civil service exam, they’re often required to pay a fee ranging from $30 to $100, depending on the role and locality (New York State Senate, 2023). That might not sound like much—but to a recent graduate, a single parent, or a low-wage worker, it adds up. Multiply that across thousands of applicants, and the state and local governments are raking in millions of dollars annually. What do applicants get for their fee? Often, nothing. Even if they pass with flying colors, they may never receive a call, let alone a job offer. This is especially true if someone else has already been quietly selected, and the “search” is just a legal performance. To its credit, New York State announced a temporary waiver of civil service exam fees through December 2025 to reduce barriers and promote equitable hiring (Governor’s Press Office, 2023). But that’s a band-aid—not a cure. Most local municipalities still charge fees, and the structural loopholes that undermine the lists remain fully intact.

The Real-World Consequences

This isn’t just inside baseball for government employees. This directly impacts public services. When libraries hire based on favoritism instead of competence, it affects how well patrons are served. It affects programming quality, public engagement, and community trust. Consider the example of a children’s librarian position in a New York public library. Suppose the top-ranked candidate on the civil service list has years of experience, a strong community engagement background, and relevant certifications. But instead of following the list, the library appoints someone provisionally who is friends with the board president or has ties to a foundation donor. That decision doesn’t just violate policy—it compromises service delivery to the most vulnerable users. It also breeds distrust between staff and administration. Employees start to assume that advancement depends more on politics than performance. And they’re often right.

Why Not Scrap the System Entirely?

It’s tempting. If the rules are so easily sidestepped, why keep pretending the civil service system works? Because if we abandon it completely, we open the floodgates to unchecked patronage hiring. The answer isn’t to throw away the system—it’s to reform it. That means: auditing hiring practices in public institutions; digitizing and publishing civil service lists for transparency; mandating clear justifications for provisional appointments; and enforcing consequences for rule violations—not just quietly “fixing” issues once someone complains. And most of all, we need to empower workers, unions, and applicants to challenge misuse of the system without fear of retaliation.

Conclusion

The civil service system is broken—not because it’s outdated, but because the people responsible for upholding it often treat it like an obstacle to get around rather than a policy to follow. We still need civil service lists. We need them to function the way they were intended: as tools for fairness, access, and merit-based hiring. But until there’s real enforcement and reform, applicants will continue to pay into a system that feels rigged, and institutions—like public libraries—will continue to undermine their own credibility. This is a call for transparency, for accountability, and for putting values back into practice. If we believe public service matters, then the way we hire public servants must reflect that.

References
American Library Association. (2021). Diversity counts report: Demographic study of library workers. https://www.ala.org/tools/research/librarystaffstats/diversitycounts

New York Library Association. (n.d.). A librarian’s guide to civil service in NYS. https://www.nyla.org/a-librarian-s-guide-to-civil-service-in-nys

Governor’s Press Office. (2023, June 30). Governor Hochul announces civil service exam fees now waived through 2025. New York State. https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-civil-service-exam-fees-now-waived-through-2025

New York State Senate. (2023, June 30). Fee waived for civil service exams in New York until end of 2025. https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/articles/2023/john-w-mannion/fee-waived-civil-service-exams-new-york-until-end-2025