employ the name requested candidates. Further, the evidence does not point to the existence of a plan to favor former North American Rockwell employees, as alleged in the Subcommittee Report. As we mentioned in our August 13th neco there is an indication that a political clearance system did exist at the Departmental level. The factors which point to the existence of such a system will be considered, along with other information, and dealt with separately from this review.

In addition to the cases cited in the House Report, nine name requests
made by NHTSA during 1973-74 were also reviewed.. Out of the nine, there
is evidence of preferential treatment in one case. In this instance,
preferential treatment appears to have been accorded the name requested
candidate primarily because of pressures coming from outside the Department.
To deal with the problems which we found we are requiring NHTSA to:
-Submit a revised promotion plan to us within 60 days.

-Develop and administer an orientation program for managers and
supervisors on the proper use of merit staffing procedures. All
managers are to have received the required training within 120
days of this report.

-Terminate all improper details and establish controls on future
details within 30 days.

Attachment

This memo is to bring you up to date on our activity concerning the investigation of the 14 none request cases at HITSA, and to give you some tentative conclusions based on a preliminary review of the findings from our investigation.

1. Method of investigation. The team was on site the week of July 22, but are still making telephone contacts and gathering information because a number of people were on leave during the actual survey period, or the need to contact sose individuals was not evident at the time. The team reviewed all evidence of record pertaining to the cases. We interviewed personally each of the employees about when a case was written in the Dulski Committee report, as well as management officials, supervisors, and other employees who appeared to be in a position to have direct knowledga regarding specific cases. We were also able to locate by telephone one former employee (the subject of case #7 in the Dulski report), two individuals who were the subjects of cases although not appointed, and other present or former officials not in the geographic area. Bone of the present employees, the former employee, or the proposed appointees had been contacted by the Committee's investigators. Even managers who figured prominently in the Committee's report had not been interviewed by Committee investigators. We found many of these individuals andos to state their side of the story.

2. The 14 name request cases. Ia ar July 16 memo, we stated that the objectives of our investigation would be to determine:

(1) whether any illegal appointments vers effected,

(2) whether preferential treatment, preselectica, or other
non-perit factors were involved in making the appoint-
gents, and

(3) whether preferential treatment, preselection, or other
non-merit factors were involved in attempts to make
appointments, although appointments did not result.

We have been reviewing the findings in the individual cases to try to for some preliminary conclusions in line with the objectives. Coo currently, we have been involved in considerable analysis and reconstruction of the facts attempting to determine if preselection or proferential treatment did occur and where in the appointment process these intangiblea have been inserted.

Our tentative conslusion at this point is that half the cases ars frea from taint with the exception of that element of preselection inherent in a nume request. These are cases #2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13). Case #2 involves a former employes of North American Rockwell.

In the remaining cases ( §1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14) there is evidenca - în varying degrees of strength which tends to point towards preselection and/or preferential treatment. Cases 1, 9 and 10, involve former NAR employees, of these only the subject of case #1 was actually appointed.

In at least two cases, (34 and 6), the Commission accepted recruiting statements which said, in effect, the candidate was at hand and thersfore no attempts vere made to broaden the scope of competition beyond that one person. In some cases, the agency told the Commission that the merit promotion procedures produced no qualified candidates when, in fact, there is no evidence that the jobs were ever announced. The METSA plan calls for department-wide competition at GS-14 and GS-15. This misrepresentation to the CSC is one of the strongest pieces of evidence sa have to substantiate findings of preselection. It does not appear that the decision to make this statement originated elsewhere than the personnel offies. As far as we can determine at this time, management officials wers not aware of any improper actions by the personnel office to obtain the name requested candidates. It would seen, though, that findings of preselection or preferential treatment would be likely to lead back to the management officials.

The final report will try to detail the confusion surrounding the merit promotion plan, its various interpretations and applications, and the agency's general approach to staffing and recruituent. Responsibility for basic personel management seems to have been diffuzed, confused, unrecognized and ignored. However, the team did not find evidence of collusion or sinistar motives as Hr. Hugler, the Committes investigator, suggested.

We think you should also be aware that we found indications of a political clearance system.

3. 1973-1974 name request cases. The team is also reviewing the name requests made during 1973 and 1974 to determine if these have been mada properly. Information is still being gathered, but one case does indicate preselection based on political sponsorship.

The tem da working at full speed to resolve the many knotty issues bafore them and to produce an over-all report and individual casa writeups. You will have the package as soon as possible.

FB:DSitnick:ap

8/9/74

Lonorable Thaddeus J. Dulski

Chairman, Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service

Ecuse of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515

SEP 12 1974

Dear Mr. Chairsan:

Attached is our report dealing with the fourteen name request cases at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cited in Eouse Report 1o. 93-925. The investigation of these cases by the Civil Service Commission was conducted in response to recommendation number siz on page forty of the House Report.

Out of these fourteen cases, seven contained evidence of preselection, preferential treatment, or favoritism. o irregularities were found in the appointments of the remaining seven name requested candidates. Those name requests which, in our judgment, give evidence of preselection or preferential treatment are cases 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 14 in the Subcomittee Report. Cases #9 and 10 involve individuals who, in 1371, were employed by Forth American Rockwell. Neither were appointed by ETSA. Cases 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, and 13 do not involve any improprieties in the appointment process. Cases #1 and 2 involve former employees of Horth American Rockwell, both of whom were employed by the administration. in some cases improper actions were taken before aployees received their competitive appointments. These include improper consultant appointments and improper use of the temporary appointing authority. In to cases irregular personnel actions were taken by IHTSA after the appointment. These actions involve improper details to higher level positions without competition.

The primary irregularity we found in the seven cases involving preselection or preferential treatment involved misrepresentation of NETSA's efforts to locate candidates through merit promotion procedures. Though SA was not required to use merit promotion to fill its vacancies, it did state in its requests to the Civil Service Commission that a search was made of in-house talent when, in actuality, no such search was conducted.