We would have no objection to that if they would outline what is official interest. The members of this committee would be amazed in what matters some officials of the Internal Revenue Service can demonstrate an interest.

I have submitted for the information of this subcommittee a copy of form TD 3087, headed "Confidential Statement of Employment and Financial Interest," which is identified as exhibit C.

Just before I go a little too far, I would like to point out a couple of cases here or one case in particular, and I think we have some other cases, of an individual's rights being violated by calling him in and interrogating him unnecessarily and planting certain information which has caused considerable concern.

We had an instance down in Huntsville, Ala., in which I sent a member of my staff, who is licensed to practice in the State of Virginia so he has some legal background, to investigate for me these conditions. We found a situation where an investigation had been reopened, even though it had been closed a year in the past, and it was determined at this meeting this is a quote from his report to me -"It was determined at this meeting that this investigation had been reopened as a result of one originally started in February of this year"-and this was in July-"by the CID and the FBI. The only information that I could get was the fact that one or two men were accused of stealing money from vending machines, receiving free sandwiches, cokes, glass of milk, et cetera. The FBI concluded their investigation with an indictment of one of the two people. It was then agreed between management and the AFGE that this was all right and the whole matter would be closed." In other words, this case was disposed of. But it is another case of its being reopened and the man being brought in without any representation whatsoever and interrogated. He says:

I found that a number of them in the original investigation made sworn statements which included a tremendous amount of hearsay. I am convinced this is the reason for the renewal of the investigation. I am convinced that a number of individuals have been intimidated in the original investigation to make sworn statements that they should not have made. I have, as of Friday, July 23, at least several who are willing to make sworn statements to this effect. For example, I have one man who was brought in, who is wiling to state, that he was questioned for a very lengthy period of time and was continually asked whether he knew his wife was running around with one of his fellow workers. I think that in itself is an indication of the type of investigation or interrogation of these people when they have no one as witnesses for them. Can you imagine the slap in the face that this man got when he was told by some one, probably from hearsay, that his wife was running around with some one else? And yet they expect and yet they get loyalty from people who work for this Government.

There is another case. Employees in the Army's Office of Civil Defense have been confronted with similar problems relating to the standards of conduct directive which was issued by the Department of Defense in March of this year. The puzzling situation which employees of OCD have faced is an outgrowth of the unclear status of their job descriptions.

I have submitted for the information of the subcommittee pertinent pages of DOD Directive 5500.7 and two related memorandums identified as exhibit D.

The DOD Directive 5500.7, prescribing the standards of conduct, identifies in section XV (A) the DOD personnel required to submit statements. This section indicates that personnel in grade 16 or above or in comparable or higher positions not subject to the Classification Act would be required to submit statements of employment and financial interest. However, in subsection 4 it is stated that DOD personnel in grade GS-13 and above are required to submit such statements if their "basic duties and responsibilities require the incumbent to exercise judgment in making or recommending a Government decision or in taking or recommending Government action" in contracting or procurement and auditing. With these two categories employees would have no quarrel, if there is a real conflict of interest. However, there is this third category labeled "other" which is defined as including "Activities in which the decision or action has an economic impact on the interest of any non-Federal enterprise."

Gentlemen, I think every Federal employee's action has an economic impact on this Government of ours. This would include, could very well include, everyone.

What constitutes an activity in which a decision or action has an economic impact on the interest of a non-Federal enterprise? The reason for the lack of understanding as to whose job would fall within such a definition is that this agency by its very nature is an analytical and research agency. It is dealing primarily with such hypothetical situations as what measures should be taken if an atomic bomb should fall in a given area. Thus, very many of the positions deal with such situations. A few examples of these positions are resources analyst, vulnerability officer, digital computer systems officer, shelter operations planning officer, shelter readiness officer, fire protection engineer, survey and analysis survey statistician, public information specialist, classification officer, statistical and reports officer, social science research analyst officer, and others of a similar nature.

Attached to this Department of Defense directive 5500.7 was a memo for all OCD personnel informing them that section XV (a) (4) of the directive provided that certain DOD personnel in grades GS-13 and above must file a statement of employment and financial interest. I have already explained that this directive required filing by employees in certain positions. The memorandum of May 20, which accompanied the directive indicated those required to file because their duties "have an economic impact on the interest of any non-Federal enterprise.' In other words, there is no question there of contract or the other matters where they would ordinarily be required. This memorandum, signed by William Durkee, Director of Civil Defense, stated: I have determined that all OCD personnel in grade GS-13 or above shall file a statement of employment and financial interest by June 30, 1966.

This memorandum was followed up by a second one during June 1, renewing the urgent command of May 20.

The point I wish to make is that, although the memorandum states that the indicated section of the DOD directive required filing by only a limited group of employees in grade 13 and above, the ŎCĎ Director in the very next paragraph of his memorandum ignores the exception and decrees that all employees in such grades shall be required to file, despite the fact that it is understood that job descrip

tions are not current. They are 2 to 4 years old and no determination by a head of an agency can substitute for a job description which identifies a specific grouping of duties and responsibilities.

Now, just to go back a little in the history of this, just about almost a year ago at this time, over 100 employees of the OCD received notice of termination. The regulation was not followed, so this organization contacted the Department of the Army and the Civil Service Commission and had an investigation made.

As a result of that, all of these employees were reinstated if they had already gone, or their notices were withdrawn. There was also a directive to bring up to date their classification or what we call PD's. Insofar as I know, this has not been done as of this date. There is no way to determine whether or not any given employee's job is such that it might be a conflict-of-interest job.

I say to you that the agency was taking the easy way out. They included everybody, regardless of what their jobs would be, in order to catch a few, if there were a few involved, and I do not believe that that was the intention of President Johnson's Executive order.

Senator ERVIN. If I may interject a remark at this point, I agree with you as to the intentions of the Executive order. The staff of the subcommittee conducted an investigation to determine what interpretation was placed on the Executive order in that respect by the press at the time of the issuance, and we found that the press estimated that under the Executive order anywhere from not less than 300 to approximately a maximum of 2,000 persons in the entire Federal service would be required to file these financial statements.

Now thus far reports have indicated that the number of people required to file them is in excess of 100,000. For example, as I stated this morning, over 21,500 in the Department of Agriculture alone have been required to file such reports; over 10,000 in the Post Office Department alone, and somewhere in the neighborhood of 8,500 in the Internal Revenue Service.

Mr. GRINER. Thus, there are two glaring inconsistencies which evidently ignore the rights of employees; namely, that all OCD employees in the grades indicated must file while the Department itself does not so indicate, and the further inconsistency in that the lack of proper job descriptions do not permit an accurate differentiation by types of positions.

As late as September 21 there appeared in the Federal Times, a publication for Federal employees, the statement that "preparation of job descriptions has been completed," although it has been authoritatively learned from another source that actually these job sheets have not been completed. However, even if they had been furnished by September 21, they were not completely available when the Director's determination was issued 3 months earlier.

Within the Department of State, a startling, dangerous secretive personnel procedure has been developed. Until last year, the performance rating report was the normal and only report in the Department of State. But in 1965 and 1966 the secret so-called development appraisal report was also written on all Foreign Service employees and made applicable to civil service officers in grade GS-9 and above. Secret dossiers are being made on Foreign Service and civil

service employees right now. And these Federal employees cannot even see what is in the development appraisal reports, let alone receive copies of them for retention or refutation.

We contend that this new, unprecedented and secretive use of this new development appraisal report for Foreign Service officers and civil service employees is morally objectionable and professionally hazardous, lowering both personal and professional standards.

Let us look at what goes into the development appraisal reports. First of all, the entire report is a highly subjective appraisal by a superior of his subordinate in terms allowing him, if he is disposed, to vent secretly (we emphasize, secretly) his displeasure or purejudice. An example of the kinds of judgments he is not only permitted but is actually solicited to make is the following:

Comment on family, particularly the wife ***. Is the family a source of strength or weakness to the officer in his performance on this or future assignments?

Another example allows the superior to―

Discuss fully the personality traits of the officer, e.g., bright, sparkling, extrovert, dull, abrasive, introvert, pleasant, spontaneous, sharp, witty, good sense of humor, heavy, obsequious, sarcastic, biting.

What disturbs us is that this employee has no chance whatsoever to refute anything that is put in this report because he does not know what is in the report.

I have been in Federal service long enough to know that once a report is filed in an employee's personnel file it follows him the rest of his life, not only with that agency but with other agencies, and I have been in Federal service long enough to know that once such a report which may be adverse to an employee's work, habits, and so forth, is placed in his personnel file, his future with this Government is gone.

Senator ERVIN. Am I correct in understanding that, in this connection, there are supposed to be two files on the employee, one which may be designated as the efficiency file, and the other the development appraisal report?

Mr. GRINER. As I understand it, Senator, the State Department has downgraded the efficiency report and they have placed primary emphasis on this appraisal report at the present time.

Senator ERVIN. Well, was not the employee's performance rating formerly open to his inspection?

Mr. GRINER. Yes, sir. It was supposed to be discussed with him before being made official.

Senator ERVIN. And he was given an opportunity to explain or deny or anything that might be alleged adversely to him prior to the time that was made a part of his permanent record.

Mr. GRINER. Not only given that opportunity, Senator, but he was given an opportunity to appeal that rating to an appeal board within the agency, and then to the Civil Service Commission itself.

Senator ERVIN. Under this new system for Foreign Service officers the development appraisal report is allegedly confidential and the inspection of it is denied to the person to whom it relates until he is threatened with some personnel action.

Mr. GRINER. I do not think he ever knows what is in it. I do not think even then. In other words, let us say that a man comes up for

promotion. The agency is not forced to select any individual for the promotion. The appointing officer looks over the file and he rus across this report. Keep this in mind that this report will follow him wherever he goes, insofar as I know. That ends any consideration that this man might have for the job unless he is a buddy-buddy, and he has to be a pretty good buddy-buddy, because you know things like that even get around among other supervisors, and I would like to point out to you this is not only limited to the Foreign Service, but it is extended to classified employees of Grade GS-9 and above.

Senator ERVIN. So the result of it is that this man, for all practical purposes such as promotion, job assignments and the like, is, or may be, condemned upon something which was without foundation or some thing which not only is without foundation but is contrary to the facts and arises out of some animosity which has superior may entertain. Mr. GRINER. That is right, sir.

Senator ERVIN. And there is no way on earth under which he can overcome the effects of this secret appraisal report.

Mr. GRINER. Senator, I believe that if a man is given a chance to know what his superiors feel to be are his shortcomings, in some cases it may be additional education, in some cases it may be action, if he knows of these and then he does not correct them, I have no sympathy for him. But how is he going to know it if this is a secret? If he has some habit, in other words, that is detrimental to his job or will keep him from being promoted, I think he should be given a chance to correct it. We have a big investment in every employee there is in the Federal service, and I think we ought to recognize that, and there are too many of our employees today who are being told, "If you do not like it, get out and get you another job."

Senator ERVIN. So the effect of this is that this man is confronted by a concealed obstruction to his advancement in the agency, and he has no knowledge whatever of the secret obstacle.

Mr. GRINER. That is right, sir.

Senator ERVIN. He has no way to overcome it.

Mr. GRINER. That is right, sir.

Senator, at this point let me reiterate again the position of this organization. We do not countenance any employee who has done wrong. Anyone guilty of accepting a bribe, we think he should be fired, if proved. In other words, I want it understood that my criticism of these actions on the part of the different agencies is one which, I believe, will give protection to the employees who are citizens of this country, and a protection to which they are entitled just like every other citizen of this country regardless of race, creed or color or sex. If I may, I will continue this, I have just a short piece to go. Another one of these questions is about his willingness to admit error and his "attitudes toward superiors."

Now, that has a lot of implications. If a superior does not like his employee, the employee has no right to rate his superior, of course. If the superior does not like the employee, all he has to do is to indicate his attitude is bad, and there is nothing to prove it.

All these judgments take place, we reiterate, under regulations stating the employee has no right to see his report "unless and until a step is taken that is intended to lead to an adverse personnel action