Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

THE ADMINISTRATOR OF NATIONAL BANKS,
Washington, October 6, 1966.

Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr.,
Chairman, Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee, U.S. Senate, Washing-
ton, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I have just read an article appearing in today's "Washington Daily News" reporting on the testimony yesterday of Mr. Nathan Wolkomir, President, National Federation of Federal Employees, before the Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee. Although I have not seen a transcript of Mr. Wolkomir's remarks, I do think it is appropriate for me to respond to his accusation that this Office transferred employees in order to prevent them from testifying in an unfair labor practices hearing.

I am enclosing a copy of a letter, dated September 30, 1966, to Mr. Charles Dullea, who is the Hearing Officer designated by the Secretary of the Treasury to hear certain charges brought by the National Federation of Federal Employees under the Code of Fair Labor Practices. You will note that every assurance was given to the Hearing Officer that the two employees being transferred would be available for the hearing, and, in fact, could return to New York, at our expense, at whatever time, in his judgment, was determined to be reasonable.

I must also say that Mr. Wolkomir's charge, in my view, is as irresponsible as it is unfounded. With a hearing scheduled in the near future, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of the charges at this time. My only purpose in writing is to assure you and the members of your Subcommittee that Mr. Wolkomir's accusation is not true.

Sincerely,

JAMES J. SAXON, Comptroller of the Currency.

SEPTEMBER 30, 1966.

Mr. CHARLES DULLEA,

New York Civil Service Commission Region,
New York, N.Y.

DEAR MR. DULLEA: This Office has carefully considered the request made at the pre-hearing conference of September 27, 1966, that the effective date of the transfers of Mr. William Klemt and Mr. Joseph Klemt be held in abeyance until the conclusion of the hearing scheduled for November 10 through November 14, 1966.

In order to respond properly to this request, I must point out the serious ramifications of our compliance with it. Crucial to the discharge of our statutory responsibilities is the ability of this Office to relocate National Bank Examiners all over the country, and in fact, all over the world. The nature and importance of our mission is well understood by the members of our exmining force. On appointment, they are made aware of the obligation inherent in the profession they have chosen. The National Banks of this country must be examined at certain intervals and the performance of this duty often far outweighs the possibility of any inconvenience to an individual. Hence, all National Bank Examiners agree to be transferred when the needs of the service so dictate-by expressly assenting to such a condition of employment.

For 104 years we have been blessed with an examining staff that almost to the man has been ready and willing to accept changes in duty stations with little or no prior notice. With a hearing scheduled in the near future, it would not be appropriate for me to discuss the Klemt transfers other than to point out that this Office had good and sufficient reasons for its action. Upon careful consideration of all the facts, I can see no necessity for these men to be accorded preferential treatment by delaying their transfers at this late date, particularly since their presence at the hearing would in no way be affected. Accordingly, I have concluded that this Office cannot defer the effective dates of the transfers until after the hearing. I wish to assure you, however, that the assignments of Messrs. William and Joseph Klemt will be arranged so as not to conflict in any way with the scheduled proceedings. We are most willing to have them return to New York City for the hearing at whatever time, in your judgment, is determined to be reasonable under the circumstances. We would view their travel as in the course of official duty and their expenses would be borne by the Government.

Very truly yours,

JAMES J. SAXON, Comptroller of the Currency.

APPENDIX

AGENCY REPORTS ON S. 37791

(Following is the letter of inquiry addressed to agencies and

department:)

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, October 12, 1966.

DEAR : Enclosed is a copy of S. 3779 and excerpts from the Congressional Record describing the complaints from government employees which the bill is designed to correct.

The Subcommittee would appreciate receiving your comments on the bill as it would apply to specific policies and practices of your department or agency. Would you also supply citations and copies of any pertinent statutes, regulations, or directives, if any, which would be affected?

If you perceive no objection to passage of this measure or any provision of it, I should appreciate your comments to that effect. Inasmuch as the hearing record is now being prepared for printing, your early attention to this report would be of assistance to the Subcommittee.

Thank you for your help with our study of the constitutional rights of government employees and unwarranted invasions of privacy.

With all kind wishes, I am,

Sincerely yours,

SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., Chairman.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REDEVELOPMENT LAND AGENCY,
Washington, D.C., November 2, 1966.

Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: We appreciate the opportunity to submit the following comments on S. 3779, a Bill affording the employees of the United States Government certain protection:

(1) Section 1(e) of S. 3779 provides that it shall be unlawful for any officer of an executive agency "to require or request, or attempt to require or request, any employee of the United States serving in the department or agency to make any report concerning any of his activities or undertakings unless such activities are directly within the scope of his employment." This section would appear to prohibit a practice which the Agency has followed for a number of years, which is to require all employees to report any outside employment or other activities related to the urban renewal program in the District or elsewhere, including any real estate activities in the District or Metropolitan Area. Agency regulations recently published at 30 F.R. 13787, require in addition that all consultants to the Agency and most regular employees in grade GS-13 or above submit confidential statements disclosing all outside employment. These regulations were adopted pursuant to Executive Order 11222 and to regulations of the Civil Service Commission.

Enclosed for your information are copies of two pages from the RLA Employee Handbook, relating to "Outside Activities," and the Agency's regulations regarding "Employee Responsibilities and Conduct," as published in the Federal Register. We are of the opinion that our present regulations are reasonable and represent the minimum precautions necessary to avoid conflicts of interest,

1 Includes reports received by Dec. 12 with substantive comments. Later reports are on file with the subcommittee.

thereby protecting the public servant from any unfounded criticism while assuring the public confidence in the public service.

(2) Section 1(j) would prohibit an Agency from requiring disclosures of outside financial interests from all employees except for "any employee who has authority to determine final agreements which fix the tax or other liability of any person, corporation, or other legal entity, or the provisions of contracts which require expenditure of moneys of the United States in excess of $100." Only a very limited number of Agency employees would come within this stated exception to Section 1(j)'s prohibition. The section would thus effectively thwart a practice long ago adopted by the Agency pursuant to which all employees who have investments in companies or property affected by urban renewal projects, or prospective projects which the employee knows to be under consideration, must report the same to his superior. Here again, the Agency regulations cited above now require all consultants and most high-ranking other employees to include in their confidential statements a disclosure of outside financial interests to an extent to be determined by this Agency.

(3) Section 3 would create civil liability on the part of any government employee violating the provisions of the Bill. Exposing a Federal official to a civil suit by an employee would expose a supervisor to potential harassment by an employee. The threat of civil suit could well result in an inappropriate administration of personnel. We feel the criminal remedy, together with the fact that a convicted employee might lose his position, is a sufficient deterrent. The civil remedy would not appear to be a more effective deterrent than the criminal remedy. On the other hand, as noted above, the civil remedy could well result in unjust harassment. Finally, the civil remedy is not required to reimburse the employee for damages since damages would be very difficult to prove. We have no comments with respect to the other provisions of the Bill as they would not appear to directly affect the practices of the Agency.

Sincerely,

Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr.,

THOMAS APPLEBY,
Executive Director.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING,
- Washington, D.C., December 13, 1966.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: This is in reply to your request for comments on S. 3779, 89th Congress, a bill, "To protect the 'employees of the executive branch of the United States Government in the enjoyment of their constitutional rights and to prevent unwarranted governmental invasions of their privacy."

The Office of Emergency Planning favors the objectives of this legislation. Federal employees should be protected in the enjoyment of their constitutional rights, and unwarranted invasion of their privacy should be prevented. However, several provisions of S. 3779 are unduly restrictive and we are therefore opposed to its enactment as drafted.

Subsections 1(d) and 1(e) prohibit requiring or requesting employees to participate in any function or activity not within the scope of their employment, or requiring or requesting that employees report on such activities. The language of the bill is too restrictive. Helpful suggestions from a supervisor to an employee would become almost dangerous. Supervisors should not be prevented from suggesting to an employee that he join a Toastmasters group, or a local management society, or the board of a credit union, or a civic association, to mention only four examples. Outside activities broaden an employee's capacity. Such activities should be encouraged and should be recorded in the respective employees' Personnel Folders, to their credit.

Subsection 1(g) concerns interrogation of an employee regarding relatives. religion, and sex. Security requirements in this agency and other Government agencies call for such information in the interests of the national security.

The problem of security is a real one in an agency such as OEP which is basically concerned with the national defense. Senator Ervin's statement in the Congressional Record of August 9, 1966, appears to express objections to the method of interrogation rather than the questions themselves. We agree that such information should not generally be elicited through psychological or poly

graph tests and understand that the Civil Service Commission is presently studying this subject.

Subsection 1(j) would appear to make almost all of OEP's financial disclosure regulations invalid. Our current regulations do not require disclosure of the values of assets but merely a listing of financial interests or other connections. We have had no complaints concerning this matter.

From the standpoint of the Administration's program, the Bureau of the Budget advises that it has no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely,

FARRIS BRYANT, Director.

By MYRON R. BLEE.

Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr.,

FEDERAL COAL MINE SAFETY BOARD OF REVIEW,
Washington, D.C., November 7, 1966.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN : Reference your letter dated October 13, 1966, concerning S. 3779, the following comments are submitted thereon:

S. 3779 prohibits certain detailed conduct with respect to employees, and applicants for employment, in the Federal government.

The authorized personnel complement of this agency is limited to the five Board members, who are WAE employees appointed by the President, with Senate approval, and a total of only five full-time employees. The provisions of the proposed bill would appear to have no impact on the specific policies and practices of this agency regarding its employees or applicants for employment.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is not objection to the submission of this report to your Committee.

Sincerely yours,

Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr.,

ROBERT J. FREEHLING, General Counsel
(For the Board).

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., December 12, 1966.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I have received your letter of October 13, 1966, requesting my comments on S. 3779, a bill to protect the employees of the executive branch of the United States Government in their constitutional rights and to prevent unwarranted Government invasion of privacy. The following comments are made after careful review of the sections and subsections of the bill.

1. The Federal Maritime Commission does not engage, directly or indirectly, in those actions or activities which would be unlawful under Section 1, Subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e), except those activities involved in its equal employment program. This program was established to comply with the regulations issued by the Civil Service Commission in accordance with that agency's responsibilities set forth in Part I of Executive Order No. 11246 dated September 24, 1965. A copy of the Executive Order, Civil Service Regulations, Federal Personnel Manual System Letter 713-3, and the Federal Maritime Commission's Order No. 52 (Amended) are attached. We defer to the Civil Service Commission with respect to the effect of the proposed statutory provisions upon the Government-wide regulations promulgated by the Civil Service Commission pursuant to the Executive Order.

2. The Federal Maritime Commission does not engage, directly or indirectly, by policy or otherwise, in those actions or activities which would be unlawful under Section 1, Subsections (f), (g), (h), (i), and (k) of the proposed bill. There are no policies or practices, regulations or directives of the Commission or statutes with respect to the Commission's authorities and responsibilities which would be affected by, or which are contrary to, the provisions of these subsections. Accordingly, I subscribe to the purpose of these provisions for the protection of employees' constitutional rights and to the prevent unwarranted Gov. ernment invasion of their privacy.

3. Section 1(j) would affect the policy and practices of the Commission with respect to reporting of outside employment and financial interests. In this connection, I am attaching the Federal Maritime Commission's regulation on "Employee Responsibilities and Conduct", Commission Order No. 53 (Amended). effective May 17, 1966, which implements Executive Order No. 11222, Prescribing Standards of Conduct for Government Officers and Employees, copy attached. I am also attaching a copy of the Commission's Conflict of Interest Statement (Form FMC-24, May 1966) which is used to implement Section 201(b) of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. It would appear that the reporting requirements under the Commission's Order No. 53 implementing Executive Order No. 11222 would be subject to appropriate comment by the Civil Service Commission, since such order was approved by them as part of a Government-wide program.

"However, in addition to whatever suggestions the Civil Service Commission has in regard to Section 1(j) of the proposed bill, I would suggest consideration be given to modifying this section by addition of the language underlined below to meet the specific problems of this Agency:

"To require, or request, or attempt to require or request, any employee of the United States serving in the department or agency, to disclose his assets or his liabilities or his personal or domestic expenditures or those of any member of his family: Provided, however, (1) That this subsection shall not apply to any employee who has authority to determine final agreements which fix the tax or other liability of any person, corporation, or other legal entity, or the provisions of contracts which require expenditure of moneys of the United States in excess of $100; and (2) That this subsection shall not be applied by any agency of the Federal Government subject to express statutory provision on conflict of interest."

This suggested modification would enable agencies, particularly agencies engaged in regulatory and promotional activities, to prescribe reasonable regulations to carry out the intent of the Congress, e.g., the continued use by the Federal Maritime Commission of its Conflict of Interest Statement (Form FMC-24) to carry out the provision of Section 201 (b) of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, which states:

"It shall be unlawful for any member, officer, or employee of the Commission to be in the employ of any other person, firm or corporation, or to have any pecuniary interest in, or hold any official relationship with, any carrier by water, shipbuilder, contractor, or other person, firm, association, or corporation with whom the Commission may have business relations."

4. I have no comment with respect to Sections 2 and 3 of the bill.

Please be assured that I will furnish any additional information or comment that you may desire with respect to S. 3779.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN HARLLEE,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired), Chairman.

NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD. Washington, D.C., November 7, 1966.

Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to your letter of October 13, 1966, requesting comments on S. 3779, a bill to protect the employees of the executive branch of the United States Government in the enjoyment of their constitutional rights and to prevent unwarranted governmental invasions of their privacy, this Agency finds only one set of our regulations or directives which may be within the concern of this legislation.

It is our regulations dealing with the Minimum Standards of Conduct for Employees, and a copy of these regulations is enclosed herewith.

We have no additional comments with regard to this proposed legislation. The Bureau of the Budget advises it has no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program.

Sincerely yours,

FRANCIS A. O'NEILL, Jr., Chairman

« AnteriorContinuar »