Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT OF THE HANDICAPPED,
Washington, D.C., October 14, 1966.

Hon. SAM ERVIN, Jr.,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN ERVIN: Reading your letter and S-3779 I have a couple of matters in mind which are not too relevant to the bill in its present form but they are vitally important to a great many handicapped persons.

Some states are eliminating from their questionnaires for state employment references to irrelevant physical disability and a history of mental illness which may have no bearing on the particular job to be filled.

However, the U.S. Civil Service Form 57, Application for Federal Employment, still asks about mental illness.

Also, I feel that some young people who have been involved in juvenile scrapes should not be required to carry this old record in their file the rest of their lives.

As far as members of the President's Committee are concerned, S-3779 would not apply. We have approximately 500 members, none of whom are Federal employees. Nor would members of the Governors' Committees or Mayors' Committees be affected. Federal employees are not eligible for membership on the President's Committee.

Administrative matters pertaining to our small paid staff of about 25 persons in Washington are handled by the U. S. Labor Department which I am told is making some additional comments.

Cordially,

HAROLD RUSSELL, Chairman.

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD,
Chicago, Ill., October 27, 1966.

Hon. SAM ERVIN, Jr.,

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

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: This is pursuant to your request for the Board's comments on the bill S. 3779 as it would apply to specific policies and practices of the Board.

The bill consists of three sections. The provisions of the first section prohibit certain actions and sections 2 and 3 provide the penalties for the violation of such provisions.

While the provisions of section 1 would not materially change the Board's personnel policies and practices of long-standing as far as the Board's employees are concerned, such provisions are likely to create some confusion in the minds of the Board's supervisory staff. If a supervisor should "persuade" an employee to purchase a United States Savings Bond (which is permitted by the proviso in section 1(i) of the bill), and the employee should consider this to be coercion, or attempted coercion (prohibited by the language of such section immediately preceding the proviso), there would clearly be confusion as to who is right and who is wrong. Similarly, a supervisor might hesitate to call a meeting for the purpose of persuading employees to purchase United States Savings Bonds or to discuss a community charity drive, credit union matters or recreational association activities, for fear that this might be in violation of at least some provisions of section 1 of the bill. Again, a supervisor might hesitate to inquire of an employee about such employee's unauthorized absence from his desk of several hours. Such action on the part of the supervisor might be in conflict with section 1(k) of the bill. On the other hand, failure to take such action on the part of the supervisor might encourage other employees to do the same, and might even encourage the same employee to repeat such absence. Also, a supervisor in charge of purchasing supplies for the Board might hesitate to cease purchasing from a company that (i) has been dilatory in providing services or materials, (ii) has been guilty of breach of contract, or (iii) has been guilty of unfair employment practices, for fear that such cessation might be in conflict with section 1 (f) of the bill.

The Board is unaware of any complaints on the part of its employees concerning matters which would call for the enactment of the bill, even though, as stated above, the Board's personnel policies and practices have been in existence for many years.

Inasmuch as you have requested an early report because a hearing record is now being prepared for printing, we have not had time to obtain clearance from the

Bureau of the Budget, and consequently no determination has been made as to the relationship of this report to the program of the President. The Bureau of the Budget is being furnished copies of the report and you will be informed of the views of that Bureau as soon as they are received.

Sincerely yours,

HOWARD W. HABERMEYER, Chairman.

Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, JR.,

TAX COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, D.C., November 15, 1966.

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

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: Reference is made to your letter of October 13, 1966. with which you enclosed a copy of S. 3779 and excerpts from the Congressional Record describing complaints from U.S. Government employees which the Bill is designed to correct.

The following comments on the Bill are submitted, in accord with your request, as I would view application of the provisions of S. 3779 to specific policies or practices of the Tax Court.

I find no provision of the Bill which would interfere with or invalidate any current policy, practice or regulation which has been established and is now maintained by this Court. However, I make this statement assuming that the Bill does not intend nor would it be interpreted to forbid such activities within the Court (and other Federal agencies) which now permit (1) employee meetings and participation for the solicitation of voluntary contributions to community funds or chests, or (2) the encouragement and solicitation of voluntary participation in the purchase of U.S. Savings Bonds, or (3) employee meetings which would deal with matters of individual or general health welfare, or (4) the conduct of effective procedures and investigative reporting carried out under the Court's regulations governing security and employee conduct.

If the foregoing assumptions are incorrect, it appears that the literal application of the provisions of Section 1(h) could prohibit the holding of any community chest "keyman" or other organizing meetings for the voluntary participation of Federal employees in community charitable fund campaigns.

Further, Section 1(d) applied literally could make it unlawful to ask for the "volunteer" service of a Federal employee to act as a "keyman" to participate in community charitable fund-raising campaigns. But I assume that Section 1(b) and Section 1(d) are not intended to suspend or prohibit this type of worthwhile activity or those similar in purpose now carried on in all U.S. Government departments and agencies.

Also, it may be that the prohibitory language contained in Section 1(e) would conflict with the carrying on of agency employee investigations that involve charge or complaint of improper conduct, or actions having an adverse effect upon the proper performance of duties, or activities which adversely affect national interest or security.

It is likely, should S. 3779 become law, that the prohibitions and restrictions it contains could create management and administrative problems and some quandry as to what activities may or may not be permissible, nevertheless, clarification doubtless would be provided in due course through judicial interpretation or executive directive.

I trust that this response will assist in your consideration of the proposed Bill.

Sincerely,

NORMAN O. TIETJENS, Chief Judge.

Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr.,

U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS,
Washington, D.C., November 7, 1966.

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

TAB SENATOR ERVIN: This is in response to your request for comment on 3779, an act "to protect the employees of the executive branch of the United Sites Government in the enjoyment of their constitutional rights and to prevent

unwarranted governmental invasions of their privacy", as it would relate to specific policies and practices of this agency.

This agency does not have any unique policies and practices which would be within the purview of the Act. The personnel policies of the Commission are governed entirely by the Civil Service Commission, Federal Personnel Manual. The regulations relating to reporting of financial information by certain Federal employees are binding on the agency and, thus, if the proposed legislation were enacted, this reporting requirement would be terminated.

The Commission has been afforded an opportunity to file a statement relating to the voluntary racial census which Section 1(a) of the proposed legislation would prohibit. This statement will be supplied to the subcommittee in the near future.

Although we are in sympathy with the efforts of the subcommittee to devise legislation which would protect the personal rights of Federal employees, we think that certain sections of S. 3779 may create problems for agency interpretation and implementation.

Section 1 (b) and (c) prohibit the holding of assemblies which are designed to advise, instruct or indoctrinate employees on matters other than assigned tasks and the taking of attendance at meetings called by outside parties for a similar purpose. We think these provisions may interfere with legitimate personnel activities such as meetings relating to employee union activities, professional societies, safety, and training programs not directly related to the employee's assignment, but which may contribute to their improved job performance.

Subsection 1(d) could be interpreted as prohibiting supervisory officers from requesting employees to participate in charitable activities, such as blood donations to the Red Cross or contributions to a local Community Chest or Red Feather Foundation. While we believe this was not the intention of the bill, administrative officers may be reluctant to undertake such activities if they are aware of the criminal penalties to which they may be subjected.

Subsection 1(h) appears to be unnecessary in view of the provisions of the Hatch Act which have the effect of prohibiting coercion of employees to support particular political parties or candidates.

Subsection 1(1) appears merely to restate the criminal responsibility of supervisory officers for performing any of the acts made criminal by the previous subsections.

Section 3 authorizes actions in the U.S. District Courts to enjoin or recover damages by employees who are affected by their supervisor's violation or threatened violation of the provisions of Section 1 of the bill. We believe this section would create the possibility of harassment of supervisory authorities by disgruntled employees and would interfere with the orderly conduct of Government business.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this legislation.
Sincerely yours,

Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr.,

WILLIAM L. TAYLOR.

TENNESSEE VALEY AUTHORITY, Knoxville, Tenn., November 4, 1966.

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

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: This is in response to your letter of October 13 requesting our 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." While S. 3779 might prevent abuse of the personal rights of employees in some situations, some of it seems to us unnecessarily broad and restrictive. For example, subsection (b) of section 1 might be construed as making it unlawful to provide information or training for an employee about various aspects of the TVA program or about TVA administrative policies and procedures which are not directly related to the duties specified in his job description. Subsection (d) might be so construed as to limit our ability to train employees for duties other than their present ones or to involve them as management representatives in various union-management cooperative activities. It would also preclude, we believe, asking employees to help conduct activities of public interest such as United Fund or National Health Agency campaigns, since such activities are not directly within the scope of their employment. Subsection (e) would prevent

a supervisor from obtaining information from an employee concerning his outside employment or other activities which might conflict with his duties for the Government or adversely affect his work performance or his agency's relations with the public. Subsection (k), in requiring that an employee be permitted to have counsel present when he is asked about his conduct, seems to be based on the assumption that such an inquiry is the equivalent of a criminal investigation and that it should be subject to similar rules and restrictions. We do not think this assumption is warranted, and we feel that subsection (k) in its present from would be a deterrent to effective personnel management.

In view of the foregoing, we do not think that S. 3779 should be enacted in its present form.

We would also like to mention that TVA management has received very few complaints of coercion of employes or infringement of their personal rights by supervisory personnel. It has been possible under our existing authority and policy to dispose of these few complaints with a minimum of difficulty and disruption and relationships.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that it has no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.

Sincerely yours,

AUBREY J. WAGNER, Chairman.

U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Washington, D.C.

Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr.,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I have read with some concern those portions of the testimony given in hearings before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, which refer in a critical way to policies, regulations, and procedures of the Revenue Service. I appreciate, therefore, the opportunity you are affording me to submit for the record our comments on the testimony given by representatives of the National Association of Internal Revenue Employees and the American Federation of Government Employees.

We found that a great deal of the testimony consists of charges so general in nature that it is difficult to reply to them other than in the same general terms. For this reason, and more particularly in considering the time of the Subcommittee, we have attempted to concentrate on the important issues as opposed to giving you a sentence-by-sentence, point-by-point, rebuttal.

I think it is important to note in the first instance that the goals of the Internal Revenue Service and its employees are the same. The employees, the unions, and Internal Revenue Service management all desire a group of happy, well motivated and competent employees. This is important for all of us not only because it is right, but also because it is the only way we can accomplish our appointed tasks in an efficient manner.

We believe that on the whole we have a group of employees second to none in the Government or for that matter in private industry. We will not deny that there are minor problems in our relationships. This is a fact of life and at all levels of management we are working with our employees and our employee representatives to eliminate causes of friction.

At the same time, I feel that part of our difficulty is traceable not to policies of the Revenue Service but to lack of understanding of these policies by our employees. Therefore, I have asked all levels of management to renew their efforts to fully explain any of our policies which cause any uneasiness among our fellow employees. In addition, we have been meeting with our employee unions to fully discuss any of our shortcomings in the area and also to discuss how they might help us and our employees to identify the underlying causes of differences and misunderstandings.

I think it is also fair to point out that when an individual or group is given a forum for criticism he often will overstate his thought in order to make his presentation more pointed. This does not mean he has no point-it merely means we must carefully analyze his statements in order to discern the kernel. I feel that in the hearings both NAIRE and AFGE somewhat overstated their cases. With this as a preface, let me turn to the criticisms themselves.

Basically, the criticisms fall in the following general categories: Interrogation Methods of Inspection; and its related issue, Right to Counsel; Action

Taken in New York Conduct Case Appeals; IRS Code Provisions Concerning Employee Conduct; Telephone Monitoring of Taxpayer Assistors or Office Collection Force Interviewers; Special Treatment Given Employee Tax Returns; use of Form 1361-A, a Net-Worth Statement; Confidentiality of Information; Effects on Employee Turnover and Morale Resulting from Use of T. D. Form 3087; and use of T. D. Form 3087, Statement of Employment and Financial Interests.

Allegation

I. INTERROGATION METHODS OF INSPECTION

"Within IRS the internal investigative office is known as the Inspection Division. Their traditional investigative practice has been to confront the employee behnd closed doors with a two-man team, one bullying and the other cajoling, and to make sure that he didn't get to a lawyer until they had finished with him." (P. 87)

Comment

Neither I nor the Inspection Service sanctions the technique of one interrogator acting as the bully and the other acting as the "nice guy." Actually, the purpose of a confrontation interview is primarily to give the employee an opportunity to explain or rebut any unfavorable information alleged or developed. This is clearly stated in the following Policy Statement:

"At the conclusion of an investigation in which derogatory information is disclosed the employee will be given an opportunity to explain or rebut any unfavorable information."

Allegation

As an example of alleged improper interrogation methods some cases in our Manhattan District were discussed as follows:

"This happened in the Manhattan District early this year when IRS concluded a long undercover investigation into an alleged kickback conspiracy between certain IRS audit employees and outside accountants. The investigation had been characterized by the substantial use of recording devices, infiltration techniques and other more-or-less legitimate methods. But the more popular technique was for Inspection to compel employees to submit to merciless, uncounseled interrogation behind closed doors. The interrogation was often concluded jointly by Inspection and an Assistant U.S. Attorney. It was also commonplace for Inspection to summarily and physically remove employees from their work, at the same time sealing their desks and impounding its contents for later examination. . . . Undoubtedly, the saddest of all were the accounts of IRS employees who, although no valid case could be made against them, were interrogated extensively without counsel and ultimately intimidated into what the personnel records label a 'voluntary' resignation from the Service. Although we are not privy to the exact figures, we have good reason to believe that the greatest number of employees affected by this purge were those men who voluntarily left their jobs but were never later convicted of any crime. We know from bitter experience in all parts of the country that the secret, uncounseled interrogation is the best technique for driving out an unwanted employee, when no proper case on the merits can be built against him." (P. 87-88)

Comment

We are not certain as to what particular group of cases are referred to as involving alleged kickback conspiracies between IRS Audit employees and outside accountants. Unfortunately, there have been a number of cases involving criminal misconduct on the part of employees in the Manhattan District and in some the interrogation of the employee was conducted in the office of an Assistant U.S. Attorney. Inspection, like all other Government enforcement offices, presents pertinent cases to a U.S. Attorney for consideration for prosecution; any investigation subsequently conducted by Inspection concerning the criminal features of the case is closely coordinated with and is under the general supervision of the U.S. Attorney's office. Frequently that official or an Assistant U.S. Attorney requests the investigative agency to ask the individual suspected of a crime to report to the U.S. Attorney's office.

In those instances where this procedure has been followed, to the best of our knowledge the U.S. Attorney's office has advised the employee at the outset of the interview regarding his constitutional privileges, including the right to remain silent and the right to obtain counsel.

« AnteriorContinuar »