ORMIS SA LIMITED OFFICIAL USE (When Completed) Page 2 8. Lily Wormalry this item may be omitted from the oppraisal of a Civil Service Officer unless there are family considerations which could significantly affect the officer's potential.) Comment on family, particularly the wife. Is family a source of strength or weakness to the officer in his performance on this af future assignments? include, where applicable, comments on the following: What is the family's attitude toward the host country and the people? What is the wife's representational ability? To what extent does the family mix with nationals of the host country one attempt to learn their language? Does the wife participate in local community organizations? Does the family entertain and visit with the local people in addition to Americans of the post? Does the wife participate in U.S. program activi. ties where appropriate, e.g., English language seminars? Does the family travel about the country? Health, conduct, over-indulgence (excessive use of alcohol, etc.), suitability, and other factors relating to both officer and family which should be considered. Capacity to plan, direct, organize, analyze perceptively, make decisions, delegate authority, train and supervise subordinates, negotiate effectively, and insure efficient accomplishment of objectives. (Particularly thorough coverage of this factor is essen tiel in reports on officers of Class 4 and above.) E. Growth Copacity. Officer's strengths and weaknesses related to his work capacity, energy, intellectual abilities and knowledge, versatility, crec tivity and other factors pertinent to an officer's potential to assume broader or higher responsibility. After making a thorough analysis of the officer's growth capacity, the rating officer shall comment in specific terms on assignments and further training which would be most appropriate for realization of the officer's capacity. Consider the officer from an overall viewpoint, including evaluations in this appraisal and in the performance evaluation. State which of the following best expresses your evaluation of the officer's advancement potential: "Not suitable for further advancement" "Suitable for advancement of possibly not more than one rank" "Suitable for advancement of more than one rank" "Suitable for advancement to highest rank" Support your selection and comment specifically on the rapidity with which officer is capable of advancing. PART II INSTRUCTIONS TO REVIEWING OFFICER In a separate narrative statement, indicate precisely the extent to which you concur with the rating officer's appraisal, explaining any differences. To make your divergent view clear, describe and evaluate fully any or all of the factors covered by the report. Describe how closely you observed the rated officer. Indicate also whether good working relationships existed between the rated officer and the rating officer. LIMITED OFFICIAL USE (When Completed) FOREIGN AFFAIRS MANUAL CIRCULAR, No. 323, JUNE 24, 1965 JOINT STATE, USIA CIRCULAR Subject: Review of Performance Rating and Development Appraisal Reports 1. Purpose This circular amends 3 FAM 570 and certain portions of Foreign Affairs Manual Circular No. 309 of May 13, 1965, relative to the distribution of Development Appraisal Reports (FS-315A) and their use by review panels or committees in overseas posts and in bureaus and offices in the Department and USIA. 2. Privileged nature of development appraisal reports (a) Inasmuch as the rated officer is not to be shown his Development Appraisal Report by the rating or reviewing officer, it has been determined that this Report should be seen only by those persons who of necessity must review the contents of such reports in carrying out their responsibilities. These include reviewing officers, career management officers, members of Selection Boards and such other persons as the Secretary and the Director of USIA determine should have access to Development Appraisal Reports. (b) As a consequence, review panels or committees at overseas posts and in bureaus and offices of the Department and USIA are not to review or comment upon Development Appraisal Reports. The Development Appraisal Reports are to be held at the post or bureau until the review committee has completed the review of corresponding Performance Rating Reports and the two forms submitted together to the Department or to USIA. No copies of the Development Appraisal Report are to be retained by the post or bureau. All posts, bureaus, and offices should assure that Development Appraisal Reports are given the restricted handling their privileged contents require. UNIFORM STATE-USIA REGULATIONS 577.2 DISCLOSURE OF DEVELOPMENT APPRAISALS (a) Officers' appraisals The appraisal of an officer's capacity for growth and development and his promotability takes into account not only the officer's performance, but also his prospects for the future. Officers are appraised on a separate form (FS-315-A) from that used for Performance Ratings (FS-315). FS-315-A is not a "rating form" within the meaning of FPM 430.6. Appraisals reported on the Development Appraisal form (FS-315-A) shall not be shown to an officer at the time of the appraisal, and will not be divulged to him subsequently unless and until a step is taken that is intended to lead to an adverse action in which the officer is not otherwise entitled by law or regulation to an opportunity to reply to specific charges. Such adverse actions include ranking in the low 10% of a class, or separation as a result of a Selection Board recommendation. The restriction on disclosure is not intended to discourage discussion between supervisor and subordinate of matters covered in this report, particularly when such discussion and guidance could assist the subordinate in his self-improvement efforts. On the contrary, supervisors and personnel officers are obliged to counsel persons under their responsibility. Occasionally, however, some factors, traits, or limitations, though they form a necessary part of appraisal of an officer's potential, may be beyond his power to alter or control; in such cases a discussion of them might serve no useful end, and may even be counter-productive. Therefore, the supervisor is obliged to report his appraisal of the officer's potential fully and candidly; he and the personnel officer or career management officer are also obliged to counsel the employee on all matters which lend themselves to such a discussion. The Performance Evaluation Division and the Selection Boards will review these reports to ensure that the Development Appraisal is consistent with the Performance Rating. (b) Support staff appraisals Development Appraisals of support staff personnel are included in the same form with performance evaluation (FS-315-B) and shall be discussed with, and a copy given to, the employee. 578 REBUTTALS AND APPEALS 578.1 Discussion with rating and reviewing officers An employee who wishes to rebut or appeal his performance rating should, in most instances, first discuss it with the rating and reviewing officers. If these officers agree that a revision should be made in the rating, the appropriate changes shall be made in all records. 578.2 Foreign Service rebuttals A Foreign Service employee who fails to obtain an agreeable determination after discussion with the rating and reviewing officer may submit a statement or document to refute statements in his record which he considers to be based on incomplete data or on limited observation, or to be unfair. (See further in section 571.5, Materials Submitted by Employees for Efficiency Records.) 578.3 Civil Service Appeals (a) Nature and Form of Appeal.—A Civil Service employee who fails to obtain an agreeable determination after discussion with the rating and reviewing officers may submit a written appeal on Form DS-887, Performance Rating Appeal, under the conditions and procedures described below. All appeals are to raise an "Unsatisfactory" rating to "Satisfactory," or a "Satisfactory” rating to "Outstanding." Appeals of narrative or other descriptive evaluations and appraisals will not be accepted. (b) Performance Rating Panels.—A Performance Rating Panel shall be established on an ad hoc basis to review a performance rating and to consider an appeal. Each such panel shall adopt procedures to ensure that the panel ascertains the pertinent facts in the case, obtains the opinions of the parties to the appeal, and creates a sufficient record of its operations and decision. The Panel shall be composed of three officers and/or support staff personnel of the Department selected as follows: a member selected by Chief, Performance Evaluation Division; a member selected by the executive or administrative officer of the bureau to which an appellant is assigned; and a member selected by the appellant who is neither a subordinate of nor related by blood or marriage to the appellant. PRIVACY AND THE RIGHTS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1966 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 2228, New Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., presiding. Present: Senator Ervin. Also present: George B. Autry, chief counsel and staff director; Marcia J. MacNaughton, professional staff member; Lewis Evans, counsel; and Rufus Edmisten, research assistant. Senator ERVIN. The subcommittee will come to order. Mr. AUTRY. Mr. Chairman, first, we have this morning the National Association of Internal Revenue Employees, Mr. Vincent L. Connery, national president, accompanied by Mr. George Bursach, executive secretary-treasurer, John Brady, legislative chairman, Richmond, Va., Hardy Root, president, chapter 50, Greensboro, N.C., Glen Graves, attorney; John L. Barnes, national first vice president. Senator ERVIN. Gentlemen, we appreciate very much your coming to give us the benefit of your observations on the pending legislation. Mr. BRADY. On my far right, Mr. John Barnes, national first vice president, Washington, D.C. Then Mr. Hardy Root, president of our chapter in Greensboro, N.C. Senator ERVIN. As fellow Tarheels, he and I would agree that it is the best side of heaven and if I had my way I would not make the exchange. Mr. BRADY. I am from Virginia, and I am next door to you. Senator ERVIN. Virginia is a good State because it is so close to North Carolina. Mr. BRADY. Mr. Glen Graves, the association attorney and Mr. George Bursach, executive secretary-treasurer. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have you meet our national president, Mr. Vincent L. Connery, Wichita, Kans., who will present our brief this morning. Mr. Connery. STATEMENT OF VINCENT L. CONNERY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERNAL REVENUE EMPLOYEES; ACCOMPAIED BY GEORGE BURSACH, EXECUTIVE SECRETARYTREASURER; HARDY ROOT, PRESIDENT, CHAPTER 50; GLEN GRAVES, ATTORNEY; AND JOHN L. BARNES, NATIONAL FIRST VICE PRESIDENT Mr. CONNERY. Senate bill 3779 is soundly conceived and perfectly timed. It appears on the legislative scene during a season of public employee unrest, and a period of rapidly accelerating demand among Federal employees for truly first-class citizenship. For the first time within my memory, at least, a proposed bill holds out the serious hope of attaining such citizenship. S. 3779, therefore, amply deserves the fullest support of all employee organizations, both public and private, federation affiliated, and independent alike. I am pleased to submit at this time the unqualified support and endorsement of the organization I represent, the National Association of Internal Revenue Employees. NAIRE asserts jurisdiction only over IRS employees, and is by far the major employee organization within this important, and unusually sensitive, agency. The Internal Revenue Service is not noted for its benevolent treatment of employees or even third parties—who stray too far from what it deems the course of wisdom and truth. The fact that NAIRE, like other Federal employee organizations, is essentially a volunteer outfit poses an added handicap in dealing with IRS management. Nevertheless, I am delighted to report that even with management representatives in full attendance at our annual NAIRE convention last month, our group unanimously passed a resolution of endorsement for S. 3779. It has often been said that the minimum wage laws are designed to build an economic foundation for the private employee. The point of this bill, I think, is to build a foundation of fair play beneath the Federal employee. With such a statutory floor beneath us, employee organizations like ours can build even better things for the Federal worker. Lacking it, I think we shall forever be handicapped in dealings with management. The central thrust of this bill is to eliminate the ever-increasing administrative invasions of employee privacy-invasions of our private lives that bear no rational relation to any legitimate interest in national security or the integrity of the civil servant population. There can be no doubt that this is a pressing problem within IRS. Within the relatively brief time we have had to assemble material for this hearing, for example, we have received literally dozens of communications from employees complaining of the compulsion to fill out certain ethnic questionnaires, to buy U.S. bonds, to contribute to UGF, and to make periodic reports on one's off-duty activities. In one south west district, a collection division branch chief dispatched a buck slip to his group supervisors demanding the names ... of employee . . . who are participating in any activities including such things as: P.T.A. in integrated schools, sports activities which are intersocial, and such things as Great Books discussion groups which have integrated memberships. In North Carolina a lower grade female employee sorrowfully told her supervisor that if she bought U.S. bonds she would have to turn around and cash them in for food and necessaries. To this he replied, in substance, "that's all right, so long as we get 100-percent participation." These almost morbid examples of managerial preoccupation with employees' private lives are by no means isolated within the nationwide IRS organization. NAIRE, of course, is a devoted proponent of the fair employment policy-and we even believe in buying bonds. But we are, in equal |