close any information from a statement. Agency procedures to insure confidentiality are the subject of Commission inspection. We will require strict adherence to these procedures. With respect to your question as to the type of personnel action indicated in the event an employee should refuse to file a required statement, the agency head should take whatever remedial or disciplinary action might be needed in order to obtain compliance with the order and regulations. If a less severe action would not serve he might have to change the employee to another position where the responsibilities did not require the filing of a statement or, if this were not possible, to effect his removal from the service. In any case, as spelled out in our regulations, no adverse action could be taken against an employee without full compliance with any laws, executive orders and regulations applicable to such action. In closing I would like to emphasize that we in the Commission are entirely dedicated to the preservation of individual rights against unwarranted invasions of privacy. The standards of ethical conduct and the requirement of confidential statements of employment and financial interests from certain employees in responsible positions, in our judgment, will contribute materially to the public's confidence in the integrity of Government and are in the public interest. I am confident that the great majority of those in the Federal workforce whose positions necessitate the submission of these statements will recognize their proper value as well as the spirit in which they are required. Sincerely yours, Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., JOHN W. MACY, Jr., Chairman. U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: While reading the speech that you made in the Senate on August 9, 1966, I noticed a reference to the fact that GS-3 employees in the Smithsonian Institution were required to file statements of employment and financial interests. It seemed to me to be unusual to require filing by employees in such a low grade. Moreover, the regulations of the Smithsonian definitely do not require the filing by employees in this low grade. Therefore, I had inquiries made with officials at the Smithsonian. They stated that they had required all employees engaged in procurement to file statements of employment and financial interests; that this included employees in grades as low as GS-3; that this was an error on their part; and that they were immediately correcting it. From now on employees in procurement activities at the Smithsonian will be required to file statements of employment and financial interests only if they are in grade GS-13 or above. If further examples of this type come to your attention, I will be glad to hear about them. I assure you that any instance of employees being required to file the statements that do not appear to be in line with the standards that the Commission has issued, will be just as promptly investigated and corrected as was this case. Sincerely yours, JOHN W. MACY, Jr., Chairman. SELECTED COMPLAINTS FROM SUBCOMMITTEE FILES CONCERNING USE OF FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE FORMS Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., Washington, D.C. MARYLAND, July 12, 1966. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I am writing to applaud the stand you have taken on the new requirement that Federal employees in certain grades and categories disclose their financial holdings to their immediate superior. Having been a Civil Service employee for 26 years, and advanced from GS-4 to GS-15, and been cleared for Top Secret during World War II, and because I currently hold 71-994-67- -34 a position that involves the disposition of hundreds of thousands of the taxpayers' money, it is my conviction that my morality and trustworthiness are already a matter of record in the files of the Federal Government. The requirement that my husband's financial assets be reported, as well as my own assets and those we hold jointly, was particularly offensive, since my husband is the head of our household and is not employed by Government. You might also be interested in the fact that it required six hours of afterhours work on our part to hunt up all the information called for and prepare the report. Since the extent of our assets is our private business, it was necessary that I type the material myself, an added chore since I am not a typist. Our assets have been derived, in the main, from laying aside a portion of our earnings. At our ages (64 and 58) we would be far less deserving of respect had we not made the prudent provisions for our retirement which our assets and the income they earn represent. Yet this reporting requirement carries with it the implication that to have "clean hands" it would be best to have no assets or outside, unearned income when you work for the Federal Government. For your information I am a GS-15, earning $19,415... Thank you for speaking out for the continually maligned Civil servant. WASHINGTON, D.C., July 22, 1966. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN : In connection with your recent remarks concerning invasion of right of privacy of public employees, I am enclosing the following: (1) Pamphlet on Preventing Conflicts of Interests on the part of Special Government Employees (The President's Memorandum of May 2, 1963) (2) Security Investigation Data for Nonsensitive Position Standard Form 85 Revised December, 1959 C.S.C. (3) Fingerprint card Form 87 Revised December, 1959 C.S.C. (4) Statement of Employment and Financial Interests Form. Optional Form 29, September, 1963 C.S.C. (5) Applications for Federal Employment Form 57s I was considering performing some legal consultant work for one of the government agencies but not on a full-time or part-time basis; only on a single job basis, which might mean that I might work for several weeks during the year for the agency or possibly do nothing for the agency at all, depending upon its demand for my services. I had submitted in letter form a resume of my qualifications and experience and had actually been accepted and performed a small amount of work for the agency. I submitted a bill for my services performed and received the enclosed material in the mail. Suffice it to say I have lost all interest in the matter. I just thought you would be interested in seeing what one who is not actually seeking full- or part-time employment with the government is subjected to. No telling what employees in regular so-called sensitive or non-sensitive jobs are required to do. Most sincerely, Representative RAY ROBERTS, House of Representatives, Washington, D.O. POMONA, CALIF., September 4, 1966. DEAR MR. ROBERTS: The ultimate effects of directives of which the enclosed excerpts, with form for the employee, are representative, are of much concern to me. To identify myself: My brother of Commerce, Texas, is perhaps known to you. I met you during your campaign at my mother's store in Greenville, Texas. I am a Civil Service employee, a supervisory electronic engineer, in the Navy Metrology Engineering Center serving several Systems Commands in the fields of standards and measurements. Until recently the Center was a part of the Bureau of Naval Weapons. My position is head of the Electronic Development and Evaluation Division, one of three engineering divisions supporting other aspects of the activity. If I am still on the rolls as of 1 October this year I shall have completed 26 years in government civil service. (1940-1959 Federal Communications Commission, 1959 to present U.S. Navy) My grade is GS-13 and salary $14,250 per annum. My age, 62. The directives referred to require that all military and civilian employees in certain categories, in the Department of Defense provide information regarding all personal assets and obligations. Ostensibly this is to assure no conflict of interest between the employee and his job, where purchases for the government are involved. I favor strongly elimination of conflicts of interests in all government employees; but I believe this and other similar edicts of which I have heard, go much further than necessary to solve whatever problems exist. I plan to file a Form D-1555 by the deadline given me, 15 September 1966, in which the specific queries regarding holdings will not be answered. It will, however, make statements and express my views as follow under "remarks". With respect to Parts I and III above, I have no employment or interests, financial or otherwise, that could in any way compromise or conflict with the proper conduct of my duties in my present employment by the U.S. Government. Nor do I have any relative, by blood or marriage, within or outside my household, in any way associated with any supplier of materials or services to the U.S. Government, whereby such relationship might conceivably influence my decisions in their interests. With respect to Parts II and IV, I owe no debts other than current utility bills and 30 day charge accounts. No other persons are in possession of information which could contravert the above statements. If the real purpose of the several directives requiring completion of Form D-1555 is to preclude conflict of interest by U.S. Government employees certification of the foregoing should be entirely adequate. When members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, as well as the President's Cabinet, are required to provide the information demanded of far less responsible employees, then there will be sufficient reason to justify details of personal holdings and obligations from the lower levels of employment. The information on relatives, not now included, should also be required. While my views expressed above on the matter herein considered may not coincide with your personal views, I feel that you may want to give some serious attention to the matter. Respectfully yours, CHICAGO, ILL., August 20, 1966. Senator SAM ERVIN, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: I was interested in Vista until I read through the application blank. Who are these people who pry into one's personal finances, etc.? Top secret job-yes! Vista bottom rung-well? I am in favor of your bill. Thank you, NEBRASKA, July 23, 1966. DEAR SIR: In reading the July 18th issue of Federal Employee's News Digest, I noticed that you are chairman of the Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee. As an employee of the Federal Housing Administration I can tell you that recent restrictions and requirements have over-stepped the bounds of logic, are of questionable legality, and are definitely contrary to the intent (if not the letter) of the Constitution. For civil service employees who take their oath to defend the Constitution seriously, it is a real dilemma to be required by their agency to comply with regulations which appear to be un-Constitutional. Specialifically, it would seem that the act of answering any questions concerning outside employment which would result in disciplinary action appears to violate Article V of the Bill of Rights which says that a person should not be compelled to be a witness against himself. In the same article it would appear that we are definitely being deprived of liberty without due process of law. The matter of "conflict of interest" in the government service can be a problem, I realize, but essetnially it is a problem which will not be solved by filing reports, requesting permission for part-time jobs, etc., because the dishonest employee is not likely to report his dishonesty. I am sure that existing federal laws would cover almost all possible illegal acts by employees and I am at a loss as to why we are continually harassed by additional requirements. Two requirements by my agency which are particularly distasteful to me are: (a) the inclusion of family members in the requirements pertaining to outside employment. It would seem to me that there is absolutely no legal basis in any employer, government or otherwise, requiring people not on its payroll to conform to its regulations. (b) the reporting of the sale or purchase of a personal residence to FHA even when FHA financing is not involved. I have questioned the personnel officer in my supervising office on these mat ters and they offer no explanation other than the fact that they are passing on the regulations. Sincerely, CHEYENNE, Wyo., July 14, 1966. Senator SAM ERVIN, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: The July 13, 1966 issue of the Federal Times carried a news story concerning your protesting the use of financial reports required of federal employees. I certainly support your position in this matter. For the past fifteen years I have been employed by the Internal Revenue Serv. ice as an Internal Revenue Agent. Tax agents are subjected to a number of screening devices to assure our integrity. We, of course, are investigated at the time when we are hired. Then, when hired our past three years income tax returns are examined. Thereafter, our tax returns are culled out each year and given special scrutiny. (This does not happen to the average taxpayer year after year.) Our work is periodically inspected by the Inspection Service which was established to assure the honesty of employees. It seems to me that these procedures should be adequate to assure the honesty of our employees. Now comes the filing of financial statements which must be updated every three months. Personally I think this procedure is going a bit too far and I resent it. It's true that I'm a federal employee but I am also a citizen of the United States and I think that should entitle me to keep some of my private affairs confidential. In addition to the financial statements which those of us in supervisory positions must file, we must certify each month on our time reports or individual case files that we have neither a financial nor personal interest in any tax matter which we handled during the month. This procedure is also uncalled for. The Revenue Service employees have taken oaths concerning their work and allegiance to the government, have policy statements which govern the conduct of agents in all matters and we have been investigated. I urge your continued fight against such practices. When such requirements are imposed on federal employees one gets the feeling that the day of Big Brother has already arrived. Your truly, CHEYENNE, WYo., July 26, 1966. Senator SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN Thank you for your letter of July 20. Yes, you certainly have my permission to use my letter in your campaign against invasion of privacy of federal employees by questionnaires and personnel practices. One incident I forgot to mention in my last letter was how confidential information from employees tax returns was used to "encourage" retirements and resignations of employees in the Des Moines Internal Revenue district about five or six years ago. Tax returns of some of the older employees were reviewed and if it appeared that the employee might have sufficient income to live without his salary he was invited to terminate his employment. These tactics finally resulted in a Congressional investigation and reversal of some of the personnel actions achieved through this means. This incident might be of interest to you since it points up what can happen when supervisors have access to financial information relating to their employees. It was also interesting to note that the Director who condoned these practices was not demoted; he was promoted to the job of Director in Denver. He has since retired from the Service. The questionnaires circulated in our agency requesting information on minority groups omitted one important category. This was women. While women constitute a sizeable group in the federal work force the number of supervisory and managerial positions they hold are negligible. This is not true because they aren't capable women within the federal service but because discrimination against promoting them to positions of importance prevents their rising to positions of importance. For some reason in most instances, a mediocre man is perferred rather than a well qualified woman. In a number of recent meetings with Civil Servants President Johnson has asked the question, "Where are the women?". The answer is that they are in the low level jobs because many of them can't get promoted even though they are qualified. Thank you for sending me a copy of the speech you made in the Senate. NEW ORLEANS, LA., September 30, 1966. Subject: Questionnaire attached. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: Has the term "Police State" ceased to be applicable only to foreign governments? Doesn't this delving into the intimate personal financial affairs of civil service employees, purely as a fishing expedition in hope it may turn up something, smack of Police State methods? Isn't this a logical sequence of the psychological pressure to give a “fair share” to the United Givers' Fund-or else? And the recent drive to participate in the Government bond drive or else? I do not object to committing myself to a certificate that I have no financial conflict of interest with my duties as a NASA employee and taking the consequences if I lie. I do not object to solicitation and participation in the UGF drive (as I have done every year) according to my own conscience and ability. I do not object to solicitation and participation in the government bond drive according to my own circumstances and judgment and decision, freely arrived at-but I do resent being subjected to psychological pressure in these things in order to make a good showing for management. The "or else" is not bluntly presented as an alternative of course-nothing so crude though the threat is no less psychologically effective for being thinly veiled. As for the questionnaire attached I resent being put in the position of being guilty until proven innocent. These things are brought to your attention in hope that some corrective measures may be possible. Respectfully, GEORGE C. MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, Memorandum to: MSFC officials required to complete MSFC Form 1270. From: Chief Counsel, CC. Subject: Violations of law reported on NASA Statement of Employment and Financial Interests: Department of Justice Involvement. |