In addition to their own financial interests, top officials will have to report on the holdings of their wives or husbands, minor children and members of their immediate households. They will also be required to list all of their creditors, except for ordinary household bills and home mortgages. In some ways, the new rules are not as strict as rules already in existence in some government departments, and an official explained "there is nothing here that says a department can't get tougher than this order and I'm sure some of them will." Agency heads, for example, will be able to permit "acceptance of food and refreshments available in the ordinary course of a luncheon or dinner or other meeting or on inspection tours where an employe may properly be in attendance." This is less strict than the rules recently issued by the Department of Defense prohibiting employes from eating or drinking on the expense accounts of government contractors. SHIFTS OF ALLEGIANCE Traditionally, one of the government's principal conflict-of-interest problems has been with special employes such as consultants and advisers, whose allegiance may shift rapidly back and forth between the government and a private business. A whole section of the new order is devoted to this special category of employe. It requires, for the first time, a financial statement similar to that required of top-level officials. A government official emphasized that the order applies only to the executive branch of the government and not to the legislative or judicial branches. If it had been in effect at the time, it would not, for example, have covered the financial manipulations of Bobby Baker, the former majority secretary of the Senate. Neither do the new rules apply to the President, who has already made a public report on his financial holdings. But an official said he was "confident the President will do whatever is required of any other employe." [The Journal of the Armed Forces] STANDARDS OF CONDUCT (By Louis Stockstill, editor) The ill-conceived "standards of conduct" directives flowing from the Defense Department have now reached the plateau half way between senility and imbecility. On the one hand, the Department demands a career officer force of intelligent, trained, disciplined, dedicated men, willing to devote a lifetime of service to the nation. Men who must be physically, morally and professionally outstanding. Men who must possess the soundest attributes of courage and leadership; who must be willing to lay aside their personal political beliefs; who are willing to forego many of the rights-and even creature comforts-available to the rest of the populace; who are capable of formulating proper safeguards for the nation's security and of planning effective countermeasures should the security be breeched; men who, when all else fails, must be relied upon to lead the nation to victory on the battlefield. Few in the Department would assert that these demands have not been meteither currently or historically. Yet we now have the sorry spectacle of DoD saying to the top leaders of the officer corps: "You're an admirable group of men; we respect you, admire you, and have the greatest confidence in you. But let us hold your hand so you won't go astray." By requiring all flag and general officers, regardless of their duties, to file statements showing their financial holdings, the Department has demonstrated that someone or several someones on the civilian level in the DoD hierarchy has absolutely no understanding of the traditions of honor and duty underlying career service in the U.S. Armed Forces. Any chicken farmer would have better sense than to present his bestlaying hens with china nest eggs. But this is essentially what the Department has done. It has cast doubt where none heretofore existed. The record is replete with evidence that the senior ranks of the Armed Forces have seldom (far more rarely than anywhere else in our society) been susceptible to financial philandering. But if the Department continues to institute unnecessary controls perhaps it can inspire greater creativity in this direction. Steinbeck pointed the moral in "The Pastures of Heaven" in a story in which a father so consistently berates his daughter never to speak to or have anything to do with a certain young man that the girl finally is stimulated to overwhelming curiosity and excitement about the boy-whom she has never even seen. We are not seriously suggesting that a senior military officer could be so easily seduced, but we think the story does illustrate the Defense Department's poor judgment in demanding allegiance where allegiance already abounds. Section 1(k) To require, or request, or attempt to require or request any employee serving in the department or agency, who is under investigation for misconduct to submit to interrogation which could lead to disciplinary action without the presence of counsel or other person of his choice, if he so requests; RIGHT TO COUNSEL INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE POLICIES OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE-RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES UNDER INVESTIGATION BY INSPECTION P-1940-6 LEGAL COUNSEL ALSO PERMITTED IN OTHER CASES If an employee requests permission to consult or to have counsel present at an interview in a case in which there is no reasonable expectation of prosecution for violation of a Federal Criminal Statute, the Regional Inspector will permit such representation as he deems in the best interests of both the Service and the employee. COUNSEL MUST BE ATTORNEY NOT EMPLOYED BY SERVICE When an employee retains counsel for an Inspection interview, such counsel must be an attorney and member of the bar in good standing who is not employed in any capacity by the Internal Revenue Service. (Same as P-(10) 320-5 and (10) 420–5). Approved: AUGUST 5, 1966. SHELDON S. COHEN, Commissioner. POLICIES OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Chapter (10)300—Character and Security Investigations P-(10)320-4 (Approved 6-17-65) LEGAL RIGHTS OF PERSONS INVESTIGATED TO BE OBSERVED The statutory duty of the Internal Revenue Service is to administer the Internal Revenue laws. It is the policy of the Service to perform this work fairly and impartially. Administration should be both reasonable and vigorous. A highly important part of administration of the Internal Revenue laws is the bringing to justice of, willful offenders of those laws. Of equal importance in the administration of these laws is the observance of the highest level of integrity by Service personnel in carrying out their duties. The constitutional rights and other legal rights of all persons will be fully respected and observed. While acting at all times within the bounds of law, the methods which the Service should use in investigating violations of law will vary with the circumstances. Mr. THOMAS E. GEORGE, Philadelphia, Pa. AUGUST 8, 1966. DEAR MR. GEORGE: Attached, for your information, is a copy of Policy Statement P-1940-6, approved August 5, 1966. This policy statement extends to employees under investigation for possible administrative offenses the privilege of having counsel present at interviews with the Inspection Service. While the extension of this privilege will be at the discretion of the Regional Inspectors, we fully expect that as a general rule employees' requests for counsel 71-994-6736 will be honored and that only in very rare situations will such a request be disapproved. Employees under investigation for possible criminal offenses now have a right to have legal counsel present at interviews with the Inspection Service under the provisions of Policy Statement P-(10) 320-4 (copy attached) which was approved June 17, 1965. Sincerely yours, A. J. SCHAFFER, Director, Personnel Division. EXCERPT FROM SENATE REPORT No. 501, 89TH CONG., 1ST SESS., BY THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN SECURITY INTERVIEWS The broad range of questions asked during security interviews and the use to which the results are put by Federal officials throughout the employee's tenure in Government have frequently made the question of presence of counsel or relative or friend in these interviews a crucial matter. The subcommittee has received complaints that security investigators exert pressure which may cause interviewees not to ask for counsel. To determine agency policy in this respect, the subcommittee asked each agency and executive department whether or not the presence of counsel or family or friend is discouraged or denied in security interviews. Although the survey has not been completed, the 38 replies received so far indicate a pattern of inconsistency in agency policies, and variations are even found within the armed services. Twenty-five agencies made flat statements that they did not discourage or deny presence of counsel, family member, or friend. Three do not allow it, while several neither encourage or discourage it. Some allow counsel, but deny or discourage the presence of a friend or relative. The survey results reveal that some agencies which deal with highly sensitive material, such as Atomic Energy Commission and Defense Department components, including the National Security Agency, allow counsel, friend, or relative at the interviews, while the Civil Service Commission, the U.S. Information Agency, and the Navy Department do not. In those instances where the employee is not permitted to have third parties present, two reasons are offered for the policy. One is the protection of the employee, the second is the protection of the "national security." This practice, according to the Civil Service Commission, "limits the disclosure of alleged derogatory information to the employee and protects him from the disclosure to others of allegations that he may be able to refute successfully during the interview." Although it does not specifically deny presence of counsel, the Navy normally discourages it on the grounds that it would "hinder or defeat the very purpose of the interview by creating a formal, legalistic atmosphere that could prove restricting." It maintains that the employee is protected in other ways since he can decline to answer any or all questions and the exercise of this privilege would be discounted in arriving at a determination on the merits of the case. Irrespective of the results of the interview, an employee would not be issued security charges and suspended unless the proposed charges and the complete file, along with the results of the interview, had been audited in the Department. Where family members or friends are not involved in the investigation, Navy policy is to limit the discussion to the employee "to prevent dissemination of information which may unnecessarily embarrass or malign the employee." The U.S. Information Agency applies to both applicants and employees its policy of not permitting third parties at the security interviews. Individuals are, however, advised that they may consult with counsel before answering any question or signing a statement. The inconsistencies marking the policies of the Defense Department and the armed services have not been explained. In contrast to the Navy's more rigid policy, the Department of Defense states that it neither discourages nor denies presence of counsel, family, or friends in security interviews. This policy, the subcommittee is told, applies to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Defense Atomic Support Agency, the Defense Communications Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Defense Supply Agency, and the National Security Agency. The Air Force also says that it does not discourage or deny an employee the opportunity to be represented by counsel or by a friend or a member of his family if he so desires. In Army interviews, if the individual wishes to have counsel present, the request is granted "unless the purpose of the interview or the interest of national security would be compromised." As for a relative or friend not acting in the capacity of counsel, the Department neither discourages his presence nor encourages it, but would consider such a request favorably if such person "could contribute information which would assist the subject to better refute, explain, or mitigate derogatory information." The agency replies to the subcommittee's question follow; Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Not applicable since it has no security positions. Agriculture No. Air Force "The Department of the Air Force does not discourage or deny an employee the opportunity to be represented by counsel or by a friend or a member of his family, if he so desires. In fact, an employee is advised, prior to an interview, of his rights under the fifth amendment and of the nature of the inquiry." If the employee is to be questioned concerning possible falsification of an official document, he is advised that he is entitled to legal counsel. In other cases where only security matters are involved, the employee is given reasonable time to secure legal counsel if he requests it. According to Air Force records, they have never had a request from an employee to be represented or accompanied during an interview by a friend or member of his family. They would normally accept anyone designated by him to act as his counsel unless the interview would involve disclosure of classified information. Army Subject of a security interview has a right to obtain legal advice before or during the interview if he so desires. The interviewer is under no obligation to volunteer this information. When the subject is a civilian employee, and he inquires concerning his right to counsel, he is advised that he has a right to consult with a civilian counsel at his own expense. If he expresses a desire to consult with counsel he is permitted to do so immediately. If he wishes to have counsel present during his interview, the request is granted unless the purpose of the interview or the interests of national security would be compromised. If either of these situations should prevail the request is denied and the interviewee is given the opportunity to elect to proceed without counsel. If he does not wish to do so, the interview is terminated. "The presence of family or friend during a security interview, not acting in the capacity of counsel, is neither discouraged nor encouraged. The Department is not aware of any case wherein the subject has requested presence of a family member or friend but would consider such a request favorably if the family member or friend could contribute information which would assist the subject to better refute, explain, or mitigate derogatory information which may be held directly involving him." Atomic Energy Commission "In conducting its security interviews, the AEC permits counsel for the individual or the individual's friend or family to be present if this is requested." Budget Bureau "There has been no instance where the presence of counsel or family or friend has been requested in connection with discussion of security matters either with an applicant or any employee. However, if any such request were made it would be granted." Canal Zone Government Security interviews in connection with employment are generally conducted with only the individual concerned present; however, the presence of counsel or family or friend is neither discouraged nor denied. When a U.S. citizen em |