In another federal agency recently, a divorcee with two children declined to articipate in the Presidents campaign to have civil servants invest in U.S. avings bonds. She felt she could not afford them.

When it developed that she was the only holdout keeping the agency from hitting 100 per cent," the woman was called into a staff meeting and severely astigated in front of her fellow workers.

At the Defense Department, a bright young woman entered the federal service nder the "management-intern" program, designed to attract unusually capable oung people to government service and to prepare them for positions of esponsibility.

As part of her job, this young woman invited a senator to address a group of nterns at one of their regular, on-duty seminars.

But when the young woman's supervisor, a GS-15 making about $17,500 a ear, intercepted the senator's routine letter of acceptance, he threw a "terrible antrum."

Rank-and-file federal employees are not authorized to contact congressmen, he old the nonpulsed young woman. "I suggest you better not have any more letters oming here from the Hill (Capitol Hill).”

Incidents like these, documented by the Senate subcommittee on constitutional ights, are cited by some members of Congress as symptomatic of a growing ickness in the federal establishment.

"I believe," subcommittee chairman Sen. Sam J. Ervin, Jr., D-N.C., said ecently, "there is now being created in the federal service a climate of fear, pprehension and coercion which is detrimental to the health of the service and s corroding the rights of federal employes.

"It should disturb every American citizen who takes pride in his government." To remedy the situation, Ervin called a press conference last week to announce hat he was introducing a proposed "bill of rights for federal employees" to ban nany of the disputed practices. Hearings are planned for early this fall.

No one can really be sure how percussive the problem is. Spokesmen for ederal employment unions are egging Ervin on, declaring that unwarranted nvasions of employes' privacy are more prevalent than ever before.

The constitutional rights subcommittee's files are bulging with complaints. And each reported grievance, explained one staff member, probably represents undreds of unreported grievances on the part of employes reluctant to complain. "They're so afraid of losing their jobs or getting reprimanded," the staff memer said. "This whole atmosphere of fear keeps them from communicating with Congress." On the other hand, at the Civil Service Commission, the federal government's ersonnel agency, there is a tendency to suspect the case is being overstated. Employe complaints to the commission have been scarce. But the commission staff plans to recheck Ervin's allegations before congressional hearings begin. "You don't just say, what the heck, he's blowing off," said one civil service pokesman. "You don't dismiss it lightly."

In some instances, the problems seem to arise from poor judgment or overealousness by agency supervisors, rather than from official government policy. This is particularly true of "voluntary solicitation campaigns within governnent agencies. One employe in a federal field office wrote to complain about the Irive for funds to help build the John F. Kennedy Memorial Library at Harvard. "The Kennedy library drive was a real armtwister," the employee said. "One hundred per cent participation was required, with names sent-or threatened to De sent-to Washington."

When President Johnson began his now-famous savings bond drive, he kept tabs on the agencies with large charts in the cabinet room. The heat was felt all the way down to the lowest bureaucrat.

"I was reminded that I had a promotion coming up," confided one Defense Department employee. "My supervisor told me, "The people in the front office remember things like this.''

But many times, employe complaints of a "big brother" atmosphere stem from official government policies and programs.

One of Ervin's favorite targets is a White House-ordered campaign to minimize the dangers of conflict-of-interest in the federal service by making selected officials disclose their financial situation in supposedly confidential questionnaires.

Although it was originally expected that disclosure would be limited to a few thousand top policy-makers, an Ervin survey so far has turned up nearly 50,000 employes who are required to divulge their financial status. Many large agencies are still to be heard from.

Among those being forced to bare their financial souls are $100-a-week clerks at the Smithsonian Institution and interior decorators at the State Department. Another of Ervin's major concerns is the use of lie detectors and psychological tests in employment and promotion of federal employes. The Civil Service Commission contends that earlier abuses have been eliminated and that such practices are now under tight control. Ervin and others disagree.

One veteran woman employe at the Defense Department, already cleared to handle military secrets, decided to pass up a promotion to a different office because she would be required to take a lie detector test.

The woman was reluctant, she said, because the lie detector operators were notorious for gossiping about their subjects' reactions to intimate questions on sexual matters.

Sometimes agency policies that make sense in theory produce bizarre results when enforced to the hilt. At the Small Business Administration, employes are instructed never to do business with companies that have received or are seeking SBA loans.

In one case, that policy resulted in a reprimand for SBA employes who often ate their lunch-hour hamburgers at a "greasy spoon" restaurant two blocks from SBA headquarters in Washington. The restaurant, it turned out, had an SBA loan.

In taking stiff precautions against conflict-of-interest, the Johnson administration has decided that financial disclosure and other rules are justified to insure the integrity of the federal establishment.

Ervin's reply is that while concern for complete honesty is laudable, forced financial disclosure by other than top policy officials is an insult to rank-andfile employes and an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Some academic experts on public administration agree.

Dr. William Beaney of Princeton, a distinguished political scientist and frequent government consultant, said:

"Speaking for myself, I think there's a limit on how far you can go on this thing of knowing everything about an employe to see if he can do some run-ofthe-mill job. These aren't security positions."

Dr. Stephen K. Bailey, dean of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University agreed that financial disclosure was necessary in the upper echelons of government, but he wondered about the propriety of dipping down into the middle ranks.

"My own instinct," he said, "tells me that the cut-off ought to be with the political executives. I'm primarily concerned with people brought in by presidential appointments. These people are politically accountable."

Beaney, Bailey and other political scientists point out that government personnel practices have an impact throughout private industry, and thus ought to be exemplary.

While the academic people don't endorse Ervin's wide-ranging bill across the board, they approve of intensified scrutiny of the subject by Congress.

"Personally, I'm very sympathetic," said Beaney. "He (Ervin) has a lot of fish he's trying to fry at the same time, but I do think on some of these things, there's serious cause for concern."

[From the Winston-Salem Twin City Sentinel, July 25, 1966]

THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY

Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., is right in questioning whether the federal govern ment is snooping too much into the private lives of its employes. Although federal personnel practices may not be as outrageous as the Senator suggests, the trend toward invasion of privacy is moving too quickly in this country and should be stubbornly resisted.

Like any private employer, the government is entitled to know certain basic things about the people it hires-about personal and family background, about character and credit ratings and so forth. But, if Senator Ervin is correct, some government agencies are going well beyond this basic information.

In a recent news release announcing that his Constitutional Rights Subcommittee will hold hearings on this subject soon, the Senator listed these intrusions on public empolyees:

"*** Psychological testing, psychiatric interviews, race questionnaires, lie detectors, loyalty oaths, probing personnel forms and background investigations, restrictions on communications with Congress, pressure to support political parties financially, coercion to buy savings bonds, extensive limitations on outside activities, rules for speaking and writing, and even thinking, forms for revealing personal data about finances, creditors, property and other interests." Some of these things can be justified perhaps as an effort to assure that the government hires only stable, trustworthy employes who have no conceivable conflict of interest with their jobs. But some seem clearly unnecessary.

Senator Ervin, who is considerably more of a civil libertarian than his views on civil rights would make him appear, will do a service for the country if he can determine in his hearings just how far these intrusions go and, if they are unjustified, what can be done to stop them.

One horrid example of what the Senator wants to investigate is a letter recently circulated among employes at Andrews Air Force Base Hospital. It urged workers to buy savings bonds and asked them to sign one of these three statements:

-"I am now supporting the President by buying U.S. Savings Bonds on an alloment from my pay."

-"I wish to show my support for the President by adding to my allotment or by beginning an allotment ***."

-"I do not accept my responsibility to support the President in this U.S. Savings Bond campaign."

The sooner such high-handed activity can be investigated and stopped, the better. If it is not, we may indeed live in what Senator Ervin has predicted will be "the era of the dossiered man."

[From the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, August 1966]

BURY THE SKELETON

"It is said," just as Sen. Sam Ervin said, that legislation should be considered to keep the constitutional rights of U.S. government employees from being trampled asunder by their employer.

But, as Sen. Ervin added, "Such legislation is necessary." And the senator is right.

Witness the recent, clandestine search of the home of a Central Intelligence Agency employe by a couple of CIA sleuths who feigned interest in buying the house.

Examine, if you will, the way lie detector tests are being used to pry into such personal realms as religious beliefs and sexual habits; and the many ways government employes are being pressured and indoctrinated in the management of their off-duty time.

Witness, especially, the apparent increase in these tyrannies in recent years. To right these wrongs, Sen. Ervin, a Democrat from North Carolina, has introduced a "civil servants' 'Bill of Rights'."

In introducing this bill, Ervin isn't acting as an alarmist. That's not Ervin's way. He and his subcommittee on constitutional rights enjoy one of the finest records of responsibility to be found on Capitol Hill.

The tyrannies he sees invading the privacy and molesting the dignity of our government's employes are all too real.

Sen. Ervin has performed a service to federal employes and all Americans by finally dragging this skeleton from the closet.

Now Congress should bury the skeleton by adopting the legislative solution he's proposed.

[From the Charlotte Observer, Aug. 16, 1966]

FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS NEEDED

It is not consistent for the U.S. government to bewail the lack of bright, enthusiastic citizens willing to work for the government while it uses policies that discourage applicants or harass employes.

Numerous reports cite interviews and questionnaires with unneeded and em

barrassing questions about religion, sex and personal relationships. Others tell of employees being reprimanded for private actions not bearing on their government work. There is pressure to give to somebody's favorite charity, to buy gorernment bonds or to pay for tickets for some event that benefits politicians. Not all federal agencies are guilty, but according to Sen. Ervin Jr., there are enough to justify a law setting forth a "bill of rights" for federal employes. For several years, Ervin's subcommittee on constitutional rights has collected complaints from federal employes. Some were sent to the Civil Service Commission and others prompted the committee to prod the agency or even the Pres ident's office directly. Because these pressures brought either no response or te little action, Ervin felt a "bill of rights" was necessary.

His proposal is drawn to protect federal clerks, secretaries, accountants and lower-level civil servants from invasions of their privacy.

The bill would, for example, end a rule that clerks must disclose the financial holdings of their families. This rule was first directed toward policy-makers to prevent conflicts of interest, but it has trickled down to reach those whose work does not expose them to the same temptations.

Poliical appoinees and career officials who make policy decisions often must sacrifice anonymity and privacy to larger interests such as that of national se curity. But Sen. Ervin's bill is a sensible way to insulate lower-level employes from the over-zealous practices of their superiors.

[From the Kinston Daily Free Press, Aug. 16, 1966]

ERVIN'S BILL FOR EMPLOYEES IS SIGNIFICANT

A "bill of rights" measure to protect the privacy of federal employees has been advanced by U.S. Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., North Carolina Democrat and chair. man of the Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee. In offering this signi ficant measure Senator Ervin wrote to President Johnson to emphasize the need for such action as soon as possible.

What it would prohibit are the following "privacy invasions" caused by outright coercion, requirements, requests or intimidation:

(1) Race, religion, national origin questionnaires. (2) Indiscriminate re quirements to disclose personal finances, assets, creditors and property interests of employees and their families. (3) Meetings to indoctrinate employees about matters unrelated to their jobs. (4) Requirements that employees take part in activities not directly within the scope of their employment. (5) Requirements to make reports about personal activities and undertakings not related to jobs. (6) Attempts to forbid patronizing any businesses or establishments. (7) Interrogations, examinations, psychological or polygraph tests aimed at securing data about personal relations with relatives, religious beliefs or attitudes and conduct with respect to sexual matters. (8) Coercion to support political activi ties personally or financially. (9) Coercion to buy bonds or to make contribu tions to institutions and causes. (10) Interrogation without the presence of counsel or other person of employee's choice.

Apparently these practices have spread from the need for security checks on top-flight officials in government, but as Senator Ervin points out they are not in keeping with American freedoms. They are more totalitarian than democratic, he said.

The legislation is overdue. Senator Ervin does well to put the freedoms of civil service and other employees in proper perspective. The bill should have the wholehearted support of the 89th Congress.

[From the Government Employees Exchange, Aug. 24, 1966]

SENATOR ERVIN'S OMNIBUS BILL SEEN AS ONE MORE STEP TO RID SERVICE OF

MCCARTHYISM

During the past three years, ever since Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., and Repre sentative Cornelius E. Gallagher began their respective investigations into the grey areas of Federal employment, particularly those that subjected the em ployee and the potential member of the Federal operating staff to draw conclus

ions on matters that pertain to their private lives, readers of the newspaper have had front-row seats as they progressed. One by one, during this period, they witnessed the retreat of McCarthyism in the service, and, bit by bit, the restoration of individual dignity by all those employed in it. The omnibus bill introduced by Senator Ervin on August 9 is the later-and by far the most encompassing-move to elevate the Federal Government as a model employer. While it is true-and this is more theoretical than practical-that the right to disagree is held aloft in the private sector of the nation, it is nevertheless, also true that the percentage of pronounced criticism is markedly less if a person's livelihood becomes involved with its expression, as is the case of one who is employed by the Federal Government. Their freedom of expression and action is inhibited by their employment in the Federal service. Working and living under glass is the price they have to pay for working for the Federal Government. In spite of the numerous benefits afforded them as Federal employees, they feel like "transients" in their respective jobs because of the implications.

Inuendos to the extent that their expressions and actions off the job "might" affect their employment have imbedded fear and its resulting effect, conformity, in their minds. Senator Ervin's so-called "Bill of Rights for Federal Employees," while not removing all of the bars that have softened their minds for many years, in the opinion of this newspaper takes a positive step in that direction.

Some of Mr. Ervin's critics in the private sector, apparently unaware how much the "power of suggestion" has on the Federal work-force have indicated that the bill is a swipe at members of the nation's minority groups because of his position on civil rights, while other have charged that it lessens the control of the employer over his employees. While it is true that the Senator does come from a border state, the allegation that the bill is part of a package of bills to destroy the movement is utterly false. As far as the second implication is concerned, it is the newspaper's conviction that the bill removes many of the real and imaginary restraints in Federal employment, thus affording the Federal Government the realistic opportunity to retain a higher percentage of its talented, and likewise, affords it a set of rules that serve as magnets for the attractions of more of them.

This newspaper would recommend that in addition to the ten points covered by the bill that it be amended to specifically state that the grieved employee as well as the potential one be accorded the right to confront his accusers. In other words that the accused be given his day in court, a right today even the nation's most hardened criminal has.

This newspaper has been proud to have been both a witness and a participant in the progress of the Federal merit system in the eyes of Federal Government management as well in those of its employees. The Federal Government is a better competitor with private industry today than it was more than 20 years ago. It offers greater security, greater opportunities for advancement, and greater protections for the grieved than then. To say that it cannot be improved is to admit that its operation today is perfect.

Until Representative Gallagher and Senator Ervin, in that order, began their probes into the invasion by Federal departments and agencies into the private lives of their employees back in the Spring of 1963, the improvements prior to then were concerned more with the system rather than the people who operated the apparatus of the Federal Government. Though far from completing their tasks, and though holding separate hearings, they have done much to improve the environment in the Federal service, while the Civil Service Commission, ever since 1953, has done much to update the rules and regulations governing Federal employment.

One would come to the conclusion that the Executive Branch is working at cross-purposes with the Legislative Branch toward improving the Federal service, but such hasn't been the case as this newspaper has reported. The different Federal agencies, and especially the Civil Service Commission through its Chairman, John W. Macy, Jr., have cooperated with Representative Gallagher and the Senator from North Carolina in their investigations. The hearings have been marked by frankness by all who testified, and it was in this way that Senator Ervin was enabled to introduce his omnibus bill, which is designed to correct more inequities, on the floor of the Senator on August 9.