STATEMENT OF JOHN W. MACY, JR. CHAIRMAN OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANPOWER AND CIVIL SERVICE OF THE COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF REPRESENTATIVES ON S. 1035, AN ACT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 23
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 1, 2005
• Sequence Number: 11
• Publication Date: June 13, 1968
• Content Type: STATEMENT

STATE VENT OF JOI IN W. MACY, JR.
CII,'11RMAN OF TH't CIVIL SERVTCF COMMISSION BEFORE THE
SHOCC)1~'MII"I'F;1~; ON KVJ1PU1rJFR AND CIVII, SERVICE OF T1IY,
COXV11TTEF ON POST U1i'F.1 CE AND CIVIL SERVICE
OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON
S. 1.035, an Act "To protect the civilian 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."
June 1.3, 1.968
NR.. CHAIRMAN :
Commissioner Andolsek, Commissioner Hampton, and I particularly
appreciate the opportunity of presenting our views before this Subcommittee
on H.R. 1.7760 and S. 1035. It is our collective judgment that these bills
portend a significant impact on personnel administration within the Executive
agencies.
The history of S. l035 in the 89th Congress shows that while the Civil
Service Commission has endorsed its objectives, we have objected to the
methods by which those objectives would be implemented. We have stated our
objections before, and in order to keep this statement as brief as possible,
we suggest that the Subcommittee review the Commission's reports of
September 28, 1966, and May 9, 1967, in which we specify these objections.
We also suggest reference to the testimony offered on October 3, 1966, before
the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights.
We are pleased that as a result of our suggestions a number of signifi-
cant amendments to S. 1035 were made so that the bill. passed by the Senate
last September 13 is less objectionable than earlier versions. We are still
troubled by the basic approach of the bill which focuses exclusively on
several. specified employee rights, without taking into account the complementary
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
 Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
2
roles of employees and management in achieving the missions of the Executive
branch. Today we want to point up the seriousness of certain faults we find
in S. 1035 and to describe certain developments which we believe evidence
the lack of need for this legislation.
The need for a balanced approach.
The provisions of S. 1035 are directed toward the protection of employee
rights. Specifically, the title of the bill refers to "constitutional rights"
and to the right of privacy. We are disturbed by the current exclusive
emphasis placed on. the protection of individual rights with no concurrent
recognition that individuals also have obligations. I an convinced that not
only within Government as an employer, but equally within our democratic
society as a whole, the failure to realize that a disproportionate emphasis
on the protection of individual rights without. a balancing appreciation of
individual, obligations can only result in distortion and disorder. We have
seen all too starkly in recent months the disorders which have taken place
in the name of freedom, but in the form of unbridled license. Such disorders
threaten the very rights an ordered society strives to protect. What has
been lacking is the perspective which views individual rights in proper
balance with their correlative obligations.
As I stated in my testimony in 1966, "We in the Commission are fully
committed to the objective that Federal.. employees should be protected in
the enjoyment of their constitutional and other rights." While we believe
that this protection can be assured by administrative processes, we are not
opposed to legislation in this important area. We would, for example, be
pleased to support legislation that expresses a positive policy for the
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
 Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
3
Government as an employer with respect to both the rights and the obligations
of its employees; defines those rights and obligations in reasonable and
understandable terms; provides for the enforcement of employee rights through
normal grievance procedures with an appeal to the Civil Service Commission;
and recognizes an employee's duty to honor the obligations he owes the
Government as his employer. Such legislation should be administered by the
Commission. It is important that legislation which deals with a significant
aspect of personnel management be administered by an established central
agency currently charged with the enforcement of other personnel. legislation.
I will explain the importance of this factor later.
A bill such as I have in mind was introduced just the other day by you,
Mr. Chairman. I refer to H.R. 17760. My initial reaction to this bill. is
favorable, but f would appreciate an opportunity to have the Commission
study it closely and submit a report within a week.
Major objections to S. 1035.
Returning to the consideration of S. 1.035, 1 reiterate that the Commis-
sion is firmly committed to the objective of protecting all the rights of
Federal employees -- not merely a few such rights of current notoriety --
whether based on the constitution or otherwise. We are equally committed
to protecting employees against unwarranted invasions of their privacy --
not merely from invasions by their supervisors, but from any source. We do
not believe it is either reasonable or necessary to attempt to achieve these
desirable objectives by the costly creation of a new Executive agency with
fractional authority that would circumvent, in part, and duplicate, in part,
procedures that already exist for settling complaints concerning violations
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
 Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
of employee rights. It is equally unreasonable and unnecessary to enact
legislation that would provide direct recourse to the courts at every stage
of the complaint process without regard to pecuniary injury or to the
exhaustion of administrative remedies.
The matter of employer-employee relations is not a one-way street that
runs only to the end of establishing and protecting employee rights. While
employee rights are important and certainly deserving of protection it is
essential. to recognize, as I have indicated, that employees also have
obligations, and that management has both rights and obligations. Constructive
personnel. administration, as well as informed employee-management cooperation,
takes into consideration the rights and obligations of both employees and
management. Only by doing this can a proper balance be achieved that will
protect the rights of employees and management and, concurrently, recognize
the obligations of both, so both elements may work effectively together
toward common public service goals.
I do not believe that a delicate balance of this type can be achieved
under a system that appears to disregard the obligations of employees and
the rights and obligations of management, and which relies on enforcement by
an agency completely divorced from all other aspects of personnel administra-
tion. I submit that a system under which a single agency is charged with
administering the rights and obligations of both employees and management as well as other facets of personnel administration -- is a more reasonable
means for achieving the balance sought. Our present system, in which the
Civil Service Commission is that single agency, perhaps augmented to permit
all complaints to be appealed to the Commission, would be a preferable vehicle
to achieve a workable balance between employees and management.
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
 Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
The provisions of section !4 of S. 1035 would allow a law suit to be
filed in a district court whenever an employee believed one of his rights
was violated, or believed there was a threat to commit such a violation.
I an not a lawyer. I will not dwell on what my General Counsel tells me is
a most unusual allowance of recourse to the courts without a requirement of
first exhausting any available administrative remedy. Oddly enough, while
the bill. creates a new agency of Government whose only reason for existence
is to provide a new administrative remedy, the remedy is one which, because
of the existence of other remedies and of the proposed availability of the
courts, need never be used.
As an administrator directly concerned with proper employee-management
cooperation within the Executive branch, I am firmly opposed to this route
of direct access to the courts as it will circumvent and negate already
existing agency grievance procedures, many of which are the products of
negotiated agreements between agencies and employee organizations. I see
no justification for casting aside procedures which have been agreed to by
management officials and union representatives, and dumping the raw and
unreviewed complaints of employees into the lap of an overburdened judicial
system. On this point, I urge that the views of the Judicial- Conference of
the United .States on this aspect of the proposed legislation be included
in any report on S. 1035.
No need shown for creation of a new agency.
We do not believe legislation is necessary to remove from the agencies
their final authority over grievance appeals and other employee complaints.
If the Committee disagrees with this view, we would still think it needless
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
 Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
to create a totally new agency for the purpose, and we would support the
alternative presented by H.R. 17760 where final authority over grievances
is placed in the Civil Service Commission.
The Commission has a central responsibility concerning many of the
e:-e,rsonnel practices followed by all agencies in the Executive branch. The
Commission does not have plenary appellate jurisdiction, and lacks much of
the jurisdiction proposed by the bill for the new agency. But the Commission
does have considerable appellate jurisdiction into which the complaint
jurisdiction would readily fit. For example, the Commission currently has
jurisdiction by statute to adjudicate appeals of veterans who have been
subjected to adverse actions. The President has extended this right to
nonveterans in the competitive service by Executive order.
The Commission has appellate jurisdiction in cases of asserted
discrimination on account of race, religion, color, or sex, as described in
Part 713 of the Federal Personnel Manual.. It has jurisdiction to accept
appeals in matters related to the classification of positions held by
employees, the determination of wages to be paid them, and similar job-
condition matters.
Currently, the agencies of the Executive branch, and not the Commission,
have appellate and final jurisdiction over matters involving employee
grievances and similar complaints. It is this jurisdiction, proposed by
the bill. for a new agency, which we believe would be better placed in the
Commission.
We think it would be a mistake to create a new agency having jurisdiction
limited to appeals concerning a relatively few specified employee rights, and
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
 Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
having no responsibility for other basic elements of employee-management
relations.
Another area in which the Commission has a capacity useful in the
protection of employee rights, and which is largely ignored by the proposed
bi.l.l., is the area of over-all inspection of management practices. Section
5(g) of the proposed bill appears to limit the investigative authority of
the proposed new agency to the specific complaint raised by an individual
employee. Under present conditions the Bureau of Inspections of the
Commission reviews and evaluates both the departmental and field personnel
management practices of agencies on a broad basis. These reviews and
evaluations are not limited to specific complaints; their purpose is to
bring about comprehensive adherence to the policies, standards and practices
required by statute or regulations. The Bureau serves as a clearinghouse
for the exchange of information useful. to compliance among all.. agencies and
is ideally suited to inquire into all. kinds of complaints which are the
subject of grievance procedures.
Once again, we stress that the total involvement of the Commission in
al.l. aspects of personnel administration, as exemplified by this responsibility,
would make the Commission a better vehicle than a new, limited-jurisdiction
agency to achieve truly effective corrective action wherever the validity of
a complaint is substantiated.
Beneficial effects of Congressional attention to personnel matters.
At this point I want to acknowledge clearly and without hesitancy that
the emphasis on employee rights that has been placed by the Senate Subcommittee
on Constitutional Rights, and particularly by its able and learned Chairman,
Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., has been of significant benefit to the Civil
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
 Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
Service Commission and to the cause of good personnel. management throughout
the Executive branch. Senator Ervin and his capable staff have directed
our attention to specific matters that needed and received corrective action,
and to problems of a broader sort which deserved more intensive and higher
priority study. Your Committee has performed a similar useful service. It
has increased our capacity to know of personnel problems in the Federal
service. Once alerted, we have made it our business to examine and to solve
the problems identified. I would like to report a few examples.
1. While the first example is one that S. 1035 does not touch, it is
one that relates to employee rights and was raised by Senator Ervin's
inquiry. This is the process followed in an agency-filed application for
disability retirement of an agency's employee. Over a year ago we made a
study of our existing procedures relating to involuntary disability retirement
and, quite frankly, we found that in some situations they could be used
unfairly. As a consequence, we reappraised the entire procedure and last
month we published a completely new procedure for use in these cases. Under
this new procedure, which is effective for applications for retirement filed
after June 30, the employee or his physician, as appropriate, will have
access to all. medical evidence included in his retirement files; the employee
will have the right to contest the proposal of his agency to retire him; and
if the agency makes a decision to retire him and that is upheld by the
Commission's Bureau of Retirement and Insurance, the employee can appeal.
through the regular Commission appellate channels, with the right of a
hearing with counsel. Previously, the employee received no hearing and had
only limited access to medical information and appellate review. The benefit
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
 Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
to, and the increased protection of, employees under this new procedure
are certain to prove significant.
2. A little over a year ago, because of complaints received in the
Commission from employees that supervisory officials in some agencies had
denied them an opportunity to communicate with their personnel. offices,
the Commission issued an instruction expressly stating that every employee
has the right to communicate with his personnel office, his equal employment
opportunity officer, his ethical conduct counselor, and a supervisory or
management official of higher rank than the employee's own immediate
supervisor. This instruction, which was issued June 1, 1967, provides that
an employee is not required to explain his reasons for wishing to communicate
with any of these officials.
Not long after the instruction was issued, Senator Ervin reported a
situation in which two employees alleged that they had been told by a staff
member in their agency's personnel office that they had no right to consult
with any official other than their own immediate supervisor. The Commission,
after ascertaining that the facts were as reported by the employees, directed
that all supervisors in the agency be specifically informed of the rights of
employees. In addition, the personnel office staff member was admonished
for his action and his attitude and he was told that, if there was a
repetition, action would be initiated to remove him.
3. Another area in which the Commission has clarified a significant
employee right .Is that of fund-raising within the Federal service. Executive
Order 1.0927 places on the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission the
responsibility for making arrangements with national health and welfare
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
 Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
10
agencies and other national voluntary agencies for fund solicitation within
the Federal service. The manual on fund-raising clearly sets forth the
true voluntary character of the practices that are allowed, and includes
the following instruction: "Any practice that involves compulsion, coercion,
or reprisal directed to the individual. serviceman or civilian employee because
of the size of his contribution or his failure to contribute has no place in
the Federal. program. Coercive practices debase the spirit and purpose and
violate the letter of the Executive Order." The Manual requires that employees
be informed that if they believe there has been any violation of the policy
of true voluntary giving and they have been subjected to compulsion, coercion,
or reprisal. in connection with fund-raising appeals, they may either (at
their option) file a grievance under their agency's established grievance
procedure or make a complaint directly to the Civil. Service Commission.
)1. Similar protection of employee rights exists with respect to the
Government's savings bond campaigns. The tone was set in 1966 when the then
Postmaster General.., Lawrence F. O'Brien, was Chairman of the Interdepartmental
Savings Bond Committee. His policy statement, which was sent to all agency
heads, is well known but of such importance that I want to quote it here into
the record. The Postmaster General stated:
"I think it is always important to remember that, in
the final analysis, the choice of whether to buy or not
to buy a U. S. Savings Bond is one that is up to the
individual concerned. He has a perfect right to refuse
to buy and to offer no reason for that refusal. Gracious
acceptance of that refusal by the salesman not only shows
the respect of the individual, which should characterize
any action by any government official, but it will also
go a long way toward leaving the prospective purchaser in
a more receptive frame of mind should he, at some time in
the future, consider buying a Savings Bond."
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
 Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
I am fully aware that the Senate report on S. 1035 states that there
is ample evidence of "arm twisting and more subtle forms of coercion" with
respect to bond drives and charity fund-raising. Unfortunately, we do have
evidence that all our policies and instructions are not always followed by
all officials. But our evidence also shows that when a deviation from our
policies and instructions is established, corrective action is taken. Again
I suggest that because of its central and multi-faceted involvement with the
personnel practices in all agencies, the Civil Service Commission is in far
better position to achieve truly effective corrective action than would be
a newly created Board whose sole jurisdiction would be limited to a relatively
few specified employee rights.
In my testimony in 1966 before the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional
Rights, I attempted to explain that violations were all but inevitable but
regretfully my explanation was misinterpreted. I indicated that in a large
organization like the Federal Government "there is always someone who doesn't
get the word." Tn the Senate report this was misinterpreted as "the typical
attitude of those responsible for personnel management." That interpretation
implies that our attitude is one of no concern--one that shrugs off complaints
on the ground that full compliance should not be expected. This is far from
the fact. We are deeply concerned, but we are also realistic enough to know
that whether a policy is set by law, by Executive order, by regulation, or in
a letter to the heads of agencies, violations do occur. The point I want
understood is that when violations are alleged to have occurred, the procedure
for investigating, hearing, deciding, and correcting should be an administrative
one that operates promptly and simply within normal.. channels, and not one that
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
 Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
depends upon a complex body of involved statutory provisions which would
require both the creation of a new Government agency and an unwarranted
and presumably massive judicial intervention in personnel operations.
Employee protections ignored by S. 1035.
In some respects concerning the protection of employees, S. 1035 does
not go far enough. While the balance between employee rights and employee
obligations :is important, it is also important to recognize that there are
other aspects of employment where employees need personal protection. It is
essential for those of us engaged in personnel management to be alert to these
needs in order to produce a well-rounded program of employee benefits. Consider,
for example, two recent legislative proposals that the Commission has favorably
endorsed. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer some
explanatory material on these proposals for the record.
The first proposal would amend the Federal Tort Claims Act so that
Federal employees will be protected from private law suits arising out of an
act or omission of an employee while acting within the scope of his Government
employment. Such protection exists today for Federal employees principally
with respect to automobile accidents, where the exclusive civil action
recourse is against the United States. There'is no good reason for not
extending to all employees complete protection from suit with respect to
their official acts.
The second proposal, which is a Commission-sponsored revision of
H.R. 11.186, would make it a Federal. crime to assault or kill an employee
of the Federal Government or of the Government of the District of Columbia
when the employee is engaged in the performance of his official duties.
This would, of course, include Members of Congress, judges, and Cabinet
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
 Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
- 13 -
Officers. The present criminal statute is a potpourri that covers a
miscellaneous assortment of employees who have been included, class by
class, over the years. Again, there is no good. reason why all Federal
employees should not be protected by the Federal criminal law while per-
forming their official duties.
I call attention to these two legislative proposals for the purpose
of emphasizing that there are other protections that employees need in
addition to those that can be termed "employee rights". To isolate the
recognition and protection of items that can be defined as pure employee
rights from the other protections that employees need - and to place the
review of alleged infractions of those rights in a separate agency outside
the mainstream of total. personnel management and administration - can only
result in a distortion of values that will be adverse to efficient
government.
Specific objections to designated subsections of Section 1 of S. 103!.
I should like to move next to the specific objections we have to
various subsections of Section 1 of S. 1035. Section 1(a) would prohibit
officials to make any request of an employee to disclose his race, religion,
or (with some exceptions) his national origin. The CSC no longer requests
the self-disclosure of race by Federal employees. We learned from experience
that this type of disclosure was not necessary. The visual survey method
now used to obtain minority statistics should be entirely satisfactory to
assure the continued success of the Government's Equal. Employment Opportunity
program.
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
 Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
- 1 -
Section 1(a) would, however, hinder the proper resolution of some
discrimination complaints as it is at times essential to inquire about
the race or religion or national origin of individuals in order to
ascertain if them is or has been a pattern of discrimination against
some particular group. If, for example, an employee complained that he
was denied promotion because he is a Protestant and that only Catholics
achieved promotions in his unit, it is only reasonable to make inquiry
among those considered for promotion and those promoted concerning their
religion in order to learn if a possible pattern of discrimination actually
exists. Naturally, such an inquiry - which requires only voluntary
disclosures - is not the sole determining factor in such a complaint, but
it is surely a significant item of evidence that the Government should be
entitled to seek for such a clearly legitimate purpose.
Section 1(d) together with sections 1(i) and 1(j) would materially
reduce the value of the ethical conduct program now operating within the
executive branch. At present we require the submission of a confidential
statement of outside employment and financial interests by certain high-
level employees whose duties relate to contracting or procurement, the
regulation of private enterprise, and other areas in which experience has
shown that conflict-of-interest involvement may be significant. The format
used requires a comprehensive disclosure of outside business affiliations
and financial holdings. S. 1035 would prohibit inquiries into these matters
unless there was reason to believe an employee was engaged in a conflict-of-
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
 Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
_15-
interest situation, or the specific items to be disclosed were of a
type tending to indicate a conflict of interest.
The principal purpose of the disclosure program is not to apprehend
violators after the fact, but to prevent conflict-of-interest situations
from arising at all. This can only be done successfully if full disclosure
is made. To restrict disclosure to situations in which there is reason to
believe a conflict exists - or to permit the employee to decide what
specific items may indicate a conflict and therefore should be disclosed -
would negate the basic purpose of the program.
Making inquiry into an employee's financial interests and outside
employments is a good example of the balance which can be achieved between
employee rights and employee obligations. The balance involves the
concurrent recognition of the employee's right to keep disclosure of his
private affairs to a minimum, and of his obligation to assure the Govern-
ment as his employer of the absence of involvement in conflicts of interest.
The balance is reasonably achieved by limiting severely the number of
persons to whom disclosure is made, and by excluding from the disclosure
requirement employees who occupy positions in which conflict-of-interest
involvement is remote, As a result, only a small fraction of the employees
in Government service are required to file these confidential, statements.
When the ethics program was initiated in 1965, the regulatory criteria
were broad, and approximately 69,800 statements were filed. Our first
restudy of the program resulted in amendments to the criteria in August,
1967. It is now estimated that the number of employees required to file
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
 Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
- 16 -
statements has been more than halved. I expect that our second restudy
of the program will be completed by the end of July, at which time we will
have a firm figure on the number of statements filed.
I can, at this time, tell you that in some agencies the reduction in.
the number of filings has been particularly marked. For example, the
Post Office Department had 5,033 filings in 1966, and only 957 filings in
1967, a total reduction of over 4,000 or about 80%. The Department of
Agriculture has reduced the number of filings from about 18,000 to about
5,000 - about a 70% reduction. And, the Department of State has cut in
half its 1966 figure of about 2,000 filings.
I will not cite further statistics but will leave for inclusion in
the record a tabulation of other representative agency figures.
It is significant that regardless of the exact number of filings,
there have been almost no complaints about the principle of full disclosure
from those now required to file. We did, at the outset of the program,
receive complaints from employees who believed that their positions were
ones that should not have required them to file any statement at all. Our
amended regulations expressly provide any employee who is required to file
such a statement with the right to resort to the grievance procedure of his
agency in order to resolve a complaint. Since that provision was added in
agency regulations, no employee complaints have come to the attention of
the Commission. This we believe indicates that the few complaints which
do arise are being resolved satisfactorily within the grievance channels
of the agencies.
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
 Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
- 17 -
In short, not only would S. 1.035 cause serious harm to what we consider
a valuable and important part of the ethical conduct program, but there is
no present indication of a need for such restrictive legislation.
Section 1(d) is also objectionable from the standpoint of security
and other inquiries that are needed to assure a suitable workforce. In
this regard, I refer to my letter of May 9, 1967, to the Chairman of the
Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights and particularly to the
comments regarding this section.
In that :letter, in discussing what was then section 1(h) and is now
section 1(g), I pointed out that this provision related to proscribed
political activities which were at that time being studied by the bipartisan
Commission on Political Activities of Government Personnel created by
Public Law 89-617. Because of that pending study I urged that the section
be deleted from S. 1035 on the ground that if such a statutory provision was
needed, that need should be established by the bipartisan Commission. That
Commission has now issued its report, Volume One of which contains proposed
legislation entitled the "Political. Activities Act of 1968". Section 1622(a)(3)
of that proposed legislation appears to cover the same ground as the provisions
in section 1(g) of S. 1035. Therefore, I again urge that this section of
S. 1035 be deleted and that the matter be left in the hands of those-who
will pass upon the findings of the, bipartisan Commission created to study
the problem.
Section 1(k) of S. 1035 is a classic example of a provision that would
place an over emphasis on employee rights with a total disregard of employee
responsibilities. The unrestricted language in that section would give an
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
 Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0_ 18 -
employee the right to counsel whenever a supervisor wanted to question
him about any behavior, regardless of how minor, that could lead to
disciplinary action. This means that if an employee was seen smoking in
a nonsmoking area, or was thought to have overstayed his allotted lunch
period, his supervisor could not question him about the possible infraction
without the presence of the employee's attorney or other representative
if the employee requested that representation. No thought appears to have
been given here to the employee's obligation to respond to normal supervisory
inquiries which are necessary to preserve basic discipline and effective
operations in the normal day-to-day work environment. The Civil Service
Commission fully recognizes the right of every employee to have counsel
in any formal proceeding or inquiry. Our investigation, adverse action,
and appellate programs each assure employees of this right. But to extend
the right beyond reason - with no regard to either the obligations of
employees or the needs of management even for basic information - is wholly
without justification.
Section 1(1) concerning reprisal is discussed adequately in the
Commission's report of May 9, 1967, to which the Committee's attention is
invited.
CommeatI on other sections of S. 1035.
Sections 2 and 3 of S. 1035 are discussed adequately in the Commission's
report of May 9, 1967, so I will not repeat that discussion here today.
Sections 6 and 8 are not opposed by the Commiss Qn but I urge the
Subcommittee to review the needs of all executive agencies which may
establish justification for additional exceptions under section 6. For
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
 Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
- 19 -
example, I believe that the Departments of Defense, Treasury, and State,
and perhaps other departments and agencies, can furnish persuasive justi-
fications for exclusions on the same basis that the Central Intelligence
Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the National Security
Agency are excluded in section 6.
Section 7, while likewise not opposed, is really meaningless as it
allows the use of an agency's grievance procedure to settle a complaint
under the Act but, at the same time, provides that the availability of
that procedure does not preclude an employee from resorting to a direct
law suit or, if the employee elects, a review by the new agency that
would be created by section 5. This establishment of a number of
separate administrative and judicial remedies, some of which would
apparently be concurrently available, and all of which overlap the current
complaint system, cannot fail to present serious and costly administrative
and judicial burdens.
The Senate report on this bill, which contains many excerpts from
statements by individuals and groups who favored the bill, fails to
include the statements submitted by those who opposed it. To be candid
I do not feel that such a report gives a fair presentation of the real
issues involved or the nature of thoughtful opposition to the bill.
The Bureau of the Budget cleared over 25 reports from executive
departments and agencies on S. 1035, most of which in one way or another
found fault with some of the provisions of, or objected to the enactment
of, S. 1035. To fail to include in Congressional reports the arguments
made by officials in the executive branch having direct and intimate
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
 Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
- 20 -
knowledge of the problems involved may eliminate from consideration a
valuable source of information and judgment. I sincerely hope that this
Subcommittee will consider all reports submitted to it by the executive
departments and agencies and will include discussion of the issues they
present in any report prepared on the proposed legislation.
The new Personal Qualifications Statement.
In concluding this testimony, I want to call the attention of the
Subcommittee to another new development which illustrates the continuous
concern we have for the rights of employees as well as our recognition of
the obligations they owe to the Government as their employer. I refer to
the Commission's new Application for Federal Deployment and the new Personal
Qualifications Statement. I offer copies of these forms for inclusion in
the record. They will be used starting the first of next month.
The Application has been shortened to the bare essentials such as
name, kind of job and salary sought, education, and a very abridged explana-
tion of past experience. In designing the form consideration was given to
the reluctance of many people to fill out a long and involved application
at an early stage when no real or immediate prospect of employment is in
sight. The Application was designed to obtain only that information con-
sidered necessary for an initial consideration of the applicant by a
prospective employer. It contains none of the customary arrest, loyalty,
or "have you ever been fired" questions that are frequently objected to by
applicants.
To supplement the new Application when the circumstances are such that
the applicant is being seriously considered for appointment, we have designed
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
 Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
-2].-
and will use the new Personal Qualifications Statement. This statement
was designed with the thought in mind of preventing any unwarranted
invasion of the applicant's privacy. Briefly, we no longer inquire about
arrests, only convictions; we no longer require the disclosure of an other-
than-honorable military discharge when it has been changed to honorable by
the military authorities; we no longer require the disclosure of all physical
handicaps and disabilities, but have limited the inquiry to five conditions
that could affect job performance o the employee's health (heart disease,
nervous breakdown, epilepsy, tuberculosis, and diabetes); and we no longer
ask any question about past debarment by the Civil Service Commission. The
new statement no longer inquires about all past firings, but only those that
occurred within the last five years; and the questions concerning past
affiliation with communist and other subversive organizations have been
revised in an effort to meet the constitutional objections voiced by the
courts.
While we designed the new forms with the thought in mind of protecting
individual rights, we did not overlook the obligations of individuals who
are applicants for Government employment to disclose such information as
the Government needs to decide whether the applicant is qualified and
suitable.
Commissioner Andolsek, Commissioner Hampton, and I have been involved
in Government operations in general., and in personnel management in particular,
for many years. All of us have worked our way up through the ranks in many
different assignments in personnel work before being appointed to the
Commission. Our combined Federal service runs to about three-quarters of a
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
 Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
century. Each of us has been a member of the Civil Service Commission
since before S. 1035 was introduced, so that each of us is fully
familiar with the problems of assuring employee rights that the bill
seeks to solve.
Actually, the problem at which the bill is directed has, to a consider-
able extent, been dissipated by the attention brought to bear on the matter
by the introduction of the bill, by the evidence furnished to us by the two
subcommittees, and by our own efforts. We have no question but that
corrective action was in order in a number of kituations shown to exist.
Those corrective actions have been taken. We persist in seeking correction
not only of discreet situations, but of entire sets of administrative
procedures which appear to permit or require improvement. But it is our
collective Judgment that the road to constructive enforcement of employee
rights is not the one charted by S. 1035 as passed by the Senate last year.
That Act, while based on the best motives, would, create an imbalance
of values between employee rights and employee obligations that would impede
the efficiency of government and impair beneficial employee-management
cooperation. If legislation is desired, the bill you have introduced, Mr.
Chairman, H. R. 17760, recognizes the need for balance between rights and
obligations that is essential to both employees and management, and is
therefore a preferable alternative if subsequent study confirms our first
impression.
We thank you for this opportunity to present the views of the Civil
Service Commission on this important matter.
We will be happy, Mr. Chairman, to try to answer any questions you or
the Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
 STAT Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP81-00818R000100020011-0