We have also been requested to furnish a report on H.R. 17760, a bill to recognize the rights and obligations of civilian employees of the executive branch of the government of the United States and for other purposes. The Post Office Department prefers the provisions of H.R. 17760 to those of S. 1035. We have a number of concerns over the latter bill which are met by H.R. 17760. Accordingly, we recommend that the Committee take favorable action on H.R. 17760 in lieu of S. 1035. Although Section 5 of S. 1035 establishes a Board with broad powers of supervision over agency action, Sections 4 and 7 expressly authorize employee lawsuits which bypass the Board. This bypassing would render the Board ineffective. Moreover, these provisions of S. 1035 are destructive of the grievance procedures established by collective bargaining agreements with employee organizations. These considerations, as well as considerations of the crowded court dockets, would call for the application of the general rules of establishment of administrative remedies rather than the express provision to the contrary. Several problems are raised by Section 1(d) of S. 1035. While the matter is not altogether clear, we assume that the language of this section does not preclude inquiry into the activities which employees are prohibited from by law engaging in, e.g. postal employees acting as lottery agents (18 U.S. Code 1303). Outside employment which may not conflict in a narrow sense with an employee's official duties is of concern to the agency when official employment gives or appears to give an unfair competitive advantage over those who are not government employ ees. Similarly, long hours of outside employment may affect efficiency in official employment, although there is no conflict in the specific duties of the two employments. The purpose of subsection 1(e) is to afford employees a shield of privacy over matters which are normally not of concern to persons other than the employee, his spouse or other members of his family. We concur in the principle that this privacy should be maintained. This sesction does, however, create problems. The phrase "personal relationship" if applied in a broad sense would preclude an agency in the course of investigation of a crime or malfeasance in office from inquiring of a relative of the person under investigation how well he knows or how often he visits with his relative. The exceptions from the restrictions in Sections 1(i) and (j) are excessively narrow. A conflict of interest may well arise although neither a “liability of any person" nor "claims which require expenditure of moneys of the United States" are involved. Claims by the United States for money assertedly due from private parties are akin to claims by such parties in the United States. Conflicts may arise in cases not involving money claims, such as in the case of a government officer who recommends acquisition of a particular parcel of real estate for a post office. The location of a post office will often affect surrounding land value. Moreover, an official who makes final decisions normally consider evaluations and recommendations of one or more subordinates. The official making the decision is entitled to know whether these subordinates have personal interests which would be affected by the decision they recommend. In addition to the foregoing, the Department has had some concern with language in other portions of S. 1035. The report on S. 1035 by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service of the United States Senate takes care of most of these problems by indicating the construction which the various provisions of S. 1035 should receive. In other cases the problems raised are not of a major character. I am, therefore, not commenting on these matters. Nevertheless, I must advise that the Department would envision confusion as a result of the establishment of an independent Board to hear matters relating to one phase of employeemanagement conflicts when the Civil Service Commission must adjudicate closely related matters of conflict between management and employees. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report to the committee from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely yours, W. MARVIN WATSON. THE SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Manpower and Civil Service, House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for the views of this Department on H.R. 17760, a bill to recognize the rights and obligations of the civilian employees of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, and for other purposes and on S. 1035 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 government invasions of their privacy. S. 1035 passed the Senate on September 13, 1967, and both of these bills are currently being considered by your subcommittee. H.R. 17760 would state the policy of the United States as an employer as assuring that (1) officials of executive agencies recognize and protect the personal and individual rights of employees and (2) employees recognize and honor the obligations they owe to the Government as their employer. The attainment of a fair and reasonable balance between these rights and obligations would be one of the primary purposes of personnel administration in the executive agencies. Specific employee rights and obligations are set forth in the bill with authority given the Civil Service Commission to define, by regulation, such additional rights and obligations as it determines are necessary to implement fully the basic policy of the United States as an employer. An employee of an executive agency would be entitled to enforce his rights through normal agency grievance procedures with a right of appeal to the Civil Service Commission. This Department would have no objection to enactment of H.R. 17760. The establishment of a procedure whereby the rights and the corresponding obligations of government employees are made as explicit as possible could be most desirable. While we do not think it necessary, we offer no objection to those provisions in the bill giving appellate jurisdiction over matters involving employee grievances and similar complaints to the Civil Service Commission. S. 1035 would prohibit indiscriminate requirements that employees or applicants for government employment (1) disclose their race, religion or national origin (2) attend Government-sponsored meetings and lectures and participate in outside activities or undertakings unrelated to their work (3) submit to questioning about their religion, personal relationships or sexual attitudes through interviews, psychological tests, or polygraphs or (4) support political candidates, or attend political meetings. It would make it illegal to coerce an employee to buy bonds or make charitable contributions, or to require him to disclose his own personal assets, liabilities, or expenditures, or those of any member of his family unless, in the case of certain specified employees, such items would tend to show a conflict of interest. It would provide a right to have counsel or other person present, if the employee wishes, at an interview which may lead to disciplinary proceedings. It would accord the right to a civil action in a Federal court for violation or threatened violation of the act, and it would establish a Board on Employees Rights to receive and conduct hearings on complaints of violation of the act, and to determine and administer remedies and penalties. Since S. 1035, if enacted, would have great impact on personnel administration throughout all of the Federal agencies, we would defer as to its general desirability to the Civil Service Commission, which acts as the coordinating policymaking body in the area of Federal civilian employment. However, while the various Federal agencies have much in common, each conducts programs and addresses itself to problems which are, to a great extent, peculiarly its own. As a consequence, particular provisions in S. 1035 are apt to affect the several agencies differently. Section 1(d) and 1(i), for example, could pose special difficulties for this Department if they are to be construed strictly. Section 1(d) prohibits requiring or requesting an employee to report on his activities or undertakings, "unless there is reason to believe that the civilian employee is engaged in outside activities or employment in conflict with his official duties." Section 1(i) prohibits requiring or requesting employee disclosure of items or property, income and source of income, liabilities etc. except in certain specified cases. Juxtaposing these two provisions the following type of problem could arise: If there is reason to believe an employee is engaged in "outside activities or employment in conflict with his official duties," he could be required to report thereon, but not on financial interests. Yet, it might be his financial transactions-especially, in the case of this Department, those involving significant acquisition and disposition of real_property-that are in conflict with his official duties. The authority of this Department in such situations to inquire into an employee's financial transactions should be clarified. To clarify certain other provisions of the bill, it would also be helpful to include a section for the definition of important terms, words or phrases. For example, is the term "conflict of interest" as used in the bill, to be interpreted within the framework of the conflict-of-interest statutes or as a broader concept as indicated in E.O. 11222? Also, the terms "interrogation" and "investigation" should be defined to exclude from the prohibitions interviews and questionings that may be conducted as a part of the normal day-to-day employee counseling function. Finally, with respect to those employees who may be required to file financial disclosure reports, the terms "final determination" and "other liability" as used in Section 1(i) are susceptible to varying interpretations, and unless defined with some precision could generate an excessive or inadequate number of disclosure reports. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, (S) Robert C. Weaver ROBERT C. WEAVER. COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE THADDEUS J. DULSKI, New York, Chairman DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina, Vice Chairman ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana ROBERT J. CORBETT, Pennsylvania: GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska JAMES T. BROYHILL, North Carolina. DANIEL E. BUTTON, New York WILLIAM L. SCOTT, Virginia PHILIP E. RUPPE, Michigan JAMES A. MCCLURE, Idaho |