that time he has traveled thousands of miles, appeared before many congressional committees to present testimony, and written extensively in professional and lay journals to impress on his various audiences the need of the Federal service to get the cream of the nation's talent. Warren B. Irons, who preceded Nicholas J. Oganovic as the Commission's Executive Director, in his last public appearance as a Federal careerist, wailed at the conformist-the organization man, if you will-and cried for the appearance and action of the "risk takers" to consider the Fedral service as a career. His successor, Mr. Oganovic, has done likewise. I could cite others, from the Department of Agriculture to the Veterans Administration, but I think it important to note here that our President, President Johnson, has opened the doors to the White House to more careerists than any of our previous Chief Executives in an effort to stir Federal employees to the relentless pursuit of excellence in performance. Here, Gentlemen, are presented the efforts to release the insecure, suppressed individual employee of the Federal Government toward the attainment of his carer objectives. Though recognition for outstanding performance should be a normal undertaking for all employers, I sincerely believe that removing the real and/or imaginary barriers existing in the Federal service, which this Bill does, is basically more important. The local, national, and security investigations of a potential employee, conducted by the Civil Service Commission and the Federal Bu reau of Investigation, should suffice to bring an applicant into the Federal service or to keep him out. The Bill before you, Gentlemen, offers the Federal employee nothing in the way of material gain. It offers him freedom, if you will, from the hazy environmental factors of coercion, threat and implied official action. It elevates him to the dignity of being an ordinary American citizen. It is as simple as that. Section 1(a) of S. 3779 would prohibit Federal Government management from discriminating against any citizen in or seeking Federal employment because of the color of his skin, the beliefs he holds dear, or his national origin. It likewise prohibits management from asking of the citizen the same questions relating to his ancestors. While I admit that it is hard to be unbiased, the removal of such questions would assist the supervisor or hiring official, or both, in making an objective audit of the person's talent to continue in his post of duty or to fill an established vacancy. Let us not forget we are a nation of immigrants; our differences are our strengths. More of the meek have inherited the earth in this nation than in any other because we realize we are differently similar. Use of these factors, other than for Federal employment would encourage 1984 to get here before it is due. And, if the environment as predicted in the book does get here in 1984 you can be sure we will not only be considered ugly Americans but docile ones as well. Section 1(b) also makes good sense. It affords the supervisor the opportunity to discuss missions relating to performances on the job. It would prohibit the use of these discussion periods by a supervisor seeking to enrich a cause, or for personal, economic gain. I personally, and as publisher of The Exchange, did seek and was successful in getting agencies to update their code of ethics in 1965, almost at the expense of my life. This is on record in most of its editions published in that year and also with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Precinct 3 of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia Government, if members of this Subcommittee want to pursue this further. Section 1(c) is similar in substance to Section 1(b). Section 1(d) relates, in a way, to the many campaigns going on in the Federal Government to extract money from Federal employees and to get them to join certain organizations. Though some of these have been declared illegal activities by Civil Service Commission and agency regulations, which approve of certain on-the-job solicitations, they are still going on. I would recommend here that superiors be prohibited from conducting these discussions and that they be monitored by higher officials of the agency or by the Civil Service Commission, or by both. Section 1(e) relates to the employee's right to privacy. I would point out here that exceptions should be made to enable employees to voluntarily report off-the-job activities that would enable them to officially record how they are taking training to improve their on-the-job performance. Annual desk audits are required in the Federal service; also outside training to improve their skills. Section 1(f) is self-explanatory. An employee should be regarded as being a free, uninhibited person. Freedom to purchase or not to purchase from certain business establishments is the prerogative of any citizen. He should be con sidered a person capable of making his own choice where to buy or where not to buy. This is the United States, and the United States-not yet anyway-is not a controlled society, as some other societies are, especially those confessing to the existence of dialectical materialism within their national geographical areas. Section 1(g) concerns the use of the psychological or polygraph test for continued or potential employment in the Federal service to elicit personal information. Use of these tests to dislodge and disclose personal data, in my opinion, trespasses on the "inalienable right" of a citizen not only to determine his values but his right to distinguish for himself the difference between right and wrong. When these interfere with the rights of others to do likewise, I believe it is a civil matter for our courts to decide. I might add that it is here and in Section 1(f) that reveals the existence of the attempt to suppress and computerize Federal employees. If this is allowed to continue, the Federal Government becomes a party to extinguishing the lights of liberty, for which our parents and ancestors came to these shores. It is the cause for which many of our citizens fought for at the nation's inception, what they have always fought for! Many have died in these wars! Gentlemen, are we to say they died in vain? Surely, Gentlemen, they did not! Though life in these United States has not yet reached a perfect state, it is quite evident that we should be gainfully employed in pursuit of it--not petrified from doing it! I would commend your minds, Gentlemen, to take a close look at the results that have been achieved by letting our psychiatrists loose on their psychiatric binges to introduce the psychological warfare used by Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, and Adolph Hitler into this country. Anyone, and especially Federal employees, disagreeing with the existing order, Mr. McCarthy said, was a communist. Anyone today, Sirs, disagreeing with it is labeled a member of an extremist rightist group or an extremist leftist one. It is my opinion, it is not commendable for us as citizens to pin labels on those who disagree with us. It is unbecoming to us, further, to emphasize distrust before trust, to emerge victorious by pitting one citizen against another one. It is unbecoming for us to downgrade individual creation for group attainment. Any way you look at these accomplishments, they are, in my opinion, a disgrace to us as citizens and as a nation. As a result of permitting this to continue and the use of the psychological or polygraph tests in the Federal service is but one example of burying the individual into a conforming group segments of our population have taken to the streets to demonstrate against their brothers and sisters. These accomplishments have encouraged our youth to rebel against their parents, schools, and churches, and the law of the land. They have encouraged promiscousness between the sexes and the taking of drugs to release them from the stupor of the frightening spectre of a captive audience. Above all. Big Brother has encouraged asaults on individual creativity. Anyone who rises, or rather protests against the mockery being made of the individual becomes an outcast in our society. He is not and never will be, the brain-washers say, a member of the "in group". I am afraid, Gentlemen, that you are not members of this group either. It is the very newest of the minority groups in the nation. "Big Brother" is watching you, reaching into your household, informing you and your families what is best for you and them to think, and telling you what is best for you to think and to do. "Big Brother", Sirs, not you, not the average Federal employee, not me, knows best what is good for all of the rest! It is a one-way conversation! I say that the discontent in our population today was sown by Mr. McCarthy and the seeds he planted are thorns of frustration in our society today. Gentlemen, these thorns of destruction are penetrating everybody's family today. They must be extracted and replaced by positive supports, conducive to individuals working and living to create a better Âmerica. The record is twisted and broken. We need a new song to sing. We need to revive aspiration! Section 1(h) asks that employees not be intimidated to support a candidate, program, or policy or any political party by personal endeavor or contribution of money. Although the Hatch Act covers this subsection, there hasn't been, in the last twenty years, strict enforcement of the Act by the Civil Service Commission. In an organization as large as the Federal operating staff, it is presumed that violations of this subsection will constantly occur. I believe, Sirs, it would be beneficial both to the Federal employees and those aspiring to political office if the General Council's Office at the Civil Service Commission was considerably strengthened to process violations. Section 1(i) concerns in effect the efforts of the Federal Government to set an example for its employees to invest a portion of their earnings in bonds and other securities sold by it. There exists no argument that they should, provided they can afford to make the investment. There is no better investment in existence today! But it is also true that the annual campaigns have become a race between agencies at their employees' expense. I believe that the race should be discouraged, for it encourages individual supervisors to use all the means at their disposal to win the competition. This affects their supporting employees. While the campaigns should be publicized, I believe that making voluntary donations should be included in the publicity and given equal space in it. Section 1(j) concerns the prohibition by the Federal Government of requiring a Federal employee to disclose his assets and liabilities and his personal or domestic expenditures or those of any members of his family. I would recommend that the language of this subsection be clarified and amended to include disclosures by personnel engaged in specific positions that require contact with contractors of private industry, and foreign and local governments, either personally or by telephone or letter. There are many posts in the Federal service specifically set up to procure information, goods, and services for their agencies. These posts should be specifically identified and the employees processing the functions be forced to disclose their assets and liabilities annually. I would further recommend that they be dismissed from their jobs, fined accordingly, and prevented from securing similar posts in another agency, if found guilty. In other words, Sirs, I would limit the disclosures of assets and liabilities to persons who in higher grades are directly or indirectly involved in negotiating with a foreign or local government, and a private firm for Federal Government information, goods, and services. I would further recommend that the actions of these people be monitored. Section 1(k) relates to an employee who is under investigation for misconduct and forced to submit to an interrogation which, if confirmed, would lead to disciplinary action. I agree that he should be represented by a counsel or another person of his own choice, but I would also recommend the inclusion in this subsection that he or his counsel or other person, or both, be accorded the right to confront and cross-examine his accusers. In addition, I would recommend that the hearing be held before examiners selected by both the accused and the accuser. In the event that the accused is acquitted and restored to his post, I would recommend that the Civil Service Commission monitor the actions of the accuser for not less than ten years, that the records concerning the indictment be removed from the accused personnel file and destroyed before the accused, and that the accused be remunerated for personal damages by the accuser. Section 1(1) relates to the action to be taken by those who violate any section of this Act. I believe the penalties to be too light. I would again recommend that monetary damages be paid by the violators of the Act, the damages to be determined by an impartial body representing Federal Government manage ment and the accused. Section 2 relates to Section 1, subsection (1). Again I would recommend additions to this Section. First that violators of one or all of the subsections of Section 1 be considered to be guilty of a felony rather than a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine not to exceed twice the annual salary of the violator payable by him over a period to be set by a Board, or by imprisonment for a period not to exceed five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. The employee is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Section 3 of this Act relates to all parts of Sections 1 and 2, and the right of any Federal employee to bring civil action against the offending officer. I would implement this by recommending that the Federal employee involved be represented by a counsel or another person paid for the employee out of funds supplied him by the Federal Government. The Bill you are now considering Sirs, is, in fact a "Bill of Rights for Federal Employees". It does more than encourage the Federal Government to continue on its way toward becoming a model employer, and furnishing management in it with positive promotional tools to retain and attract the specialized talent it requires to operate its unique programs. It does more than offer the careerist and potential employee specific guarantees against the abridgement of his rights as a citizen. It sets in motion, once again, the nation's most powerful resources, the thinking, creative apparatus of all citizens but especially the members of the Federal operating staff. It awakens in them not a tolerance for diversity but a respectable understanding of it. Of course, it likewise deals a fatal blow to those who would wilfully, and for personal gain, flatten all of us into docile and dependent citizens. These have had their day in the sun, and S. 3779 indicates that their day's work is done. It affords Federal employees a recourse, if required, in their employment in the Federal service. It goes a long way to remove the prejudices of some in the Federal service and to permit it to become a service operated by personnel representing an appropriate cross-section of the nation. In this nation talent is not considered to be the sole property of the few but the property of all. As stated previously, the Bill offers nothing in the way of material gain to the Federal employee; absolutely nothing that is tangible. It offers him freedom, a word coined the world around that since time began has defied definition. It encourages the shy and the meek to seek strength, and the strong with strength to seek understanding! Mr. Chairman, Senator Ervin, Members of this Subcommittee on Constitutional THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, Hon. SAM ERVIN, C.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN : Thank you for your thoughtfulness in sending me a copy of S. 3703, your Bill of Rights for Federal Employees. You and your co-sponsors are to be complimented for this statesman-like proposal to guarantee essential and traditional American rights to government workers. As one who strongly urged, in testimony before your Subcommittee on Civil Rights, the elimination of personality testing of government workers, I am particularly gratified by Section 1(g) of the Bill. In addition, Section 1(k), securing the right to counsel for employees subjected to interrogation, is an extremely important measure in light of numerous instances of denial of this Tight. I assume that Section 1(f) is not intended to prevent the Department of Defense from declaring Off Limits for armed forces personnel a business establishment notorious for giving venereal disease as a byproduct of the goods and services it offers to the general public. Similarly, I would suppose that an stablishment that operates in violation of Federal or State law could be put Off Limits (e.g., a gambling casino or a restaurant that violates anti-discriminaion laws). Also worth noting is a possible (although admittedly a strained) construction of Section 1(b)-(e) so as to forbid instruction of supervisors of their obligations not to discriminate on grounds of race, religion, or national origin, in hiring or romotion practices. (This is to be distinguished, of course, from indoctrinating mployees as to what their personal attitudes should be regarding these matters). ince these sections of the Bill clearly permit instruction regarding assigned asks and activities directly within the scope of employment, it seems reasonably lear that instruction of supervisors regarding non-discrimination is permissible Inder the Bill. Nevertheless, I think it would be advisable to clarify, in the legislative hisory, the matters raised in both the preceding paragraphs. Section 1(a), regarding disclosure of race, religion, and national origin by mployees, is one on which even the most ardent civil libertarians are split. For y own part, I do not believe that objections to this subsection are of such clear erit as to justify possible loss of the entire bill. Again, may I compliment you on this extremely important legislative proposal. is a great service to Federal employees and to the nation. Sincerely yours, MONROE H. FREEDMAN, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY, Senator SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: Thank you for your letter of September 15, with a copy of S. 3779 and related documents. I would be pleased to have my comments included in the record of the hearings which you will hold on October 4. One of the most important tasks which faces the Congress and State legislatures in the next decade is the protection of the citizen against invasions of privacy. Such invasions are facilitated by the advances of technology in eavesdropping and data storage and retrieval. No citizens are in more immediate danger of incursion into private affairs than government employees. When enacted, S. 3779 will provide a bulwark of protection against such incursions. Section 1(g) in particular would prevent the intimidation of federal job applicants through pseudo-scientific fishing expeditions. S. 3779 is in the best tradition of recent United States Supreme Court decisions restricting the use of confessions secured in the absence of counsel. By a parity of reasoning, your Bill will make meaningful the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination. Federal jobseekers and jobholders should be judged by their actions and not by thought control. The latter is a totalitarian device, and, moreover, is inherently unworkable. Long ago, Thomas Hobbes pointed out the futility of attempted coercion in the realm of ideas and beliefs. And, of course, freedom of conscience is a basic tenet of the American Constitution. I would offer one criticism of S. 3779. Sections 1(b) and (c) may inhibit freedom of expression as guaranteed in the First Amendment. Does not Section 1(d) meet the purpose of (b) and (c)? If any agency sets up a meeting not related to the employee's tasks, the employee should not be required or directly requested to attend, but a posted or impersonally circulated notice might provide an opportunity for voluntary attendance. With best wishes for the success of this legislation, I am, STANLEY V. ANDERSON, Associate Professor. YALE LAW SCHOOL, Senator SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., New Haven, Conn., October 6, 1966. Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I am writing to your letter of September 10th requesting my opinion on S. 3779 which deals with the rights of government employees. I strongly support your efforts to have this bill enacted. It would be a significant step forward in defining the right of privacy which is so much in jeopardy today. Indeed I believe this bill would break new ground in terms of methods for guaranteeing fundamental rights to citizens. A law such as S. 3779 is badly needed and I hope the Senate will act upon it speedily and favorably. With all good wishes. Sincerely yours, Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, CHARLES A. REICH, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT INSPECTORS, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Sunnyvale, Calif., October 18, 1966. Chairman, Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee, DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: The National Association of Government Inspectors goes on record in whole-hearted support of your stand against our continued loss of individual privacy. In particular, we object to invasion of our financial affairs. It is bad enough to be paid less than the prevailing wages paid in private industry, but it is too much when we are required to divulge how we spend this minimal salary! |