Section (e) To require or request, or to attempt to require or request, any employee of the United States serving in the department or agency to make any report concerning any of his activities or undertakings unless such activities are directly within the scope of his employment. [From "Federal Maritime Commission Manual of Orders No. 52, amended] SECTION 7. PUBLIC RELATIONS Employees of the Federal Maritime Commission are urged to participate at the community level with other employees, with schools and universities, and with other public and private groups in cooperative action to improve employ ment opportunities and community conditions that affect employability of minority group citizens. Employees are requested to report participation to the Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission. AUGUST 1, 1966. Rear Adm. JOHN HARLLEE, Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission, DEAR ADMIRAL HARLLEE: It has come to the attention of the Subcommittee that your agency is apparently urging employees to participate in community activ ities to improve employment opportunities and "conditions that affect employ ability of minority group citizens." It is the Subcommittee's understanding that employees are being requested to report their participation to the Chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission. If this report is true, laudable as your goals may be, it is inconsistent with our form of government to establish such an intimate agency involvement with the private lives of your employees. Would you please supply the Subcommittee a report on this matter, together with copies of the legal and administrative authorities which sanction such pressure on your employees regarding their participation in community activities? We should also appreciate receiving copies of any memoranda implementing this order, and a description of the administrative action you propose to encourage compliance. With all kind wishes, I am, SAM J. ERVIN. Jr.. Chairman. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr. FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION, Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary. U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I have received your letter of August 1, 1966, advising me of the concern of the Subcommittee with respect to one of the provisions of the Federal Maritime Commission's order establishing the agency's equal employment opportunity program. This program was established to comply with the regulations issued by the Civil Service Commission in accordance with its responsibilities set forth in part 1 of Executive Order 11246, dated September 24, 1965. The Civil Service Com mission regulations, issued in the form of Federal Personnel Manual System Letter No. 713-3 on February 24, 1966, provide in Section 713.201 "(a) Purpose. 408 This subpart sets forth the regulations under which an agency shall establish a program for equal opportunity in employment and personnel operations without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin and under which the Commission will review an agency's program and entertain an appeal from a person dissatisfied with an agency's processing of his complaint of discrimination on grounds of race, creed, color, or national origin.” More specifically with respect to the questions raised in your letter, the Civil Service Commission regulations, Section 713.203 and subsection (d) thereof, provide: "Sec. 713.203 Agency program. The head of an agency shall exercise personal leadership in establishing, maintaining, and carrying out a positive, continuing program designed to promote equal opportunity in every aspect of agency employment policy and practice. Under the terms of its program, an agency shall: "(d) Participate at the community level with other employers, with schools and universities, and with other public and private groups in cooperative action to improve employment opportunities and community conditions that affect employability". In an effort to comply with this requirement, this agency's program provides that "Employees of the Federal Maritime Commission are urged to participate at the community level with other employers, with schools and universities, and with other public and private groups in cooperative action to improve employment opportunities and community conditions that affect employability of minority group citizens. Employees are requested to report participation to the Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission". In this connection the use of the word "employee" was and is intended to mean those employees occupying supervisory or management type positions specifically named in section 3 of our order, namely, the Chairman, Heads of Offices and Bureaus, Chief of Personnel, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer. Further, you will note that even with respect to these management type employees while the Civil Service Regulations use the mandatory "shall" we use the suggested "urged". I agree that the application of this provision to each and every one of our employees would be to establish an intimate agency involvement which would be inconsistent with our form of government. In accordance with the Subcommittee request, I am attaching copies of Executive Order No. 11246, dated September 24, 1965, Federal Personnel Manual System Letter No. 713-3, dated February 24, 1966, and Federal Maritime Commission, Manual of Orders, Commission Order No. 52 (Amended), dated July 20, 1966. The Subcommittee is advised that there have been no memoranda issued implementing the Commission's order and that I have not taken any administrative action in the subject area. Be assured that under no circumstances would I permit any pressure to be put upon anyone in the Federal Maritime Commission in this matter. If any additional information is desired in this matter, the Subcommittee may be assured of my continued cooperation. Sincerely yours, JOHN HARLLEE, Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired), Chairman. (Section 1(f) re patronizing any business establishment offering goods and services to the public. Example of this: Small Business Administration.) PATRONIZING BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS (Excerpt from memorandum of Small Business Administration :) For example, it is wrong for the SBA employee to patronize any business which either has an application pending before this Agency or has received financial assistance from this Agency. This patronage may be misconstrued as an effort on the part of the employee to obtain special consideration because the Agency either is considering or has rendered financial assistance to this particular business. All employees' actions must be controlled by an acute sensitivity to ethical considerations. You will note in Section 105.735-4-7 of our revised Standards of Conduct that certain categories of employees are required to submit financial statements. A copy of the form is also attached to this memorandum. If you are in a category listed in Section 105.735-47, you will submit your financial statement to your immediate supervisor who is responsible for your work assignments. After reviewing the financial statement, your supervisor will place it in a sealed envelope addressed to "Mr. Eugene J. Davidson, Standards of Conduct Counsellor, To Be Opened By Addressee Only." This sealed envelope will, in turn, be placed in another envelope addressed to "Standards of Conduct Counsellor, Office of General Counsel, SBA, Washington, D.C." These precautions are taken to insure the confidentiality of any such information you may submit. All supervisors who will receive and review any such financial statements are cautioned to discuss the information with no one other than the submitting employee and Mr. Davidson. The integrity of this Agency and of your person rests in your hands. I know your Government may depend on you. 410 Section (g) To require or request, or to attempt to require or request, any employee of the United States serving in the department or agency or any person seeking employment in the executive branch of the United States Government, to submit to any interrogation or examination or to take any psychological or polygraph test which is designed to elicit from him information concerning his personal relationship with any person connected with him by blood or marriage, or concerning his religious beliefs or practices, or concerning his attitude or conduct with respect to sexual matters; Senator SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., Chairman, Subcommittee, Constitutional Rights, Washington, D.C. SEPTEMBER 26, 1966. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: It is indeed gratifying to witness your vigorous effort in supporting and defending the rights, privileges and privacy of the individual American citizen. Only through perseverance such as yours can we be assured of continued freedom for which our forefathers struggled. My 18 year old daughter applied for temporary summer employment in 1965, with the U.S. Department of State. An interview, ostensibly to provide a basis for a security clearance (although she had worked for the State Department in 1964), greatly transcended the bounds of normal areas and many probing personal questions were propounded. Most questions were leading and either a negative or positive answer, resulting in an appearance of self incrimination. During this experience, my husband was on an unaccompanied tour of duty in Korea and I attempted alone, without success, to do battle with the Department of State. I called and was denied any opportunity to review what had been recorded in my daughter's file. Likewise my daughter was denied any review of the file in order to verify or refute any of the record made by the State Department interviewer. This entire matter was handled as if an applicant for State Department employment must subject themselves to the personal and intimate questions and abdicate all claims to personal rights and privileges. As a result of this improper intrusion into my daughter's privacy which caused all great mental anguish, I had her application for employment withdrawn from the State Department. This loss of income made her college education that much more difficult. Upon my husband's return we discussed this entire situation and felt rather than subjecting her again to the sanctioned methods of government investigation we would have her work for private industry. This she did in the summer of 1966, with great success and without embarrassing or humiliating Gestapo type investigation. We feel further that the State Department should be forced to purge their files of all information relating to the "security" investigation of our daughter conducted in 1965 and issue a separate statement of repudiation and absolvement. This last requirement will necessitate intervention by someone higher than an ordinary citizen and it is here that we earnestly solicit your help. Sincerely yours, STAFF MEMORANDUM FOR FILES The specific case mentioned in this letter to Secretary Rusk was referred to the Subcommittee by Congressman McMillan, and involves the daughter of a friend of his. The girl was an 18 year old college sophomore and her father was a Colonel in the Army in Korea. She worked in the State Department as a secretary last 71-994-67- -27 summer and had an interim "secret" clearance. This summer, she was offered another job at the Department, but was the subject of a security investigation. In the course of an interview with a Department investigator, she was asked some wide-ranging personal questions. For instance, regarding a boy whom she was dating, she was asked questions which denoted assumptions made by the investigator, such as: "Did he abuse you?" "Did he do anything unnatural with you?" "You didn't get pregnant, did you?" "There's kissing, petting, and intercourse, and after that, did he force you to do anything to him, or did he do anything to you?" According to her daughter was disturbed and bewildered by the line of questioning and decided that she had no interest in working with the Federal government. There are other aspects to the case related to the Subcommittee's study of the rights of federal employees-the right of a person to have a relative, friend or attorney present during security inquiries; and the use of a person's medical history and personal medical records to justify broad personal investigations by government agencies. In this case, the girl's parents had taken her to an Army psycologist when she was in high school. JUNE 28, 1965. Hon. DEAN RUSK, DEAR MR. SECRETARY: In connection with our study of the rights of federal employees and invasion of privacy, it has come to the Subcommittee's attention that the Department of State is conducting security investigations of prospective summer college employees. If reports of the nature of some of these investigations are true, it would seem to me that the State Department is playing a large role in discouraging capable young people from considering a career in government. For example, one case recently involved an eighteen-year-old college student who had previously worked for the State Department and was being considered for employment this summer. She was interviewed alone by a young investigator whose questioning about her personal private life, particularly about sex matters, went far beyond the invasion of privacy required even for a top security clearance. An additional issue and one which is of concern to the Subcommittee in connection with its recent hearings on psychiatric and psychological reports, is the questioning about this girl's visit to a psychologist while in high school. The interviewer assumed this signified psychiatric treatment and she, a minor, was asked to sign papers giving him authority to check records of any doctor. The following day, the same investigator appeared in the girl's neighborhood, and after questioning neighbors about her activities (apparently, even as to whether she sat in parked cars near her parents' house). He questioned a friend of the young lady who was visiting with her at the time this after calling her into a neighbor's house. This case illustrates a number of undesirable tendencies in government agencies today; one is the penalizing of the prospective employee whose parents may have taken advantage of the counseling services of psychologists and psychiatrists to assist in resolving the usual problems of their teenage children. These records may then be part of the young person's security investigation in later years, and the very fact that such a visit is part of the person's medical history, apparently, might cause a personnel or security officer to suggest a psychiatric examination and psychological testing. As you know, Under Secretary William Crockett testified on this subject on June 7. Complaints received by this Subcommittee suggest that such information obtained in the course of security interviews and investigations tends to acquire a confidential medical status in personnel files, and, interpreted arbitrarily and summarily, can cause irreparable harm to the individual. Would you please describe for the Subcommitte your policy regarding security investigations for summer employees? In addition, I should appreciate information concerning the guidelines which your security interviewers and investigators are expected to follow, as well as copies of any pertinent directives and regula |