THE FIRING OF OTTO F. OTEPKA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040092-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: November 11, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 15, 1998
• Sequence Number: 92
• Publication Date: November 13, 1963
• Content Type: NSPR

WASHINGTON STATT NOV 13 1963
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-
CPYRGHT
RICHARD WILSON
The Firing of Otto F. Otepka
Security Officer Called Foe of Trickiness
And Laxity and His Discharge 'Shabby'.
Sxepka, . who has
been fired by Secretary Dean
Rusk, is-described as the last
old-1lne,4ecui;ityofficer hold-
ing-'& top position in the De-
partment of State. In other
words, there has been a
housecleaning of personnel
security 'officials in the Ken-
n e d y administration. to, re-
move the last traces of the
tougher policies` of previous
ministrations.
tee's conclusion that the ell-7
forcement of personnel se-
curity in the State 'Depart-
ment is lak, and dangerous,
mittee to furnish ftlrth
support for the subco hnii
defiance of his superiors,c
putijuing the perilous career
of Investigating and evapt}at-
ing the loyalty, stability aid
Integrity, of applicants f o r
Federal, employment. ,He, was
rated ",excellent" ' by" t h o s e
,who Judge the ,efficle;cy of
Governp erit employes. He
received the Meritorious
'S * ervice tAward i from Sedre-
tart' of State John Fgster
Dulles.
Mr. Otepka was fired. for,
telling the truth to the Sen-
ate Internal Security Sub-
committee. on . sloppy and
tricky practices in the en-
forcement of personnel secur-
ity regulations .n the State
Department, He undercut his
superiors, the unforgivable sin
of Federal bureaucracy.
This he did under the pro-
tection of United. States Code,
Title 5, Paragraph 652 (DC),
,which states that the "right
of a civil service employe to
give information to Congress
"shall not be denied or inter-
fered with."
Without guile, Mr. Otepka,*
frankly and ' openly and in
For tl}is, Mr. Otepka was
accused of giving the subcom-
mittee s e c r e t or restricted
information-information, by
the way, which was so in-
nocuous and trifling in its
security content as to be
laughalle.
To pin the goods on Mr.
Otepka, his associates in the
State Department tapped his
telephone. They locked him
out of his office and denied
him access to his files. They
riffled t h r o u g h,his waste-
basket and explored his
"burn bag," a container into
which telltale scraps of pa-
per must 'be dumped for
burning, He was openly
humiliated before other em-
ployes.
Mr. Otepka got worse than
he ever gave to any applicant
for Federal employment, for
he was widel,,,,known as ra-
tional an'r 'careful in this
h#gtrli'ttive ~ siiiess.
e conclusion cannot be
escaped that the worst of-
fense' this rational and care-
ful_ employe committed was
to have been connected with
the more strictly applied
security regulations of t h e
past. He was connected v1ith
former officials whose
memory is hated in some
S t a t e Department quarters.
And when he saw laxity and
trickiness developing in per-
sonnel security he would not
be stilled by any fear of los-
ng his job or the condemna-
tion of his superiors.
'' Mr. Otepka denies the spe-
cific charges brought against
him Mainly of clipping off
-the classification stamps on
the, documentary evidence he
supplied the Senate subcom-
Xgittee.
He did not do it, he says,
and it will be very hard to
.prove that he did, for the
FOIAb3b
CPYRGHT
evidence as presented is
flimsily circumstantial, What
Mr. Otepka does not deny is
that he testified before the
committee in response to its
request and helped counsel
for the committee frame
queStIgns that w o u l d show
the lax' practices of his asso-
ciates and superiors.
In the process of getting
rid of Mr. Otepka, one State
Department employe is ac-
cused of higher venality than
Mr. Otepka himself. This
employe is c h a r g e d with
lying under oath in denying
the tapping of Mr. Otepka's
telephone.
The whole business is un-
savory and shabby in some of
its aspects, and no more so
than in the basic doctrine
behind Mr. O t e p k.a's dis-
charge. For this, and little
else in the Otepka case, See-
ret.ar'y Rusk must bear
responsibility. He placed the
matter of employe l o y a l t y ,
operating through channels
and "playing on the team"
ahead of the more important
matter of the efficiency and
efi'ectiveness of Government
policy.
Now there is to be a trans-
parently meaningless process
of appeal on Mr. Otepka's
discharge in which Mr. Rusk
and President Kennedy will
pass on their own decisions.
The Otepka case probably
never will become a flaming
public issue, and this is too
bad because it so aptly illus-
trates the Kennedy admin-
istration technique of diver-
sion and counteraction when
it comes under supported
criticism. This' was the case
in' the Billie Sol Estes scan-
dal, in the TFX investiga'
t i o n, in the resignation of
Navy Secretary Korth, and
now once again when a
'strong case has been. --rrG .
against the personnel securi-
ty policies of the State De-
partment. .4
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040092-4